Coronado City Council
December 3, 2024

Chapter 1.0
Introduction
This Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR; State Clearinghouse House No. 2024060456) has been prepared by the City of Coronado (City) pursuant to Government Code Section 65759 to address potential environmental effects associated with the proposed Amendments to the City of Coronado Historic Preservation Program (project). The project includes adoption of an ordinance amending Title 84 of the Coronado Municipal Code (CMC) and adoption of a Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Inventory (hereinafter referred to as the Historic Property Survey).

Specifically, the project would amend CMC Chapter 84.10, Historic Resource Code, to update the criteria used for the City’s definition and determination of historical significance. Amendments to the Historic Resource Code would remove structures referred to in the Historic Property Survey as a Tier 3 property from further historic review.

To inform the proposed Historic Resource Code amendments, the Historic Property Survey was prepared to evaluate properties under CMC Section 84.10.030, Criterion C to identify properties that possess distinctive characteristics of an architectural style that have not been substantially altered (CMC Section 84.10.030(C)) (City of Coronado 2023). Based on the results of the Historic Property Survey, properties were organized into a tiered system; Tier 3 properties are those substantially altered that retain little to no elements of a particular architectural style and, based on observation and/or construction history, would not be eligible for historic designation under Criterion C. Tiers 1 and 2 retain some level of architectural style.

The Historic Property Survey identified a total of 1,667 Tier 3 properties categorized as follows: 1,007 structures built in 1949 or earlier and another 660 structures built between 1950 to 1970. Under the existing CMC, these structures would require historic review. With the proposed CMC amendments, Tier 3 properties built prior to 1949 would not require historic review.

1.1 EIR Purpose and Legal Authority

1.1.1 EIR Purpose
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15121, the purpose of this PEIR is to provide public agency decision-makers and members of the public with general information about the potentially significant environmental effects of the project, possible ways to minimize its significant effects, and reasonable alternatives that would reduce or avoid any identified significant effects. Alternatives to the project are presented to evaluate alternative land use scenarios, policies, and/or regulations that would further reduce or avoid significant impacts associated with the project.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 307

1.0 Introduction
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

1.1.2 EIR Legal Authority
This PEIR has been prepared by the City as lead agency, in compliance with the criteria, standards, and procedures of the CEQA of 1970 as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.).

1.1.2.1 Lead Agency
The City is the lead agency for the project, pursuant to Article 4 (Sections 15050 and 15051) of the CEQA Guidelines. The lead agency, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, is the public agency that has the principal responsibility and authority for carrying out or approving a proposed project. As lead agency, the City of Coronado Community Development Department conducted a preliminary review of the project and determined that a PEIR was required. The analysis and findings in this PEIR reflect the independent, impartial conclusions of the City.

1.1.2.2 Responsible and Trustee Agencies
State law requires that all EIRs be reviewed by responsible and trustee agencies. A Responsible Agency, defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15381, includes all public agencies other than the lead agency that have discretionary approval authority over one or more actions involved with project implementation. A Trustee Agency is defined in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15386 as a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project that are held in trust for the people of the state of California. There are no responsible or trustee agencies for the project.

1.2 EIR Type, Scope, Organization, and Content

1.2.1 Type of EIR
This EIR has been prepared as a PEIR, as defined the CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 a PEIR is the appropriate CEQA document when the project is the issuance of rules, regulations, or plans to govern the conduct of a continuing program and future individual activities would be carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and have generally similar environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (a)(3) and (4)).

1.2.2 EIR Scope
The scope of analysis for this PEIR was determined by the preparation of an Initial Study which was used to identify potentially significant environmental issues and narrow the scope of the PEIR.

Additional consideration was given to agency and public comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated June 12, 2024, and a scoping meeting held on June 27, 2024.

The NOP and letters received in response are included in Appendix A of this PEIR.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 308

1.0 Introduction
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

Through these scoping activities, the project was determined to have the potential to result in the following significant environmental impacts:
• Cultural Resources (Historical Resources)
• Land Use (Conflicts with Plans and PoliciesLand Use Plan) All other environmental issue areas were found to result in a “Less than Significant Impact” or “No Impact” as determined in the Initial Study, which was circulated for public review with the NOP and is included as Appendix A of this PEIR. Chapter 5.0 of this PEIR contains a summary of the issues found to be less than significant as part of the Initial Study, with a reference to the Initial Study which provides substantial evidence to support each conclusion.

1.2.3 EIR Organization and Content

1.2.3.1 Organization and Content
The PEIR has been organized in accordance with the most recent CEQA Guidelines. A brief summary of the organization and content of this PEIR is provided below:
• Executive Summary provides a brief description of the project, identification of areas of controversy, a summary of the PEIR analysis, and a summary table identifying significant impacts. A summary of the project alternatives and a comparison of the potential impacts of the alternatives with those of the project is also included. • Chapter 1.0 Introduction contains an overview of the legal authority, purpose, and intended uses of the PEIR, as well as its scope and organization. It also provides a discussion of the CEQA environmental review process, including opportunities for public involvement. • Chapter 2.0 Environmental Setting provides a description of the project’s regional and local setting including its locational context, and relationship to other relevant plans. • Chapter 3.0 Project Description provides a detailed description of the project, including planning history and background on public outreach, its main objectives, and key features. The discretionary actions required to fully adopt and implement the project are also described. • Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis contains an evaluation of potential impacts for the environmental issues identified in the Initial Study/PEIR scope. Each issue evaluation includes discussion of the existing conditions, regulatory framework, identification of the thresholds for determining the significance of impacts, an assessment of potential impacts (direct, indirect and cumulative), and an evaluation of the significance of the impacts in light of the existing regulatory framework and/or new standards proposed in conjunction with the project. • Chapter 5.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant identifies all of the issues determined in the Initial Study and preliminary scoping process to have “No Impact” or “Less than Significant Impact” upon implementation of the project.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 309

1.0 Introduction
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

• Chapter 6.0 Growth Inducement evaluates the potential for the project to induce economic or population growth, either directly or indirectly, within the project area and region. • Chapter 7.0 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Effects/Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes discusses the significant unavoidable or irreversible impacts that could occur with project implementation. This chapter describes the potentially significant irreversible changes that may be expected with implementation of the project. • Chapter 8.0 Project Alternatives provides a description and comparative analysis of the project alternatives, including the No Project Alternative, 50-Year Threshold Alternative, Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative. A summary and tabular comparison of the project and the alternatives is included in this chapter. Additionally, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), the PEIR identifies the environmentally superior alternative. • Chapter 9.0 Preparers identifies the agencies, organizations, and individuals responsible for the preparation of the PEIR.
• Chapter 10.0 References Cited lists documents incorporated by reference, and other information sources (documents and websites) relied upon in the preparation of the PEIR and identifies the persons and organizations that contributed to the preparation of the PEIR.

1.2.3.2 Technical Appendices
Technical appendices, used as a basis for much of the environmental analysis in the PEIR, have been summarized in the PEIR, and are printed under separate cover as part of the PEIR.

1.2.3.3 Incorporation by Reference
As permitted by CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, this PEIR has referenced several technical studies and reports. Information from these documents has been briefly summarized in this PEIR, and their relationship to this PEIR described. These documents are included in Chapter 11.0, References Cited, and are hereby incorporated by reference.

1.3 PEIR Process
The PEIR review process occurs in two stages. The first stage is the Draft PEIR, which offers the public the opportunity to comment on the document, while the second stage is the Final PEIR, which provides the basis for making a final decision on the project.

1.3.1 Draft PEIR
In accordance with Sections 15085 and 15087(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, upon completion of the Draft PEIR a Notice of Completion is filed with the State Office of Planning and Research, and notice of availability of the Draft PEIR issued in a newspaper of general circulation in the area.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 310

1.0 Introduction
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

The Draft PEIR is distributed for review to the public and interested and affected agencies for the purpose of providing comments “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided and mitigated” (Section 15204, CEQA Guidelines).

This Draft PEIR and all related technical studies are available for review during the public review period at the offices of the Community Development Department, located at 1825 Strand Way, Coronado, CA 92118. Copies of the Draft PEIR are also available at the City of Coronado Public Library (640 Orange Avenue, Coronado, CA 92118).

1.3.2 Final PEIR
Following public review of the Draft PEIR, the City will provide written responses to comments per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 and will consider all comments in making its decision to certify the Final PEIR. Responses to the comments received during public review, Findings of Fact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for any impacts identified in the Draft PEIR as significant and unavoidable will be prepared and compiled as part of the Final PEIR. The culmination of this process is a public hearing where the City Council will determine whether to certify the Final PEIR as being complete and in accordance with CEQA.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 311

2.0 Environmental Setting
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

Chapter 2.0
Environmental Setting
This chapter provides a “description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project” (California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Section 15125). The environmental setting provides the baseline physical conditions from which the lead agency “determines whether an impact is significant” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). Further details regarding the existing conditions within the project area as it relates to individual environmental topics can be found in the Existing Conditions of relevant sections of Chapter 4.0, Environmental Analysis.

2.1 Project Location

2.1.1 Regional Location
The city of Coronado (City) is located within the county of San Diego, surrounded by San Diego Bay to the north and east and the Pacific Ocean to the west, and bordered by the city of San Diego to the north and east, National City and Chula Vista to the east, Imperial Beach to the south, and Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) to the southeast. The City is connected to the mainland by a natural land bridge, called the Silver Strand, that extends southerly a distance of approximately nine miles to the city of Imperial Beach. This land bridge separates the Pacific Ocean on the west from the bay located to the east. The City’s limits extend from NASNI south along the Silver Strand to the city of Imperial Beach. The City is also connected to downtown San Diego by the two-mile-long San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge (State Route 75). Figure 2-1 shows the City’s regional location, Figures 2-2a through 2-2c show the project location on USGS maps, and Figure 2-3 shows the project location on an aerial photograph.

2.2 Natural Environment

2.2.1 Topography
The City is located on a narrow northwest-trending coastal plain, which is a part of the coastal plain of southern California. The City is situated on a peninsula and is surrounded on three sides by the Pacific Ocean, San Diego Bay, and Glorietta Bay; the City of Imperial Beach abuts the southernmost boundary. The City has relatively flat terrain and is, on average, approximately 25 feet above sea level, with no canyons or large slopes. The highest elevation in the City is located on the Naval Radio Receiving Facility property and consists of a man-made slope that is approximately 60 feet above sea level. There are two other areas in the City that are approximately 40 feet above sea level, which are approximately one block in width and are located on both sides of Orange Avenue and Fourth Street.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 312
FIGURE 2-1
Regional Location
Los Penasquitos
Canyon Presv
San Diego
National
Wildlife Refuge
Otay
Wilderness
Mission Trails
Regional Park
Lake Hodges
San Vicente
Reservoir
Sweetwater
Reservoir
Lower Otay
Reservoir

USMC AIR

STATION

MIRAMAR
E s c o n d i d o C r e e k
O t a y R i v e r
S
w e e t w a t e r R i v e
S
r
a n D i e g o R i v e r
Jamul Indian
Village
Sycuan
Reservation
Barona
Reservation
Bonita
Bostonia
Casa
de Oro-Mount
Helix
Crest
Eucalyptus
Hills
Fairbanks
Ranch
Granite
Hills
Jamul
Lakeside
La Presa
Ramona
Rancho San
Diego
Rancho
Santa Fe
Spring
Valley
Winter
Gardens
UV163
UV282
UV125
UV56
UV75
UV54
UV905
UV67
UV94
UV52 §¨¦8
§¨¦805
§¨¦15
§¨¦5
S A N

D I E G O

C O U N T Y

M E X I C O
Imperial
Beach
Lemon
Grove
Chula Vista
San Diego
El Cajon
Encinitas
La Mesa
Poway
Carlsbad
Nati onal
City
Santee
Coronado
Escondido
Solana
Beach
Del Mar
Los Penasquitos
Canyon Presv
San Diego
National
Wildlife Refuge
Otay
Wilderness
Mission Trails
Regional Park
Lake Hodges
San Vicente
Reservoir
Sweetwater
Reservoir
Lower Otay
Reservoir

USMC AIR

STATION

MIRAMAR
E s c o n d i d o C r e e k
O t a y R i v e r
S
w e e t w a t e r R i v e
S
r
a n D i e g o R i v e r
Jamul Indian
Village
Sycuan
Reservation
Barona
Reservation
Bonita
Bostonia
Casa
de Oro-Mount
Helix
Crest
Eucalyptus
Hills
Fairbanks
Ranch
Granite
Hills
Jamul
Lakeside
La Presa
Ramona
Rancho San
Diego
Rancho
Santa Fe
Spring
Valley
Winter
Gardens
UV163
UV282
UV125
UV56
UV75
UV54
UV905
UV67
UV94
UV52 §¨¦8
§¨¦805
§¨¦15
§¨¦5
S A N

