The City of Coronado reserves the right to adjust, increase, limit, suspend, or rescind the prequalification rating based on subsequently learned information….
While it is the intent of the pre-qualification questionnaire and documents to assist the City of Coronado in determining bidder responsibility prior to bid, neither the fact of pre-qualification, nor any prequalification rating, will preclude the City of Coronado from a post-bid consideration and determination of whether a bidder has the qualifications, fitness, capacity, and experience to satisfactorily perform the proposed work, and has demonstrated the requisite trustworthiness.
The Panel finds that Question 12 was clear and unambiguous. That Flatiron understood the question is evidenced by its response and the fact that it did not submit any request for clarification or objection to the question before the deadline for submissions. The Panel also finds that Question 12 was appropriately designed to solicit information about when a bidder was terminated from a project in an objective fashion as required by PCC section 20101(b). Moreover, Question 12 was authorized by statute and the DIR. However, as applied to Flatiron, the question was overbroad.
Not all terminations for convenience are created equally. It is possible that a contractor could be terminated for convenience, but could also be culpable or have committed breaches. That does not appear to be the case here.
With no evidence that the facts and circumstances surrounding CalTrans’ and TCA’s cancellations of those agencies’ projects had anything whatsoever to do with any conduct of Flatiron, Flatiron’s response to Question 12 should not result in its disqualification.
ATTACHMENT 1 - Notice of Decision on Appeal City of Coronado Page 158 The Panel will be recommending that the City Council modify its certification and include Flatiron on the list of contractors who are prequalified to bid on the Project.
Sincerely,
Appeals Panel for the City of Coronado
Leon P. Firsht James Newton
Director of Public Services and Engineering Acting City Engineer cc: Elizabeth A. Mitchell, Assistant City Attorney via email P. Randolph Finch Jr., Finch, Thornton & Baird, LLP via email SD #4868-5180-0859 v1
ATTACHMENT 1 - Notice of Decision on Appeal City of Coronado Page 159
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
May 17, 2022 5g
ACCEPT THE THIRD, FOURTH, AND I AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
AND DIRECT THE CITY CLERK TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION RECOMMENDATION:
Accept the Third, Fourth, and I Avenue Storm Drain Improvement Project and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion.
BACKGROUND:
The Third, Fourth, and I Avenue Storm Drain Improvement Project was designed to address flooding experienced during rain events along the Fourth Street corridor, particularly near its intersection with Alameda Boulevard. The flooding not only obstructs traffic flow but also backs up into adjacent alleys and roads where it can encroach on personal property (homes and garages). The project constructed new storm drain inlets on Fourth Street, connecting them to an existing outfall into San Diego Bay located within Bay View Park.
ANALYSIS:
Palm Engineering Construction Company was awarded the contract on December 17, 2019, and was issued the Notice to Proceed with construction to start on April 13, 2020. The project suffered significant delays resulting from the COVID pandemic, schedule coordination with San Diego Gas and Electric, and other items outside the control of Palm Engineering Construction Company. It was deemed substantially complete in accordance with the project plans and specifications on November 16, 2020. Additional delays outside the contractor’s control were experienced while addressing “punch list” items which were ultimately completed in March 2022.
Recording the Notice of Completion is an important step in finalizing the construction contract. It is a written notice issued by the owner of the property to notify concerned parties that the work has been completed and it triggers the time period for filing of mechanics’ liens and stop notices to 30 days. Final retention payment is not made to the contractor until the 30-day period to file liens and stop notices has lapsed.
FISCAL IMPACT:
As identified in the Capital Improvement Program, $3,323,450 was appropriated to the project.
The total project expenditures, including design, construction, inspection, and other miscellaneous expenses, are $3,287,779. The remaining project fund balance will be returned to the appropriate revenue source and/or be made available for appropriation in future budget cycles.
City of Coronado Page 160
Project Financial Summary
Budget Actual Expenditures
Design $638,840 $195,049
Engineering Consulting $153,370
Construction $2,456,790
Contract Award $2,278,200
Construction Management/Inspection $319,626
Geotechnical Inspection $52,643
Project Contingency $227,820
Change Orders $260,359
Miscellaneous Expenses $28,532
Total $3,323,450 $3,287,779
Remaining Balance $35,671
ALTERNATIVE:
The City Council may provide staff alternative direction regarding the project closeout.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:
Not Applicable
PUBLIC NOTICE:
No notice required.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. None
Submitted By: Public Services and Engineering Department / Jim Newton City of Coronado Page 161
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
May 17, 2022 5h
ACCEPT THE STREET PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE FISCAL YEAR 2021/22 PROJECT
AND DIRECT THE CITY CLERK TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION RECOMMENDATION:
Accept the Street Preventive Maintenance Fiscal Year 2021/22 project and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion.
BACKGROUND:
Every year, as part of the annual preventive maintenance program, the City slurry seals approximately one-seventh of City streets on a rotating basis. Slurry seal is a preventive maintenance treatment that consists of a thin layer of asphalt and sand mixture applied to the road surface which extends the life of the road by protecting it from oxidation. Slurry sealing rejuvenates or revitalizes old bituminous-wearing surfaces and makes slippery surfaces “nonskid.” Pavement markings are also repainted, improving visibility at night. This year the project included the following streets:
Alameda Boulevard (First Street to Olive Avenue)
J Avenue (First Street to Alameda Boulevard)
Fifth Street (Alameda Boulevard to Glorietta Boulevard) Tenth Street (Alameda Boulevard to Orange Avenue)
Olive Avenue (Alameda Boulevard to D Avenue)
Orange Avenue (First Street to Third Street)
Parking Lot Avenida Lunar
Parking Lot Avenida del las Arenas
In addition to the standard slurry seal, the project also installed class II bike lanes and sharrows on Alameda Boulevard from First Street to Ocean Boulevard and class II bike lanes on Tenth Street from Alameda Boulevard to D Avenue.
ANALYSIS:
American Asphalt South, Inc. was issued the Notice to Proceed on January 11, 2022. The project was completed in accordance with the project plans and specifications on February 25, 2022. The budget analysis shows a price difference between the anticipated base bid budget and the actual expenditures. This is because the actual quantity of slurried roadway was greater than the bid quantity; therefore, the final contract value was based on the actual amount installed.
Recording the Notice of Completion is an important step in finalizing the construction contract. It is a written notice issued by the owner of the property to notify concerned parties that the work has been completed and it triggers the time period for filing mechanics’ liens and stop notices, which is 30 days from the date of the Notice of Completion. Final retention payment will not be made to the contractor until the 30-day period to file liens and stop notices has elapsed.
City of Coronado Page 162
FISCAL IMPACT:
The project’s financial summary is noted below.
A total of $400,000 was available in the FY 21/22 Capital Improvement Program project account 206376-97000-22005. An additional $50,000 of Highway User Tax Account (HUTA) funds were allocated to the project to complete construction. The remaining project balance will be returned to HUTA fund 206 and available for appropriation in future budget cycles.
ALTERNATIVE:
None.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:
Not Applicable.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
No notice required.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. None.
Submitted By: Public Services and Engineering Department / Dave Johnson Project Financial Summary
Budget Actual Expenditures
Construction $412,500
Contract Award (Base Bid) $374,684
Additive Bid Items $18,250
Testing/Inspection/Miscellaneous $10,252
Project Contingency $37,500
Change Orders $15,449
Total $450,000 $418,635
Remaining Balance $31,365
City of Coronado Page 163
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
May 17, 2022 5i
ACCEPT THE TRINIDAD PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND DIRECT THE
CITY CLERK TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION
RECOMMENDATION:
Accept the Trinidad Pump Station Replacement project and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion.
BACKGROUND:
The Trinidad pump station was a dry well type of station in which the pumps that transport wastewater were housed in a fiberglass silo separate from the silo that collects wastewater. This configuration required maintenance personnel to descend into an underground silo approximately 25 feet deep to service the main components of the station. If a breach of wastewater were to occur in the dry silo, the station would flood, possibly trapping those working inside. This project converted the existing pump station to a submersible-style station in which the wastewater pumps are located within a wet well and are raised to the surface via pull chains and rails to allow for maintenance. Also, all electrical equipment and valving was moved to the surface so that maintenance personnel are no longer required to work in an underground silo, significantly improving worker safety and operability.
ANALYSIS:
Jennette Company, Inc. was issued a Notice to Proceed on March 8, 2021. The project was substantially complete in accordance with the plans and specifications on January 11, 2022. Recording of the Notice of Completion is an important step in finalizing the construction contract. It is a written notice issued by the owner of the property to notify concerned parties that the work has been completed and it triggers the time period for filing of mechanics’ liens and stop notices to 30 days. Final retention payment is not made to the contractor until the 30-day period to file liens and stop notices has lapsed.
FISCAL IMPACT:
$850,000 was appropriated in FY 17/18 from Wastewater funds (Project Account #61071000- 97230-18012) for the design and construction of this project. An additional $324,000 was allocated to the project via a mid-year budget adjustment at Council’s January 5, 2021 meeting for a total project budget of $1,174,000. The total project cost, including design, construction, testing and inspection, and other miscellaneous expenses, is $1,141,517 as shown below. The remaining balance of $32,483 will be returned to the Wastewater Fund account.
City of Coronado Page 164
Project Financial Summary
Budget Actual Expenditures
Design $150,000 $173,856
Construction $895,016
Contract Award $848,337
Construction Support $42,800
Project Contingency $128,284
Change Orders $74,336
Miscellaneous Expenses $2,188
Total $1,174,000 $1,141,517
Remaining Balance $32,483
ALTERNATIVE:
None.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:
Not Applicable.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
No notice required.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Submitted By: Public Services and Engineering Department / Dave Johnson City of Coronado Page 165
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
May 17, 2022 8a
PUBLIC HEARING: ASSESSEE PROTEST HEARING AND ADOPTION OF “A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, REAUTHORIZING THE LEVYING OF ASSESSMENTS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 ON FOUR HOTEL
BUSINESSES (HOTEL DEL CORONADO, GLORIETTA BAY INN, CORONADO ISLAND
MARRIOTT RESORT & SPA, AND LOEWS CORONADO BAY RESORT) WITHIN CORONADO TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (CTID) I AND II”
RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct a public hearing to receive testimony regarding the City Council's reauthorization of Coronado Tourism Improvement District I and II and rule upon any oral or written protests received from the assessed hotel businesses. If no legally sufficient protest showing is made, adopt “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, Reauthorizing the Levying of Assessments during Fiscal Year 2022-23 on Certain Hotel Businesses within Coronado Tourism Improvement District (CTID) I and II.”
BACKGROUND:
On April 19, 2021, the City Council accepted and approved the Annual Report submitted by the CTID I/II Advisory Board, pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Law of 1989 (“1989 Law”), Sections 36500, et seq., of the California Streets and Highways Code. At that meeting, the City Council also formally adopted a Resolution of Intent to reauthorize CTID I and II and continue the levying of the existing one-half (0.5%) percent assessment on hotels with 90 or more rooms within CTID I and II. These hotels include the Hotel del Coronado, Loews Coronado Bay Resort, Coronado Island Marriott Resort & Spa, and Glorietta Bay Inn.
ANALYSIS:
As set forth in Sections 36534 and 36535 of the California Streets and Highways Code and Section 16.14.080 of the Coronado Municipal Code, the City Council has the ability to reauthorize CTID I and II at this hearing unless oral or written protests are received from City hoteliers that pay 50% or more of the proposed assessments within either District. Under Municipal Code Section 16.14.080, protests are weighted based upon the annual assessment for the prior year by each hotel. Protests received from the assessed entities, if any, will be announced during the hearing.
In the event that a majority protest of the assessed hotels is received, no further proceedings to continue the levy of assessments for FY 2022-23 for the designated District shall take place for a period of one year from the date of the finding of the majority protest by the City Council. If the majority protest is only against the furnishing of a specified type of activity within the designated District, only those types of activities shall be eliminated.
At the conclusion of the hearing, if no protest or an insufficient protest is received from the assessed hotels, the Council may then adopt the resolution reauthorizing Coronado Tourism Improvement District I and II, setting forth the basis for the assessment in each District, and levying the assessment upon hotels in each District for FY 2022-23.
City of Coronado Page 166
FISCAL IMPACT:
Adoption of the resolution will continue the levying of the one-half (0.5%) percent assessment for each CTID. During Fiscal Year 2022-23, it is projected the assessment will generate approximately $750,000 in revenues for CTID I and CTID II for a total of $1.5M in revenues. The projected assessment continues to be significantly reduced from previous fiscal years due to the continued impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on assessed revenues but is over double last year's total revenues of $620,000.
ALTERNATIVE:
The City Council could decide not to adopt the Resolution.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:
Not Applicable
PUBLIC NOTICE:
A legal notice of the Resolution of Intent announcing the public hearing was published in the Coronado Eagle & Journal on May 4, 2022. A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to the ownership representatives of the four affected properties informing them of this public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution reauthorizing Coronado Tourism Improvement District I and II
2. Declaration of Notice By Mail and Published Legal Notice Submitted By: City Manager's Office / Kelly Purvis
City of Coronado Page 167
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, REAUTHORIZING THE LEVYING
OF ASSESSMENTS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 ON
CERTAIN HOTEL BUSINESSES WITHIN CORONADO TOURISM
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (CTID) I AND II
WHEREAS, the City has the authority to establish a business improvement district pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (“1989 Law”), Section 36500 et seq. of the California Streets and Highways Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council on June 15, 2010, passed Ordinance No. 2013 establishing Coronado Tourism Improvement District I (“CTID I”) pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989; and
WHEREAS, the City Council at that time also established the CTID Advisory Board to act in compliance with the 1989 Law to oversee the activities of the District; and WHEREAS, the City Council on June 16, 2015, passed Ordinance No. 2050 establishing Coronado Tourism Improvement District II (“CTID II”) pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989; and
WHEREAS, the City Council at that time also established the CTID Advisory Board to act in compliance with the 1989 Law to oversee the activities of the District; and WHEREAS, the CTID Advisory Board submitted an Annual Report to the Coronado City Council that outlined the activities of CTID I and CTID II conducted in Fiscal Year 2010-11 and proposed for Fiscal Year 2022-23 as required by the 1989 Law; and WHEREAS, on April 19, 2022, the Coronado City Council accepted and approved the Annual Report for consideration, which is on file with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, on April 19, 2022, the Coronado City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent to continue levying a one-half percent assessment during Fiscal Year 2022-23 on hotel businesses within CTID I and II with 90 or more rooms; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the 1989 Law, the City must conduct a public hearing to receive written and oral protests made by the assessed hotel businesses and, absent a majority protest, may adopt a new resolution to levy an assessment for that fiscal year.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado as follows:
Section 1. The recitals set forth herein are true and correct.
City of Coronado Page 168
Attachment 1
Section 2. The April 19, 2022, Annual Report and Management Plan was hereby received and approved, with said Report being on file in the City Clerk’s Office.
Section 3. Pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, the City shall levy and collect an annual assessment in both CTID I and II beginning on July 1, 2022, for Fiscal Year 2022-23.
Section 4. There shall be no change in the boundaries, assessment amount or number of assessed hotels for either CTID I and II for Fiscal Year 2022-23. Both CTID I and II include those hotels within the City that have 90 or more rooms. These hotels include the Hotel del Coronado, Loews Coronado Bay Resort, Coronado Island Marriott Resort & Spa, and Glorietta Bay Inn.
Section 5. The City Council hereby declares that the types of activities to be funded by the levy of assessments against the assessed hotels within CTID I and II shall be activities “to enrich our community by positioning Coronado, and its resorts, as a premier meeting destination” in a way that directly benefits the assessed hotels and assists the local businesses as determined by the assessed hotels located and operating within each CTID boundary.
This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify to the vote adopting this resolution.
PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, at a regular meeting thereof this 17th Day of May 2022, by the following vote to wit:
AYES;
NAYES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
____________________________________
RICHARD BAILEY, Mayor of the
City of Coronado, California
ATTEST:
__________________________________
JENNIFER EKBLAD, City Clerk of the
City of Coronado, California
City of Coronado Page 169
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 170
City of Coronado
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING
CITY COUNCIL REAUTHORIZATION OF THE
CORONADO TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (CTID) I AND II
PURSUANT TO THE PARKING AND BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT AREA LAW OF 1989
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, in accordance with Resolution No. 2022-17 adopted at the April 19, 2022, City Council meeting, the City Council of the City of Coronado will conduct a Public Hearing at its regularly scheduled meeting of Tuesday, May 17, 2022, at 4:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Hall Council Chamber located at 1825 Strand Way, Coronado, California 92118. The subject of the public hearing is the reauthorization of Coronado Tourism Improvement District (CTID) I and II and the ability to continue to levy and collect assessments within each district.
Pursuant to Section 36525 of the Parking and Business Improvement Law of 1989, Sections 36500, et seq., of the California Street and Highways Code, if an owner of the one of the assessed hotel properties desires to protest against the inclusion of their property as part of either CTID District I or District II, the protest must be submitted in writing at or prior to the May 18, 2021, Protest Hearing.
If written protests are received from the assessed hotel properties comprising 50% or more of the assessments proposed to be levied, no further proceedings to levy the assessment shall be taken for a period of one year. If a majority protest from the assessed hotel properties is received against the furnishing of a specified type of activity proposed for CTID I and/or II, only those types of activities shall be eliminated. Written protests by the assessed hotel property owners are to be submitted to the following address:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Coronado
Attn: City Clerk
1825 Strand Way
Coronado, CA 92118
In the event no majority protest of the assessed hotel properties is received, the City Council may adopt a Reauthorization Resolution to continue the current assessment for CTID District I and II, to take effect on July 1, 2022. 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 hearing described in this notice, or written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.
For further information, contact the Office of the City Clerk, 1825 Strand Way, Coronado, California 92118 or call 619-522-7320.
BY: Jennifer Ekblad, City Clerk Date: April 20, 2022
City of Coronado Page 171
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
May 17, 2022 8b
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A ONE-LOT TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO ALLOW FOR CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP OF TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS AT 456 ORANGE AVENUE RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, Approving a One-Lot Tentative Parcel Map for Condominium Ownership of Two Residential Units for the Property Addressed as 456 Orange Avenue, Coronado, California.”
BACKGROUND:
The request is for City approval of a one-lot Tentative Parcel Map, per Coronado Municipal Code (“CMC”) Chapter 82.60 Minor Subdivisions, to allow for condominium ownership of two residential units.
The site is located along the west side of Orange Avenue between Fourth Street and Fifth Street.
The existing property has 25 feet of frontage along Orange Avenue and is 140 feet deep with connection to an alley. The total lot size is 3,502 square feet. The property is surrounded by a mixture of single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwelling units in the R-3 and R-4 Zone. The existing structures will be demolished and were determined to not be historic.
The zoning designation for the property is “R-4 Multiple-Family Residential Zone”, which allows 40 dwelling units per acre with a minimum lot size requirement of 3,500 square feet. The size of the subject lot (3,502 square feet) complies with the minimum lot size.
The property’s General Plan Designation is High Density Residential, which allows up to 40 dwelling units per acre (i.e., R-4 Zone). The project complies, since a lot size of 3,502 square feet would yield three units.
On April 12, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted a motion with findings and conditions, recommending City Council approval of the Tentative Parcel Map.
ANALYSIS:
The 3,502 square-foot subject lot allows for a maximum of three residential units, although only two are proposed. A total of four off-street parking spaces will be provided, with two covered and two uncovered spaces. The approval of this Tentative Parcel Map will permit the individual units to be sold separately as condominiums. The configuration of the existing lot will remain as-is with no changes proposed for the exterior lot lines.
The State Subdivision Map Act and Coronado Subdivision Ordinance provide authority to local agencies to impose conditions on the approval of subdivisions. The subdivider can be required to dedicate land to public use, make public improvements, pay required fees, or other conditions as needed to mitigate any adverse impacts of the subdivision on the community, to provide governmental services to subdivision residents, and to implement the requirements of the local general plan. The Tentative Parcel Map and proposed residential use are consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, complies with the State Map Act and the Coronado City of Coronado Page 172
Subdivision Ordinance, and was reviewed by the Public Services & Engineering and Fire Departments, whose proposed conditions are set out in the Draft Resolution (Attachment A).
For additional details, please see the attachments. The full size proposed Tentative Parcel Map is available to review in the Community Development Department.
FISCAL IMPACT:
If the Final Map is approved and the property is developed as proposed, property taxes will increase, and the following impact fees will be paid to the City:
• In-lieu housing: $14,000 ($7,000 per unit).
• Public Facilities Impact Fee: $.50 per square foot of net increase in floor area (transportation $.15, storm drain $.30 and administrative $.05).
ALTERNATIVE:
None
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:
CEQA Categorical Exemption Class 15, Minor Land Divisions PUBLIC NOTICE:
Notice of this public hearing was mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the property and published in the Coronado Eagle & Journal on May 4, 2022.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Tentative Parcel Map
3. Declaration of Publishing and Public Hearing Notice
Submitted By: Community Development Department / Marisa Smith City of Coronado Page 173
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ONE-LOT
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO ALLOW FOR CONDOMINIUM
OWNERSHIP OF TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR THE
PROPERTY ADDRESSED AS 456 ORANGE AVENUE,
CORONADO, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the property owners, “Lawrence G. Fadden and Sheila J. Baran,” have, per the California Subdivision Map Act and the City of Coronado Subdivision Ordinance, requested City approval for a one-lot Tentative Parcel Map to allow for condominium ownership of two residential units at 456 Orange Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Coronado did, pursuant to Section 66452.2 of the Government Code, hold a public hearing on the Tentative Parcel Map on April 12, 2022, and subsequently adopted a motion, with findings and conditions, recommending approval to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Coronado did, pursuant to Section 66452.2 of the Government Code, hold a public hearing on said subdivision request on May 17, 2022, and said public hearing was duly noticed as required by law and all persons desiring to be heard were heard at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado that the proposed Tentative Parcel Map for 456 Orange Avenue be approved and that the approval be based upon the following findings:
1. The proposed map is consistent with the Coronado General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in that the proposed residential use and density of development are permitted under the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements;
2. The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the Coronado General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in that the design provides sufficient lot area and street access for proper development, and that the existing and proposed Parcel will contain at least 3,502 square feet;
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development in that the existing parcel of 3,502 square feet is capable of supporting a two-unit residential condominium complex in the R-4 Zone;
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the number of units in the project is within the 40 dwelling units per acre standard specified in the Coronado Zoning Ordinance for the R-4 Zone;
5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, nor are they likely to substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat and the project is categorically exempt from environmental review according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in accordance with Section 15315 for Minor Land Divisions of four or fewer parcels;
6. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems within the authority of the Health Officer;
7. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large and which are recorded or established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction;
City of Coronado Page 174
8. The Tentative Parcel Map meets all the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the Coronado Subdivision Ordinance and was reviewed by the Public Services, Engineering, and Fire departments whose proposed conditions are incorporated below.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the approval is subject to the following conditions:
Fire Department
1. Owner shall install a NFPA 13 compliant fire sprinkler and alarm system throughout the development in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association and California Fire Code Standards to the satisfaction of the City of Coronado Fire and Community Development departments;
2. Owner shall provide appropriate Fire Department personnel and vehicle access including access to any locked common areas. All gates or other structures or devices that could obstruct fire access roadways or otherwise hinder emergency operations are prohibited unless they meet standards approved by the Fire Department and receive specific plan approval. In addition, provide a Knox Box if there are secured common areas;
3. The location of any Fire Department connection and back flow prevention device (OS&Y valve) shall be approved by the Fire Department and preferably face “Orange” Avenue. The back flow shall not be blocked or hidden, and it shall be identified to the satisfaction of the City of Coronado Fire Department;
4. Owner shall provide adequate water flow for firefighting based upon the square footage of the buildings and if needed, Owner shall upgrade the fire hydrant within the adjacent public rightsof-way in accordance with the California Fire Code standard to the satisfaction of the City of Coronado Fire Department.
San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E)
5. Prior to recordation, the owner shall work with SDG&E to ensure that the existing gas line can continue to serve all units. The owner shall call Dig Alert before any ground disturbance. The SDG&E Service Order Team can be reached at 619-230-7800.
California American Water
6. Because the project is required to install fire sprinklers, the project will be required to have backflow to the satisfaction of the California American Water authority.
