Coronado City Council
August 15, 2023

P1. Other Identifier:

DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 5S
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
*P2. Location: ☐ Not for Publication ☒ Unrestricted
*a. County San Diego and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Point Loma Quadrangle Date 1996(2001 ed.)T 17S; R 3W; of of Sec 15; San Bernardino B.M.
c. Address 335 Alameda Boulevard City Coronado Zip 92118 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11S, 482840 mE/ 3617916 mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) APN: 536-191-05-00
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)
The subject property at 335 Alameda Boulevard is located mid-block on the east side of Alameda Boulevard, between Third Street and Fourth Street, on parcel (APN: 536-191-05-00). The subject property contains one single-family residence constructed in 1927 and a garage constructed in 1957 (Figure 1 and 7). The original building permit for the subject property lists its start of construction date as October 7, 1926 (Permit # 3302). According to the building inspection, the “Final Date” was April 26, 1927, therefore, the subject property’s year of construction is 1927 (Permit # SP1397). The parcel is slightly angled off the cardinal directions and is enclosed by a stucco-clad wall surrounding the boundaries of the parcel. See continuation Sheet. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2. Single-family property *P4. Resources Present: ☒Building ☐Structure ☐Object ☐Site ☐District ☐Element of District ☐Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
P5b. Description of Photo:
(view, date, accession #): View
facing southeast, 09/07/22,
DSC03872
*P6. Date Constructed/Age
and Source: ☒ Historic
☐Prehistoric ☐ Both
*P7. Owner and Address:

Rigdon Rodger C & Mary C TRS
335 Alameda Boulevard
Coronado, CA 92118
*P8. Recorded by: (Name,
affiliation, and address) [name, last
name],
Katie Ahmanson, Dudek
38 N. Marengo Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101
*P9. Date Recorded:
09/20/22
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey
report and other sources, or enter
"none.")
Dudek. 2022. Historical
Resource Evaluation Report 335
Alameda Coronado, California. Prepared September 2022 for the City of Coronado. *Attachments: ☐NONE ☒Location Map ☒Continuation Sheet ☒Building, Structure, and Object Record ☐Archaeological Record ☐District Record ☐Linear Feature Record ☐Milling Station Record ☐Rock Art Record☐Artifact Record ☐Photograph Record ☐ Other (List):

Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 391
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 335 Alameda Boulevard *NRHP Status Code 5S

DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
(This space reserved for official comments.)
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
B1. Historic Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard
B2. Common Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard
B3. Original Use: Single-family residence B4. Present Use: Single-family residence *B5. Architectural Style: Spanish Colonial Revival style *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) See continuation sheet.
*B7. Moved? ☒No ☐Yes ☐Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:

Detached one-story carport southeast of the residence.

B9a. Architect: none b. Builder: Oscar W. Dorman
*B10. Significance: Theme Residential Architecture Area Coronado Period of Significance 1926 Property Type Single-family residence Applicable Criteria C & D (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
The subject property was evaluated in consideration of the City of Coronado designation criteria and integrity requirements. As a result of the evaluation, the property is recommended eligible for local designation under City of Coronado criteria C and D. The subject property retains a high level of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

As such, the subject property retains the requisite integrity for inclusion on the Coronado Register. See continuation sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References:

See continuation sheet.

B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Katie Ahmanson, MHC
*Date of Evaluation: 9/23/2022
Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 392

*Map Name: Point Loma Quadrangle *Scale: 1:24000 *Date of map: 1996 (2001 ed.) _____ DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 393
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

*P3a. Description (continued from page 1):

The primary (northwest) elevation of the residence is oriented toward Alameda Boulevard and is accessed by an iron gate at the sidewalk that leads to a terra cotta tile pathway to the primary entrance. The rear of the property can be accessed by a wooden gate below an arched stucco wall. The garage is accessed by the alley along the rear of the property. The residence’s northeast and southwest side elevations extend nearly to the lot lines with adjacent residential properties that are developed with two-story single-family residences. Along the rear (southeast) and southwest elevations are a brick and terra cotta tile covered patio adjacent to a pond and fountain. A terra cotta tile pathway leads to the detached garage located in the northwest corner of the property. The subject property’s landscaping includes a lawn area along the primary (northwest) and rear (southeast) elevations and sections of plantings and mature trees.

Residence (1927)
The residence is L-shaped in plan and a combination one and two stories in height. The building is Spanish Colonial Revival in style and is clad in stucco with a cross-gable Mission (half-cylinder) red-tile roof with open eaves and exposed rafters. At the southwest corner of the residence is a tapered belltower chimney with a stepped cap featuring arched hood openings on each side (Figure 3). Where the one-story and two-story sections meet, a flat balcony is accessed by the southwest elevation with wood balustrades. Most of the fenestration on the residence is wood-sash multi-light casement windows. The primary (northwest) elevation features a two-story front-gable volume (left) and a single-story rectangular side-gable volume (right).

The elevation’s left section displays two paired casement windows on the first story, and on the second story a pair of arched casement windows flanking an arched doorway with an iron Juliette balcony beneath the gable end. The elevations right section includes a recessed entrance sheltered by an extension of the side gable roof with a wood single-panel main entry door accessed by terra cotta tile steps. Fenestration also included a group of three casement windows flanked by wood shutters (Figure 1 and 2). The entry vestibule’s southwest elevation displays a section of square ornamental “punched” wall openings.

A brick pathway leads from the primary (northwest) elevation to the side (southwest) elevation and rear patio. A terra cotta tile patio is located along the southwest elevation and is covered with a corrugated plastic shed roof (Figure 4). The first story’s fenestration includes three wood sash casement windows. From left to right, the first is a smaller wood-sash multi-light casement window with an articulated stucco hood and a decorative wood boxed grille, and two identical wood-sash multi-light casement windows. The elevation’s second story is partially obscured by foliage. Observed fenestration from left to right includes a pair of multi-light wood sash casement windows with wood shutters, a fenestration opening (material and operation unknown) with wood shutters, a screened entry door, and a vinyl horizontal sliding window with wood shutters. This elevation displays a second-story roofed balcony with turned wood balustrades, squared wood columns, and a decorative bracket below (Figure 5).

The rear (southeast) elevation mirrors the single-story side-gable volume and two-story front-gable volume. The single-story volume includes a wing wall which attaches the residence to the surrounding stucco wall. Fenestration on the one-story section includes an arched wood panel entry door, a pair of wood-sash multi-light casement windows, and a wood French door and screen door accessed by two terra cotta tile steps. The two-story volume includes a group of three wood sash casement windows with wood shutters on the first story and a horizontal sliding vinyl sash window with wood shutters on the second floor (Figure 5).

The northeast elevation is accessed by a painted concrete pathway from the rear elevation. The first story’s fenestration from left to right includes three wood-sash multi-light casement windows, a wood frame screen door, a pair of wood frame French doors, and an oriel window with wood-sash multi-light casement windows. The second story’s fenestration from left to right includes wood-sash multi-light casement window with wood shutters, a wood-sash multi-light casement window, a series of three wood-sash multi-light casement windows, and a pair of wood-sash multi-light casement windows with wood shutters (Figure 6).

Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 394
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

Garage (1957)
To the residence's southeast is a detached, square-in-plan, one-story garage with a flat roof and a raised parapet. The building’s exterior walls are clad in stucco (Figure 7). The garage is accessed from the alley behind the subject property. The primary (southeast) elevation features a replacement metal sectional single-car width garage door. The side (southwest and northeast) elevations do not include fenestration aside from a small wood door opening on the southwest elevation. The rear (northwest) elevation displays a door opening and a pair of wood-sash multi-light fixed windows. *B6. Construction History (continued from page 1):

The following exterior alterations were identified through a review of property record research and/or during the survey conducted on September 7, 2022:
• 1933: alter a dwelling – frame, interior and exterior lath and plaster, roofing (Permit #4487)
• 1957: erect carport (Permit #13022)
• 1980: construct block wall approximately 75’ x 6’ (Permit #22493) • Date unknown: addition of wood shutters to two windows on rear (southeast) and southwest elevations (Figure 8)
• Date unknown: removal of two wood casement windows and replacement with horizontal sliding vinyl windows on rear (southeast) and southwest elevations (Figure 8) • Date unknown: installation of a fountain, patio enclosure, and built-in barbeque along the southeast elevation
• Date unknown: removal of a decorative window visor on primary (northwest) elevation (Figure 9)
• Date unknown: removal, replacement, and addition of wood shutters on primary (northwest) elevation (Figure 9)
• Date unknown: replacement of front door on primary (northwest) elevation (Figure 9) • Date unknown: removal of the original mailbox on primary (northwest) elevation (Figure 9) • Date unknown: garage door replacement (observed)
*B10. Significance (continued from page 2):

Historical Overview of Coronado
In 1602, the Spanish explorer Sebastian Vizcaíno passed the offshore islands and isthmus comprising modern-day Coronado on November 8, a holy day for commemorating four Christian soldiers known as “the Crowned Ones.” A priest on board the Spanish ship named the islands Las Islas de los Coronados in their honor. The land remained relatively untouched for the next 200 years, until May 15, 1846, when Coronado and its sister island, North Island, became the property of Don Pedro Carrillo. The Mexican Governor Pio Pico granted the land to Carrillo as a wedding gift on the occasion of his marriage to the daughter of Don Juan Bandini, a prominent leader of San Diego. Carrillo used the 4,185-acre land grant, spanning from the border with Rancho de la Nación on the south to the northern edge of North Island, for the next year to graze his cattle. In 1847, the land was sold for $1,000 to Bezar Simmons, an early American settler in Southern California, who utilized the islands for cattle grazing for the next 25 years (Peterson 1959; Crawford 2010; SDU 1938).

Ownership of the peninsula changed several times between the 1850s and 1885, until November 1885 when Elisha Babcock, Hampton Story, and Jacob Gruendike, along with two other minority partners, purchased the peninsula for $110,000. On April 7, 1886, the five business partners filed articles of incorporation for the Coronado Beach Company, putting up $100,000 in capital. The business Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 395
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

partners chose the name Coronado, which was derived from the Spanish name for the islands and isthmus. The Coronado Beach Company formed subsidiary companies – including the Coronado Beach Water, Ferry, Railroad, Brick, & Transfer Companies – to service the island. The entrepreneurs began subdividing the land and selling off lots to recoup their money from the purchase of the island (Peterson 1959; Crawford 2010; SDU 1938; CHA 2022).

Elisha Babcock and Hampton Story realized early on the appeal that the island had in both its climate and landscape to attract tourists. The sale of residential lots in 1886 helped fund the building of the Hotel del Coronado, which was finished in 1888, only 11 months after its groundbreaking. The 1888 Sanborn Map shows very few residential buildings on the island, which were primarily concentrated in the northeast portion of the city, close to the ferry house (Sanborn 1888). The Coronado Water Company began to run pipes 3,000 feet under the San Diego Bay to ensure that fresh water would reach the island. A new street railway system and steam-powered ferry were in development at the same time to service both locals and tourists. Only one year after the Hotel del Coronado opened, John D. Spreckels purchased the Coronado Beach Company for $500,000, which included all of Coronado, North Island, the hotel, ferry, trolley, and water system, aside from already privately owned lots. On December 9, 1890, Coronado residents voted to incorporate and be led by a local Board of Trustees (Crawford 2010; CHA 2022).

Coronado continued to grow under the ownership of Spreckels and, after a period of slow development, became a playground for wealthy Americans. The 1906 Sanborn Map shows an increase in residential development in the southeast section of the peninsula, running from the ferry dock at the northern end to the Hotel del Coronado on the southern end (Sanborn 1906). The construction of the Hotel del Coronado encouraged people to build summer homes on the southern end of the city, closer to the beach. From 1900 until 1938, an upscale campground just south of the Hotel del Coronado named Tent City, which was comprised of several hundred tents and thatched roof cottages, became a popular attraction for both locals and visitors. Many families that spent their winters on the island during the early 1900s eventually moved permanently into homes on Coronado (Crawford 2010; CHA 2019). By 1920 development had continued to increase and spread to the western side of the City, including the construction of the Coronado County Club. Subdivided plots of land began to have primarily single-family homes constructed on them, although there were still large amounts of open land available. The City’s Board of Trustees governed until 1926 when a city council was formed, and a mayor was appointed (Sanborn 1921; CHA 2022).

The presence of the military paycheck helped Coronado feel less of the effects of the Great Depression from 1929 to 1939. By the 1930s, Coronado had a population of 5,424 including service members and their families on North Island. The greatest impact financially was on landlords who rented out houses to tourists. A large portion of Coronado’s real estate was classified as homes available for vacation rental. Fewer families could afford to rent vacation homes during the Great Depression. The amount of “For Rent” signs was so plentiful that the Coronado Realty Board decided to remove all of them. There was also a downturn in the construction of new homes. In the spring of 1940, only eighteen new homes were constructed, representing a major halt in the momentum the construction industry had been experiencing since 1890. After the Depression, there was a period of expansion and development. The growth of single-family homes continued through the 1940s as development stretched further west from the city’s center (Enowitz 2015, Crawford 2010; CHA 2022; Carlin and Brandes 1998; Millen 1982).

North Island, used by guests of the Hotel del Coronado to hunt for jackrabbits, remained relatively uninhabited until 1911 when famed aviator Glenn Curtiss leased the land for three years from John Spreckels. During that time, Curtiss experimented with his newly developed seaplane; finding the island to be an ideal place for aviation, he opened a flight school that trained pilots. Also, during these three years, Curtiss convinced the United States Navy to establish their first aircraft squadron on North Island, resulting in it becoming the “Birthplace of Naval Aviation” (Crawford 2010). The Island became a joint Army and Navy base in 1917 after Congress passed a Condemnation Act to acquire 1,232 acres for five million dollars from John Spreckels. The Army’s Rockwell Field occupied one-half of North Island with the naval air station occupying the other half, sometimes creating conflict between the two branches. The City experienced rapid growth beginning in the early 1920s, which only increased with the establishment of the Army and Navy bases on North Island. Military families began to move to the peninsula permanently, becoming a Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 396
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

large part of the total population and changing the overall city demographics. In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt visited North Island and decided that the Army was to relocate. In the early 1940s, the decision was made to dredge a portion of San Diego Bay, known as the Spanish Bight, to create more acreage for the Navy. This reclaimed land was the eventual location of the Naval Amphibious Base, the only base of this type on the West Coast (Crawford 2010; Dellinger 2009; CHA 2022).

The City’s population before World War I was 6,932, but by 1945 the population rose to 25,382. A 1941 aerial photograph displays a large increase in development from the 1921 Sanborn Map, the landscape specifically to the west and east of Orange Avenue is dominated by residential development, the majority of which is set back from the street and small in scale (UCSB 2022). The infill of the Spanish Bight, in addition to creating more room for the Amphibious Base, also allowed for the construction of more buildings, easing the congestion on the peninsula’s limited amount of space (Crawford 2010; CHA 2022).

Between 1953 and 1964, historic aerials show the development of the four and a half blocks west of Alameda Boulevard, which up until this point was the last block with residential development before entering open land or land owned by Naval Air Station (NAS) North Island. These streets running north to south, including Coronado, Balboa, Cabrillo, and Country Club Avenues, are dominated by single-family residential development (Crawford 2010; CHA 2022; NETR 2022). A long-term goal of the City was to construct a bridge between Coronado and downtown San Diego, which were connected only by ferry. To accomplish this massive undertaking, San Diego Bay was dredged to build the bridge supports deep enough into the ground for stability. Governor Ronald Reagan dedicated the new bridge on August 2, 1969; it measured a full two miles long and 200 feet tall to allow Navy ships to pass underneath it.

The opening of the San Diego-Coronado Bridge represented the next step in the island’s history.

The easy access to the bridge granted to both tourists and San Diego locals created a demand for higher-density housing than that provided by the existing single-family houses. In 1971, the first towers on Coronado, the Coronado Shores Towers, were completed at 17-stories tall and built on 35 acres of beachfront land once owned by the Hotel del Coronado. The ten Coronado Shores Towers buildings comprised one of the largest complexes constructed in California and led to Coronado residents voting in 1972 to set a 40-foot height limit within the City, from which the Coronado Shores Towers was exempt. Coronado residents were given the power to officially elect their own mayor in 1972. Despite the continued popularity of Coronado, the population has stayed relatively the same since the 1940s. Consistent with an urbanized community, Coronado has experienced relatively little housing growth since 1990. This is due to the limited amount of space on the island and the lack of vacant land available for new housing construction. The 2010 census recorded a population of 24,697, compared to 25,382 in 1945. The Hotel del Coronado still plays a prominent role in the City’s identity, hosting more than two million visitors a year. Tourism continues to be the heart of Coronado’s economy, along with the still-large presence of the Navy (Zuniga 2008; Crawford 2010; CHA 2022).

History of the Subject Property
According to “Building Permit #3002” filed on October 7, 1926, the single-family residence at 335 Alameda Boulevard was constructed by O.W. Dorman (also known as Oscar W. Dorman) for Mrs. Ida Bell Hall. The residence is situated on the southeast side of Alameda Boulevard, between Third Street and Fourth Street on lot 29-30 of block 135 (Figure 10) (City of Coronado). The subject property has been owned and occupied by several families since its construction in 1926 and 2022.

Mrs. Ida Bell Hall initially owned the subject property. Hall was born in Lyons, Michigan in 1860 and married her husband, Spencer G. Millard, on June 17, 1885, in Ionia, Michigan (U.S. Marriage Records 1885). Millard was an attorney with the law firm Webster & Millard. The couple moved to Los Angeles in 1887 (SDUDB 1895; LAT 1895). their son, Spencer Jay Millard, was born the following year in Michigan, and in 1891 their daughter, Gertrude Millard, was born in Los Angeles (U.S. Find a Grave Index 1888 & 1891). Spencer G. Millard was elected Lieutenant-Governor of California in 1895, but he passed away in Los Angeles in 1895 during his first year in office (LAT 1895). Hall remained in Los Angeles, where she raised her two children (SDUDB 1895). It is unclear when she Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 397
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

arrived in Coronado, but newspaper research reveals she was involved in the construction of three residences in Coronado, including the subject property at 335 Alameda Boulevard, as well as a home at 400 B Avenue and a dwelling and garage on lots 19 and 20 of block 120 north, constructed in 1926 (CEJ Nov. 2, 1926; CEJ Nov. 16, 1926). Each of the homes was constructed by the same contractor, O. W. Dorman. Census research indicates that Hall did not reside in any of these homes.

Historic newspaper research records the first occupants of the subject property as Dr. and Mrs.

William Dunlop Owens and their maid, Viola Jefferson, in 1928 (CEJ 1928; U.S. City Directories 1928). Owens was born in Washington D.C. in 1878 where he attended Georgetown Medical School before joining the Navy in 1898. After achieving the level of Commander, he served in World War I and, “established a system of medical practice on naval transports which was credited with reducing to a minimum the loss of life among army and navy personnel at sea” (SDU 1930). In 1922, Owens became an Executive Officer at the Naval Hospital in Balboa Park, however, he retired shortly after in 1925 because of his declining health. Owens retired to Coronado with his wife where they lived at 335 Alameda Boulevard until he died in 1930 (SDU 1930).

After the Owens, the subject property was occupied by Mrs. Cora Leighton Millard from 1931 to 1932 (U.S. City Directory 1931). Born Cora A. Leighton in Pepperell, Massachusetts in 1872, she was the only child of Charles Leighton and Addie A. Leighton. (US Birth Records 1872). Although historic newspaper research did not reveal much information about her early life, census research indicated that she lived in Massachusetts with her parents until she married Fred Morrill Haley in Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1892 (U.S. Marriage Records 1892). Haley was a mason and proprietor of a G.M.

Worthing store in Boston. The couple lived in Lynn, Massachusetts, and had a daughter, Constance, in 1900. Haley passed away from heart failure in 1909 (U.S. Birth Record 1900; The Boston Globe 1909). Cora later married Hudson Alfred Millard in 1915 and moved to Westchester County, New York (U.S. Marriage Records). Millard was a mining engineer who was drafted into World War I in 1917 as an engineer (WW I Draft Registration Card). Census information indicates that Mr. and Mrs.

Millard lived in New York from 1915 to 1930 before moving to Coronado in 1931. The Coronado City Index reveals that Cora Millard (possibly widowed) moved to the subject property for one year with her “servant,” Sam H. Laws, and maid, Edith Sandstrom. She rented her house to Admiral and Mrs.

Harry E. Yarnell in 1932 then George C. Gordon in 1933 before returning to the property in 1934.

By 1935, Cora’s daughter, Constance, had ownership of the property and resided there with her husband, Commander David S. Crawford (City of Coronado).

Commander and Mrs. Crawford occupied the house from 1935 to 1936 (The City of Coronado). Commander Crawford was in the U.S. Navy and served in World War I and World War II (WW I Veterans Service; U.S. Veteran Compensation). The couple had married in 1925 and lived in Westchester, New York until they moved into the subject property with Cora Millard and their sons, Leighton and Glenn, as well as daughter Carole in 1934 (U.S. Marriage Records 1925; Evening Tribune 1934). They stayed for a year before moving to Washington D.C. where Commander Crawford was relocated in 1936 (CEJ May 14, 1936).

The subject property was rented by Commander Cary W. Magruder from 1936 to 1938 while the Crawfords were away. Commander Magruder was a Naval Commander who resided at the property with his wife Charlotte and daughter Polly (City of Coronado). The Crawford family returned to the subject property in 1938, with an article in the Coronado Citizen reading, “Mrs. Cora Millard, her daughter and son-in-law, Lr. Comdr. and Mrs. David Crawford and the three Crawford children arrived in Coronado on Tuesday and reopened the home at 335 Alameda Boulevard” (CC 1938). The Crawfords remained at the subject property until 1940 when they moved to 1045 Loma Avenue, and the subject property was subsequently rented by multiple families (U.S. Federal Census 1940).

In 1940, the subject property was rented by Commander Spencer H. Warner, his wife Ruth Warner, and their children, Elise and Jackson (City of Coronado). Warner was a Flight Commander in the Navy who had previously rented homes in Coronado at 762 E Avenue in 1926 and 409 B Avenue in 1928 before moving to 335 Alameda Boulevard (CEJ Aug. 31, 1926; CEJ 1928). The Warners resided at the property for a year. The home was rented to Commander and Mrs. Leland D. Webb in 1941 (SDU 1941). Previously, the Webbs rented a home at 1114 G Avenue before Commander Webb was deployed to Pearl Harbor in 1935 (SDU 1934; U.S. Navy and Marine Corps Registries). The family returned to Coronado in 1941 Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 398
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

and rented the subject property for a year before the Warners returned to the subject property in 1942 (CA U.S. Voter Registrations 1942).

From 1944 to 1945, Naval Commander William C. Fortune and his wife Elizabeth O. Fortune rented the subject property (U.S. City Directories 1944). However, research was unable to uncover much about their lives during the time they resided at the subject property.

Lieutenant Commander Lloyd E. Root to the subject property with his wife and daughter in 1945 (CEJ 1945). The Roots moved to Coronado from Washington D.C. where Lieutenant Commander Root was previously stationed. In Coronado, Root was an assistant Public Works Officer at the Naval Air Station. The family resided in the subject property for a year until the property was listed for sale in the Coronado Eagle and Journal in 1946 (Figure 11) (CEJ 1946).

The subject property was next occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Walter D. Christensen in 1947 (CEJ 1947).

Mr. Christensen was an electrician and had served in the Army Air Corps (Evening Tribune 1987).

The couple rented the residence for less than a year before the property was purchased by Commander and Mrs. Earl Pope in 1947 (CEJ Oct. 30, 1947).

Commander Pope was in the Navy and had been on sea duty on the U.S.S. Pope in San Francisco before arriving in Coronado in 1947 (Evening Tribune 1939). Pope was the son of Admiral and Mrs. Ralph Pope of Coronado and remained in the Navy in Coronado before retiring in the mid-1950s (CEJ 1956).

He lived in the subject property with his wife for twelve years before moving to 622 Glorietta Boulevard in 1959 (CEJ 1959).

Rodger C. Rigdon, his wife Mary Rigdon, and their children, Jeff Rigdon, Malcolm G., and Lisa D., purchased the subject property in 1961 (CEJ 1961). Mr. and Mrs. Rigdon were teachers in the Coronado School system. Rodger taught woodworking, physical education, varsity football, and junior varsity football while Mary taught English and Latin (CEJ 1960, 1974 & 1980). Their son, Jeff, was enrolled in school at Coronado and participated in swimming, basketball, and track (CEJ 1966, 1968, 1977). The family was heavily involved in the Coronado community with Jeff joining his parents as a teacher in the Coronado School system in 1982 (CEJ 1982). City Directory research indicated that the family resided at the subject property until 2002 (U.S. Phone and Address Directories). Since then, the subject property has remained in the family under the ownership of the Rodger C. and Mary C. Rigdon Trust (ParcelQuest).

Owner/Occupant Timeline
The following section presents a timeline of the owners and/or longer-term occupants of the subject property since the construction of the residence. Names with an asterisk next to them represent occupants who were also owners of the subject property (non-renters) (a complete owner/occupant history is provided in Appendix A of the report):
• 1926-1928: Mrs. Ida Bell Hall* (did not reside in property) • 1928-1930: Mrs. and Mr. William Dunlop Owens (Eliza), and Viola Jefferson • 1931-1932: Mrs. Cora Millard,* Sam H. Laws, and Edith Sandstrom • 1934-1940: Commander. & Mrs. David S. Crawford (Constance) and Mrs. Cora Millard* • 1940: Mr. & Mrs. Spencer H. Warner (Ruth), Elise and Jackson Warner • 1941: Commander and Mrs. Leland D. Webb
• 1942: Mr. & Mrs. Spencer H. Warner (Ruth)
• 1944 -1945: Naval Commander William C. Fortune and wife Elizabeth O. Fortune • 1945-1946: Lieutenant Commander Lloyd E. Root
• 1947: Mr. and Mrs. Walter D. Christensen
• 1947-1959: Comdr. & Mrs. Earl Pope and William Pope*
Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 399
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

• 1960: Vacant
• 1961-2002: Roger C. & Mary C. Rigdon,* Jeff Rigdon, Malcolm G. Rigdon, and Lisa D. Rigdon Architectural Style: Spanish Colonial Revival (1915-1940) Prior to the 1920s, buildings with Spanish-influenced designs were based primarily on the early Spanish missions, which were commonly very simplistic. Architect, Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue (1869- 1924), was responsible for the architectural master plan of the 1915 Panama-California Exposition in San Diego. The Panama-California Exposition introduced more elaborate versions of the Spanish prototypes found in other counties. Buildings constructed using this style increased their ornamentation, forms, and materials, borrowing decorative details from the history of Spanish architecture, including Moorish, Byzantine, Gothic, and Renaissance styles. Following the 1915 San Diego Panama-California Exposition, the style became dominant in San Diego and its outlying areas, including Coronado. The Spanish Colonial Revival style can also be referred to as the Spanish Eclectic style, which draws from the same influence, the 1915 San Diego Panama-California Exposition. From the mid-1910s into the 1940s, Spanish-influenced architectural design was featured prominently in domestic residential construction, thanks in part to its easy adaptability (McAlester 2018; IS Architecture 2017).

Within the Spanish Colonial Revival architectural style there are five principal subtypes: side-gabled roof, cross-gabled roof, combined hipped-and-gabled roofs, hipped roof, and flat roof. In all forms, the roof pitch is low and typically display an asymmetrical plan. The subject property falls within the cross-gabled roof subtype, which covers about 50 percent of Spanish Colonial Revival houses. This subtype features a cross-gable roof with a prominent front-facing gable.

Typically, they are L-shaped in plan and either one- or two-stories in height (McAlester 2018; City of Santa Barbara 2023). Identifying features of the Spanish Colonial Revival style in Coronado include:

Identifying features of the Spanish Colonial Revival style in Coronado include:

Massing and Overall Form:
▪ Asymmetrical façades
▪ Simple rectangular or L-shaped massing
▪ One or two stories in height
▪ Round, square, or polygonal towers
▪ Walled entry courtyards
Roof, Cornice, and Eave Details:
▪ Low-pitched side or cross-gabled roof, occasionally hipped or flat roof section ▪ Minimal eaves with little to no overhang
▪ Red clay tile roofs either Spanish (S-shaped) or Mission (half-cylinder) ▪ Emphasis on terra cotta tile that create a decorative edge from the roof to the wall Porches and Balconies:
▪ Recessed front entries
▪ Emphasis on balconies with balustrades of wood, plaster, or iron ▪ Balconies open or roofed
▪ Wrought-iron railings and lanterns
Doors:
▪ Wood entry door that expresses solidity
Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 400
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

▪ Arched or decorative plaster or stone surround
▪ Doors made of wood planks or panels
▪ Recessed in the wall plane with a stucco return and no trim ▪ Colorful decorative tiles used as baseboards
Windows
▪ Fenestration irregularly placed and recessed
▪ Stucco return with no trim
▪ Awnings are often found at windows openings
▪ Rounded arches above both doors and windows
▪ Variety of intricate to simple wood or iron grilles over the windows Vents and Chimneys:
▪ Venting in gable peaks
▪ Tower-like stucco chimneys
▪ Elaborate chimney tops with small tiled roof
Wall Materials:
▪ Smooth, whitewashed, stucco walls
▪ Uninterrupted wall surfaces punctuated by careful use of openings ▪ Painted stucco exterior walls in natural colors, typically white or tan ▪ Walls extend into gable without a break
Decorative Elements:
▪ Clay tile vents
▪ Decorative vigas (exposed roof beams)
▪ Keystone
▪ Cartouche
▪ Ornamental “punched” wall openings
▪ Decorative tiles
▪ Fountains
▪ Arched wing walls
Builder of 335 Alameda Boulevard
Oscar W. Dorman (1870-1928)
Oscar W. Dorman, or O.W. Dorman, was born in April 1873 in Farmington, Connecticut. He moved to San Diego in the 1890s and was recorded living with his sister Grace at 2357 E Street in 1900 (U.S. Census 1900). His occupation at the time was listed as truckman. Dorman most frequently listed his occupation as a lumberyard salesman for the San Diego Lumber Company, but voter registration records also list him as a contractor or builder (U.S. Census 1910; U.S. Census 1920). During his lifetime, he lived at many locations across the City of San Diego, including 765 Kearney Avenue and 1875 Main Street, and in Coronado at 935 ½ Olive Street and 930 G Avenue. Dorman married his Logan Heights neighbor, Jennie Robertson, in 1907 (SDU 1907). He appears to have become active in real estate transactions in 1911 (SDU 1911). He purchased lots in the Reed & Hubbell’s addition area of San Diego and filed a building permit for a cottage on Main Street between Twenty-eighth and Twenty-ninth Streets. His first sale in Coronado was of two lots in block 91 to Eva Proctor Park in 1919 (SDU 1919). Dorman was an Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 401
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

active and prolific builder of single-family houses on Coronado’s South Island during the 1920s and owned several houses in Coronado. The buildings constructed by Dorman in Coronado were primarily in period revival styles popular during the time, including Spanish Colonial Revival, Tudor Revival, and English Cottage or Storybook styles. The majority were Tudor Revival with prominent front-facing gables, tapered chimneys of brick or stucco, and used stucco as an exterior cladding material. His buildings varied in scale, ornamentation, and materials. He was a member of the San Diego Builder’s Exchange and was highly esteemed in the building community (CEJ 1928). Dorman died at the age of 57 on February 24, 1928, at his home located at 930 G Avenue (SDU 1928).

Ten of Dorman’s buildings have been designated as Coronado Historic Resources, eight of which are Tudor Revival in style and two being Spanish Colonial Revival in style. Other buildings attributed to Dorman in Coronado include:
▪ 937 ½ Olive Avenue (1920)
▪ 421 A Avenue (1923)
▪ 421 B Avenue (1923)
▪ 823 E Avenue (1923)
▪ 1024 Encino Row (1923), Designated Coronado Historic Resource* ▪ 956 G Avenue (1923)
▪ 448 B Avenue (1924) (demolished)
▪ 936 E Avenue (1924) *
▪ 921 G Avenue (1924)
▪ 967 G Avenue (1924) (demolished)
▪ 940 G Avenue (1924)
▪ 1021 G Avenue (1924) (demolished)
▪ 1009 J Avenue (1924)
▪ 544 Marina Avenue (1924)
▪ 943 Olive Avenue (1924) *
▪ 1027-29 Olive Avenue (1924), Designated Coronado Historic Resource ▪ 1030-1032 Olive Avenue (1924), Designated Coronado Historic Resource ▪ 526 A Avenue (1925), Designated Coronado Historic Resource ▪ 999 Adella Avenue (1925) (demolished)
▪ 560 B Avenue (1925)
▪ 566 B Avenue (1925), Designated Coronado Historic Resource ▪ 925 G Avenue (1925)
▪ 840 Glorietta Boulevard (1925) (demolished)
▪ 940 Glorietta Boulevard (1925), Designated Coronado Historic Resource ▪ 1115 Loma Avenue (1925), Designated Coronado Historic Resource ▪ 578 Margarita Avenue (1925)
▪ 611 Tenth Street (1925)
▪ 911 Tenth Street (1925) *
▪ 605 Tenth Street (1925), Designated Coronado Historic Resource ▪ 639 A Avenue (1926) (demolished)
▪ 1013 Adella Avenue (1926), Designated Coronado Historic Resource ▪ 757 Alameda Boulevard (1926), Designated Coronado Historic Resource* ▪ 836 D Avenue (1926)
Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 402
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

▪ 500 Palm Avenue (1926) *
▪ 764 J Avenue (1927) *
▪ 300 Ninth Street (1927) *
▪ 545 Ocean Boulevard (1927)
▪ 826 San Luis Rey Avenue (1927)
▪ 812 Second Street (1927)
▪ 425 Tenth Street (1927)
Properties with an asterisk next to them were built by Dorman in the Spanish Colonial Revival architectural style.