D I E G O

C O U N T Y

M E X I C O
Imperial
Beach
Lemon
Grove
Chula Vista
San Diego
El Cajon
Encinitas
La Mesa
Poway
Carlsbad
Nati onal
City
Santee
Coronado
Escondido
Solana
Beach
Del Mar
0 Miles 5 [
M:\JOBS5\9641.3\common_gis\MXD\PEIR\fig2-1.mxd 7/16/2024 fmm LOS

ANGELES

ORANGE RIVERSIDE

SAN BERNARDINO

SAN DIEGO
MEXICO
Project Boundary
Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 313
FIGURE 2-2a
Project Location on USGS Map
Map Source: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map series, Point Loma (1994) and Imperial Beach (1967) quadrangles, La Nacion Land Grant 0 Feet 2,000
[
Project Boundary
M:\JOBS5\9641.3\common_gis\MXD\PEIR\fig2-2.mxd 7/16/2024 fmm Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 314
FIGURE 2-2b
Project Location on USGS Map
Map Source: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map series, Point Loma (1994) and Imperial Beach (1967) quadrangles, La Nacion Land Grant 0 Feet 2,000
[
Project Boundary
M:\JOBS5\9641.3\common_gis\MXD\PEIR\fig2-2.mxd 7/16/2024 fmm Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 315
FIGURE 2-2c
Project Location on USGS Map
Map Source: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map series, Point Loma (1994) and Imperial Beach (1967) quadrangles, La Nacion Land Grant 0 Feet 2,000
[
Project Boundary
M:\JOBS5\9641.3\common_gis\MXD\PEIR\fig2-2.mxd 7/16/2024 fmm Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 316
FIGURE 2-3
Project Location on Aerial Photograph
UV94
UV75
§¨¦15
§¨¦5
UV94
UV75
§¨¦15
§¨¦5
Image Source: NearMap (flown May 2024)
0 Feet 6,000 [
Project Boundary
M:\JOBS5\9641.3\common_gis\MXD\PEIR\fig2-3.mxd 7/16/2024 fmm Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 317

2.0 Environmental Setting
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

2.2.2 Geology
Basement rocks underlying the City are the California batholith of Cretaceous time and Santiago Peak volcanics of the Jurassic era. Post-batholith rocks of the coastal plain are mainly clastic marine sedimentary deposits that cover the older rocks and commonly dip gently toward the west and southwest. These rocks range in age from Cretaceous to Quaternary and consist chiefly of beds of sandstone, shale, and conglomerate. The base rock formation near the surface in most of the City are cemented sedimentary materials referred to as the San Diego Formation deposited during the Pliocene epoch of the tertiary period. This formation is a firm sandstone which ranges from 25 to 150 feet deep and has an unknown thickness. Overlying the San Deigo Formation is the Bay Point Formation, consisting of loose unconsolidated sands, silts, and gravel (City of Coronado 1994a).

2.2.3 Soils
The soil types within the City are not suitable for commercial agricultural purposes due to insufficient fertility quality and inappropriate texture. As such, these soil types are more suitable for urban land uses. The United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (2024) has classified nine soil types that are within the City. These soils consist of Carlsbad Gravelly Loamy Sand, Huerhuero Loam, Huerhuero-Urban Land Complex, Marina Loamy Coarse Sand, Coastal Beaches, Made Land, Lagoon Water, Tidal Flats, and Water. The location of each soil type is shown in Figure 2-4 with acreages and percentages of each summarized in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1
Soil Types throughout the City
Soil Type Acres Percent Total
Carlsbad Gravelly Loamy Sand, 2 to 5 percent slopes 143.5 1.6% Coastal Beaches 946.4 10.5%
Huerhuero-Urban Land Complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes 9.5 0.1% Huerhuero Loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes 146.9 1.6%
Lagoon Water 10.1 0.1%
Made Land 655.4 7.3%
Marina Loamy Coarse Sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes 3097.0 34.4% Tidal Flats 36.7 0.4%
Water 3947.1 43.9%
TOTAL 8,992.7 100.0%
Note: Totals may vary due to independent rounding.

As shown, the predominant soils are Marina Loamy Coarse Sand with 2 to 9 percent slopes, Coastal Beaches, and Made Land.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 318
FIGURE 2-4
Soil Types
UV94
UV75
§¨¦15
§¨¦5
UV94
UV75
§¨¦15
§¨¦5
Image Source: NearMap (flown May 2024)
0 Feet 6,000 [
Project Boundary
Soil Types
Carlsbad Gravelly Loamy Sand, 2 to 5 Percent Slopes
Huerhuero Loam, 2 to 9 Percent Slopes
Huerhuero-Urban Land Complex, 2 to 9 Percent Slopes
Marina Loamy Coarse Sand, 2 to 9 Percent Slopes
Coastal Beaches
Made land
Lagoon Water
Tidal flats
Water
M:\JOBS5\9641.3\common_gis\MXD\PEIR\fig2-4.mxd 7/16/2024 fmm Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 319

2.0 Environmental Setting
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

2.2.4 Shoreline/Beach Erosion
Due to natural and man-induced coastal processes, the shorelines along the City experience constant, gradual erosion which increases during major ocean storms. The beaches of the City are within the Silver Strand Littoral Cell, which extends from south of the International Border to the Zuniga jetty at San Diego Bay. The general littoral drift of the Silver Strand Littoral Cell carries sand northward and deposits it at the Zuniga Shoal. Historically, the single natural source of new sands for the beaches along the Silver Strand has been from sediments deposited from the mouth of the Tijuana River. The higher the volumes of water in the river, the greater the amount of sediments that were transported northward. Heavy winter storms and overall periods of low rainfall have contributed to the erosion process by reducing the quantities of natural supplements of sand to the beaches of the City (City of Coronado 1994a).

Man-induced processes have also contributed to the problem of beach erosion. Construction of dams, reservoirs, flood control systems, and other development along the coastline has eliminated the principal natural source of sand going to the beaches in San Diego County by restricting the natural flow of sediments. The beaches of the City have been directly affected by the construction of dams on the Tiuana River and its tributaries. As a result of this, the beaches have had to be replenished utilizing other sources (City of Coronado 1994a).

2.2.5 Biological Resources
The City is mostly developed, with virtually no undeveloped vacant land. The land is used for residential, commercial, civic, and military purposes. The local environment is mostly urbanized.

Vegetation in the project area includes that which is typically associated with developed urban areas, including landscaping of commercial and residential uses, parks, civic uses, and streetscapes, as well as ornamental trees, parkways, lawns, and gardens (City of Coronado 1994b).

2.2.6 Climate and Air Quality
The City is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). San Diego County lies in the southwest corner of California, has an area of 4,526 square miles, and encompasses the SDAB and includes part of the Salton Sea Air Basin. Most of the County’s population and pollutant emissions are concentrated in the western portion of the County in the SDAB, which extends to the mountains in the near east. The topography in the SDAB, along with local meteorology, influences the pollutants in the basin. San Diego County also shares an international border with Mexico. The neighboring city of Tijuana forms a binational airshed with San Diego.

The climate is classified as Mediterranean, but it is diverse because of the topography. The climate is dominated by the Pacific High-pressure system that results in mild, dry summers and mild, wet winters. San Diego experiences over 150 days above 70 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and 8 to 12 inches of rainfall annually (mostly, November to March). El Niño and La Niña patterns have large effects on the annual rainfall received in San Diego.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 320

2.0 Environmental Setting
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

The Pacific High pressure system drives the prevailing winds in the SDAB. The winds tend to blow onshore in the daytime and offshore at night. In the summer, an inversion layer is created over the coastal areas and increases the ground-level ozone levels. In the winter, San Diego often experiences a shallow inversion layer which tends to increase carbon monoxide and 2.5 particulate matter concentration levels due to the increased use of residential wood burning (San Diego County Air Pollution Control District 2023).

2.2.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
There are no significant watersheds (i.e., rivers, creeks, streams, etc.) within the City that could supply potable water, or give reason for water-related pollution concerns. Within the City, the high concentration of sulfates and chlorides prevents the use of groundwater for potable purposes; therefore, the City is reliant upon imported potable water (City of Coronado 1994a). The City is located in the San Diego Bay Watershed Management Area which is estimated to be home to approximately one-third of the population of San Diego County and contains three major subwatersheds: Pueblo San Diego, Sweetwater, and Otay. The City is located in the Otay Watershed, in the Coronado Hydrologic Subarea (City of Coronado 2016).

2.2.8 Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are limited, non-renewable resources of high scientific and educational value. Fossils are the remains or indications of once-living organisms. Beneath the City there are three stratigraphic formations–artificial fill, beach sands of the Holocene Age, and the Bay Point Formation from the late Pleistocene Age. The latter is of high paleontological significance because of the discovery of many diverse, fossilized marine molluscan assemblages, shark, ray, and fish remains from the Pleistocene Age (City of Coronado 1994a).

2.3 Built Environment

2.3.1 Existing Land Use and Planning Context
The City has a variety of land uses, including residential, civic, commercial, and military uses.

Figure 2-5 shows the existing land uses on surveyed properties. Table 2-2 summarizes the land uses for all properties identified in the survey.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 321
FIGURE 2-5
Existing Land Uses
on Surveyed Properties
Image Source: NearMap (flown May 2024)
0 Feet 800 [
Project Boundary
Land Use
Single Family Detached
Single Family Multiple-Units
Single Family Residential Without Units
Multi-Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential Without Units
Arterial Commercial
Hotel/Motel (Low-Rise)
Mixed Use
Communications and Utilities
Government Office/Civic Center
Other Public Services
Post Office
Office (Low-Rise)
Other Health Care
Other Retail Trade and Strip Commercial
Religious Facility
Road Right of Way
Service Station
Warehousing
M:\JOBS5\9641.3\common_gis\MXD\PEIR\fig2-5.mxd 7/17/2024 fmm Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 322

2.0 Environmental Setting
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

Table 2-2
Existing Land Uses in Project Areas (Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 Properties) Land Use Acres Percentage of Total
Arterial Commercial 9.28 3.15%
Communications and Utilities 0.06 0.02%
Government Office/Civic Center 0.57 0.19%
Hotel/Motel (Low-Rise) 3.30 1.12%
Mixed Use 1.42 0.48%
Multi-Family Residential 35.32 11.98%
Multi-Family Residential Without Units 1.44 0.49%
Office (Low-Rise) 2.02 0.68%
Other Health Care 0.09 0.03%
Other Public Services 0.40 0.14%
Other Retail Trade and Strip Commercial 0.32 0.11%
Post Office 0.47 0.16%
Religious Facility 4.20 1.42%
Road Right of Way 0.07 0.03%
Service Station 0.43 0.15%
Single-Family Detached 202.10 68.53%
Single-Family Multiple-Units 32.99 11.19%
Single-Family Residential Without Units 0.33 0.11%
Warehousing 0.09 0.03%
TOTAL 294.90 100%
The City’s development is generally guided by the Coronado General Plan and the Coronado Local Coastal Program’s Land Use Plan. The Local Coastal Program is a coastal management plan that contains land use, development, public access, and resource protection policies and regulations to implement the California Coastal Act. Because the whole City is within the Coastal Zone, as defined by the California Coastal Act, all projects must meet the Local Coastal Program requirements and may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission if located within their appeal jurisdiction.

Section 4.2, Land Use and Planning, includes further discussion of the proposed projects consistency with relevant plans and ordinances.

2.3.2 Cultural Resources

2.3.2.1 Archaeological Resources
The three most common and identifiable prehistoric cultures within the San Diego area are the San Dieguito, La Jollan, and Diegueno.

It is believed the oldest culture in the San Diego area was the San Dieguito culture. This nomadic hunting culture existed approximately 12,000 to 14,000 years ago. However, the San Dieguito culture probably did not exist in the City because these people were more associated with lands east of the Laguna Mountains.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 323

2.0 Environmental Setting
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

Approximately 7,000 to 9,000 years ago, the most predominant Native American culture in the San Diego Bay area was the La Jollan culture. These people were known to have coastal encampments along bays, estuaries, and lagoons throughout San Diego County and essentially existed by fishing.

An indication of the La Jollan culture’s presence in an area is the existence of large shell middens or refuse mounds.

Approximately 1,000 to 7,000 years ago the Diegueno people inhabited the San Diego Bay area.

Although these people are more associated with having permanent settlement along drainage basins, temporary coastal encampments were set up. This is characterized by the existence of small, scattered shell middens. The Diegueno culture was known to be a gathering culture that was essentially vegetarian.