Public Services & Engineering Department
7. Owner shall maintain a minimum of three feet of clearance between driveways located on public property and any property lines extended, intersection radius, and any obstructions located on public property, e.g., utility poles, fire hydrants, street trees, etc. The relocation of any of these items to obtain the needed clearances shall be the sole responsibility of the Owner, subject to the review and approval of the City’s Public Services and Engineering Department;
8. Any existing sewer laterals used for new development shall be videotaped, at Owner’s expense, for its entire length to the sewer main to assess its condition and suitability for continued use. The video shall be furnished to the City of Coronado Public Services and Engineering Department in DVD format and, based on its review, repairs or replacement of the sewer line may be required, at the direction of the City of Coronado. Each building requires a separate sewer service lateral connected to the sewer main and the reservation of easements may be required. The owner may have one sewer service lateral connection to serve the development; however, the responsibility of maintenance, replacement, etc. shall be delegated in the development’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions City of Coronado Page 175
(CC&Rs). The CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Public Services and Engineering Department for review prior to the approval of the Final Map;
9. Prior to demolition, any existing sewer laterals shall be capped and staked. Sewer laterals that are not used by the proposed development shall be removed by Owner from the City’s rights-of-way and capped within 24 inches of the sewer main under permit issued by the Public Services and Engineering Department;
10. Owner shall underground all existing and future utilities to this site. Individual lots require separate utility service and utility easements shall be provided between the alley and the street. (Concrete replacement to accommodate the undergrounding of utilities shall be a minimum of 30 inches wide for the length of the repair);
11. Owner shall research and identify the location of existing utilities on the site prior to grading or excavating the site and the Owner shall be responsible to remove any utility location “mark out” indicators or paint;
12. Owner shall install all utilities, which are not possible to underground, such as back flow valves and transformers, on private property and said utilities shall be permanently screened from public view, at the direction of the City of Coronado Community Development Department;
13. Owner shall remove and replace the alley adjoining the subject property (full width x length) - approximately 20 ft. x 25 ft.) in accordance with City standards and the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings, at the direction of the City Public Services and Engineering Department;
14. Owner shall remove and replace approximately 10 lineal feet of adjacent curb and gutter in accordance with City standards (Public Services and Engineering Department) and the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings (Attachment 1);
15. Owner shall obtain a Caltrans Encroachment Permit for the work within the Orange Avenue right-of-way;
16. Owner shall remove and replace portions damaged during construction of adjacent public sidewalk (with “historic” pattern) and/or curb and gutter in accordance with City standards and the San Diego Regional Standards Drawings (SDRSD), and verify limits of removal at the direction of the City Public Services and Engineering Department;
17. The adjacent public sidewalk and alley shall remain safe, smooth and free of all trip or travel hazards during construction. Owner shall repair any public paving damaged (e.g., sidewalk, curb, gutter, alley, street) during the course of this project at the direction of the City’s Public Services and Engineering Department. All repairs to public property shall be in accordance with City standards and the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings;
18. Owner shall have a California licensed land surveyor install survey monuments at all property corners with locations indicated on the final parcel map and any monuments disturbed during construction shall be replaced by a licensed land surveyor at Owner’s expense;
19. Owner shall assure that the storage of building materials, equipment, or containers (other than for refuse purposes) in the City right-of-way does not occur;
20. Owner shall apply for an encroachment permit from the Public Services and Engineering Department for any amenities proposed for the adjoining public rights-of-way and the Owner shall assume responsibility for costs associated with the construction and maintenance of said amenities;
21. Owner shall assure that all work performed outside of the private property lines shall conform to the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings and Coronado Special Construction Provisions and prior to construction, a right-of-way permit shall be obtained from the Public Services and Engineering Department;
22. Owner shall comply with the City of Coronado’s policy for proposed construction of subterranean garages/cellars dated June 2, 2005, as warranted by the improvement plan;
23. The City does not permit the discharge of groundwater or construction runoff into the storm drain system. Consequently, disposal of groundwater extracted from the site into the City sewer system, if warranted, requires approval and a permit from the City’s Public Services City of Coronado Page 176
and Engineering Department. The owner must pay the costs for this operation and make payments of a processing fee charged the City by San Diego’s Metropolitan Waste Water Department;
24. Owner shall maintain on-street parking spaces, parking and traffic markings, and signage adjacent to the subject property except as required to be modified to provide vehicle ingress and egress to the property or for temporary activity during construction as permitted by the City’s Public Services and Engineering Department;
25. Owner shall submit for approval by the City of Coronado a Drainage and Grading Plan for the purposes of justifying any onsite grading, drainage and improvements;
26. In accordance with Chapter 60.12 of the Coronado Municipal Code, a wastewater capacity fee will be charged prior to building permit issuance for sewer service connections to the sanitary sewer system;
27. Public Services reviewed the project and concluded that the existing palm tree located in the parkway/public right of way shall be retained. In addition, a tree well and dedicated irrigation bubbler shall be added. Said tree shall be protected with an expandable collar, no turf shall be permitted within 12 inches of the trunk. All street trees shall have an independent automatic irrigation system (separate valves from turf or other adjacent landscaping within the parkway) and be irrigated with a bubbler inside a breathing tubes;
28. Owner shall install linear root barriers adjacent to all existing and newly planted shade trees on public or private property, which are within 10 feet of any public sidewalk, street or alley.
Said barriers shall be installed adjacent to the sidewalk and curb face to extend 8 feet to each side of center of the tree installed and not encircle the trees. The barrier shall be a minimum of 12” and a maximum of 18” in depth and shall be either hard plastic or fabric impregnated with a root inhibitor (bio-barrier);
29. Owner shall provide an automatic irrigation system to all existing and proposed adjoining public property landscaping with all street trees irrigated with bubblers from an independent automatic irrigation system (separate from turf or other landscaping within the parkway);
30. Owner shall provide an area on private property, accessible by all occupants, for the storage of trash and recyclable materials to the satisfaction of the City of Coronado;
31. During planning and design, the Owner shall incorporate effective construction and postconstruction Best Management Practices and provide all necessary studies and reports as determined by the Public Services and Engineering Department Director demonstrating compliance with the applicable regulations and standards. All project owners shall complete and submit the City's Storm Water Project Assessment Form (Form I-1 & I-2) to determine the project's construction and post-construction storm water categories. The category determines the requirements for the project. The Storm Water Assessment Form is available at:
https://www.coronado.ca.us/stormwaterlibrary
and shall be completed and submitted to the City of Coronado with the initial submittal to the City's Building Department counter, attention Public Services & Engineering;
32. Prior to approval of any and all demolition, construction, and building permits for the project, Owner shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Services and Engineering Department Director compliance with all of the applicable provisions of the following and any amendments thereto:
The City of Coronado Stormwater and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control (Coronado Municipal Code Chapter 61.04).
NPDES Municipal Permit No. CAS0109266 (San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R9-2013-0001 or re-issuances thereof).
NPDES Construction Permit No. CAS000002 (State Water Resources Control Board Order No. R9-2012-0006 DWQ or re-issuances thereof).
Community Development Department
City of Coronado Page 177
33. Owner shall reserve 20% of the units within the development “for rental” to persons qualified by the County Housing Authority as meeting Section 8 Rental Assistance requirements or to persons qualifying within very low and low income categories as established annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), or “for sale” to persons qualifying within moderate income categories as established annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), or shall pay a fee in lieu thereof of $7,000.00 for every unit within the project, at the option of the subdivider, for the purpose of providing affordable housing assistance in accordance with Chapter 82.21 of the Coronado Municipal Code (CMC);
34. Owner shall assure that any common areas and easements are identified and described on the Final Map;
35. Owner shall comply with and, if there are CC&Rs, include in said CC&Rs:
a) That no existing or future utility lines be permitted outside of the lot or private interest spaces (separate interest spaces or units) of which they serve unless located within a common area or an easement approved by the City of Coronado; b) That common area or reciprocal pedestrian easements be provided to allow all private occupants of the property access the street. Where fences or walls are proposed, gates shall be provided to give said occupants access to the street; c) Easements and/or rights providing for pedestrian and vehicle access, utilities and/or other purposes, for each proposed condominium unit, are to be specified in any condominium plans and/or conveyances of any unit constructed within the boundaries of this Final Map. Any vehicle access driveway and vehicle maneuvering/turnaround space adjacent to garages or parking spaces shall be shared by all owners; d) That two required off-street parking spaces be provided for each dwelling with each space specifically assigned to each dwelling unit and clearly marked for such dwelling or use;
e) That each off-street parking space required for all dwellings be continuously maintained free and unobstructed, with adequate ingress and egress, and not used for any use other than parking of motor vehicles;
f) That any present or future outside storage of trash be accessible by all occupants and be enclosed within a minimum 5-foot high wall with gate which shall be on private property and approved by the City of Coronado Community Development Department; g) That each proposed dwelling unit held as a condominium form of ownership shall be provided with a minimum of 200 cubic feet of storage space per dwelling, in addition to closets customarily provided, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance; h) That none of the covenants, conditions and restrictions required by this condition shall be deleted, amended or modified without the prior written approval of the City of Coronado;
36. Owner shall assure that no existing or future utility lines be permitted outside of the lot of which they serve unless located within an easement approved by the City of Coronado;
37. Owner shall assure that any easements be identified and described on the Final Map;
38. If the above conditions have not been completed and accepted in accordance with standards established by the City prior to approval of the Final Map, then the subdivider shall enter into a secured agreement with the City for 100% of the estimated cost of constructing the improvements and performing the conditions before the Final Map is approved pursuant to CMC Sections 82.16.060 - 82.16.110. Said agreement shall be prepared and recorded with the County Recorder’s Office. If the above conditions are not completed prior to approval of the Final Map and a secured agreement is approved, all of the above conditions shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City of Coronado prior to any newly constructed dwelling’s building permit being finaled or occupancy permitted;
City of Coronado Page 178
39. In accordance with Coronado Municipal Code Section 82.50.130(A) and State Government Code Section 66452.6, the Tentative Map shall expire 24 months after City Council approval.
40. The Owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any and all claims, actions, proceedings, damages, judgments, or costs, including attorney’s fees, against the City or its agents, officers, or employees, relating to the issuance of this permit including, but not limited to, any action to attack, set aside, void, challenge, or annul this development approval and any environmental document or decision.
The City will promptly notify the Owner of any claim, action, or proceeding. The City may elect to conduct its own defense, participate in its own defense, or obtain independent legal counsel in defense of any claim related to this indemnification. In the event of such election, the Owner shall pay all of the costs related thereto, including without limitation reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. In the event of a disagreement between the City and Owner regarding litigation issues, the City shall have the authority to control the litigation and make litigation related decisions, including, but not limited to, settlement or other disposition of the matter. However, the Owner shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless such settlement is approved by the Owner.
PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, at a regular meeting thereof this 17th Day of May 2022 by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
_
RICHARD BAILEY, Mayor of the
City of Coronado, California
ATTEST:
__________________________________
JENNIFER EKBLAD, City Clerk of the
City of Coronado, California
City of Coronado Page 179
Attachment 2
City of CoronadoPage 180
CITY OF CORONADO
DEPARTMENT OF COIWMUNTITY DEVELOPMENT
In the Matter of the Notice of Meeting for
PROJECT DESCRIPTION - 456 Orange Avenue Request for approval of a one-lot Tentative Parcel Map to allow for condominium ownership of two residential units for the property legally described as Lot 6 in Block 122 of Map 376 of CBSI, addressed as 456 Orange Avenue in the R-4 (Multiple Family Residential) Zone.
DECLARATION OF NOTICE BY MAIL
AND/OR
PUBLISHED LEGAL NOTICE
1, MaeColleen Balcobero and Marisa Smith, 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/orwill be printed in a newspaper of general circulation for the Regular Meeting of the City Council on May 17, 2022.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Published legal notice executed on April 26, 2022 at Coronado, CA by IVI. Balcobero.IVIailing executed on May 5, 2022 at Coronado, CA by M. Smith MaeColleen Balcobero, Administrative SecretaryCity of Coronadp •s
Smith, Associate Planner
City of Coronado
Revised 01/15/2020
Attachment 3
City of CoronadoPage 181
CITY OF CORONADO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1825 STRAND WAY CITY HALL
CORONADO, CA 92118 PHONE: (619) 522-7326
WWW.CORONADO.CA.US FAX: (619) 522-2418
LEGAL NOTICE
(May 4, 2022)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Coronado at the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1825 Strand Way, Coronado, California on Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 4 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible to consider the following items:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION – 456 Orange Avenue Request for approval of a one-lot Tentative Parcel Map to allow for condominium ownership of two residential units for the property legally described as Lot 6 in Block 122 of Map 376 of CBSI, addressed as 456 Orange Avenue in the R-4 (Multiple Family Residential) Zone.
At said hearing, any interested person may present testimony orally or in writing. 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 hearing described in this notice, or written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Please refer to the official posted agenda on the City’s website (www.coronado.ca.us) on the Friday afternoon prior to the meeting for the staff report for this item and/or changes to the agenda.
For further information, contact Marisa Smith, Associate Planner at the City of Coronado Community Development Department, 1825 Strand Way, Coronado, California, or call (619) 522- 2414.
JENNIFER EKBLAD, MMC, CPM
City Clerk
City of Coronado Page 182
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
May 17, 2022 8c
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A HISTORIC ALTERATION PERMIT, INCLUDING REQUESTS FOR EXCEPTIONS TO ZONING REGULATIONS, AT 1115 LOMA AVENUE (HAP 2021-11)
RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct a public hearing and adopt a Resolution approving a Historic Alteration Permit and Requests for Exemptions to Zoning Standards at 1115 Loma Avenue with the condition that the modification of windows on the front façade of the property to become French doors with adjacent steps to the front yard shall be removed from the project scope.
BACKGROUND:
On June 6, 2007, the Historic Resource Commission adopted Resolution HR 23-07 designating the property at 1115 Loma Avenue as a Historic Resource. The property benefits from a Mills Act Agreement, recorded in 2019. The Historic Resource Commission considered this application at a noticed public hearing on April 6, 2022, and voted unanimously to recommend that City Council approve the project, with the exception of the modification of the windows on the front facade, and that the City Council approve the associated zoning exception requests. The Design Review Commission reviewed the proposed roof deck on April 13, 2022, and recommends approval.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed project, which is fully described in the application and plans submitted by the applicant, includes: demolition at the rear of the dwelling and the addition of new square footage, new attic space, a new roof deck; removal of two windows on the side elevations toward the rear of the dwelling; infill behind four windows on the side elevations; modification of two windows on the front elevation to become French doors with steps to the front yard; demolition of a portion of the garage and guest room and addition to the front of the garage; and various site work including a new covered terrace and BBQ area, a beach shower, trash enclosure, and other improvements.
The Coronado Municipal Code (CMC) requires that specific findings shall be made in order to approve any alteration to a designated Historic Resource. This includes consistency with the United States Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The property owner also benefits from a recorded Mills Act Agreement, so the project must also comply with the City’s Alteration Guidelines for Mills Act properties.
Staff’s determination is that the project is largely consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and the City’s Alteration Guidelines for Mills Act Properties, with the exception of the modification of casement windows on the front façade, which is a major character defining feature of the property visible from the street, to French doors with adjacent steps. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards provides recommended guidance for treatment of historic windows, which states:
Identifying, retaining, and preserving windows and their functional and decorative features that are important to the overall character of the building. The window material and how the window operates (e.g., double hung, casement, awning, or hopper) are significant, as are its components City of Coronado Page 183
(including sash, muntins, ogee lugs, glazing, pane configuration, sills, mullions, casings, or brick molds) and related features, such as shutters.
The Standards guidance states that the following is not recommended:
Removing or substantially changing windows or window features which are important in defining the overall historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished.
Additionally, the City of Coronado Alteration Guidelines for Mills Act Properties provides specific guidance on modifications to properties with Mills Act Agreements. The modification to the windows on the front façade does not comply with the following:
B - Preserve historic architectural features and details.
B1 - Preserve and maintain significant stylistic and architectural features B3 - Avoid adding elements or details that were not part of the original building.
C - Preserve the size and shape of windows and doors because they significantly affect the character of a structure.
C2 - Preserve the functional and decorative features of original windows and doors.
C3 - Maintain original window and door proportions.
4 - Maintain the historic window arrangement on a primary façade. 5 - Do not add new window or door openings on character-defining facades.
In order to comply with the above, the windows and window openings on the front façade should not be modified to create new French door entry openings with steps to the front yard. Staff has included a condition of approval in the resolution to remove this project component from the recommendation of approval.
The remaining project components appear to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and the City’s Alteration Guidelines for Mills Act properties as the additions and modifications are located at the rear and are minimally visible from the public right of way, and they involve retention of publicly visible character defining features such as infill behind original windows on the side elevations.
The Historic Preservation Ordinance provides benefits for historically designated properties including exceptions to zoning code regulations. CMC 84.10.090 states that: an owner of a historic resource in a Residential Zone is eligible to apply for a historic resource alteration permit to utilize existing building setbacks and building heights when an alteration is proposed to a designated historic resource, and when the proposed alteration would exceed floor area ratio and/or lot coverage standards. Any historic resource alteration permit seeking to utilize existing building setbacks and building heights or exceed floor area ratio or lot coverage standards requires City Council approval. Granting an exception to zoning standards is a policy decision for the City Council, and the Council should consider consistency with the CMC, the impact of the exception request on the neighborhood, as well as the impact of the exception request on the Historic Resource.
The applicant is requesting various exceptions to zoning standards, which are identified on the project plans, included in the project summary statement, and described as follows.
86.08.035 Floor Area Ratio
The base allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the subject property is 2,955 square feet (0.529), with a maximum allowable of 3,553 square feet (0.636) using additional design features. The applicant has identified 0.07 in Additional Design Features that can be used beyond the base City of Coronado Page 184
FAR, for a total of 3,346 square feet (0.599). The applicant is requesting to be allowed to utilize an additional 0.011 in FAR for a total of 3,423.5 square feet (0.61) without incorporating any other additional design features, as there are no other additional design features that can be used to build their project to the maximum allowable due to the historic nature of the property.
86.08.060 - Side Yards
The required side yard setback for the property is 4’-0”. The existing historic dwelling currently encroaches into this setback area on the west side of the property, and the garage encroaches into this area on the east side of the property. The following side yard setback encroachments are requested:
1. Encroachment of approximately 2” into west side yard setback for approximately 26’-10” for construction of the new second story addition in order to stack it above the first floor.
This encroachment utilizes the existing encroachment of the original historic dwelling and complies with CMC 84.10.090.
2. Encroachment of approximately 2’-4” into the east side yard setback for approximately 7’-6” for construction of the addition to the front of the garage. This encroachment utilizes the existing encroachment of the existing garage and complies with CMC
84.10.090.
86.58.190 – Location of Parking Spaces
The zoning ordinance requires two parking spaces, one of which must be enclosed. The applicant is requesting an exception to the location of the unenclosed space, allowing it to be located within the front yard setback. Staff supports this request due to the location of the historic dwelling on the site.
The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance requires that in order to be approved, any proposed modification to a designated Historic Resource shall require specific findings, and as conditioned for approval the project meets these findings as stated in the attached resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ALTERNATIVE:
If the City Council wishes to modify the staff recommendation, the attached resolution should be modified accordingly.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:
CEQA Cat Ex Class 31, Historical Resource
PUBLIC NOTICE:
A public notice was published in the Eagle & Journal on May 4, 2022, and notices were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the boundaries of the project on May 5, 2022.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Council Resolution for HAP 2021-11
2. HRC Resolution for HAP 2021-11
3. HAP Application
4. Public Notice
Submitted By: Community Development Department / Tricia Olsen City of Coronado Page 185
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST
FOR A HISTORIC ALTERATION PERMIT AND REQUESTS
FOR EXCEPTIONS TO ZONING STANDARDS, AT 1115
LOMA AVENUE
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2022, the property owner submitted a complete Historic Resource Alteration Permit application for the property addressed as 1115 Loma Avenue in accordance with Chapter 84.20 of the Coronado Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, on April 6, 2022, the Historic Resource Commission of the City of Coronado held a public hearing on HAP 2021-11 at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2022, the City Council of the City of Coronado considered the request for a Historic Alteration Permit, including zoning exception requests related to height and setbacks, in association with HAP 2021-11, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard, and evidence was submitted and considered to include, without limitation:
1. Historic Alteration Permit application submittal HAP 2021-11;
2. Oral testimony and correspondence received regarding the permit application;
3. City Council staff report dated May 17, 2022, including staff determination that the project is Categorically Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act under Class 31, Section 15331 regarding Historic Resources because the project as proposed, with conditions of approval, is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the Historic Resource; and
4. Additional written information, plans, photographs, and project materials provided by the applicant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true.
2. that the City Council of the City of Coronado finds, based on the evidence described herein, that the Historic Alteration Permit and zoning exception requests as described in HAP 2021-11, shall be approved, with conditions, because the following findings have been made:
City of Coronado Page 186
Attachment 1
a. The project is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 84.20, the Historic Preservation Element, and the General Plan because the project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and the City’s Alteration Guidelines for Mills Act Properties.
b. The project will not adversely affect the historical, architectural, or aesthetic value of the historic resource.
c. The project retains the essential elements that make the historic resource significant.
d. The proposed alteration will not adversely affect the historic resource’s relationship to its surroundings and neighboring historic resources because the relationship of the Historic Resource to its surroundings will not be changed with the proposed project.
e. The proposed alteration will comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards as set forth in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 because the project complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards as the modifications are concentrated at the rear of the property minimally visible from the public right of way, and character defining features visible from the public right of way will be preserved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Coronado hereby approves, with conditions, the issuance of a Historic Alteration Permit for the historically designated property addressed as 1115 Loma Avenue and located in the R-1A (Single Family Residential) Zone, as submitted in the application and plans comprising HAP 2021-11 in accordance with Chapter 84.20 of the City of Coronado Municipal Code and approves the following associated zoning exception requests:
1. Utilization of additional floor area ratio to a total of 0.61 without the use of additional design features beyond those identified in the project application.
2. Encroachment of approximately 2” into west side yard setback for a distance of 26’-10” for construction of the second story addition at the rear of the dwelling (CMC 86.08.060).
3. Encroachment of approximately 2’-4” into the east side yard setback for a distance of 7’-6” for the addition to the front of the garage (CMC 86.08.060).
4. Relief from the requirement to provide one enclosed parking space outside of the front yard setback, allowing it to be located within the front yard setback (CMC
86.58.190).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Coronado hereby approves the following conditions to HAP 2021-11:
1. The modification of windows on the front façade of the property to become French doors with adjacent steps to the front yard shall be removed from the project scope.
City of Coronado Page 187
Attachment 1
2. Changes to the approved plans may require the review and approval of the Historic Resource Commission.
3. The project shall comply with all zoning requirements except for the specific zoning exceptions identified in this resolution.
4. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any and all claims, actions, proceedings, damages, judgments, or costs, including attorney’s fees, against the City or its agents, officers, or employees, relating to the issuance of this permit including, but not limited to, any action to attack, set aside, void, challenge, or annul this development approval and any environmental document or decision. The City will promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding. The City may elect to conduct its own defense, participate in its own defense, or obtain independent legal counsel in defense of any claim related to this indemnification.
In the event of such election, the Applicant shall pay all of the costs related thereto, including without limitation reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. In the event of a disagreement between the City and Applicant regarding litigation issues, the City shall have the authority to control the litigation and make litigation related decisions, including, but not limited to, settlement or other disposition of the matter.
However, the Applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless such settlement is approved by the Applicant.
PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, at a regular meeting thereof this 17th day of May, 2022 by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
______________________________
RICHARD BAILEY, Mayor of the
City of Coronado, California
ATTEST:
__________________________________
JENNIFER EKBLAD, City Clerk of the
City of Coronado, California
City of Coronado Page 188
RESOLUTION NO. HR 9-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCE COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A HISTORIC RESOURCE
ALTERATION PERMIT INCLUDING REQUESTS FOR
EXCEPTIONS TO ZONING STANDARDS, AT 1115 LOMA
AVENUE
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2022, the property owner submitted a complete Historic Resource Alteration Permit application for the property addressed as 1115 Loma Avenue in accordance with Chapter 84.20 of the Coronado Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, on April 6, 2022, the Historic Resource Commission of the City of Coronado held a public hearing on HAP 2021-11 at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered, which included without limitation:
1. Historic Resource Alteration Permit application submittal HAP 2021-11;
2. Oral testimony;
3. Historic Resource Commission staff report dated April 6, 2022, including staff determination that the project is Categorically Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act Class 31 of Section 15331 regarding Historic Resources because the project, as conditioned for approval, is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the Historic Resource; and
4. Additional written documentation, plans, and photographs provided by the applicant;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Historic Resource Commission of the City of Coronado recommends that the City Council approve the project, with conditions of approval, and determines that the project meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and the City’s Alteration Guidelines for Mills Act Properties, and shall be issued a Historic Resource Alteration Permit because the following findings have been made:
A. The project is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 84.20, the Historic Preservation Element, and the General Plan because the project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and the City’s Alteration Guidelines for Mills Act Properties.
B. The project will not adversely affect the historical, architectural, or aesthetic value of the historic resource.
C. The project retains the essential elements that make the historic resource significant.
D. The proposed alteration will not adversely affect the historic resource’s relationship to its surroundings and neighboring historic resources because the relationship of the Historic Resource to its surroundings will not be changed with the proposed project.
E. The proposed alteration will comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards as set forth in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 because the project complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards as the modifications are concentrated at the rear of the property minimally visible from the public right of way, and character defining features visible from the public right of way will be preserved.
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 189
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Historic Resource Commission of the City of Coronado hereby recommends the approval, with conditions, of a Historic Resource Alteration Permit for the historically designated property addressed as 1115 Loma Avenue, as submitted in the application and plans comprising HAP 2021-11, in accordance with Chapter 84.20 of the City of Coronado Municipal Code, and recommends approval of the requested zoning exceptions, as follows:
1. Utilization of additional floor area ratio to a total of 0.61 without the use of additional design features beyond those identified in the project application.
2. Encroachment of approximately 2” into west side yard setback for a distance of 26’-10” for construction of the second story addition at the rear of the dwelling (CMC 86.08.060).
3. Encroachment of approximately 2’-4” into the east side yard setback for a distance of 7’- 6” for the addition to the front of the garage (CMC 86.08.060).
4. Relief from the requirement to provide one enclosed parking space outside of the front yard setback, allowing it to be located within the front yard setback (CMC 86.58.190).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Historic Resource Commission of the City of Coronado hereby recommends the following conditions to HAP 2021-11:
1. The modification of windows on the front façade of the property to become French doors with adjacent steps to the front yard shall be removed from the project scope.
2. Changes to the approved plans may require the review and approval of the Historic Resource Commission.
3. The project shall comply with all zoning requirements except for the specific zoning exceptions identified in this resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Historic Resource Commission of the City of Coronado, California, this 6th day of April 2022, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Farley, Jamison, Pastor
NAYS:
ABSENT: Bey, Clements
_____________________________
Carol Pastor, Chair
Attest:
___________________
Rich Grunow
Director of Community Development
City of Coronado Page 190
HAP 2021-11 10/25/2021 3/22/2022 4/6/2022
Attachment 3
City of Coronado Page 191
i:\city council, boards, and commissions\hr\applications\hr package 2_hr alteration\handout_hap_january 2019.doc PROPERTY ADDRESS: ___________________________________
Current Mills Act Status:
❑ Recorded Mills Act ❑ Pending Council Approval ❑ No Mills Act ❑ Intend to apply Are exceptions to zoning regulations requested as part of this application? ❑ Setbacks ❑ Height ❑ Parking ❑ Floor Area Ratio (FAR) ❑ Lot Coverage Summary Statement of Project:
Provide a complete written description of the proposed project (extent of demolition, location, size, and height of addition, project materials, finishes, colors, manufacturer’s specifications, etc.) If zoning exceptions are requested, identify the relevant zoning code sections and provide justification for these requests. Note that a zoning plan check review is not conducted in association with an application for a Historic Alteration Permit. It is the responsibility of the applicant to identify any zoning exceptions that are needed for the project and otherwise ensure that the project complies with the City’s zoning ordinance.