Local Statement of Significance
A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s military, cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, or engineering history; B.

Archival research did not find any associations with special elements of the City’s military, cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, or engineering history and the subject property. The subject property was completed between 1926 and 1928, during a time of increased development on Coronado. After the construction of the Hotel del Coronado in 1888, the island received an influx of visitors and development. Sanborn Maps from 1906 indicate an increase in residential development as people were encouraged to build summer homes on the southern end of the city. By 1920, development was beginning to spread to the western side of the city where subdivided plots of land were primarily constructed for single-family residences. The subject property simply reflects local history in general as a single-family residence constructed during a period of increased residential development.

The subject property was constructed on the southeast side of Alameda Boulevard in the middle of the block. According to the original building permit from October 7, 1926, O. W. Dorman (also known as Oscar W. Dorman) applied to construct a dwelling and garage on block 135 lots 29-30. Dorman lived and worked in San Diego and began building single-family houses in Coronado during the 1920s.

There is no indication that the construction of this property by Dorman marked a pivotal point in the history of Coronado. The subject property does not rise to the level of a “special element” within the history of Coronado. Rather, its construction merely followed a steady pattern of residential development that continued through the 1920s. Additionally, the subject property is not known to be directly associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the history of Coronado. Therefore, the subject property is recommended not eligible for listing under City of Coronado Criterion A.

B. It is identified with a person(s) or an event(s) significant in local, State, or national history;
Persons: The subject property was constructed by O. W. Dorman (also known as Oscar W. Dorman) (1870-1928) in 1926 for Mrs. Ida Bell Hall. Historic newspaper research reveals she was involved in the construction of three residences in Coronado, including the subject property at 335 Alameda Boulevard as well as a home at 400 B Avenue and a dwelling and garage on lots 19 and 20 of block 120 north constructed in 1926. Each of the homes was constructed by the same contractor, O. W. Dorman, however, census research reveals that Hall did not reside in any of these homes. The subject property has been owned and occupied by several families between 1928 and 2022.

The first recorded residents were Dr. and Mrs. William Dunlop Owens and their maid, Viola Jefferson in 1928. Owens was an Executive Officer at the Naval Hospital in Balboa Park and Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 403
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

retired to Coronado with his wife in 1925. Together they lived at the subject property for two years before his death in 1930.

The Coronado City Index reveals that Mrs. Cora Millard was the next resident of the property.

She moved to the subject property with her servant, Sam H. Laws, and maid, Edith Sandstrom.

However, historic newspapers suggest that they rented their house shortly thereafter to Admiral and Mrs. Harry E. Yarnell in 1932. Then in 1933, it was rented by George C. Gordon, before Cora returned to the property in 1934. By 1935, Cora’s daughter, Constance, resided in the property with her husband, Commander David S. Crawford.

Commander and Mrs. Crawford occupied the house from 1935 to 1936. Commander Crawford was in the U.S. Navy, served in World War I and World War II, and moved to the subject property with his wife and children in 1935. They stayed for a year before moving to Washington D.C. where Commander Crawford was relocated in 1936.

From 1936 to 1938 the subject property was rented by Commander Cary W. Magruder. Commander Magruder was a Naval Commander who resided at the property with his wife Charlotte and daughter Polly. However, the Crawford family returned to the subject property in 1938. The Crawfords remained at the subject property until 1940 when they moved to 1045 Loma Avenue, and the subject property was subsequently rented by multiple families.

In 1940, the subject property was rented by Commander Spencer H. Warner and his wife Ruth Warner. Warner was a Flight Commander in the Navy who had previously rented homes in Coronado at 762 E Avenue in 1926 and 409 B Avenue in 1928 before moving to 335 Alameda Boulevard. The Warners resided at the property for a year before renting the home to Commander and Mrs. Leland D. Webb in 1941.

Previously, the Webbs rented a home at 1114 G Avenue before Commander Webb was deployed to Pearl Harbor in 1935. The family returned to Coronado in 1941 and rented the subject property for a year before the Commander and Mrs. Warner returned to the subject property in 1942.

From 1944 to 1945, Naval Commander William C. Fortune and his wife Elizabeth O. Fortune rented the subject property. However, research was unable to uncover much about their lives while living at the residence. The couple lived in the residence for a year until Lieutenant Commander Lloyd E. Root moved in with his wife and daughter in 1945.

The Roots moved to Coronado from Washington D.C. where Lieutenant Commander Root was previously stationed. In Coronado, Root was an assistant Public Works Officer at the Naval Air Station.

The family resided in the subject property for a year until the property was listed for sale in the Coronado Eagle and Journal in 1946.

The subject property was next occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Walter D. Christensen in 1947. Mr.

Christensen was an electrician and had served in the Army Air Corps. The couple rented the residence for less than a year before the property was purchased by Commander and Mrs. Earl Pope in 1947.

Commander Pope was in the Navy and had been on sea duty on the U.S.S. Pope in San Francisco before arriving in Coronado in 1947. Pope was the son of Admiral and Mrs. Ralph Pope of Coronado. He served in the Armed Forces in Coronado before retiring in the mid-1950s. He lived in the subject property with his wife for twelve years before moving to 622 Glorietta Boulevard in 1959.

In 1961, Rodger C. Rigdon and his wife Mary Rigdon purchased the subject property. Mr. and Mrs.

Rigdon were teachers in the Coronado School system. Rodger taught woodworking, physical education, varsity football, and junior varsity football while Mary taught English and Latin. Their son, Jeff, was enrolled in school at Coronado and participated in swimming, basketball, and track.

The family was heavily involved in the Coronado community with Jeff joining his parents as a teacher in the Coronado School system in 1982. City Directory research indicated that the Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 404
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

family resided at the subject property until 2002. Currently, the subject property remains in the family under the ownership of the Rodger C. and Mary C. Rigdon Trust.

While the subject property has been associated with multiple residents throughout its history, research did not suggest that any of the occupants made a significant contribution to the history of the City of Coronado. Therefore, the subject property is recommended not eligible for listing under City of Coronado Criterion B.

Events: Archival research did not indicate that the subject property was associated with any event that may be significant within the context of local, State, or national history. The construction of this property merely followed a pattern of residential development as seen in the City during the 1920s. There is no indication that the construction of this specific residence marked a pivotal point in the history of Coronado.

C. It possesses distinctive characteristics of an architectural style, and has not been substantially altered;
For a historical resource to be designated under Criterion C, it should be “unaltered or minimally altered from its historic condition” and possess “distinctive characteristics of an architectural style” (City of Coronado 2018). The subject property retains a high number of distinctive characteristics of the Spanish Colonial Revival architectural style. The present character defining features of the style allows the subject property to be considered truly representative of the architectural style in Coronado. Additionally, the subject property has undergone minimal alterations and retains its integrity of design, workmanship, and materials.

The residence reflects a high number of features of the Spanish Colonial Revival style, including its massing and overall form, roof, cornice, and eave details, porches and balconies, doors, windows, vents and chimneys, wall materials, and decorative elements. The character-defining features reflecting the Spanish Colonial Revival style include: asymmetrical façades; l-shaped massing; two stories in height; walled entry courtyard; low-pitched cross-gabled roof; minimal eaves with little to no overhang; red Mission (half-cylinder) clay tile roof; emphasis on balcony with balustrades of iron and wood; roofed balcony; wrought-iron lanterns; wood entry door that expresses solidity; recessed in the wall plane with a stucco return and no trim; fenestration irregularly placed and recessed; stucco return with no trim; rounded arches above both doors and windows; wood grilles over windows; venting in gable peak; tower-like stucco chimneys; elaborate chimney top; smooth, whitewashed, stucco walls; uninterrupted wall surfaces punctuated by careful use of openings; walls extend into gable without a break; decorative vigas (exposed roof beams); ornamental “punched” wall openings; fountain; and arched wing walls.

The majority of the twenty-six character-defining features of the Spanish Colonial Revival style are fully integrated into the historic design, and not simply tacked on as an afterthought or as part of a later remodel or addition. The subject property clearly contains enough characteristics of the architectural style to be considered a true representative of the Spanish Colonial Revival architecture in Coronado. The subject property meets the Coronado guidelines for a building to be either minimally altered or unaltered. The alterations that occurred over time fall into two categories: not visible from the street right-of-way and those that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.

The alterations not visible from the street right-of-way (not visible from Alameda Boulevard) include the following: alter a dwelling – frame, interior and exterior lath and plaster (1933); erect carport (1957); addition of wood shutters to windows on rear (southeast) and southwest elevations (unknown date); removal of wood casement windows and replacement with horizontal sliding vinyl windows on rear (southeast) and southwest elevations (unknown date); installation of a fountain, patio enclosure, and built-in barbeque along the southeast elevation (unknown date); and garage door replacement (unknown date). The 1933 alteration occurred inside the residence and, therefore, cannot be seen from the street right-of-way. The construction of the carport in 1957, addition of wood shutters on the rear (southeast) and southwest elevations, replacement vinyl windows on the rear (southeast) and southwest elevations, installation of a fountain, patio Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 405
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

enclosure, and built-in barbeque along the southeast elevation, and garage door replacement done on unknown dates are not visible from Alameda Boulevard. These alterations are visible from the rear alley, but the alley is not considered a street right-of-way. Therefore, the above listed alterations are considered minimal as they are not visible from the street right-of-way.

The alterations that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards include the following: reroofing (1933); construction of block wall approximately 75’ x 6’ (1980); removal of a decorative window visor on primary (northwest) elevation (unknown date); removal, replacement, and addition of wood shutters on primary (northwest) elevation (unknown date); replacement of front door on primary (northwest) elevation (unknown date); and removal of the original mailbox on primary (northwest) elevation (unknown date). According to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, Standards 9 and 10: “new additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property” and “new additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired” (Grimmer 2017). The removal of the decorative window visor, wood shutters, and mailbox and reroofing do not substantially destroy the present historic materials, including the exterior cladding and roofing materials. Their removal has a minimal effect on the overall integrity of the subject property, which retains the ability to reflect the Spanish Colonial Revival architectural style. According to National Register Bulletin Number 15, “A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation” (NPS 1995).

The inclusion of non-original features, including the block wall along the primary elevation, the addition and replacement of wood shutters on the primary (northwest) elevation, and the replacement of the front door on the primary (northwest) elevation are minor alterations and reversible in nature. These alterations are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. They leave as much of the original building materials intact and undamaged as possible. The block wall along the primary (northwest) elevation is separate from the primary elevation and, therefore, can be removed without negatively affecting the subject property’s integrity. The window shutters are not integrated into the subject property’s exterior cladding material and, therefore, can be removed or replaced with more period-appropriate shutters without damage to the smooth, whitewashed, stucco exterior walls. Additionally, the replacement of the primary entry door on the northwest elevation is reversible in that it did not alter the fenestration opening size. As per the historic photograph, the door’s location, width, and height have all remained, and there have been no alterations to the surrounding materials.

In conclusion, the subject property retains a high number of distinctive characteristics of the Spanish Colonial Revival architectural style. Additionally, the subject property has undergone minimal alterations and retains its integrity of design, workmanship, and materials. The alterations to the subject property fall into two categories: those not visible from the street right-of-way and those consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Therefore, the subject property is recommended as eligible under City Criterion C.

D. It is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer, architect, artisan or landscape professional;
The residential property at 332 Alameda Boulevard is the notable work of a builder, designer, architect, artisan, or landscape professional. Archival research revealed that the subject property’s builder was Oscar W. Dorman (also known as O. W. Dorman). Dorman was an active and prolific builder of single-family houses on Coronado’s South Island during the 1920s and owned several houses in Coronado. The buildings constructed by Dorman in Coronado were primarily in period revival styles popular during the time, including Spanish Colonial Revival, Tudor Revival, and English Cottage or Storybook styles. The majority were Tudor Revival with prominent front facing gables, tapered chimneys of brick or stucco, and used stucco as an exterior cladding Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 406
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

material. His buildings varied in scale, ornamentation, and materials. The subject property is notable within Dorman’s body of work as a two-story, minimally altered Spanish Colonial Revival residence constructed in 1927, a year before Dorman’s death in 1928. It demonstrates Dorman’s understanding of the style and his ability to execute its character-defining features on a residential building. These combined elements make the subject property a remarkable example within his body of work.

Ten buildings in Coronado that are attributed to Oscar W. Dorman are designated Coronado Historic Resources, including 1024 Encino Row (1923), 1030-1032 Olive Avenue (1924), 1027-29 Olive Avenue (1924), 526 A Avenue (1925), 566 B Avenue (1925), 940 Glorietta Boulevard (1925), 1115 Loma Avenue (1925), 605 Tenth Street (1925), 1013 Adella Avenue (1926), and 757 Alameda Boulevard (1926).

Eight are Tudor Revival in style, and two are Spanish Colonial Revival in style. In total, forty buildings in Coronado have been attributed to Dorman, eight of which are Spanish Colonial Revival in style. Comparing the subject property to the eight known Spanish Colonial Revival buildings designed by Dorman in Coronado, the subject property is unique in its massing, character-defining features, and high level of integrity. The following properties are all one-story in height and display a small number of character-defining features of the style compared to the subject property:
936 E Avenue, 911 Tenth Street, and 500 Palm Avenue. The property at 943 Olive Avenue displays a high number of character-defining features and integrity but does not have the same massing as the subject property. The subject property is two-stories in height and reflects a larger economic investment in its construction and materials than 943 Olive Avenue.

Dorman is known to have constricted six other residential buildings in 1927, two of which are Spanish Colonial Revival in style, 764 J Avenue and 300 Ninth Street. The property at 764 J Avenue has similar massing to the subject property but was heavily altered between 2011 and 2014 with the construction of a two-story addition, removal of original materials, and alterations to the primary elevation. Therefore, the property at 764 J Avenue does not serve as an intact example of Dorman’s work from its date of construction (1927). Comparing the subject property to 300 Ninth Street, the two properties display different character-defining features of the Spanish Colonial Revival style.

The property at 300 Ninth Street does not display the following character-defining features seen in the subject property: low-pitched cross-gabled roof; tower-like stucco chimneys; elaborate chimney top; decorative vigas (exposed roof beams); ornamental “punched” wall openings; fountain; and arched wing walls. The distinguishing element of the subject property is the tapered belltower chimney with a stepped cap featuring arched hood openings on each side. This element reflects Dorman’s masterful understanding of the architectural style and his ability to fully express it when building the subject property. The subject property is the only known building attributed to Dorman to reflect this specially designed character-defining feature.

Two buildings attributed to Dorman have been designated as Coronado Historic Resources and are Spanish Colonial Revival in style, 757 Alameda Boulevard and 1024 Encino Row. Comparing the subject property to 757 Alameda Boulevard, the subject property displays different character-defining features of the style allowing the two to be distinct within Dorman’s body of work. These character-defining features include a group of arched fenestration openings, metal balconette, decorative chimney, and wood window grilles. Comparing the subject property to 1024 Encino Row, the subject property displays larger massing and a high number of character-defining features of the style.

The majority of the buildings attributed to Dorman in Coronado are Tudor Revival in style, making the subject property a rare and remarkable example of his ability to construct designs using the Spanish Colonial Revival style vocabulary. The subject property expresses the late phase of Dorman’s work. His first known property was constructed in 1920 at 937 ½ Olive Avenue. Between 1920 and 1927, he constructed forty known properties, the subject property being one of the last before his death in 1928. Due to his early death at the age of 57, the subject property reflects the late part of his building career and is distinguished in that period of his career for the high number of character-defining features it displays that was not his “signature” style of Tudor Revival. It shows that Dorman could competently build residences in a variety of period revival styles while being distinctive within that style. The subject property reflects special elements of the architectural style especially seen in the subject property’s tapered belltower chimney with a stepped cap featuring arched hood openings. Additionally, the property at 335 Alameda Boulevard has been minimally altered since its construction in 1927, and it continues to represent Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 407
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

Dorman’s original work. Therefore, the property can be considered a notable representation of Dorman’s work and is eligible for listing under City Criterion D.

E. It has been listed on or formally determined eligible for the California Register, as set forth in Section 5024.1 of the California Public Resources Code (as amended from time to time); The subject property has not previously been determined eligible for the California Register and therefore is recommended not eligible for listing under City Criterion E.

F. In the case of Historic Districts, at least 75 percent of the buildings within the proposed district (excluding accessory buildings) shall be contributing resources. (Ord. 2088 § 2 (Exh. A), 2018; Ord. 2029 § 1, 2011; Ord. 2018 § 4 (Att. C), 2010) The subject property has not been determined to be part of a historic district as part of this study; therefore, it is recommended not eligible for listing under City Criterion F.

Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 408
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

Integrity Discussion
Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. To be listed on the City of Coronado Register of Designated Historic Resources, a property must not only be shown to be significant under at least two of the City’s designation criteria, but it also must have integrity.

Historic properties either retain integrity (that is, convey their significance) or they do not.

Within the concept of integrity, the City Criteria recognize seven aspects or qualities that define integrity. The seven aspects of integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain historic integrity, “a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects.” The subject property’s period of significance is its construction in 1927 (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002; City of Coronado 2018). The evaluation of integrity is at times subjective, but it is based on a thorough understanding of the property’s physical features and how they relate to the historic significance of the property. The residence at 335 Alameda Boulevard retains integrity from its period of significance as shown in detail below.

The residence at 335 Alameda Boulevard retains integrity of location. The location of the building never shifted, nor was it relocated; it maintains the physical location where the residence was constructed in 1927.

The subject property retains integrity of design. Multiple alterations have been conducted on the subject property since its construction in 1927. Despite its alterations, the subject property retains the essential elements of form, plan, space, structure, and style. The subject property retains design elements of the organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials. Alterations are compatible with the original design and do not detract from the conscious decisions made during the initial design and planning process. Therefore, the property retains integrity of design.

The subject property has integrity of setting. Upon its completion in 1927, the surrounding neighborhood was partially developed with single-family residences. At the time of the subject property’s construction in 1927, it was one of seven single-family homes on its block. The subject property, as well as the other homes constructed at this time on this block, remain intact. The scale and massing of surrounding development have not been substantially altered and have not diminished overall integrity of setting. Therefore, the property has integrity of setting.

The subject property retains integrity of materials. Since its construction in 1927 few materials have been added or removed. Alterations include: reroofing in 1933; construction of a carport in 1957; construction of a 75 ft by 6 ft perimeter block wall in 1980; replacement vinyl windows on rear (southeast) and southwest elevations (unknown date); installation of a fountain, patio enclosure, and built-in barbeque along the southeast elevation (unknown date); garage door replacement (unknown date); removal of a decorative window visor on primary (northwest) elevation (unknown date); removal, replacement, and addition of wood shutters on primary (northwest) elevation (unknown date); replacement of front door on primary (northwest) elevation (unknown date); and removal of the original mailbox on primary (northwest) elevation (unknown date). Because the majority of these alterations are either not visible from the street right-of-way or they are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, they have not diminished the property’s overall integrity of materials from its date of construction in 1927. The subject property retains the key exterior materials dating from the period of its historic significance (1927). These include the exterior stucco siding, wood-sash windows, decorative wood vents, and a wrought-iron balcony.

The subject property retains integrity of workmanship. The physical evidence of the craftsmanship required to create the 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival-style residence has been retained with minimal alterations. The essential features, such as being two stories in height, irregular plan, asymmetrical massing, decorative features, roof forms, and materials remain. Though some of the original materials have been removed, the property still conveys a high degree of workmanship.

Multiple materials and character-defining features reflecting the workmanship exist from the subject property’s construction, including the exterior stucco siding, wood-sash windows, elaborate Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 409
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

chimney top, ornamental “punched” wall openings, red Mission (half-cylinder) clay tile roof, wood window grilles, and a wrought-iron balcony.

The subject property retains integrity of feeling. With original materials, workmanship, and design remaining intact, the property conveys a sense of a particular period and style. The present physical features convey the property’s historic character as a significant Spanish Colonial Revival design completed in the late 1920s in Coronado. Additionally, minimal changes to the neighborhood have preserved its ability to convey the feeling of one residence in a low-scale, single-family home neighborhood. The property conveys its historic character. Therefore, the subject property retains integrity of feeling.

Finally, the subject property retains integrity of association. The Spanish Colonial Revival style building was constructed in 1927 and was minimally altered since its date of construction. The subject property is an excellent example of its style and exhibits the character-defining features of the style and period. The property reflects this architectural style and retains its association.

In summary, the subject property at 335 Alameda Boulevard retains the integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Therefore, the property maintains requisite integrity to warrant designation and inclusion on the Coronado Register.

Summary of Evaluation Findings
The subject property was evaluated in consideration of the City of Coronado designation criteria and integrity requirements. As a result of the evaluation, the property is recommended as eligible for local designation under City of Coronado Criteria C and D. The subject property retains a high level of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

As such, the subject property retains the requisite integrity for inclusion on the Coronado Register.
*B12. References (continued from page 2):

Andrus, Patrick W. and Rebecca H. Shrimpton. 2002. “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation bulletin.” U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Accessed August 2021. https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/December 5, 2018.

Beasley, T.D. 1886. “Official Map of Coronado Beach, South Island. San Diego, California.” Carlin, Katherine Eitzen and Ray Brandes. 1998. Coronado: The Enchanted Island. Coronado, California: The Coronado Historical Association.

California U.S. Voter Registrations. 1932, 1940, and 1942. Coronado, San Diego, County, CA.

Coronado Citizen (CC). 1941. “Local Man is Technical Advisor.” Coronado Citizen (Coronado, CA).

March 27, 1941.

CC. 1941. “Comdr. Mrs. Webb Entertain for Houseguest.” Coronado Citizen (Coronado, CA).

September 12, 1941.

Coronado Eagle and Journal (CEJ). 1923. “Building Permits for October Total $19,075.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA).November 10, 1923.

CEJ. 1924. “City Building Permits for January $21,845.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). February 2, 1924.

CEJ. 1924. “Much Activity Shown in Home Building Here.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). November 4, 1924.

Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 410
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

CEJ. 1925. “Permits for Seven New Houses Issued.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA).

June 2, 1925.

CEJ. 1925. “Permits Not Total More Than $280,000.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA).

June 30, 1925.

CEJ. 1925. “$62,350 In New Homes Here During July.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA).

August 11, 1925.

CEJ. 1925. Permits for 7 New Homes Issued in Oct.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA).

November 3, 1925.

CEJ. 1925. “Six Building Permits for Houses Issued.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA).

November 24, 1925.

CEJ. 1926. “Many Permits for Buildings Issued by City.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). July 27, 1926.

CEJ. 1926. “Activity Noted in New Arrivals Here.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA).

August 31, 1926.

CEJ. 1926. “Numerous Building Permits Taken Out.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA).

November 2, 1926.

CEJ. 1926. “Building Permits Issued Recently.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA).

November 16, 1926.

CEJ. 1926. “Building Permits Recently Issued.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA).

December 28, 1926.

CEJ. 1924. “Permits Issued for New Buildings.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA).

January 25, 1927.

CEJ. 1927. “Active Building Continues Here at Steady Pace.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). March 22, 1927.

CEY 1927. “Latest Building Permits Issued.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). November 29, 1927.

CEJ. 1928. “Movie Star to Paint Pictures.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). January 17, 1928.

CEJ. 1928. “Entertaining House Guests.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). June 12, 1928.

CEJ. 1932. Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). January 13, 1932.

CEJ. 1932. Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). May 4, 1932.

CEJ. 1936. “Personal Items.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). May 14, 1936.

CEJ. 1936. “Buffet Supper Sunday Night.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). May 31, 1936.

CEJ. 1936. “New Arrivals.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). August 13, 1936.

Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 411
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

CC. 1938. “City Officials to See Playgrounds.” Coronado Citizen (Coronado, CA). Volume I, Number

34. June 23, 1938.

CEJ. 1945. Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). July 12, 1945.

CEJ. 1946. “For Sale.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). June 6, 1946.

CEJ. 1947. “Cocktail Party.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). April 3, 1947.

CEJ. 1947. “Popes Arrive.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). October 30, 1947.

CC. 1948. “Allen Real Estate.” Coronado Compass (Coronado, CA). Volume III. December 24, 1948.

CEJ. 1949. “Tenth Anniversary.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). February 24, 1949.

CEJ. 1949. “Home of the Week.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). June 23, 1949.

CEJ. 1950. “Home Fronts Prize Winners.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). April 13, 1950.

CEJ. 1953. Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). June 25, 1953.

CEJ. 1954. Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). July 22, 1954.

CEJ. 1956. “Mrs. Pope Cancel Party Plans.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). December 13, 1956.

CEJ. 1959. “New Home for Earl H. Popes.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). April 16, 1959.

CEJ. 1959. Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). July 23, 1959.

CEJ. 1960. “122 Teachers Set for School Opening.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA).

September 8, 1960.

CEJ. 1961. “Football Teachers Winning Tradition.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA).

December 7, 1961.

CEJ. 1966. “Receive Medals.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). September 15, 1966.

CEJ. 1966. “Girl Scout Activities.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). December 1, 1966.

CEJ. 1967. “Coronado G.S. to Celebrate 50th Year.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA).

March 2, 1967.

CEJ. 1968. “Winners Announced in Basketball Contest.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA).

February 22, 1968.

CEJ. 1974. “Miss Speller.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). May 9, 1974.

CEJ. 1977. “Sports.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). November 24, 1977.

CEJ. 1980. “26 Republican Women Get Gold Cards.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA).

December 25, 1980.

Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 412
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

CEJ. 1982. “Jeff Rigdon Joins Staff as Coach.” Coronado Eagle and Journal (Coronado, CA). July 8, 1982.

City of Coronado. 2018. Historic Designation Criteria Guidelines. City of Coronado Historic Preservation,
Community Development Department. Accepted October 4, 2011. Amended December 5, 2018.

City of Coronado. 2022. Permit file for 335 Alameda Boulevard. Received August 2022.

Coronado Historical Association. 2022. “A Timeline of Coronado History.” Accessed August 2022. https://coronadohistory.org/calendar/list//education/a-timeline-of-coronado-history/.

Crawford, Leslie Hubbard. 2010. Images of America: Coronado. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing.

Evening Tribune. 1987. “Obit for Walter D. Christensen.” Evening Tribune (San Diego, CA). May 8, 1987.

Evening Tribune. 1934. “Coronado Home is Scene of Pleasant Affair.” Evening Tribune (San Diego, CA) June 11, 1934. Page 10.

Evening Tribune. 1939. “Lieutenants.” Evening Tribune (San Diego, CA). December 28, 1939.

IS Architecture. 2017. “Style 101: Spanish Colonial Revival.” Accessed August 2022. http://isarchitecture.com/style-101-spanish-colonial-revival/.

McAlester, Virginia. 2018. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Millen, Louis deRyk. 1982. A Pictorial History of Coronado. Coronado, California: Coronado Chamber of Commerce.

NETR (National Environmental Title Research, LLC). 2022. Historic aerial photographs: 1953, 1964, 1966, 1972, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2019 https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer#. Accessed August 2022.

NPS (National Park Service). 1990. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.

National Register Bulletin 15. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior.

Peterson, J. Harold. 1959. The Coronado Story. Coronado, California: Coronado Federal Savings and Loan Association.

SDU (San Diego Union). 1907. “News Article.” Geneologybank.com: San Diego Union (San Diego, CA).

May 17, 1907. Pg. 7.

SDU. 1911. “Real Estate.” Geneologybank.com: San Diego Union (San Diego, CA). March 16, 1911.

Pg. 3.

SDU. 1919. “Real Estate.” Geneologybank.com: San Diego Union (San Diego, CA). October 22, 1919.

Pg. 17.

SDU. 1928. “Deaths.” Geneologybank.com: San Diego Union (San Diego, CA). February 24, 1928. Pg.

5. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. 1888. “San Diego” Edition 1888. Accessed August 2022.

Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 413
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. 1906. “San Diego” Edition 1906. Accessed August 2022.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. 1921. “Coronado” Edition 1921-November-July 1949. Accessed August 2022.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. 1949. “Coronado” Edition 1921-November-July 1949, Sheet 2. Accessed August 2022.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. 1988. “Coronado.” Edition 1988, Sheet 2. Accessed August 2022.

San Diego Union and Daily Bee. 1895. “Millard is Dead.” San Diego Union and Daily Bee (San Diego, CA). Volume XL, Number 9809. October 25. 1895.

San Diego Union (SDU). 1930. “Naval Officer Dies in Coronaddo.” San Diego Union (San Diego, CA).

February 15, 1930. Page 12.

SDU. 1934. “Society in the Service.” San Diego Union (San Diego, CA). October 21, 1934. Page 40.

SDU. 1941. San Diego Union (San Diego, CA). July 01, 1941. Page 53.

The Boston Globe. 1909. “Fred M. Haley Dead.” The Boston Globe (Boston, Massachusetts). November 8, 1909. Page 2.

UCSB (University of California, Santa Barbara). 2022. Historical Aerial Photographs: 1941. Map & Imagery Laboratory (MIL) UCSB Library, Electronic Resource, http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/
FrameFinder. Accessed August 2022.

U.S. Birth Records. 1872. “Cora Augusta.” U.S. Birth Records, 1840-1915. Pepperell Massachusetts. August 6, 1872.

U.S. Birth Records. 1900. “Constance Leighton Haley.” U.S. Birth Records, 1840-1915. Lynn, Massachusetts. May 30, 1900.

U.S. City Directories. 1930-2021. U.S., City Directories, San Diego, Coronado.

U.S. Death Index. 1958. “Cora Leighton Millard.” U.S. Death Index 1940-1997. San Diego, California. January 20, 1958.

U.S. Federal Census. 1900. “Oscar Dorman.” California, San Diego, Ward 7. Accessed October 2021.

Geneologybank.com.

U.S. Federal Census. 1910a. “Oscar Dorman.” California, San Diego, Ward 9 E.D. No. 164. Accessed October 2021. Geneologybank.com.

U.S. Federal Census. 1920a. “Oscar Dorman.” California, San Diego, E.D. No. 346. Accessed October 2021. Geneologybank.com.

U.S. Find a Grave Index. 1888. “Spencer Jay Millard.” U.S. Find a Grave Index, 1600s-Current.

U.S. Find a Grave Index. 1891. “Gertrude Millard.” U.S. Find a Grave Index, 1600s-Current.

U.S. Marriage Records. 1885. “Spencer G. Millard.” U.S. Marriage Records, 1867-1952. Ionia, Michigan.

Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 414
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

U.S. Marriage Records. 1892. “Cora A. Leighton.” U.S. Marriage Records, 1840-1915. Cambridge, Massachusetts. December 22, 1892.

U.S. Marriage Records. 1915. “Hudson A. Millard.” U.S. Marriage Records, 1866-1937. Manhattan, New York. January 10, 1915.

U.S. Navy and Marine Corps Registries. “Leland D. Webb.” U.S. Navy and Marine Corps Registries, 1814-1992.

U.S. Veteran Compensation Application Files. 1950. “ David Stolz Crawford.” U.S. Veteran Compensation Application Files, WWII, 1950-1966.

U.S. Voter Registers. 1890. “Spencer G. Millard.” U.S. Voter Registers, 1866-1898. Los Angeles, CA.

U.S. World War I Veterans Service and Compensation Files. 1917-1919 & 1934-1948. Muncy, Lycoming, Pennsylvania.

Zuniga, Janine. 2008. “Castles in the Sand.” Sign on San Diego Union-Tribune (San Diego, CA).

Accessed May 27, 2021.

World War I Draft Registration Card. “Hudson Alfred Millard.” World War I Draft Registration Card 1917-1918.

Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 415
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

Figure 1. Primary (northwest) elevation, view to northeast (IMG_0177) Figure 2. Primary (northwest) elevation view southeast (DSC03872) Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 416
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

Figure 3. Detail photograph of southeast elevation’s chimney, view to northeast (DSC03875) Figure 4. Side (southwest) elevation and rear (southeast), view to northwest (DSC03810).

Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 417
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

Figure 5. Side (southwest) elevation and rear (southeast), view to northwest (DSC03821) Figure 6. Side (northeast) elevation, view to southeast (DSC03874) Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 418
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

Figure 7. Carport primary (southeast) elevation, view to northwest (IMG_0204) Figure 8. Historic photograph of the rear (southeast) and southwest elevations, 1959 (courtesy Lisa Rigdon) (left) compared to present (IMG_0191) (right), note the addition of shutters and replacement of wood windows with vinyl.

Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 419
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

Figure 9. Historic photograph of primary (northwest) elevation, date unknown (circa 1940s) (courtesy Lisa Rigdon) (top), compared to present (Google, 2022) (bottom), note the addition of block wall, replacement front door, removal, replacement, and addition of shutters, mailbox removal, and decorative window visor removal.

Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 420
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 421
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 335 Alameda Boulevard ____________________________________________________

Figure 10. 1949 Sanborn map (Top) prior to the block’s development compared to the 1988 Sanborn map of 335 Alameda Boulevard (Bottom) with the subject property outlined in red (Sanborn 1949 and 1988)
Figure 11. Coronado Eagle and Journal Volume XXXIV, Number 23, June 6, 1946. Page 10 Advertisements Column 3.

Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 422
Appendix B
Preparers’ Qualifications
Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 423
1 Nicole Frank, MSHP

ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Nicole Frank (nih-COHL FRAYNK; she/her) is an architectural historian with 6 years’ experience in the historic preservation field. Ms. Frank’s professional experience encompasses a variety of projects for local agencies, private developers, and homeowners in both highly urbanized and rural areas. Projects have included reconnaissance-level surveys, preparation of resource-appropriate and citywide historic contexts, and historical significance evaluations in consideration of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), and local designation criteria. Ms. Frank has experience conducting historic research, writing landmark designations, performing conditions assessments, and working hands-on in building restoration projects throughout the United States. Ms. Frank also has governmental experience with the City of San Francisco’s Planning Department and the City of Chicago’s Landmark Designations Department. She meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History.

Project Experience
Development
Historical Resource Research Report, 1424 Olivet Lane, L Jane Ryan Trust, La Jolla, California, 92037. Dudek was retained by L Jane Ryan Trust to prepare a Historical Resource Research Report for the single-family residence located at 1424 Olivet Lane, La Jolla. The report was prepared in accordance with City of San Diego guidelines and evaluated under all applicable City guidelines and regulations. The property was nominated for designation as a historical resource under HRB Criteria A, B, and C under the name the Harry W. Child House. Acting as project manager and primary author, conducted the intensive-level survey; building development and archival research; development of an appropriate historic context for the property; and recordation and evaluation under City guidelines and regulations. (2022-Present)
Vista Melrose Residential Project, Urban Advisory & Building Group LLC, City of Vista, San Diego County, California.

Dudek was retained by Urban Advisory & Building Group LLC to complete a historical resources technical report to identify all historical resources (if any) on the Project site to determine whether the proposed Project would result in a significant impact to historical resources under CEQA. The report included the results of a California Historical Resources Information System records search; an intensive survey of the Project site by a qualified architectural historian; building development and archival research; development of an appropriate historic context for the evaluation of the Project site; and recordation and evaluation of one church property and one single-family residential property over 45 years old for historical significance and integrity in consideration of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and City of Vista designation criteria and integrity requirements. Acting as architectural historian, conducted a survey of the Project site, and prepared this report and the associated property significance evaluations. (2022-Present) Education
The School of the Art
Institute of Chicago
MS, Historic Preservation,
2018
The College of Charleston
BA, Historic Preservation
and Art History, 2016
Professional Affiliations
Encinitas Preservation
Association, President
California Preservation
Foundation
Association for
Preservation Technology
(APT)
Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 424
2 Vista Foothill Residential Project, TTLC Vista Foothill, LLC, City of Vista, San Diego County, California. Dudek was retained by TTLC Vista Foothill, LLC to complete a historical resources technical report to identify all historical resources (if any) on the Project site to determine whether the proposed Project would result in a significant impact to historical resources under CEQA. One of the five parcels that comprises the Project site contains buildings that are more than 45 years of age and required evaluation as a potential historical resource. As a result of Dudek’s extensive archival research, field survey, record search, and property significance evaluations, no historical resources were identified within the Project site, nor were any adjacent cultural resources identified that could be indirectly impacted by proposed Project activities. Acting as built environment project manager, conducted intensive-level survey, delegated writing, and research tasks, and coauthored the technical report. (2022) Tooley Carlsbad Project, Atlantis Group Land Use Consultants, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. Dudek was retained by Atlantis Group Land Use Consultants to prepare a historical resources technical report for the Tooley Carlsbad Project (Project), which proposes to develop a mixed-use development consisting of 219 multifamily units and 13,764 square feet of retail space, including parking and open space in Carlsbad, California. The report included an intensive-level survey of the Project site and its vicinity by a qualified architectural historian; building development and archival research; development of an appropriate historic context for the Project site; and recordation and evaluation of one built environment resource with buildings over 45 years old for historical significance and integrity in consideration of National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and local designation criteria and integrity requirements. After research and evaluation, the Project site does not appear eligible under any National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or City of Carlsbad (City) cultural resource designation criteria due to a lack of significant historical associations and architectural merit. Acting as built environment project manager, conducted intensive-level survey, delegated writing, and research tasks, and coauthored the technical report. (2022-Present)
6365 Imperial Avenue Historical Resources Technical Report Project, Denya LLC, San Diego, California. Dudek was retained by Denya LLC to prepare a historical resources technical report (HRTR) for a property located at 6365 Imperial Avenue in the City of San Diego. The report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15064.5, for historical resources and all applicable City guidelines and regulations. One built environment resource was identified with the subject property as a result of the background research and survey:
the commercial building associated with the address 6365 Imperial Avenue. The significance evaluation found that 6365 Imperial Avenue is not eligible under any designation criteria due to a lack of the requisite integrity necessary to convey significant historical associations and a lack of architectural merit. Acting as architectural historian, coauthored the technical report and conducted a pedestrian survey of the site. (2022) 5146–5148 and 5150 Dehesa Road Project, Kevin R. Carlin, San Diego County, California. The property owner, Kevin R. Carlin, is proposing a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide an existing 5.87-acre parcel into four parcels and one remaining undeveloped parcel, known as the 5146–5148 and 5150 Dehesa Road Project. Dudek completed a HRTR to identify all historical resources (if any) within the project area to determine whether the proposed project would result in a significant impact to historical resources under CEQA. To complete the evaluation of significance, Dudek conducted archival and building development research and developed an appropriate historic context for the evaluation of the project area. All buildings and structures over 45 years old were recorded and evaluated for historical significance. The subject property is recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, CRHR, and San Diego County Local Register of Historical Resources under all designation criteria due to a lack of historical or architectural significance and lack of integrity. Acting as architectural historian, coauthored the technical report and conducted a pedestrian survey of the site. (2021–2022) Downtown Buena Park Project, Merlone Geier, Buena Park, California. Dudek prepared an HRTR for a project that proposes the redevelopment of a former Sears building, parking lot, and Sears Automobile Service Station Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 425
3 at the Buena Park Downtown Mall, located at 8150 La Palma Avenue in the City of Buena Park. The redevelopment plans include 1,381 residential units, 41,500 square feet of amenity and lobby space, and 2,551 residential parking spaces over 28-acres. The report included an intensive-level survey of the Buena Park Downtown Mall by a qualified architectural historian for historical significance and integrity in consideration of NRHP and CRHR designation criteria; building development and archival research; development of an appropriate historic context for the Buena Park Downtown Mall; and recordation and evaluation of the Sears building, a built environment resource over 45 years old. The Buena Park Downtown Mall does not appear eligible under any NRHP or CRHR designation criteria due to a lack of significant historical associations, architectural merit, and compromised integrity. Acting as architectural historian, coauthored the technical report and conducted a pedestrian survey of the site. (2021) 6th and Victoria Avenue Warehouse Project, Confidential Client, Highland, California. Dudek completed a Historic Resource Evaluation Report (HRER) for a project that proposes to construct a single 307,455-square-foot industrial/warehouse building (inclusive of 10,000 square feet of office/mezzanine). Associated improvements include loading docks, truck and vehicle parking, and landscape areas. The report included an evaluation of three buildings more than 45 years old. Each property was recorded on State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms (DPR Forms) and was evaluated in consideration of NRHP and CRHR designation criteria and integrity requirements. As architectural historian, authored a historical resources inventory and evaluation report. (2021) Forest Resiliency Program Project SPI Keystone, Golden State Finance Authority, Tuolumne County, California.

Dudek completed a historical resources inventory and evaluation report for a project that proposes to redevelop a site in La Grange and Jamestown in Tuolumne County to facilitate the transport of forest material (e.g., trees with no lumber value and underbrush) by truck, turn it into wood fuel pellets, and then ship the pellets from the site using the existing railroad line. Completed this report to be consistent with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (36 Code of Federal Regulations 800), CEQA Section 15064.5, Public Resources Code 5024, and applicable local regulations. This report included (1) a California Historical Resources Information System records search conducted at the Central California Information Center for the area of potential effect (APE) plus a 1-mile buffer; (2) a pedestrian surface reconnaissance of the APE for archaeological and built environment resources; and (3) a historical significance evaluation of Property 1 Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) (063- 190- 056, 063-350-004, 063-350-005, and 063-190-051) and Property 2 (Sierra Railroad–Mainline, Keystone Segment) located within the APE. As architectural historian, authored a historical resources inventory and evaluation report. (2021)
Senior Residences at Hillcrest Project, DFA Development, San Diego, California. Dudek prepared a Historic Properties Inventory Report for the project, which proposes to develop a 68-unit, affordable senior housing community located in the Hillcrest neighborhood of San Diego. The project site is partially developed with existing buildings for preschool services associated with the adjacent University Christian Church and a parking lot. The project is proposing to receive U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development project vouchers issued to the San Diego Housing Commission and is therefore required to undergo a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis for receiving federal funding. Acting as architectural historian, coauthored the technical report and conducted a pedestrian survey of the site. (2020–2021)
Sycuan Fee to Trust Project, Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Reservation, Unincorporated San Diego County, California. Dudek completed a Historic Properties Inventory and Evaluation Report for the proposed project, located within the vicinity of El Cajon, California, in unincorporated San Diego County. The project proposes a fee-to-trust transfer of five parcels that cumulatively total approximately 40 acres. The transfer of land from the Sycuan Band to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (the federal lead agency) would include several parcels. Dudek’s report included development of a project APE map; the relevant results of a California Historical Resources Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 426
4 Information System records search and background research; a pedestrian survey of the APE for built environment resources; and a historical significance evaluation of all properties more than 50 years of age within the APE, in consideration of potential adverse effects to historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA. The evaluation found that Properties 1, 2, 4, and 5 were not eligible for the NRHP at the individual level or as part of a larger historic district. As a result, no historic properties were identified within the APE, and Dudek recommended a finding of No Historic Properties Affected. As architectural historian, conducted background research and a pedestrian survey. (2021)
Ranch at River Bend Project, Save Gregory Canyon Hills LLC, Community of Pala, California. Dudek completed an HRTR in support of the proposed project, which includes the development of a new, mixed-use community. Acting as architectural historian, coauthored the technical report and conducted a pedestrian survey of the site. (2020) Enclave at Ivanhoe Ranch Project, Vance and Associates, Rancho San Diego, California. Dudek completed an HRTR in support of the proposed residential development project. The project site totals approximately 121.9 acres in Rancho San Diego. Included in the project site is a historic-era complex of horse ranch buildings and accompanying residences, located at 3256, 3261, 3263, 3267, and 3269 Ivanhoe Ranch Road (APNs 518-030-41, 518-030-43, 518-030-44, and 518-030-45), which were evaluated for historical significance. This study was conducted in accordance with Section 15064.5(a)(2)-(3) of CEQA guidelines, and the project site was evaluated in consideration of NRHP, CRHR, and County of San Diego Historic Preservation Ordinance and resource protection ordinance requirements. Acting as architectural historian, coauthored the technical report and conducted a pedestrian survey of the site. (2020) Shawnee/CG7600 Master Plan Redevelopment Project, Palmer Mission Gorge Properties, LP, San Diego, California. Dudek conducted a Potential Historical Resource Review (in accordance with Information Bulletin 580) for four properties more than 45 years old within the City of San Diego. Acting as architectural historian, conducted a photographic survey of the four properties within the project site. Updated three 2011 DPR Forms and created a new DPR Form for a previously unrecorded property within the project site. (2020) 740–790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project, City of Pasadena, California. Dudek completed a Cultural Resources Technical Report (CRTR) for five commercial buildings located in the City of Pasadena (Assessor’s Identification Nos. 5734-025-014, 024, 026, 029, 027). The study included a pedestrian survey of the proposed project area, building development and archival research, development of an appropriate historic context for the property, and recordation and evaluation of the property for historical significance and integrity in consideration of NRHP, CRHR, and local eligibility requirements. Acting as architectural historian, updated the Pasadena historic context, conducted archival research, and wrote significance evaluations for the five buildings that are more than 45 years old. (2019)
8850 Sunset Boulevard Project, City of West Hollywood, California. Dudek completed a CRTR for the proposed project, which consisted of the demolition of existing buildings and the construction and operation of a new mixed-use hotel and residential building on a property along the south side of Sunset Boulevard, extending the full city block between Larrabee Street and San Vicente Boulevard. Acting as architectural historian, assisted in the completion of the technical report as the primary writer. (2019) Palmetto Avenue Warehouse Project, Patriot Development Partners, Rialto, California. Dudek conducted a Cultural Resources Report in support of the proposed project, which proposed to demolish buildings on six parcels in the City of Rialto and construct an industrial/warehouse building on an approximately 4.24-acre property located at the northeast corner of Palmetto Avenue and Baseline Road. Acted as evaluator for three of the six properties, which were at least 45 years old. (2019)
Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 427
5 14545 Lanark Street Project, Clifford Beers Housing Inc., Los Angeles, California. Dudek completed an HRER for a property located at 14545 Lanark Street in the Panorama City neighborhood of Los Angeles (APN 2210-011-900).

Acting as architectural historian, authored the HRER for the subject property, a Public Social Services Department building constructed in 1967. (2019)
Confidential Solar Energy Project, Confidential Client, California. Dudek completed an HRTR for a confidential solar project. Acting as architectural historian, authored the report evaluating a complex of 20 buildings for historical significance. (2019)
1605 Industrial Avenue Warehouse Project., City of San José, California. Acting as architectural historian, coauthored the CRTR for the project, which included the construction of an approximately 186,000-square-foot industrial warehouse building on an approximately 10.96-gross-acre property located in the northern part of the City of San José. Preparation of the historical context statement involved archival research, building descriptions, historic context development, and historical significance evaluations. (2018) Jefferson La Mesa Project, JPI, La Mesa, California. The project proposed to demolish three industrial automotive buildings to redevelop the property. Served as architectural historian and coauthor of the HRER for the project.

Contributed archival research and historical context development for the three automotive buildings. (2018) Education
Riverside City College Life Science/Physical Science Reconstruction Project, Riverside Community College District, Riverside, California. Dudek completed a CRTR for the project that proposes to modernize the currently vacant Life Science and Physical Science connected buildings on the Riverside City College campus to allow for growth in the Business and Information Systems programs. Acting as architectural historian, conducted research on the buildings associated with the project. (2021)
Richland Elementary School Reconstruction Project, San Marcos United School District, San Marcos, California.

Dudek completed a CRTR for the project located at 910 Borden Road. The proposed project involves the demolition of the existing Richland Elementary School, which includes seven permanent buildings and 24 portable classrooms, and the reconstruction of the school, including the redevelopment of play fields and playgrounds. Acting as architectural historian, conducted a field visit, researched the school district and elementary school, and coauthored the technical report. (2021) University of California San Diego, Future College Living and Learning Neighborhood, University of California San Diego Campus Planning Office, San Diego, California. Dudek was retained by the University of California (UC) San Diego Campus Planning Office to conduct a visual analysis for the proposed project, which would consist of five housing buildings providing an additional 2,000 beds to serve the student population of the UC San Diego campus. As architectural historian, conducted a field visit to gain a better understanding of the visual environment of the project site and surrounding area. (2020)
San Francisco State University Master Plan Update Environmental Impact Report, San Francisco State University Capital Planning, Design, and Construction, San Francisco, California. Dudek conducted a historic built environment study for the proposed project. Only buildings more than 45 years of age and proposed for renovation or demolition were included in this historic built environment study. Acting as architectural historian, participated in a survey of the San Francisco State University (SFSU) Psychology and Ethnic Studies Building and conducted archival research to prepare appropriate historic context for San Francisco, SFSU, and the Psychology and Ethnic Studies Building. Conducted research on 18 buildings located on the SFSU campus and wrote historic contexts, descriptions, and lists of alterations for each. (2019) Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 428
6 Keats Building and Amphitheater, California State University Fresno, California. As architectural historian, authored the description of the amphitheater and Keats Building on the California State University (CSU) Fresno campus for the CRTR. Also prepared DPR Forms for the two buildings. (2018) College Park Demolition Project, CSU Chico, California. Dudek was retained by CSU Chico to complete a cultural resources study for a project that proposes demolition of 10 single-family residences near the CSU Chico campus.

As architectural historian, coauthored a cultural resources report for CSU Chico, writing 10 building feature descriptions. (2018)
Energy
Battery Storage Project, Confidential Client, San Diego, California. Dudek prepared an HRER for a project that proposes to develop a battery energy storage system located in San Diego. All buildings and structures more than 45 years old identified within the project area were recorded and evaluated for historical significance. The significance evaluation involved conducting archival research and building development research for the project area and completing an appropriate historic context. Acting as architectural historian, conducted pedestrian surveys to evaluate the presence of historic built environmental resources and authored the HRER. (2021) Battery Energy Storage Project, Confidential Client, Grand Terrace, California. Dudek prepared an HRER for a project that proposes to develop a battery energy storage system in the City of Grand Terrace. This report included development of a built environment study area map, a pedestrian survey of the proposed project study area for built environment resources, and a historical significance evaluation of a steam plant in consideration of state designation criteria and integrity requirements. The significance evaluation found that the steam plant is not eligible under any designation criteria due to a lack of architectural merit and a lack of the requisite integrity necessary to convey significant historical associations. As such, the steam plant is not considered a historical resource under CEQA. Acting as architectural historian, conducted pedestrian surveys and authored the HRER. (2021) Confidential Solar Project, San Diego County, California. Serving as architectural historian, coauthored the HRTR for the project, which proposed the development of a solar energy facility and energy storage system. The project site totals approximately 1,356 acres and is in unincorporated southeastern San Diego County. The HRTR involved a pedestrian survey for the presence of historic built environment resources. All buildings and structures more than 45 years old were recorded and evaluated for historical significance. The significance evaluation included conducting archival research and building development research for a dairy and creamery complex located on the project site and completing a historic context. The complex of dairy buildings was evaluated for historical significance and is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, CRHR, or the County Register due to a lack of significant historical associations. (2020) Healthcare
St. Joseph’s Hospital Master Plan Project, Devenney Group Ltd., Stockton, California. Dudek prepared a historical resources inventory and evaluation report in support of the project. The proposed project site included five properties in the City of Stockton: (1) 1638 North California Street (APN 127-190-32), (2) 1800 North California Street and 542 McCloud Avenue (APN 127-180-44), (3) 534 East Maple Street (APN 127-190-30), (4) 425 East Harding Way (APN 127-150-39), and (5) 445 East Harding Way (APN 127-150-51). Served as architectural historian and coauthor of the historical resources inventory and evaluation report, conducting research on properties 2–4 of the historic-age built environmental resource properties, primarily located within the St.

Joseph’s Medical Center Complex or on parcels adjacent to the complex that may be acquired. (2020) Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 429
7 Municipal
Ocean Beach Pier Improvements Project, City of San Diego, California. Dudek was retained by the City of San Diego to prepare an HRTR for the Ocean Beach Pier Improvements Project. The City requested an evaluation of whether the Ocean Beach Pier (Ocean Beach Municipal, Pier, or Pier Project site) met eligibility criteria for local, state, or federal designation. The report was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5, for historical resources and all applicable City guidelines and regulations. As a result of the evaluation, the Ocean Beach Pier is recommended eligible under NRHP and CRHR Criteria A/1 and C/3 and San Diego Historical Resources Board Designation Criteria A, C, and D. The Ocean Beach Pier reflects special elements of Ocean Beach’s historical and economic development and embodies distinctive characteristics of the concrete fishing pier typology. Responsibilities include fieldwork, archival research, and the associated property significance evaluation. (2022)
Los Angeles County Metro Area Plan Project, County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning, California.

Dudek was retained by the County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning to prepare a Historic Context Statement in support of the project. The goal of the Historic Context Statement component is to inform, enhance, and streamline the larger project as it pertains to historical resources. The communities included within the Historic Context Statement include the following: East Los Angeles, East Rancho Dominguez, Florence-Firestone, Walnut Park, West Athens-Westmont, West Rancho Dominguez-Victoria, and Willowbrook. The Historic Context Statement documents the development history of the communities from the rancho period to the present; identifies important themes, events, and patterns of development; and describes the different property types, styles, builders, and architects associated with these important periods and themes. The document will also provide registration requirements and recommendations for future study/action by the County of Los Angeles to facilitate and streamline the historic preservation program. Responsibilities include conducting archival research, coauthoring the Historic Context Statement, engaging with stakeholders, collaborating with the GIS team to create an online mapping tool, performing field survey, attending public meetings, and collaborating with the graphics team for flyers and social media content. (2021–2022)
Florence-Firestone Community Plan Area Historic Resources Survey, County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning, California. Dudek was retained by the County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning to prepare a Historic Context Statement and conduct a Historic Resources Survey for the Community Plan Area (CPA) of Florence-Firestone. The goal of the project is to document the development history of the community from the rancho period to the present; identify important themes, events, and patterns of development; and describe the different property types, styles, builders, and architects associated with these important periods and themes.

The document will also provide registration requirements and recommendations for future study/action by the County of Los Angeles to facilitate and streamline the historic preservation program. Responsibilities include conducting archival research, coauthoring the Historic Context Statement, engaging with stakeholders, collaborating with the GIS team to create an online mapping tool, attending public meetings, and collaborating with the graphics team for flyers and social media content. (2021–2022) East Los Angeles Historic Resources Survey of Historic Age Commercial Signage, County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning, California. Dudek was retained by the County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning to perform a Historic Resources Survey and focused Historic Context Statement for historic age commercial signage located in the CPA of East Los Angeles. The goal of the project is to document the history of commercial signage, record and evaluate significant historic signs, and designate all applicable signs as County Landmarks. Responsibilities include archival research, collaboration with the GIS team to create an online mapping tool, and collaboration with the graphics team for flyers and social media content. (2021–Present) Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 430
8 Mission Bay Park Improvements Project, City of San Diego, California. Dudek reviewed the City’s proposed seawall and bulkhead designs for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, specifically the Standards for Rehabilitation. This review included advising the design team on how to remain in conformance with the standards by way of informal design review/check-ins throughout the design review process. Acting as architectural historian, conducted a pedestrian survey, and coauthored the Mission Beach Seawall Evaluation Memorandum. (2021–Present)
Pier View Way Bridge and Lifeguard Headquarters Restoration/Replacement Project, Confidential Client, Oceanside, California. Dudek is preparing a CRTR for a project that proposes to restore or replace the concrete portion of the Pier View Way Bridge and the Lifeguard Headquarters in the City of Oceanside. This report includes a pedestrian survey for historic built environment resources, development research, archival research to develop the appropriate historic context, and a historical significance evaluation. The report discusses the proposed project description, regulatory framework, all sources consulted, research and field methodology, setting, and findings. In addition, the report discusses the proposed project’s potential to impact historical resources under CEQA and will provide recommendations as appropriate. Acting as architectural historian, conducted pedestrian surveys and coauthored the technical report. (2021–Present) Mira Mesa CPA Historic Context Statement and Focused Reconnaissance Survey, City of San Diego, California.

Dudek prepared a historic context statement identifying the historical themes and associated property types important to the development of Mira Mesa, accompanied by a reconnaissance-level survey report focused on the master-planned residential communities within the Mira Mesa CPA. This study was completed as part of the comprehensive update to the Mira Mesa CPA and Programmatic Environmental Impact Report. While the historic context statement addressed all development themes and property types within the community, the scope of the survey was limited to residential housing within the CPA constructed between 1969 and 1990.

Acting as architectural historian, coauthored and completed the historic context statement, the survey document, and all associated archival research efforts. (2020–2022) University CPA Historic Context Statement and Focused Reconnaissance Survey, City of San Diego, California.

Dudek prepared a historic context statement identifying the historical themes and associated property types important to the development of the University CPA, accompanied by a reconnaissance-level survey report focused on the master-planned residential communities within the University CPA. This study was completed as part of the comprehensive update to the University CPA and Programmatic Environmental Impact Report. While the historic context statement addressed all development themes and property types within the community, the scope of the survey was limited to residential housing within the CPA constructed between the 1960s and 1990s.

Acting as architectural historian, coauthored and completed the historic context statement, the survey document, and all associated archival research efforts. (2020–Present) Coronado Citywide Historic Resources Inventory and Historic Context Statement, City of Coronado, California.

Dudek is currently in the process of preparing a historic context statement and historic resources inventory survey for all properties at least 50 years old within City of Coronado limits. Following current professional methodology standards and procedures developed by the California Office of Historic Preservation and the National Park Service, Dudek will develop a detailed historic context statement for the City that identifies and discusses the important themes, patterns of development, property types, and architectural styles prevalent throughout the City.

Dudek will also conduct a reconnaissance-level survey of all properties within City limits that are at least 50 years old to identify individual properties and groupings of properties (i.e., historic districts) with potential for historical significance under City Criterion C (properties that possess distinctive characteristics of an architectural style; are valuable for the study of a type, period, or method of construction; and have not been substantially altered). Acting as architectural historian, authored the historic context statement and conducted reconnaissance-level surveys of properties within City limits. (2019–Present)
Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 431
9 As-Needed Historic Research Consulting Services, City of Coronado, California. Dudek provides as-needed historic consulting services for various projects. Each evaluation involves the creation of an occupancy timeline, supplemental research on occupants, building development research (including architects, builders, and property), a pedestrian survey of the project area, creation of a description of the surveyed resource, and completion of a historical significance evaluation report in consideration of designation criteria and integrity requirements. Acting as project manager and architectural historian, authored or co-authored HRERs for the following properties: 936 J Avenue, 310 2nd Street, 718 B Avenue, 1027-1029 Orange Avenue, 735 Margarita Avenue, 519 Ocean Boulevard, 1901 Monterey Avenue, 269 Palm Avenue, 1113 Adella Avenue, 1519 4th Street, 745 A Avenue, 451–55 Alameda Boulevard, 503 10th Street, 121 G Avenue, 1152 Glorietta Boulevard, 711 Tolita Avenue, 951 G Avenue, 817 A Avenue, 625 B Avenue, 260 D Avenue, 761 I Avenue, 816 1st Street, 820 A Avenue, 953-57 G Avenue, 725 Adella Avenue, 754 H Avenue, 168-70 F Avenue, 1011 E Avenue, 404 8th Street, 1421 6th Street, 820 G Avenue, 335 Alameda Boulevard, 1027 Olive Avenue and 1029 Olive Lane, 743 B Avenue, 925 9th Street, and 517 I Avenue. (2019–Present)
Gilroy Citywide Historic Resources Inventory, City of Gilroy, California. Dudek is currently bringing to completion a citywide historic context statement and historic resources inventory update of the City of Gilroy’s outdated 1986 historic resources inventory. Dudek hosted a public kickoff meeting/outreach session that was well-received by the community, successfully completed a reconnaissance-level survey of more than 3,000 properties on time and within budget, and completed a draft citywide historic context statement. Dudek is also preparing a Public Guide to Preservation that provides an overview of the City’s existing policies, what it means to live in a designated property/a district contributor, answers to commonly asked questions concerning restrictions on alterations, and clarification of common misconceptions about property owner requirements. Acting as surveyor, utilized Dudek’s architectural survey application to record the features, alterations, and photographs of historic-era buildings throughout the City. Additionally, assisted in the data management and cleanup of the majority of the DPR Forms produced for each of the surveyed buildings. This process included assigning status codes, editing descriptions, choosing an accurate photograph, and adding proper narrative significance. (2020) 955 Hancock Avenue, City of West Hollywood, California. Dudek completed a City-compliant Historical Resource Assessment for a single-family residential property located at 955 Hancock Avenue in West Hollywood. The property was built in 1910 and did not appear to have been previously evaluated for historical significance. This study included a pedestrian survey of the property by a qualified architectural historian, building development and archival research, development of an appropriate historic context for the property, and recordation and evaluation of the property for historical significance and integrity in consideration of NRHP, CRHR, and City of West Hollywood Register eligibility requirements. Acting as architectural historian, assisted in the completion of the assessment as the primary writer. (2018)
Transportation
Keller Road/Interstate 215 Interchange Project, California Department of Transportation, Murrieta and Menifee, California. The project proposed to construct a new, full interchange and auxiliary lanes at Interstate 215 and Keller Road in Riverside County. Acted as architectural historian for the project, coauthoring the HRER.

Preparation of the report included a site visit, archival research, historic context development of Murrieta and Menifee, building feature descriptions of six historic-era resources, and historical significance evaluations. (2018) Water/Wastewater
Southern First Aqueduct Structures Rehabilitation Project, San Diego County Water Authority, San Diego, California. Dudek conducted a Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory (including both archaeological and built environment) for the Southern First Aqueduct Rehabilitation Project, located along a 21-mile stretch of the First Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 432
10 San Diego Aqueduct, east of Interstate 15 from the City of Escondido in the north to the Goodan Ranch/Sycamore Canyon County Preserve west of San Vicente Reservoir. As part of this effort, the San Diego Water Authority will be applying for a Letter of Permission under its Programmatic Master Plan Permit with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. ACOE is the federal lead agency responsible for overseeing compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, as this project is exempt from review under CEQA. Acting as architectural historian, coauthored the Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory Report and authored the analysis of potential adverse effects. (2021)
Historic Context Statement for Reservoirs, City of San Diego Public Utilities Department, San Diego, California.

Dudek completed a survey and historic context statement for the City’s surface water storage system, including 10 dam complexes and the Dulzura Conduit. Dudek also prepared detailed impacts assessments for proposed modification to dams, as required by the Department of Safety of Dams. The project involves evaluation of 10 dam complexes and conduit for historical significance in consideration of NRHP, CRHR, and City designation criteria and integrity requirements. The evaluation required extensive archival research and a pedestrian survey.

Acting as architectural historian, evaluated five resources, including the Dulzura Conduit, Upper Otay Dam, Murray Dam, Sutherland Dam, and Miramar Dam. (2020)
Historical Resources Impacts Assessment for Maintenance on the Morena Dam Spillway, City of San Diego, California. Acted as the primary author for an impacts assessment of proposed project activities, including maintenance to the Morena Dam, which is considered a historical resource under CEQA and a historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA. (2019)
Specialized Training
▪ Specialized Certificate in CEQA Practice, UC San Diego Extension, 90 hours of study, March 2022. - BUSA40739: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), UC San Diego Extension, Summer 2019. - ENVR-40008: Writing Effective CEQA Documents, UC San Diego Extension, Winter 2021. - ENVR-40010: CEQA in Practice, UC San Diego Extension, Spring 2021. - ENVR-40009: Advanced CEQA, UC San Diego Extension, Winter 2022.

Publications
Frank, N. 2018. “Mid-Century Glass Block: The Colored Patterned and Textured Era.” Master’s Thesis; The School of the Art Institute of Chicago.

Presentations
Frank, N. 2018. “Mid-Century Glass Block: The Colored Patterned and Textured Era.” Presented at the Association for Preservation Technology Annual Conference, Buffalo, New York, 2018.

Frank, N. 2018. “Mid-Century Glass Block: The Colored Patterned and Textured Era.” Presented at the Association for Preservation Technology Western Great Lakes Chapter and DOCOMOMO US/Chicago 2018 Symposium: Preservation Challenges of Modernist Structures, Chicago, Illinois, 2018.

Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 433
1 Adrienne Donovan-Boyd, MSHP

ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Adrienne Donovan-Boyd (AY-dree-en DON-uh-vin BOID; she/her) is an architectural historian with significant experience in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest. Ms.

