Coronado City Council
July 19, 2022

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 296
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 297
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 298
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 299
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 300
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 301
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 302
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 303
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 304
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 305
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 306
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 307
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 308
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 309
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 310
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 311
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 312
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 313
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 314
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 315
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 316
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 317
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 318
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 319
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 320
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 321
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 322
City of Coronado Page 323
City of Coronado Page 324
City of Coronado Page 325
City of Coronado Page 326
City of Coronado Page 327
City of Coronado Page 328
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 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
July 19, 2022 10h

PROVIDE DIRECTION ON THE COURT RESURFACING AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

SCOPE OF WORK AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS RECOMMENDATION:

Provide direction on the Court Resurfacing and Improvement Projects scope of work, including configurations for tennis, pickleball and/or basketball, and any improvements at Cays Park, and authorize staff to advertise for bid.

BACKGROUND:

In 2015, the tennis, basketball, and wall ball courts were resurfaced by Pacific Tennis Courts, Inc. at a total project cost of $171,213. In 2021, staff observed many of the tennis courts were showing signs of wear and required resurfacing, consistent with the timing of regular court maintenance cycles. In July of 2021 staff requested and received City Council authorization to bid the resurfacing of the courts within the City. The courts requested to be resurfaced included the following:

ITEM LOCATION COURT QUANTITY
1 Library 2 Tennis
2 Tennis Center (Glorietta Bay) 8 Tennis + 1 Practice
3 Cays 5 Tennis + 1 Basketball
4 High School (Robbin Adair) 4 Tennis
On October 27, 2021, two bids were received and questions were raised after the bid opening related to the availability and use of the courts for tennis and pickleball and the award process for the non-City courts. To address these questions and better frame the court resurfacing scope of work, staff prepared and solicited an in-depth survey related to tennis and pickleball usage within the city.

On May 3, 2022, the City Council rejected the October 2021 bids, and in a separate agenda item at the same Council meeting, staff presented an overview of Coronado courts, court usage data and the tennis and pickleball user survey results. A significant amount of public comment was received. At the conclusion of the item, City Council directed staff to do the following:

1. Convert one existing tennis court in the Cays Park to pickleball courts;

2. Convert the basketball court to pickleball courts;
a. An amendment was made to maintain the basketball hoops if they could be maintained without preventing pickleball.
b. It was noted that at least one set of pickleball courts should include lighting, and no specific court was identified.

3. Communicate to the landscape architect for the Cays Park Master Plan to consider the best use of the space and consider basketball in that space;

4. In the Mid-term, direct staff to pursue public/private partnerships for tennis/pickleball facilities;
City of Coronado Page 334

5. In the long-term, explore adding amenities at Cays Park and the Glorietta Bay Tennis Center to increase capacity and overall better socializing experience; and

6. Include in the scope of work for Cays Court #1 to be resurfaced with a hard top.

Since May 3, staff have engaged in designing layout options and meeting with stakeholders regarding the Cays Park courts. Staff first met with the Coronado Island Marriott to gather information on their pickleball program. Then, staff developed court layout alternatives that addressed north/south or east/west pickleball court orientation alternatives for the conversion of a Cays court (#5) to pickleball. For the basketball court, in light of the Council direction to maintain the basketball hoops if possible, staff developed layouts that could accommodate basketball and pickleball dual use with blended lines and temporary moveable pickleball nets.

A site meeting at Cays Park was held with the Coronado Tennis Association (CTA), the Pickleball Coronado Association (PCA) and Impact Activities, the City’s tennis and pickleball concessionaire, to review draft site layouts for permanent pickleball use of Cays Court #5, and different layouts and uses of the Cays Park basketball court. The participants discussed the merits of different court layouts and the PCA supported the conversion of all or part of the basketball court for dedicated pickleball use, allowing fixed nets to be installed. Staff then prepared drawings of both dual use (basketball and pickleball) and fixed net alternative layouts for the basketball court and these were circulated back to the meeting participants.

The CTA indicated that all of the layouts proposed were satisfactory to them. PCA indicated that for Cays Court #5, Option B, the north/south layout is preferred. For the basketball court, either full conversion to pickleball or Option B, the fixed net pickleball layout with two fixed pickleball courts and a little less than half-court basketball, was their preferred option. PCA also indicated that Option A, with temporary dual basketball and pickleball with blended lines, was their second choice.

Since the May 3, 2022 City Council meeting, written correspondence was received expressing concern about the prospective reduction of access to the basketball court that might be caused by any physical changes to the basketball court.