There are 10 known recorded archaeological sites within the City. The types of sites found within the City range from one located within the Navy Radio Receiving Facility property that is considered to have major archaeological significance to others that have little significance. Artifacts include shell middens, pottery fragments, mano fragments, and other indications of campsites (City of Coronado 1994a).

2.3.2.2 Historical Resources
The Hotel Del Coronado is one of the City’s most recognized historic structures. The hotel opened in 1888 and, among other things, is well known for its unique architecture. The Hotel del Coronado is the only historical structure within the City that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

However, a historical site inventory prepared by the County of San Diego also includes the site where the first seaplane flight occurred and the site of the first Military Flight School, which is known as Rockwell Field. These two sites are located at NASNI (City of Coronado 1994a). Numerous structures have a historic designation within the City and is further discussed in Section 4.1 of this PEIR.

2.3.3 Public Infrastructure and Services
The City’s Wastewater Division is responsible for maintaining sewer infrastructure within the City. The division is responsible for the maintenance of 17 sewer pump stations, approximately 750 maintenance holes, and over 45 miles of underground sewer pipeline. Sewage from the City, the Coronado Cays, the Naval Amphibious Base, and the Naval Air Station North Island are transferred to the City of San Diego’s Point Loma Treatment Plant.

The City’s Public Services and Engineering Department is responsible for maintaining storm drain infrastructure throughout the City. The Stormwater Division within the City’s Public Services and Engineering Department is responsible for implementing and enforcing the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System No. CAS0109266 through RWQCB Order No. R9-2013-0001. This order requires all jurisdictions within San Diego County to develop jurisdictional specific policies and procedures designed to improve water quality. Key components of the program include water quality monitoring, street sweeping, commercial business inspections, and review and approval of stormwater requirements relevant to development and construction projects.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 324

2.0 Environmental Setting
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

The City receives water supply from California American Water, which purchases water from the City of San Diego. The City of San Diego’s supply is primarily imported water. Approximately 93 percent is purchased water from the San Diego County Water Authority and Metropolitan Water District.

Utility services for the City are provided by San Diego Gas and Electric.

The Coronado Unified School District is the public school district for the City and is composed of one high school, one middle school, and two elementary schools. Additional specialized/unconventional schools include Coronado School of the Arts, residing on the high school campus, and Crown Preschool, a private fee-based school.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 325

3.0 Project Description
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

Chapter 3.0
Project Description

3.1 Introduction
This Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) evaluates potential impacts associated with adoption of Amendments to the City of Coronado Historic Preservation Program (project). The project includes adoption of an Ordinance amending Title 84 of the Coronado Municipal Code (CMC) (Appendix B) and adoption of a Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Inventory (hereinafter referred to as the Historic Property Survey) (Appendix C). Specifically, the project would amend CMC Chapter 84.10, Historic Resource Code to update the criteria used for the City of Coronado’s (City) definition and determination of historical significance. Amendments to the Historic Resource Code would remove structures referred to in the Historic Property Survey as a Tier 3 property from further historic review.

3.2 Project Background
In fall of 2019, initiation of the project began with a series of public outreach workshops and online outreach. Members of the public could comment via the City’s website, Comment Coronado. From winter of 2020 through fall of 2022, the Historic Property Survey was prepared. City staff presented the Draft Historic Property Survey to City Council on June 20, 2023. The initial public review and comment period ran from June 20, 2023, to October 31, 2023. An update was provided to City Council on November 21, 2023. At this time, staff was directed by the City Council to retain the current 75-year threshold, proceed with the exclusion of Tier 3 properties, and to contact property owners for all properties identified in the survey. Additionally, staff was instructed to solicit public comments for an additional 60-day period, initiate environmental review, and investigate alternatives including changing the age threshold from 75 years to 50 years to align with California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) (see 14 California Code of Regulations 4852(d)(2)) guidelines regarding at what age a resource can be considered for listing in the CRHRCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) standards.

Public comments were received during the public review period for the draft Historic Property Survey Ten comments were received stating that no historical review should be required. Thirty-four comments were received that pertained to specific properties. Sixty-three general questions about the project were received. Nine comments were received stating that all tiers should be required to go through historical review. Nine comments were received stating that Tier 2 and Tier 3 properties should be excluded from required historical review. The Initial Study (IS) and Notice of Preparation (NOP) were published on June 12, 2024, and the NOP review period ran through July 11, 2024. No comments were received during the NOP review period. A Scoping Meeting was held at the Coronado Public Library located at 640 Orange Avenue, Coronado, CA 92118 from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Thursday June 27, 2024; two members of the public attended, and no comments were received.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 326

3.0 Project Description
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

3.3 Statement of Objectives
As required under the CEQA Guidelines, this section provides a description of the project’s purpose and objectives (California Code of Regulations 15124).

3.3.1 Project Purpose
The purpose of the project is to amend the City’s existing regulatory framework to streamline development review while assuring the preservation and enhancement of the City’s historical and cultural heritage.

3.3.2 Project Objectives
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), the following are basic project objectives. • Streamline the City’s Historic Preservation Program review process to provide consistency to preservation planning efforts;
• Further guide the preservation of historically significant properties; • Provide certainty to property owners regarding the known historical significance of structures.

3.4 Project Description
The project would amend the City’s Historic Resource Code to streamline the environmental process associated with the determination of significance of City’s historic structures.

To inform the proposed Historic Resource Code amendments, a Historic Property Survey was prepared (see Appendix C). The Historic Property Survey presents the history of the built environment of the community from the ethnohistoric period to the present day (see Section 4.1.1.1). The document identifies important themes, events, patterns of development, and describes the different property types, styles, builders, and architects associated with these important periods and themes.

The following themes were identified as significant throughout the City: Residential Development; Commercial Development; Civic and Institutional Development; Transportation Infrastructure Development; Military Development; and Recreational Development. The Historic Property Survey also provides registration requirements for the evaluation of historical resources properties eligible for designation under the CMC Title 84 Criterion C. These properties possess the distinctive characteristics of an architectural style and have not been substantially altered. Finally, the Historic Property Survey concludes with a discussion of recommendations for future study and action by the City to facilitate its historic preservation program.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 327

3.0 Project Description
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

The historic context study area is depicted in Figure 3-1. The study area for the Historic Property Survey area is depicted on Figure 3-2. The Historic Context Study Area encompasses the entirety of the City while the Historic Property Survey was focused on the City’s historic core and excludes the Naval Air Station North Island, the U.S. Navy Amphibious Base, Port of San Diego property, state or federally owned property located within the city limits, and other sections of the City, such as the Coronado Cays. The Historic Property Survey evaluated properties under CMC Section 84.10.030, Criterion C to identify whether structures possess distinctive characteristics of an architectural style that have not been substantially altered (CMC Section 84.10.030(C)) (City of Coronado 2023). While Criterion C is only one of the five criteria cited in CMC Section 84.10.030, Criterion C served as the basis of the Historic Property Survey as it was the most readily identifiable criterion that could be evaluated with reasonable effort, and because it was a criterion applied in nearly all—90.2 percent— of the City’s Historic Designation determinations. The purpose of the Historic Property Survey was to provide an architectural evaluation of properties, in an effort to categorize those properties that could be potentially architecturally significant resources and those that would not meet Criterion C.

The results of the survey would be used to reduce the number of properties that would be required to go through a future in-depth historical review process based on the City’s current Determination of Historic Significance.

The Historic Property Survey defined three tiers relative to whether a property may meet the Criterion C significance related to original architectural appearance, as follows:
• Tier 1 - Unaltered or minimally altered from historic condition and potentially eligible for City designation under Criterion C.
• Tier 2 - Recognizable as a particular architectural style but based on observation and/or construction history are more than “unaltered or minimally altered” from historic condition and do not appear to be eligible for historic designation under Criterion C. • Tier 3 - Substantially altered properties that retain little to no elements of a particular architectural style and, based on observation and/or construction history, are not eligible for historic designation under Criterion C.

The Historic Property Survey included a reconnaissance-level survey of over 2,000 properties within the City built in 1970 or earlier. Tier 1 properties were potentially eligible for City designation under Criterion C through survey evaluation. Tier 2 properties retain aspects of a particular architectural style but lack the integrity or distinction for designation under Criterion C through survey evaluation.

Tier 3 properties were heavily altered properties that retain little to no elements of a particular architectural style and have no potential for eligibility under City designation Criterion C through survey evaluation. The number of properties identified under each of the three Tiers is as follows:
• Tier 1 Properties: 194 properties are recommended for Tier 1 status based on their architectural distinctiveness and lack of substantial alterations. • Tier 2 Properties: 146 properties are recommended for Tier 2 based on architectural distinctiveness.
• Tier 3 Properties: 1,667 properties are recommended for Tier 3 based on their lack of architectural distinctiveness and/or their lack of integrity.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 328
FIGURE 3-1
Historic Context Study Area
M:\JOBS5\9641.3\env\graphics\PEIR\fig3-1_PEIR.afdesign 07/16/24 fmm Map Source: Dudek
Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 329
FIGURE 3-2
Historic Property Survey Area
M:\JOBS5\9641.3\env\graphics\PEIR\fig3-2_PEIR.afdesign 07/16/24 fmm Map Source: Dudek
Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 330

3.0 Project Description
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

The identification of the properties by tier and decade is summarized in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1
Potentially Historic Properties by Tier and Decade
Decade
Tier 1
Total
Percent of
Tier 1
Tier 2
Total
Percent
of Tier 2
Tier 3
Total
Percent of
Tier 3
Total Properties
per Decade
Percent
of Total
1891-00 10 5.2% 11 7.4% 16 0.9% 37 1.8%
1901-10 14 7.2% 12 8.1% 39 2.3% 65 3.2%
1911-20 29 14.9% 43 29.1% 171 10.1% 243 12.1%
1921-30 44 22.7% 36 24.3% 234 13.9% 314 15.6%
1931-40 43 22.2% 20 13.5% 204 12.0% 267 13.3%
1941-50 22 11.3% 11 8.1% 395 23.3% 428 21.3%
1951-60 23 11.9% 9 6.1% 496 29.2% 528 26.3%
1961-70 9 4.6% 5 3.4% 112 6.6% 126 6.3%
TOTAL 194 100.0% 147 100.0% 1,667 100.0% 2,008 100.0%
Source: Appendix D
As shown in Table 3-1, the Historic Property Survey identified a total of 1,667 Tier 3 properties categorized as follows: 1,007 structures built in 1949 or earlier and another 660 structures built between 1950 to 1970. Amendments to the CMC would remove Tier 3 properties from further historic review. Refer to Figure 3-3 for the location of Tier 3 properties as defined by the Historic Property Survey.

3.5 Discretionary Actions
Implementation of the project requires the following discretionary actions:
• Adoption of the Historic Property Survey
• Adoption of an ordinance amending Title 84 of the CMC to modify the City’s current Determination of Historic Significance Review

3.6 Intended Uses of the PEIR
No specific developments are proposed as part of the project, and this PEIR does not evaluate the potential project-specific environmental impacts of individual development proposals that may occur outside of the project. This PEIR examines the potential environmental impacts of implementing changes to the CMC related to historic review. Specific future projects may require separate environmental review to address project-specific impacts, as required by CEQA, to secure the necessary discretionary development permits.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 331
FIGURE 3-3
Tier 3 Properties
03RD
04TH
ORANGE

ALAMEDA
OCEAN

GLORIETTA
POMONA
DANA
UV75
03RD
04TH
ORANGE

ALAMEDA
OCEAN

GLORIETTA
POMONA
DANA
UV75
Image Source: NearMap (flown May 2024)
Project Boundary 0 Feet 1,200 [
Tier 3 Properties
M:\JOBS5\9641.3\common_gis\MXD\PEIR\fig3-3.mxd 7/16/2024 fmm Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 332

4.0 Environmental Analysis
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

Chapter 4.0
Environmental Analysis
Chapter 4.0, Environmental Analysis discloses the potential environmental impacts resulting from adoption of Amendments to the City of Coronado Historic Preservation Program (project). The project includes adoption of an Ordinance amending Title 84 of the Coronado Municipal Code (CMC) (Appendix B) and adoption of a Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Inventory (hereinafter referred to as the Historic Property Survey) (Appendix C). Specifically, the project would amend CMC Chapter 84.10, Historic Resource Code to update the criteria used for the City of Coronado’s definition and determination of historical significance. Amendments to the Historic Resource Code would remove structures referred to in the Historic Property Survey as a Tier 3 property from further historic review. There are two environmental impact areas addressed as follows:
• 4.1 Cultural Resources
• 4.2 Land Use
Each section is formatted to address the environmental setting, regulatory framework, a description of the methodology and assumptions used in the analysis, if applicable, the criteria for determining significance for each impact, an evaluation of potential impacts, an assessment of the level of significance for each impact, and a conclusion.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 333

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Cultural Resources
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

4.1 Cultural Resources
This section analyzes potentially significant impacts related to cultural resources that could result from implementation of Amendments to the City of Coronado Historic Preservation Program (project). This section is based on a review of the Draft Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Inventory (Historic Property Survey; see Appendix C) and applicable local, state, and federal regulations pertaining to historic preservation.