Donovan-Boyd has 17 years of experience in all elements of cultural resources management, including intensive- and reconnaissance-level field investigations, architectural history studies, and historical significance evaluations for compliance projects, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and local landmark designations. She is a skilled researcher, is adept at evaluating historic properties, and is an experienced author of historical resources evaluation reports, findings-of-effect documentation for Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), historic context statements, and management plans for historic properties. Ms. Donovan-Boyd meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for architectural history and maintains a strong professional relationship with State Historic Preservation Office staff in Washington and Oregon. Ms. Donovan-Boyd has completed numerous projects requiring compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

Project Experience
Education
Built Environment Inventory and Evaluation Report for Monterey Bay Master Plan, California State University, Monterey Bay, California. Dudek was retained by California State University, Monterey Bay, to conduct a built environment inventory and evaluation study and report for the proposed California State University, Monterey Bay, Master Plan. For the purposes of this project, Dudek formally recorded and evaluated 11 campus properties more than 45 years old that were proposed for renovation, alteration, or demolition as part of the project. All 11 of these built environment properties were identified as not eligible for national, state, or local designations. Ms. Donovan-Boyd worked with a team of architectural historians. The properties were photographed, researched, and evaluated in consideration of NRHP, California Register of Historical Resources, California Historic Landmarks, local designation criteria and integrity requirements, and potential impacts to historical resources under California Environmental Quality Act and Public Resources Code, Sections 5024 and 5024.5. (2021) Phase I Historic Resources Technical Report for Building 7045, Devereux Gymnasium, University of California, Santa Barbara, California. Served as an architectural historian and coauthor of the report for Phase I: Building 7045, Devereux Gymnasium, on the west campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara. Dudek was retained by the University of California, Santa Barbara, to complete the project. The project was federally funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities, making the project subject to federal review under Section 106. The project was also subject to review under California Environmental Quality Act and Public Resources Code, Sections 5024 and 5024.5, for state-owned resources. The project report included a California Historical Resource Status records search of the proposed project area and a 1-mile radius; the identification of previously recorded historic Education
University of Oregon
MS, Historic Preservation,
2009
Portland State University
BA, Community
Development, 2006
Certifications
National Safety Council
First Aid/CPR/AED
Certification, 2019
Professional Affiliations
National Trust for Historic
Preservation
Portland Architectural
Heritage Center
Oregon Historical Society
Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 434
2 properties in the vicinity of the project area; an intensive-level survey; archival and building development research; an evaluation of the building for NRHP, California Register of Historical Resources, California Historic Landmarks and Santa Barbara County local eligibility criteria and integrity requirements; and an assessment of effects to historic properties. (2021)
Cultural Landscape Report for The Shire, University of Oregon, Skamania County, Washington. Served as the lead architectural historian on a multidisciplinary team working for the University of Oregon on a Cultural Landscape Inventory for John Yeon’s Columbia River Gorge property, The Shire. Contributed archival research, in-field research, geographic information system data, and sections of the report, including landscape descriptions, the historic context section, existing conditions, significance evaluations, and treatment recommendations. The project proposed that the site was eligible at the local and state level for the NRHP. (2019–2020) Energy
Class III Inventory and Cultural Resources Report, Confidential Client, Washoe County, Nevada. Served as the lead architectural historian on a multidisciplinary team to complete a Class III Cultural Resources Inventory for an energy-related development. Coauthored the report, including the historic context section, significance evaluations, and recommendations. The project proposed that the historic period residential buildings and linear features that remained were not eligible for the NRHP. (2022) Built Environment Inventory and Evaluation Report, Confidential Client, Sacramento County, California. Served as an architectural historian for a built environment inventory and evaluation for an energy-related development.

Contributed to archival research and coauthored the report, including the historic context section, significance evaluations, and recommendations. The project proposed that several of the historic period buildings remaining were eligible for the NRHP. (2021–2022)
Cultural Resources Report, Confidential Client, Swisher County, Texas. Served as the lead architectural historian for a built environment inventory and evaluation for an energy-related development. Completed fieldwork, contributed to archival research, and coauthored the report, including the historic context section, significance evaluations, and recommendations. (2022)
Class III Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report for a Solar Project, Confidential Client, Laramie County, Wyoming. Served as the lead architectural historian on a multidisciplinary team working on a Class III Cultural Resources Inventory report. Contributed to archival research and reporting—including the historic context statement, significance evaluations, and recommendations—and provided quality assurance and quality control for the project.

The project proposed that the historic period buildings remaining were not eligible for the NRHP. (2022) Cultural Resources Inventory for the Olympia–Grand Coulee No. 1 Insulator Replacement Phase 4 Project, Bonneville Power Administration, Pierce and King Counties, Washington. Served as the lead architectural historian for the Cultural Resources Inventory for Bonneville Power Administration’s 50-mile-long project to replace worn insulators. Dudek conducted background research and prepared a literature review report. Historic context, methods, and survey results will be compiled into a technical report to the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and Bonneville Power Administration’s standards, including NRHP eligibility evaluations and management recommendations for any identified resources. (2020–2022) Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 435
3 Built Environment Inventory and Evaluation Report for Golden State Natural Resources Gould Site, Golden State Finance Authority, Lassen County, California. Served as an architectural historian and coauthor of the report for the project. Dudek was retained by the Golden State Finance Authority to complete a built environment inventory and evaluation report for the proposed project that would redevelop a site in Nubieber, located in Lassen County, to facilitate the transport of forest material (such as trees or underbrush that have no lumber value). The project parcels comprised approximately 65 acres, a light-industrial site associated with regional logging, and an abandoned 1930s Great Northern and Western Pacific Railroad station. (2022) Cultural Resources Inventory for Spring Creek–Wine Country No. 1 Impairment and Insulator Replacement Project, Bonneville Power Administration, Klickitat and Yakima Counties, Washington. Served as the lead architectural historian for the Cultural Resources Inventory for Bonneville Power Administration’s 33-mile-long project to remove impairments and replace worn insulators. Ms. Donovan-Boyd conducted background research, prepared applicable historic context for the report, recorded four new historic built environment resources, and prepared a technical report to the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and Bonneville Power Administration’s standards, including NRHP eligibility evaluations and management recommendations for identified resources. (2020–2021)
Class III Inventory and Cultural Resources Report, Confidential Client, Washoe County, Nevada. Served as an architectural historian on a multidisciplinary team to complete a Class III Cultural Resources Inventory for an energy-related development. Contributed to archival research and coauthored the report, including the h context section, significance evaluations, and recommendations. ranching-related buildings that remained were not eligible for the NRHP. (2020)
Federal
Cultural Resources Report for Horning Tree Seed Orchard, Bureau of Land Management, Washington County, Oregon. Served as the lead architectural historian on an interdisciplinary team. Attended project meetings and contributed to archival research; in-field research; geographic information system data; and sections of the report, including landscape descriptions, the historic context section, significance evaluations, and recommendations.

The project proposed that the site was eligible at the local and state level for the NRHP. (2020) Municipal
Lone Fir Cemetery Archival and Records Research, Metro, Multnomah County, Oregon. Served as project manager.

The project consisted of archival and records research to help determine 1) the burial location of patients from the 19th-century Oregon Hospital of the Insane within Lone Fir Cemetery and 2) the burial arrangements of Chinese and Chinese-American individuals within Lone Fir Cemetery’s Block 14. The project was conducted in support of Metro’s plans to create memorials to commemorate the Chinese and Chinese-American individuals who were buried in Block 14 as well as patients from the hospital. The Dudek team successfully identified the former Oregon Hospital of the Insane section of the cemetery (now mostly unmarked), and the research about the Chinese section of the cemetery remains ongoing. Ms. Donovan-Boyd managed the project, conducted research, and provided a senior-level review for the report (2022).

Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 436
4 Portland International Airport Hangar Display Mitigation Project, Port of Portland, Oregon. Served as researcher and writer. This project involved the creation of eight interpretive panels to help mitigate the adverse effects to two historic airplane hangars that were removed at Portland International Airport. Mitigation was required by Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966 (as amended) and its implementing regulations, 36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.

Six interpretive panels focused on the two historic hangars, while two focused on the Native peoples of the Portland area and their traditional trade network. The finished panels were installed at Portland International in August 2022. Ms. Donovan-Boyd was responsible for the content of the six panels focusing on the airplane hangars. Contributions included conducting a literature review, writing the text for the display, and selecting appropriate images. (2020–2022)
Cultural Resources Investigations for 10-Year Pile Maintenance Project, Port of Portland, Oregon. Served as the project manager and lead architectural historian for the proposed Port of Portland’s 10-Year Pile Maintenance Project on five properties along the Columbia and Willamette Rivers as part of the USACE permitting process under Section 106. The investigations involved taking inventory of and evaluating nine berths. Ms. Donovan-Boyd completed archival research, conducted the intensive-level survey, evaluated the identified resources for the NRHP, and co-authored the report. (2022)
Port of Hueneme Oxnard Harbor District Built Environment Inventory and Evaluation, Port of Hueneme, Oxnard Harbor District, Ventura County, California. Served as an architectural historian for the Port of Hueneme Oxnard Harbor District, built environment inventory, and evaluation report as part of the Former Navy Property Restoration Project. The project was completed in conformance with California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15064.5, for historical resources and all applicable local guidelines. The report concluded that a single building remained eligible for the NRHP, but the project, as proposed, would have no effect on historic properties. (2022) Reconnaissance-Level Inventory, City of Gresham, Gresham, Oregon. Conducted reconnaissance-level surveys for approximately 450 properties in the Centennial and Rockwood neighborhoods in Gresham, Oregon. Properties were recorded in the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office’s Historic Sites Database. (2020–2021) Intensive-Level Inventory, City of Roslyn, Roslyn, Washington. Conducted intensive-level surveys of historic properties in Roslyn, Washington, in stages over 2 years. Recorded all information in the Washington Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation Office’s online WISAARD Database. (2012–2014) Historic American Engineering Record Documentation for the Port of Portland Terminal 4 Grain Elevator, Port of Portland, Portland, Oregon. Assisted in the completion of Historic American Engineering Record-level documentation of the Portland Municipal Terminal No. 4 Grain Elevator, Historic American Engineering Record No. OR-163. Assisted with large-format photography and site and building descriptions and coauthored the report. (2010) Stream Restoration
Cultural Resources Inventory for Quartz Creek Floodplain Restoration Project, Eugene Water and Electric Board, Lane County, Oregon. Oversaw built environment coordination for the proposed 130-acre floodplain restoration on private land near Nimrod, Oregon. The project is subject to National Environmental Policy Act, Section 106, and Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements. The Dudek team completed a cultural resources assessment for the project, including an archaeological survey, subsurface testing, and an aboveground historic resources survey. (2021)
Cultural Resources Inventory for North Fork Touchet River Phase II Habitat Restoration Project, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Fisheries, Columbia County, Washington. Served as the lead architectural historian for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Fisheries’ project to restore Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 437
5 hydrologic connectivity, floodplain processes, and riparian habitat along river miles 1.6–2.7 of the North Fork Touchet River, near the community of Baileysburg. The project was subject to Section 106 of the NHPA, and Bonneville Power Administration was the lead agency. Let the built environment investigations, which included archival research, a historic resources survey, and the evaluation of cultural resources. (2021) Cultural Resources Inventory for Lower Elochoman Floodplain Restoration Project, Columbia Land Trust, Wahkiakum County, Washington. Served as an architectural historian for the Columbia Land Trust’s project to restore floodplain functionality and stream and riparian habitat along the Lower Elochoman River. The project was subject to Section 106 of the NHPA, and BPA was the lead agency. Investigations included archival research, a historic resources pedestrian survey, and the evaluation of built environment cultural resources. (2021) Cultural Resources Inventory for Dungeness Streamflow Restoration Off-Channel Reservoir, County of Clallam, Washington. Served as an architectural historian for Clallam County’s proposed project to restore streamflow along the Dungeness River on two parcels owned by Washington State Department of Natural Resources. The streamflow restoration design included the excavation of an off-channel reservoir, which will encompass an 88- acre area. The project was funded by a streamflow restoration grant managed by Washington State Department of Ecology and was therefore subject to the requirements of Washington State Governor’s Executive Order 05-05.

Conducted archival research and coauthored the report with recommended determinations and findings. (2021) Relevant Previous Experience
Education
Cultural Resources Inventory for The Shire First Bay Shoreline Restoration Project, University of Oregon, Skamania County, Washington. Served as the lead architectural historian for the University of Oregon’s project to conduct shoreline and habitat restoration at The Shire property in Skamania County. The project was subject to Section 106 review, and the lead agency was Federal Emergency Management Agency. Led the aboveground survey, conducted archival research, and coauthored the report, which included recommended determinations of eligibility and findings of effect. (2018–2019)
Federal
Lower Snake River Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, USACE, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.

Served as an architectural historian. Researched and reported on historic built environment resources for the cultural resource sections for a programmatic environmental impact statement related to the USACE sediment management plan. The project area included the Lower Snake River and four associated subbasins: Clearwater River, Salmon River, Grande Ronde River, and Hells Canyon Reach of the Snake River. Made eligibility recommendations and coauthored the report. (2014)
Cultural Resources Investigations for the Mouth of the Columbia River South Jetty Rehabilitation Project, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, Clatsop County, Oregon. Served as architectural historian for the proposed U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) South Jetty rehabilitation within Fort Stevens State Park. The investigations involved taking inventory of and evaluating the South Jetty and the historic trails system. Evaluated the identified resources for the NRHP and coauthored the report. (2018)
Cultural Resources Services for Master Planning Deliverables, USACE, Portland District, Oregon. Served as an architectural historian for the USACE Portland District’s Master Plan and integrated environmental assessment for the Mid-Columbia (Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day, and Willow Creek) and Rogue River (Lost Creek, Elk Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 438
6 Creek, and Applegate) basin regions. Attended project meetings, conducted site-visit reconnaissance surveys within the Lost Creek Project area, and prepared the associated historic properties management plan. (2018) Lower Snake River Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, USACE, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.

Served as an architectural historian. Researched and reported on historic built environment resources for the cultural resource sections for a programmatic environmental impact statement related to the USACE sediment management plan. The project area included the Lower Snake River and four associated subbasins: Clearwater River, Salmon River, Grande Ronde River, and Hells Canyon Reach of the Snake River. Made eligibility recommendations and coauthored the report. (2014)
Cape Arago Lighthouse Historic American Buildings Survey Documentation, USACE, Coos Bay, Oregon. Served as an architectural historian. Assisted in the completion of Historic American Buildings-level documentation of the Cape Arago Lighthouse, Historic American Buildings No. OR-189. Assisted with site documentation and site and building descriptions, measured drawings, and co-authored the report. (2008) Municipal
Reconnaissance-Level Inventory, City of Gresham, Gresham, Oregon. Conducted two reconnaissance-level surveys for approximately 57 properties in the Mt. Hood neighborhood and approximately 177 properties in the Kelly Creek neighborhood of Gresham, Oregon. Recorded all information in the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office’s Historic Sites Database. (2017)
Intensive-Level Inventory, Enterprise Cemetery, City of Enterprise, Enterprise, Oregon. Conducted an intensive-level survey of the Enterprise Cemetery in Enterprise, Oregon. Conducted all fieldwork, authored the report, and completed all necessary archival research to outline the cemetery’s historic context. (2017) Intensive-Level Survey for World War II Hangars, Port of Portland, Portland, Oregon. Conducted an intensive-level survey for two World War II airport hangars at the Portland International Airport and completed a cultural resource report with recommendations for the potential to list the structures on the NRHP. The hangars were significant for being the last remaining World War II-constructed hangars on the Portland International Airport site. (2017) Reconnaissance- and Intensive-Level Inventory, City of Hood River, Hood River, Oregon. Conducted a reconnaissance- and intensive-level survey of the Heights neighborhood in Hood River, Oregon. Recorded all information in the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office’s Historic Sites Database, completed all fieldwork, coauthored the report, and completed all mapping requirements. (2008) Selected Local and National Register Nominations
Edward J. Miller Barn, Washington Heritage Barn Register, Skamania County, Washington. Prepared, coordinated, and authored the Washington Heritage Barn Register nomination for the Edward J. Miller Barn, an example of an English Gambrel barn, completed circa 1923. (2021)
Roy E. and Hildur L. Amundsen House, NRHP Nomination, City of Gresham, Oregon. Prepared, coordinated, and authored the NRHP nomination for the City of Gresham. The Amundsen House is locally significant under NRHP Criterion C, in the area of architecture at the local level, as an excellent, intact example of a Wrightian-styled, architect-designed residence in Gresham’s Northwest neighborhood. The house, constructed in 1961, displays many distinctive characteristics of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Usonian designs in its small-sized, slab-on-grade foundation with radiant floor heat, horizontal emphasis, natural ornamentation, floor-to-ceiling glass windows, central hearth, and minimal ornamentation. (Added to the NRHP on July 15, 2019) Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 439
7 Paul E. and Miriam R. Emerick House, Gresham Historic and Cultural Landmarks List, City of Gresham, Oregon.

Prepared documentation to nominate the Paul E. and Miriam R. Emerick House for inclusion in the Gresham Historic and Cultural Landmarks List. The 3,300-square-foot Emerick House, designed by well-known Vancouver, Washington, architect, Day W. Hilborn, is an excellent example of Northwest Regional style and is described as a “mid-century marvel.” Completed archival research, worked with the City on necessary documentation, and authored the report. (Added to the Gresham Historic and Cultural Landmarks List in August 2017) Multiple Property NRHP Nomination, City of Silverton, Oregon. Prepared and edited three NRHP nominations: one individual nomination and two through the existing Multiple Property Document, Domestic Architecture, in Silverton, Oregon, and its environs. The individual nomination was Moser Barn (listed on the NRHP on June 14, 2013). Nominations through the existing Multiple Property Document included the Magnus and Emma Ek House, an 1890 Queen Anne (listed on the NRHP on February 20, 2013), and the Peter and Bertha Soderberg House, a 1921 side-gabled Craftsman bungalow (approved by the State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation on February 15, 2013). Completed archival research, worked with the state on necessary revisions, and moved the three nominations through the committee process. (2013) Nutty Narrows Bridge, NRHP Nomination, Longview, Washington. Prepared, coordinated, and coauthored the NRHP nomination, with sole responsibility for the historic context and auxiliary documentation. The Nutty Narrows, erected in 1963, is a 60-foot-long catenary bridge between two trees with a faux-suspension superstructure. It is significant as Longview’s primary roadside attraction and as the oldest-known squirrel bridge in the United States.

Completed archival research, worked with the City on necessary documentation, and co-authored the report. (Added to the NRHP on August 18, 2014)
Multiple Property NRHP Nomination, City of Enterprise, Oregon. Assisted with the preparation of a Multiple Property NRHP Nomination for downtown Enterprise, Oregon, for the period between 1888 and 1956. The following three associated buildings were nominated to the NRHP during this project: the Enterprise Mercantile and Milling Company Building, the O.K. Theatre, and the Enterprise IOOF Hall. Completed contextual archival research for all three nominations, coordinated fieldwork, and authored the Mercantile and Milling Company Building NRHP Nomination. The Mercantile and Milling Company Building, constructed from 1916 to 1922, is the largest and most impressive historic commercial building in downtown Enterprise. (All buildings were added to the NRHP on March 7, 2012)
U.S. Forest Service Quilcene Ranger Station, Historic District Nomination, U.S. Forest Service, Quilcene, Oregon.

The Quilcene Ranger Station is locally significant under NRHP Criterion A for its association with the U.S. Forest Service administration of the Quilcene Ranger District, one of the oldest in the Olympic National Forest, and under Criterion C, as an example of the U.S. Forest Service’s emphasis on “rustic” architectural designs. Provided all architectural reporting, conducted fieldwork, and saw the nomination through the committee process. (Added to the NRHP on March 27, 2012)
Stream Restoration
Cultural Resources Inventory for Seestrom Tidelands Project, Coquille Watershed Association, Coos County, Oregon. Served as an architectural historian for the Coquille Watershed Association’s project to restore muted tidal flows to more than 200 acres of floodplain pastureland along the Coquille River. The project was subject to Section 106 of the NHPA, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was the lead agency. Prepared the research design and managed the investigations, which included archival research, an archaeological and historic resources pedestrian survey, and the evaluation of both archaeological and built environment cultural resources. (2018) Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 440
8 Cultural Resources Inventory for Bear, Mary's, and Ferris Creeks Restoration Project, Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce, Clatsop County, Oregon. Served as the lead architectural historian for Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce’s project to restore wetland habitat along three creeks in the Columbia River Estuary, just east of Astoria, Oregon. The project was subject to Section 106 of the NHPA, 36 Code of Federal Regulations 800. BPA was the lead agency. Coauthored the report, completed archival research, conducted a historic resources pedestrian survey, and evaluated built environment cultural resources. (2018) Specialized Training
▪ Oregon Department of Transportation Cultural Resources Consultant Qualification Training. 2019. ▪ Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Consultant Training. 2019. ▪ Pacific Northwest Preservation Field School, Heyburn State Park, Idaho. Training in preservation technology and restoration of timber and masonry features on Civilian Conservation Corps park structures. 2007.

Publications
Donovan-Boyd, A.K. 2009. “Historic Preservation of Pacific Northwest Beach Houses: A Study of Beach Houses Along Tillamook County’s Coast.” Master’s thesis; University of Oregon, Eugene.

Attachment 7
City of Coronado Page 441

CITY OF CORONADO

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTITY DEVELOPMENT
In the Matter of the Notice of Meeting for
Historic Resource Commission Appeal – 335 Alameda Boulevard

DECLARATION OF NOTICE BY MAIL
AND/OR

PUBLISHED LEGAL NOTICE
I, Priscilla De Vera, declare:

That I am a Citizen of the United States over the age of eighteen years, that I am employed within the County of San Diego, California, by the City of Coronado, and my business address is 1825 Strand Way, Coronado, California, that I mailed and/or published a legal notice, a true and correct copy of which is ATTACHED HERETO and made a part hereof, that such notices were mailed and/or will be printed in a newspaper of general circulation for the Regular Meeting of the City Council on August 15, 2023.

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

Published legal notice executed on August 2, 2023 at Coronado, California.

Mailing executed on August 2, 2023 at Coronado, California. __________________________________
Priscilla De Vera, Administrative Secretary
City of Coronado
Attachment 8
City of Coronado Page 442

LEGAL NOTICE
(August 2, 2023)

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, August 15, 2023, at 4 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible to consider the following item:

Public Hearing: Appeal of the Historic Resource determination that 335 Alameda Boulevard meets the criteria to be designated as a Historic Resource.

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: Kelsea Holian, City Clerk
Attachment 8
City of Coronado Page 443
10a.

Councilmember Mike Donovan
Agenda Item 10a: Report on Inter-Agency Committees, Board Assignments, and Meetings for Councilmember Mike Donovan
Period of report: July 1, 2023 to July 31, 2023

Date Activity
7/4 Coronado 4
th of July Parade.
7/5 Annual Law Enforcement Recognition Night.
7/12 Met with residents Stephanie Kaupp and Marilyn Field.

US International Boundary and Water Commission Citizens Forum 7/18 Met with City Manager Tina Friend.
7/19 San Diego Regional Airport Authority Advisory Committee meeting as MTS Board of Directors representative.
7/24 Meeting (Virtual) with Daniel Reeves and Daniel Kramer regarding electric vehicle shuttle pilot program.
7/25 Citizens Casualty Awareness Training.
7/27 San Diego MTS Board Meeting.

Coronado Cays Home Owners Association Board Meeting.

Coronado Historical Association Board Meeting.

Coronado Historical Association Annual Member Meeting.
7/31 Met with resident Jessica Tompane.

Met with residents Mike and Katy Yeager.

City of Coronado Page 444

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
August 15, 2023 10b

CAYS PARK MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive Cays Park Master Plan Community Survey results and provide direction as necessary on the Coronado Cays Park Master Plan process.

BACKGROUND:

Coronado Cays Park (Cays Park), located along Coronado Cays Boulevard and adjacent to the intersection with Grand Caribe Causeway, is Coronado’s largest city-owned park, totaling approximately 15 acres. The park currently has four athletic fields, a children’s play area, a dog run, tennis, pickleball, and basketball courts, as well as restrooms and a parking lot.

In October 2022, the City initiated a new park master planning effort to develop a long-range vision for Cays Park that will enhance the current design and meet the needs of the community over time. The transformation of this public space will create a signature park that will serve Coronado now and into the future.

In early 2023, the City hired the renowned community park planners, Schmidt Design Group to manage the Cays Park Master Planning project. The park master planning process includes robust community engagement from residents and other stakeholders.

The City Council previously directed staff to pursue initial conceptual Master Plan design options of: 1) maintaining 100% of the current active field space; 2) maintaining 75% of the current active field space and 25% more passive space; and 3) maintaining 50% of the current active field space and 50% more passive space, and 4) maintaining 25% of the current active field space and 75% more passive space. Current active field space is defined as the open field used for sports and the softball field (horseshoe pits, volleyball court, dog park, children’s playground, basketball, pickleball, and tennis courts are excluded).

The City kicked off the public outreach process in February 2023 with small stakeholder group meetings. A project website has been created for the Cays Master Plan process where regular updates are provided to interested stakeholders and individuals can sign up for email notifications located at https://www.projectcoronado.org/cays-park.

ANALYSIS:

Public Survey
In November 2019, a prior public survey was conducted online as part of the City’s initial public outreach efforts to solicit input on desired amenities in Cays Park. The original master planning effort was ultimately paused due to the pandemic. However, the 2019 survey received 302 responses, with 89% of respondents residing in the Coronado Cays. A summary of the 2019 survey results is included as Attachment 1 for reference. It should be noted that while it was informative, the prior survey was not conducted using modern survey techniques that help ensure broad and uniform participation from the community.

City of Coronado Page 445
As a result, the current Cays Park Master Plan scope of services included the administration of a new public survey by an outside consultant, True North Research, specializing in conducting public opinion surveys. The survey was conducted in English and Spanish between May 24 and June 14, 2023 and followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple forms of recruiting methods (mail, email, text, and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online).

The 2023 survey was designed to:
• Profile the recreation activities of interest to Coronado residents; • Identify the frequency with which residents visit Coronado’s parks in general, as well as Cays Park in particular;
• Measure how well existing parks and facilities are meeting resident’s needs, as well as the improvements that are most desired; and,
• Capture residents’ top-of-mind ideas for how Cays Park can be improved, as well as how they prioritize a variety of potential amenities that could be included in the park.

There were 464 respondents to the survey, resulting in a maximum margin of error ± 4.4% providing a 95% level of confidence. The geographic breakdown of respondents by neighborhood is representative of the Census population for those neighborhoods and included military housing.

This represents a very healthy response rate for a community of Coronado’s size.

Some common themes emerged when comparing the prior 2019 survey and the new 2023 survey results and the prioritization of desired amenities. Respondents in both valued shade trees and additional seating, paths for biking and walking, sports fields and courts, as well as improvements to the dog park, restrooms, children’s playground, and landscaping areas. However, as was previously mentioned, the designs of the two surveys were notably different so direct comparisons should be approached with caution.

A detailed report and analysis of the 2023 public opinion survey results is included as Attachment 2, along with a copy of the questionnaire on page 37 of the report.

Next Steps
The Schmidt Design Group is currently working on the development of draft conceptual designs based upon prior City Council direction and informed by prior feedback from the community and the most recent survey results. Upon completion of those draft plans, the conceptual designs will be shared with the community for additional input through public outreach meetings and pop-up events. The first public Cays Master Plan workshop will be held on September 12 at 5 pm. Staff will be promoting this opportunity to participate with additional details, along with future workshops, online and via print media. All City residents and park users are invited to participate.

After initial public workshops have been completed, the Schmidt Design Group will work collaboratively with the City to update designs based on community input and preferred plans will advance for additional input from the community, including the Coronado Cays HOA, as well as consideration by the Parks & Recreation Commission and City Council.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Receiving the Cays Park Master Plan Community Survey results has no fiscal impact. Survey costs were incorporated in the scope of services for the Schmidt Design Group master contract.

City of Coronado Page 446
ALTERNATIVE:

The City Council could decide to direct staff to conduct additional surveying or revised prior direction on the scope of the Cays Park Master Plan.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:

Not Applicable.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

No notice required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. 2019 City Public Survey Results

2. 2023 City Public Survey Results
Submitted By: City Manager's Office / Tony Winney
City of Coronado Page 447
Not at all Love it!
It does not provide for the activities I'm
interested in
I live along the bay and enjoy the
parks closer to where I live
I have park across the street from me
and I use dog beach 3.3% 3.4.21.

Coronado Cays park Use and Amenity Survey
Results 11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 448
Walking dog or pet Relaxation, sitting, picnics 5.

Coronado Cays Park Use and Amenity Survey
Results 11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 449
1 2
3 4
6 5
7 1
2 4
3 6.7.

Coronado Cays Park Use and Amenity Survey
Results 11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 450
Maintain existing park
character
Add visual / thematic
elements specifically
related to the Cays
community
Improve amenities for
social gatherings
Increase available open
space not utilized by
sport related facilities
Improve amenities for
sports related activities
Increase available
seating / shaded areas
for passive use 186 442511
1422
514973203574
655255212881
2624532851120
856257161765
3938532127124

8. Coronado Cays Park Use and Amenity Survey
Results 11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 451
2% 2.6% 1
2 3
4 5

9. Coronado Cays Park Use and Amenity Survey
Results 11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 452
Bike repair stations / tire pumps
Dedicated / separate bike path
No opinion / preference 10.

Coronado Cays Park Use and Amenity Survey
Results 11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 453
More dog waste stations
More dog drinking fountains
Fenced dog play area
Separation for large / small dogs 11.

Coronado Cays Park Use and Amenity Survey
Results 11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 454
Coronado Cays Park Use and Amenity Survey
Results 11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 455
Shaded seating options
Permanent seating
Use of synthetic turf
Addt'l soccer fields
Fewer soccer fields
Updated irrigation 12.

Coronado Cays Park Use and Amenity Survey
Results 11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 456
Coronado Cays Park Use and Amenity Survey
Results 11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 457
Courtyard / gathering area
Addt'l seating
Shaded seating
No opinion / preference 13.

Coronado Cays Park Use and Amenity Survey
Results 11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 458
Maintain ex. footprint, update equipt.

Expand footprint, update equipt.

Accessible play equipment
Increased shade
Addt'l seating/adjacent gathering...

Incorporate natural play features
No opinion / preference 14.

Coronado Cays Park Use and Amenity Survey
Results 11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 459
Keep softball / baseball field
Add softball / baseball field
Remove, re-purpose area
No opinion / preference 15.

Coronado Cays Park Use and Amenity Survey
Results 11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 460

16. Coronado Cays Park Use and Amenity Survey
Results 11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 461

17. Coronado Cays Park Use and Amenity Survey
Results 11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 462
Natural seating options (boulders...

Seating areas for 4-10 people
Seating ares for 10 or more...

Additional shade Natural seating options (boulders...

Seating areas for 4-10 people
Seating ares for 10 or more...

Additional shade 18. 19.

Coronado Cays Park Use and Amenity Survey
Results 11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 463

DRINKING FOUNTAINS
1 2
3 64
32 52
81 37
34 38
51 57 Visual Preference Study Results Visual Preference Study Results_11-21-19 Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 464

LIGHTING
1 2
3 89
25 35
59 26
66 64
47 42 Visual Preference Study Results_11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 465

BIKE / PEDESTRIAN PATH
1 2
3 50
35 67
109
30 15
46 36
71 Visual Preference Study Results_11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 466

BENCHES
1 2
3 100
22 32
43 36
74 37
19 95 Visual Preference Study Results_11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 467

CUSTOM SEATING
1 2
3 29
28 94
97 23
31 92
22 38 Visual Preference Study Results_11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 468

PICNIC TABLES
1 2
3 99
27 27
16 26
111
83 45
24 Visual Preference Study Results_11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 469

RESTROOM FACILITIES
1 2
3 69
58 25
82 30
38 14
23 113 Visual Preference Study Results_11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 470

SHADE OPTIONS
1 2
3 31
31 90
83 16
52 49
34 70 Visual Preference Study Results_11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 471
4 5
6 49
39 62
30 28
93 99
27 27 Visual Preference Study Results_11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 472

MONUMENTS
1 2
3 63
45 43
23 44
84 76
32 44 Visual Preference Study Results_11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 473
4 5
6 52
28 72
40 31
79 59
41 51 Visual Preference Study Results_11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 474

ART INSTALLATIONS
1 2
3 30
38 81
104
23 26
52 27
73 Visual Preference Study Results_11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 475
4 5
6 96
23 33
53 32
68 20
26 107 Visual Preference Study Results_11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 476

PLAY EQUIPMENT
1 2
3 124
27 2
34 26
93 28
30 92 Visual Preference Study Results_11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 477
4 5
6 31
27 95
32 35
84 55
37 61 Visual Preference Study Results_11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 478

FITNESS EQUIPMENT
1 2
3 38
27 87
60 35
57 30
26 97 Visual Preference Study Results_11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 479

LANDSCAPE
1 2
3 68
29 54
35 40
76 85
29 35 Visual Preference Study Results_11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 480
4 5
6 111
24 16
64 47
37 71
35 47 Visual Preference Study Results_11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 481
7 8
9 87
26 39
63 38
50 49
33 68 Visual Preference Study Results_11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 482
10 11
12 39
53 56
40 37
72 40
33 76 Visual Preference Study Results_11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 483
13 14
15 73
33 44
99 36
16 85
31 35 Visual Preference Study Results_11-21-19
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 484
1 Coronado Cays Park Use and Amenity Survey
Thank you for participating in this important survey concerning Coronado Cays Park! The intent of this survey is to gain perspective on how the park is currently used, gauge if the community would like to see improvements, and if so, what amenities are most important to community members.