Provide an evaluation of the project per the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties; and, if the property has a recorded Mills Act, is on the Mills Act waiting list, or the property owner intends to apply for the Mills Act, also provide an evaluation of the project per the City of Coronado Guidelines for Alterations to Mills Act Properties. Attach additional pages as necessary to provide a complete Summary Statement.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
City of Coronado Historic Preservation Program Guidebook including Guidelines for Alterations to Mills Act Properties, available at City Hall and online at:
www.coronado.ca.us/preservation
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standard for Treatment of Historic Properties:
https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm
Main Level: replace (e) casement windows w- french doors at living room, remodel kitchen: wall-in on interior side of (e) windows, remodel laundry room, relocate powder room, re-build stairs, addition of 121 s.f. to (e) garage, remove (e) guest room, remove (e) covered porch, relocate (e) bath to back of (e) garage. Upper Level: relocate master bedroom & master bath to rear , add 381 s.f., new balcony (26 s.f.), encroachment into side yard (West side) by 1-7/8" to line up with (e) wall below. Attic level: new stairs, new addition, new windows, new mansard roof, new skylights, new dormers, new roof deck, Various site improvements: new outdoor fireplace, new covered terrace, new bbq area, new beach shower, new trash enclosure, new landing-step, replace (e) brick wall with 8'-0" wood fence, remove (e) planter. New pool, spa & solar panels. 1115 Loma Avenue Coronado CA 92118 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
City of Coronado Page 192
KIM GRANT DESIGN INC
2400 Kettner Blvd, Studio 207, San Diego, CA 92101 T 619.269.3630 Date: March 22, 2022
Project: Seneker Dussault Residence - 1115 Loma Avenue Coronado CA Subject: Historic Description – Summary Statement, Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitating Historic Structures
Summary Statement:
The proposed project at 1115 Loma Avenue consists of the following Exterior work:
Additions: Materials and colors to match existing, stucco to be slightly smoother than the original to differentiate, in the same stucco color as the current light gray. The new windows and doors will be wood with aluminum clad on the exterior, simplified muntin pattern (none or minimal grids) to differentiate from the original design and material, The roof extension will be the same dark gray composition shingle to match existing.
Exterior Work:
Main Level:
1. North side/Rear: Demolish 16’-0” of wall along the rear elevation at the Main Level.
As part of this removal, a large non-original garden window will be removed along with a non-original backdoor, non-original stone counter and steps. (rear of the building) to be replaced with a large sliding pocket door to the Covered Terrace.
2. South side/Front: Lower the sill height of the two front windows on the Main Level, keep the existing width and reuse the original leaded windows in new French doors, also adding simple steps to the garden from each of the two openings. (front of the building)
3. West side/Side: Retain three pairs of casement windows, in-fill behind window.
Remove one small window towards the rear of the building, stucco in-fill.
Upper Level:
1. North side/Rear: Remove 23’-10” of existing rear walls, extend to the North by 12’- 10” and 16’-10”. (rear of the building)
2. South side/Front: No proposed changes (front of building)
3. West side/Side: Remove 14’-1” of existing exterior wall, replace with 26’-10” (14’x 3’ addition plus 12’-10” x 23’-2” addition) towards the rear of the house.
4. East side/Side: 16’-10” addition; add in two windows within the existing exterior wall, stepped back from the visible area on the South.
Attic:
1. North side/Rear: Demolish 15’-0” of roof/low walls at the rear of the building.
Extend towards the rear of the building 3’-0” and 9’-8”.
2. South side/Front: No proposed changes.
City of Coronado Page 193
Seneker Dussault Residence Summary Statement Page 2
3. West side/Side: Add 3’-0” length to the attic.
4. East side/Side: Add 9’-8” length to the attic
Interior Remodel:
Main Level:
1. Remodel and relocate the Kitchen, Dining Room, and remodel the Laundry.
Removal of various walls to create an open living space.
2. Add a new Covered Terrace off of the rear of the house with outdoor fireplace and built in BBQ.
3. Relocate the existing Powder Room
4. No additional enclosed/habitable square footage added.
Upper Level:
1. Remodel the closet in Bedroom 2.
2. Remodel the existing rear bedroom into a Master Suite and add 381 s.f., add a small balcony on the rear of the house. Proposed flat roof to keep the scale of the Upper Level Floor lower than the existing where the roof extends to create an attic.
3. Extend the existing staircase to the Attic level, replacing the existing pull-down ladder.
Attic:
1. Proposed roof 22:12 pitch and 3:12 pitch at dormers, roof rafters attached to ceiling joists of the floor below and to the double top plate, no walls are placed between the double top plate. Attic’s footprint increased by 96 s.f., roof height below height limit.
Evaluation of the project per the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties and the City of Coronado Guidelines for Alterations to Mills Act Properties:
I. REHABILITATION - PROPOSED
A. Preserve primary historic building materials whenever feasible.
1. We will Retain and preserve original wall and siding materials.
2. We will not cover or obscure original façade materials.
3. If stucco covers original siding, then its removal is encouraged. – N/A
4. We are not proposing the use of vinyl is prohibited (includes windows, fences, downspouts, guard rails, etc.)
B. Preserve historic architectural features and details.
1. We propose to preserve and maintain significant stylistic and architectural features.
2. We propose to repair any deteriorated architectural features and to retain details and repair or restore rather than replace whenever possible.
3. We will avoid adding elements or details that were not part of the original building.
C. Preserve the size and shape of windows and doors because they significantly affect the character of a structure.
City of Coronado Page 194
Seneker Dussault Residence Summary Statement Page 3
1. We propose to repair deteriorated windows and doors, instead of replacing them or enclosing the opening altogether, whenever possible.
2. We propose to preserve the functional and decorative features of original windows and doors.
3. We propose to maintain original window and door proportions on the majority of the windows/doors on the project.
4. We propose to maintain the historic window arrangement on a primary façade, with the exception of lowering the sill at the two Living Room windows to create French door using the original leaded glass windows in the French doors.
5. No new window or door openings on character-defining facades, with the exception of number 4 above, where we will retain the location and width and leaded glass of the original windows in the new French doors.
6. The proposed new opening will be similar in location, size and type to those seen traditionally.
7. If replacement of windows or doors is necessary, replicate the original design, detailing and materials as closely as possible.
8. Original hardware should be re-used on replacement windows or doors, if possible.
9. No aluminum or aluminum clad windows are proposed on the original portion of the house. Unless original to the historic structure, aluminum clad windows are prohibited (where visible from the street right-of-way), as are aluminum awnings.
D. Preserve a porch in its original condition and form.
1. Maintain an original porch, when feasible. N/A
2. Enclosing a porch with opaque materials that destroy the openness and transparency of the porch is not recommended. N/A
3. Where building codes stipulate that new porch railings lower than 36 inches in height be augmented or corrected to raise their effective height to 36 inches or greater, consider installation of a smaller railing above the historic railing to achieve a greater overall railing height. (existing iron balcony at the west side is low, we will comply with height if required)
4. Repair rather than replace those elements of a porch that are deteriorated, whenever possible.
5. Restoring an altered porch to its original design and configuration is recommended.
N/A
6. When required, replacement porches should be period appropriate in character, design, scale and materials. N/A
II. ADDITIONS -PROPOSED
A. Design a new addition to be compatible with the historic building.
City of Coronado Page 195
Seneker Dussault Residence Summary Statement Page 4
1. Additions should be compatible in character and style of architecture to the historic building. Our proposed design is compatible in character and style of architecture to the historic building, yet slightly different to differentiate between new and old.
2. Additions should be subordinate in scale, bulk and mass to the historic building.
Our proposed addition is all in the back portion of the home, set back 53’ from the front property line and 27’-8” back from the front corner of the home, and behind a significant cross gable, which occurs on both sides of the house. The addition has a lowered roof structure and is flat with a minimal mansard roof to obscure the view of the flat roof, keeping the height of the addition low. The attic roof extension is lower than the original Attic, is narrow and behind the original dominant cross gabled roof, is differentiated by having the peak of the roof at a 3:12 pitch which becomes dormers, then transitioning to the existing roof pitch of 22:12 where it will intersect to the flat roof of the addition at the second story
3. New dormers or other roof forms should be subordinate to the roof of the historic building. Our proposed roof forms are subordinate to the roof of the historic home in that the highest portion of the addition is lower than the original roof as well as the Master Bedroom roof is flat with a low mansard roof to reduce the scale and to differentiate it from the original roof.
4. Additions should be located at the rear or on an inconspicuous side of the historic building. Our proposed additions are located at the rear of the building and behind the significant cross gable, further taking the addition out of view.
5. Avoid additions that obscure, damage, destroy or remove original characterdefining features of the historic building. Our proposed addition does not obscure, damage, destroy or remove any original character-defining features. There are actually non-original elements that are being removed, which helps the look of the historic building.
6. Use building materials that are compatible with those of the historic structure. The proposed materials are to match the original materials; however, the stucco finish will be slightly smoother, the windows at the addition or at new openings will be aluminum clad, and for the most part will have little or no muntins (grids) all to differentiate from the original materials and design
7. Windows on the addition should be similar in character, color and materials to original historic windows. Our proposed windows are to be the same color, wood with aluminum clad, and will have similar details to the originals, and in most cases will be simplified to omit the muntins (grids).
8. Additions should be designed to be reversible. Our proposed addition could be reversible, and the majority of the historic structure would still be intact from the public view.
9. Additions should be designed in such a manner that the addition is discernible from the original structure. Our proposed additions are discernible and differentiated from the original by smoother stucco, simplified window patterns, aluminum clad windows/doors, modified roof design, and smaller scale in comparison to the original home. The additions will be to the rear of the home.
City of Coronado Page 196
City of Coronado Page 197
City of Coronado Page 198
City of Coronado Page 199
City of Coronado
City of Coronado Page 201
City of Coronado Page 202
City of Coronado Page 203
City of Coronado
City of CoronadoPage 205
City of CoronadoPage 206
City of CoronadoPage 207
City of CoronadoPage 208
City of CoronadoPage 209
City of CoronadoPage 210
City of CoronadoPage 211
City of CoronadoPage 212
City of CoronadoPage 213
City of CoronadoPage 214
City of CoronadoPage 215
City of CoronadoPage 216
City of CoronadoPage 217
City of CoronadoPage 218
City of CoronadoPage 219
City of CoronadoPage 220
City of CoronadoPage 221
City of CoronadoPage 222
City of CoronadoPage 223
City of CoronadoPage 224
City of CoronadoPage 225
City of CoronadoPage 226
City of CoronadoPage 227
City of CoronadoPage 228
City of CoronadoPage 229
Rendering - Proposed
Front and West Elevations
City of CoronadoPage 230
Rendering - Proposed
Front and East Elevations
City of CoronadoPage 231
Revised 01/15/2020
CITY OF CORONADO
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTITY DEVELOPMENT
In the Matter of the Notice of Meeting for
Recommendation of approval from the Historic Resource Commission of a request for a Historic Alteration Permit at 1115 Loma Avenue, including exceptions to zoning regulations, located in the R-1A (Single Family Residential) Zone (HAP 2021-11, 1115 Loma Avenue).
DECLARATION OF NOTICE BY MAIL
AND/OR
PUBLISHED LEGAL NOTICE
I, MaeColleen Balcobero, 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 May 17, 2022.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Published legal notice executed on May 2, 2022 at Coronado, California.
Mailing executed on May 5, 2022 at Coronado, California. __________________________________
MaeColleen Balcobero, Administrative Secretary
City of Coronado
Attachment 4
City of Coronado Page 232
CITY OF CORONADO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1825 STRAND WAY CITY HALL
CORONADO, CA 92118 PHONE: (619) 522-7326
WWW.CORONADO.CA.US FAX: (619) 522-2418
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
LEGAL NOTICE
(May 4, 2022)
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Coronado in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 1825 Strand Way, Coronado, California, on Tuesday, May 17, 2022, at 4 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible to consider the following item:
Public Hearing: Recommendation of approval from the Historic Resource Commission of a request for a Historic Alteration Permit at 1115 Loma Avenue, including exceptions to zoning regulations, located in the R-1A (Single Family Residential) Zone (HAP 2021-11, 1115 Loma Avenue).
At said hearing, any interested person may present testimony orally or in writing. Under California Government Code 65009, if you challenge the nature of the proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Please refer to the official posted agenda on the City’s website (www.coronado.ca.us) on the Friday afternoon prior to the meeting for the staff report for this item and/or changes to the agenda.
For further information, contact Tricia Olsen, Associate Planner at the City of Coronado Community Development Department, 1825 Strand Way, Coronado, California, by email at [email protected].
CORONADO CITY COUNCIL
BY: Jennifer Ekblad, MMC, CPM
City Clerk
City of Coronado Page 233
Agenda Item 10a: Report on Interagency Committees, Board assignments and Outside Meetings for Councilmember Marvin Heinze
Period of Report: Apr 1, 2022 to Apr 30, 2022
Date Activity
4/7/22 Metro Commission and Metro Wastewater Joint Powers Authority meeting (online)
4/8/22 Guest Speaker at Association of the U.S. Army 7th region conference 4/9/22 Coronado Chamber of Commerce Salute to the Military celebration 4/13/22 Grand Caribe Task Force meeting (online)
4/14/22 Ad hoc committee of the Metro Wastewater JPA meeting (online) 4/15/22 Met with Mr Riley; South Coronado Cays Park
4/18/22 Naval Complexes Coordinating Group meeting
4/21/22 Winn Room Council subcommittee meeting
Sea Level Rise community mtg (online)
4/22/22 Dr. Maria-Elena Giner, Commissioner for the U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission comments on Tijuana River Valley litigation settlement (online)
4/23/22 Opening ceremony for 100th Coronado Flower show 4/27/22 Chamber of Commerce Ribbon Cutting at All Two-My Kitchen 4/28/22 Ad hoc committee of the Metro Wastewater JPA meeting (online) League of California Cities Transportation, Communications and Public Works Policy Committee meeting (online)
Coronado Cays Homeowners Association Board meeting
Officer Boyd Retirement walk out ceremony
Fire Department Pinning Ceremony
4/29/22 League of California Cities Environmental Quality Policy Committee meeting (online)
City Employee Recognition Dinner
City of Coronado Page 234
Agenda Item 10a: Report on Inter-Agency Committees, Board Assignments, and Meetings for Councilmember Mike Donovan
Period of report: April 1, 2022 to April 30, 2022
Date Activity
4/5/22 Met with City Manager Tina Friend.
4/6 Met with Howard Somers, Chair, Coronado Mobility Commission.
San Diego Building Electrification Coalition webinar on all-electric construction.
4/8 SANDAG Board Meeting – Tour of planned Otay Mesa East Port of Entry. 4/9 36th Annual Salute to the Military Ball.
4/11 Cal Cities, San Diego County Division meeting.
Webinar on Path to Net Zero Carbonized Energy hosted by SDG&E. 4/12 Met with resident Kevin Reilly.
4/13 Bicycle Safety Clinic “Rodeo” at Coronado Middle School.
Presentation ceremony awarding resident Nevaeh Henrich the Ambassador Girl Scout Gold Award for her actions in a life-threatening situation. 4/14 Coronado Chamber of Commerce Board meeting.
4/18 Coronado Naval Complexes Coordinating Group meeting. 4/19 Met with City Manager Tina Friend.
4/21 PAWS of Coronado Animal Care Facility site visit and tour.
Port Tenants Association social mixer.
4/22 SANDAG Board meeting.
4/23 Coronado Flower Show 100th Anniversary opening ceremony. 4/26 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Subcommittee meeting with City Staff. 4/28 Met with Coronado Historical Association Board Chair, Dave Landon.
Coronado Historical Association Board Meeting.
Retirement ceremony for Officer Shane Boyd, Coronado Police Department.
Coronado Fire Department Badge Pinning Ceremony
4/29 City of Coronado Employee Recognition Celebration.
City of Coronado Page 235
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
May 17, 2022 10b
RECEIVE ANNUAL REPORT ON SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG) ACTIVITIES
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the annual report on SANDAG activities and provide direction, as appropriate.
BACKGROUND:
Assembly Bill 805 (Gonzalez) sets forth a requirement for San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Board Members to provide an annual report to their member agency, in a public meeting, of SANDAG activities including a summary of program developments, project updates, changes to voter-approved expenditure plans, and potential ballot measures.
ANALYSIS:
This agenda item provides an opportunity for the City Council to receive the annual report on SANDAG activities, in compliance with AB 805.
The attached 2021 SANDAG Annual Report provides information about the SANDAG regional plan, priority projects, major projects and programs.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Receiving the report has no fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVE:
None.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:
Not applicable.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
None needed.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 2021 SANDAG Annual Report
Submitted By: City Manager’s Office / Tina Friend
City of Coronado Page 236
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
The San Diego region is home to 3.35 million residents who live in 18 incorporated cities and unincorporated areas of the County of San Diego. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is the regional agency that connects people, places, and innovative ideas by implementing solutions with our unique and diverse communities. We are committed to creating a San Diego region where every person who visits, works, and lives can thrive. With oversight by a Board of Directors – made up of elected officials from the 18 city councils and the County Board of Supervisors – SANDAG works on a wide array of projects, programs, and initiatives that support the region’s economy and protect our environment and quality of life. This report highlights some of SANDAG’s accomplishments during 2021.
A special thank you to our stakeholders, the community, and our transportation partners, Caltrans, MTS, and NCTD for their collaboration during 2021 on several of the projects and programs listed in this report.
2021
ANNUAL REPORT
Click on each
project’s title for more
information.
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 237
After years of analysis, public engagement, and research, the first draft of the 2021 Regional Plan was released in May 2021 for review and comment. In August 2021, SANDAG released a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2021 Regional Plan and the proposed final 2021 Regional Plan and final EIR were published on November 30, 2021.
SANDAG held numerous workshops, webinars, public meetings, and community engagement activities to educate the public about the Plan. In total, nearly 17,000 comments were received.
After extensive public feedback and public policy discussion, the SANDAG Board of Directors adopted the final 2021 Regional Plan and certified the EIR at its meeting on December 10, 2021.
The 2021 Regional Plan provides a vision for our future that leverages the latest technologies, meets all state and federal requirements, addresses traffic congestion and roadway safety, and improves social equity. While the Plan includes improvements 30 years into the future, SANDAG will immediately start working to advance projects, including but not limited to:
• Opening the new Otay Mesa East Port of Entry and Smart Border Management System • Relocating the LOSSAN rail corridor off the bluffs
• Advancing the Central Mobility Hub to provide direct transit connections to the San Diego International Airport
• Blue Line Express
• Purple Line
• Regional Vision Zero action plan and policy
• Digital Equity Action Plan
PRIORITY PROJECTS
2021 REGIONAL PLAN
2 2021 ANNUAL REPORT SANDAG.org
City of Coronado Page 238
The Mid-Coast Extension of the UC San Diego Blue Line Trolley is one of the largest transportation infrastructure projects in the history of the San Diego region. Construction began in the fall of 2016 and was completed on time and within budget in the fall of 2021. The UC San Diego Blue Line Trolley, operated by the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), now extends service from Downtown San Diego 11 miles north to the University community. The extended line serves Mission Bay, the VA Medical Center, UC San Diego, Westfield UTC, and other major employment and activity centers. This project has expanded the region’s Trolley system so that it now provides a one-seat ride from the U.S./Mexico Border all the way to the University community – with stops at several communities in between.
The Mid-Coast Trolley Extension showcases SANDAG’s ability to plan, build, and deliver large-scale infrastructure projects by leveraging local funds to secure additional funding from state and federal sources. This major investment in regional transportation is the result of decades of planning, engineering, design, and construction – made possible through SANDAG’s collaborative regional planning process.
In November 2021, SANDAG and MTS were presented with the first-ever Mid Coast Award from Circulate San Diego, created to honor the Mid-Coast Trolley Extension. The award recognized the project for its transformational impact on the San Diego region.
PRIORITY PROJECTS
MID-COAST TROLLEY EXTENSION
3 2021 ANNUAL REPORT SANDAG.org
City of Coronado Page 239
PRIORITY PROJECTS
SANDAG and Caltrans have been working closely with federal, state, and local governments in the United States and Mexico to develop a new land port of entry east of the Otay Mesa border crossing. In May 2021, the team completed the first segment of the new diverging diamond interchange – the first of its kind in the San Diego region. Following this milestone, dignitaries from both countries joined together in June to sign a Memorandum of Understanding that expresses their commitment to open the new port of entry by 2024. The team also initiated a new investment grade Traffic & Revenue study, which will guide the development of a bonding package.
SANDAG and Caltrans received the 2021 WTS San Diego County Innovative Transportation Solutions Award for SR 11 Segment 2A and Segment 4 South County Trade Corridor Project.
In December 2021, the team celebrated the completion of connectors from southbound SR 125 to eastbound SR 11 and SR 905. These connectors now provide travelers with direct access from East County to Otay Mesa.
SR 11/OTAY MESA EAST PORT OF ENTRY
4 2021 ANNUAL REPORT SANDAG.org
City of Coronado Page 240
PRIORITY PROJECTS
In late February 2021, a bluff collapse just south of 4th Street in Del Mar resulted in a slowdown of train traffic through Del Mar. SANDAG and the North County Transit District (NCTD) worked quickly to ensure safety and reliability along the line, for the region and the entire Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor, all while simultaneously exploring a long-term strategy to move the tracks off the bluffs.
Emergency repairs included installing steel support columns into the bluffs to protect the tracks, rebuilding the bluff slope from the bottom up, installing sea walls to protect the toe of the bluffs, and installing drainage infrastructure to prevent further erosion. This project was awarded Project of the Year by the American Public Works Association (APWA) in the disaster/emergency category. Work began in March 2021, and it is continuing. Heavy construction tasks are expected to be completed in early 2022.
DEL MAR BLUFFS STABILIZATION
5 2021 ANNUAL REPORT SANDAG.org
City of Coronado Page 241
PRIORITY PROJECTS
The Central Mobility Hub is envisioned as a mixed-use, multimodal transportation center that connects all current and future modes of transportation and provides a direct link between San Diego International Airport and the regional transit system.
In April 2021, SANDAG initiated an environmental review for the project, which is required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Notice of Preparation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was released to begin a 30-day public scoping period, during which the public could submit comments on the project, suggest alternatives, and raise issues to address in the EIR. SANDAG received significant public input and is now preparing technical studies to support the consideration of the proposed project at several potential alternatives: The Navy Old Town Campus site, the Intermodal Transportation Center site, the Port of San Diego site, a Downtown San Diego Civic Center site, and a Trolley connection to the airport.
CENTRAL MOBILITY HUB
6 2021 ANNUAL REPORT SANDAG.org
City of Coronado Page 242
Rose Creek Bikeway
The Rose Creek Bikeway project was completed in May 2021, filling a two-mile gap in the Coastal Rail Trail between the Rose Canyon Bike Path in University City and the Rose Creek Bike Path in Pacific Beach. This project was selected to receive a Merit Award in the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) California 2022 Engineering Excellence Awards.
Fourth and Fifth Avenue Bikeways
The Fourth and Fifth Avenue Bikeways project is anticipated to open fully to the public in early 2022. Accomplishments this past year include the construction of separated bikeways, buffered bike lanes, and many safety improvements for people who walk, bike, and roll in Hillcrest, Bankers Hill, and Downtown San Diego.
Inland Rail Trail
Phase 2 of the Inland Rail Trail was completed in January 2021, adding three miles of multi-use path along the NCTD SPRINTER rail line through parts of unincorporated San Diego County and the City of Vista. This project received a 2021 APWA Honor Award in the Sustainability/Green category and the 2021 WTS San Diego County Alternative Modes and Active Transportation Award.
Pershing Bikeway
Construction of the Pershing Bikeway is expected to begin in early 2022. The project will connect North Park and Downtown San Diego with separated biking and walking paths. Final design of the project concluded in 2021. The project was advertised for construction in the summer and the contract was executed in the fall.
Georgia – Meade and Landis Bikeways
The Georgia – Meade and Landis Bikeway projects are
anticipated to open to the public in early 2022. Accomplishments this past year include the construction of neighborhood traffic circles, buffered bike lanes, and many other traffic-calming features along the project corridors in the North Park and MidCity neighborhoods.
Bayshore Bikeway
In 2021, SANDAG advertised the Bayshore Bikeway – Barrio Logan segment for construction and reviewed and evaluated bids. The project will stretch 2.5 miles along Harbor Drive between Park Boulevard and 32nd Street, connecting two
existing segments of the Bayshore Bikeway. Construction is expected to begin in 2022.
REGIONAL BIKEWAY PROGRAM MAJOR PROJECTS
Regional Bike Plan Early Action Program (EAP) Budget Amendment At the SANDAG Board of Directors meeting on September 24, 2021, the Board approved a Fiscal Year 2022 budget amendment for the EAP, reallocating $2.3 million to the budget and accepting $16.3 million in grant funds to help deliver regional bikeway connections. 7 2021 ANNUAL REPORT SANDAG.org
City of Coronado Page 243
MAJOR PROJECTS
In mid-2021, Phase 1 of the SANDAG and Caltrans I-5 North Coast Corridor (Build NCC) Program broke ground on four miles of new carpool/HOV lanes on I-5, from Palomar Airport Road in Carlsbad to SR 78 in Oceanside. In May 2021, APWA awarded Build NCC its Project of the Year. The APWA recognized Build NCC for environmental sustainability efforts, in particular the San Elijo Lagoon Restoration Project which enhances tidal flows and creates improved coastal wetland habitats for wildlife that depend on the lagoon. The start of 2022 also marks the groundbreaking of the San Dieguito Lagoon Restoration Project in Del Mar.