4.1.1 Existing Conditions

4.1.1.1 Cultural Setting
The cultural setting described in the following subsections is summarized from the Historic Property Survey (see Appendix C). Refer to Appendix C for a comprehensive list of the historical events and sites that were considered in preparation of the Final PEIR. a. Ethnohistoric Overview (Post-AD 1750)
The history of the Native American communities prior to the mid-1700s has largely been reconstructed through later mission-period and early ethnographic accounts. The first records of the Native American inhabitants of the San Diego region come predominantly from European merchants, missionaries, military personnel, and explorers. These brief and generally peripheral accounts were prepared with the intent of furthering respective colonial and economic aims and were combined with observations of the landscape.

Ethnographic research by Dubois, Kroeber, Harrington, Spier, and others during the early twentieth century seemed to indicate that traditional cultural practices and beliefs survived among local Native American communities. These accounts supported and were supported by previous governmental decisions, which made San Diego County the location of more federally recognized tribes than anywhere else in the United States: 18 tribes on 18 reservations that cover more than 116,000 acres.

The traditional cultural boundaries between the Luiseño and Kumeyaay Native American tribal groups have been well-defined by anthropologist Florence C. Shipek:

In 1769, the Kumeyaay national territory started at the coast about 100 miles south of the Mexican border (below Santo Tomas), thence north to the coast at the drainage divide south of the San Luis Rey River including its tributaries. Using the U.S.

Geological Survey topographic maps, the boundary with the Luiseño then follows that divide inland. The boundary continues on the divide separating Valley Center from Escondido and then up along Bear Ridge to the 2240 contour line and then north across the divide between Valley Center and Woods Valley up to the 1880-foot peak, then curving around east along the divide above Woods Valley.

Based on ethnographic information, it is believed that at least 88 different languages were spoken from Baja California Sur to the southern Oregon state border at the time of Spanish contact. The Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 334

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Cultural Resources
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

distribution of recorded Native American languages has been dispersed as a geographic mosaic across California through six primary language families. Coronado’s Native American inhabitants would have likely spoken both the Ipai or Tipai language subgroup of the Yuman language group.

Ipai and Tipai, spoken respectively by the northern and southern Kumeyaay communities, are mutually intelligible. For this reason, these two are often treated as dialects of a larger Kumeyaay tribal group rather than as distinctive languages.

Golla suggested that there are two language families associated with Native American groups that traditionally lived throughout the San Diego County region. The majority of Native American tribal groups in southern San Diego region have traditionally spoken Yuman languages, a subgroup of the Hokan Phylum. Golla has suggested that the time depth of Hokan is approximately 8,000 years.

Previous research indicates a divergence between Ipai and Tipai to have occurred approximately AD 600–1200.

The Kumeyaay generally lived in smaller family subgroups that would inhabit two or more locations over the course of the year. While less common, there is sufficient evidence that there were also permanently occupied villages, and that some members may have remained at these locations throughout the year. Areas or regions, identified by known physical landmarks, could be recognized as band-specific territories that might be violently defended against use by other members of the Kumeyaay. Other areas or resources, such as water sources and other locations that were rich in natural resources, were generally understood as communal land to be shared amongst all the Kumeyaay. The coastal Kumeyaay exchanged a number of local goods, such as seafood, coastal plants, and various types of shells for items including acorns, agave, mesquite beans, gourds, and other more interior plants of use. Shellfish would have been procured from three primary environments, including the sandy open coast, bay and lagoon, and rocky open coast. The availability of these marine resources changed with the rising sea levels, siltation of lagoon and bay environments, changing climatic conditions, and intensity of use by humans and animals. b. Post-contact Settlement (1542-1870s)
European activity in the region began as early as AD 1542, when Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo landed in San Diego Bay. 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 on the advent of his marriage to the daughter of Don Juan Bandini, the beloved San Diego patriarch, as a wedding gift. 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.

During the 1870s, multiple changes in ownership of the peninsula occurred when owners died leaving their shares to their heirs. In 1877, George W. Granniss, a member of the Aspinwall, Peachy, and Billings law firm who helped negotiate the peninsula’s sale to Charles F. Holly, received the land deed Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 335

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Cultural Resources
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

by foreclosure for $116,377. The 1880s in California was a time of economic prosperity thanks in part to the expansion of the railroads attracting unemployed easterners, real estate investors, health seekers, and a variety of merchants.
c. Early Development of Coronado (1884-1889)
Elisha Babcock, a railroad financier from Evansville, moved to San Diego in 1885. While on a hunting trip to the mostly uninhabited Coronado peninsula, Babcock and his good friend Hampton L. Story began to contemplate buying the land in order to build a resort hotel that would attract travelers from across the United States. Babcock pushed for this idea to become a reality and on November 19, 1885, the two men organized a syndicate and bought the 4,185-acre property from Archibald C.

Peachy of San Francisco and William H. Aspinwall of New York for $110,000. Almost immediately after signing the papers, Babcock hired workers to begin clearing the land of vegetation.

Coronado Beach Company (1886)
On April 7, 1886, Babcock and Story, along with Jacob Gruendike and two minority partners Joseph Collett and Heber Ingle, filed for incorporation under the name Coronado Beach Company. The business partners chose the name Coronado, which is derived from the Spanish name for the islands and isthmus, which lie southwest of Coronado in the Pacific Ocean. The sale of Coronado came in conjunction with the first transcontinental railroad opening between Barstow in the Mojave Desert and San Diego, ensuring that travelers would soon be coming to the peninsula.

In 1885, the first structure built in the City was a boarding house for construction workers at the northern end of Orange Avenue, followed by the Coronado Beach Company superintendent’s office.

Workers graded the land around the island and planted 60 acres of barley to feed the horses that would eventually arrive on the peninsula. The subdivision plans for Coronado organized the northern section of the city in a grid and the southern portion with serpentine avenues and streets forming irregular-shaped blocks. An alphabetical and numerical system of street naming would be utilized in order to locate lots easier. Only the curved streets and the long radial streets of Orange, Palm, and Olive outside of the grid system and favored by Story would be given names. On November 12, 1886, the first official map of Coronado was filed with the San Diego County Recorder. Included on this map were two parks, Prospect Park, the eventual site of the Coronado Municipal Golf Course, and Star Park, indicated on the map by a star drawn inside the intersection of Flora and Loma Streets, and Park Place. A large plaza space that would become referred to as East and West Plaza (now the site of the Coronado Public Library and Spreckels Park) was located at the major intersection of Olive and Palm Avenues.

Land Auction (1886)
The Coronado Beach Company hired Col. William H. Holabird to prepare a booklet with the Chicago-based publisher Rand McNally advertising Coronado. Approximately 400,000 copies were printed and distributed in Chicago and San Francisco as well as put in most Santa Fe Railroad trains and stations. Locally, the Coronado Beach Company began hosting parties in a newly built pavilion to gather interest from people living in San Diego. One of these parties included a great picnic celebration on July 4, 1886, which became a tradition in Coronado. The first lot, lot 15, block 1 near the site of the proposed hotel, sold for $1,600 to Major Levi Chase, a prominent San Diego lawyer Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 336

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Cultural Resources
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

on November 13, 1886, with auctions continuing throughout the day. By June 1887, over 2,000 lots were sold, totaling $1.5 million. The lots sold were not specified to be for residential or commercial use, rather they were priced based on location and size with regular blocks sized at 300 x 500 feet; regular lots 25 x 140 feet; and Orange Avenue lots, which would become the future City’s commercial corridor, sized at 140 feet wide and Palm and Olive avenues 100 feet wide. The 1888 Sanborn Map displays both residential and commercial development on A, B, C, Orange, and D avenues between First and Sixth streets.

Hotel del Coronado (1887-1889)
Following the sale of residential lots in 1886, Babcock decided to contact the architectural firm of the Reid Brothers, comprised of James and Merritt Reid and based out of Evansville, Indiana for the design of the hotel. A final drawing was never completed by James Reid, and the preliminary sketch served as the basis for construction; even the lumber estimate was taken from these drawings.

Construction moved quickly and on January 29, 1888, the hotel hosted its first guest, architect James Reid, while work continued on other remaining sections of the building. Upon completion, the hotel was the largest resort hotel in the world and the first hotel and largest building outside of New York City to use electric lighting.

City Development (1887-1888)
With the opening of the Hotel del Coronado, the City wanted to expand its infrastructure and establish itself as a viable place for those looking for a permanent or vacation home. Parts of the peninsula lacked enough solid land to allow for the construction of buildings. To solve this, the Coronado Beach Company hired Bates, Amburg, and McAdams of Chicago to dredge the Glorietta Bay, located to the direct east of the Hotel. The bay was dredged until it became a uniform 12 feet, while the leftover sand was used to infill the boulevard along the ocean, later known as Ocean Boulevard. With its uniform depth, Glorietta Bay became the preferred location for many water activities including boating, swimming, and sailing. A similar method of dredging was implemented on the Spanish Bight, a shallow body of water separating North and South Island. The Coronado Beach Company in 1887 acquired the undeveloped land at the southern end of the peninsula, naming it Coronado Heights, which was soon subdivided into individual lots.

Commercial and civic buildings began to be constructed primarily around Orange Avenue, the main road leading from the ferry docks to the Hotel del Coronado. By February 1887, Coronado’s first post office was opened next to J. A. Mathewson’s grocery store on the corner of Third Street and Orange Avenue. On June 4, 1887, the United States government officially gave the city a post office, but because there were no official addresses at this point, mail needed to be picked up in person. A museum was planned in May 1887, but did not open until July 1888 prior to Spreckels assuming ownership of the Coronado Beach Company. Also, in 1887, the volunteer Coronado Fire Department acquired its first steam fire engine officially becoming “Coronado Engine Company No. 2.” The northeast shore of North Island became the location of a marine railway and dry dock called Marine Ways, financed by W. W. Stewart of San Diego. The Silver Gate, a decommissioned ferry, would later be anchored near the Hotel and serve as a clubhouse, theater, dance hall, and a church on Sundays.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 337

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Cultural Resources
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

City Incorporation (1887-1890)
On December 12, 1888, the Supreme Court of California held that Coronado was within the San Diego city limits and therefore subject to taxation and assessment. Opposition was felt on both sides of the incorporation issue.

On December 6, 1890, votes were cast, 133 for incorporation over the 73 opposed. Three days later the City of Coronado governed by a Board of Trustees officially became a city, with Babcock elected as the Chairman of the Board.
d. The Spreckels Era (1890-1931)
Spreckels continued to develop to attract even more people to the peninsula. These included a street railway that followed Orange Avenue for a mile, a racetrack, an ostrich farm, and good roads for carriages. In order to sustain itself, year-round recreation became one of the most important aspects of Coronado-living, with Spreckels at the forefront.

Institutional, Civic, and Commercial Development (1890-1927) Coronado continued to develop its institutional, civic, and commercial buildings since its incorporation in 1890. Spreckels encouraged development that was tangentially associated with the Hotel to accommodate visitors to the peninsula. In 1894, the Free Reading Room Association and City were asked to take over the responsibility of creating a public library. In 1909, the Coronado Library Trustees asked Spreckels to build a permanent library. The area across from the library became known as Spreckels Park. By 1906, two Christian denominations, Protestant and Presbyterian, constructed permanent structures within the same block of C Avenue between Tenth and Ninth streets. Over the next 14 years, other religious denominations, including Episcopal, Christian Science, and Catholic, constructed permanent buildings to serve the people of Coronado.

The area surrounding the Coronado Public Library became the focus of multiple civic and institutional buildings, including the Coronado Grammar School and the Fire Station. The Grammar School was constructed on the corner of E Avenue and Sixth Street adjacent to the “Old School,” and designed in 1912 by San Diego architects Quayle Brothers and Cressey. A high school became increasingly necessary as the population of Coronado continued to rise. Land was purchased as part of a $20,000 school bond issue in March 1920. Architect Theodore C. Kistner designed the school, which cost $125,000 to construct and had the capacity to fit more than 500 students.