The results from this survey will assist in the development of a long-term master plan for Coronado Cays Park. This master plan will be used as a “big picture” concept serving as a consistent model for future projects. It is not a final document for construction. Instead, it is a flexible guide that identifies specific projects and aids in incremental phasing and prioritization.

This voluntary survey should only take 5-10 minutes to complete. Aggregate results will be used for development of the master plan and presented at future public workshops.* Thank you for participating in the master planning of Coronado Cays Park! *Only one submission per Coronado resident. Surveys with invalid email or home addresses will not be tallied.
* Required

1. Email address *

2. Home address. *
Take this survey to get involved in the future of Coronado Cays Park!
Please note: This survey is to gather general data to inform long-term master planning for the park. More detailed design will take place at a later date and will allow opportunities for further input on specific design, such as play equipment and furnishings.

Coronado Cays Park Use and Amenity Survey
Thank you for participating in this important survey concerning Coronado Cays Park! The intent of this survey is to gain perspective on how the park is currently used, gauge if the community would like to see improvements, and if so, what amenities are most important to community members.

The results from this survey will assist in the development of a long-term master plan for Coronado Cays Park. This master plan will be used as a “big picture” concept serving as a consistent model for future projects. It is not a final document for construction. Instead, it is a flexible guide that identifies specific projects and aids in incremental phasing and prioritization.

This voluntary survey should only take 5-10 minutes to complete. Aggregate results will be used for development of the master plan and presented at future public workshops.* Thank you for participating in the master planning of Coronado Cays Park! *Only one submission per Coronado resident. Surveys with invalid email or home addresses will not be tallied.
* Required

1. Email address *

2. Home address. *
Take this survey to get involved in the future of Coronado Cays Park!
Please note: This survey is to gather general data to inform long-term master planning for the park. More detailed design will take place at a later date and will allow opportunities for further input on specific design, such as play equipment and furnishings.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 485
2 What you think of the Park

3. How well does Coronado Cays Park meet your needs? *
Mark only one oval.
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Love it!

4. How often do you visit Coronado Cays Park? *
Mark only one oval.

Every day
A few times a week
Once a month
Less often
Never Skip to question 20.

How do you use the park?
Wayfinding signs
Light posts
No changes required
N/A
Overall Character of Coronado Cays Park

20. Overall, would you like Coronado Cays Park to have any of the following? --Pick multiple-- Check all that apply.

Visual theme/thematic imagery
Incorporation of more art
Additional enhanced planting areas (shrubs and trees)
Increased water conservation
Enhanced park monuments/identification
N/A
Skip to "Thank you for your help in guiding the future of Coronado Cays Park!." For those who never visit Coronado Cays Park
Please answer the following question

21. If you answered never, what best describes the reason why you do not use the park? --Pick multiple--
Check all that apply.

I do not spend time at any park
It is inconvenient to get to
There is not enough field availability
It does not provide for the activities that I am interested in There is not enough shade
There is not enough seating
Other:

What you think of the Park

3. How well does Coronado Cays Park meet your needs? *
Mark only one oval.
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Love it!

4. How often do you visit Coronado Cays Park? *
Mark only one oval.

Every day
A few times a week
Once a month
Less often
Never Skip to question 20.

How do you use the park?

5. What activities bring you to Coronado Cays Park? --Pick multiple-- Check all that apply.

Riding a bicycle to/from park
Walking a dog or pet
Walking paths or exercise
Visiting playground
Relaxation, sitting, or picnics in the park
Catching the bus
Social gatherings
Sports
N/A
Other:

6. What sports bring you to Coronado Cays Park? --Pick multiple-- Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 486
3 Other:

6. What sports bring you to Coronado Cays Park? --Pick multiple-- Check all that apply.

Basketball
Futsal
Tennis
Open turf play
Soccer
Softball/Baseball
N/A
Design approach and goals

7. Of the following, what design approach do you most agree with? * Mark only one oval.

No changes required - the park is perfect as is
Subtle improvements, primarily modernizing existing amenities with limited or no changes to layout or types of amenities provided
Specific but noticable changes to the park such as added/removed recreational facilities and/or playground space, or additional thematic elements appropriate for the Cays community Significant changes including wholesale reconfiguration of park layout and amenities provided to meet the modern demands for a neighborhood park with a clearly identifiable theme appropriate for the Cays community

8. Please rate the following master plan goals by importance with 1 being very important and 6 being not important. *
Mark only one oval per row.

Very important - 1 2 3 4 5 6 - Not important
Add visual/thematic elements
specifically related to the Cays
community
Increase available open space not
utilized by sport related facilities
Increase available seating/shaded
areas for passive use
Improve amenities for social
gatherings
Improve amenities for sports
related activities
Maintain existing park character
How could the park be improved?
Please note: This survey is to gather general data to inform long-term master planning for the park. More detailed design will take place at a later date and will allow opportunities for further input on specific design, such as play equipment and furnishings.

9. Parking area: overall, how do you feel about parking at Coronado Cays park? Mark only one oval.

Satisfies needs most of the time
It is difficult to find parking
It is difficult to get in and out of parking lot
Other:

6. What sports bring you to Coronado Cays Park? --Pick multiple-- Check all that apply.

Basketball
Futsal
Tennis
Open turf play
Soccer
Softball/Baseball
N/A
Design approach and goals

7. Of the following, what design approach do you most agree with? * Mark only one oval.

No changes required - the park is perfect as is
Subtle improvements, primarily modernizing existing amenities with limited or no changes to layout or types of amenities provided
Specific but noticable changes to the park such as added/removed recreational facilities and/or playground space, or additional thematic elements appropriate for the Cays community Significant changes including wholesale reconfiguration of park layout and amenities provided to meet the modern demands for a neighborhood park with a clearly identifiable theme appropriate for the Cays community
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 487
4 pp
related activities
Maintain existing park character
How could the park be improved?
Please note: This survey is to gather general data to inform long-term master planning for the park. More detailed design will take place at a later date and will allow opportunities for further input on specific design, such as play equipment and furnishings.

9. Parking area: overall, how do you feel about parking at Coronado Cays park? Mark only one oval.

Satisfies needs most of the time
It is difficult to find parking
It is difficult to get in and out of parking lot
It is difficult to find parking during special events
No opinion/preference
Other:

10. Bicycle infrastructure: would you like to see any of the following amenities added to the park? --Pick multiple--
Check all that apply.

Bike racks
Bike repair stations and tire pumps
Dedicated/separate bike path
No opinion/preference
Other:

11. Dog amenities: would you like any of the following added to the park? Check all that apply.

More dog waste stations
More dog drinking fountains
Fenced dog play area
Separation for large and small dogs
No opinion/preference
Other:

12. Sports fields: would you like to see any of the following changes to this area? --Pick multiple-- Check all that apply.

Shaded seating options
Permanent seating (Bleachers etc.)
Use of synthetic turf
Additional soccer fields
Fewer soccer fields
Updated irrigation
No opinion/preference
Other:

13. Tennis area: would you like to see any of the following changes to this area? --Pick multiple-- Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 488
5 15. Softball/Baseball area: would you like to see any of the following in this area? --Pick multiple-- Check all that apply.

Keep softball/baseball field
Add softball/baseball fields
Remove softball/baseball field and re-purpose area
No opinion/preference
Other:

16. Basketball area: would you like to see any of the following in this area? --Pick multiple-- Check all that apply.

Keep full basketball court
Add half basketball court
Remove basketball court
No opinion/preference
Other:

No opinion/preference
Other:

13. Tennis area: would you like to see any of the following changes to this area? --Pick multiple-- Check all that apply.

Courtyard/gathering area
Additional seating
Shaded seating
No opinion/preference
Other:

14. Playground area: would you like to see any of the following changes to this area? --Pick multiple--
Check all that apply.

Maintain existing footprint with updated play equipment Expanded footprint with updated play equipment
Accessible play equipment
Increased shade
Additional seating/adjacent gathering space
Incorporation of natural play features (logs, boulders, etc.) Fencing around play area
No opinion/preference
Other:

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 489
6 17. Additional facilities: would you like to see any of the following in the park? --Pick multiple-- Check all that apply.

Pickleball courts Wall ball facilities
Fitness equipment Futsal courts
No opinion/preference
Other:

Northern Park Amenities
The northern area includes the tennis courts, basketball courts, sports fields, restroom and fire station.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 490
7 No opinion/preference
Other:

Northern Park Amenities
The northern area includes the tennis courts, basketball courts, sports fields, restroom and fire station.

18. What general amenities would you like to see in the NORTHERN portion of the park? --Pick multiple--
Check all that apply.

Additional Drinking fountains
Additional picnic tables
Additional benches
Natural seating options (boulders etc.)
Seating areas for 1-3 people
Expanded seating areas for 4-10 people
Expanded seating areas for gatherings of 10 or more people Additional shade
Upgraded restrooms
Storage for sporting equipment
Vending machines
Wayfinding signs
Light posts
No changes required
N/A
Southern Park Amenities
The southern area includes the parking lot, little free library, playground, sports fields and the dog park.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 491
8 gt posts
No changes required
N/A
Southern Park Amenities
The southern area includes the parking lot, little free library, playground, sports fields and the dog park.

19. What general amenities would you like to see in the SOUTHERN portion of the park? --Pick multiple--
Check all that apply.

Additional drinking fountains
Additional picnic tables
Additional benches
Natural seating options (boulders etc.)
Seating for 1-3 people
Expanded seating areas for 4-10 people
Expanded seating areas for gatherings of 10 or more people Additional shade
Wayfinding signs
Light posts
No changes required
N/A
Overall Character of Coronado Cays Park

20. Overall, would you like Coronado Cays Park to have any of the following? --Pick multiple-- Check all that apply.

Visual theme/thematic imagery
Incorporation of more art
Additional enhanced planting areas (shrubs and trees)
Increased water conservation
Enhanced park monuments/identification
N/A
Skip to "Thank you for your help in guiding the future of Coronado Cays Park!." For those who never visit Coronado Cays Park
Please answer the following question

21. If you answered never, what best describes the reason why you do not use the park? --Pick multiple--
Check all that apply.

I do not spend time at any park
It is inconvenient to get to
There is not enough field availability
It does not provide for the activities that I am interested in Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 492
9 Light posts
No changes required
N/A
Overall Character of Coronado Cays Park

20. Overall, would you like Coronado Cays Park to have any of the following? --Pick multiple-- Check all that apply.

Visual theme/thematic imagery
Incorporation of more art
Additional enhanced planting areas (shrubs and trees)
Increased water conservation
Enhanced park monuments/identification
N/A
Skip to "Thank you for your help in guiding the future of Coronado Cays Park!." For those who never visit Coronado Cays Park
Please answer the following question

21. If you answered never, what best describes the reason why you do not use the park? --Pick multiple--
Check all that apply.

I do not spend time at any park
It is inconvenient to get to
There is not enough field availability
It does not provide for the activities that I am interested in There is not enough shade
There is not enough seating
Other:

Powered by
Skip to question 4.

Thank you for your help in guiding the future of Coronado Cays Park!
Your opinion counts!
Please visit the City's website to stay informed of progress and future community workshops.

If you have questions please contact Jim Newton at [email protected] Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 493
August 2023
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 494

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 495
Table of Contents
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Recreation Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Most Frequent Adult Recreation Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Most Frequent Youth Recreation Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 General Park Visitation & Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Visits to City Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Frequency of Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Which Park do you Visit Most Often in Coronado?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 How Well are Your Needs Being Met? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Desired Park Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Specific Improvements Desired. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Coronado Cays Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Frequency of Cays Park Visit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Question 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Reasons for not Visiting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Question 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Priority Amenities for Cays Park Master Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Question 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Any Additional Priority Improvements for Cays Park? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Question 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Additional High Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Question 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Dog Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Question 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Programs and Events at Cays Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Question 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Programming, Pre-Test & Language Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Sample, Recruiting & Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Margin of Error due to Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Data Processing & Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 496
Table of Contents
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 497
List of Tables
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 iii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Cays Park Master Plan Priorities by Ages of Hsld Members (Showing % High Priority). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Table 2 Cays Park Master Plan Priorities by Child 5+-17 Years in Hsld & Frequency of Hsld Cays Park Visits (Showing % High Priority) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Table 3 Cays Park Master Plan Priorities by Adults 55 or Older in Hsld & Neighborhood (Showing % High Priority) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table 4 Interest in Cays Park Programs, Events by Years in Coronado, Live in City Full/Part-Time & Child 5-17 Years in Hsld (Showing % Very Interested) . . . . . . . . . 32 Table 5 Interest in Cays Park Programs, Events by Ages of Hsld Members & Adults 55 or Older in Hsld (Showing % Very Interested). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Table 6 Interest in Cays Park Programs, Events by Neighborhood & Home Ownership Status (Showing % Very Interested) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Table 7 Demographics of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 498
List of Figures
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Recreational Activities Engaged in by Adult Hsld Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 2 Recreational Activities Engaged in by Adult Hsld Members by Age of Adults in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 3 Recreational Activities Engaged in by Child in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 4 Recreational Activities Engaged in by Child in Hsld by Age of Children in Hsld . . . . 9 Figure 5 Visited City Park in Past 12 Months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 6 Visited City Park in Past 12 Months by Years in Coronado, Live in City Full/Part Time & Ages of Hsld Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 7 Visited City Park in Past 12 Months by Employment Status & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 8 Visited City Park in Past 12 Months by Ethnicity, Neighborhood, Home Ownership Status & Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 9 Frequency of Hsld City Park Visits in Past 12 Months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 10 Frequency of Hsld City Park Visits in Past 12 Months by Years in Coronado, Live in City Full/Part-Time & Ages of Hsld Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 11 Frequency of Hsld City Park Visits in Past 12 Months by Child 5-17 Years in Hsld, Adult 55 or Older in Hsld, Neighborhood & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . 13 Figure 12 City Park Used Most Often . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 13 Overall Rating of City Parks, Rec Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 14 Overall Rating of City Parks, Rec Facilities by Years in Coronado & Ages of Hsld Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 15 Overall Rating of City Parks, Rec Facilities by Employment Status & Age . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 16 Overall Rating of City Parks, Rec Facilities by Ethnicity, Neighborhood & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 17 Overall Rating of City Parks, Rec Facilities by Frequency of Hsld City Park Visits in Past 12 Months, Live in City Full/Part-Time & Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 18 Desire City Park Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 19 Desire City Park Improvements by Years in Coronado, Live in City Full/Part-Time & Ages of Hsld Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 20 Desire City Park Improvements by Employment Status & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 21 Desire City Park Improvements by Ethnicity, Neighborhood & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 22 Desire City Park Improvements by Frequency of Hsld City Park Visits in Past 12 Months, Hsld City Park Visit in Past 12 Months & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 23 Desired City Park Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 24 Frequency of Hsld Cays Park Visits in Past 12 Months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 25 Frequency of Hsld Cays Park Visits in Past 12 Months by Years in Coronado, Live in City Full/Part-Time & Ages of Hsld Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 26 Frequency of Hsld Cays Park Visits in Past 12 Months by Child in 5-17 Years in Hsld, Adult 55 or Older in Hsld, Neighborhood & Home Ownership Status . . . . 22 Figure 27 Reasons for not Visiting Cays Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 28 Cays Park Master Plan Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 29 Other High Priority Changes or Improvements in Cays Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 30 Other High Priority Changes or Improvements in Cays Park by Years in Coronado, Live in City Full/Part-Time & Ages of Hsld Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 31 Other High Priority Changes or Improvements in Cays Park by Employment Status & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 32 Other High Priority Changes or Improvements in Cays Park by Ethnicity, Neighborhood, Home Ownership Status & Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 33 Other Desired High Priority Changes, Improvements in Cays Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 34 Opinion of Dog Park Fence, Barrier at Cays Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 35 Opinion of Dog Park Fence, Barrier at Cays Park by Child 5-17 Years in Hsld, Ages of Hsld Members & Parks & Rec Facilities Rating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 499
List of Figures
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Figure 36 Opinion of Dog Park Fence, Barrier at Cays Park by Hsld City Park Visit in Past 12 Months, Frequency of Hsld City Park Visits in Past 12 Months & Frequency of Hsld Cays Park Visits in Past 12 Months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 37 Opinion of Dog Park Fence, Barrier at Cays Park by Age, Ethnicity & Adult 55 or Older in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 38 Opinion of Dog Park Fence, Barrier at Cays Park by Neighborhood, Hsld Cays Park Visits in Past 12 Months, Home Ownership Status & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 39 Interest in Cays Park Programs, Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 40 Maximum Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 500
Introduction
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I NTRODUCTION
Parks, open space areas, and recreational amenities are vital community resources. By providing much-needed spaces to recreate, relax and play, they help to promote a strong sense of commu-nity, improve property values, enhance the business climate and local economy, and generally contribute to a higher quality of life for residents and visitors alike. Recognizing that community needs with respect to parks and recreation can also evolve over time, in 2023 the City of Coro-nado embarked on a master planning process that will present a long-range vision for Cays Park including enhancements to the current design so that it can best serve the community now and into the future. Based on a multi-faceted assessment of current and future needs, the plan will identify the types of amenities and facilities that will be included in the park, the types of pro-grams and activities it will support, as well as a plan for implementation.

PURPOSE OF SURVEY Although the City Council, staff, and consultants will play an impor-tant role in gathering data and organizing the master planning process, it was the desire of the City that the citizens of Coronado be the true inspiration and authors of the plan. Thus, in addi-tion to engaging residents through informal surveys, stakeholder meetings, and other outreach events, the City commissioned True North Research to conduct a survey to gather statistically reliable data on the community’s priorities and opinions as they relate to Cays Park.

Broadly defined, the survey was designed to:
• Profile the recreation activities of interest to Coronado residents • Identify the frequency with which residents visit Coronado’s parks in general, as well as Cays Park in particular
• Measure how well existing parks and facilities are meeting residents needs’, as well as the improvements that are most desired
• Capture residents’ top-of-mind ideas for how Cays Park can be improved, as well as how they prioritize among a variety of potential amenities that could be included in the park.

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY A full description of the methodology used for this study is included later in this report (see Methodology on page 34). In brief, the survey was administered to a random sample of 464 adults who reside within the City of Coronado. The sur-vey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (mail, email, text, and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Administered in English and Spanish between May 24 and June 14, 2023, the average interview lasted 16 min-utes.

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to meet the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results.

For those who seek an overview of the findings, the section titled Key Findings is for you. It pro-vide a summary of the most important factual findings of the survey and a discussion of their implications. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-by-question discussion of the results from the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents), as well as a description of the methodology employed for collecting and analyzing the data. And, for the truly ambitious reader, the questionnaire used for the interviews is contained at the back of this Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 501
Introduction
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 37), and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS True North thanks the City of Coronado for the opportunity to conduct the study and for contributing valuable input during the design stage of this study. The collective experience, insight, and local knowledge provided by city representatives and staff improved the overall quality of the research presented here. A special thanks also to Schmidt Design Group for contributing to the design of the study and interpretation of the results.

DISCLAIMER The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the authors (Dr.

Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) at True North Research, Inc. and not necessarily those of the City of Coronado. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors.

ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public agencies with a clear understanding of the values, perceptions, priorities, and concerns of their residents and customers. Through designing and implementing scientific sur-veys, as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy eval-uation, performance management, establishing fiscal priorities, passing revenue measures, and developing effective public information campaigns.

During their careers, Dr. McLarney (President) and Mr. Sarles (Principal Researcher) have designed and conducted over 1,200 survey research studies for public agencies—including more than 400 studies for California municipalities and special districts.

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 502
Key Findings
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

K EY F INDINGS
As noted in the Introduction, this study was designed to aid the City of Coronado in preparing a master plan for Cays Park by providing a reliable understanding of the community’s use, inter-ests, opinions, and priorities as they pertain to Cays Park and its future development. Whereas subsequent sections of this report are devoted to conveying the detailed results of the survey, in this section we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the collective results of the survey answer some of the key questions that motivated the research.

What recreation activi-ties are of greatest inter-est to Coronado residents?
Operating from the philosophy that recreation activities create demand for specific recreation amenities and facilities, one of the goals of the study was to profile the recreation interests of—and activities engaged in by—Coronado residents. Because interest in specific recreation activities is often age-dependent, the study distinguished between adult and youth activities.

When asked to describe the recreation activities engaged in by adults in their household, walking and hiking was by a large margin the most commonly mentioned activity, being offered by 66% of respondents.

Other commonly reported adult recreation activities included biking (30%), exercise/fitness (19%), swimming (17%), golf (16%), running/jog-ging (15%), tennis (10%), and pickleball (9%).

Soccer was the most frequently cited recreation activity engaged in by Coronado youth, being mentioned by 30% of households with one or more members under the age of 18. Other commonly reported youth recreation activities included walking and hiking (27%), bicycling/cycling (25%), swimming (24%), playing at the park (14%), beach/water sport activities (12%), tennis (12%), baseball/softball (10%), and lacrosse (9%).

For more on this topic, see Recreation Activities on page 6.

To what extent are resi-dents using city parks in
Coronado?
The survey results indicate that a very high percentage of Coronado resi-dents make regular use of the City’s parks. Overall, more than nine-in-ten respondents (91%) reported that at least one member of their house-hold had visited a city park in Coronado during the 12 months preceding the interview. Even more striking, approximately half (48%) of house-holds surveyed reported that they visit a city park at least once per week.

As one might expect, visitation rates did vary substantially across house-hold characteristics, with the highest rates being exhibited by house-holds with children under the age of 13, residents of the Cays, and home owners. Spreckels Park (35%), Cays Park (13%), Tidelands Park (10%), Centennial Park (6%), and Sunset Park (5%) were the top responses when survey participants where asked to identify the park their household vis-its most often. For more on these topics, see Frequency of Use on page 12 and Which Park do you Visit Most Often in Coronado? on page 13.

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 503
Key Findings
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 How well are Coronado’s
parks and recreation
facilities meeting resi-dents’ needs?
The results of the survey indicate that the City’s existing inventory is doing a good job of meeting the recreational needs of residents. Overall, approximately eight-in-ten respondents stated that the existing parks and recreational facilities are doing an excellent (41%) or good (38%) job in meeting their household’s recreational needs. An additional 12% pro-vided a rating of fair, whereas 5% used poor or very poor to describe how well their needs are being met by the existing inventory. It is worth not-ing, however, that there was variation in opinions on this matter across subgroups, with households with one or more adults 50 years of age or older, respondents 55 years of age or older, home owners, and those who had visited a park in Coronado during the past year being the most likely to state that the City’s parks do an excellent or good job in meet-ing the recreational needs of their household.

Among the 48% of respondents who desired improvements to city parks in general, the most commonly requested improvements were a well-equipped dog park with water fountains, bags, fence (28%), improved playgrounds (13%), providing/improving bathrooms (11%), improve-ments to the maintenance/cleanliness of parks (10%), additional shaded benches/seating (10%), providing/improving exercise equipment (9%), improved landscaping/grass (8%), and additional water facilities (7%). For more on these topics, see How Well are Your Needs Being Met? on page 14, Desired Park Improvements on page 17, and Specific Improvements Desired on page 19.

How often do residents
visit Cays Park?
Overall, nearly half of respondents (48%) reported that at least one mem-ber of their household had visited Cays Park during the 12 months prior to the interview. With respect to frequency of visits, 19% reported that their household visits Cays Park at least once per week, 7% indicated they do so two to three times per month, 8% visit once per month, whereas 14% indicated that they visit Cays Park less often than once per month. When compared to their respective counterparts, respondents living with a child under the age of 13 and those who live in the Cays neighborhood were the most likely to visit Cays Park at least once per month. For more on this topic, see Frequency of Cays Park Visit on page

21. What are residents’ pri-orities for the amenities
that may be included in
Cays Park?
The Cays Park master plan will identify the types of amenities and facili-ties that will be included in the park, the types of programs and activities it will support, as well as a plan for implementation. One of the central goals of the survey described in this report was thus to identify the types of amenities that Coronado residents view as priorities for inclusion in Cays Park in the future. It is clear from the survey results that residents have a strong interest in a park that is well-shaded, open, and supports passive uses in addition to select active uses.

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 504
Key Findings
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Among the amenities tested for inclusion in Cays Parks, Coronado resi-dents assigned the highest priority to shade trees (76% high or medium priority), followed by paths for walking and jogging (70%), bicycle ameni-ties including bike racks (68%), children’s playground equipment (67%), a dog park (66%), view areas and places to watch the sunset (63%), and multi-use sports fields for soccer, football, rugby, and lacrosse (63%).

Other amenities rated as a high or medium priority by a majority of respondents included picnic areas (63%), additional restrooms (62%), seating areas (62%), space for community gatherings and events (59%), native plant gardens (54%), pickleball courts (54%), basketball courts (52%), and outdoor fitness course and equipment (51%).

At the other end of the spectrum, respondents were less inclined to view interpretive education displays (27%), a splash pad and waterplay zone (34%), public art (36%), and sand volleyball courts (38%) as high or medium priorities for inclusion in Cays Park. For more on this topic, see Priority Amenities for Cays Park Master Plan on page 23.

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 505
Recreation Activities
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

R ECREATION A CTIVITIES
Operating from the philosophy that recreation activities create demand for specific recreation amenities and facilities, the survey opened by asking respondents to describe the recreation interests and activities engaged in by adult members of their household. Recreation was broadly defined for respondents to include play and exercise, sports, as well as passive activities such as walking, jogging, hobbies and picnicking.

MOST FREQUENT ADULT RECREATION ACTIVITIES The initial question in this series asked respondents to describe the types of recreation activities engaged in most often by adult members of their household. Question 4 was presented in an open-ended manner, thereby allowing respondents to mention any activities that came to mind without being prompted by, or restricted to, a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 1. Because respondents were allowed to men-tion multiple activities, the percentages shown in the figure reflect the percentage of respon-dents who mentioned the specified activity.

Question 4 Thinking of the adult members of your household, what recreation activities do they engage in most often? By recreation, we mean play, exercise, and sports, as well as passive activities such as walking/jogging, hobbies, and picnicking.

FIGURE 1 RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES ENGAGED IN BY ADULT HSLD MEMBERS

65.8 29.6

19.3 16.5

15.6 15.1

10.4 8.9

6.6 5.8

5.3 4.1

3.0 2.6

2.5 2.2

1.9 1.7

1.5 4.5

6.2 0 1020 3040 5060 70
Walking, hiking
Biking, cycling
Exercise, fitness
Swimming
Golf
Running, jogging
Tennis
Pickleball
Beach
Surfing
Picnicking
Sailing / Boating
Yoga
Paddle boarding
Concerts in park
Kayaking
Water aerobics
They do not engage in recreation activities
Playing with kids at playground
Gardening
Dining, eating out
% Households
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 506
Recreation Activities
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Walking and hiking was by a large margin the most common recreation activity mentioned in response to Question 4, being offered by 66% of respondents. Other commonly reported adult recreation activities included biking (30%), exercise/fitness (19%), swimming (17%), golf (16%), running/jogging (15%), tennis (10%), and pickleball (9%). For the interested reader, Figure 2 shows how the recreation profile for adults varied according to whether their household included at least one adult in the 18-49, 50-64, and 65+ age categories.

FIGURE 2 RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES ENGAGED IN BY ADULT HSLD MEMBERS BY AGE OF ADULTS IN HSLD MOST FREQUENT YOUTH RECREATION ACTIVITIES Households with children and/or teenagers were next asked to describe the types of recreation activities engaged in most often by the youth in their household. Like Question 4, Question 5 was presented in an open-ended manner, which allowed respondents the freedom to mention any activities that came to mind without being prompted by, or restricted to, a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 3.

Because respondents were allowed to mention multiple activities, the percentages shown in the figure reflect the percentage of respondents who mentioned the specified activity. 68 30
17 14
17 6
10 7
4 2
4 2
5 4
5 1
2 4
2 67
32 19
18 15
12 11
9 5
5 4
4 5
3 3
3 2
2 1
2 2
63 27
21 16
14 22
11 7
11 9
8 5
5 5
2 2
3 3
2 1
1 6
3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Walking, hiking
Biking, cycling
Exercise, fitness
Swimming
Golf
Running, jogging
Tennis
Pickleball
Beach
Surfing
Picnicking
Sailing / Boating
Yoga
Paddle boarding
Concerts in park
Kayaking
Water aerobics
They do not engage in recreation activities
Playing with kids at playground
Gardening
Dining, eating out
% Households
Adult 65 or older
Adult 50-64
Adult 18-49
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 507
Recreation Activities
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Question 5 Thinking of the children and/or teenagers in your household, what recreation activities do they engage in most often?
FIGURE 3 RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES ENGAGED IN BY CHILD IN HSLD Soccer was the most frequently cited recreation activity engaged in by Coronado youth, being mentioned by 30% of households with one or more members under the age of 18. Other com-monly reported youth recreation activities included walking and hiking (27%), bicycling/cycling (25%), swimming (24%), playing at the park (14%), beach/water sport activities (12%), tennis (12%), baseball/softball (10%), and lacrosse (9%). Figure 4 on the next page shows how the most frequently reported youth recreation activities varied among Coronado households according to whether they included at least one youth in the 0-4, 5-12, and 13-17 age categories.

29.6 27.2

24.5 24.3

13.6 12.0

11.6 10.4

9.2 7.2

6.9 4.7

4.6 4.1

3.9 3.4

3.4 3.3

3.2 2.7

2.6 2.4

1.8 7.5

5.3 010 20 30
Soccer
Walking, hiking
Biking, cycling
Swimming
Playing at the park
Beach, water sport activities
Tennis
Baseball, softball
Lacrosse
Basketball
Running, jogging
Golf
Surfing
School activities
Recreation program, community center activities
Water polo
Picnicking
Watching movies
Dance
Variety of sports in general
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
Theater activities
Skateboarding
Gymnastics
Exercise, fitness
% Households with Children
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 508
Recreation Activities
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 FIGURE 4 RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES ENGAGED IN BY CHILD IN HSLD BY AGE OF CHILDREN IN HSLD 31 26
29 23
1 13
12 7
13 10
11 8
1 6
0 6
3 3
5 5
3 1
26 21
24 31
11 9
15 12
9 13
6 2
6 3
9 5
2 3
4 3
1 6
4 5
0 39
38 10
14 56
2 8
14 6
3 0
0 4
0 13
0 16
0 8
0 0
0 4
8 0
3 5
6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Soccer
Walking, hiking
Biking, cycling
Swimming
Playing at the park
Beach, water sport activities
Tennis
Baseball, softball
Lacrosse
Basketball
Running, jogging
Golf
Surfing
School activities
Recreation program, community center activities
Water polo
Picnicking
Watching movies
Dance
Variety of sports in general
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
Theater activities
Skateboarding
Gymnastics
Exercise, fitness
% Households with Children
Teen 13-17
Child 5-12
Child under 5
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 509
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 510
General Park Visitation & Needs
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 FIGURE 6 VISITED CITY PARK IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY YEARS IN CORONADO, LIVE IN CITY FULL/PART TIME & AGES OF

HSLD MEMBERS
FIGURE 7 VISITED CITY PARK IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS & AGE

93.1 65.8
100.0 98.2

94.2 87.5

93.3 94.7

84.6 98.9

90.2 90.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or
more
Full-time Part-time Child
under 5
Child 5-12 Teen 13-
17 Adult 18-
49 Adult 50-
64 Adult 65
or older
Years in Coronado (Q1) Live in City Full/Part-Time (Q2)Ages of Hsld Members (Q3) % Respondents is Hslds That Visited
City Park in Past 12 Motnhs

80.8 74.9

93.6 100.0 97.9

94.4 78.3

93.1 94.5

90.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Full-time Part-time Retired Other 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Employment Status (QD4) Age (QD1)
% Respondents is Hslds That Visited
City Park in Past 12 Motnhs
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 511
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 512
General Park Visitation & Needs
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 FIGURE 10 FREQUENCY OF HSLD CITY PARK VISITS IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY YEARS IN CORONADO, LIVE IN CITY FULL/

PART-TIME & AGES OF HSLD MEMBERS
FIGURE 11 FREQUENCY OF HSLD CITY PARK VISITS IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY CHILD 5-17 YEARS IN HSLD, ADULT 55 OR

OLDER IN HSLD, NEIGHBORHOOD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS
WHICH PARK DO YOU VISIT MOST OFTEN IN CORONADO? All respondents who reported that they or other members in their household occasionally visit a park in Coronado were subsequently asked to name the park their household visits most often (see Figure 12 on the next page). Spreckels Park was by far the most commonly visited park (35%), followed by Coronado Cays Park (13%), Tidelands Park (10%), Centennial Park (6%), and Sunset Park (5%).