A new bike and pedestrian bridge, anticipated to be completed in April 2022, will be suspended below the reconstructed San Elijo Lagoon highway bridge and above the east basin channel and will connect Manchester Avenue to more than seven miles of trails. A new Multi-Use Facility at Manchester Avenue, providing EV charging, bike docking stations, and San Elijo Lagoon trail information, is scheduled for completion in late 2022.
Build NCC crews are expected to complete 13 miles of carpool/High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on I-5 in 2022, between Lomas Santa Fe Drive in Solana Beach and Palomar Airport Road in Carlsbad.
BUILD NCC
8 2021 ANNUAL REPORT SANDAG.org
City of Coronado Page 244
MAJOR PROJECTS
COMPREHENSIVE
MULTIMODAL
CORRIDOR
PLANS
SANDAG and Caltrans are now
developing their first five Comprehensive
Multimodal Corridor Plans. Each corridor
plan evaluates all modes of travel and all
transportation facilities along a defined
corridor – which can include highways
and freeways, parallel and connecting
roadways, transit (bus, bus rapid transit,
light rail, intercity rail, etc.), pathways, and
bikeways.
Corridors cover wide and diverse areas of
the San Diego region, including the North
County Corridor; the San Vicente Corridor;
the Coast, Canyons, and Trails; the Central
Mobility Hub and its Connections; and
South Bay to Sorrento Valley. In 2021, all
five corridor teams engaged with the
public to gather feedback through public
meetings, surveys, and comment forms.
Each corridor team held lively public
meetings, stakeholder advisory groups,
and community roundtables to ensure
that the plans include feedback directly
from people who use the corridors. The
Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor
Plans are scheduled to be completed
during the summer of 2022.
9 2021 ANNUAL REPORT SANDAG.org
City of Coronado Page 245
MAJOR PROJECTS
REQUEST FOR INNOVATIVE
CONCEPTS
In November 2021, SANDAG invited interested innovators, entrepreneurs, service providers, and mobility experts to submit innovative concepts for transportation “Connector” services that advance the transformative vision for transportation shaped by the SANDAG Draft 2021 Regional Plan’s 5 Big Moves.
In 2022, SANDAG will evaluate how well Connector concepts advance the goal of a transportation system that is faster, fairer, and cleaner for everyone. The top three proposers will be awarded a $50,000 stipend to further develop their concept and present their conceptual designs to a panel of experts. Ultimately, one or more firms will be selected to enter a partnership agreement where SANDAG and partners will pursue funding, plan, design, and build the Connector services.
DIGITAL EQUITY
In January 2021, the SANDAG Board of Directors adopted a resolution committing to bridging the digital divide. As a first step toward achieving this goal, SANDAG formed the Regional Digital Divide Taskforce consisting of representatives from public agencies, internet service providers, and non-profit organizations that are actively working to bridge the digital divide. The Taskforce worked collaboratively to develop the Regional Digital Equity Strategy and Action Plan.
In May 2021, SANDAG, Caltrans, and the County of San Diego partnered to identify $7 million in funding to install fiber with the planned Caltrans SR 67 Pavement Rehabilitation project, which will fill a critical gap in the region’s fiber network.
As 2021 comes to a close, the San Diego region is set to receive the largest investment statewide for broadband infrastructure improvements from the California Departmentof Technology. This is thanks in large part to partnership between SANDAG and Caltrans, work on the 2021 Regional Plan, and the efforts of the SANDAG Regional Digital Divide Taskforce to study the digital divide and develop a Digital Equity Strategy and Action Plan. 10 2021 ANNUAL REPORT SANDAG.org
City of Coronado Page 246
MAJOR PROJECTS
In October, SANDAG and the City of Encinitas celebrated the halfway mark in construction on the El Portal Undercrossing project, which will provide pedestrians and cyclists with a new connection between Vulcan Avenue and N. Coast Highway 101. SANDAG crews have installed bridge foundations and set the new rail bridge and will continue installing retaining walls and drainage infrastructure through this winter. The El Portal Undercrossing is expected to be completed in spring 2022.
I-805 CORRIDOR
ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS
During the summer of 2021, crews completed construction for the I-805 Corridor Enhancement Projects, which included five new sound wall segments as well as bridge and safety improvements at the Sweetwater River Bridge. The enhancements span more than three miles along I-805, from just north of East Naples Street in Chula Vista to State Route 54 (SR 54) in National City.
Improvements totaling $63 million are helping to alleviate congestion, improve traffic flow, and enhance the quality of life for residents who live along this segment of the I-805 corridor. In June 2021, Caltrans and the cities of Chula Vista and National City celebrated the project’s completion.
BUS ON SHOULDER
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED
During the summer of 2021, construction for the Bus on Shoulder (BOS) project was completed. This project allows South Bay Rapid buses (Route 225) to use the freeway shoulder during weekday peak travel times. This helps maintain transit schedules and support system reliability.
Crews on the project made modifications to freeway ramps and repaved sections of the shoulders to prepare for MTS buses.
These buses are operated by specially trained drivers and equipped with innovative technology so they can operate safely on freeway shoulders during heavy traffic congestion. Sensors embedded on project buses will provide bus drivers with audio and visual alerts – a first for vehicle-to-infrastructure technology in the San Diego region. Driver training on Route 225 launched in December 2021, with the official project launch anticipated in early 2022. Shoulders will remain available during the pilot project for law enforcement, emergencies, and
incident management.
EL PORTAL UNDERCROSSING
11 2021 ANNUAL REPORT SANDAG.org
City of Coronado Page 247
PROGRAM UPDATES
On October 22, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved the creation of the Regional Equitable Housing Subcommittee (REHS), a temporary subcommittee to lead discussions and identify voluntary, innovative, and incentive-based approaches that address housing needs throughout the San Diego region.
In November 2021, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Housing Incentive Program and released two calls for projects for up to $6 million total:
$3 million through the Housing Acceleration Program, a new grant program funded through the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) grant program, which is focused on housing acceleration and smart growth.
$3 million through the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program for planning efforts that encourage mobility hub planning in smart growth areas or employment centers, and strengthen the connections between housing and transportation.
COMMITMENT TO EQUITY
In January 2021, the SANDAG Board of Directors unanimously adopted the following statement expressing its commitment to equity:
“We hold ourselves accountable to the communities we serve. We acknowledge we have much to learn and much to change; and we firmly uphold equity and inclusion for every person in the San Diego region. This includes historically underserved, systemically marginalized groups impacted by actions and inactions at all levels of our government and society. We have an obligation to eliminate disparities and ensure that safe, healthy, accessible, and inclusive opportunities are available to everyone. In 2021, SANDAG will develop an equity action plan that will inform how we plan, prioritize, fund, and build projects and programs; frame how we work with our communities; define how we recruit and develop our employees; guide our efforts to conduct unbiased research and interpret data; and set expectations for companies and stakeholders that work with us. We are committed to creating a San Diego region where every person who visits, works, and lives can thrive.”
REGIONAL EQUITABLE HOUSING EFFORTS
12 2021 ANNUAL REPORT SANDAG.org
City of Coronado Page 248
PROGRAM UPDATES
UNEMPLOYMENT/ECONOMIC REPORTS
In October 2021, SANDAG unveiled an interactive data tool that highlights key findings related to unemployment during 2021 in the San Diego region. The tool is updated monthly and allows policymakers, businesses, and members of the public to gain a better understanding of the impact of the pandemic on unemployment in the region in real time.
Unemployment Pre-COVID Unemployment Nov, 2021
13 2021 ANNUAL REPORT SANDAG.org
City of Coronado Page 249
PROGRAM UPDATES
GRANT PROGRAMS
In 2021, nine SANDAG-funded grant projects were completed throughout the region, including the City of Vista’s Paseo Santa Fe Smart Growth Incentive Program project, which
received an APWA award for Project of the Year, and the City of Oceanside’s enclosed bike parking facility. The City of San Diego also completed the 14th Street Pedestrian Promenade Demonstration Block, completing the first phase of a linear park connecting East Village and Barrio Logan to City College. Many more projects that received funds in past years moved forward with planning and construction.
On October 25th, 2021, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved and released the TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program 10th Cycle of Land Management Grants Call for Projects. The Board allocated $2.4 million in funding for the 10th cycle of Land Management Grants.
The TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program funded the restoration of the San Elijo Lagoon, which was completed in the fall of 2021.
TRANSNET UPDATE
During the past two years, public agencies across the nation have braced for budget shortfalls related to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. SANDAG has closely monitored tax
revenues from TransNet, the region’s half-cent sales tax that voters approved for transportation improvements. During FY 2021, revenue was 9.2% higher than in FY 2020. In March 2021, SANDAG refinanced 2014 Series A bonds at lower interest rates, saving more than $22 million for the region’s taxpayers.
These bond deals also support cashflow needs, providing more than $130 million for the TransNet major corridor
program. The FY 2022 SANDAG Program Budget includes
an investment of about $613 million in TransNet funding for major capital projects throughout the San Diego region. 6320-12-29
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
REPORTS AND FLASHES
Over the past year, the SANDAG Criminal Justice
Clearinghouse prepared several reports for policymakers, law enforcement, and prevention and treatment
professionals. These reports provide essential information on public safety and public health, crime data, and crimereduction strategies being implemented countywide.
SANDAG ICOMMUTE
PROGRAM
The SANDAG iCommute program replaced old
mechanical bike lockers and added 100 new electronic
bike parking spaces in FY 2021. During the pandemic,
SANDAG launched a new Telework Assistance Program
and worked with area employers to develop and/or
improve their telework policies to offer employees
more options for working at home.
14 2021 ANNUAL REPORT SANDAG.org
City of Coronado Page 250
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
May 17, 2022 10c
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT TO ACQUIRE THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 517-519 ORANGE AVENUE FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT; AUTHORIZE A BUDGET AMENDMENT AND APPROPRIATION; AND DIRECT STAFF TO RETURN WITH OPTIONS
FOR THIS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase and sale agreement (Attachment 1) to acquire 517-519 Orange Avenue for $2,550,000; authorize a budget amendment and appropriation from the Affordable Housing Management Fund (Fund 266) for the purchase price of $2,550,000 , and direct staff to return with options regarding this new affordable housing project.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Coronado is committed to expanding its supply of affordable housing to provide quality housing opportunities for lower-income households. In 2021, the City Council authorized staff to release a $4 million Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) to solicit proposals to develop an affordable housing project. No responsive proposals were received.
City staff was contacted by the property owner of 517-519 Orange Avenue shortly after the NOFA expired about potentially acquiring his property for an affordable housing project. The approximately 3,500 square-foot property is developed with an existing residential duplex with two, two-bedroom units, each approximately 1,000 square-feet in size. The property also has a two-car garage and a carport that is accessed from the alley. The property is located immediately adjacent to an existing City-owned, 16-unit affordable housing project.
The City Council authorized staff to negotiate with the property owner and to conduct due diligence, which included obtaining a title report, an appraisal, a residential property inspection, and Phase I Environmental Assessment. The property is considered to be in fair condition for its age. Although the duplex would require substantial rehabilitation to improve a number of cosmetic issues, the due diligence process did not identify any significant structural or health and safety issues. The property is not a historic resource.
The City and seller’s appraisals estimated the property value at $2,510,000 and $2,610,000, respectively. Staff and the seller have negotiated a proposed sales price of $2,550,000. The seller has executed the purchase and sale agreement.
ANALYSIS:
Purchasing the property at 517-519 Orange Avenue would allow the City to add two units to its affordable housing supply and would contribute to meeting the City’s General Plan Housing Element requirements by increasing housing opportunities for lower-income households. The purchase would also enable the City to expend former redevelopment affordable housing funds maintained by the Housing Successor, portions of which expire at the end of each fiscal year and must be returned to the State of California if not spent on eligible affordable housing projects or City of Coronado Page 251
programs. Approximately $730,000 of the funds for this purchase would expire if not spent over the next 14 months.
If the City Council authorizes acquisition of the property, staff would continue to work with consultant Keyser Marston Associates to evaluate options to rehabilitate the property as part of the City’s affordable housing stock and take steps to secure a long-term property manager. If so directed, staff would present these options to the City Council at a future meeting for a decision.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Property acquisition cost of $2,550,000 would be funded from the Affordable Housing Management Fund (266), which projects to have sufficient fund balance. Additional funds in an unknown amount may be required in future appropriations to make minor repairs, rehabilitate the property and hire a long-term property manager.
ALTERNATIVE:
The City Council may choose not to proceed with the property acquisition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:
This activity is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA section 15326, acquisition of housing for housing assistance programs.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
None Required
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Aerial image and site pictures
2. Purchase and Sale Agreement
Submitted By: Community Development Department / Grunow City of Coronado Page 252
517-519 ORANGE AVENUE AERIAL IMAGE + SITE PICTURES
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 253
City of Coronado Page 254
Attachment 2
City of Coronado City of Coronado Page 255 Page 255
City of Coronado City of Coronado Page 256 Page 256
City of Coronado City of Coronado Page 257 Page 257
City of Coronado City of Coronado Page 258 Page 258
City of Coronado City of Coronado Page 259 Page 259
City of Coronado City of Coronado Page 260 Page 260
City of Coronado City of Coronado Page 261 Page 261
City of Coronado City of Coronado Page 262 Page 262
City of Coronado City of Coronado Page 263 Page 263
City of Coronado City of Coronado Page 264 Page 264
City of Coronado City of Coronado Page 265 Page 265
City of Coronado City of Coronado Page 266 Page 266
City of Coronado City of Coronado Page 267 Page 267
City of Coronado City of Coronado Page 268 Page 268
City of Coronado City of Coronado Page 269 Page 269
City of Coronado City of Coronado Page 270 Page 270
City of Coronado City of Coronado Page 271 Page 271
City of Coronado City of Coronado Page 272 Page 272
City of Coronado City of Coronado Page 273 Page 273
City of Coronado City of Coronado Page 274 Page 274
City of Coronado City of Coronado Page 275 Page 275
City of Coronado City of Coronado Page 276 Page 276
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
May 17, 2022 10d
REVIEW OF COMMERCIAL PARKING STANDARDS
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive report and provide direction.
BACKGROUND:
At its April 5, 2022 meeting, the City Council directed staff to return with a report on commercial parking standards. The Council specifically expressed interest in reviewing municipal code sections that require off-site parking facilities to be within 200 feet of the business requiring parking, and that a covenant be recorded over the off-site parking facility property.
For decades, parking in Coronado’s downtown business district has been one of the City’s most intricate land use issues. Like many coastal California cities, Coronado has contended with a difficult balancing act to provide sufficient parking in its busy commercial district in a manner that promotes economic vitality, desirable urban design, and convenience for business patrons and employees, while preventing spillover parking from adversely impacting nearby residential neighborhoods. These challenges are compounded by the seasonal variability in tourism that drives peak parking demand and regulatory compliance with the California Coastal Act and its requirement that cities provide abundant and low-cost parking.
According to the City’s Citizen Satisfaction Surveys, inadequate parking supply has been one of the most significant concerns cited by Coronado residents. Meanwhile, developers and business owners frequently express frustration with the City’s off-street parking standards and assert that they can stifle their ability to redevelop properties and/or convert existing commercial spaces to new uses with higher parking demands. These competing interests have historically made it difficult for the City to amend its parking standards to the satisfaction of both residents and business interests.
Coronado has engaged in several efforts since the early 2000s to refine its commercial parking standards. Parking was among the most thorny land use issues debated during the preparation of the Orange Avenue Corridor Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and the City Council has reviewed commercial parking standards multiple times following its adoption in 2003. In each case, however, the City Council ultimately chose not to amend commercial parking standards, primarily due to resident concerns and a recognition that processing a required Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment through the California Coastal Commission would be a costly, timeconsuming, and high-risk endeavor.
The City’s commercial parking standards remain an issue today and is the core controversy involving several recent development proposals in the downtown business district.
ANALYSIS:
This report will describe current parking issues with recent commercial development proposals, summarize the City’s prior efforts to examine parking standards, detail the City’s current commercial parking standards and off-site parking facilities, offer potential parking strategies and City of Coronado Page 277
solutions, and describe the regulatory barriers that would need to be overcome in order to enact any amendments to the City’s adopted parking standards.
Recent Development Proposals with Parking Issues
This policy review is timely because the owners of several Orange Avenue commercial properties have presented a number of development proposals and concepts which would require off-street parking. Their holdings include the Bank of America building and adjoining parking structure, the commercial building occupied by Stake and the vacant Bistro D’Asia space, the La Avenida Inn, and the Enterprise Rent-A-Car properties. The property owners intend to use the Bank of America parking structure to satisfy parking requirements for the various proposals; however, they have stated that they cannot comply with the municipal code requirement to record a covenant and have raised concerns about the 200-foot distance limit between a business and the off-site parking facility.
There are currently two active applications on file involving these properties. One is a Design Review application to develop a new restaurant in the former Bistro D’Asia space. The project was approved by the Design Review Commission on April 27 but has since been appealed to the City Council based on a disagreement over a condition of approval. The project does not require any additional off-site parking and will be able to proceed through the building permit process once the Design Review application is approved.
The other active application is a proposal to expand the outdoor patio of the Stake restaurant.
The business owner has submitted a Design Review application which is scheduled to be heard on May 11. The proposed patio expansion triggers the requirement to provide additional parking.
This project would require City Council approval of a parking plan, which has not yet been submitted.
In addition to the two active applications, the property owners have indicated that another Design Review application for a new restaurant on the La Avenida Inn parking lot will be submitted soon.
This project will also require additional parking because it would displace existing required parking for the hotel and develop a new parking dependent use.
The property owners and their prospective tenants have also been engaged in a number of other projects and development concepts over the past several years that require parking, including:
The Moke rental vehicle business that was approved by the Planning Commission in 2019 and proposed to use the Bank of America parking structure, but left the Coronado market before executing their parking plan;
A golf cart rental business that proposed to use the Bank of America parking structure, but could not proceed because of the owners’ concern about recording a covenant; A conceptual remodel and expansion of the La Avenida Inn. The property owners have discussed their intention to redevelop the La Avenida Inn and provide off-site parking at the Bank of America parking structure. No plans or permit applications have been submitted for this project;
Permanent outdoor dining areas. Staff has been contacted by restaurant owners and Chamber of Commerce staff about potential parking strategies that would allow eating and drinking establishments to permanently retain outdoor dining areas in parking lots that have City of Coronado Page 278
been temporarily permitted during the Covid-19 pandemic. These individuals have reported that the Bank of America parking structure owners have expressed a willingness to provide necessary replacement parking spaces. It’s unknown if these proposals are actively being pursued.
Each of these development proposals would require off-street parking agreements between the business owners and the Bank of America parking structure owners. Staff has had numerous meetings and discussions with the property owners over the past several years and has encouraged them to prepare and submit a comprehensive parking plan for the Council’s consideration to facilitate off-site parking arrangements with the various business interests and prospective tenants. To date, no applications or parking plans have been submitted to permit offsite parking agreements.
Prior Commercial Parking Reviews and Actions
The City Council has a long history of reviewing commercial parking standards and studying potential parking solutions and code amendments. The City commissioned or participated in previous parking studies of the village business district in 1976, 1980, 1993, and 2002. The 2002 parking study, which was prepared in conjunction with the Orange Avenue Corridor Specific Plan, concluded that Coronado’s central commercial district had an 815-space parking deficit. Although the study is twenty years old and contains outdated data, the City’s commercial parking standards and parking supply have not significantly changed in the intervening years, and it can be assumed that a deficit remains today.
On May 1, 2012, the City Council conducted a comprehensive review of the City’s commercial parking standards contained in the General Plan, Specific Plan, and municipal code, which included consideration of changes to the 200-foot limit for off-site parking facilities and possible expansion of allowances for joint (shared) parking (attachment 1). After a lengthy debate, the Council voted to refer the matter to the Planning Commission to further explore potential code amendments related to joint-use parking, valet parking, and improvements to the parking meter program.
The Planning Commission subsequently met and voted to recommend that the Council consider several code amendments related to joint-use (shared) parking, valet parking, the 200-foot limit for off-site parking facilities, improving off-street parking enforcement, and parking meter rates and technology.
The City Council considered the Planning Commission’s recommendations on January 15, 2013 (attachment 2). Although Councilmembers expressed dissatisfaction with several parking regulations, they ultimately chose not to process any code amendments and referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for additional study. It does not appear the issue ever returned to the Council.
Existing Parking Conditions
Commercial parking standards in Coronado are governed by the City’s zoning ordinance of the municipal code and the Specific Plan. In general, the Specific Plan establishes the number of required off-street parking spaces for commercial uses, and the zoning ordinance sets criteria for location, dimensions, and other standards. The Specific Plan requires the same number of offstreet parking spaces for all commercial use types, with the exception of eating and drinking establishments and formula restaurants, which require additional off-street parking.
City of Coronado Page 279
Off-Site Parking
Municipal code sections 86.58.180 and 86.58.190 allow off-site parking if the business is within 200-feet of the parking facility, is located within the same block, and if a covenant is recorded over the parking facility property. The 200-foot distance limit and covenant requirement are further described below:
200-foot limit for off-site parking facilities
The City’s zoning ordinance requires off-site parking facilities to be located on the same block and within 200 feet of the business. It is considered a best practice for cities that allow off-site parking to establish some limit on the distance between the business and parking facility. The limit represents the distance an agency believes a reasonable person would be willing to walk between their parking space and destination without seeking closer, on-street parking options.
The reasonable walking distance established by cities can vary considerably; however, nearly all cities impose some distance limit to ensure that the parking facility will actually be used. Based on a survey of 16 other cities in the region that allow off-site parking, all establish a distance limit between a business and parking facility, with limits ranging from 150- to 1,000-feet (see Table 1).
Covenants
A covenant is a legal agreement between two or more parties that establishes conditions and restrictions for how a piece of real estate may be used. In the context of land use, covenants require property owners who receive the benefit of a discretionary permit for certain types of land uses or improvements to provide a legally binding assurance that the permitted activity will be carried out consistent with the terms and conditions of approval. Covenants are recorded against the property title and remain in place regardless of underlying property ownership.
Covenants are routinely used by cities throughout the United States for a variety of land use actions. The Coronado municipal code requires property owners to record covenants for several types of improvements and activities, including but not limited to accessory structures (accessory dwelling units, carriage houses, cabanas, etc.); condominium maps (covenants, conditions, and restrictions, or “CC&Rs”); Mills Act recipients; affordable housing projects; and off-site parking agreements. The Community Development Department executes approximately 20-30 covenants annually.
In the case of off-street parking agreements, covenants ensure that the parking spaces dedicated to a specific business are maintained for their exclusive use as long as the business remains in operation. The covenant also details any operation and management requirements, and perhaps most importantly, confers legal protection to the City and business owner.
Covenants are a statutorily-required tool when off-site properties are involved in a development proposal. While the City has the authority to impose conditions on a property that is the subject of a discretionary permit, the City cannot legally condition or restrict the use of an off-site property, even if the off-site property is under the same ownership. For example, if an applicant proposes to develop a new restaurant and use an off-site facility to meet their parking requirement, the City can place conditions on the proposed restaurant property, but not the off-site parking property.
Without the benefit of a covenant, the City would have no ability to require the off-site parking facility owner to retain parking spaces for the permitted business or to ensure that the parking facility is properly managed and operated. The parking facility owner would be free to terminate and execute new leases at will and could use parking spaces that were supposed to be reserved City of Coronado Page 280
for the exclusive use of the business for other purposes. Under such a scenario, the business would be in violation of its permit and the City would have the burden of enforcement.
Based on staff’s review of other cities’ parking requirements, covenants are a standard requirement for off-site parking arrangements (Table 1). Imperial Beach was the only city identified that does not require a covenant, and it is staff’s understanding that their primary offsite parking facilities are publicly owned by the Unified Port District of San Diego.
Table 1
Jurisdiction Off-site
parking?
Covenant
Required Max Distance Between Use & Parking
Coronado Yes Yes 200-ft
City of San Diego Yes Yes 600-ft
Imperial Beach Yes No 1,000-ft
Del Mar Yes Yes 500-ft
Solana Beach Yes Yes 600-ft
Carlsbad Yes Yes 150-ft
Oceanside Yes Yes 300-ft (400-ft for employee parking)
Chula Vista Yes Yes 200-ft
El Cajon Yes Yes 300-ft
La Mesa Yes Yes 300-ft
San Clemente Yes Yes 500-ft in Downtown Parking Area; 300-ft elsewhere Dana Point Yes Yes 200-ft
Laguna Beach Yes Yes 600-ft
Huntington Beach Yes Yes 250-ft
National City Yes Yes Distance not specified
Newport Beach Yes Yes Within a convenient distance1
Encinitas Yes Yes Within a reasonable distance1
1Newport Beach and Encinitas require a use permit for off-site parking and the decision-maker determines the “convenient” or “reasonable” distance as part of the use discretionary permit process.
Developers have suggested that a private lease agreement between the business and off-site parking facility owner should be an allowable substitute for a covenant. A private lease agreement would not comply with the municipal code. The municipal code language does not contemplate any alternatives to a covenant. Moreover, the municipal code stipulates that the purpose of the covenant is to require the parking facility owners to retain the dedicated parking spaces for the life of a project, and to ensure that no subsequent covenants or contracts are executed without the City’s prior consent. A private lease agreement between a business and the parking facility owner cannot satisfy these conditions.