For maximum transparency and to gather additional feedback for the Council’s consideration of the final court configurations, the matter was agendized for the Parks and Recreation Commission’s July 11, 2022 meeting. There, staff presented court layout options for Cays Park Court #5 and the basketball court. Written and verbal public comment was received, and Commissioners deliberated and asked staff questions. After one motion failed, the three Commissioners in attendance made the following recommendation to the City Council, by a 2-1 vote, to support the conversation of Cays Park Court #5 to dedicated pickleball courts and not to change the utilization of the basketball court. The final motion did not include pickleball on the current basketball court as there was concern about impacting the users of the basketball court.

ANALYSIS:

With direction by City Council and meetings that have transpired since May 3rd, staff present the following options to the City Council for direction and authorization to bid the preferred scope of services.

The first request from the City Council was to convert one existing tennis court to pickleball. During the design phase staff recommended the pickleball courts be located at Cays Court #5 to keep tennis and pickleball courts adjacent to each other, which would allow players of the same activity to remain together, and to maximize the distance of pickleball courts from residential housing due City of Coronado Page 335
to sound concerns. Another factor was the understanding that pickleball courts would be located at the basketball courts where lighting currently exists, which immediately meets the Council’s direction to have lighting for at least one set of pickleball courts. Currently there is no lighting at Cays Court #5. Staff has estimated base improvements for the conversion of Court #5 at $92,000.

This includes court resurfacing, partial sound attenuation screening, fixed posts and nets, ball barrier and gates, and bonds/insurance/contingency. The cost to include lighting is estimated at an additional $87,000 for five pairs of lights meeting USA Pickleball Category II Illumination recommendations (mid-range).

The second request from the City Council was to convert the basketball court with dual use if basketball could be maintained while not preventing pickleball. Staff identified one option that meets this request (Option A) and added a second option during the process (Option B) (see Attachment 2). Each option provides advantages and disadvantages with the main difference being that they provide blended or exclusive use of each activity. While the exclusive use limits full access to the entire court, it provides a clear separation of pickleball and basketball facilities thus ensuring availability for each use. Estimates for each range from $184,000 (Option A) to $221,000 (Option B) and include the base scope items listed above for Cays Court #5, plus fencing. Fencing accounts for approximately half of the costs of each estimate while updated lighting is estimated at nearly $64,000. The existing lighting is functional, but below standards for the construction of a new basketball or pickleball court.

In anticipation of various options and improvements that may be selected, staff is recommending that any proposed resurfacing and improvements be split into two projects: Resurfacing (including installation of permanent posts and nets) and fencing/lighting/sound attenuation screening, etc.

Staff estimates the earliest that each of the projects could be fully completed is Spring of 2023 assuming there are no delays such as supply chain or weather issues. The bid to resurface the courts would include all 17 City-owned courts. The bid would be awarded on the full contract price for 21 courts but provide the option to accept or decline the resurfacing of the 4 high school courts, as elected by the Coronado Unified School District which has maintenance responsibility for the high school courts. In regards to the Cays Court #5 pickleball courts and Cays Court #1, staff could prioritize the resurfacing of the pickleball courts and change Court #1 to the hard court surface to occur first, since the bid documents will require the contractor to phase the resurfacing to allow for the continued programming of activities on the courts. The Coronado Tennis Center and Library Courts would also be prioritized for resurfacing.

Staff requests City Council direction with the final court locations and configurations for tennis, pickleball and/or basketball, and any improvements at Cays Park in order to advertise the citywide Court Resurfacing and Improvement Projects.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Coronado Tennis Courts Resurfacing project (400710-9811-21005) was approved as part of the FY 2020-21 mid-year budget adjustment. There is a total available project budget of $199,427 ($130,000 from the Capital Projects Fund, $69,427 from the Recreation Tennis maintenance budget). To date, a total of $210 for newspaper advertisement has been expended. No funds have been spent on design as the City’s architectural project management team with support from the Recreation Department, prepared the design and construction documents.

Depending upon the options selected, an additional $179,000 to $400,000 will be required to supplement the original budget. Any increases to the estimate or bid to resurface the courts since the prior bid advertisement are unknown and not included.

City of Coronado Page 336
ALTERNATIVE:

The Council may elect to modify or cancel the project.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:

Categorically Exempt per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline; Class 1, Existing Facilities
PUBLIC NOTICE:

No notice required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Cays Park Court #5 - Pickleball Options A and B

2. Cays Park Basketball Court – Pickleball/Basketball Options A and B Submitted By: Public Services and Engineering Department / Leon Firsht/Jackie Lu City of Coronado Page 337
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 338
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 339