49.0 22.9

89.7 49.2 47.6 45.4

17.4 5.4

22.4 37.4

21.3 20.9 18.8

13.3 16.3

7.1 9.6

11.6 11.1

2.3 3.5

8.9 9.9 13.8

70.0 48.4 46.9 41.6

58.6 39.5

21.5 22.3

14.8 18.2 28.9

9.1 11.0

15.5 6.5

4.8 16.4

5.5 12.1

3.6 8.5

9.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or
more
Full-time Part-time Child
under 5
Child 5-
12 Teen 13-
17 Adult 18-
49 Adult 50-
64 Adult 65
or older
Years in Coronado (Q1) Live in City Full/Part-Time (Q2)Ages of Hsld Members (Q3) % Households
<1x per mo
1x per mo
2-3x per mo
At least 1x per
wk

60.3 46.4 45.4 39.0

21.1 13.0

31.2 19.6

23.1 2.6

10.4 9.9

11.9 7.9

9.0 10.6

40.4 55.0

47.2 49.6 44.5

57.5 16.8

17.4 20.8 22.2

31.1 4.9

9.3 11.5

8.3 20.9

13.6 13.8

2.3 4.9

12.6 13.2

17.7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Yes No Yes No The Cays The Village The Shores Military
Housing
Own Rent
Child 5-17 Years in Hsld
(Q3)
Adult 55 or Older in Hsld
(Q3)
Neighborhood Home Ownership Status
(QD3)
% Households
<1x per mo
1x per mo
2-3x per mo
At least 1x per
wk
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 513
General Park Visitation & Needs
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Question 8 What is the name of the park in Coronado that members of your household use most often?
FIGURE 12 CITY PARK USED MOST OFTEN
HOW WELL ARE YOUR NEEDS BEING MET? The next question in this series asked residents to rate how well the existing parks and recreation facilities in Coronado perform in meeting their household’s recreation needs using the scale of excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor. As shown in Figure 13 on the next page, the vast majority of residents gave a positive assessment in response to Question 9, with 41% providing a rating of excellent and 38% provid-ing a rating of good. An additional 12% indicated that the parks and recreation facilities in Coro-nado do a fair job of meeting their household’s recreation needs. Overall, approximately 5% used poor or very poor to describe how well their needs are being met by the existing inventory, and 4% were unsure or preferred to not answer the question.

Figures 14-17 display how respondents varied in their assessments of how well Coronado’s existing parks and recreation facilities are meeting the recreation needs of their households. As shown in the figures, households with one or more adults 50 years of age or older, respondents 55 years of age or older, home owners, and those who had visited a park in Coronado during the past year were the most likely to state that the City’s parks do an excellent or good job in meet-ing the recreational needs of their household.

34.5 13.0

9.8 7.9

6.0 5.3

3.6 3.5

3.3 2.6

2.3 1.1

1.1 0.9

0.3 0.2

0.2 0.1

3.2 1.2
0 10203040
Spreckels Park
Coronado Cays Park
Tidelands Park
No park visit in past 12 months
Centennial Park
Sunset Park
Other
Star Park
Bayview Park
Not sure
Glorietta Bay Park
Mathewson Park
Glorietta Bay Promenade
Grand Caribe Shoreline
Harborview Park
Vetter Park
Rotary Park
Pendleton Park
Bay Cir Park
North Cays Park
% Households That Visit City Park Most Often,
Among Those That Provided Response
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 514
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 515
General Park Visitation & Needs
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 FIGURE 15 OVERALL RATING OF CITY PARKS, REC FACILITIES BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS & AGE FIGURE 16 OVERALL RATING OF CITY PARKS, REC FACILITIES BY ETHNICITY, NEIGHBORHOOD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS

36.9 27.1

41.3 41.3 45.2 50.3

34.6 45.9

30.2 31.7

45.0 35.3

29.3 48.3 42.4 Excellent

42.8 33.0

35.7 36.7
Good

37.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Full-time Part-time Retired Other 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older
Employment Status (QD4) Age (QD1)
% Respondents

41.8 50.4

31.6 47.1

35.4 37.9

30.3 33.8

39.3 36.4
Excellent

41.9 40.9 39.6 39.2
Good

35.3 44.4

26.9 40.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Latino /
Hispanic
Caucasian /
White
Mixed /
Other
ethnicity
The Cays The Village The Shores Military
Housing
Own Rent
Ethnicity (QD5) Neighborhood Home Ownership Status
(QD3)
% Respondents
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 516
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 517
General Park Visitation & Needs
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 FIGURE 19 DESIRE CITY PARK IMPROVEMENTS BY YEARS IN CORONADO, LIVE IN CITY FULL/PART-TIME & AGES OF

HSLD MEMBERS
FIGURE 20 DESIRE CITY PARK IMPROVEMENTS BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS & AGE FIGURE 21 DESIRE CITY PARK IMPROVEMENTS BY ETHNICITY, NEIGHBORHOOD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS

49.9 28.2

76.3 70.7

47.7 53.9

42.1 42.0

53.2 51.8

38.3 48.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or
more
Full-time Part-time Child
under 5
Child 5-12 Teen 13-
17 Adult 18-
49 Adult 50-
64 Adult 65
or older
Years in Coronado (Q1) Live in City Full/Part-Time (Q2)Ages of Hsld Members (Q3) % Respondents That Desire City
Park Improvements

40.7 66.6

52.6 69.4

39.3 36.6

45.2 38.5

44.6 54.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Full-time Part-time Retired Other 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Employement Status (QD4) Age (QD1)
% Respondents That Desire City
Park Improvements

45.3 39.2

62.1 49.0 47.1

54.4 44.8

63.0 64.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Latino /
Hispanic
Caucasian /
White
Mixed /
Other
ethnicity
The Cays The Village The Shores Military
Housing
Own Rent
Ethnicity (QD5) Neighborhood Home Ownership Status
(QD3)
% Respondents That Desire City
Park Improvements
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 518
General Park Visitation & Needs
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 FIGURE 22 DESIRE CITY PARK IMPROVEMENTS BY FREQUENCY OF HSLD CITY PARK VISITS IN PAST 12 MONTHS, HSLD CITY PARK VISIT IN PAST 12 MONTHS & GENDER
SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS DESIRED Respondents who indicated that they desired improvements to parks in Coronado were next asked to briefly describe the improvements they most want. Question 11 was posed in an open-ended manner, thereby allowing respondents the opportunity to mention any changes that came to mind without being prompted by—or restricted to—a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 23.

Question 11 Please briefly describe the improvement you would most want to see made to Coronado's parks.

FIGURE 23 DESIRED CITY PARK IMPROVEMENTS

28.2 50.8

32.9 48.2 48.5

33.5 31.4

48.4 60.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
At least 1x
per wk
2-3 x per mo 1x per mo <1x per mo None Yes No Male Female Frequency of Hsld City Park Visits in Past 12 Months (Q7) Hsld City Park Visit in Past 12 Months (Q6)
Gender (QD2)
% Respondents That Desire City
Park Improvements

27.9 13.0

11.1 9.9

9.7 9.1

8.3 6.5

4.9 3.5

3.3 2.5

2.5 2.0

1.8 1.8

1.2 1.2

1.1 2.7

4.0 0 102030
Well-equipped dog park (water fountains, dog bags, fence) Improve playgrounds
Provide, improve bathrooms
Improve cleaning, park maintenance
Provide more shaded benches, seating
Improve, provide more exercise equipment
Improve landscaping, grass
Provide more water facilities
More open space
Improve safety, more police
Improve, provide more basketball courts
Improve, provide more pickleball courts
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
Provide more parking
Provide more picnic tables
Provide more soccer fields
Improve, provide more tennis courts
Provide more adult facilities
Provide more bike paths
Improve, provide more softball fields
Provide more walking paths
% Respondents That Desire City Park Improvements
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 519
General Park Visitation & Needs
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 The improvement suggested most often in response to Question 11 was a well-equipped dog park with water fountains, bags, fence (28%), followed by improved playgrounds (13%), provid-ing/improving bathrooms (11%), improvements to the maintenance/cleanliness of parks (10%), additional shaded benches/seating (10%), providing/improving exercise equipment (9%), improved landscaping/grass (8%), and additional water facilities (7%).

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 520
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 521
Coronado Cays Park
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 FIGURE 25 FREQUENCY OF HSLD CAYS PARK VISITS IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY YEARS IN CORONADO, LIVE IN CITY FULL/

PART-TIME & AGES OF HSLD MEMBERS
FIGURE 26 FREQUENCY OF HSLD CAYS PARK VISITS IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY CHILD IN 5-17 YEARS IN HSLD, ADULT 55

OR OLDER IN HSLD, NEIGHBORHOOD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS
REASONS FOR NOT VISITING Approximately half of Coronado households (49%) indi-cated that no member of their household had visited Cays Park in the 12 months prior to the interview. For respondents in this subgroup, the survey inquired as to whether there was a par-ticular reason for their behavior. Question 13 was asked in an open-ended manner to allow respondents the opportunity to mention any reason that came to mind without prompting or restriction. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the catego-ries shown in Figure 27 on the next page.

19.3 3.6

29.2 25.3 18.3 15.9 18.3 20.2

6.8 4.2

13.6 7.2

7.8 6.3 6.9 6.1

4.5 5.4 9.5 8.5

2.6 2.8

12.7 7.6 9.2 7.7 6.3

9.1 15.1

14.2 16.3 13.2

31.0 38.1

26.6 14.7 17.5 15.4 11.6

17.5 18.6 19.5 19.0

6.8 3.3 5.2 11.9 7.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or
more
Full-time Part-time Child
under 5
Child 5-
12 Teen 13-
17 Adult 18-
49 Adult 50-
64 Adult 65
or older
Years in Coronado (Q1) Live in City Full/Part-Time (Q2)Ages of Hsld Members (Q3) % Households
<1x per mo
1x per mo
2-3x per mo
At least 1x
per wk

70.6 10.9 7.9 12.9

24.9 11.7

10.1 4.8 3.0

18.1 6.2

5.7 7.7 7.4 10.0

7.3 7.3

4.7 16.8

7.1 9.1

22.6 11.2 15.0 13.2

6.0 16.1 24.6

5.4 12.3

17.0 21.0 17.7 18.2 20.0

5.6 6.6 6.5 9.1

8.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Yes No Yes No The Cays The Village The Shores Military
Housing
Own Rent
Child 5-17 Years in Hsld
(Q3)
Adult 55 or Older in
Hsld (Q3)
Neighborhood Home Ownership Status
(QD3)
% Households
<1x per mo
1x per mo
2-3x per mo
At least 1x
per wk
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 522
Coronado Cays Park
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Question 13 Is there a particular reason that your household hasn't visited Cays Park? FIGURE 27 REASONS FOR NOT VISITING CAYS PARK
The most common response when asked why they have not visited Cays Park was there was no particular reason (36%), followed by the location of the park/distance from their home (33%), they prefer the Village/to recreate there (14%), they have no need/desire to go to Cays Park (10%), or they are not familiar with the park/never heard of it (6%).

PRIORITY AMENITIES FOR CAYS PARK MASTER PLAN After informing respon-dents that the City is in the process of developing a Master Plan for Cays Park and must prioritize among amenities due to the small size of the park and a limited budget, respondents were asked whether each of the 23 amenities shown in Figure 28 on the next page should be a high, medium, or low priority for inclusion—or if the amenity should not be included in the park. To avoid a systematic position bias, the amenities were tested in a random order for each respon-dent.

The amenities are sorted in Figure 28 from high to low based on the proportion of respondents who indicated that an amenity was at least a medium priority for inclusion. Among the amenities tested, Coronado residents assigned the highest priority to shade trees (76% high or medium pri-ority), followed by paths for walking and jogging (70%), bicycle amenities including bike racks (68%), children’s playground equipment (67%), a dog park (66%), view areas and places to watch the sunset (63%), and multi-use sports fields for soccer, football, rugby, and lacrosse (63%).

At the other end of the spectrum, respondents were less inclined to view interpretive education displays (27%), a splash pad and waterplay zone (34%), public art (36%), and sand volleyball courts (38%) as high or medium priorities for inclusion in Cays Park.

Tables 1-3 show how the percentage who assigned each amenity high priority status varied across subgroups of Coronado households. The amenities that had the highest percentage of respondents assign a high priority rating in each subgroup are highlighted in green to ease com-parisons.

36.1 33.0

14.4 9.5

6.4 4.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Not sure / No particular reason
Location, distance
Prefer The Village, recreate there
No need, desire
Not familiar, never heard of it
Prefer other parks
% Respondents in Hslds Without Cays Park Visit in Past 12 Months Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 523
Coronado Cays Park
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Question 15 The City of Coronado is in the process of creating a Master Plan for Cays Park to guide long term improvements to the park. The Master Plan will be a "blue print" for the future that identifies the types of amenities that may be included in the park, and the types of activities it will support. As I read each of the following amenities, I'd like you to indicate whether you think the amenity should be a high, medium or low priority for inclusion in Cays Park. If you think the amenity should not be included in the park, just say so. Please keep in mind that due to the size of the park and a limited budget, not all amenities can be high priorities.

FIGURE 28 CAYS PARK MASTER PLAN PRIORITIES

44.6 35.1

41.2 42.2

34.9 38.1

30.1 33.2

30.2 33.8

23.6 27.5

18.2 23.8

18.5 21.4

18.0 13.7

17.0 13.7

8.3 29.1

25.6 32.8

26.0 23.4

29.3 25.3

33.2 29.1

32.0 25.6

30.4 26.0

33.5 26.7

30.7 22.9

23.5 23.9

18.8 19.9

18.3 46.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Shade trees
Paths and trails for walking and jogging
Bicycle amenities including bike racks
Children’s playground equipment
Dog park
View areas and places to watch the sunset
Multi-use sports fields for soccer, football, rugby, and lacrosse Picnic areas
Additional restrooms
Seating areas
Space for community gatherings and concerts
Native plant gardens
Pickleball courts
Basketball courts
Outdoor fitness course & equipment
Tennis courts
Additional parking
Sports fields for softball and baseball
Sand volleyball courts
Public art
Splash pad and waterplay zone
Interpretive education displays
% Respondents
High priority Medium priority
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 524
Coronado Cays Park
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 TABLE 1 CAYS PARK MASTER PLAN PRIORITIES BY AGES OF HSLD MEMBERS (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY) TABLE 2 CAYS PARK MASTER PLAN PRIORITIES BY CHILD 5+-17 YEARS IN HSLD & FREQUENCY OF HSLD CAYS PARK VISITS (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY)
Child
under 5 Child 5-12 Teen 13-17 Adult 18-49 Adult 50-64
Adult 65 or
older
Shade trees 43.3 50.4 49.5 47.6 46.8 46.7
Paths and trails for walking and jogging 56.3 46.5 43.7 48.6 41.9 41.0 Dog park 63.3 49.4 51.2 48.1 42.0 36.1
Children’s playground equipment 85.4 65.0 45.7 45.3 36.9 38.8 Multi-use sports fields for soccer, football, rugby, lacrosse 78.8 62.5 50.6 46.2 34.6 28.4 Bicycle amenities including bike racks 36.1 38.8 39.5 39.5 31.9 28.9 View areas and places to watch the sunset 29.8 25.5 29.3 36.4 32.4 33.7 Space for community gatherings and concerts 48.0 37.1 31.7 34.8 31.6 34.5 Additional restrooms 23.0 34.3 39.7 37.2 31.3 29.4
Seating areas 33.1 30.5 27.0 30.3 27.5 32.3
Picnic areas 32.1 40.0 26.6 27.2 29.9 27.7
Pickleball courts 21.5 19.6 27.0 28.7 26.6 26.2
Outdoor fitness course & equipment 38.1 20.0 17.5 27.9 19.9 18.1 Native plant gardens 15.4 26.1 26.6 26.3 21.3 23.2
Additional parking 12.2 26.8 15.6 24.7 19.3 19.3
Tennis courts 11.8 23.7 16.0 15.0 19.3 23.6
Basketball courts 13.7 23.7 18.6 20.4 19.0 13.4
Sports fields for softball and baseball 10.7 32.9 20.0 19.1 16.3 15.5 Public art 7.8 18.4 6.0 21.2 15.2 12.4
Splash pad and waterplay zone 49.1 34.0 14.6 18.6 9.7 8.8 Sand volleyball courts 17.0 12.9 8.5 19.1 11.7 9.8
Interpretive education displays 24.2 11.4 3.3 10.2 6.8 10.0 Ages of Hsld Members (Q3)
Yes No
At least 1x
per wk
2-3 x per
mo 1x per mo
<1x per
mo None
Shade trees 49.8 45.7 46.1 52.5 45.8 47.2 46.3
Paths and trails for walking and jogging 46.0 44.2 38.4 36.0 43.4 52.4 46.6 Dog park 51.3 39.3 62.0 71.4 55.6 45.5 28.8
Children’s playground equipment 58.8 35.1 51.8 48.7 44.0 36.6 37.7 Multi-use sports fields for soccer, football, rugby, lacrosse 57.4 31.3 53.6 32.3 46.3 56.3 27.5 Bicycle amenities including bike racks 37.2 33.9 32.2 10.7 50.4 35.0 37.1 View areas and places to watch the sunset 28.4 36.7 42.2 30.8 27.8 21.8 37.8 Space for community gatherings and concerts 34.2 34.1 28.6 35.9 27.2 38.9 34.9 Additional restrooms 35.2 32.9 27.1 35.3 61.3 25.0 32.6 Seating areas 30.6 30.5 31.0 27.3 22.5 26.7 32.6
Picnic areas 33.5 28.7 32.2 18.4 49.1 34.7 27.3
Pickleball courts 25.0 28.9 41.4 38.3 30.4 29.0 20.9
Outdoor fitness course & equipment 20.8 25.3 32.5 41.7 29.0 9.8 21.4 Native plant gardens 21.9 24.6 24.3 37.9 32.2 15.2 22.2 Additional parking 17.2 23.1 13.2 15.9 37.3 16.3 24.2
Tennis courts 16.8 19.4 33.0 17.7 15.9 16.0 14.7
Basketball courts 20.4 17.4 15.3 10.6 16.2 25.4 19.0
Sports fields for softball and baseball 20.7 17.2 26.1 17.6 28.2 16.3 14.4 Public art 11.7 19.3 11.2 26.2 21.2 22.4 15.9
Splash pad and waterplay zone 24.7 9.8 12.0 16.9 26.0 14.8 11.8 Sand volleyball courts 11.2 14.8 18.6 6.2 23.5 14.4 11.4 Interpretive education displays 8.8 8.2 10.3 1.6 4.0 3.3 10.6 Child 5-17 Yrs
in Hsld (Q3)
Frequency of Hsld Cays Park Visits
in Past 12 Mos (Q14)
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 525
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 526
Coronado Cays Park
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 FIGURE 30 OTHER HIGH PRIORITY CHANGES OR IMPROVEMENTS IN CAYS PARK BY YEARS IN CORONADO, LIVE IN CITY

FULL/PART-TIME & AGES OF HSLD MEMBERS
FIGURE 31 OTHER HIGH PRIORITY CHANGES OR IMPROVEMENTS IN CAYS PARK BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS & AGE

12.6 16.2

10.3 18.4

15.4 17.2

9.6 9.9

24.8 11.2

14.0 8.7
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or
more
Full-time Part-time Child
under 5
Child 5-12 Teen 13-
17 Adult 18-
49 Adult 50-
64 Adult 65
or older
Years in Coronado (Q1) Live in City Full/Part-Time (Q2)Ages of Hsld Members (Q3) % Respondents With Other High
Priority Changes, Improvements

24.3 9.4

20.5 15.1

10.6 6.8

9.2 8.8

17.2 14.5
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Full-time Part-time Retired Other 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Employment Status (QD4) Age (QD1)
% Respondents With Other High
Priority Changes, Improvements
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 527
Coronado Cays Park
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 FIGURE 32 OTHER HIGH PRIORITY CHANGES OR IMPROVEMENTS IN CAYS PARK BY ETHNICITY, NEIGHBORHOOD, HOME

OWNERSHIP STATUS & GENDER
ADDITIONAL HIGH PRIORITIES When the 13% of individuals who indicated they had additional high priority improvements in mind were provided an opportunity to describe the improvements, many simply restated amenities already included in Question 15—such as improved landscaping (18%), well-equipped dog park (16%), and improved children’s play areas (8%). The novel items mentioned included adding a skate park (12%), water fountains (8%), food court/snack area (7%), and a frisbee golf course (2%).

Question 17 Please briefly describe the changes or improvements not already mentioned that you think should be a high priority for inclusion in Cays Park.

FIGURE 33 OTHER DESIRED HIGH PRIORITY CHANGES, IMPROVEMENTS IN CAYS PARK

11.1 11.9

23.4 10.1

15.5 13.7

12.0 9.5

11.1 26.8

15.2 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
Latino /
Hispanic
Caucasian /
White
Mixed /
Other
ethnicity
The Cays The Village The Shores Military
Housing
Own Rent Male Female
Ethnicity (QD5) Neighborhood Home Ownership Status
(QD3)
Gender (QD2)
% Respondents With Other High
Priority Changes, Improvements

17.8 16.4

12.4 9.1

8.0 7.6

7.4 3.9

3.7 2.6

2.3 2.6
0 5 10 15 20
Improve landscaping, open space areas
Well-equipped dog park (water fountains, dog bags,
fence)
Add skate park
Improve parks, courts
Add water fountains
Add, improve children’s play areas
Add food court, snack area
Fewer soccer events
Add bike trails, walking paths
Provide more pickleball courts
Provide more basketball courts
Add frisbee golf course
% Respondents With Other High
Priority Changes, Improvements
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 528
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 529
Coronado Cays Park
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 FIGURE 36 OPINION OF DOG PARK FENCE, BARRIER AT CAYS PARK BY HSLD CITY PARK VISIT IN PAST 12 MONTHS, FREQUENCY OF HSLD CITY PARK VISITS IN PAST 12 MONTHS & FREQUENCY OF HSLD CAYS PARK VISITS IN PAST 12 MONTHS
FIGURE 37 OPINION OF DOG PARK FENCE, BARRIER AT CAYS PARK BY AGE, ETHNICITY & ADULT 55 OR OLDER IN HSLD

51.3 40.1

55.1 64.2

50.5 56.4

30.2 37.6

36.6 36.7

19.6 44.9 30.0

10.8 2.6

14.1 2.3

8.8 14.6

2.2 32.3 8.2

10.3 0.8

3.4 7.3 8.0 2.5 6.2

15.1 1.7

12.0 5.9 3.8 10.3

48.7 63.7

47.4 57.1

43.1 29.4

33.2 38.1

30.5 27.8

33.7 5.9 5.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Yes No At least
1x per
wk
2-3 x per
mo
1x per
mo
<1x per
mo
None At least
1x per
wk
2-3 x per
mo
1x per
mo
<1x per
mo
None
Hsld City Park Visit
in Past 12 Months
(Q6)
Frequency of Hsld City Park Visits in Past 12 Months
(Q7)
Frequency of Hsld Cays Park Visits in Past 12
Months (Q14)
% Respondents
Not sure
No, it should
not have a
fence or barrier
Yes, it should
have a natural
barrier
Yes, it should
have a fence

48.7 42.8

50.0 50.6 45.6

32.9 37.9 32.2 31.7 33.1

35.4 0.0

10.9 3.8

10.5 11.6 17.3

9.3 9.5 14.8 9.4 11.5

5.8 11.4

3.8 6.5 7.0 8.4 3.9 6.9 7.4

49.9 49.6 55.1 54.6

42.9 61.6

33.2 39.4

29.6 31.1

32.7 6.8 2.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Latino /
Hispanic
Caucasian
/ White
Mixed /
Other
ethnicity
Yes No
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD5) Adult 55 or Older in
Hsld (Q3)
% Respondents
Not sure
No, it should
not have a
fence or barrier
Yes, it should
have a natural
barrier
Yes, it should
have a fence
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 530
Coronado Cays Park
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 FIGURE 38 OPINION OF DOG PARK FENCE, BARRIER AT CAYS PARK BY NEIGHBORHOOD, HSLD CAYS PARK VISITS IN PAST 12 MONTHS, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & GENDER
PROGRAMS AND EVENTS AT CAYS PARK The final substantive question of the survey presented respondents with the short list of programs and events shown in Figure 39 and simply asked how interested their household would be in participating in the event if it were offered at Cays Park.

Question 19 Next, I'm going to read a short list of programs and events that could be held at Cays Park. For each that I read, please indicate whether your household would be very inter-ested, somewhat interested, or not interested in participating in this type of program if it were offered at Cays Park.

FIGURE 39 INTEREST IN CAYS PARK PROGRAMS, EVENTS

43.3 58.3

47.1 53.4

27.9 33.9

33.3 34.1

32.2 35.0

5.6 15.4

0.0 15.7 3.6 13.1 6.1 13.0 7.4

1.5 2.2

23.5 4.3 10.2 7.6 5.6 7.1

27.4 56.8

41.1 34.7

47.2 52.9

36.1 41.8

41.3 31.3

36.8 6.3 6.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
The Cays The Village The Shores Military
Housing
Yes No Own Rent Male Female
Neighborhood Hsld Cays Park Visit in
Past 12 Months (Q12)
Home Ownership Status
(QD3)
Gender (QD2)
% Respondents
Not sure
No, it should
not have a
fence or barrier
Yes, it should
have a natural
barrier
Yes, it should
have a fence

40.2 29.4

19.6 20.4

20.0 38.4

30.5 29.1

36.9 34.9

30.6 22.4

22.6 34.4

36.3 37.8

41.5 6.4

6.7 7.0

7.2 6.9

7.9 32.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Community events and
festivals
Concerts
Movies in the park
Recreation classes
Art shows
Plays and performances
% Respondents
Very interested Somewhat interested Not interested Not sure / Prefer not to answer Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 531
Coronado Cays Park
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Residents expressed the greatest interest in community events and festivals (71% very or some-what interested) and concerts (71%), followed by movies in the park (59%), recreation classes (57%), art shows (55%), and plays and performances (51%). Tables 4-6 demonstrate how those very interested in each program or event varied across subgroups of Coronado residents.

TABLE 4 INTEREST IN CAYS PARK PROGRAMS, EVENTS BY YEARS IN CORONADO, LIVE IN CITY FULL/PART-TIME & CHILD 5-17 YEARS IN HSLD (SHOWING % VERY INTERESTED)
TABLE 5 INTEREST IN CAYS PARK PROGRAMS, EVENTS BY AGES OF HSLD MEMBERS & ADULTS 55 OR OLDER IN HSLD (SHOWING % VERY INTERESTED)
TABLE 6 INTEREST IN CAYS PARK PROGRAMS, EVENTS BY NEIGHBORHOOD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS (SHOWING %

VERY INTERESTED)
Live in City Full/Part-Time (Q2 Child 5-17 Years in Hsld (Q3) Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Full-time Part-time Yes No Concerts 56.5 43.2 54.5 31.0 38.0 64.0 38.5 41.1
Community events and festivals 43.8 32.0 23.7 30.5 32.7 35.5 33.5 33.0 Movies in the park 37.2 33.8 45.6 22.8 25.9 65.2 34.7 27.6 Art shows 21.2 16.4 33.8 19.3 20.4 24.4 16.4 22.2
Plays and performances 30.2 12.5 24.8 18.0 19.6 25.9 15.6 21.6 Recreation classes 27.1 11.6 14.8 20.3 20.1 17.1 24.7 18.0 Years in Coronado (Q1)
Child under 5 Child 5-12 Teen 13-17 Adult 18-49 Adult 50-64 Adult 65
or older Yes No
Concerts 30.7 40.0 36.5 46.6 36.4 32.2 36.9 50.9
Community events and festivals 26.7 39.1 28.6 36.7 29.8 26.5 30.9 39.4 Movies in the park 31.5 37.3 30.5 35.3 24.9 20.9 25.4 42.6 Art shows 14.1 20.8 11.1 22.5 19.1 20.7 20.0 21.9
Plays and performances 10.0 17.0 15.5 22.1 18.3 18.1 19.0 23.6 Recreation classes 23.9 30.0 18.0 22.6 15.8 14.3 15.4 32.1 Ages of Hsld Members (Q3) Adult 55 or Older in Hsld (Q3) The Cays The Village The Shores
Military
Housing Own Rent
Concerts 46.7 37.5 31.2 59.5 32.3 49.7
Community events and festivals 35.0 32.5 16.5 43.6 25.4 40.0 Movies in the park 25.9 29.5 9.8 47.7 20.9 38.3
Art shows 24.6 20.0 13.2 22.2 16.5 24.2
Plays and performances 15.2 19.7 14.0 33.7 14.6 26.7
Recreation classes 22.0 18.3 9.9 33.8 15.2 24.0
Neighborhood
Home Ownership
Status (QD3)
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 532
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 533
Methodology
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

M ETHODOLOGY
The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques.

QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely with the City of Coronado and Schmidt Design Group to develop a questionnaire that covered the topics of interest and avoided many possible sources of systematic measurement error, includ-ing position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effects, scaling effects, and prim-ing. Several questions included multiple individual items. Because asking items in a set order can lead to a systematic position bias in responses, the items were asked in a random order for each respondent.

Some questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents. For exam-ple, only respondents who indicated they or other members of their household visited a city park in Coronado during the prior 12 month period (Question 6) were asked how frequently they visit parks in Coronado (Question 7) and which park they visit most often (Question 8). The question-naire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 37) identifies the skip pat-terns used during the interview to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions.

PROGRAMMING, PRE-TEST & LANGUAGE TRANSLATION Prior to fielding the sur-vey, the questionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist interviewers when conducting the telephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip patterns, randomizes the appropriate question items, and alerts interviewers to certain types of keypunching mistakes should they happen during the interview. The survey was also programmed into a passcode-protected online survey application to allow residents who preferred to complete the survey online the opportunity to do so. The integrity of the ques-tionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into random homes in the City prior to formally beginning the survey. The final questionnaire was also professionally translated into Spanish to allow for data collection in English or Spanish according to the preference of the respondent.

SAMPLE, RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION A comprehensive database of Coro-nado households was utilized for this study, ensuring that all households in Coronado had the opportunity to be selected to participate in the survey. Once selected at random, contact infor-mation was appended to each record including email addresses and telephone numbers for adult residents. Individuals were subsequently recruited to participate in the survey through multiple recruiting methods. Using a combination of mail, email and text invitations, sampled residents were initially invited to participate in the survey online at a secure, passcode-protected website designed and hosted by True North. Each individual was assigned a unique passcode to ensure that only Coronado residents who received an invitation could access the online survey site, and that the survey could be completed only one time per passcode. An email reminder notice was also sent to encourage participation among those who had yet to take the survey. Following a period of online data collection, True North placed telephone calls to land lines and cell phone numbers of sampled residents that had yet to participate in the online survey or for whom only telephone contact information was available.

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 534
Methodology
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Telephone interviews averaged 16 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday eve-nings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would bias the sample. A total of 464 completed surveys were gathered online and by tele-phone between May 24 and June 14, 2023.

MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING The results of the survey can be used to esti-mate the opinions and behaviors of all households in Coronado.1 Because not every household in the City participated in the survey, however, the results have what is known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error refers to the difference between what was found in the survey of 464 households for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 7,147 households2 had been interviewed.

Figure 40 provides a plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the alternative response. For this survey, the maxi-mum margin of error is ± 4.4% for questions answered by all 464 respondents.

FIGURE 40 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR
Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to certain questions varied by demo-graphic characteristics such as length of residence. Figure 40 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individ-uals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups.

1. Because the survey asks respondents to report on the interests, activities, and behaviors of their household, it is appropriate to generalize the survey results at the household level.

2. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 464 Respondents
± 4.4%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Sample Size (Number of Respondents)
Margin of Error
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 535
Methodology
City of Coronado True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 DATA PROCESSING & WEIGHTING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsistencies, coding and recoding responses, categorizing verbatim responses, and preparing frequency analyses and cross-tabulations. The final data were weighted to balance the sample by key demographics according to Census estimates.

ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole num-ber, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number.

These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and tables. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and charts for a given question.

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 536
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 537
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 538
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 539
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 540
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 541
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 542
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 543
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 544
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 545
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 546

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
August 15, 2023 10c
CONSIDER COUNCILMEMBER TANAKA’S REQUEST, PURSUANT TO CITY COUNCIL POLICY NO. 9, FOR “RECONSIDERATION OF A MATTER UPON WHICH THE CITY COUNCIL HAS VOTED”; THEN, IF THE CITY COUNCIL TAKES UP THE RECONSIDERED ITEM, RECONSIDER THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION OF JULY 18, 2023 TO REMOVE THE FOUR CANARY ISLAND PINE TREES ON THE 600 BLOCK OF D AVENUE AS PART OF THE

LAWN BOWLING GREEN TURF REPLACEMENT PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Pursuant to City Council Policy No. 9, consider Councilmember Tanaka’s request to reconsider the action taken by the City Council on July 18, 2023, to “Remove the four Canary Island Pine trees on the 600 block of D Avenue and to consider other solutions that abate the fungal problem under the lawn bowling green.”

2. If the request for reconsideration is supported by a majority of the City Council, provide direction on the four Canary Island Pine trees and any design modifications for the Lawn Bowling Green Project. If necessary, depending on the direction, provide additional appropriation and authorize the City Manager to execute a Work Order Amendment with Nasland Engineering.