Joint Use (Shared) Parking
Municipal code section 86.58.210 allows joint use parking subject to certain limitations. More commonly referred to as shared parking, this strategy allows complementary land uses with different hours of peak parking demand to jointly use parking spaces rather than each business providing separate spaces. Shared parking is frequently allowed for mixed-use developments or zoning districts that feature residential development and traditional 9:00 – 5:00 commercial uses in close proximity to one another. Shared parking arrangements can be effective in these situations because many residents are not home during standard working hours, thereby allowing commercial employees and customers to use spaces unoccupied by residents during business City of Coronado Page 281
hours. Well-conceived shared parking programs offer the advantage of reducing the amount of land dedicated for off-street parking without necessarily reducing parking supply.
Current municipal code standards allow for up to 50% of a parking facility dedicated to primarily daytime uses to be shared by nighttime uses, or vice versa. Similar to off-site parking standards, shared parking spaces must be located within 200 feet of the business requiring the parking and a recorded covenant is required when the business and parking facility are separately owned.
Existing Parking Facilities
There are few existing parking facilities in Coronado that have a substantial surplus capacity that could be used for off-site or shared parking. Table 2 below shows the City’s larger parking facilities, the approximate total parking capacity, and the potential number of surplus parking spaces.
The numbers represented in the table are estimates only. Staff did not perform an in-depth review of each property and their permit histories to confidently verify the exact number of parking spaces or potential unused capacity. It should also be noted that with the exception of the Bank of America parking structure, it is unknown whether the property owners of the listed facilities would be interested in leasing their surplus parking spaces.
Staff also did not include the large Smart and Final surface parking lot in its analysis. Although it is believed that the parking lot has substantial surplus capacity, it is not located within a reasonable walking distance from the central business district.
Table 2
Facility Approx. Parking
Spaces
Approx. Surplus
Bank of America Parking Structure 95 45
Hotel del Coronado Parking Structure 1,183 35
Union Bank Parking Lot1 39 26
Vons Parking Lot1 82 33
CA Plaza Parking Structure (RH Dana) 96 0
TOTAL 1,495 139
1. Surplus parking spaces are currently rented to the general public Potential Parking Strategies
There are a number of parking strategies that cities have successfully employed to address the issues faced by Coronado. These strategies, along with best practices and regulatory considerations are further described in the following paragraphs.
Commercial Parking Districts
The concept of expanding the City’s distance limit for off-site parking to allow more businesses to use centralized parking lots in the downtown business district could facilitate the creation of a commercial parking district. Many cities use commercial parking districts to achieve a more comprehensive and efficient means of providing off-street parking. Commercial parking districts typically involve one or more centralized municipal parking lots and/or multi-level structures to provide off-street parking for businesses within a geographically defined parking district.
Parking districts can provide a number of benefits. Instead of each individual business dedicating a substantial portion of their property to accommodate off-street parking, a parking district approach with consolidated parking facilities enables more efficient use of limited commercial real City of Coronado Page 282
estate, which in turn can facilitate a more vibrant downtown with increased business revenues and sales tax proceeds. Freeing up land otherwise committed to surface parking lots also provides opportunities for other desirable urban amenities, such as public gathering spaces, public art, parks, and green spaces which can greatly enhance a city’s downtown experience.
Commercial parking districts are typically organized under one of three models as described below:
Municipal Parking Districts
The most common and proven type of commercial parking district model is a municipal parking district. Under this model, the city owns the parking facilities and either operate them directly or contracts with a parking management company. Municipally owned parking districts typically feature free or low-cost public parking, an extensive signage and public awareness program to promote the use of municipal parking facilities, and well-defined and consistent operation, management, and maintenance protocols.
Business Improvement District
Another parking district model used by some cities (e.g., Old Pasadena Parking Management Zone) is to form a business improvement district to finance, manage, and administer the parking district. This model requires an affirmative vote by affected property owners to form a district and to establish a financing mechanism, which is often based on parking revenues that are used to fund the operation and maintenance of existing parking facilities and/or construction of new facilities. The primary distinction between the business improvement district approach and a more traditional municipal parking district is that it is governed by an independent board of directors rather than a city council.
Public-Private Partnership
A third, but less common model, is a public-private partnership (PPP) whereby the local government enters into an agreement with a private entity, which may own and/or operate parking facilities within a district. Although there are some large cities that have used the PPP model, staff could not readily find any examples of such a district in a comparably sized California city (the City of San Diego has used PPPs to develop and operate individual parking facilities, but management of the overall district is administered by Civic San Diego). Nonetheless, any PPP would be effectuated through a legally binding contract between the agency and private parties to establish the terms of conditions of the agreement and to provide the city with legally enforceable assurances that parking spaces are properly managed and are always available to serve the public as intended. The PPP model also typically involves recordation of covenants over parking facility properties.
Shared Parking
Cities that have successfully instituted shared parking programs have established well-reasoned standards and criteria for the types of land uses that may share parking. For example, while residential and office use types can often share spaces due to their different hours of use, a restaurant and a theater would be poor candidates because they tend to have similar peak operating hours.
Best practices for shared parking programs include establishment of distance limits between the use and parking facility, recordation of a covenant, and/or requirements for a use permit to set reasonable conditions on the use of shared spaces. Among other considerations, permit conditions can ensure that future changes in ownership, hours of operation, or use types do not result in unmet parking supply or a conflict between the assigned users of shared parking spaces.
City of Coronado Page 283
Shared parking programs also tend to be more effective when coupled with an established parking district.
Although Coronado currently allows shared parking in limited circumstances, it is rarely requested by businesses and an updated and better-defined program could encourage greater participation and be more successful.
In-Lieu Parking Fee Programs
In-lieu parking fee programs allow property owners to pay a fee to the local agency rather than providing on-site parking. Fees collected from in-lieu programs are often used to finance construction of new or expanded parking structures or operation and maintenance of existing facilities. In-lieu fees are usually calculated based on the pro-rata cost of constructing a parking facility and can therefore cost tens of thousands of dollars per parking space. Some cities consequently allow applicants the option to make monthly or annual installments instead of a onetime, lump sum payment.
In-lieu parking fee programs are relatively common in California and have been successfully employed in many coastal cities. The benefits of an in-lieu parking fee program include providing property owners with a ready-made solution to off-street parking requirements, reducing the amount of real estate committed to parking lots and the associated opportunity costs, and providing funding for new and improved parking and/or alternative transportation facilities and services. A challenge with in-lieu parking fee programs, particularly in the coastal zone, is that there either needs to be an existing parking facility for applicants to purchase spaces or a nearto mid-term commitment to constructing a facility.
An in-lieu parking fee program could work well in Coronado if the City-owned a centralized parking lot/structure or owned land necessary to construct a new facility.
Parking Demand Reduction Strategies
An increasingly popular strategy to address parking issues is to reduce parking demand by providing new and/or improved alternative modes of transportation, incentives for using public transit, and/or smart pricing strategies. Often referred to as Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, these measures focus on reducing single-occupancy vehicle use and offer the co-benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and advancing climate action planning goals.
An effective TDM program can allow a city to reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces for new development, which in turn, affords opportunities for more beneficial use of land that may otherwise be occupied by parking lots. If successfully implemented, this strategy can also obviate the need to develop parking supply solutions, such as construction of new/expanded parking facilities or programs.
There are a couple of notable challenges with this strategy. First, successfully modifying human behavior is difficult and many people will be reluctant to forego the convenience of driving simply to avoid finding or paying for parking. This may be an even more challenging proposition for Coronado given its geographic separation from the greater San Diego region and its limited alternative transportation options.
City of Coronado Page 284
Regulatory Considerations
California Coastal Act
The City of Coronado’s parking standards contained in the municipal code and Specific Plan are also included in the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). Consequently, any revisions to the parking standards codified in the municipal code or Specific Plan cannot take effect without Coastal Commission approval of an LCP amendment.
The LCP amendment process is lengthy, complex, and can yield uncertain outcomes. Routine and non-controversial LCP amendments typically require 18-24 months to process and it is not uncommon for more complex LCP amendments to take over a decade to complete. LCP amendments that aim to reduce or relax off-street parking standards are generally considered non-routine and have been disfavored or modified with mitigating conditions or a reopening of other aspects of the applicant jurisdiction’s LCP.
Coronado’s LCP was certified in 1983 and was one of the first to take effect in California. The City has never processed a comprehensive update of its LCP and its most recent successful LCP amendment was completed in 2005.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Amending the municipal code and/or the Specific Plan is a discretionary action that would be subject to environmental review under CEQA. The level of environmental review would be determined based on the program or changes the Council would like to evaluate and pursue.
City Council Options
There are a number of potential options available to the City Council. The following outlines some actions the Council may consider:
Take no action. Under this option, the City would not initiate any amendments to the municipal code or Specific Plan to change current commercial parking standards. A private developer, however, would maintain their ability to apply for permits to allow off-site parking, or if they choose, apply for a municipal code, Specific Plan, and/or LCP amendments to modify parking standards for their project.
Prepare an updated, comprehensive parking study. If the City Council wishes to further evaluate potential mid- to long-term parking strategies, the Council could direct staff to hire a qualified consultant to prepare a comprehensive parking study. The study would provide updated parking data and provide a more thorough analysis of potential parking strategies and programs.
Direct staff to prepare a focused municipal code amendment. If the City Council desires changes to the City’s distance limit for off-site parking and/or to the requirement for a covenant, the Council may direct staff to process the code amendment and an LCP amendment.
Direct staff to prepare necessary code amendments to develop new or expanded commercial parking programs. The Council may direct staff to prepare necessary code and/or Specific Plan amendments to develop a parking district program, an expanded shared parking program, an in-lieu parking fee program, or any combination thereof, and to process an LCP amendment following local adoption.
City of Coronado Page 285
Direct staff to explore potential financing and land acquisition opportunities. If the City Council is interested in pursuing a possible commercial parking district program, the Council could direct staff to explore opportunities to acquire necessary property and financing to provide off-site parking facilities.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impacts have been identified.
ALTERNATIVE:
The City Council may direct staff to proceed with the options listed in the staff report or any other alternative approach they deem appropriate.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:
This report is not considered a project under CEQA and is therefore exempt from environmental review. Environmental review would be required if the Council directs staff to proceed with any code amendments.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
No notice required.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 2013 City Council Staff Report with Attachments
2. 2012 City Council Meeting Minutes
Submitted By: Community Development Department / Rich Grunow City of Coronado Page 286
CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS ON
CORONADO'S PARKING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO JOINT USE AND VALET PARKING, AND PARKING METER PROGRAM. (PC 2012~02 CITY OF
CORONADO)
ISSUE: That the City Council consider the Planning Commission recommendations and provide direction.
RECOMMENDATION: Review the Planning Commission recommendations regarding joint use and valet parking regulations, and parking meter program; determine if changes are desired; and provide staff direction. Planning Commission recommendations:
1. Joint Use: review reasonableness of limiting joint use to a standard of 200 feet which may be too restrictive; remove same block and crossing street prohibition;
2. Valet: determine if valet satisfies a business's parking requirement or if it should be limited to use by businesses for convenience only; develop a comprehensive valet parking plan; clarify the decision-making process followed for various valet and joint use parking plans.
3. Parking Meter Program: review program with key interest groups for opportunities to improve the system with consideration given to incorporating better technology and increasing parking meter rates to achieve tumover.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA} DETERMINATION: City Council review of existing regulations with no formal action to amend ordinances does not constitute a project and therefore is not subject to CEQA. CEQA review may be required in the future should the City Council determine that changes are desired.
BACKGROUND: At the May I, 2012, City Council meeting, the Council reviewed the General Plan policies, Orange Avenue Corridor Specific Plan (OACSP) Regulations, and Municipal Code parking standards to determine if changes were needed or desired. This matter was brought to the City Council at the request of Councilmember Downey. After public input and lengthy Council discussion, it was concluded that the City's current General Plan policies reflect the goals of the City Council. The Council did decide, however, to refer the City's Joint Use and Valet parking regulations and Par.king Meter Program to the Planning Commission for review (See Attachment 1 Exhibit 1 for City Council minutes). These matters were referred although it was recognized that changes may not be pursued due to lengthy, required Coastal Commission approvals if parking code changes are made to the City's Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan.
On September 11, 2012, the Planning Commission reviewed the City's existing regulations pertaining to joint use and valet parking, and the existing Parking Meter Program. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that 1) some changes to joint use and valet parking regulations be made; e.g., consider increasing the 200 foot distance requirement; 2) direct staff to research the issue of refining the process and strengthening the governance of managing the code for approved projects; 3) direct staff to 1/15/13
I I h
307
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 287
develop a comprehensive valet parking plan including appropriate process requirements; 4) the Council make a determination if valet services satisfies parking requirements or serves solely as a business enhancement; and 5) the parking meter program be reviewed with consideration given to incorporating better technology and increasing parking meter rates to achieve greater turnover. (See attachment 2 for Planning Commission minutes).
PUBLIC NOTICE: No special notice was required for this discussion item; however, a notice was placed in the Coronado Eagle & Journal on January 2, 2013. Coronado Main Street and the Coronado Chamber of Commerce were informed of this discussion item as was a resident who ~t!.9,1,:l~sted notification.
ANALYSIS: Detailed infonnation regarding the City's General Plan, zoning ordinance regulations, and survey data was provided to the Planning Commission. For background information, the entire Planning Commission staff report is included with this staff report as Attachment 1. A brief summary of the issues are identified below along with the Planning Commission recommendations to the City Council.
JOINT USE PARKING: In general, Joint Use Parking allows a business without adequate onsite parking to use the parking of another business to satisfy the parking requirement when that business is not in operation. The Joint Use Parking regulations have been in effect since 1973. (1) One of the conditions of joint use parking is that off-street parking facilities provided by another building or use shall be located within 200 feet of the building that is being served (CMC
86.58.190.C.l) The City's typical commercial block is at least 500 feet long. If it is the goal of the City, as stated in the General Plan and Orange Avenue Corridor Specific Plan, to allow offsite parking facilities to assist with the provision of an establishment's parking, the 200-foot standard may be too restrictive.
(2) A second condition of the Joint Use Parking regulations is that a maximum of 50% of the required parking could be provided by Joint Use. As noted to the Planning Commission, this 50% requirement may be too arduous for a downtown like Coronado's where there are many small parcels with little availability for on-site parking.
Planning Commission Recommendation: ( l) that the City Council review the reasonableness of the 200-foot standard and (2) that the 50% requirement remain.
LOCATION: Where required parking is located off-site, the zoning ordinance has specific location regulations identifying the maximum distance of the required parking to the establishment that is being served.
(1) A similar 200-foot location restriction as described above exists in location regulations of CMC section 86.58.190.
(2) A second location restriction is that the parking be located in the same block and connected to the buildings they are to serve with a direct access way that does not cross a public street. The regulation that parking be located within the same block and with a direct access way that does not cross a public street may also be limiting for the downtown. For example, there may be an 1/15/13
308 City of Coronado Page 288
opportunity to provide required parking across Orange A venue at a parking lot/site; however, this standard would preclude its use.
Planning Commission Recommendations: that the 200-foot standard as described above be reviewed and that the same block standard and restriction from crossing a public street be removed.
During this parking discussion, an additional recommendation was made to the City Council that the City Council direct staff to research the issue of refming the process and strengthening the governance of managing the code as it relates to approved parking plans. The City's current parking plan approvals do not address or provide for ongoing monitoring or periodic review but rather are addressed on a complaint basis. If the City Council desires a pro-active parking monitoring program, this could be included in changes to the parking approval process.
VALET PARKING: Valet parking is provided as a convenience to the customers of a business establishment and, in other cases, is provided as a means to satisfy a parking requirement. Some valet parking services are provided on site and some are provided off site. The City's Valet Parking regulations have been in effect since 1973. The code could be changed to clarify parking requirements and valet operational conditions, and parking plan review process (86.58.080). The review process could be improved/clarified for when a valet operation is reviewed by the Traffic Operations Committee, Planning Commission, or only by the City Council.
Planning Commission Recommendations: that (1) the City CoW1cil direct staff to develop a comprehensive valet parking plan including appropriate process requirements and (2) the Council make a determination if valet services should be allowed to satisfy parking requirements or may only serve solely as a business enhancement.
It is questionable whether there is a market for valet service in the downtown area. If the development of a comprehensive valet parking plan is pursued, it might identify key locations/sites in the commercial district for valet operations and the type of community valet service that could be provided by an organization, entity or other agency. In the past, valet services have been allowed to satisfy parking requirements. The Planning Commission questions whether valet should continue to satisfy a business's parking requirements.
PROCESS~ The Zoning Ordinance identifies the planning review process that is followed for various parking plans. The review process varies, depending on the type of parking plan proposed (CMC 86.58.230). Joint Use and Common Facilities Parking Plans require Planning Commission and City CoW1ciI approval. Parking Plans for new restaurants or businesses with on-site improvements require Design Review and Planning Commission approval. Valet Parking Plans are typically reviewed by the Traffic Operations Committee and City Council.
Planning Commission Recommendation: that the code be updated to clarify/improve the review and the decision-making process for the various types of parking plans as follows: (1) the parking plan approval process remain discretionary (vs. administrative); (2) parking plans involving aesthetic changes be reviewed by the Design Review Commission; (3) parking plans 1/15/13
309 City of Coronado Page 289
involving the satisfaction of parking requirements for businesses be reviewed by the Planning Commission appealable to the City Council. This would include parking plans with new on-site parking/layout, off-site parking provided by valet services, or joint use. ( 4) parking plans involving use of the City right-of-way to provide valet services as a convenience to customers (rather than meeting a parking requirement) be reviewed by the Traffic Operations Committee and be appealable to the City Council. (The City Council may want to retain final decisionmaking authority for valet services using the City right-of-way).
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE ISSUES: As explained previously to the City Council, the Parking Chapter of the Municipal Code is part of the City's Local Coastal Program. ····t11e·cfly'st.:ocar·coastarProiram··cLcP)tana·use··p1anwas·certined6y tfie caftf'onuaCoasta1· Commission in December 1983. Any changes that are made to the Parking Chapter will require Coastal Commission approval. The Coastal Commission's interest has been and continues to be that adequate parking exists within the commercial area to minimize parking impacts to protect coastal access along Ocean Boulevard and the bay area along First Street.
When the OACSP was adopted, the Coastal Commission required a clause within the OACSP and paragraphs to be inserted within the LCP Land Use Plan regarding parking standards, changes, and need for possible future parking analysis and studies. Any changes to the Parking Chapter will require Coastal Commission review and may trigger some of these parking studies to be undertaken.
The Joint Use and Valet parking regulations have been in effect since 1973 and could be updated. However, requests for Joint Use and Valet parking have only occurred a few times over the past 20 years. Given the infrequency of such requests, it may not be in the City's best interest to go through the LCP amendment process for changes to zoning regulations that are used only rarely.
PARKING METER PROGRAM: The last item the City Council asked the Planning Commission to review was the Parking Meter Program. Parking metering is a management system that is intended to provide more efficient use of metered parking within the Commercial zone. Appropriate parking metering creates turnover, thereby, producing a higher frequency of parking availability. Parking experts, such as Donald Shoup, author of the High Cost of Free Parking, suggests/recommends metering should be priced to maximize efficient use of parking.
A survey was completed of local communities and cities throughout the State regarding meter fares and hours of enforcement. Parking meter systems and the appropriate meter pricing warrants more technical study; however, it is clear Coronado's meter rates are far below the standard rate. The general concept of utilizing parking more efficiently within the Commercial zone is important in relation to parking supply to serve commercial uses. If the City determines it would be appropriate to enhance usability and turnover of street parking, one mechanism would be to change the fee structure of the parking meters. The Chamber of Commerce, Main Street organization, local businesses, the Tourism Improvement District, the Traffic Operations Committee and Police Department should all be participants in such a discussion. 1/15/13
310 City of Coronado Page 290
Planning Commission Recommendation: The Parking Meter Program should be reviewed with key interest groups and consideration given to incorporating better technology and increasing parking meter rates.
MISCELLANEOUS: The Bicycle Advisory Committee has an item on this agenda that recommends the City-installation of bicycle parking facilities within the Commercial zone. In addition, the Committee is interested in seeing the City implement vehicular parking requirements that encourage private developments to install bicycle parking. Bicycle facilities may increase bicycle use and decrease vehicular use to retail and/or restaurant establishments and is supported by the Orange A venue Corridor Specific Plan. The Committee has also discussed reductions to the amount of required vehicular parking in exchange for providing a certain number of bicycle parking facilities. Similar to joint use and valet parking, this would be another method a business could implement to address its parking requirements. However, as discussed above, any change to the Parking Chapter, including the number of parking spaces required for a business, would trigger a Local Coastal Program Amendment.
CONCLUSION: The Joint Use and Valet parking regulations have existed since 1973 and, as recommended by the Planning Commission, there are opportunities for improvement. However, as pointed out during meetings on this topic, these types of parking plans have rarely been used in over 20+ years, and the amount of time and effort to amend the City's LCP may not be worth the results. Lastly, there appears to be some interest for the City Council to review the City's Parking Meter Program. If the Council supports the recommendation, a stakeholders group could be formed to assist with this endeavor.
Submitted by Community Development/McCaull
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Report including CC minutes, surveys, ordinances
2. Planning Commission minutes
i:\stafflann\special projects\2012 review parking & land use\pc recommendations to cc on parking.doc
CM ACM AS CA CC CD EPD F G L P PS R
J~ TR NA JNC NA RAH EW NA NA NA ML NA NA
1/15/13
311 City of Coronado Page 291
Regular Meeting
CORONADO PLANNING COMMISSION
DISCUSSION ITEM
ATTACHMENT 1
September 11, 2012
PC 2012-02 CITY OF CORONADO: REVIEW OF CORONADO'S PARKING
CHAPTER REGARDING JOINT USE AND VALET PARKING REGULATIONS AND PARKING METER PROGRAM.
ISSUE: Planning Commission review of the Parking Chapter regarding Joint Use and Valet Parking Regulations and Parking Meter Program and opportunities for improvements.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission review the material, receive public comment, determine if there are opportunities for improvements, and formulate a recommendation to the City Council for their future consideration.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION:
Planning Commission review of existing regulations with no fonnal action to amend ordinances does not constitute a project and therefore is exempt from CEQA. CEQA review may be required in the future should the City Council detennine that changes are desired.
BACKGROUND: At the May I, 2012, City Council meeting, the Council reviewed the General Plan policies, Orange A venue Corridor Specific Plan Regulations, and Municipal Code parking standards to detennine if changes were needed or desired. After public input and lengthy Council discussion, it was concluded that the City's current General Plan policies reflect the goals of the City Council. The Council did decide, however, to refer the City's joint use and valet parking regulations and Parking meter Program to the Planning Commission for review (See attaclnnent 1 for City Council minutes).
The purpose of today's item is for the Planning Commission to review the existing regulations, determine if there may be opportunities for improvements, and formulate a recommendation on any suggested changes to the City Council for their future consideration.
PUBLIC NOTICE: No special notice was required for this discussion item; however, Coronado Main Street and the Coronado Chamber of Commerce were informed of this discussion item. A resident who requested notification was also provided notice.
ANALYSIS: The Parking Element of the General Plan establishes general policies and goals for parking within the Commercial Zone. The Orange Avenue Corridor Specific Plan (OACSP) also identifies parking goals that are consistent with the Parking Element. The Parking Chapter and OACSP of the Municipal Code contain regulations and standards to implement the policies and goals of these plans. The OACSP focuses on the number of parking spaces required for commercial uses while the Parking Chapter contains more technical regulations pertaining to size, maneuvering and paving requirements. The Parking Chapter also outlines different parking options that may be used to satisfy parking requirements, such as Joint Use and Valet Parking. 313 City of Coronado Page 292
The Parking Element and OACSP identify the following goals that are important in the context of this discussion item:
General Plan Parking Element Goals and Policies:
1. Encourage new commercial development to make available any excess parking facilities to nearby existing commercial establishments that lack sufficient parking or to the City for public parking.
Require thatnew development or·tedevelopinent provides adequate parking facilities in. a ' ··· functional and unobtrusive manner.
Orange Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Goals:
1. Consider alternatives to on-site parking that allow businesses to satisfy the parking requirements, such as valet parking and shared parking.
2. Continue to pursue parking agreements with commercial owners of underutilized parking garages.
The Joint Use and Valet parking regulations should implement/facilitate the policies and goals identified above. Listed below are the zoning regulations pertaining to Joint Use and Valet Parking as well as the planning process for the review of these parking plans. Following the zoning code regulations is a brief discussion on how the regulations could be improved.
In addition, staff completed a survey of several coastal communities throughout the state to compare/contrast ordinances and regulations used by other municipalities. The survey results are identified in Attachment 2. If the City determines changes are desired to the existing code) some regulations used by other municipalities may be appropriate to include in a revised City Ordinance.
JOINT USE PARKING: In general, Joint Use Parking allows a business without adequate on~ site parking to use the parking of another business to satisfy the parking requirement when that business is not in operation. The Joint Use parking regulations have been in effect since 1973 and could be updated and improved.
Existing Code: Joint Use Parking Regulations (86.58.ito) The City may, upon application by the owner or lessee of any property, authorize the joint use of parking facilities by the following uses or activities under the conditions specified herein:
A. Up to 50 percent of the parkingfacilities required by this chapter for a use considered to be primarily a daytime use may be provided by the parking facilities of a use considered to be primarily a nighttime use; up to 50 percent of the parking facilities of a use considered to be primarily a nighttime use may be provided by the parking facilities of a use considered to be primarily a daytime use, provided such reciprocal parking area shall be subject to conditions set forth in subsection C of this section.
314 City of Coronado Page 293
B. The following uses are typical daytime uses: banks, business offices, retail stores, personal service shops, clothing or shoe repair or service shops, manufacturing or wholesale buildings and similar uses; the following uses are typical of nighttime and/or Sunday uses:
auditoriums incidental to a public or parochial school churches, dance halls, theaters, and bars.
C. Conditions Required for Joint Use.
1. The building or use for which application is being made for authority to utilize the existing off-street parking facilities provided by another building or use shall be located within 200 feet of such parking facility and located in accordance with CMC
86.58.190(D).