In 1906, a firehouse was constructed on Sixth Street facing the Coronado Library. In 1922, the original station was torn down and replaced with a more modern two-story building with sleeping quarters upstairs. The police force was located in the Bank of America building at the corner of Orange Avenue and Park Place from 1911 on, in order to be in close contact with city management. In 1923, the police department moved from City Hall, at the corner of Tenth Street and Orange Avenue, into the new fire department building at 1011 Sixth Street in order to be better centrally located in Coronado, but remained relatively small in size.

Multiple parks were developed throughout Coronado during this period of civic growth including Triangle Park (1915), Bandel Park (1916), Bay Circle Park (1925), Star Park (1925), Vetter Park (1925), Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 338

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Cultural Resources
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

and Mathewson Park (1927). Typically, these parks were located between street intersections that left triangular or circular shaped lots and sold to the City by either private owners, the Coronado Beach Company, or the J. D. and A. B. Spreckels Securities Company.

Commercial development also flourished post-1890, serving both tourists and the local population along Orange Avenue. Orange Avenue served as the main transit corridor leading from the ferry docks to the hotel, naturally becoming Coronado’s center of commercial development. In 1917, the J. D. and A. B. Spreckels Securities Company constructed a large business building on Orange and Loma avenues designed by Harrison Albright. The building contained Spreckels’ Bank of Coronado, 14 stores, 12 offices, and apartments on the second story. Auto repair shops and gasoline filling stations also became popular along Orange Avenue as the number of automobiles in Coronado increased.

Tent City (1900-1940)
Beginning in 1900, an area just south of the Hotel was established as “Camp Coronado,” later known as Tent City. Tent City stretched nearly a mile in length with the Pacific Ocean on the southwest and the bay of San Diego to the northeast. Several hundred tents and palm-leaf-covered cottages were put up in neat rows along the Sliver Strand.

The Beach Company built additional recreational facilities to keep guests engaged. These included a golf course with a polo field and horse show grounds west of Alameda Boulevard, a floating casino aboard the Silver Strand ferry, a band pavilion, merry-go-round, and bowling alley. The polo field later became the Coronado Country Club with two polo fields, an 18-hole golf course, tennis courts, and an arena where international horse shows were held. The general growth of the peninsula caused the Southern California Mountain Water Company to expand Coronado’s water facilities. On August 24, 1900, the water mains connecting the Bay and Coronado were extended, allowing for each of the tents and cottages to have running water. The water system, electricity, sewer system, and garbage pick-up ran efficiently and kept Tent City up to pace with the modern conveniences of early twentieth-century living.

Just to the north of Tent City a new garden called the Japanese Tea Garden was constructed in a Japanese style with several Japanese inspired teahouses. The garden was open for close to 30 years.

Tent City continued into 1940, before its final closure.

Residential Development (1890-1929)
Residential development in Coronado was on a constant pace between 1890 up to the beginning of The Great Depression of 1929. 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. Private enterprises expanded and building permits doubled in 1912 compared to 1911. Some of the most well-known buildings from this period are the John D.

Spreckels residence (1043 Ocean Boulevard, 1907), the home of General Joseph H. Pendleton (745 A Avenue, 1916), and Frederick S. Sherman’s Home (708 A Avenue, 1915).

Development continued to increase, and by 1920 it spread to the western side of Coronado.

Subdivided plots of land began to have primarily single-family houses constructed on them, although Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 339

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Cultural Resources
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

there were still large amounts of open land available. In March 1920, the citizens of Coronado pushed to further organize the City, which was growing at a rapid pace. Coronado began the “Planning Effect,” which began subdividing the land into different districts including business, semi-business, apartment houses, and private residences. In May 1920, Ordinance Number 408 created a Planning Commission for Coronado allowing for further regulations over the buildings being constructed. This was soon followed by a formal Zoning Ordinance, which created the first zoning map of the peninsula, identifying Orange Avenue for commercial development and the majority of the City for residential development.

By 1930 the Naval Air Station North Island had developed into a major military post, drawing military families to Coronado in search of housing. The presence of the military paycheck helped Coronado feel less of the effects of The Great Depression, which began in 1929.

North Island Development
North Island was part of the Articles of Incorporation Spreckels filed on April 18, 1892, after acquiring the Hotel from Babcock. At the end of 1890, a group of engineers surveyed the area and recommended that a jetty be constructed at the southwest tip of the island. The government acquired 18.05 acres of land to construct the first harbor jetty out of rock quarried from the Lakeside area of San Diego. The jetty was extended several times until finally reaching a length of 7,500 feet in 1904.
e. Wartime Coronado (1932-1945)
The military’s presence on North Island during the early stages of Coronado’s development and throughout World War II influenced every aspect of Coronado. During this period, large civic projects, including infill of the Spanish Bight and the creation of a new peninsula off the Silver Strand for the U.S. Navy’s new Amphibious Base, continued to affect Coronado’s appearance. North Island became one of the U.S. Navy’s primary bases during World War II, leading to the growth of residential developments, transportation infrastructure, civic and institutional buildings, and commercial properties to facilitate the base’s growth and the influx of military personnel and families.

Residential Development (1936-1945)
Between 1940 and 1941, Coronado’s population increased to over 15,000, although in the spring of 1940 only 18 new homes were constructed, representing a major halt in the momentum the construction industry had been experiencing since 1890. The City’s population during the peak of World War II in 1942 rose to 25,000. During this time, a water tank was built at First Street and C Avenue, holding a half-million gallons to accommodate the rising City population.

Despite the availability of more rental properties in Coronado, to fully meet the need of the rising population large-scale housing developments and projects needed to be developed and quickly. A key place for this development was the newly formed peninsula extending 4,200 feet from the Strand shoreline. This housing project, which shared its land with the new Naval Amphibious Base, was large enough to lay out a subdivision of eight blocks long and four blocks wide. The majority of the land was City-owned tidelands acquired from the state of California, while portions of the site were Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 340

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Cultural Resources
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

privately owned. The property was strategically placed for its proximity to the ferry and dock landing and to the Naval Air Station.

In 1943, the Bay View Housing Corporation completed plans for the construction of 85 Coronado dwelling units, including 37 single-family houses and 12 apartment buildings. Thirteen three-bedroom residences were constructed between Third and Fourth streets on I Avenue. The 12 apartment buildings constructed by the Bay View Housing Corporation were completed in 1944; each building had four units with two bedrooms each. The apartment buildings were located on D Avenue, Orange Avenue, E Avenue, and F Avenue, and intended for civilian employees at North Island. Three other private construction firms had begun the development of approximately 240 homes and apartments to be used by families of war workers, thus attempting to meet the serious housing crisis in Coronado in the 1940s.

In 1941, Coronado Homes, Inc., a development corporation run by Fred E. Hyde and Louis Millen, looked to fill a demand for small, low-cost homes in Coronado. The first group of buildings was constructed by builder Alfred Laing and located at 570, 556, 540, and 530 H Avenue. After the success of these four homes, the company decided to construct a 40-unit bungalow court on G Avenue between Fourth and Fifth streets for a total of $200,000, which is still extant. The other large-scale residential development began in January 1944 when Palmer Built Homes Inc. started construction on 154 single-family houses in previously vacant lots. Another example of a privately-owned development company following Federal Housing Authority terms was the Hakes Investment Company, responsible for building 39 single-family houses and a four-unit apartment building. The two-bedroom single-family residences were located on lots on Pomona Avenue, Margarita Avenue, Guadalupe Avenue, A, C, D, E, I, and J avenues. The residences built by these private developers were intended to house war workers, but due to the solid, quality construction, they became permanent assets to Coronado’s housing stock.

Civic, Institutional, and Commercial Expansion (1935-1945) The new civic center, now the police department headquarters, faced onto Orange Avenue and Sixth Street. C. L. Heskins constructed the new buildings out of reinforced concrete that meets today’s earthquake standards. On October 13, 1939, the City dedicated the new school buildings, which included the gymnasium, sewing and domestic science building, music and manual training rooms, science laboratories, the library, and the kitchen and pantry.

Commercial development in the late 1930s was minimal. Due to the lack of viable jobs other than the military, it did not pick up until after the end of the Great Depression. During July 1940, Coronado’s commercial building activity maintained an upward trend. Of the 25 building permits issued in the month, four were for new commercial structures, two for a lumber warehouse and office at 111 Orange Avenue, and two for the Gilmore Oil Company service station and gasoline storage tanks at Fourth Street and Orange Avenue. Over the next several years, the number of building permits fluctuated, taking into account large construction projects such as the new Coronado hospital built in 1942, and a new theater building located on the 800 block of Orange Avenue.

Peacetime brought a new spike in commercial development indicating Coronado’s post-war prosperity.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 341

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Cultural Resources
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

f. Post-War Expansion (1946-1969)
This period of development ends with the opening of the San Diego-Coronado Bridge in 1969, which represents Coronado’s shift from a small resort town to a busy international destination. Throughout this period of development, Coronado looked to catch up with rising demands, often replacing older buildings with larger ones that led the City to seriously start thinking about the preservation of its built environment for the first time.

Residential Development (1950-1968)
In addition to government housing attempting to combat the lack of available residential properties, work began in 1951 on Country Club Estates by the construction company Contracting Engineers.

This project originally consisted of 100 houses to be built on a portion of the old golf course along Alameda Boulevard, between Fourth Street to Tenth Street. In the early 1950s, Alameda and Country Club Lane were the first two streets to be developed. Progress continued to move west throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s, with the development of Cabrillo Avenue, Balboa Avenue, and Coronado Avenue. Deed restrictions were imposed by the City Council as lot sales were made in the County Club Estates Annex.

In 1948, voters approved the purchase of Brickyard Cove from the heirs of John Spreckels along with several other properties. This area previously had been a hog ranch named Rancho Carillo. After annexation the City used the land as a dump for the next six years, annexing the Silver Stand area including Rancho Carillo on April 5, 1949. In 1954, the City Council voted to rezone the land and set it aside for public use and recreation. The property was then put up for auction over the next 14 years, while during this time the City Council made portions of the area either civic property or allowing it to be developed. In 1968, the land was sold to the Atlantic-Richfield Oil Company for $4 million, who sold it only a year later to the Signal Oil Company. Signal Oil formed a subsidiary company with Cedrick Sanders called Signal Landmark. A residential development named Coronado Cays was planned for the area, but heavy dredging was required before excavation could begin in 1968. The company initially built 957 homes with 126 more to be constructed in the 1980s.

Civic, Institutional, and Recreational Improvements (1949-1969) Post-War Coronado not only needed adequate residential developments to keep up with the increasing population numbers, but civic properties such as schools, hospitals, police, and recreational facilities needed expansion and/or replacement as well. The old Coronado High School, constructed in 1923, was an example of one of these facilities, being declared vulnerable to earthquake damage as early as 1934. In March 1961, construction began by the C.A. Larsen Construction Co. of San Diego on a new school on D Avenue between Sixth and Seventh streets.

The Coronado Elementary School underwent a similar process with renderings for a new building appearing in the April 19, 1951, issue of the Coronado Eagle and Journal. World-renown architects, Quayle Brothers and Cressy, designed the original Central Elementary School constructed in 1913.

The school was razed in 1967 after being condemned, and architects Des Lauriers and Sigurdson were hired to design the new school that same year. The new school would be located on the site of the old school, which occupied a full block bounded by Sixth and Seventh streets and E and Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 342

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Cultural Resources
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

F avenues. The new two-story structure was built of prefabricated sections, and contained a library, multipurpose area, kitchen, and eleven classrooms with an area allotted for expansion.

The original Coronado Hospital was constructed in 1942, since at that point the City’s population was on the rise, but a modern building was needed to replace it by the mid-1960s. Throughout the early 1960s, the old hospital underwent several expansion projects Frank L. Hope and Associates, a nationally acclaimed architectural firm from San Diego, designed the four-story structure of reinforced concrete with exposed aggregate precast panels.

The theme of replacing civic buildings during this period continued with the Coronado Police Station in 1956. The original station was built in 1923 when the population of the City was 2,500 and only required three officers. In April 1955, the State of California approved plans for the new Coronado police station and jail to be located on the same site as the old building, at the corner of Orange Avenue and Sixth Street, 578 Orange Avenue. Architect Robert Bradt designed the new station, which was dedicated on February 18, 1956, with the police department providing tours of the modern facility.

Multiple churches were established in Coronado prior to World War II, the majority of which were located either just north of the Hotel Del Coronado or around the Public Library and Spreckels Park.