BACKGROUND:

Following the February 16, 2021 City Council meeting, the Lawn Bowling Green Turf Replacement Project (Project) saw a long delay due to a significant amount of turnover in City personnel involved in the Project.

On June 7, 2022, City Council approved a contract with Nasland Engineering to design and prepare the bid documents for the Project.

On July 18, 2023, staff presented the Project to the City Council. Included in the presentation was a timeline of events related to the Project including the construction of the original bowling green, opening of the John D. Spreckels Center, actions taken by staff to assess and remedy issues on the Project, and recommendations for design and construction. Attached are the July 18, 2023 agenda packet materials and PowerPoint presentation that supplemented the staff discussion.

The July 18th staff recommendation included splitting the Project into two phases:

Phase I

1. Construct a concrete barrier along D Avenue and the Library to block root intrusion from nearby trees.

2. Complete the roof drain system by installing a pump to redirect water away from the bowling green.

Phase II

3. Remove existing bowling green, exposing the base material and repair base material as needed.

4. Install new bowling green.

City of Coronado Page 547
In addition, due to a significant amount of coordination and interaction with the lawn bowlers to understand the issues and with a goal to construct a project that met their needs, the Council received an alternative option that would remove the four Canary Island Pine trees along D Avenue. This alternative would eliminate the possibility of tree roots intruding under the bowling green from D Avenue and avert the need to install a concrete root barrier along D Avenue, which was estimated at $60,000.

Lastly, staff requested approval to remove the leaning Torrey Pine tree north of the bowling green adjacent to the library, based on the recommendation provided by Nasland Engineering’s subconsultant arborist. Staff also presented that the middle palm of three palm trees, along D Avenue and west of the library, may need to be removed due to the construction of the drainpipe system. Staff presented this as the least impactful option which would otherwise potentially require the removal of an oak tree.

In a unanimous vote, the City Council approved staff’s recommendation for the design and construction phasing and also included the removal and future replacement of the four Canary Island Pines along D Avenue. The City Council directed that tree replacement alternatives were to be presented at a future City Council meeting. In a separate motion, by a 4-1 vote, City Council approved the removal of the leaning Torrey Pine tree.

ANALYSIS:

During the week of July 24, staff coordinated with its contractor West Coast Arborists to plan for the removal of the five trees. Part of the initial effort included the City Arborist checking for habitat or nests prior to scheduling a date for removal. The cursory inspection did not identify any habitat or nests. In addition, West Coast Arborists would have their in-house wildlife biologist inspect the trees no more than three days prior to tree removal.

On July 25, 2023, Councilmember Casey Tanaka submitted a request to reconsider the action to remove the four Canary Island Pine trees on the 600 block of D Avenue (Attachment 1). After receiving the request, removal of all five trees was postponed until further direction from City Council.

Since the conclusion of the City Council meeting on July 18, 2023, City staff in various departments have received inquiries regarding the bowling green and the Project ranging from concerns related to bird nesting season, surveys being completed by a wildlife biologist, age of the Canary Island Pines, current costs to maintain the bowling green, costs to build a natural turf bowling green, costs to move the bowling green at another location, and questions regarding the composition of artificial turf, among others. Staff will be prepared to answer questions during the presentation of the agenda item.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This project was added during the FY 20-21 Capital Improvement Program midyear adjustment process with an allocation of $800,000 (400700000-98090-21003). To date, a total of $110,200 has been expended for design, leaving a balance of $689,800 for construction. Requests for additional appropriations will be included during the award of each of the contracts for construction.

ALTERNATIVE:

The City Council could choose to direct staff to provide alternate options to those presented on July 18, 2023. An additional appropriation and approval of a Work Order Modification with Nasland Engineering would be required depending upon the direction provided by City Council.

City of Coronado Page 548
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:

The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA based on Article 19, Sections 15301 (existing facilities), 15302 (replacement or reconstruction), and 15304 (minor alterations to land).

PUBLIC NOTICE:

No notice required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Request for Reconsideration

2. July 18, 2023 PowerPoint Presentation

3. July 18, 2023 Agenda Report with Attachments
Submitted By: Public Services and Engineering Department / Leon Firsht City of Coronado Page 549
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 550
John D. Spreckels Center
Lawn Bowling Green
Turf Replacement Project
July 18, 2023
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 551
City of Coronado | Lawn Bowling Green Turf Replacement 2 Item Agenda
• Staff Presentation

1. Background/Timeline
a. City Council Direction Feb 16, 2021

2. Review of Issues and Options

3. Council Direction Requested
• Public Comment
• Council Questions
• Council Deliberation and Action
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 552
3 Background/Timeline

1. 2010: LBG complex was constructed replacing the existing grass turf with an artificial surface (Green). The Green had a 10-year life expectancy.

2. April 2017: JDSC opens for community use.

3. Late 2019: Mounds appeared under the Green.
a. Determined the mounds were puffball mushroom fungus, Pisolithus arhizus/tinctorius (dyeball or deadman’s foot fungus).
b. Staff slowed the fungus by fungicidal injections, but this required puncturing the Green.

City of Coronado | Lawn Bowling Green Turf Replacement
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 553
4 Background/Timeline

4. Feb 16, 2021: Staff presented the project to City Council. a) Staff assumption based on: Rutgers University/PACE Turf/WCA reports. b) Staff recommendation: Remove 4 trees on D Ave., install root barrier on north side of Green, install a pump to divert drainage from JDSC roof, and replace sub-base/base/Green. c) Staff statement: “At this time, there are no known remedies for the fungus and eradication is difficult to impossible. The more mitigation measures employed, the greater the opportunity for success.” d) Council approves staff recommendation with exception of removal of trees, directs design a (horizontal) barrier of some material within a reasonable budget.

City of Coronado | Lawn Bowling Green Turf Replacement
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 554
5 Background/Timeline

5. Feb 2021 – May 2022: Significant staff turnover, project management moved to PS&E.

6. June 7, 2022: Council approved contract for consultant to prepare bid documents.

7. July 2022 – January 2023: Met with bowlers and reviewed design, discussed options, etc.…

8. Feb 1, 2023: Construction manager (CM) hired to provide root barrier location (and electrical e-generator) constructability review and cost estimates. Onsite survey performed by team to verify layers and plinth dimensions/condition.

9. Feb 9, 2023: Pathologist familiar with City’s specific mushroom meets with team onsite and confirms fungi does not thrive on dead tree roots. UC Riverside letter supports this.

City of Coronado | Lawn Bowling Green Turf Replacement
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 555
6 10. Mar 2023: Consultant, CM, and City discussed technical questions in order to complete the 100% CD’s.

11. Apr-May 2023: Arborist and PSE re-evaluated trees relative to root barrier and drain pipe locations; West Coast Arborist report updated.
a) Identify/label full list of trees along D Ave./Library, table with distances for root pruning, site walk for drain pipe, all trees are considered woody and could provide medium for fungi.

12. June 2023: Bowlers and PSE agree project ready to be presented to City Council.

13. July 2023: Request Council direction.

Background/Timeline
City of Coronado | Lawn Bowling Green Turf Replacement
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 556
7 Issues: D Avenue/Library Trees – JDSC
Drainage
City of Coronado | Lawn Bowling Green Turf Replacement
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 557
8 Coronado
Cays
Pickleball,
Tennis,
&
Basketball
4 3 2 1
5 BB
PB
PB
T T T
Psolithus tinctorius
City of Coronado | Lawn Bowling Green Turf Replacement
Excavation of mounds from the Green
and dissection.

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 558
9 Follow Up to Council Direction
City of Coronado | Lawn Bowling Green Turf Replacement

1. Horizontal barrier/subgrade remediation: Concrete, gravel, drainage system, bio barrier/fabric, salting, herbicides.
a) Percentage of assurance, cost.

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 559
10 Nov 30, 2022 – Mound History
City of Coronado | Lawn Bowling Green Turf Replacement
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 560
11 Nov 30, 2022 – Irrigation Test
City of Coronado | Lawn Bowling Green Turf Replacement
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 561
12 Feb 1, 2023 – Green Removal
City of Coronado | Lawn Bowling Green Turf Replacement
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 562
13 Feb 1, 2023 – Green Removal
City of Coronado | Lawn Bowling Green Turf Replacement
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 563
14 D Avenue – Hedges and City Fiber Optic
City of Coronado | Lawn Bowling Green Turf Replacement
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 564
15 Tree P-56, Palm F-8 Removal
City of Coronado | Lawn Bowling Green Turf Replacement
Arborists recommend
removal of leaning tree
(P-56) to eliminate it
overcrowding and
suppressing adjacent trees
and to minimize root
intrusion beneath green
Arborist recommends removal
of palm tree (F-8) to
accommodate drain pipes and
save oak tree (P-52)
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 565
16 Tree P-56
City of Coronado | Lawn Bowling Turf Replacement
P-56
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 566
17 Palm F-8 and P-56
City of Coronado | Lawn Bowling Turf Replacement
F-8
P-56
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 567
18 Construction Phasing
City of Coronado | Lawn Bowling Green Turf Replacement
Phase I

1. Construct root barrier along D Avenue and Library

2. Complete roof drain system, installing pump to redirect water from Green
Phase II

1. Remove existing Green and repair base material as needed

2. Install new Green
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 568
City of Coronado | Lawn Bowling Green Turf Replacement 19 • Construct Concrete Barrier along
D Avenue and Library Side
• Install pump and drain system
Section A-A
A A
Recommendation
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 569
City of Coronado | Lawn Bowling Green Turf Replacement 20 Alternative
• Remove Trees D Avenue
• Construct Concrete Barrier
along Library Side Only
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 570
21 Project Budget
City of Coronado | Lawn Bowling Green Turf Replacement
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 571
22 Target Schedule
City of Coronado | Lawn Bowling Green Turf Replacement
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 572
City of Coronado| Lawn Bowling Turf Replacement 23
Request Council to:

1. Provide direction to staff

2. Approve removal of leaning torrey pine P-56

3. Authorize City Manager to Advertise the Lawn Bowling Green Turf Improvement Projects
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 573
City of Coronado | Lawn Bowling Green Turf Replacement 24 Item Agenda
• Staff Presentation

1. Background/Timeline
a. City Council Direction Feb 16, 2021

2. Review of Issues and Options

3. Council Direction Requested
• Public Comment
• Council Questions
• Council Deliberation and Action
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 574
25 Questions?
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 575
27 Recommended
City of Coronado | Lawn Bowling Green Replacement

CONSTRUCTION SCOPE
GC
• Sawcut
• Demo existing concrete
• Trench
• Install concrete root barrier at sidewalk
• Dowel in at existing sidewalk, and install new
sidewalk patch with specified finish
• Install drainage system with wet well and pump
Turf Contractor
• Existing turf to be removed
• Remove top layer of existing sand
• Maintain existing 6” playing base
• Repair playing base damaged by roots
• Existing plinth to remain; survey plinth
to confirm it is level
• ½” new sand to be placed on top of
existing base
• New turf to be installed on top of sand
TREES and HEDGES REMAIN |

CONSTRUCT CONCRETE ROOT BARRIER
$1,308,000
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 576
28 Alternative
City of Coronado | Lawn Bowling Green Turf Replacement

CONSTRUCTION SCOPE
City
• Remove trees and not hedges
• No root barrier on D Ave.

General Contractor
• Construct root barrier Library side
• Install drain system
with wet well and pump
Turf Contractor
• Existing turf to be removed
• Remove top layer of existing sand
• Keep existing 6” playing base
• Repair playing base damaged by roots
• Existing plinth to remain; survey to confirm
plinth is level
• ½” new sand to be placed on top of
existing base
• New turf to be installed on top of sand
REMOVE TREES and NO ROOT BARRIER D AVE. | HEDGES REMAIN

CONSTRUCT ROOT BARRIER LIBRARY SIDE
$1,257,000
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 577
Attachment 3

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
July 18, 2023 10c

REQUEST COUNCIL DIRECTION FOR FINAL DESIGN AND AUTHORIZE BID

ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE LAWN BOWLING GREEN TURF REPLACEMENT PROJECT RECOMMENDATION:

Provide direction for final design to complete the bid documents and authorize bid advertisement for the Lawn Bowling Green Turf Replacement project using two bid packages: 1) Install concrete root barriers and drainage system; and 2) Remove existing turf, repair/replace existing base, install new turf. In addition, staff requests Council provide direction on the proposed removal of the leaning torrey pine tree P-56.

BACKGROUND:

In 2010, the John D. Spreckels Center’s (JDSC) Lawn Bowling Green complex (Complex) was constructed. The construction replaced the existing turf surface with an artificial surface (Green).

The Green had a 10-year life expectancy.

In September 2019, staff responded to a request to investigate numerous mounds that had developed under the Green on the D Avenue side of the Complex. Approximately twenty mounds were identified ranging from as small as a golf ball, to the size of a softball, thus rendering portions of the Complex unplayable. The mounds were the result of the puffball mushroom fungus Pisolithus arhizus/tinctorius (common name: dyeball or deadman’s foot fungus). Staff temporarily slowed the progress of the fungus through fungicidal injections, but this process required puncturing the Green numerous times and was detrimental to the playability and longevity of the Green.

On February 16, 2021, staff presented an overview of the project to Council and stated that the fungus lived on both live and dead conifer tree roots. Staff recommended the removal of the four canary pine trees on D Avenue, installation of a (root) barrier along the north side of the Green, replacement of the substrate and Green, and installation of a pump to divert the drainage away from the Green that was coming from the JDSC roof and being treated by the northerly planter.

In the Analysis portion of the staff report, staff included the following: “At this time, there are no known remedies for the fungus and eradication is difficult to impossible. The more mitigation measures employed, the greater the opportunity for success.” The Council discussed staff’s recommendation and alternatives provided by the West Coast Arborists, Inc. (WCA) report (Attachment 1). Discussion also centered around the Rutgers University and PACE Turf, LLC (excerpts included in the WCA report), both of which did not provide confidence that there was a definite solution to the issue. In a 3-2 vote, the City Council supported staff’s recommendation with the exception of the removal of the trees. In addition, direction was provided to design a barrier of some sort (concrete, gravel, etc.) to prevent roots from reaching the Green, within a reasonable budget.

Over the course of approximately a year and a half the city saw a significant amount of turnover in personnel involved in the project which resulted in significant delays. Due to the timing of onboarding of new staff in multiple departments, management of the project was moved from City of Coronado Page 578
Attachment 3
Recreation and Golf Services to Public Services and Engineering.

On June 7, 2022, City Council approved a contract with Nasland Engineering to design and prepare the bid documents.

From late June to November of 2022, city staff and the consultant prepared draft design documents and met with the Coronado Lawn Bowling Club (bowlers) regarding the project. In discussions with the bowlers every facet of the project was questioned. This included: the cause and nutrient source of the fungus, use of herbicides/barriers on the Green, use, placement, and depth of the root barriers, determining tree health and need for tree protection, need for a drainage system under the Green, replacement of the hedges, and much more. Ultimately it was determined that definitively identifying the cause and nutrient source of the fungus was the most important factor to address these questions and ensure the optimal design solution was reached.

Because there were differing opinions and no conclusive solution from the original consultants on the project (Rutgers, Pace Turf, WCA), staff decided to obtain more definitive research. Pace Turf recommended a mycologist-plant pathologist who is an expert on the specific mushroom, pisolithus arhizus/tinctorius that is invading the City’s lawn bowling green.

Staff contacted Ms. Pat Nolan, who spent 27 years as a plant pathologist in the Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures for the County of San Diego including work in mushroom identification. Now retired, she continues to use her mycological skills in mushroom identification as a long-time member of the San Diego Mycological Society, and especially in unusual cases.

For this project, she has and continues to volunteer her time.

On February 9, 2023, staff, consultants, bowlers and Ms. Nolan visited the Complex. Ms. Nolan confirmed the other consultants’ findings: a symbiotic “mycorrhizal” relationship exists between the fungus and the nearby conifer trees growing along D Avenue and adjacent to the Library. But she added an important distinction: this mushroom is created only on living roots and not dead roots or organic debris (Attachment 2). Staff also received a second confirmation from a microbiology and plant pathology professor at UC Riverside (Attachment 3). Therefore, excavating the soil beneath the green to remove all dead organic matter and fungal spores is not necessary as this fungal mushroom will not fruit or multiply unless a living root is present to supply it with nutrients.

ANALYSIS:

Given this new knowledge about the specific mushroom invading the City’s turf, staff was able to tailor a new solution. Based on the collective opinion of the involved parties and the City, staff recommends splitting the original project into two bid packages with the following scopes of work:

Phase I

1. Construct a concrete barrier along D Avenue and the Library to block root intrusion from nearby trees.

2. Complete the roof drain system by installing a pump to redirect water away from the Green.

Phase II

3. Remove existing Green exposing the base material, repair base material as needed.

4. Install new Green.

By splitting the project into two, each of the projects can be completed by contractors who perform work within their expertise. Separately, the root barriers can be installed as one of the first items City of Coronado Page 579
Attachment 3
of work which would provide an opportunity to visually observe the quantity and size of the roots under the Green coming from the trees. Applying herbicide to the roots at this time will also be considered.

Staff believes that constructing a concrete root barrier at a depth of five feet in conjunction with WCA recommendations for tree health will reduce/prevent tree roots from growing under the Green. The consensus from speaking to several arborists is that tree roots are generally two to two and half feet deep. Staff does not believe roots from the hedges along D Avenue are a source for the fungus under the Green.

Staff reviewed the option of placing a concrete/gravel barrier beneath the Green, but significant costs were a concern along with feedback from the bowlers that this was not preferred. A drain system was also considered; however, it added additional costs and was also not preferred. In general, preserving the existing base to the Green was preferred by the bowlers.

In the course of significant coordination and interaction with the bowlers to understand the issues and with a goal to construct a project that met their needs, the bowlers made one request: to remove the four canary island pine trees (F-9 through F-12) thereby eliminating any possibility of tree roots intruding under the Green and averting the need to install a concrete root barrier along D Avenue. It is also staff’s understanding that these trees add maintenance duties due to the trees dropping sap and leaves onto the Green.

Lastly, as part of staff’s review of the project, the health of one of the torrey pines was questioned.

The arborist working under Nasland Engineering recommends removing the leaning torrey pine P-56 (WCA) / Tree #5 (Rappoport) because it overcrowds the adjacent pines and is detrimental to their health (Attachment 4). Staff requests Council provide direction on removing tree P-56.

As part of staff’s presentation to the City Council, project estimates and individual tasks costs will be provided. Overall, it is staff’s opinion that an additional $600,000 or more will be needed to complete the project as outlined above. Costs for remediation of the soil below the base material are anticipated at another $150,000 or more.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no significant fiscal impact associated with advertising the project(s) for bid. This project was added during the FY 20-21 Capital Improvement Program midyear adjustment process with an allocation of $800,000 (400700000-98090-21003). To date, a total of $110,200 has been expended for design, leaving a balance of $689,800 for construction. Requests for additional appropriations will be included during award of each of the contracts for construction.

ALTERNATIVE:

The Council could choose not to authorize staff to advertise the project for bid and return with additional options/information.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:

The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA based on Article 19, Sections 15301 (existing facilities), 15302 (replacement or reconstruction), and 15304 (minor alterations to land).

PUBLIC NOTICE:

No notice required.

City of Coronado Page 580
Attachment 3
ATTACHMENTS:

1. WCA Updated Report updated (5/22/23)

2. Mushroom Documentation

3. Plant Pathology Letter from UC Riverside

4. Arborist Report
Submitted By: Public Services and Engineering Department / Leon Firsht, Jackie Lu City of Coronado Page 581
Attachment 3
DATE: OCTOBER 6, 2020
(Minor edits were made on
5/22/23 upon City request to
clarify information.) City of Coronado Page 582
Attachment 3
Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

BACKGROUND AND ASSIGNMENT
In September of 2020, West Coast Arborists, Inc. (WCA) was contacted by the City of Coronado regarding the assessment of one Torrey pine (Pinus torreyana) and two Canary Island pines (Pinus canariensis) trees located on the northwest side of the Coronado lawn bowling club. In Arbor Access (WCA's tree inventory database), the trees are inventoried as 2 X SPRECKELS PARK WEST PLAZA P-55, 601 D AV F-10, and 601 D AV F-11. For this report, the trees will be referred to as Tree P-55, Tree F-10, and Tree F-11. The site map below identifies the location of these three subject trees with this icon " ", and six other surrounding trees with this icon " ".

FIGURE 1 SITE MAP
Key
P-55 – Pinus torreyana
F-10 – Pinus canariensis
F-11 – Pinus canariensis
P-54 – Pinus canariensis
P-56 – Pinus torreyana
P-57 – Pinus canariensis
F-4 – Magnolia grandiflora
F-9 – Pinus canariensis
F-12 – Pinus canariensis
The City had concerns regarding fungal fruiting bodies that were creating lumps within the artificial lawn bowling turf. The City requested that WCA assess the situation and provide management recommendations from an arboricultural perspective1, specifically regarding the three subject pine trees (P-55, F-10, & F-11) being considered for removal to mitigate these turf problems.
1 The City had already acquired a pathology report from Rutgers University as well as a report from PACE Turf LLC. Both of these reports were provided to WCA to review. 1 City of Coronado Page 583
Attachment 3
Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

OBSERVATIONS
The subject trees and site were inspected on September 30, 2020. On-site, the health and structure of the trees was assessed in accordance with the ISA Best Management Practices (BMPs)2. The inspection of defects within the crowns was limited to a ground-level visual inspection, below ground parts such as roots was limited by soil, hardscaping, artificial turf, and photos within a PACE Turf, LLC report from 9/23/2020 when some turf was cut open. On-site and within the two provided reports, the following relevant observations were noted:

Refer to Photos in Appendix A
General Site & Report Observations
• The trees were located on the northwest side of the Coronado lawn bowling club and surrounded by irrigated turf grass.
• Judging by the color and density of foliage, the trees were in fair-good health for the species and time of year. The trees also exhibited generally good structure having a dominant central leader with subordinate branching.
• There were various other trees in close proximity to the lawn bowling area, including a young magnolia (F-4) to the south and several other pines to the north. There was also a privet hedge (Ligustrum spp.) adjacent to the lawn bowling area to the northwest. • There was a plastic root barrier between the privet hedge and the lawn bowling area. • There were several noticeable bumps and depressions on the northwest side of the artificial lawn bowling turf as well as repairs and holes from fungicide injections. These bumps ranged between 35 and 60 feet from the subject trees.
• There were numerous fungal fruiting bodies growing in the same planting area as the privet hedge. The mushroom species appeared to match the tentative identification of the dyemaker's puffball from the pathology report.
2 Terms appearing in boldface type are defined in the Glossary at the end of this report. 2 City of Coronado Page 584
Attachment 3
Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com • The pathology report from Rutgers University tentatively identified the fungus as a dyemaker's puffball (Pisolithus tinctorius). It also stated that these mushrooms "are quite capable of producing enough turgor pressure to force their way through asphalt and other hard surfaces.

These fungi usually grow in decaying organic matter, such as buried tree stumps, tree roots, or even buried construction lumber, and some live symbiotically with the roots of living trees.

They will eventually disappear after the organic matter food source is exhausted, however, it can take up to ten years for a large stump or root to decay. Be aware that the fungus can also thrive in sand, asphalt, gravel, or other poor soil conditions which have little or no organic content. It is difficult to totally eradicate puffballs from the landscape. The only adequate control would be to dig up and destroy the underground sources of organic debris, but we have little faith in this approach."
• PACE Turf, LLC's report differed slightly from Rutgers University's pathology report, saying that "effectiveness of the repair is unknown as long as conifer roots are present under the green." The report offered a recommendation of removing all trees and the privet hedge from the surrounding area as well as any existing roots under the green before it is rebuilt. The report had an image of a small root that was said to be a likely source of nutrition for the fungus. This root appeared to be dead, decaying, and was not identified as belonging to a conifer. The report also stated that "effectiveness of fungicides or other chemical barriers to growth of the fungus is unknown."
Tree Specific Observations
• Tree P-55 had a height of about 90 feet and had a trunk diameter of 42 inches. The tree had a slight lean towards the northwest, likely in response to sunlight. The tree was quite mature and appeared to have multiple bird nests in the upper canopy (likely egrets or herons). The tree's trunk was about 12 feet northeast of the bowling area's concrete footing and about 60 feet from the nearest bump/ repair in the artificial turf.
• Tree F-10 had a height of about 60 feet and a trunk diameter of 27 inches. The tree was growing within a parkway about 35 feet from the nearest bump in the artificial turf. • Tree F-11 had a height of about 60 feet and a trunk diameter of 24 inches. The tree was growing within a parkway about 35 feet from the nearest bump in the artificial turf. 3 City of Coronado Page 585
Attachment 3
Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Species/Root Profiles
Pinus torreyana is a pine tree native to coastal San Diego and on Santa Rosa Island. Several sources say it is the rarest native pine tree in North America (possibly the world). It is a protected species in several areas of San Diego, but to my knowledge, it is not protected in Coronado; however, mature specimens may be eligible for protected heritage tree status. Aside from the few undisturbed native ecoregions in San Diego, it is commonly planted as an ornamental tree in our coastal and inland areas. When mature, this tree will often have a rounded or vase-shaped canopy. This tree is susceptible to several canker diseases and bark beetles, especially when stressed.

Pinus canariensis is a pine tree native to the Canary Islands but is commonly planted as an ornamental tree in San Diego. This tree species generally has no protected tree status in Coronado/San Diego. It often has a columnar or conical shape and is susceptible to canker diseases and bark beetles, especially when stressed.

Roots are an essential component of all trees and shrubs. They anchor and support their structure, absorb water and minerals, store carbohydrates, and produce hormones. The radius of a tree's root system is approximately equal to the height of the tree; however, the root systems will vary substantially with species, soil conditions, and surrounding history/environment. My general experience with these two species is that the roots are much more likely to grow outwards than downwards. This is especially the case in urban environments surrounded by irrigated turf. The root systems often grow laterally in the top 6 -18 inches of soil, where essential resources are most plentiful.

Appraisal Review - Trees provide numerous valuable benefits, including increased real estate values, conserving energy, removing atmospheric contaminants, moderating stormwater runoff, sequestering carbon, wildlife habitat, improving physical/ mental aspects of human health, and increasing social capital. An appraisal of the three subject trees was included in this report as seeing a dollar amount could be useful information when making final management decisions regarding tree removal or preservation decisions. Based on the Trunk Formula Method, the three subject trees were assessed as having a combined value of $186,800 (refer to Tree Appraisals in Appendix B). There were also five other valuable pines and a magnolia tree with a root-growing potential to reach the lawn bowling area (refer to Figure 1 Site Map).

Discussion of the Problem – The lumps in the artificial lawn bowling turf appear to be a nuisance with somewhat complicated solutions. These puffball fungi are known to form beneficial mycorrhizal associations with pine roots, so I understand the concerns and desires to remove the subject pines and all organic matter beneath the greens. However, Rutgers University said they have little faith in this approach working and that this fungi generally grows on decaying organic matter and is known to also thrive in sand/ gravel with little or no organic matter content. In addition, the root that was found in the lab sample appeared to be dead/ decaying and was not identified as being from a conifer. There 4 City of Coronado Page 586
Attachment 3
Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com seems to be a lack of evidence to show that removing the trees would considerably impact mitigating the conflicts between the artificial turf and the fungi.

Mitigation Strategies - Below is a list of five strategies to consider in helping mitigate the conflicts between the puffball fungi and the artificial lawn bowling turf:

1. Replace the artificial turf with natural turf. This may be the least expensive option up front, but water and maintenance expenses of living turf would need to be considered. This option would have minimal impacts on tree health and stability, reduce heat island effects, and maintaining healthy soils, should reduce the occurrence, and facilitate removal of puffball mushrooms.

2. Replace the gravel base material beneath the artificial turf with concrete. I have seen and heard of these mushrooms popping up through asphalt but the likelihood of it popping up through intact concrete seems quite unlikely. A drainage system would have to be implemented for this impermeable surface; however, looking at how fine and compacted the gravel beneath the turf was, there are likely already drainage improvements desired. Suspending the turf over thick interlocking drainage tiles may also be a valuable addition to improve drainage.

3. Remove all organic materials beneath the artificial turf, increase the depth of base material below, and install a 3-foot-deep concrete footing or plastic root barrier around the perimeter of the lawn bowling area. This approach would likely help mitigate the problem but considering that the fungi can grow in gravel without organic matter, there would be no guarantee. There is also the concern of impacting the health and stability of the trees, particularly P-55 due to its size and lean. The book ISA Best Management Practices for Root Management 2017 states that "linear root cuts on one side of a tree can reduce stability when the cut is made at a distance from the trunk that is less than three times the trunk diameter." It also says that "cutting roots at a distance greater than six times the trunk diameter (DSH) minimizes the likelihood of affecting both health and stability." If a linear root cut must be made, I recommend that it does not exceed the recommendations in the following chart:

Keep in mind that aside from removal, there is no way to guarantee that any tree will not fail.

These are recommendations based on research and industry best management practices to help tree managers make informed decisions on these assets. If concerns over potential hazards remain, I recommend having an ISA-qualified risk assessor perform a Level 2 assessment. 5 City of Coronado Page 587
Attachment 3
Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

4. Remove all nine trees and woody plants (hedges) surrounding the perimeter of the lawn bowling area, remove all organic matter beneath the artificial turf, and increase the depth of base material below. This approach could also help mitigate the problems, but there doesn't appear to be a guarantee, and you would lose all of the benefits the trees provide. Suspending the turf over thick interlocking drainage tiles may also be a beneficial addition to improve drainage.

Tree Protection Plan – I also recommend establishing a formal tree protection plan before commencing any construction work to help mitigate impacts to tree health and stability. This is an additional service WCA can provide.

Bird Precautions – There were several large bird nests (likely egrets or herons) in the upper canopy of Tree P-55. There are numerous federal and state laws with serious consequences for protecting birds and their habitat. Collaborating with a wildlife biologist to identify the birds (if any) and review options before removing the tree or nests is recommended.

Replacement Trees – If trees are removed, I recommend that replacements are species that comply with the City's approved tree list(s). To make any specific recommendations, I would like to speak with the City to help ensure that a balance between the trees' needs and the goals of the community/city are being met. To help mitigate root conflicts, I would generally recommend larger trees in the open turf area (to northeast) and smaller trees in the parkways with restricted soil volume. Keep in mind that all trees have woody roots that could provide a growing medium for fungi.
6 City of Coronado Page 588
Attachment 3
Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com APPENDIX A – PHOTOS
Photo #1
Tree F-11 Tree P-55
Tree F-10
F-9
F-12
• The subject trees were located on the northwest side of the Coronado lawn bowling club and were surrounded by irrigated turf grass.
• Judging by the color and density of foliage the trees were in fair-good health for the species and time of year. The trees also exhibited generally good structure having a dominant central leader with subordinate branching. • There were several noticeable bumps and depressions on the northwest side of the artificial lawn bowling turf as well as repairs and holes from fungicide injections. These bumps ranged between about 35 and 60 feet from the subject trees. The red dotted section above indicates the area where most problems have been occurring. 7 City of Coronado Page 589
Attachment 3
Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com APPENDIX A – PHOTOS
Photo #2
Tree P-55
F-9 P-57
P-54
P-56
• Tree P-55 had a height of about 90 feet and had a trunk diameter of 42 inches. The tree had a slight lean towards the northwest, likely in response to sunlight. The tree was quite mature and appeared to have multiple large bird nests in the upper canopy (likely egrets or herons). The tree’s trunk was about 12 feet northeast of the bowling area’s concrete footing, and about 60 feet from the nearest bump/ repair in the artificial turf. 8 City of Coronado Page 590
Attachment 3
Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com APPENDIX A – PHOTOS
Photo #3
• Shown above in an image of an artificial turf repair. 9 City of Coronado Page 591
Attachment 3
Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com APPENDIX A – PHOTOS
Photo #4
• Shown above in an image of a depression in the artificial turf (red arrow). 10 City of Coronado Page 592
Attachment 3
Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com APPENDIX A – PHOTOS
Photo #5
• Shown above is an image of a bump in the artificial turf (red arrow). 11 City of Coronado Page 593
Attachment 3
Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com APPENDIX A – PHOTOS
Photo #6
• There was a plastic root barrier (red arrow) between the privet hedge and the lawn bowling area. 12 City of Coronado Page 594
Attachment 3
Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com APPENDIX A – PHOTOS
Photo #7
• There were numerous fungal fruiting bodies growing in the same planting area as the privet hedge (see red arrows). The mushroom species appeared to match the tentative identification of dyemaker’s puffball (Pisolithus tinctorius) from the pathology report.
13 City of Coronado Page 595
Attachment 3
Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com APPENDIX A – PHOTOS
Photo #8
• Tree P-55 was quite mature and appeared to have multiple large bird nests (likely egrets or herons) in the upper canopy (see red arrows for some locations).
14 City of Coronado Page 596
Attachment 3
Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com APPENDIX A – PHOTOS
Photo #9
• Shown above is are images from PACE Turf, LLC’s report showing the mushroom getting extracted from beneath the artificial turf.
15 City of Coronado Page 597
Attachment 3
Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com APPENDIX A – PHOTOS
Photo #10
• Shown above is an image from PACE Turf, LLC’s report showing a small root that was said to be a likely source of nutrition for the fungus. This root appeared to be dead, decaying, and was not identified to as being from a conifer.
16 City of Coronado Page 598
Attachment 3
Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

APPENDIX B APPRAISAL
Appraisal Methodology
The appraisal process used in this report is based on the methodology found in the 9th Edition Guide for Plant Appraisal. For regional-based information, the Species Classification and Group Assignment publication from the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture was also used.