2. The applicant shall show that there is no· substantial conflict in the principal operating hours of the building or uses for which the joint use of off-street parking facilities is proposed.
3. If the building, structure, or improvement requiring parking space is in one ownership, and the required parking space provided in another ownership, practically or wholly, there shall be a recording in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder of a covenant by such owner or owners as prescribed by CMC 86.58.180. (Ord. 1971 § 2, 2005)
Possible Code Updates to Joint Use Parking Regulations: One of the Joint Use Parking conditions is that a maximum of 50% of the required parking can be provided by Joint Use. It could be argued that the 50% requirement is too arduous for a downtown like Coronado's where there are many small parcels with little availability for on-site parking. The Commission should consider whether the 50% standard effectively implements the goals/policies of the Parking Element and OACSP.
A second Joint Use Parking condition is that the parking be located within 200' of a use being served. A typical commercial block in Coronado is 500' long. The San Diego Association of Government (SANDAG) and the Regional Comprehensive Plan recognize Coronado's commercial areas as "Smart Growth Areas". The commercial areas are easily walkable, accessible by bicyclists, with availability of public trolley and bus services. The 200' requirement appears too restrictive to effectively implement joint use parking facilities. Survey results showed distance requirements in other jurisdictions varied :from 150' to 1,300'. The 200' requirement is discussed in more detail under the LOCATION regulations. Possible code updates include the following:
• Revisions to the percentage of required parking allowed to be off-site • Revisions to the maximum distance of parking :from establishment being served LOCATION: Where required parking is located off-site, the zoning ordinance has specific location regulations identifying the maximum distance of the required parking to the establishment that is being served.
Existing Code: Location Regulations (86.58.190)
Off-street parking facilities shall be located as hereinafter specified. Where a distance is specified, such distance shall be the walking distance measured from the nearest point of the building that such facility is required to serve.
315 City of Coronado Page 294
D. For uses other than those specified above, not over 200 feet from the buildings they are required to serve, all parking areas are to be located in the same block, and connected to the buildings they are to serve with a direct access way that does not cross a public street.
Possible Code Updates for Location Regulations: This section should be revised to clarify what parking facilities the standards apply to; for example, it should be clear whether this standard applies to Joint Use, or Valet facilities. As identified in the Joint Use discussion above> the City's typical commercial block is at least 500' long. If it is the goal of the City to allow offsite parking facilities to assist with the provision of an establishment's parking) the 200' standard ·· ''maybe too' arduous: ·· Additionally,· some blocks have limited parking ·oppo.rtunitieswhile others· close by may have smplus parking. A greater distance may allow for greater use of shared parking.
The regulation that parking be located within the same block and with a direct access way that does not cross a public street may also be limiting for the downtown. For example, there may be an opportunity to provide required parking across Orange Avenue at a parking lot/site; however, the standard would preclude its use. Lastly, the method for measuring a facilitfs proximity to the off-site parking could be improved if deemed necessary. Possible code improvements include:
• Address pedestrian safety
• Clarify location restrictions apply to Joint Use
• Evaluate maximum distance of off-site par.king from establishment being served • Clarify access way standards from parking to establishment being served • Clarify how the distance is measured
VALET PARKING: The Valet Parking regulations have also been in effect since 1973. Valet operations have changed over the years and the City's standards lack specificity and could be improved. The code could clarify considerations for valet operations, operational conditions, and parking plan review process.
Existing Code: Valet Parking Regulations (86.58.080)
Valet parking may be permitted subject to the following conditions:
A. All points of ingress shall be marked "valet parking only" or similar language to that effect, in a manner satisfactory to the Community Development Department. Such markings may include pavement markings or both
B. Valet parking areas shall be separated from adjacent or adjoining self-parking areas.
C. Vehicle parking by any person other than a valet shall not be permitted (Ord. 1971 § 2, 2005)
Possible Code Updates for Valet Parking Regulations: Valet parking is provided as a convenience to the customers of a business establishment and in other cases, is provided as a means to satisfy a parking requirement. Some valet par.king services are provided on site and some are provide off site. For example, at Vigilucci's restaurant, the parking is provided as a convenience to its customers and is located on site within the subterranean garage of the 316 City of Coronado Page 295
Coronado Plaza building. At Miguelito's restaurant, the valet parking is provided as a means to satisfy a parking requirement and is located off-site within the subterranean garage of the Coronado Beach Resort. The process could be clarified as to how these varying valet parking services are authorized. Survey results indicate there are not many cities that have valet ordinances, those that do have few standards and provide flexibility through the discretionary review process. Possible considerations for valet services include the following:
• Location of valet parking to establishment being served to allow the service to operate smoothly, functionally and efficiently
• Valet route of travel
• Public benefit to providing valet in relation to loss of public parking to provide loading/unloading zone
• Valet loading/unloading space - not exclusive use - also operate as a passenger loading zone
• Valet queuing, stacking, and number of personnel to operate service efficiently • Valet service identification including signage/podium, operator identification by uniform, badge, patch or other means of identification
• Fees for services addressed with permit request
• Periodic inspections
• Clarify Review Process - Traffic Operations Committee (TOC), Planning Commission, and City Council. Since the valet operation will typically involve use of the right-of-way, the final decision maker would be the City Council. This issue is discussed in more detail under Process.
It should be noted that while the City's standards focus on services provided for individual businesses, some commercial districts provide a collective valet service that provides service for many uses in a business district. Valet parking services that serve a large number of users rather than on a small business-by-business or piece meal fashion tend to be more effective. The greater volume of participation leads to increased public awareness and use, which may also lead to reduced operational costs. A collective parking valet service relies, however, upon a large reservoir of parking and business district group to coordinate and or fund such a program. To date, Coronado's businesses, Chamber of Commerce, and Main Street have not indicated a desire or need to undertake/implement/fund such a program; nor is it certain that there is a market for such a service in the downtown core area.
PROCESS: The Zoning Ordinance identifies the planning review process that is used for various parking plans. The review process varies, depending on the type of parking plan proposed. Joint Use and Common Facilities Parking Plans require Planning Commission and City Council approval. Parking Plans for new restaurants or businesses with on-site improvements require Design Review and Planning Commission approval. Valet Parking Plans are typically only reviewed by the TOC and City Council.
If the parking regulations are written with specificity, it may not be necessary to have a discretionary review process. On the other hand, if the regulations are somewhat vague, and open to interpretation on an individual case or site-by-site basis, it may be appropriate to retain a discretionary, e.g. Planning Commission or City Council review process. 317 City of Coronado Page 296
Existing Code: Parking Plan Review Process (86.58.230)
A. The plan of a project's proposed parking area shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for processing prior to the issuance of any permit for the project for which the parking area is intended Each plan shall clearly indicate the proposed developments, including location, size, shape, design, curb cuts, internal traffic circulation, lighting, landscaping and other features and appurtenances of the proposed parking area.
B. The parking plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Commission in accordance with CMC Title 80.
C. Unless otherwise provided, the Community Development Department shall determine · whethertheplttffiS tn conjdrfrfttttceWiththis title.
D. Parking plans for property within the C-R, and H-M Zones, and parking plans for nonresidential development on property in Residential Zones, or parking plans that involve joint use or common use shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council. Thereafter, the plan shall be submitted to the City Council, which, after a noticed public hearing (as provided for in CMC 86. 02.120, Determination of use), will approve, disapprove or conditionally approve the plan. The City Council may refer the plan to the Traffic Operations Committee for review and recommendation. Any parking plan submitted/or property within the C Zone shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission for final action unless appealed to the City Council. Plans required to be processed in accordance with this subsection shall be accompanied by a filing fee as required by resolution of the City Council.
Possible Code Updates to Parking Plan Process RegyJations: The planning review process should be clarified as to whether it is an administrative or discretionary review process. If standards are clear and a project conforms to the code, there may not be a need for a discretionary permit process. If a discretionary permit is desired, the code could be less specific to allow flexibility during the review process to address the individual and unique conditions of a particular site and surrounding area. In any event, the code could be updated to clarify the planning review process and decision~making body for the various types of parking plans.
Possible code updates are as follows:
• Administrative versus Discretionary process (staff versus Planning Commission or City Council)
• Provide a consistent process (approving authority) - Planning Commission or City Council
• Clarify valet parking that is proposed to meet a parking requirement is reviewed by the TOC, Planning Commission and City Council.
• Clarify valet parking that is proposed to utilize the public right~of-way only to provide to an additional service to its customers is reviewed by the TOC and City Council approval.
• Clarify Design Review Commission role is for new or remodeled parking designs · LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE ISSUES: It is important to mention that the Parking Chapter of the Municipal Code is part of the City's Local Coastal Program. The City's Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan was certified by the California Coastal Commission in December 1983. It was one of the earliest LCP's adopted in the State and 318 City of Coronado Page 297
provides more local authority and review of development within the community than localities with more recently adopted plans. Any changes that are made to the Parking Chapter will require Coastal Commission approval. The Coastal Commission's interest has been and continues to be that adequate parking exists within the commercial area to minimize parking impacts and to protect coastal access along Ocean Boulevard and the Bay area along First Street.
When the OACSP was adopted, the Coastal Commission required a clause within the OACSP and paragraphs to be inserted within the LCP Land Use Plan regarding parking standards, changes, and need for possible future parking analysis and studies. Any changes to the Parking Chapter will require Coastal Commission review and may trigger some of these parking studies to be completed.
As explained to the City Council, the Joint Use and Valet parking regulations have been in effect since 1973 and could be updated. However, requests for Joint Use and Valet parking have only occurred a few times over the past twenty years. Given the infrequency of such requests, it may not be in the City's best interest to go through the LCP amendment process for changes to zoning regulations that are used only rarely.
PARKING METER PROGRAM: The last item the City Council asked the Planning Commission to review was the Parking Meter Program. Parking Metering is a management system that is intended to provide more efficient use of metered parking within the Commercial zone. Appropriate parking metering creates tum over, thereby, producing a higher frequency of parking availability. Parking experts, such as Donald Shoup, author of the High Cost of Free Parking, indicates metering should be priced to maximize efficient use of parking.
Parking Metering: The Parking Element and OACSP identify the following goals that are important in the context of parking metering.
Parking Element Goals and Policies:
1. To maximize the efficient use of public rights-of-way for parking use; Orange Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Goals:
1. Evaluate the need for additional short-term parking spaces on Orange Avenue Parking structures and parking metering were addressed in the technical parking study completed by the Mission Group for the OACSP in 2002. The study looked at availability of parking, parking demand, and parking opportunities. The general conclusion of the study was that for the most part, there was an availability of parking within the commercial areas with the exception of peak summer times in certain areas of the community (El Cordova/Brigantine/La Avenida block). It recognized there was a "perceived" parking problem for residents who could not find a place to park directly in front of the desired business and that a short walking distance away provided adequate parking. The study pointed out that low parking meter costs discourage a quick turnover of vehicles; thus, reducing the frequency of available parking for residents and tourists within the commercial areas of Orange Avenue.
319 City of Coronado Page 298
The attached survey shows a range of hourly fees that are-charged and days/hours when parking meters are enforced (see attachment 3). Coronado's parking meters are $.25 an hour and are enforced Monday through Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Meters are not enforced on Sundays.
Many coastal cities throughout the State charge $1.00 an hour with enforcement on all days of the week beginning at 9:00 a.m. until at least 6:00 p.m. A f-ew cities enforce meters until 9:00 p.m. in the evening. The desire to change the existing parking meter system does not seem to be a community issue; however, it is widely accepted in the professional field that more efficient use of metered parking spaces leads to increased availability of parking.
Possible Changes to·· ParkingMeterl,rogram:· · The stitveY infof.tfilltion is· provided" for·the Planning Commission's general information. Parking meter systems and the appropriate meter pricing warrants more technical study; however, it is clear Coronado's meter rates are far below the standard rate. The general concept of utilizing parking more efficiently within the Commercial zone is important in relation to parking supply to serve commercial uses. If the City determines it would be appropriate to enhance usability of street parking, one mechanism would be to change the fee structure of the parking meters. The Chamber of Commerce, Main Street organization, local businesses, the Tourism Improvement District, the Traffic Operations Commission and Police Department would all be participants in such a discussion.
Summary: The Planning Commission should review the information provided, determine if there are opportunities for improvement, and formulate a list of recommended changes (if any) to the City Council for their consideration.
Attachments:
1. City Council minutes
2. Joint Use and Valet Parking Surveys
3. Parking Meter Survey
4. Chapter 86.58
May 1, 2012 City Council report can be viewed at www.coronado.ca.us under Quick Links, City Council Agendas and Minutes, May 1, 2012 Complete Agenda. 320 City of Coronado Page 299
ATTACHMENT 1
EXHIBIT 1
May 1, 2012 City Council Minutes
Uc. Review of General Plan Policies, Orange Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Regulations and Parking Standards, and Determine if Changes are Needed.
Ann McCaull, Senior Planner, provided the staff report.
Councilmember Woiwode asked if the City Council were to propose something that triggered the Coastal Commission's interest would their answer be a yes or a no or would they be able to come back and change what has already been approved in the past.
Ms. McCaull responded that there is the possibility that it could open up the entire parking chapter and what has been approved in the past. If the Coastal Commission feels as if the parking surveys that the City provides to them indicate that the new regulations have impacts on Coastal access there is the possibility they could require some conditions.
City Attorney Johanna Canlas added that having recent experience before the Coastal Commission, what she has noted, and this is also a topic with the Coastal Cities group with the League of California Cities, is that in addition to some of the studies that they may require they can open up additional conditions that they have recently imposed on land use plan with the City, including mitigation fees and items that were not originally conditions as part of the City's original LCP. That is a distinct possibility.
Mr. Woiwode suggested then that once the application is made you can't go back and say never mind.
Ms. Canlas responded that the City could always not adopt the Coastal Commission's certification. The risk then is if you are to implement it there could be enforcement action. At the other end, you don't do the change.
Mayor Tanaka asked what enforcement actions the Commission can initiate.
Ms. Canlas explained that the most recent one they usually do is a Coastal Act Violation. While they are understaffed and enforcement is not usually monitored, what they usually do is impose monetary fines or they withhold Coastal Development Permits. Those are some of the actions they have taken. They have also, in some of the coastal cities, done cease and desist letters.
They have also implemented some sort of settlement agreement with the idea that some part of the Coastal Act was somehow violated.
Councilmember Denny th.inks that what is being proposed before the Council, · sounds very lengthy, time consuming, expensive, and risky. She asked to go to the slide that showed the parking and use regulations.
Councilmember Ovrom wanted to confirm his recollection that the whole City is under the purview of the Coastal Commission.
Ms. McCaull confirmed that.
Mayor Tanaka invited public comment.
321 City of Coronado Page 300
Marilyn Field referred to Mr. Monroe's comments about the very careful consideration that was given into the parking requirements when he was on the parking committee and the OASP committee. He talked, in particular, about the concern when they looked at the number of restaurants Coronado had and then at retail and were trying to encourage a mix of restaurants and retail and they were also concerned about the availability of parking and they very carefully considered what they wanted to do about parking requirements for restaurants versus retail with the idea-being that they didn't just want a complete strip of restaurants. She is concerned that if the parking requirements are loosened or eliminated that we will get a long strip of restaurants and she is very concerned because most of the restaurants now have alcohol licenses and we may · · .. ·.•get·a·string•ofwhat she thin.ks· are·:reattybars late at night:·· ShedsVefyconcern:etl aoouf that·smr is concerned about it for the City in general and for her particular neighborhood. She mentioned one particular concern. A year or so ago when Nicky Tomaselli owned Nicky Rottens and was in partnership with Tim Aaron he told some neighbor that what he really was trying to do was to get pennission from the City to open the roof top for dining. He said he couldn't do it because of parking. If the parking restrictions are relaxed then maybe he could. If that is what could be in Tim Aaron's mind now she would be very concerned about how that could affect the 100 block of Orange Avenue and also to have more of a restaurant strip on Orange A venue. She noticed in the staff report an idea about making the parking lot that is next to The Landing condominiums more available for restaurants or other parking but she doubts that the Coastal Commission would be sympathetic. They insisted on that being public parking because they were trying to increase coastal access, not restaurant access. She thinks that could be a concern.
Rita Sarich, Coronado MainStreet, commented that should the Council decide to expand the review of more than just the staff recommendation, the minimum staff recommendation, MainStreet hopes that the community will have an opportunity to give input. To that end, at the MainStreet Board meeting this morning, and they are fortunate to have four former Specific Plan Committee members on the Board, and all four agreed to serve should the Council deem it desirable to reconvene the Specific Plan. She thinks that is what MainStreet is most interested in. Obviously this is an important document for the vision of downtown.
Dan Orr reminded the City Council of the Bicycle Master Plan that does have bicycle parking as a component. He encouraged the Council to encourage staff to take a look at that every once in a while when talking about the OACSP and some other areas in Coronado. For his money, if the Council goes after the Coastal Commission he encourages them to do so.
William Field suggested that the City Council not do anything about parking until the City comes to grips with the question of putting the control of alcoholic beverages under the zoning code of the City in order to control the use of alcoholic beverages because ABC isn't going to do it for the City. As usual, with regulation there are a lot of unintended consequences. This may seem silly but if the Council were to waive its parking requirements for restaurants in some way he doesn't see that any owner of retain property in the City of Coronado wouldn't have to consider his highest and best use for that retail property as to whether it oughtn't to be a bar or a restaurant with a 47 license that can moxph into a bar and nightclub after 10 pm because the regulations of the ABC don't define a restaurant to preclude that. That would be on the road to . establishing Coronado as a drinking destination with an Orange A venue strip of nightclub bars, restaurant bars, whatever you want to call them. If the present owners of the retail property decided they didn't want to do that they could always sell their property to someone who would. 322 City of Coronado Page 301
He would suggest that this may sound farfetched but longer term it is threat that the Council should come to grips with as part of this whole process. He is sorry that he doesn't understand who is trying to go where with this process and what the agenda really is if there is one. He is trying to understand where staff is coming from.
Elaine Fenwick, First Street resident, agrees with Mr. Field about what is going to happen in the future. No one has brought up the church and school that are across the street right there in the 100 block. It is very sad to have maybe no representation from their point of view as they have been established here for a long time. The other thing she wanted to say about this bar strip of bar restaurants is who is really thinking about why all those condominiums are there. They wanted quality of life. They are losing that. It is no joke and she can't see anything but it getting worse and worse. She wants to be sure the Council is really thinking about the owners that are there too and are trying to live there and have a quality of life. She doesn't think they are. She doesn't think they are really thinking about those people. They took a survey and she thinks there are about 400 of them that were so close that hear that noise, even at 8 pm at night and then on. She doesn't know what they have to do to try to help the Council understand. Please consider that they have some rights to.
Dr. John Sexton, First Street resident, echoed the issue of noise. The City and State have some good codes about noise. The ordinances speak to the issue by saying that bars, after 9 pm and until 8 am, if you are going to have clearly audible noise beyond 50' of the establishment that is outside of the parameters. It would be great if that code were enforced. For instance, in the last two weeks comments were made to one of those establishments in the 100 block about them violating that code and they chose to give lots of reasons why they were not going to adhere to that piece. Additionally, what goes along with the patrons of those bar restaurants, when they retreat to their vehicles around 2 am and enter them and the music is still loud and their mufflers have been modified to not be within standards the residents have trouble sleeping in that area. It is important to realize that peace and comfort is important but also the health of the community.
The health is very much affected by noise of this caliber. The WHO, last year, issued a report about how this sort of noise is deleterious to health. They used language like 'the overwhelming evidence' speaks to the issue of the health impact of excessive noise. We are having that if there was enforcement of the codes, be it muffler modification, be it music after 9 pm, their peace and safety and health would be much better. He would hope that as the Council considers parking and other aspects of that plan that it take that into consideration.
Nancy 'Eddie' Warner, Coronado resident, thinks that the first recommendation from the staff report is the very most important where it says that pretty much everything is good the way it is.
The things that were pulled out as being potentially worth loo.king at were things like valet and joint use language that she thinks come up very infrequently and may not be important enough to risk rocking the Coastal Commission boat. The other one that was pulled out was the fast food kind of in and out restaurant or food service versus a sit down restaurant and she doesn't think making a distinction between the two types of restaurants is a big enough issue to start rocking that Coastal Commission boat. Her personal reaction to that is that most quick, walk in and out with food, type food service places do not really end up promoting the healthy eating habits·that this month is supposed to be supporting. She doesn't really see it adding to the quality or betterment of the community anyway. If the Council disagrees and feels that the whole parking thing needs to be opened up and aired out and redone she really wants to reiterate what Ms. 323 City of Coronado Page 302
Sarich said in that there was a lot of effort and a lot of time and money spent to come up with the OASP and there were a lot of checks and balances and give and talces that went into that document in its final version and if it is opened up for review she would hope it is opened up very thoroughly with lots of public input, workshops so that all those issues can be considered rather than looking at the parking issue narrowly. She doesn't know if the Council would want to reinstitute the original commission or start with brand new people but she would be happy to serve on that as she did back in the early 2000s when the whole thing was fonnulated.
Floyd Ross commented that the cure may be worse than the disease.
Councilmember Downey thanked the public for getting involved both here and there was a great discussion on eCoronado. One of the issues that brought this up was trying to figure out if the Orange A venue Corridor Specific Plan (OACSP) did what the City wanted it to do. Interestingly enough when you read it, and it is a great document, she wanted to go over a few things to explain why she brought this up. She thinks what the staff report did is great. She does not want to throw out the baby with the bath water. The a(eas they identified are exactly the areas that the City kind of punted on when it did the OACSP. There was a need for more detail and the City said it would be done someclay yet it did not. The document said it wasn't to be considered an inflexible document. Rather it was developed to provide as much flexibility as allowed by State law. It should also be noted that the OACSP reflects the vision to be implemented over a 20 year period and therefore may be amended over time to reflect the City,s most current vision for the area. Then it is broken down very well. It tells what the areas are and what the goal the committee came up with and then what the objective of that goal is and then how to implement it. The ones about mobility and parking are the important ones here. The goal was parking supply balance to support the viability of commercial zone businesses while minimizing impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods. And we would all agree if we could do that we have solved the problem. What we said we would do to try to solve that goal the objectives were to enhance the usability of transit stops (we haven't done a great job with that so obviously that is something we could think about), maximize on street parking and continue to pursue parking agreements with commercial owners of underutilized parking garages .. We have done none of that since we adopted it. One of the things that we could do, and she liked the staff's recommendation, and a prime example of this is Albertson's parking lot. Several times the owners of Albertson's have come before the City Council trying to find ways to use what is defined as extra spaces within their parking. Because of something that happened a long time ago and there is a deed on the land the City said no every time. Maybe now is the time to go back and see if that is a way to help deal with the parking issues. She doesn't know. She is curious to hear what the public has to say and what staff has to say but that is getting to this objective that we should have looked at that we haven't had a chance to do since we adopted the OASP. One of the implementation strategies we said we would do was consider alternatives to onsite parking that allow businesses to satisfy the parking requirements, such as valet parking and shared parking. We have seen this come up recently in Nicky Rottens but we also have had it come up with one of the Spatafore restaurants, Leroy's, where they worked out a deal so that they were using some of the spaces in that parking area but the City's rules are fairly complicated. You have to get agreement from the owner. You have to get it designated. 'It is a little bit more complicated. Maybe the City looks at whether there is an easier way to malce shared parking a possibility. The other recommendation under implementation strategies was to evaluate the need for additional bike racks in the commercial areas. One of the things she has 324 City of Coronado Page 303
heard is that there are a lot of people who come to the 100 block of Orange A venue on their bikes but we have no where for the bikes to go. One of the things, when we talk about how we allow alternatives to onsite parking to meet our parking requirements, maybe one of them is they provide specific parking for bikes or some way to help their customers not be a burden on the residential homes around the business. She thinks those are all worth looking at. The OASP had two purposes. Some might have argued that they were competing but she doesn't think they were. One was that to deal with parking impacts on residential areas but the other was to provide economic viability for our downtown area. The City was just coming off of the 1970s and 1980s when Coronado did not have a viable downtown. All the bars were here. MainStreet worked very hard as did the businesses to tum it around but it is almost like we have abdicated or obligations to the business community. The goal that we set in the OASP was an economically sound environment for merchants and property owners, well balanced .in its appeal to both local residents and visitors and the implementation strategy the City said it was going to do was develop specific criteria to measure the effectiveness of the plan over time such as five year increments. The City didn't do that. If we had all these goals we didn't decide how we were going to meet them or did meet them which is what probably is how you would want to reopen the plan. The City did the analysis and it didn't meet the goal so maybe it should be looked at again. She is not suggesting that the City open everything up and have to go in front of the Coastal Commission. She is suggesting that maybe we figure out what our goal was and how to measure if it was a success. One of the things she has heard suggests that it might not have been because some residents are as concerned now as they were then about vacant businesses. We didn't want to have vacant businesses. The one thing that everyone talks about if you go knocking around door to door when you are running for election is how to get Cora Mart cleaned up and used and previously it was the Village Theater. One can be checked off but we are still stuck with Cora Mart but now the City will have the empty pharmacy because of parking. At this point we have a restaurant, The Burger Lounge, that wants to move into it but can't because of parking. We had the issue and the Laundromat would have been empty but Nicky Rottens has worked at it to establish it but it was parking. Now maybe we are okay with that. That is fine.
But when we talked in the OACSP we recognized that if we wanted to get additional parking, the problem is there is no vacant land. The new businesses, like the ones next to the church and Vibone's that went up there, the mixed use, went underground and there are 26 spaces underground. That is the only way to do it. The problem is that we can't do that everywhere and what it does also defies what we said in the OACSP because we didn't want to tear down some of those existing buildings. We wanted to keep the buildings the way they were. It is a problem that it is conflicting goals. She is going to request to the Council that the City figure out what the goal was or is from the OACSP and how that is measured. Does the City think that what was done is fine? She will turn to the experts, MainStreet, the Chamber, etc. to figure out if the businesses are economically viable and if the lack of parking is a problem to attracting new businesses. We have a fairly high turnover of retail. The real goal we wanted was more retail.