The 1950s and 1960s saw a resurgence of new churches spreading further north along Orange Avenue and C Avenue. In 1951, a new church was organized under the name Coronado Baptist Church (Southern) and began meeting in the Veterans of Foreign Wars building at the corner of Sixth Street and Orange Avenue. In July 1958, the church purchased the property at 111 Orange Avenue for the construction of a new church and a child daycare center. The Resurrection Lutheran Church, formerly known as Coronado Lutheran Church, also held services at the Veterans of Foreign Wars building before constructing a new church at 471 Orange Avenue in 1957. The First Baptist Church also constructed a new sanctuary in January 1954, located at 445 C Avenue, which tripled the church’s membership. Established churches also decided to construct new buildings in the 1950s and 1960s, deeming their old structures as ineffective for hosting their growing congregations. Saint Paul’s United Methodist Church’s original building was moved in 1917 to allow for the expansion of the high school, and it was later expanded in 1949 with a kitchen and meeting space. In the early 1960s, the congregation decided to build a new sanctuary designed by Hal Whittemore and Associates of Pacific Palisades with design nods to an inverted ship as a symbol of “The Church of the Voyager” completed in 1963.

On April 1, 1956, dredging for Coronado’s third golf course, the Coronado Municipal Golf Course, began with 1,750,000 cubic yards of bay bottom pumped to create the 137-acre 18-hole course. The Coronado Municipal Golf Course was the first time Coronado had an 18-hole golf course since World War II, the previous one, built by the Hotel del Coronado on the western side of the City was taken over in part by the Navy and the remainder of the area was developed for the homes at Country Club Estates. The new course improved the boating potential for Glorietta Bay, a sheltered small boat harbor. The golf course’s designer-architect was Jack Daray (1881-1958). Ninety percent of the new golf course was constructed from fill taken from the bottom of Glorietta Bay. The course opened on December 19, 1957, 10 years later in March 1967 the front nine holes were redesigned to provide a right-of-way for the newly built San Diego-Coronado Bridge. To compensate for the land taken from the front nine holes an adjacent 20-acre section of the San Diego Bay was filled. The course stretched Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 343

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Cultural Resources
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

to 6,784 yards long and the contract to rebuild the front nine holes was awarded to the Moulder Brothers of Glendale.

Along with the Coronado Municipal Golf Course, several community parks were developed during this period including I Avenue Park (1949), Cronan Park (1957), and Sunset Park (1960). I Avenue Park was developed as a result of the I Avenue extension between First Street and San Diego Bay in 1949.

Cronan Park, located at the intersection of Sixth Street, Pomona Avenue, and Margarita Avenue on a small triangle of land was established and named on September 17, 1957. The park’s name came from William Cronon, a Medal of Honor recipient for heroism in the USS Bennington disaster of 1905.

Sunset Park, commonly referred to as “parcel 2” was established in 1960 as a rectangular in shape open lot park on Ocean Boulevard and Ocean Drive adjacent to NASN’s Gate #5.

Commercial Development (1946-1963)
By 1941, the majority of Orange Avenue, Coronado’s major commercial corridor, had been developed with restaurants, hotels, shops, apartments, automotive businesses, and bungalow courts. In 1920, the City’s first zoning law had been implemented but by the end of World War II, the population rose so dramatically that an updated General Plan needed to be put into place. Early versions of the General Plan were not advertised until 1969 with various elements of the plan including land use, circulation, population, park, recreation, and open space, public services, public buildings, and housing. The first of the elements, land use, was divided into residential development and commercial development, with commercial development being further separated into Neighborhood Convenience Centers, Retail and Office, Hotel/Motel, Commercial Recreation, and Commercial Service. Neighborhood Convenience Centers were located in the proposed location of the Coronado Towers on the Silver Strand and on Orange Avenue between First and Second streets to provide personal service facilities within a short distance of residences. The Retail and Office category was confined to one specific area in the City’s downtown because of the area’s limited commercial development potential and because of the desire to preclude development of Orange Avenue as a strip commercial street. Similarly, other categories such as Hotel/Motel, Recreation, and Commercial Service were designated to more specific areas in the City that best accommodated their unique requirements.

In 1969 after the construction of the San Diego-Coronado Bridge, the increase of land value resulted in many commercial properties either being replaced with new and larger buildings or large-scale renovations including replacement of older facades for a more updated style. Examples include 1001 Orange Avenue, which was once a small wood-frame hardware and paint store in an Italianate style called Troxel’s Hardware. In the early 1960s, the building was sold and replaced with a larger commercial structure in a Streamline Moderne style and changed use to the M. J. Brown Shop. An additional example of new commercial development growing in size is the 1963 Safeway grocery store located at Orange Avenue and Ninth Street, which replaced three residential properties. g. The Recent Past (1970-2020)
After the construction of the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge in 1969, the City entered into a new phase of development that affected its residential, transportation, civic, and commercial sectors. At the start of 1970, Coronado’s population was 20,910, which was lower than its post-World War II Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 344

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Cultural Resources
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

population of 25,382. Despite the population loss, development in Coronado did not slow down, resulting in a period of growth and redevelopment. The lessons learned from the construction of high-rise apartments, the demolition and relocation of historic structures throughout the City, and the construction of buildings with designs incongruous to the existing historic architectural styles led to the growth of the City’s preservation movement. The Coronado Historical Association’s growth from 200 people to 800 people allowed the large organization to have a critical eye on the future of the City. The establishment of a Historic Resource Commission in 1986 capitalized on this trend, creating a reviewing body to designate historic properties or approve renovations to historic buildings. The City during this period strove to balance itself as a working village with many locals and a bustling center for tourism, trying to not let one aspect overshadow the other.

Residential Development (1970-2011)
Within one year of the bridge’s opening, the cost of homes rose 34 percent, and as a direct result residential development boomed. Through the lifting and moving of older homes or the construction of a second residence on the same lot, homeowners were able to capitalize on the need for high residential density. The subdivision of existing large estate homes into at least two units and the construction of more apartments and condominiums where there once were only single-family houses allowed residential density to increase as well. Upper Orange Avenue became the site for many of these newly developed multi-family residential buildings, such as 200 Orange Avenue (1980) and 333 Orange Avenue (1973), with the trend continuing into the 1990s and 2000s, including 229 Orange Avenue (1992) and 450 Orange Avenue (2011). The building at 333 Orange Avenue, known as the Commodore Apartments, featured a design that contrasted with the historic architecture of the City and highlighted the need for a design code.

Developers saw this period as an opportunity to continue increasing density through the construction and expansion of several housing developments, including Coronado Cays, the Oakwood Garden Apartments, Coronado Shores, and the Landing. The planned development located along the Silver Stand began in 1968 with the construction of Jamaica Village, the first residential phase of the project, and the Green Turtle Cay lot, intended for custom home construction by the Signal Companies of Los Angeles. When finished the Coronado Cays totaled approximately 1,500 residential units on 370 acres, 18 acres of which were given to the City for schools, parks, and other civic uses. Development of the Coronado Cays continued into the 1990s with the construction of more residences in 10 villages, construction of the Loews Hotel in 1991, and the expansion of the Coronado Cays Yacht Club in 1994.

In 1970, a $10 million 549-unit apartment complex opened under the name Oakwood Garden Apartments, which at the time of construction was the largest apartment community in Coronado.

The complex’s concept incorporated a mix of residential living in a country club environment, with tree-lined walkways, landscaped courtyards, and a $750,000 recreational facility. The apartment complex’s 14.6-acre site was located at 1515 Second Street, the former location of the old Navy housing complex northwest of the new bridge. In 2015, the Oakwood Garden Apartments were renovated and renamed the Broadstone Coronado on the Bay Apartments.

The City’s second large-scale residential community developed during this period was the Coronado Shores apartments, which had a profound effect on the community’s view on high-rise buildings and zoning laws. The ten 15-story condominium towers were located on the historic site of Tent City.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 345

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Cultural Resources
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

They were designed by architects Krisel and Shapiro and built by contractor M. H. Golden Company.

In June 1971, the first tower “Cabrillo” opened with the other nine towers constructed over the next seven years, the final one completed in early 1978. Each tower contained 148 condominium apartment units, totaling 1,262 between the ten buildings.

Post-1972 development had a differing appearance than that of the Coronado Shores apartments.

One example is The Landing condominiums, constructed in 1988, located on the 7.5-acre site of the ferry landing where Orange Avenue meets San Diego Bay. The project designers considered the three building’s height and design to ensure that view corridors and public access to the bay were preserved, as well as including architectural elements such as “white stucco exteriors, sloping red roofs, dormers, handrails, and natural wood moldings”. After the establishment of the Historic Resource Commission in 1986, Coronado homeowners began to embrace the California Mills Act adopted in Coronado in 2000 and approved Proposition J in 2006, both of which were different means to accomplish the same goal of protecting the City’s heritage. The Mills Act provided historic property owners economic incentives through tax breaks to owners who preserved or restored their properties to meet historical guidelines. Throughout 1999 a series of meetings and workshops were held to explore historic preservation in Coronado and the adoption of Historic Resource Preservation (Mills Act) Agreements as part of the City’s Historic Preservation Benefits Program. Beginning in 2004, Coronado’s city council declared May as “National Historic Preservation Month” to highlight the City’s historic built environment and encourage the continuation of preserving its historical resources.

Civic Improvements (1971-2005)
In April 1972, for the first time, Coronado citizens elected Real Estate Broker Mac McNeely. The City decided to incorporate the playing fields into a proposed 20-acre tidelands park. Incorporated into the Tidelands Park project was a 300-room hotel, the Le Meridien. In 1997, the San Diego Unified Port District approved the transfer of the hotel lease and management from Le Meridien to Marriott, which it remains today.

After 12 years of planning starting in 1992, the City began construction of a community center, city hall, park, and boathouse, named the Glorietta Bay Project. The City Council chambers featured a number of public access points and a view of the Bay. Due to the long linear site plan, the new city hall, community center, and aquatics center ran east to west along the coastline. The completion of the Glorietta Bay Project gave the City an easily accessed and well-planned government center.

The Coronado Senior Housing Apartments, an affordable rental housing complex finished in 2008 at the former police station site at 578 Orange Avenue. Between 1971 and 1997, Coronado’s parks system expanded with the establishment of Harbor View Park (1971), Coronado Cays Park (1975), Palm Park (1976), Vista del Barco (1989), Centennial Park (1986), Glorietta Bay Park (1987), South Cays Park (1991), Grand Caribe Shoreline Park (1996), and Coronado Rotary Park (1997). Centennial Park was developed as the extension of Orange Avenue between First Street and the San Diego Bay and named in honor of Coronado turning 100 in 1986. In 1989, the City developed a Parks Master Plan that planed on developing the Coronado Cays parks in phases. Phase I included the creation of the 227,762-square-foot Central Cays Park and Phase II included the development of south Cays Park, a 393,794-square-foot park.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 346

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Cultural Resources
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

Commercial Development (1970-2020)
The area’s larger residential and recreational developments, Coronado Cays and Tidelands, developed plans for commercial developments although neither project was developed, and the majority of all commercial properties remained along Orange Avenue.

In 1994, the City sought to reverse this disappearance of small commercial industries by adding their preservation as an objective to the General Plan. Specifically, the City stated the General Plan’s Commercial Development Objective for guidance number one was, “To encourage the development of adequate high-quality commercial service and related activities to serve the daily need of the residents and tourists within Coronado”.

In 1990, a project opened called the Old Ferry Landing Development facing downtown San Diego at the northern terminus of B Avenue, consisting of 40,000 square feet of shops and restaurants. This development was the last of its kind, given the amount of available land in the City and Coronado’s strict commercial zoning ordinance. The City’s zoning map published June 10, 2004, indicated that commercial development was restricted along Orange Avenue between Adella Avenue and Eight Street, along B Avenue between Adella Avenue and Tenth Street, and a section along northern Orange Avenue between Orange Avenue and B Avenue. The commercial zone CR (Commercial Recreation) specifically included the Landing and the Broadstone apartments, formally the Oakwood Garden Apartments.

With the continuous departure of Coronado businesses, the City looked to protect local enterprises through enacting a fast-food ordinance in 1997. The ordinance intended to maintain “the village atmosphere of Coronado” and it addressed the definition and regulation of various types of restaurants, as well as related parking requirements. This regulation remains and in 2020 the City’s fast-food regulation included a limit of 10 fast-food chains citywide, no more than two in a single block, and fast-food places cannot be on the corner of any block. In 2020, Coronado had eight fastfood restaurants with a proposed Chipotle at 1360 Orange Avenue. The retention of the City’s small local business remained a priority starting in 1969 with the opening of the bridge. The City continued from his point to push forward legislation that would preserve Coronado’s unique character.