There are multiple approaches to calculating a tree's value, and the Trunk Formula Method is the method that was used for the subject tree. This method is generally used to appraise the monetary value of trees considered too large to be directly replaced with nursery or field-grown stock.

Determination of the value of a tree is based on the cost of the largest commonly available transplantable tree and its cost of installation, plus the increase in value over time to grow to its current size. These values are adjusted according to the Species of the tree and its physical Condition, as well as the landscape Location (Site, Contribution, and Placement) (Council 70). 17 City of Coronado Page 599
Attachment 3
Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

APPENDIX B APPRAISAL
Tree P-55 Appraisal Chart
BASED ON ISA WESTERN CHAPTER PUBLICATION:SPECIES AND GROUP CLASSIFICATION AND GROUP ASSIGNMENT AND: GUIDE FOR PLANT APPRAISAL 9th EDITION
Trunk Formula Appraisal
Species- Torrey Pine (Pinus torreyana)
Trunk Area 1) Trunk Area in square inches 1385
Basic Tree Cost 2) Replacement Diameter (Nursery Group 1) 3) Trunk Area Increase in square inches
4) Unit Tree Cost Per square inch
5) Median Nursery Cost Plus Shipping and Installation
6) Basic Tree Cost- notionally ideal replacement = (#3 x #4 + #5) 7) Site Rating
8) Contribution Rating
9) Placement Rating
10) Location Rating
11) Published Value

12.56 1372.44
$118
$1,482
$163,430
92%
80%
80%
84%
90%
0%
Location
Species
(So. Cal Seacoast) 12) Modification Value
13) Species Rating
14) Root Structure (1- 4)
90%
Condition Rating (1-4) 3
15) Root Health (1- 4) 3
16) Trunk Structure (1- 4) 3
17) Trunk Health (1- 4) 4
18) Scaffold Branches Structure (1- 4)
19) Scaffold Branches Health (1- 4)
20) Branches and Twig Health (1- 4)
21) Foliage and Bud Health (1- 4)
22) Condition Rating
3 4
4 4
84%
Appraised Value 23) Appraised Cost = (#6 x #10 x #13 x #22) $108,100 rounded to nearest $100
Calculations by appraiser using field and regional information from ISA Western Chapter Publication: Species Classification and Group Assignment, as well as: The Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers publication: The Guide for Plant Appraisal (9th Edition). 18 City of Coronado Page 600
Attachment 3
Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

APPENDIX B APPRAISAL
Tree F-10 Appraisal Chart
BASED ON ISA WESTERN CHAPTER PUBLICATION:SPECIES AND GROUP CLASSIFICATION AND GROUP ASSIGNMENT AND: GUIDE FOR PLANT APPRAISAL 9th EDITION
Trunk Formula Appraisal
Species- Canary Island Pine (Pinus canariensis)
Trunk Area 1) Trunk Area in square inches 572
Basic Tree Cost 2) Replacement Diameter (Nursery Group 1) 3) Trunk Area Increase in square inches
4) Unit Tree Cost Per square inch
5) Median Nursery Cost Plus Shipping and Installation
6) Basic Tree Cost- notionally ideal replacement = (#3 x #4 + #5) 7) Site Rating
8) Contribution Rating
9) Placement Rating
10) Location Rating
11) Published Value

12.56 559.44
$118
$1,482
$67,496
90%
80%
80%
83%
90%
-5%
85%
3 Location
Species
(So. Cal Seacoast) 12) Modification Value
13) Species Rating
Condition Rating (1-4) 14) Root Structure (1- 4)
15) Root Health (1- 4) 3
16) Trunk Structure (1- 4) 4
17) Trunk Health (1- 4) 4
18) Scaffold Branches Structure (1- 4)
19) Scaffold Branches Health (1- 4)
20) Branches and Twig Health (1- 4)
21) Foliage and Bud Health (1- 4)
22) Condition Rating
3 4
4 4
91%
Appraised Value 23) Appraised Cost = (#6 x #10 x #13 x #22) $43,300 rounded to nearest $100
Calculations by appraiser using field and regional information from ISA Western Chapter Publication: Species Classification and Group Assignment, as well as: The Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers publication: The Guide for Plant Appraisal (9th Edition). 19 City of Coronado Page 601
Attachment 3
Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

APPENDIX B APPRAISAL
Tree F-11 Appraisal Chart
BASED ON ISA WESTERN CHAPTER PUBLICATION:SPECIES AND GROUP CLASSIFICATION AND GROUP ASSIGNMENT AND: GUIDE FOR PLANT APPRAISAL 9th EDITION
Trunk Formula Appraisal
Species- Canary Island Pine (Pinus canariensis)
Trunk Area 1) Trunk Area in square inches 452
Basic Tree Cost 2) Replacement Diameter (Nursery Group 1) 3) Trunk Area Increase in square inches
4) Unit Tree Cost Per square inch
5) Median Nursery Cost Plus Shipping and Installation
6) Basic Tree Cost- notionally ideal replacement = (#3 x #4 + #5) 7) Site Rating
8) Contribution Rating
9) Placement Rating
10) Location Rating
11) Published Value

12.56 439.44
$118
$1,482
$53,336
90%
80%
80%
83%
90%
-5%
85%
3 Location
Species
(So. Cal Seacoast) 12) Modification Value
13) Species Rating
Condition Rating (1-4) 14) Root Structure (1- 4)
15) Root Health (1- 4) 3
16) Trunk Structure (1- 4) 4
17) Trunk Health (1- 4) 4
18) Scaffold Branches Structure (1- 4)
19) Scaffold Branches Health (1- 4)
20) Branches and Twig Health (1- 4)
21) Foliage and Bud Health (1- 4)
22) Condition Rating
4 4
4 4
94%
Appraised Value 23) Appraised Cost = (#6 x #10 x #13 x #22) $35,400 rounded to nearest $100
Calculations by appraiser using field and regional information from ISA Western Chapter Publication: Species Classification and Group Assignment, as well as: The Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers publication: The Guide for Plant Appraisal (9th Edition). 20 City of Coronado Page 602
Attachment 3
Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS

1. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the Consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. Standard of Care has been met with regards to this project within reasonable and normal conditions.

2. The Consultant will not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual agreements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement.

3. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report.

4. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior written consent of the Consultant.

5. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the Consultant, and the Consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a stipulated result, a specified value, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported.

6. Unless expressed otherwise: 1) information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection; and 2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, or coring, unless otherwise stated. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the tree(s) or property in question may not arise in the future.

7. Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. It is highly recommended that you follow the arborist recommendations; however, you may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations and/or seek additional advice.

8. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree.

Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specific period of time. 21 City of Coronado Page 603
Attachment 3
Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

9. Any recommendation and/or performed treatments (including, but not limited to, pruning or removal) of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist's services, such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and any other related issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist can then be expected to consider and reasonably rely on the completeness and accuracy of the information provided.

10. The author has no personal interest or bias with respect to the subject matter of this report or the parties involved. He/she has inspected the subject tree(s) and to the best of their knowledge and belief, all statements and information presented in the report are true and correct.

11. Unless otherwise stated, trees were examined using the risk assessment criteria detailed by the International Society of Arboriculture's publications Best Management Practices – Tree Risk Assessment and the Tree Risk Assessment Manual.
22 City of Coronado Page 604
Attachment 3
Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Harris, Richard W., James R. Clark, and Nelda P. Matheny. Arboriculture: Integrated Management of Landscape Tree, Shrubs, and Vines. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2004. Print (ISA) International Society of Arboriculture. Web. 15 March 2014.

Smiley, Thomas E., Nelda Matheny, and Sharon Lilly. Best Management Practices: Tree Risk Assessment. Illinois: International Society of Arboriculture, 2011. Print.

Kelby Fite, E. Thomas Smiley. Best Management Practices: Managing Trees During Construction. Illinois: International Society of Arboriculture, 2008. Print.

ISA Western Chapter Publication: Species Classification and Group Assignment, as well as: The Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers publication: The Guide for Plant Appraisal (9th Edition).

Kara Donohue, Ryan Gilpin, and Corey Bassett. Best Management Practices: Tree Care For Birds & Other Wildlife
23 City of Coronado Page 605
Attachment 3
City of Coronado Page 606
Attachment 3
City of Coronado Page 607
Attachment 3
City of Coronado Page 608
Attachment 3
City of Coronado Page 609
Attachment 3
City of Coronado Page 610
Attachment 3

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE
BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • MERCED • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ

DEPARTMENT OF PLANT PATHOLOGY AND MICROBIOLOGY
2317 WEBBER HALL
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92521-0122 http://www.plantpathology.ucr.edu Date: Monday, April 10, 2023
To: Jacqueline Lu, Principal Architect City of Coronado City of Coronado Public Services and Engineering
101 B Avenue
Coronado, CA 92118
From: Dr. J. E. Adaskaveg, Professor
The mushroom in the photographic plate that was sent to me and that was identified as Pisolithus tintorius by scientists at Rutgers University is a common mycorrhizal fungus of pine (Pinus spp.) and oak (Quercus spp.) trees in California and the United States. The fungus forms a symbiotic relationship with the tree host and is beneficial to the tree in supplying micronutrients that the plant may not have access to while receiving plant produced carbohydrates. The fungus commonly forms a mushroom during adequate soil wetness and high nutrition from the tree typically occurring in late fall and winter in California. Publications concerning this fungus demonstrate that it can be cultured on standard microbiological media in the laboratory and therefore, it is not limited to a biotrophic relationship with roots of a host tree. Still, the fungus is thought to primarily exist in mycorrhizal relationships in nature.

A few reports have found the fungus producing a fruiting body (i.e., mushroom) in bare sandy soil, but this is not typical, and most reports document the fungus fruiting in association with a tree species.

Your premise that, ‘the fungus will not thrive on dead roots’ is most likely true. However, large tree roots may remain alive for months until carbohydrate supplies are diminished, with eventual root death.

The length of time of root survival after cutting the roots depends on the root size and the tree species.

In general, mushrooms form from larger roots that have adequate nutrition and during wet periods (from irrigation or rainfall). During the time period of roots dying, the fungus may try to produce fruiting bodies again in a survival response so it can disseminate itself as basidiospores that develop in the fruiting body.

The second part of your plan to excavate the soil to remove living roots and replace the soil with “clean” soil beneath the green is also sound to prevent a re-occurrence of this situation in a few years. If most of the surface roots under the bowling green are removed to a depth of one foot and there are no large roots present and a root barrier is installed to prevent new tree roots from regrowing into the new replacement soil, it is highly unlikely that the mushrooms of Pisolithus tintorius will develop under the new bowling green of artificial turf. To sever roots of pine or oak trees, a mechanical trencher (perhaps one used for installing irrigation systems) may have to be used to cut the roots to a depth of three to four feet (depending on the tree species and tree size) just within the dripline of the tree canopy. A root barrier can be installed in the trench to prevent re-growth of roots into the area under the bowling green.

Many people have personally complained about this fungus to me. The mushrooms of the fungus are capable of lifting up pavement in driveways or sidewalks. Root removal and installation of root barriers are the common practices used to prevent this from re-occurring.

City of Coronado Page 611
Attachment 3
Jeremy S. Rappoport, President
Arboriculture, Horticulture, Landscape, Land Development 1286 University Ave. #807 San Diego, CA. 92103
September 29, 2022
Mr. Greg Kump
Project Manager
Nasland Engineering
4740 Ruffner Street
San Diego, CA. 92111
RE: Arborist Report for Tree #5 at Coronado Lawn Bowling Site Dear Mr. Kump,
Per your request, the following is a brief summary of why I recommended removing tree #5:

1. Tree leans over the bowling green, tree roots expected to be beneath the bowling green.

2. Tree had a 35% live crown ration, (LCR). A measurement below 50% is a metric for poor health condition.

3. Tree had been previously topped, resulting in a 15% lean.

4. The tree was suppressing and deforming the crowns of surrounding trees.

5. The site is overcrowded with four large growing trees.

6. Removing the tree would provide improved sunlight, benefitting the health condition of the surrounding trees and removing a root source growing beneath the bowling green.

7. The removal recommendation is not due to the tree health or potential risk of failure. However, the tree lean, low live crown ratio, suppression of adjacent trees and proximity to the bowling green with roots are defects that create risk to the public and the future bowling green.

Please contact me with any questions or comments.

Sincerely,
Jeremy Rappoport

RDCS LLC
Arboriculture, Horticulture, Landscape, Land Development 1286 University Ave. #807, San Diego, CA. 92103 • 858-205-4748. • [email protected] City of Coronado Page 612
Attachment 3
Jeremy S. Rappoport, President
Arboriculture, Horticulture, Landscape, Land Development 1286 University Ave. #807 San Diego, CA. 92103
Tree #5.

RDCS LLC
Arboriculture, Horticulture, Landscape, Land Development 1286 University Ave. #807, San Diego, CA. 92103 • 858-205-4748. • [email protected] City of Coronado Page 613
Attachment 3
Jeremy S. Rappoport, President
Arboriculture, Horticulture, Landscape, Land Development 1286 University Ave. #807 San Diego, CA. 92103
Tree #5.

RDCS LLC
Arboriculture, Horticulture, Landscape, Land Development 1286 University Ave. #807, San Diego, CA. 92103 • 858-205-4748. • [email protected] City of Coronado Page 614
Attachment 3
Jeremy S. Rappoport, President
Arboriculture, Horticulture, Landscape, Land Development 1286 University Ave. #807 San Diego, CA. 92103
Tree #5

RDCS LLC
Arboriculture, Horticulture, Landscape, Land Development 1286 University Ave. #807, San Diego, CA. 92103 • 858-205-4748. • [email protected] City of Coronado Page 615
Attachment 3
Jeremy S. Rappoport, President
Arboriculture, Horticulture, Landscape, Land Development 1286 University Ave. #807 San Diego, CA. 92103
Tree #5

RDCS LLC
Arboriculture, Horticulture, Landscape, Land Development 1286 University Ave. #807, San Diego, CA. 92103 • 858-205-4748. • [email protected] City of Coronado Page 616
Attachment 3
Jeremy S. Rappoport, President
Arboriculture, Horticulture, Landscape, Land Development 1286 University Ave. #807 San Diego, CA. 92103
Tree #5

RDCS LLC
Arboriculture, Horticulture, Landscape, Land Development 1286 University Ave. #807, San Diego, CA. 92103 • 858-205-4748. • [email protected] City of Coronado Page 617
Attachment 3
Jeremy S. Rappoport, President
Arboriculture, Horticulture, Landscape, Land Development 1286 University Ave. #807 San Diego, CA. 92103
Tree #5

RDCS LLC
Arboriculture, Horticulture, Landscape, Land Development 1286 University Ave. #807, San Diego, CA. 92103 • 858-205-4748. • [email protected] City of Coronado Page 618

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
August 15, 2023 10d
RESPONSE TO THE 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED “GOVERNANCE OF SAN DIEGO BAY AND ITS TIDAL LANDS AND REGIONS” RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the staff report and authorize the transmittal of the proposed response to the Presiding Judge overseeing the Grand Jury as presented or revised.

BACKGROUND:

The San Diego Grand Jury issued a report titled “Governance of San Diego Bay and its Tidal Lands and Regions” on June 7, 2023. The report requires formal responses by August 28, 2023 from the Port District Member Cities including Coronado, San Diego County, and the San Diego Port District.

ANALYSIS:

The report includes several findings and four recommendations that apply to Port District member cities, including the City of Coronado. Per State statute, the responding entity must state whether it agrees with the findings, and if not, provide an explanation. The City must also respond to each recommendation assigned for response by stating one of the following:
a) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
b) The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
c) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report; or,
d) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.

The Grand Jury assigned four recommendations for the City of Coronado’s response:

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

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

Recommendation 23-9 Institute ordinances or formal policies that require ratification of the Port Master Plans, proposed Port Master Plan Updates or amendments to the Port Master Plan for Port District planning districts within each city’s boundaries.

City of Coronado Page 619
Recommendation 23-93 In consultation with the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, explore and implement an alternate form of governance for the Port District allowing for participation in, and oversight of Port District activities and decision by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and the elected city councils of the five Port Cities.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ALTERNATIVE:

The City Council may direct staff to modify responses to any of the Grand Jury’s findings or recommendations.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:

This activity is not a project as defined by CEQA and is therefore exempt from environmental review.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

No notice required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Grand Jury Report – Governance of San Diego Bay and its Tidal Lands and Regions

2. Proposed Grand Jury Response Letter
Submitted By: City Manager’s Office / Tina Friend
City of Coronado Page 620
1 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023)

GOVERNANCE OF SAN DIEGO BAY AND ITS TIDAL LANDS

AND REGIONS

SUMMARY
The 2022/2023 Grand Jury (Grand Jury) undertook an investigation of the San Diego Unified Port District (Port District), the County of San Diego and the five Port Cities of Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, Coronado, San Diego and National City to assess how these organizations interact around the governance of San Diego Bay tidal lands and resources. This assessment was undertaken in response to a perception that the Port of San Diego and its unelected seven-member Board of Commissioners is not accountable to either the elected officials or the electorate of its five member cities or the County of San Diego, especially in the planning, development and implementation of projects in those cities.

The Port District is an independent governmental agency created by the State of California and approved by voters in Chula Vista, Coronado,1 Imperial Beach, National City and San Diego in 1962 to manage the tidelands and submerged lands of San Diego Bay.

This report will briefly review previous Grand Jury reports on the Port District and look at its creation, governance, relation to State agencies, and funding. The Grand Jury will also investigate conflicts and issues surrounding the Port District’s operations in regard to the equitable representation of residents of the five Port Cities and their governing bodies, as well as the residents of the County of San Diego and its residents. Finally, the Grand Jury will also discuss the Port District’s planning process and how its proposed projects have affected the five Port Cities, the County of San Diego and residents of these regions.

The report’s recommendations include increasing the Port District’s public participation and transparency by:
• Scheduling regular updates and presentations at publicly noticed open meetings of the city councils of its member cities;
• Simplification of the Port Master Plans around the Port District Planning Districts falling within each of the Port City’s jurisdictional boundaries and three of the County’s supervisorial districts; • Submitting the Port Master Plan, and all future updates and amendments, to the relevant city council and County Supervisor for discussion and ratification; • Lobbying the California State Legislature to introduce legislation enabling the County of San Diego to assume oversight of the activities of the San Diego Unified Port District and decisions of the Board of Port Commissioners, and share in the Port District’s duty as guardian of the public trust in the tidal and submerged lands of San Diego Bay; • Depending on the outcome of the legislation recommended above, exploring an alternate form of governance for the Port District, with participation from the County Board of Supervisors and elected officials of the five member cities;
• Encourage a limit of two four-year terms that a Port Commissioner can serve; • Include staff from each of the five cities on each of the Port District’s advisory committees; and • Post meeting minutes and agendas of each of the Port District’s advisory committees on-line. 1 While the 1962 vote to approve creation of the Port involved tallying the combined votes of the five port cities, voters in the City of Coronado voted against Proposition D by a margin of 3 to 1.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 621
2 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023)

INTRODUCTION
“We can do whatever we want, right?”2 The words were spoken – and repeated several times-- by a commissioner of the San Diego Unified Port District during a public meeting of the Board of Port Commissioners. A Commissioner went on to describe what was believed to be “the absolute sovereignty of this board to make any decision that we want from this dais at any time.” 3 The comment was made during a discussion of the changes proposed for the Port District’s policy on Capital Improvement Projects, and while made in the specific context of achieving greater flexibility for capital project funding, inadvertently characterized the broad authority and perceived nature of this organization – led by a seven-member unelected board of commissioners, largely autonomous, self-governing, self-funded and independent of oversight by local elected officials.

The 2022-23 San Diego County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) is not alone in its concern over the lack of oversight, transparency and accountability of an organization with such far reaching power and jurisdiction. Over the last several decades, two separate San Diego County Grand Juries have reached similar conclusions, the earliest being the 1986-87 Grand Jury and more recently the 1997-98 Grand Jury.

The 1986-87 Grand Jury Report concluded, “An enterprise of the scope and importance of the Port District must include a strong concern for community relations, public input and accountability … yet, in the public’s mind, it conducts itself as does a private company, responsible only to its stockholders.

The fact is that it is a public corporation, guarding a public trust and spending public money.”4 Similarly, the synopsis of the 1997-98 Grand Jury report concluded that the seven commissioners of the Port District “are viewed as operating with almost unlimited discretion regarding how they spend money with minimal accountability. Commissioners are not required to gain approval for their actions from the voting public or even from the city councils which appoint them.”5 In practice, the Port District requires a fiduciary oath of its commissioners to act in the best interests of the Port District, and in its role as guardian of the public trust, to the benefit of the residents of California. As appointees of one of five Port District cities, each commissioner must also represent the perspectives of the city appointing them as commissioner.

In representing the interests of the Port District but only the perspectives of the port cities appointing them, a dichotomy is created. The dichotomy allows port commissioners to manage the valuable resources of San Diego Bay in a unified, comprehensive manner but limits elected governments of the Port Cities and their constituents in making their views known or in determining the actions that are in their best interests. As a result, this dichotomy leads not only to voter disenfranchisement, but to a disconnection between elected municipal governments and their constituents, who must subordinate and subject their interests to the interpretations of the unelected Board of Port Commissioners. 2 San Diego Unified Port District Port Commissioners Meeting, September 13, 2022, video recording @ 1:14:25. Board of Port Commissioners on 2022-09-13 1:00 PM (granicus.com) 3 San Diego Unified Port District Port Commissioners Meeting, September 13, 2022, video recording @ 1:15:50. Board of Port Commissioners on 2022-09-13 1:00 PM (granicus.com) 4 1986-87 San Diego County Grand Jury, The County of San Diego and The San Diego Unified Port District Report No. 15, June 30, 1987, page 5-6. 5 1997-98 San Diego County Grand Jury, The San Diego Unified Port District: It’s Time for Taxpayers and Citizens to Have a Direct Say, Final Report, June 30, 1998, page 103.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 622
3 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Severe as these assessments are, they are rooted in the San Diego Unified Port District Act (Port Act)6, enacted by the California Legislature in 1962, through which the State of California delegates the power and responsibility for management of the tidelands and submerged lands of San Diego Bay. The Port Act delegates these powers to the Port District from the California State Lands Commission (SLC) as guardian of these tidelands and submerged lands through the public trust doctrine. This doctrine “provides that tide and submerged lands and the beds of lakes, streams and other navigable waterways are to be held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people of California.”7 The Port
District acts in this capacity as an independent governmental special district without direct oversight of its seven commissioners by other local city or county agencies. The unsalaried commissioners are appointed to four-year terms by city councils of each of the five cities that border San Diego Bay, (San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, and National City). While the commissioners must reside in the city that appointed them, they can serve an unlimited number of four-year terms, except in the City of Coronado which limits its port commissioners to two terms. Port commissioners may be recalled by majority vote of the city council which appointed them. Other than these limitations, no oversight by local governmental bodies is authorized by the Port Act, and decisions by the Board of Port Commissioners are not subject to approval, veto or appeal by city councils or voters of the five Port Cities or the county.8,9
Democratic theory equates responsible government with popular participation in and control over policy formulation, political equality for the individual, deciding divisions of opinion by majority rule with complete freedom of discussion, and periodically holding free and meaningful elections.10 Yet by virtue of the legislation that created the San Diego Unified Port District, values such as these that citizens have come to expect in our governmental legislative, regulatory and judicial institutions have not been embraced.

METHODOLOGY
The Grand Jury conducted interviews and requested information from municipal and county governmental organizations affected by the Port Act.

The Grand Jury researched and reviewed these documents:
• California Harbors and Navigation Code, Appendix I, also known as the San Diego Unified Port District Act (Port Act)
• The 1986-1987 Grand Jury report: “The County of San Diego and the San Diego Unified Port District, Report No. 15” and responses
• The 1997-1998 Grand Jury report: “The San Diego Unified Port District: It’s Time for Taxpayers and Citizens to Have a Direct Say” and responses from the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, and National City
• Meeting Minutes and Agendas from the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, and National City as well as the San Diego Unified Port District • Historical records and articles relating to formation of the Port District (per footnotes) • Grand Jury Reports on Ports in other California Counties 6 California Harbors and Navigation Code, Appendix 1, San Diego Port District Act, Document no. 70987, filed March 3, 2020, Office of the District Clerk.
7 https://www.slc.ca.gov/public-engagement/ 8 California Harbors and Navigation Code, Appendix 1, San Diego Port District Act 9 The City of Coronado limits the number of terms served by Port Commissioners to two terms 10 Bachrach, Peter. The Theory of Democratic Elitism (Chicago, 1962), p. 94.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 623
4 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) • San Diego Unified Port District Website: www.portofsandiego.org • Detailed electronic maps showing specific boundaries and areas within the San Diego Unified Port District

DISCUSSION
Creation of the San Diego Unified Port District
When California became a state in 1850, it acquired title to navigable waterways as trustee for the protection of public lands, streams, lakes, marshlands, and tidelands. This is referred to as common law public trust doctrine. Per the State of California State Lands Commission (SLC), “The public’s right to use California’s waterways for navigation, fishing, boating, natural habitat protection and other water-oriented activities is protected by the Common Law doctrine of the Public Trust.” Historically, the Public Trust has referred to the basic right of the public to use its waterways to engage in “commerce, navigation, and fisheries.” The SLC further states that the “Public Trust provides that tide and submerged lands and the beds of lakes, streams and other navigable waterways are to be held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people of California.”11 San Diego Unified Port District: Unique Among California Ports The San Diego Unified Port District is unique among California’s 12 ports in its establishment by state law. According to the Port Act, this was necessary because of the geography and other special characteristics of the locale:

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State of California to develop the harbors and ports of this State for multiple purpose use for the benefit of the people. A necessity exists within San Diego County for such development. Because of the several separate cities and unincorporated populated areas in the area hereinafter described, only a specially created district can operate effectively in developing the harbors and port facilities. Because of the unique problems presented by this area, and the facts and circumstance relative to the development of harbor and port facilities, the adoption of a special act and the creation of a special district is required. 12
With passage of the enabling Proposition D in November 1962, the SLC granted regulation and control of the tidelands and submerged lands of San Diego Bay to the newly created Port District.

Following passage of San Diego County’s Proposition D, the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, and National City were to transfer the management of state tidal and submerged lands in San Diego Bay to the jurisdiction of a newly formed San Diego Unified Port District.

Proposition D Controversy
Passage of Proposition D was not obtained without controversy. Prior to the election, the city councils of Coronado, Imperial Beach and Chula Vista opposed formation of the Port District. Supporters of the proposition focused on the economic benefits made possible by the combined efforts of Port Cities on such projects as construction of South Bay channel and the resulting job growth from expansion of industrial development and maritime activities. Opponents of the proposition focused primarily on the potential control wielded by an unelected board of port commissioners who would have the power to 11 https://www.slc.ca.gov/public-engagement/ 12 California Harbors and Navigation Code, Appendix 1, San Diego Port District Act, §2, pg 7. https://pantheonstorage.blob.core.windows.net/administration/San-Diego-Unified-Port-District-Act.pdf, March 3, 2020.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 624
5 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) issue bonds, levy taxes and develop local tideland resources without input from individual Port Cities.

Another concern was the unequal number of commissioners allocated to each of the Port Cities; the City of San Diego would get three commissioners while each of the remaining four Port Cities would get one commissioner each, potentially allowing San Diego to exert dominance over Port Commission resources and priorities.13
A study commissioned by the Coronado Chamber of Commerce three months prior to the 1962 election suggested that instead of the simple majority required by the Port Act to constitute a quorum for Commissioners to conduct business, the act be amended to require a quorum of at least two commissioners from the four Port Cities of Coronado, Imperial Beach, Chula Vista and National City.

An additional change in the make-up of the port commission was also suggested to include only two San Diego Commissioners, one commissioner from San Diego County, and one each from the four other Port Cities, allowing appointment of a commissioner representing interests of unincorporated bay front areas of the county.14
While Proposition D was approved by a majority of voters in the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach and National City, the proposition was defeated in Coronado by a 3 to 1 margin. An unsuccessful lawsuit filed by Coronado, Imperial Beach and Chula Vista attempted to make acceptance of membership in the Port District optional, resulting in a temporary delay, but formation of the Port District was completed on December 18, 1963, following certification of the votes cast for Proposition D in the November 6, 1962 election.15
Port District Funding of Operations
Port District operations are financed primarily through leases and fees generated through its real estate operations, parking, harbor police and other services or fees provided to public or commercial customers of the Port District. As a landlord, the Port District generates most of its revenue from tenants and subtenants who pay rent or fees to conduct business on tidelands. The list includes hotels, restaurants, retail shops, marinas, landings, yacht clubs, shipyards, cargo operators, aerospace firms and cruise ships. While allowed by the Port Act to do so, the Port District does not collect taxes.

Various provisions of the Port Act also allow the Port District to issue general obligation, revenue bonds or levy property or other forms of taxation.

In the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2022, over $90 million, or 55% of the Port District’s operating revenue were generated by leases and other Real Estate revenue, while parking, maritime and other fees provided another $77 million in operating revenue, or approximately 45% of operating revenues.

Like commercial business entities that are dependent on revenue streams to remain viable, economic activities that support the Port District’s operations have also represented a significant source of economic risk. Recently, impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on Port District operations severely limited most revenue generating Port District activities, resulting in a $19.3 million loss in the fiscal year ending June 2021 and prompting one Port Commissioner to consider the need to “analyze and 13 San Diego County Registrar of Voters, Arguments for and Against Proposition D, San Diego County General Election, November 7, 1962.
14 The Wyatt Report: Here’s Text of Advisory on United Port, San Diego Evening Tribune, August 22, 1962, A14-A15. 15 Ibid.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 625
6 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) understand options for potential taxation.”16 However, the Port District qualified for $29 million in stimulus fund assistance in the following year, leading to the generation of a $68.3 million income in the fiscal year ending June 2022.17
While these tidelands-associated revenue streams allow the Port District to operate free of budget constraints typical of other state or local government agencies, the need to generate such revenue can lead to a significant source of bias in the deliberations of Port Commissioners and obscure motives and objectives of staff at all levels of the organization. In a recent informal briefing by the Port District, a sizeable, expected return on investment from a proposed project was praised as a justification for the large public investment of tax dollars needed to fund the project, with less emphasis placed on the project’s other characteristics.

Balanced Interests?
The Grand Jury investigation revealed many concerns by the Port District’s stakeholders. Smaller Port Cities reported a lack of follow through or investment in their cities proportional to the revenue generated for the Port District by tidelands activities occurring in their municipal boundaries. Others cite a lack of prioritization for projects not associated with lucrative leasing contracts or other significant revenue sources. The Grand Jury acknowledges such views, and sees the dilemma faced by the Port District in balancing the many diverse and potentially competing municipal, state and public interests it must manage as both nuanced and complex in ways less understood by the public in general, and in some cases by the city and county governments it serves.

How does a port commissioner balance or prioritize the needs or interests of separate communities, neighborhoods or municipalities against one another or against the interests of the Port District itself? As the adage goes, actions speak louder than words; perhaps recent activities by the Port District and votes by the Board of Port Commissioners can help to answer such questions.

Chula Vista Hotel and Convention Center
The key piece of the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan is the Gaylord Pacific Resort and Convention Center, a $1.1 billion project that broke ground in 2022 for a 1,600-room hotel alongside a 275,000 square foot convention center on a 36.5-acre site. In 2012, after almost a decade of planning, the City of Chula Vista and the Port District received approval from the California Coastal Commission for this project allowing for the conversion of 535 acres of vacant and industrial property into a Resort Hotel and Convention Center, RV Park, and parking structure. An existing motel, also part of the project sits on land adjacent to Port District boundaries.

The project is important because both the City of Chula Vista and the Port District collaborated on the Master Plan and were involved in seeking its approval, and both parties consider the development project a great success. The Grand Jury investigation revealed an alignment of interests of both parties centered on the regional economic benefits from development of these underused and undervalued tideland assets. Both parties were fully engaged, fully committed and enjoyed the support of the community during all phases of the project, from the initial master plan approval to selection of the 16 Jennifer Van Grove, San Diego’s Bayfront is Controlled by a Little-understood Agency With Power That Will Be Tested in The New Year, February 5, 2021, page 13; San Diego's bayfront is controlled by a little-understood agency with power that will be tested in new year - The San Diego Union-Tribune (sandiegouniontribune.com) 17 San Diego Unified Port District, Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, Fiscal Years Ended June 30 2022 and 2021.