Has the plan done that? What she has heard is that what it has done is made the current restaurant that is in any given space gold because it is grandfathered in and you don't have to get more parking. Rest assured Coronado will not have fewer restaurants. That is why it was very important that the City figure out what limits it wants to put on alcohol serving establis~ents going forward to make sure it is replaced with a restaurant and not a bar so we will deal with that separately but they will continue to be restaurants. It is not like we can make this go away. It will stay that way as long as the City has these rules and that is why she thought we should talk 325 City of Coronado Page 304
about it. That is the situation we are in. It won't change. So, are we happy with parking the way it is, which is okay but then we are going to have empty spaces occasionally because there isn't parking that goes along with those empty spaces unless someone expands and somehow gets the parking. With those comments, she thinks it is worth thinking about the things staff suggested but she completely agrees that this is an issue that needs to go to the public so the City can get input from everybody, particularly the businesses in the OACSP and the residents around it. One of the things that occurred recently is some residents in the 900 block of D wanted to talk to her because they feel that there is no more parking in their block because they have a lot of apartments there and they don't have their own garages and that happens to be a lot of the 0 •problem0inthe·lOObloekofDbecause·there aresomeapartme:fits'that·doitthave·gatagesand/6f the garages are being rented to people other than the current apartment dwellers. That is something that she thinks the City might want to think about in codes that doesn't have to deal with the Coastal Commission. If you have an apartment building and you have parking spaces you have to give them to the tenants. That might help. She thinks the City Council should open this up to the public before anything permanent is done.
Mayor Tanaka thinks that what we are talking about comes down to balance. If you are not careful you will create an imbalance in terms of the number of parking spaces that are available to the public that want to access those businesses and if the parking problem becomes bad enough people don't visit the businesses or people alter their plans to something that is more convenient. One element of this is examining if we have enough parking and if we don't, do we need to take action to make parking more convenient. He would say, in a general sense, that we have enough parking but we are at the balance point. In general, he tells people that when he is trying to shop or go somewhere on Orange Avenue, typically he can find a space. On weekends or busy times he may have to do a couple laps around Orange or he may have to park further than he usually does, but he doesn't typically cancel his activity because he can't find parking.
In general, he doesn't think we have a parking problem in the sense that we need to take radical action. But he doesn't think we are far away from one and if a certain number of events happen to tip the cart, then he thinks we could be in a very different place and then we would potentially have to take action. Another element that requires balance is the empty store fronts mentioned by Ms .. Downey. If our current requirement is for retail space to need 1 parking space for 500 sq. ft. and for a restaurant to need 1 parking space per 100 sq. ft., to him that is really at the heart of the issue of whether that needs to be looked at again. In a new use, the parking requirement is 1 parking space per 500 sq. ft. of retail if the parcel is more than 7,000 sq. ft. If it is less than 7,000 sq. ft. what would the case be?
· Ms. McCaull responded that there is no parking requirement in that case. For a new restaurant it is 1 parking space for 100 sq. ft.
Mayor Tanaka stated that the reason he is citing these requirements is because if the City sets public policy around Nicky Rottens he thinks the City would have a very different set of policies than we would for most blocks where we don't have a public outcry against one establishment.
His goal is not to set policy around the one business. His goal is to try to figure out what policy suits the most blocks for the best. Burger Lounge has been cited as the opposite example. That is not one that he receives a number of resident complaints and iJ is a business that contacted the business next door and they couldn't make it work because the pharmacy is not a restaurant.
Therefore, if Burger Lounge moved into that space they would need 1 parking space per l 00 sq. 326 City of Coronado Page 305
ft. and that is just not financially viable. To him part of why the City Council is discussing this is because it is asking itself if it wants to keep that standard in place or not and if it is going to be kept in place then is the Council, as public officials, going to try to come up with a policy that works better. In other words, if someone has to come up with five spaces to get into that next door spot Does the Council want to make it easier for them to access Bank of America's parking spots, for example? One thing he thinks is pretty clear is if Bank of America has quite a · few unused parking spaces then he doesn't see a negative in creating a· plan were people can park at a comer and have someone else take their car into Bank of America. The three areas that he thinks have a potential for this, and it has a potential to backfire, for a valet program, are the Bank of America lot and the two parking lots for Vons and Albertson's. With those you would have to be very cautious and say, at most, a small number like 3 or 5. You would have to go back to the code and see how many spaces Vons or Alberston's need to have all the time and then see what the surplus is above that number. Those are centrally located. They wouldn't require new construction projects and those properties could make additional money on something that is premium like parking. Those are things he doesn't see a danger in the City looking at more but he does agree with speakers who say that if you pick at this too much you might really regret it. He thinks it would be a mistake, though, for the City not to examine any of this out of fear. He does think there are areas where the City could improve. If we want to either look at or stand by our current parking standards the City owes it to fairness to help people find out how they might be able to reach those parking standards and come up with the 5 spaces or so. He thinks a valet program that is successful is convenient for people, particularly if it is inexpensive or free where you can drop your car off and do your thing while your car is being parked for you.
He would not support, in any way, looking at our parking meters being redone. He thinks that many of us like to brag that our parking meters only cost a quarter and even though upping the amount the parking meters charge might create more turnover, for him that would create more angst. He would not be in favor of relooking at what the City does with its parking meters. He likes what the City's meters cost. He likes that they are user friendly and that is just part of living in Coronado. Sometimes you have to circle the block a few times. If someone can convince him that there is a better system that doesn't charge the residents more then he would be open to considering it but he is skeptical that such a system exists. The City's rules about joint use are certainly worth taking a look at again. Lastly it is always a good idea for the Planning Commission take a look at this. Maybe a different set of eyes will see something different. In general he supports the minimum staff recommendation on page 217 but he would not take that as a mandate that we are going to change a lot of things. But it is a mandate to at least reexamine what the code requires and either make sure, reaffirm, that is what the City wants to do or consider tweaking it a little if we think we can without triggering major problems or major Coastal reviews. As far as putting back together the OACSP group he doesn't think that is necessary. It wouldn't be his goal to reopen all of this. If the staff's conclusion is that, for the most part, current policies and standards are working, then at most he would be interested in looking at refining some of those policies. Reconstituting the group signals a willingness for major change and he doesn't know that is a signal he is willing to send at this point ..
Ms. Downey agrees with almost all of the staff report but the one thing that wasn't in the report that she thinks would be helpful would be to see if staff could figure out how to develop the specific criteria to measure the effectiveness of the Plan. We are all sitting here saying it is 327 City of Coronado Page 306
working but how do we know it is working. She realizes that is the hard thing which is why it hasn't been done for the last 7 years but it would be nice if the City had some way to measure it.
She is not suggesting what thatway should be or could be.
Mayor Tanaka thinks that intellectually that may be true but in practice it might be very difficult to achieve. He is not sure the Council would agree on what the metric would be.
Councilmember Ovrom is usually 1n favor of trying to relook at whatever the City. does at regular intervals just to see if there could be some improvement but he hears what the speakers have said aboutg~in~. ~lowly and being. ~efuL .... f!e .thillks tha~ is. th~ m9tt~ pf thi~ .Parttc"lllE!f ~ff9lt J)gt ili.en lie went back to page 217 tosee what the issue is which, as written by staff, is whether the City's General Plan policies reflect the goals of the City Council. Their number one recommendation is to determine whether the current policies and standards reflect the goals of the City Council. In his mind, that is the place to start. It never does any harm to look back at the very basis of what we are trying to do and see if it does what we think it should do or whether we want to change that. That is one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is in the staff recommendations " to look at a few tlrings that we think have some problems in them. He is always afraid that if we do that without going back to the beginning and saying what the goals are it is possible to end up in trouble.
Councilmember Woiwode spoke with some of the folks who worked on this thing. One of the things that stood out to him, from a parking standpoint, is that the City removed parking requirements for less than 7,000 sq. ft. except in the case of restaurants. So ifwe came into this with a parking problem to begin with and then we removed requirements one of the questions he has had since we started talking about this was whether or not the parking problem got worse because the requirements were removed or is it kind of a self regulating thing based pn the businesses and the geography and the other factors. His guess is that it is the second and not the first. That is to say that the amount of parking demand is determined by the number of businesses. The number of businesses is a constant. The City did consciously use parking as a way to restrict additional restaurants because we wanted more retail space. The OACSP acknowledges that the kinds of businesses that prefer to come into our spaces, because of the way they are shaped, tend to be restaurants. There are a lot of reasons why, the geometry being what it is, that the City is going to wind up with a preference for restaurants. He is happy to have the City look at this again. He is not anxious to see the City change that direction radically. He likes the recommendations from staff. He thinks inexpensive meters lead to lots of problems.
He thinks it limits turnover and the low parking meter rates work against the success of the businesses rather than in favor. He is not sure that the residents park at the meters anyway. He does want to see the Council include a discussion on parking metering at least in some blocks.
He is fully supportive of the staff recommendation that is the minimum set. He does think there should at least be a public workshop besides the Planning Commission review. He doesn't think this should be a quick process even though he doesn't see it opening all of the issues. The parking thing has some problems with it and he thinks it is an important one to address.
Councilmember Denny stated that a very wise man said that we cannot solve our pro~lems at the level of awareness that created them. It was Albert Einstein who said that. She thinks that the way we are approaching this we are not going to solve our parking problem with the staff recommendation or where the majority of Council seems to be going. It is disappointing to her but she thought she would give some of her comments as briefly as she can without restating. 328 City of Coronado Page 307
She is definitely with the residents here. We had nine residents get up and speak for leaving things the way they are and speak against reopening the OACSP. Don't forget we are also talking about the General Plan and the zoning ordinance, the parking chapter and the Local Coastal Program. Any change to any one of these, even if it is just valet parking for our OACSP, whlch is incorporated into our General Plan poses a risk as explained earlier by the City Attorney. The General Plan dictates everything we do here or should. It might be due for an overhaul soon instead of piece mealing it or looking at it but we have other financial pressures pressing on us right now. It seems to her that in listening to the residents who spoke we had Susan Keith, Phil Monroe, Marilyn Field and her husband William Field, Elaine Fenwick, Dr.
John Sexton, Nancy Warner and Rita Sarich> eight people who think that we should not be going in this direction right now .. While she can empathize with the fact that Coronado has a parking problem she really doesn't see anything that is going to solve the parking problem in taking the action that Council might be set to take today. She thinks the City needs to look to better City transit service, better shuttles, better ferry service and need to think about moving people around pedestrian wise and bicycling. We really need to think to follow the Coronado Transportation Commission statement that we need to really limit the amount of cars on our island so constantly trying to supply more parking is not going to solve our problem and it isn't going to make the residents happy and it isn't going to make the businesses happy in the long term. She really thinks that this explains, you have heard the City Attorney explain that any change, even talking about valet parking or any small change that we make to any of the four documents (the OACSP, the General Plan, the parking chapter of the zoning ordinance or the Local Coastal Program) does in fact trigger a Coastal Commission review and this whole process seems so lengthy and so time consuming and so expensive and so risky to her and she is really saddened that we don't listen to our committees better because we just had, as mentioned by several folks who spoke at the dais, a long process to get the OACSP off the ground. $300,000 spent of taxpayer money for that plan. It is only about 8 years old and frankly, four years ago, in 2008, people were then clamoring to try to overturn the OACSP. It hasn't had its chance to work. She really tl:µnks that attacking it now, whether you call it tweaking or whatever you want to call it, is not the right way to go and she would like to really stick by the countless hours, probably thousands of volunteer community hours and staff hours and $300,000 worth of taxpayer dollars that went into the OACSP and really respect that plan because along with our historic preservation program the OACSP is one of the documents and rules oflaw that keep Coronado Coronado and we are not really going to help our island very much in the long term if we become just like any other coastal town with valet parking and things of that nature. She doesn't really think it is going to solve our problem. We are not going to be anything special or unique. Someone brought up what the bidden agenda here is. She doesn't know if it is a hidden agenda or if it is just unintended consequences but if you haven't noticed there is sort of a push in the decisions that are being made, piece meal over time, on Council. She has seen it in the past three years to become like the Gaslamp in Coronado. We are not the Gaslamp. We certainly aren't at all that kind of a city and it isn't that there is anything wrong with the Gaslamp. The Gaslamp is a really fun experience for those who want to just go less than a mile as the crow flies over to experience that type of environment. Those that are wondering what is coming down the line for Coronado and wondering how we are going to lose our special, unique quality that is probably what we are going to be looking at unless we really take a stand and from a position of courage and strength stand up for our island and our unique history and our unique island charm. Someone also 329 City of Coronado Page 308
mentioned about forcing out the school and the church in the 100 block. You have to really think about everyone who shares the business district there. Personally she would hate to see that happen. Again, here we are with the spirit of Tony Pena saying you don't want to go there in terms of tal<lng on the Coastal Commission. While the comment made by a prior resident might ring ·true, at the same time we don't really have the time and the resources, fmancial resources, at this time to take on such a battle, especially as we are battling redevelopment and tcymgJQ wind d«:rvm Qt1r. s1,1c&e,,$SP:t:, agiency. to. x~dev~lop.m~nt whicli giy~s . us .. a whol~ h9~tpf ... financial headaches in that regard and they will be with us for quite some time. She just thinks this isn't really the time. The OACSP, even if we are just looking at one piece, parking or something that will trigger - if we change that it is going to trigger Coastal Commission review as the City Attorney has mentioned. So in that regard it is quite risky and dangerous to take the step of taking the staff recommendation at this point. We already had so much public input to get to the OACSP if the outcome is not what certain City officials expected oh well, that was the outcome. The businesses and the people spoke in terms of forming the OACSP and she doesn't think that anything she has seen or heard tells her that we need to change it right now. That is pretty much the way she sees it. There is also another problem. It just needs to be stated on the record because it was brought up at other Council meetings. The problem is not so much having more bars and night-clubs in town or fewer restaurants in town. The problem is having restaurants that sort of really are bars in effect, late night bar activity. That is really what is happening. You will hear that happening in Pacific Beach and North Park and so forth. The idea, she is trying to say, the spin put on it that we are just going to have restaurants and we have to live with it. Well, we all love to have places to eat. We would all like more restaurants. We just, obviously the residents have spoken, and they just don't want more restaurants posing as restaurants when the real activity for them is the bar or nightclub activity up until 2 a.m. That is just a trend that is happening. It is just a fact that is on the record. It is why people from Pacific Beach say to us we can't be a good example but can be a honible warning and not to become like them. She thinks that this little piece meal step we take today, if we do, there is no other way to spin it, ifwe take the staff recommendation, we definitely are sliding, you know, towards eroding the quality of life and diminishing property values, both business property values and residential property values, in all the affected areas. We have mixed use in Coronado and we must respect everyone's right to use their property, even the residents who have a right to quiet use and enjoyment. Mr. Tanaka said something very wise earlier. He said he would hate to see us formulate policy around one very controversial restaurant down in the 100 block and he mentioned Nicky Rottens. She really remembers the impetus for this very agenda item was during a discussion of Nicky Rottens and she remembers her deal colleague, Mrs. Downey, at that time, being very specific saying that is why we need to open the OACSP because there is a problem down here with Nicky Rottens. And so unfortunately she can't support the staff recommendation and she is not sure if there is going to be a majority for that here but if there is she understands the reasoning but she just thinks that the unintended consequences are going to be too much for our City to bear and there is really just no going back once you go down that slippery slope so she would prefer not to open the can of worms and nof get involved in an· embroiled with problems with our LCP and the Coastal Commission that this will surely lead to. 330 City of Coronado Page 309
Ms. Downey pointed out two things. She received concerns from residents in the 800 block as well as the 100 block so it is not a unique issue and this plan covers both so it is not a matter of it being one restaurant or not. The staff report, on page 230, shows a memo from Ms. Hurst to Mr.
King dated March 29, 2012, that states an interesting question that she thinks she is getting at as to why we haven't looked at this and figured it out. We made the rule that, whether the OACSP had the anticipated effect on the commercial zone, because right now 3 restaurants, for example, on the 100 block, occupy the space that only one did. They didn'-t have to get parking because that was the way the rules were. Maybe we don't want that to be the rules. It just seems to her that we don't know the results of what we did with the old plan and how that affected what businesses came in, how they got their parking. She has already gone on record saying that she agrees that the City wants to have rules so that we don't have restaurants turning into bars but that is not what this is about. They are unrelated issues. We can do that in a separate proceeding and she thinks the City should. This is a question of whether or not we are happy with the way the OACSP is causing our downtown to develop. The unintended consequences that happened from that should be looked at to see if it did what the City wanted it to do. It is guaranteeing now any restaurant that is there is not going to be replaced by retail and will be replaced by another restaurant because that is the highest and best use of that property. Maybe we look at other ways to do it. One of the things we talked about under the old rules, before the OACSP, to determine how much parking you needed it mattered how many employees you had. Maybe one of the things our staff and business community can pursue for new businesses is to say they have to arrange for and sign agreements with Von's, the bank, or Albertsons to say that they are going to pay to have their employees park in their spaces so there will be more spaces available for the public. There are so many possibilities out there to address the concerns that some of the residents have. All the residents she has had calls from are concerned because they think it is as much the staff as it is the visitors that are causing the parking problems because the staff is there for long periods of time, for 8 hours as opposed to the one or two hours for dinner. There are lots of ways to look at this that might make it better. The one thing that has changed is that we have more individual restaur~ts as opposed to larger ones which means there will be more staff.
She doesn't know that we are happy with the way that it has worked. She doesn't see anything wrong with looking at it. We don't have to go to the Coastal Commission until we decide we want to change something. Maybe we won't. Staff makes the recommendation that some of it is just tweaking the enforcement of it One of the simple issues is how we calculate how many square feet you have to be away to do a shared parking arrangement, which is really what we are doing right now when we can all up and down Orange Avenue. That is what we want businesses to do - to share parking. Right now it says it has to be within 200 sq. ft. Maybe the answer is the average city block, 500 sq. ft. She just thinks it is worth looking at. She appreciates the residents who came to the meeting but she has heard from twice as many that don't understand why the Burger Lounge can't expand. They just can't figure that out. And why Von's didn't expand into Cora Mart and all kinds of other issues. They want the City to look at it. She is just letting everyone know that the City is getting it from all angles and she doesn't think there is ever anything wrong with looking to see if what we did has worked the way we wanted it to as Mr. Ovrom and Mayor Tanaka said. Are we reaching the goals that we intended to? That is all she thinks the City needs to do. If the answer is yes then we are done. If the at).Swer is no but t4e cure is worse than the disease then we don't go to the Coastal Commission. But it doesn't hurt to ask the question.
331 City of Coronado Page 310
Mayor Tanaka thinks the Council could talk about this for another three hours and still have accomplished very little. We have a staff recommendation. It sounds like four people are willing to move that forward. He doesn't think anyone is saying to make a bunch of decisions today.
MS (Downey/Woiwode) moved that the City Council refer the foJlowing issues to the Planning Commission: updating the parking chapter to improve joint use and valet parking regulations; exploring improvements to the parking metering program to improve use of ··· · ex-isting parking; and"eondueting parking surveys as necessary to support any changes.
Councihnember Ovrom suggested a :friendly amendment. He proposed changing the word 'updating' to 'review'. The word update assumes that there will be changes and he doesn't like that assumption. He doesn't want to presume an answer. Ifwe are going to have them look at a few things, which is what this says, a very few narrow little things, then he would like it to be a review.
Ms. Deillly clarified that parking studies is what is meant by parking surveys.
MSC (Downey/Woiwode) moved that the City Council refer the following issues to the Planning Commission: reviewing the parking chapter to improve joint use and valet parking regulations; exploring improvements to the parking metering program to improve use of existing parking; and conducting parking surveys as necessary to support any changes.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAINING:
ABSENT:
Downey, Ovrom, Woiwode, Tanaka
Denny
None
None
332 City of Coronado Page 311
Regular Meeting
CORONADO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
ATTACHMENT 2
September 11, 2012
The regular meeting of the Coronado Planning Commission was called to order at 3 p.m., Tuesday, September 11. 2012, at the Coronado City Hall Council Chambers, 1825 Strand Way, Coronado, by Chairperson Santos.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
CITY ATTORNEY:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
DeNardi, Grimes, Jensen, Santos, St. Denis
None
Rachel A. Hurst, Director
Ann McCaull, Senior Planner
Ed Walton, Director of Engineering
Police Commander Mike Lawton
Traffic Sargent Matt Michell
Laura Ran10s, Recording Secretary/Minutes Preparer
Randall Sjoblom, Deputy City Attorney
The minutes of the regular meeting of August 14, 2012, were approved as submitted.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
There was no separate report.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Commissioner DeNardi congratulated Commissioner St. Denis on being named the 2012 Citizen of the Year by Coronado First Bank.
Commissioner DeNardi then provided an update on actions taken by the Historic Resource Commission.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER MATTERS
NON AGENDA ITEMS
There were no members of the public wishing to speak at this time. 357 City of Coronado Page 312
Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2012
LISTED AGENDA ITEMS
There were no members of the public wishing to speak at this time.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC 2012~02 CITY OF CORONADO - Review of Coronado's Parking Chapter regarding Joint Use and Valet Parking Regulations and Parking Meter Program. ··· JOINTUSEPA.RK:ING AND LOCA'fION·R.EQUIREMENTS·
Senior Planner Ann McCaull provided an overview of the Joint Use Parking and Location Requirements as outlined in the agenda.
Commissioner St. Denis asked if the Bank of America location closes up their parking area after hours.
Ms. McCaull said she did not know if Bank of America closed up at night. If Bank of America was used for shared parking, it would need to involve some type of outreach and commitment by the City or a local organization to develop parking arrangements with the landlord. She said this is one of the underutilized sites that was identified under the Orange A venue Corridor Specific Plan (OACSP).
Commissioner St. Denis suggested that the building next to the post office could leave their parking garage open during the evening. She asked if the parking garage is under rented or if they close at night.
Chairperson Santos asked if there was a possibility the City could explore a contractual agreement for public parking in general.
Ms. McCaull said this certainly is a recommendation that the Planning Commission could forward to the City Council for consideration.
Director Hurst said that in the past ten years, some new commercial buildings have been constructed with excess parking that has been made available to the public. For example, there is metered parking on the alley side of the building that Commissioner St. Denis referred to. Ms.
Hurst said this was a conscious effort on the part of the City to work with those who were developing new commercial buildings to provide more parking for the public as a community benefit.
Vice Chair Jensen asked what could be recommended to the City Council by way of changes without having to deal with the Coastal Commission.
Ms. McCaull said some of the regulations are within the Local Coastal Plan so if changes are made to some of these regulations, it may need approval by the Coastal Commission. 358 City of Coronado Page 313
Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 20 12
Vice Chair Jensen said he would like to know if approval by the Coastal Commission is needed before he approves any substantive changes. He asked if their purview was limited jurisdictionally by the thousand foot mean high tide level.
Ms. McCaull said that it depends on the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan.
She said that our LCP was one of the earlier ones so it has a lot more flexibility in land use than other cities. However, as part of our LCP, the parking chapter was incorporated into the City's LCP; therefore, any changes must be approved by the Coastal Commission.
Director Hurst added that the thousand foot requirement is a rule of thumb; however, the entire City is within the coastal zone.
Vice Chair Jensen asked why this was the rule of thumb if it was part of the initiative.
Director Hurst explained that the entire City is located in the coastal zone per the map on which the Coastal Act is based on. It is not the City's choice whether or not Orange Avenue is subject to the Coastal Commission's purview.
Ms. McCaull said that the City has retained a significant amount of local control over its coastal permit process unlike most cities.
Deputy City Attorney Sjoblom commented that one of the goals of the Coastal Act is access to the coastal zone so parking is always an important consideration for the Coastal Commission. As Director Hurst described. the coastal zone is actually much larger. The one thousand foot area is generally what is called the original jurisdiction of the Commission. If a City is within one thousand feet of the coast, usually they retain original jurisdiction. Also, there is the issue of original permits from the Coastal Commission regardless what City one is in. If someone is outside the one thousand foot area, they can usually go to the City to get a coastal pennit. The Coastal Commission's concern is whether the City is changing the amount of public access to the coast.
Commissioner St. Denis asked if the driving decision maker of the Coastal Commission is public access to the beach.
Deputy City Attorney Sjoblom said the policy primarily affects parking unless there are some environmental concerns during the construction of, for example, a parking structure in an environmentally sensitive habitat. He said the Coastal Act has many goals including public access, keeping costs low, and environmental protection.
Commissioner St. Denis asked if one of the goals was to keep costs low for the user.
Deputy City Attorney Sjblom said the Coastal Commission is concerned that lower cost hotel accommodations are included along the coast and not just higher end accommodations. 359 City of Coronado Page 314
Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2012
Vice Chair Jensen asked if any actions by the City related to improvements would be subject to Coastal Commission review. He understood this issue to be a concern to the City Council.
Ms. McCaull confomed it was a concern and suggested that the City could file an application with the Coastal Commission. They will advise whether or not the City must complete survey data in order to demonstrate that the City's parking requirements have not impacted coastal access or access to visitor-serving uses. She said that based on the Coastal Commission's response, the City may consider withdrawing their application at that time. ' Commissioner St Denis asked if withdrawingthe application is mroption.
Deputy City Attorney Sjoblom said it is the City Council's decision whether they wish to withdraw the application.
Vice Chair Jensen said he would like to provide the City and City Council the maximum flexibility to meet these challenges so that they are not hedged in by some arbitrary limitations.
He suggested lengthening the block requirement to include parking across the street in order to meet the 200 ft. parking requirement.
Commissioner DeNardi read the following statement from the staff report: "Joint use and valet parking have only occurred a few times over the past 20 years." He asked how many of those were joint use and how many were valet parking.
Ms. McCaull replied that three were joint use and two or three were valet parking.