4.1.1.2 Existing Historic Resources
a. Mills Act Properties
There are currently 194 recorded Mills Act Agreements in the City of Coronado. Refer to Appendix E for a full list of properties with recorded Mills Act Agreements. b. Existing Historically Designated Properties
Described in further detail in Section 4.1.2.3.b – Local Regulations, the City has several criteria upon which determinations of historic significance are currently made. There are currently 253 designated historic resources in the City. Table 4.1-1 below shows the quantity and percentage of historically designated resources and criterion upon which the determinations were made. Properties can be designated historic based on one or more of the criteria described below.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 347

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Cultural Resources
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

Section 84.10.030 of the CMC contains Historic Resource designation criteria:

For the purposes of this chapter, a resource may be designated a historic resource by the Historic Resource Commission, and any area within the City may be designated a Historic District by the Historic Resource Commission, if it meets two or more of the criteria set forth in this section and, additionally, must be at least 75 years old or have achieved historic significance within the past 75 years:

A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s military, cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, or engineering history;
B. It is identified with a person(s) or an event(s) significant in local, state, or national history; C. It possesses distinctive characteristics of an architectural style, and has not been substantially altered;
D. It is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer, architect, artisan or landscape professional;
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); 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)
Table 4.1-1
Existing Historically Designated Properties
Criterion Quantity Percentage of Total
A, B 21 8.3%
A, B, C 27 10.7%
A, B, C, D 61 24.1%
A, B, C, D, E 7 2.8%
A, B, C, E 4 1.6%
A, B, D 3 1.2%
A, C 29 11.5%
A, C, D 27 10.7%
B, C 14 5.5%
B, C, D 18 7.1%
B, D 1 0.4%
C 1 0.4%
C, D 40 15.8%
TOTAL 253 100%
Note: Totals may vary due to independent rounding.

Source: Appendix E.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 348

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Cultural Resources
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

4.1.2 Regulatory Framework

4.1.2.1 Federal
a. National Register of Historic Places
Federal criteria are those used to determine eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The NRHP was established by the National Historic Preservation Act enacted in 1966 and is the official lists of sites, buildings, structures, districts and objects significant in American History, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture. The NRHP criteria state that the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and:

A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns in our history;
B. Are associated with the lives of persons important in our past; C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values; or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Certain properties are usually not considered for eligibility for the NRHP. These include ordinary cemeteries, birthplaces or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved or reconstructed, properties primarily commemorative in nature or properties that have become significant within the last 50 years. These types of properties can qualify if they are an integral part of a district that does meet the criteria, or if they fall within certain specific categories relating to architecture, or association with historically significant people or events (California State Parks 2024).

4.1.2.2 State
a. California Register of Historic Resources
Similar to the NRHP, the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) program established in 1992, encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance; identifies resources for planning purposes; determines eligibility of state historic grant funding; and provides certain protections under CEQA. State criteria are those listed in CEQA and used to determine whether an historic resource qualifies for the CRHR.

A resource may be listed in the CRHR if it is significant at the federal, state, or local level under one of more of the four criteria listed below.

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history and cultural heritage of California or the U.S.

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important to the nation or to California’s past.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 349

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Cultural Resources
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history of the state or nation.

CEQA Sections 15064.5 and 21083.2(g) define the criteria for determining the significance of historical resources. Archaeological resources are considered “historical resources” for the purposes of CEQA.

Since resources that are not listed or determined eligible for the state or local registers may still be historically significant, their significance shall be determined if they are affected by a project. The significance of a historical resource under Criterion 4 rests on its ability to address important research questions.
b. California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA was amended in 1992 to define “historical resources” as a resource listed in or determined eligible for listing on the California Register, a resource included in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in a historical resource survey that meets certain requirements, and any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be significant. Some resources that do not meet these criteria may still be historically significant for the purposes of CEQA. The CEQA thresholds relating to significance of a historic resource are discussed in Section 4.1.5.

4.1.2.3 Local
a. City of Coronado General Plan
The City’s General Plan contains the following policies which pertain to the preservation of historic resources:
• Land Use Element (City of Coronado 1986) Goal 5: That preservation of historic structures and neighborhoods should be encouraged.
• Housing Element (City of Coronado 2013) Goal 4: To encourage the conservation and maintenance of its housing stock, neighborhoods, and history. o Policy 4.4: Provide incentives to rehabilitate and preserve historic housing. o Policy 4.5: Educate the public concerning the community’s history and historic structures.
b. City of Coronado Municipal Code
Title 84 – Historic Resource Code
Title 84 of the CMC contains the City’s Historic Resource Code, the subject of this project. The purpose of the Historic Resource Code is to:

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 350

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Cultural Resources
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

A. Safeguard the heritage of the City and enhance its visual character by providing for the preservation of historic resources representing significant elements of its history; B. Encourage public knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the City’s past as reflected in such historic resources;
C. Foster civic and neighborhood pride in the beauty and noble accomplishments of its past; D. Preserve and enhance the City’s historical attractions to residents, tourists, and visitors and serve as a support and stimulus to business and industry; E. Preserve diverse and harmonious architectural styles and design preferences reflecting phases of the City’s history;
F. Enhance property values and increase economic and financial benefits to the City and its residents and property owners through an active historic recognition and benefits program; G. Identify as early as possible and resolve conflicts between the preservation of cultural resources and alternative land uses; and
H. Enable owners and lessees of such resources to apply for all financing, tax, land use, and code application benefits permitted by law for such designated historic resources.

Section 84.10.030 of the CMC (City of Coronado 2023) contains Historic Resource designation criteria:

For the purposes of this chapter, a resource may be designated a historic resource by the Historic Resource Commission, and any area within the City may be designated a Historic District by the Historic Resource Commission, if it meets two or more of the criteria set forth in this section and, additionally, must be at least 75 years old or have achieved historic significance within the past 75 years:

A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s military, cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, or engineering history;
B. It is identified with a person(s) or an event(s) significant in local, state, or national history; C. It possesses distinctive characteristics of an architectural style, and has not been substantially altered;
D. It is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer, architect, artisan or landscape professional;
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); 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)
c. Historic Property Preservation Agreement
Under the Mills Act, property owners may enter into a ‘Historic Property Preservation Agreement’ with the City to preserve, maintain, and, if necessary, restore and/or rehabilitate a qualified historic structure. In return for the preservation and maintenance of the historic structure, the property owner is eligible for property tax relief. The County tax assessor is responsible for administering the valuation terms of the Agreement.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 351

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Cultural Resources
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

4.1.3 Significance Determination Thresholds
The thresholds used to evaluate impacts to cultural (historic) resources is based on applicable criteria in the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Sections 15000-15387), Appendix G. As concluded in the Initial Study prepared for the project (see Appendix A), there would be “No Impact” associated with archeological resources and disturbance of human remains (see also Chapter 5, Effects Found Not to be Significant). Therefore, this section focuses on the following issue question from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines which states that impacts related to historic resources would be significant if the project would:
1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.4
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5b states that a project may have a significant effect on the environment when a project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource. A substantial adverse change is defined as “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1).

Impairment of an historical resource is further explained to include the following:

A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or C) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2).

4.1.4 Methodology
The Historic Property Survey (see Appendix C) included a reconnaissance-level historic resources survey and a framework for future property evaluations. Research for the Historic Property Survey was gathered from both primary and secondary sources held at a variety of local, regional, state, national, and online repositories. Primary sources consulted included historical maps, historic aerial photographs, Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps, measured architectural drawings, census data, contemporary historical accounts, building permits, and historical photographs. Secondary sources included books, newspaper articles, planning documents, historical reports, surrounding area historic contexts, and online repositories.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 352

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Cultural Resources
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

Desktop surveys were conducted prior to in-person field surveys. The survey team used the parcel information in the database to create a Survey Findings Matrix of properties that would be evaluated during the field survey. A reconnaissance-level field survey was then conducted to review all properties identified through the parcel data research. Finally, all properties identified as potentially eligible for City designation under Criterion C through survey evaluation (Tier 1 properties) were recorded for future reference by the City. Properties were recorded using iPad field forms designed to replicate the information required on State of California DPR forms.

The Historic Property Survey also used historical accounts, information, important places, and photographs that were provided by the public on the Coronado’s Tell Your Coronado Story portal and during Public Meetings held in 2019.

4.1.5 Historical Resources

4.1.5.1 Impact Analysis
The project consists of an amendment to Title 84 of the CMC to exclude Tier 3 properties identified in the Historic Property Survey from historical review requirements.

The Historic Property Survey was used to inform the ordinance amendments by evaluating potential historic resources throughout the City as previously described in Section 3.4 of this EIR. The survey defined three tiers relative to whether a property may meet CMC Section 84.10.030, Criterion C significance related to original architectural appearance.

The three tiers are identified as follows:
• Tier 1 - Unaltered or minimally altered from historic condition and potentially eligible for City designation under Criterion C.
• Tier 2 - Recognizable as a particular architectural style but based on observation and/or construction history are more than “unaltered or minimally altered” from historic condition and do not appear to be eligible for historic designation under Criterion C. • Tier 3 - Substantially altered properties that retain little to no elements of a particular architectural style and, based on observation and/or construction history, are not eligible for historic designation under Criterion C
As a result of the Historic Property Survey, the project would narrow down those properties eligible as “potentially historic” to include properties identified as Tier 1 and 2 which are at least 75 years old.

Tier 1 properties are those that were identified as either being unaltered or minimally altered from their historic condition and therefore retain historic integrity. Tier 2 are those identified as having some loss of integrity but did retain enough distinctive characteristics to be recognizable as an architectural style. Tier 3 properties exhibit obvious substantial alterations such that they display little to no connection to the time in which they were originally constructed and as a result, are unlikely to retain enough integrity to be associated with any other City designation criteria.

With the approval of the project, the City would require a determination of historic significance application to be filed in association with any future project that includes demolition of original Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 353

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Cultural Resources
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

features visible from the street right-of-way of any structure that is 75 or more years old and not identified as a Tier 3 property in the Historic Property Survey. Tier 3 structures would be excluded from further historic review.

The Historic Property Survey assessed properties based only on their architectural characteristics, specifically, Criterion C of the CMC. However, under the existing regulations, there are six criteria that are to be evaluated to determine if a resource should be designated a historic resource. As detailed in CMC Section 84.10.030, if a resource meets two or more of the criteria below and is at least 75 years old or achieved historic significance within the last 75 years, it may be designated as historic:

A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s military, cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, or engineering history;
B. It is identified with a person(s) or an event(s) significant in local, state or national history; C. It possesses distinctive characteristics of an architectural style, and has not been substantially altered;
D. It is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer, architect, artisan or landscape professional;
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); 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).

Although 90.21 percent of the City’s Historic Resource determinations have relied on Criterion C, it is possible that there could be resources that would qualify for a historic designation based on Criteria A, B or D which focus on significance relative to people, places, and/or events. Due to the scope of the historic survey, it was not possible to reasonably evaluate the significance of every structure and resource within the City against those criteria due to those criteria involving substantial site specific research into building records and historic documents.

While it is unlikely that Tier 3 properties would be associated with any other City designation criteria, some Tier 3 properties could be potentially historically significant pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5a Criterion 3a – historical resources associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage, and 3b – historical resources that are associated with the lives of persons important in our past. These correspond with City CMC Criterion A, B, and D.

With approval of the project, it is possible that potentially historic resources pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5a Criterion 3a and Criterion 3b would be excluded from historic review due to the exclusion of Tier 3 properties from historical review requirements.

The project does not propose any development. However, as development continues throughout the City, future projects may propose alterations to or demolition of properties identified as Tier 3, 1 Since circulation of the Notice of Preparation this number has been refined and reflected in the current analysis.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 354

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Cultural Resources
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

which would not require further historic review. If these properties would have qualified as a historic resource under the City’s additional criteria, loss of a historic resource would result. Therefore, implementation of the project could result in the loss of historic resources.

4.1.5.2 Significance of Impacts
Direct impacts to historical resources would be significant due to the potential loss of resources that may qualify as historic due to their association with people, places, or events.

Indirect impacts would not be anticipated as the loss of potentially historic Tier 3 resources would not contribute architecturally to other surrounding resources or districts.

4.1.5.3 Mitigation
Due to the regulatory nature of the project, no feasible mitigation has been identified.

4.1.5.4 Significance After Mitigation
Impacts to historical resources within the project area would be significant and unavoidable.

4.1.6 Cumulative Analysis
The study area for the assessment of cumulative impacts to cultural resources includes the entirety of the City because the project consists of an amendment to the City’s Historic Resource Code.