Commissioner DeNardi asked of those, how many were restaurant.
Ms. McCaull said all were restaurants. She added that with the OACSP, the requirement or need to provide parking through joint use or valet parking plan will not be addressed very often. She said that if an existing retail use is replaced with a new retail use, there is no requirement to provide parking. Similarly, if an existing restaurant is replaced by a new restaurant there is also no parking requirement. The only parking requirement is triggered when 1) a brand new structure is built; 2) an existing retail use is changing to a restaurant use.
Commissioner Grimes said that currently the City requires one space for every 100 sq. ft. of restaurant space. He suggested changing the restaurant parking requirement to one space for every 500 sq. ft. of restaurant space, and asked if it would triggerea Coastal Commission process.
Ms. McCaull said the proposed change would trigger review by the Coastal Commission. She added that based on the outcome of today's meeting, staff will certainly look at ways that the City can address some of the Commission's suggestions where Coastal Commission review and approval is not required.
360 City of Coronado Page 315
Planning Commission Minutes
September l l, 2012
Public Comment
Rita Sarich, Executive Director, Coronado Main Street, said that Main Street is veiy supportive of the OACSP. She said the Board would not be in favor of the changing the parking plan.
However, if the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council feel that changes are waITanted to Joint Use Parking, it is clear that clarifying language would need to be added. In addition, she suggested that standards be included related to converting public parking to valet parking. She said there is also the concept of how the City enforces parking. She said that based on the frequency of these types of requests and the potential issues with amending the LCP, maybe this is not the correct time to include additions and clarification, although warranted.
Marilyn Field said that when the OACSP was established, a great deal of thought and concern was given to the issue of whether there were sufficient restaurants in Coronado. It was determined there were sufficient restaurants; thus, higher requirements for restaurant parking were incorporated. She expressed concern about additional restaurants in the 100 block of Orange A venue as it would add to the existing issues. She said that by allowing Nicky Rottens to open their establishment, the City disregarded the 50 percent requirement and parking space requirements.
Karen Finch, Coronado Chan1ber of Commerce, said she agreed with the majority of Ms.
Sarich's comments. She said that Ruth Ann Fisher and she met with Director Hurst and Ms.
McCaull last week. She found the meeting to be very beneficial as it took into consideration the needs of not only community members but also visitors and tourists. She asked that the Planning Commission take this infmmation into consideration. She echoed Vice Chair Jensen's suggestion that the parking requirement be modified to allow parking across the street from the restaurant. She said there are so few instances where joint use takes place, it seems that it could be updated and slightly modified.
Commission Discussion
Commissioner DeNardi said the issue appears to center around restaurants. He said the current balance is appropriate between restaurants and retail. There are currently over 70 restaurants in Coronado. He said he is not in favor of any changes to the Code relative to the 50 percent requirement for joint use and distance. He is in favor of discussing in length the City's process on joint use. With regard to definitions of joint use, he does not find merit in enhancing the current Code definitions because he finds Community Development to be creative in their interpretations. Lastly, he said that regardless of what City Council approves, he hopes that it includes language that allows the City to enforce and manage whatever is agreed upon related to joint use. He stated that with regard to the survey and distance, he noted that over 50 percent of the survey denotes parking at less than 200 feet. He commented that if there have only been three joint uses over the last 20 years, he is unsure how much time should be spent on the issue.
Commission Grimes said that the Commission has already spent over 45 minutes on the topic that has been addressed six times in the last 20 years. He said he participated as a member on the OACSP Committee and was the only commercial property owner serving on same. He said he is 361 City of Coronado Page 316
Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2012
more of a free market person and supports prospective business owners with good ideas regardless if it is a retail operation or a restaurant. He said that the requirement that parking be located on the same side of the street as the business and be within 200 feet of the structure is senseless to him. He stated that this requirement limits joint use. Mr. Grimes said he would like the requirement waived and commented that 200 feet is an arbitrary number.
Vice Chair Jensen said the issue of parking is a matter of convenience for the citizens and tourists for whom the City benefits greatly in a number of fashions. He said it is not about benefiting the business; it is about providing adequate parking for people who desire to visit downtown:L 'Mr; Jensen said he "Was' inclined to provide more' flexibility and would support removing the requirement that one must cross the street as it seems a bit paternalistic to tell people they cannot safely cross the street and can only park on the same side of the street. He said he was inclined to say that if there is readily parking available for persons patronizing our businesses 300 or 400 feet away, they should be able to utilize that. Mr. Jensen said he is not able to resolve the issue about the bias for existing restaurants versus new restaurants.
Commissioner DeNardi asked if discussion today involved joint use versus walking from Lambs Theatre to Bank of America.
Vice Chair Jensen clarified that if someone wanted to put a restaurant in one of the buildings across Bank of America on a joint use, he feels that it would be appropriate.
Commissioner DeNardi asked if 50 percent would be appropriate.
Vice Chair Jensen said it would be appropriate but he is not wedded to those types of fixed things.
Commissioner St. Denis said that she also served on the Orange A venue Corridor Specific Plan Committee and noted the years' long discussion of how some of the restrictions originated, e.g. crossing the street, which now seems unreasonable. She said that the City's main street is very easy to cross and not a dangerous situation. With regard to the 200 ft. requirement, she said that City blocks are 500 feet in length and she is very happy to walk one block to reach her destination. She said she prefers the City of Encinitas' language which states the maximum distance requirement as "reasonable distance, case-by-case." In response to Commissioner Grimes' remark about "free market," she said the City has created something that is not free market. She referred to the staff report which indicates that a restaurant owner who has parking that is grandfathered most likely will not change it to retail as it is a golden opportunity to not be required to provide parking. She asked if it was possible to create a situation where if a small restaurant wanted to move in to a bigger space, such as Burger Lounge, there could be a trade of use.
Chairperson Santos said the City has a good OACSP goal and vision in place. She understands there are enforcement issues but feels that the City is doing a good job. She does not feel that much change is needed. Ms. Santos said she is open to changing the requirement about parking not being located across the street because she feels a change would embrace a more pedestrian 362 City of Coronado Page 317
Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2012
friendly environment. She said she is unsure about the 200 ft. requirement but would be open to changing that as well.
Deputy City Attorney Sjoblom said he had noticed during Commission discussions much focus on the OACSP. He confirmed that some of the factors such as the 200 ft. requirement and parking required to be on the same side of the street as the business is not limited to only the Orange A venue Corridor. He noted that any changes would have an impact beyond the Orange Avenue Corridor.
Director Hurst said all of the regulations that have been discussed are found in the Parking Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance.
Commission Action
VICE CHAIR JENSEN MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT
THE CODE BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE FOLLOWING CHANGE TO THE JOINT USE PARKING REGULATIONS: REMOVE THE REGULATION THAT REQUIRES
PARKING BE LOCATED WITHIN THE SAME BLOCK AND WITH A DIRECT ACCESS WAY THAT DOES NOT CROSS A PUBLIC STREET.
COMMISSIONER ST. DENIS SECONDED THE MOTION.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Grimes, Jensen, Santos, St. Denis.
DeNardi.
None.
None.
The motion passed 4-1.
VICE CHAIR JENSEN MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT
THE CODE BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE FOLLOWING CHANGE TO THE JOINT USE PARKING REGULATIONS: THE FIXED FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT BE REPLACED
WITH A REASONABLE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT BASED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.
Commissioner Grimes asked what authority would determine reasonable distance.
Ms. McCaull said the authority could be the Planning Commission or the City Council.
Commissioner Grimes asked for staff input.
Director Hurst said the option of having a specific regulation is that there is no reason to exercise discretion. If there is no specific standard, there is more of a reason to have the decision be discretionary and for the decision makers to weight the individual facts of the situation. She said the current language specifies "within the same block." If the 200 foot limitation was not 363 City of Coronado Page 318
Planning Commission Minutes
September I 1, 2012
specified but "in the same block" limitation was retained, there would still be a distance limitation.
Ms. Sarich said that the zoning ordinance should be clear, less arbitrary and less discretionary as possible. She said the footage requirement does not seem to fit that and stated that the language that the City of Encinitas uses appears too arbitrary. She noted that the option of changing the percentage from 50 to 100 was not listed as an option that the Commission could recommend to City Council.
·· Vice Chair Jensen said that having a 2.00 foot requirementwas arbitrary;• 0He said discretion gives the City Council broad latitude and added that the requirement does not meet the needs of the City. He said he would be supportive of actions that encourage retail but that do not discourage restaurants.
Ms. Sarich disagreed and said that in terms of transparency and precedent-setting, it is important to ensure that everyone is treated fairly now and in the future.
Commissioner St. Denis said that the 200 foot requirement does not appear to be sufficient. She said the case-by-case is a good thing but was smprised that Main Street is opposed to it.
Ms. Sarich clarified that she has not discussed this issue with the Main Street Board.
Chairperson Santos said she respectfully disagreed with Commissioner Jensen in that it is important to have a basis for standard.
Vice Chair Jensen clarified that when he uses the word arbitrary. he is not using it in a pejorative fashion, he is saying that the 200 foot requirement is just a number. Unless there is some underlying body of evidence that indicates a requirement over 200 feet causes a major issue, it is arbitrary.
Commissioner St. Denis said that the City of Vista's language indicates "150 feet, four out of five votes may extend distance if reasonable under circumstances, no more than 300 feet." Ms. McCaull suggested that the Commission may not want to get caught up in a discussion regarding what the appropriate standard is because ultimately City Council will be given the Commission's suggestions and recommendations. If City Council concurs with the Commission's recommendations, they will direct staff to research and return with an appropriate distance. She suggested that if it is the Commission's consensus that the 200 foot distance regulation should be reviewed further, this then should be the recommendation.
Vice Chair Jensen restated his motion, as follows:
VICE CHAIR IBNSEN MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT CITY COUNCIL REVIEW THE REASONABLENESS OF THE 200 FOOT LIMITATION. 364 City of Coronado Page 319
Planning Commission Minutes
September I 1, 2012
COMMISSIONER GRIMES SECONDED THE MOTION.
Page
Commissioner DeNardi asked staff to clarify the process for review by City Council. 9 Director Hurst said that the Commission is making recommendations that the City Council will consider at a future meeting. If the City Council directs that the Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance be changed, then the Planning Commission will consider those changes at a public hearing prior to the City Council considering those changes at a public hearing.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Grimes, Jensen, Santos, St. Denis.
DeNardi.
None.
None.
The motion passed 4-1.
COMMISSIONER GRIMES MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
THAT THE CODE BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE FOLLOWING CHANGE TO THE JOINT USE PARKING REGULATIONS: THE SAME BLOCK REQUIREMENT LANGUAGE BE REMOVED.
VICE CHAIR JENSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Grimes, Jensen, Santos, St. Denis.
DeNardi.
None.
None.
The motion passed 4-1.
Chairperson Santos said she did not feel that a change was necessary to the 50 percent requirement for joint use parking.
Commissioner Grimes agreed.
COMMISSIONER GRIMES MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THE 50 PERCENT REQUIREMENT FOR JOINT USE PARKING LANGUAGE REMAIN AS IS.
COMMISSIONER DENARDI SECONDED THE MOTION.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DeNardi, Grimes, Jensen, Santos, St. Denis.
None.
None.
None.
365 City of Coronado Page 320
Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2012
The motion passed 5-0.
Page
COMMISSIONER DENARDI MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
THAT CITY COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF TO RESEARCH THE ISSUE OF REFINING THE PROCESS AND STRENGTHENING THE GOVERNANCE OF MANAGING THE CODE.
COMMISSIONER GRIMES SECONDED THE MOTION.
· · · · €ommissioner St; Denis asked for clarificationc-0n the motion; · Commissioner DeNardi said he is asking that the Community Development Department review how the City can better enforce what is being granted to the applicant. He said, for example, that Commissioner Jensen mentioned a restaurant that is now using parking spaces as storage for a boat and an ice cream truck. He feels there is no governance.
Commissioner St. Denis asked for clarification on code enforcement.
Ms. Hurst said code compliance is handled on a complaint basis.
Chairperson Santos asked if the motion was requesting for governance on joint use.
Commissioner DeNardi clarified that the motion relates to joint use. He is asking that the City Council review the issue of governance and if they so choose, forward it to the Community Development Department for review along with the process for the applicant under joint use.
Commissioner Jensen said he would support the motion as feels that the rules set forth should be enforced. This would mean taking action rather than waiting for a complaint to come forth.
Commissioner St. Denis agreed.
COMMISSIONER GRIMES SECONDED THE MOTION.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DeNardi, Grimes, Jensen, Santos, St. Denis.
None.
None.
None.
The motion passed 5-0.
VALET PARKING
Senior Planner Ann McCaull provided an overview of Valet Parking as outlined in the agenda.
Commissioner Grimes asked if there were three instances of valet parking that the City uses. 366 City of Coronado Page 321
Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2012
Page
Ms. McCaull said the most effective one is the Coronado hospital, which has a large volume of demand and availability of parking.
11 Commissioner Grimes said he is pleased how it is being handled currently is great, especially with Engineering's involvement and City Council's approval.
Vice Chair Jensen asked if part of the valet parking requirement is that parking is off street.
Ms. McCaull said currently the requirement is off-site parking.
Vice Chair Jensen asked if private companies manage the parking at the hospital and the one at Vigiluccis.
Engineering Director Ed Walton responded that the hospital has a valet service company that operates the hired firm and the hospital pays for parking. He said Vigiluccis hires their own attendants.
Vice Chair Jensen asked if attendants accept other than patrons visiting the hospital or Vigiluccis.
Mr. Walton said this issue is not currently addressed in the committee process.
Commissioner DeNardi asked about the survey completed for parking regulations and whether the other nine cities were asked if they used valet parking for code parking requirements.
Ms. McCaull responded that the question was included in the survey and that cities can use valet parking to meet the parking requirements.
Public Comment
Ms. Sarich said that Vigiluccis did not begin their valet service to meet parking requirements but Miguelitos did. She expressed concern about comments made by staff related to public benefit vs. parking loss. She said that parking should be hard fought and hard won every single time.
She asked whether the benefit of valet parking is utilized sufficiently to lose a public parking space. She said she would like to see some guidelines, as previously mentioned. She said she has spoken with staff regarding assigned valet parking spaces in the public right-of-way and whether they are exclusionary to valet parking services.
Marilyn Field agreed with the aforementioned comments. She said that when valet parking spaces are used to meet parking requirements, it is a "mixed bat' because in order to provide valet services, two public parking spaces must be given up. She said that in the case of hospital parking, it works very well.
367 City of Coronado Page 322
Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2012
Commission Discussion
Commissioner St. Denis said it appears that valet parking works when it works and vice-versa.
She said she does not wish to recommend to City Council to review this issue.
Vice Chair Jensen agreed in that valet parking "is not broken and does not need to be fixed." He said with Vigiluccis, no public parking was given up because of the no parking zone in that area.
The valet parking at the hospital is terrific. Mr. Jensen feels valet parking is not an issue that demands the City's attention or effort.
Chairperson Santos said she prefers there be no valet parking service on Orange A venue, especially in the area where Nicky Rottens is located as it is a very busy comer. She suggested that the parking issue be monitored and a very good plan be implemented.
Commissioner Grimes agreed with comments made by Commissioner Jensen and St. Denis in that the process is currently working. The process goes through the Traffic Operations Committee and City Council and he feels this is sufficient monitoring. He said enforcement will be an issue and should be discussed at some point.
Commissioner DeNardi said he finds this issue very complicated and strongly favors forwarding it to City Council so that a valet parking plan can be developed that will work for the City of Coronado. He stated that currently there is no code language that allows valet parking to be used as part of an applicant's parking requirement or that valet parking can be used as joint use parking. Mr. DeNardi said he wants valet parking and would like the City to develop a standard that makes sense. He does not feel it fits with the parking requirements for an application for a restaurant. He feels that valet parking is for a business to enhance its customer service and grow its business. In addition, he added that staff and he must have spoken with different persons at the nine cities listed on the survey as he found very few that allow valet parking to be used for parking requirements. He did find an extensive valet parking code in the City of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida's website. The section that relates to our City is as follows:
Scale. Without scale, valet parking does not work. There must be at least two valet attendants. Valet parking takes up a lot of space on the sidewalk. More than one parking space is needed to valet park vehicles.
Commissioner DeNardi suggested that attendants distinguish valet vehicles by placing appropriate stickers on the vehicle dash.
Vice Chair Jensen said he would support referring this issue to City council to review with regard to whether valet parking qualifies as part of the parking requirement. He would not be inclined to support a motion that requires extensive regulations about how a business operates their valet services, i.e. number of attendants, stickers, and so on, and those are business decisions rather than City requirements.
Commissioner DeNardi said the valet parking process is challenging and needs to be reviewed. 368 City of Coronado Page 323
Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 20 12
For example, the Planning Commission declined an application for joint use parking and the Community Development Department responded by developing a new parking plan that utilized valet services. The plan was then heard by City Council directly without returning before the Planning Commission. He said it was appropriate that the issue was heard by City Council as the Planning Commission does not have purview over valet parking.
Vice Chair Jensen said City Council has a say over these matters and asked if this was an adequate review.
Commissioner DeNardi read a section of the Joint Use and Valet Parking Surveys report (attachment to the staff report), under Item D, "Any Parking Plan submitted for property within the C Zone shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission for final action unless appealed to the City Council." Mr. DeNardi said there is ambiguity in the process.
Ms. McCaull said she would address the question when she provides an overview of the Parking Plan Review Process (next subject matter to be covered). She suggested the Commission first make a detem1ination on whether to recommend to City Council that the regulations be further reviewed.
Commission Discussion
COMMISSIONER DENARDI MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
THAT CITY COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF TO DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE VALET PARKING PLAN INCLUDING APPROPRIATE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS; THAT CITY
COUNCIL MAKE A DETERMINATION IF VALET SERVICES SATISFIES PARKING REQUIREMENTS OR SERVES SOLELY AS A BUSINESS ENHANCEMENT.
CHAIRPERSON SANTOS SECONDED THE MOTION.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DeNardi, Grimes, Jensen, Santos, St. Denis.
None.
None.
None.
The motion passed 5-0.
PARKING METER PROGRAM
Senior Planner Ann McCaull provided an overview of the Parking Meter Program as outlined in the agenda.
Officer Mike Lawton gave a brief overview and answered questions of the Commission. 369 City of Coronado Page 324
Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2012
Commissioner St. Denis said, per the Specific Plan, that the parking consultant is Mission Group.
She was told that there were several blocks in Coronado that could be considered 30-minute max meters. She asked if these types of meters were worth studying.
Officer Lawton said that with the current system, whether it is a 30-minute or two-hour meter, with the rates that are being charged, a person usually pays for two hours but only uses up about 30 minutes before leaving.
Chairperson Santos asked when the last meter increase took place.
Officer Lawton said that he has been with the City for over 21 year and doesn't remember any increases since that time. He said that in FY 11-12, the parking meter revenue for the City was $278,000. Parking revenue for the two years prior were $271,000 and $275,000. These figures do not take into account any associated costs or include revenue from parking citations. In addition, he added that the police department does not designate parking enforcement personnel on a specific or full percentage. There are three service officers that randomly throughout the day provide enforcement at different times and different percentages. Mr. Lawton said it is not a profitable enterprise. He did stress there is parking citation revenue that is not related specifically to the meter parking tickets. He said the citation revenue excluding the cost to process parking tickets has been between $200,000 and $220,000 over the past three years. The cost for processing those tickets is about 50 percent of the revenue. Officer Lawton said that, related to the two-hour limit on the parking meter, the police department reviewed their data over the last three months. There have been forty citations issued which is about ten citations per month for someone violating the two-hour limit. He said this is not a significant amount as overall there are over 600 parking tickets issued per month.
Commissioner St. Denis asked if vehicles are marked.
Officer Lawton said vehicles are randomly marked.
Public Comment
Ms. Sari ch said she supported review of the parking meter program. She said employee parking is a significant issue during certain times of the year.
Karen Finch, Coronado Chamber of Commerce, said that working with the parking meter progran1 has the most potential to have benefit for the City's downtown residents and businesses.
By increasing the parking meter rates, it will change how persons use the meter and will free up many parking spaces.
Commission Discussion
Commissioner Grimes said that although it is time to review the parking meter program, there may not be too much support to meter rates, especially during election year. He expressed concern about employee parking and the limited availability of parking spaces. 370 City of Coronado Page 325
Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2012
Commissioner DeNardi said he was in favoring of reviewing the City's parking plan. He did not view metered parking as a marketing or vote-getting tool. He said that meter parking is about managing traffic and feels there are many options to consider. He said there are meters available today that are energized by the sun while other meters accept cash, debit or credit cards. There are even some meters that will reftmd the unused rate portion. Mr. DeNardi said there are many options to consider for traffic management and based on the numbers that were shared today, it is a potential revenue source for the City.
Commissioner St. Denis agreed that the parking meter program should be studied as the rates are very low.
Vice Chair Jensen said he would also support review of the parking meter program. He suggested that when the current meters become obsolete, they be replaced with parking boxes.
Aesthetically, the streets would look significantly better and the boxes accept cash or credit cards and are low maintenance. The only down side is it would require the person walk 20 or 30 feet to obtain the parking tag.
Commission Action
CHAIRPERSON SANTOS MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
THAT THE PARKING METER PROGRAM BE REVIEWED AND THAT CONSIDERATION
BE GIVEN TO INCORPORATING BETTER TECHNOLOGY AND INCREASING PARKING METER RATES.
COMMISSIONER ST. DENIS SECONDED THE MOTION.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DeNardi, Grin1es, Jensen, Santos, St. Denis.
None.
None.
None.
The motion passed 5-0.
The Commission recessed at 5:22 p.m.
The Commission reconvened at 5:27 p.m. All members were present.
PARKING PLAN REVIEW PROCESS
Senior Planner Atm McCaull provided an overview of the Parking Plan Review Process as outlined in the agenda.
Chairperson Santos asked if parking re-design is required to be reviewed only by the Design Review Commission, and if it is appealable to City Council. 371 City of Coronado Page 326
Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2012
Ms. McCaull said yes because the final decision maker is Design Review. The item would be appealable to City Council.
Commissioner St. Denis asked if this process applies to requests based on aesthetics and not changes to land use.
Ms. McCaull said that was correct.
· Commissioner "St. Denis ···said•· sne·•·was cotmottable' having tharprocess approved··· by .Design Review.
Director Hurst commented that the purpose does in some sense dictate the appropriate process.
She said it would seem appropriate that Design Review be the decision maker on requests related to aesthetic changes. She said the process is quite confusing and the language is not clear; however, there are different purposes involved in each of these types of approvals. There should be a process that lends itself to the subject matter.
Chairperson Santos asked if review by the Planning Commission is required for applications involving parking re•design with a change in land use.
Director Hurst said that in any land use decision which is heard by the Planning Commission, parking associated with the land use should be reviewed. If it is a land use permitted by right and there is no discretionary approval required for the land use, it is awkward to have only the parking presented to the decision making body for review. For example, prior to the OACSP, Special Use Permits were reviewed by the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council for final decision and tracking of the Joint Use Parking Plan approval process. This process changed because the Specific Plan changed the process for a special use permit to be final at the Planning Commission unless appealed to the City Council. Perhaps a Joint Use Parking Plan should track with the process for a Special Use Permit where the Planning Commission could be the decision maker unless appealed to the City Council. She said this is an option to make the process make more sense for everyone.
Vice Chair Jensen said that an original parking plan should be reviewed by the Planning Commission and be appealable to City Council. The off-site valet services should be reviewed by the Planning Commission and also be appealable to City Council. The parking re-design, unless there are significant substantial changes to the number of parking spaces, should be reviewed by Design Review. He said onsite valet services should be handled by the Traffic Committee.
Commissioner St. Denis asked if current parking plans are reviewed by the Planning Commission and are appealable to City Council.
Director Hurst said the current Code states that a Joint Use Parking Plan is considered by the Planning Commission who makes a recommendation to the City Council. She said the process 372 City of Coronado Page 327
Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2012
may stem from the l 970s Code which was never changed to reflect the OACSP process. She suggested clarifying the process in the Code would be helpful.
Public Comment
Ms. Sarich encouraged the public to attend and participate in public meetings.
Commission Discussion
Commissioner DeNardi said he was strongly opposed to administrative replacing the discretionary process. He said that Joint Use should be a Planning Commission function appealable to City Council. He stated that on-site valet services should be a Traffic Committee decision, and off-site valet services should be a Planning Commission appealable to the City Council.
Commissioner Grimes agreed that the processes should be reviewed. He said he likes the Planning Commission appealable to City Council idea on most of the processes.
Commissioner St. Denis said she agreed as it is the manner in which the Planning Commission and Design Review works.
Commission Action
COMMISSIONER ST. DENIS MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
THAT CITY COUNCIL REVIEW THE PARKING PLAN REVIEW PROCESS AND THAT THE CODE BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: 1) OFF-SITE
PARKING VALET SERVICES BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPEALABLE TO CITY COUNCIL; 2) PARKING RE-DESIGN BE REVIEWED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION APPEALABLE TO CITY COUNCIL; 3) ON-SITE
PARKING VALET SERVICES BE REVIEWED BY THE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE APPEALABLE TO CITY COUNCIL; 4) PARKING PLAN BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; 5) JOINT USE BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPEALABLE TO CITY COUNCIL; 6) APPROVING AUTHORITY REMAIN DISCRETIONARY (VS. ADMINISTRATIVE).
COMMISSIONER DENARDI SECONDED THE MOTION.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DeNardi, Grimes, Jensen, Santos, St. Denis.
None.
None.
None.
The motion passed 5-0.
373 City of Coronado Page 328
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 329
City of Coronado Page 330
City of Coronado Page 331
City of Coronado Page 332
City of Coronado Page 333
City of Coronado Page 334
City of Coronado Page 335
City of Coronado Page 336
City of Coronado Page 337
City of Coronado Page 338
City of Coronado Page 339
City of Coronado Page 340