Amendments to the Historic Resource Code include the exclusion of Tier 3 properties from required historic review. As discussed in Section 4.1.5.1, this could result in a net loss of historic resources throughout the City; therefore, cumulative impacts to historic resources would be significant. No feasible mitigation has been identified.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 355

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.2 Land Use and Planning
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

4.2 Land Use and Planning
This section analyzes potentially significant impacts related to land use and planning that could result from implementation of Amendments to the City of Coronado (City) Historic Preservation Program (project). This section is based on a review of applicable plan, policies, and ordinances affecting environmental resources including the City’s General Plan and Local Coastal Program.

4.2.1 Existing Conditions

4.2.1.1 Existing Land Uses
Land use in the City is predominantly residential, with a commercial core concentrated along Orange Avenue. Additionally, there is a substantial military presence in the City, including Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) and the U.S. Navy Amphibious Base. There are also several private and public recreation facilities including golf courses and public parks such as Tidelands Park, Coronado Municipal Golf Course, and various beaches. As shown in Table 2-2, the majority of properties included in the Historic Property Survey are located in residential zones (68.35 percent are in the Single-Family Detached zone, 11.19 percent are in the Single-Family Multiple-Units zone, and 11.98 percent are in the Multi-Family Residential zone).

4.2.2 Regulatory Framework

4.2.2.1 State
a. California Coastal Act
Under Section 30116 of the California Coastal Act (CCA), “archaeological sites referenced in the California Coastline and Recreation Plan or as defined by the State Historic Preservation Officer” are classified as “sensitive coastal resource areas.”
Additionally, per Section 30344(b)(2) of the CCA, the Coastal Commission was required to prepare an inventory of historic resources. The California Coastal Commission published the California Coastal Resource Guide in 1987 which contains this inventory, including a number of natural and manmade sites in the City including the Coronado City Beach, Coronado Shores Beach, Glorietta Bay Marina, Glorietta Bay Park, NASNI, Silver Strand State Beach, and the Hotel del Coronado (California Coastal Commission 1987).
b. California Register of Historical Resources
With the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act, states were required to have a historic preservation office and complete an inventory of important sites. The California Office of Historic Preservation administers federally and state mandated historic preservation programs to further the identification, evaluation, registration, and protection of California’s irreplaceable resources. The Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 356

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.2 Land Use and Planning
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

State Historical Resources Commission designed the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) for use by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify, evaluate, register and protect California's historical resources. The CRHR is the authoritative guide to the state's significant historical and archeological resources.

The CRHR program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archeological and cultural significance, identifies historical resources for state and local planning purposes, determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding and affords certain protections under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

There are three resources in the City listed on the CRHR: the First Military Flying School in America, the Heilman Villas, and the Hotel del Coronado (California State Parks 2024).

4.2.2.2 Local
a. Local Coastal Program
The CCA requires each coastal city to adopt a Local Coastal Program (LCP) to protect coastal resources and to manage coastal development. The LCP is a basic planning tool to guide development in the Coastal Zone. While each LCP reflects unique characteristics of individual local coastal communities, regional and state interests and concerns must also be addressed in conformity with CCA goals and policies.

Coastal areas within the City that are within the Coastal Zone are shown in Figure 4.2-1. In compliance with the CCA, the City has adopted and implemented a LCP and Land Use Plan. The LCP is incorporated into the General Plan within the Local Coastal Element (Chapter P) and supporting ordinances are found in the Coronado Municipal Code (CMC). The goals of the LCP are to protect, maintain, and enhance the Coastal Zone environment; ensure balanced utilization and conservation; maximize public access to and along the coast; prioritize coastal-dependent and related development; and encourage coordinated state and local initiatives to implement beneficial programs and other educational uses (City of Coronado 1980).

The following are the LCP policies relevant to historic resources:
• Policy (E)(5): Require that shoreline structures be planned and constructed so that they […] do not result in a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by activity including […] objects of historic significance. • Policy (H)(6): Officially encourage and recognize private efforts to designate, rehabilitate, preserve and make viable, historic and architecturally significant structures in the community. • Policy (H)(7): Designate and encourage the rehabilitation, preservation and viability of the community’s historic and architecturally significant structures.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 357
FIGURE 4.2-1
Local Coastal Program Areas in the City
M:\JOBS5\9641.3\env\graphics\PEIR\fig4.2-1_PEIR.afdesign 07/18/24 fmm Map Source: Sandag
Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 358

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.2 Land Use and Planning
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

The following actions are adopted goals of the City that are applicable to historic resources:
• H6: That the City encourage civic groups in the development of programs and proposals that would raise community awareness of the City’s historic and architecturally significant structures. The City adopted a Historic Preservation Program in 2000. b. City of Coronado General Plan
Historic Preservation Element
The Historic Preservation Element (City of Coronado 1999) guides the recognition and preservation of the cultural and historical resources that enhance the City’s community character. The City’s Historic Preservation Element identifies the goals and objectives of its Historic Preservation Program, how it can be encouraged and supported, the process which should be used to designate structures, sites, parks, and other resources as historic, and the regulations and benefits for resources which have been designated historic.

The Historic Preservation Element contains the following goals, objectives, and policies relevant to the project:
(A) Inventory of Designated Historic Resources
Objective: Establish and maintain an inventory of important historic resources and their settings and retain information contributing to their understanding and preservation. • Policy 1: Maintain an inventory of those resources that have been designated as “historic resources” through the Federal, State or City designation process. • Policy 2: Identify and recognize the importance of sources of information on Coronado’s architectural, economic, cultural and social history.
• Policy 3: Protect information of importance, which provides a historical understanding of Coronado’s built environment and sites.
(B) Private Historic Resources
Objective: Encourage the designation, protection and preservation of privately owned historic resources.
• Policy 1: Encourage the preservation of historically important buildings and sites recognized by the Federal, State and City programs.
• Policy 2: Encourage the maintenance of buildings and sites that have been designated resources through Federal, State and City programs.
• Policy 3: Encourage rehabilitation and continue to use or support adaptive reuse of historic buildings.
(D) Design of Alterations and New Construction
Objective: Ensure that changes in the City’s urban form respect the character and cultural heritage of the City.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 359

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.2 Land Use and Planning
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

(E) Government Functions
Objective: Encourage historic preservation through federal, state and local policies and programs. • Policy 2: Assure that municipal regulatory policies are conducive to preservation. • Policy 3: Develop and implement programs that encourage preservation activities in the City.

Land Use Element
The Land Use Element (City of Coronado 1986a) contains the following goal which pertains to historic resources:

Goal 5: That preservation of historic structures and neighborhoods should be encouraged.

Housing Element
The Housing Element (City of Coronado 2013) contains the following policies which pertain to historic resources:
• Policy 4.4: Provide incentives to rehabilitate and preserve historic housing. • Policy 4.5: Educate the public concerning the community’s history and historic structures. • Policy 5.2: Expedite project review of residential developments with an affordable, handicapped-accessible, elderly, or historic preservation component.

Community Design Element
The Community Design Element (City of Coronado 1986b) contains the following goal which pertains to historic resources:

Goal 4: To encourage preservation of the City’s historic and architecturally significant structures.

Conservation Element
Objective B: The protection and conservation of cultural resources shall be encouraged and supported by the City. […] The city shall also support the voluntary designation of historical structures, with approval from the Historical Resources Commission. In addition, preservation, documentation, or recovery of historical, archeological, or paleontological resources shall be required if such resources are threatened by new development. CEQA also provides protection for these resources by regulating the preservation of cultural resources.
c. City of Coronado Municipal Code
There are multiple sections of the CMC (City of Coronado 2023) containing regulations pertaining to historical resources, and therefore applicable to the project.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 360

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.2 Land Use and Planning
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

Section 68.20.010 defines a “Historic Structure” to mean any structure that is:

1. Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register;

2. Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the historical significance of a registered Historic District or a district preliminarily determined by the Secretary to qualify as a registered Historic District;

3. Individually listed on a State Inventory of Historic Places in states with historic preservation programs which have been approved by the Secretary of Interior; or

4. Individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities with historic preservation programs that have been certified either by an approved State program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior or directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states with approved programs.

CMC Title 84 contains the City’s Historic Resource Code which is the subject of this project. Refer to Section 4.1.2.3(b) for a discussion of this section of the CMC.

The City has adopted the California Historic Building Code, 2022 Edition, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 8 in CMC Title 70.80. This section of the CMC contains building code standards which apply to historic buildings.

CMC Title 86.76 contains provisions indicating when a coastal permit is required and the criteria required for its approval. Specifically, Section 86.76.010(C)(4) contains the following provision: In order for an improvement or activity requiring a coastal permit under this chapter to qualify for such a permit, the improvement or activity must be designed and constructed […] to not result in a substantial or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the coastal permit requiring activity including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noises and objects of historic or aesthetic significance [.]

4.2.3 Significance Determination Thresholds
The CEQA Guidelines Appendix G requires evaluation of whether a project would physically divide a community and whether there would be impacts due to conflicts with land use plans, policies, or regulations. As concluded in the Initial Study prepared for the project (see Appendix A), there would be “No Impact” associated with the division of an existing community (see also Chapter 5, Effects Found Not to be Significant). Therefore, this section focuses on the following issue question from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines which states that impacts related to land use would be significant if the project would:

1. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 361

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.2 Land Use and Planning
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

4.2.4 Methodology
The land use analysis in this section evaluates the potential for the project to cause an inconsistency with applicable plans and policies or introduce incompatible land uses relative to existing surrounding land uses, which could result in environmental impacts. Specifically, the project was evaluated against the goals, policies, and standards of the relevant plans to determine whether land use inconsistencies would result, and whether those inconsistencies would create an environmental impact.

4.2.5 Land UseConflicts with Plans and Policies

4.2.5.1 Impact Analysis
The project would amend the Historic Resource Code (Title 84 of the CMC) to eliminate Tier 3 properties from further historic review. While the Tier 3 properties do not retain any historic architectural significance, some properties identified as Tier 3 could qualify as historic due to their association with people, places, or events (Criterion A and B of CMC 84.10.030). Because these properties would not be reviewed for any additional historic criteria, the removal of these properties from the requirement for historic review could result in a significant impact to historic resources.

Eliminating Tier 3 properties from further historic review could conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, specifically related to historic resources. A number of General Plan policies and LCP policies have been identified that serve to preserve historic resources. These policies are cited in Table 4.2-1 below. For each policy, a discussion of project consistency with the policy is provided. As detailed in Table 4.2-1, the project would not conflict with most policies because the amendments to the CMC would not deter or discourage preservation of historic or architecturally significant structures. Individual residents and property owners could continue to pursue historic designation and the City would continue to encourage preservation of historic structures. However, because the proposed amendments to the CMC could result in certain potentially historic resources not being required to undergo historic review, these potentially historic resources could be lost. Specifically, the Historic Preservation Element, (E) Government Functions, Policy 2 states, “Assure that municipal regulatory policies are conductive to preservation.” While the proposed amendments would still ensure preservation of most potentially historic structures and all architecturally potentially significant historic structures, certain resources that may be historically significant due to their association with significant people, places, or events would not require historic review and, therefore, could be impacted. Therefore, eliminating Tier 3 properties from further historic review would conflict with the Historic Preservation Element, (E) Government Functions, Policy 2, which was adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, specifically related to historic resources.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 362

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.2 Land Use and Planning
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

Table 4.2-1
Policies Pertaining to Historic Resources
Policy Consistency Analysis
City of Coronado General Plan
Historic Preservation Element
(B) Private Historic Resources
Objective: Encourage the designation, protection and
preservation of privately owned historic resources.

Policy 1: Encourage the preservation of historically
important buildings and sites recognized by the
Federal, State and City programs.

Policy 2: Encourage the maintenance of buildings and
sites that have been designated resources through
Federal, State and City programs.

Policy 3: Encourage rehabilitation and continue to use
or support adaptive reuse of historic buildings.
(D) Design of Alterations and New Construction
Objective: Ensure that changes in the City’s urban
form respect the character and cultural heritage of the City.
(E) Government Functions
Objective: Encourage historic preservation through
federal, state and local policies and programs.

Policy 2: Assure that municipal regulatory policies are conducive to preservation.

Policy 3: Develop and implement programs that
encourage preservation activities in the City.

Consistent: Proposed changes to the Coronado Municipal
Code (CMC) would not prohibit or deter future residents from seeking designation, protection, or preservation of privately owned historic resources.

The City could continue to encourage preservation of
historically important buildings and sites, encourage
maintenance of designated resources, and rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of historic buildings.

Consistent: The proposed amendments to the CMC would
not affect the requirement for design review which regulates the City’s urban form.

Consistent: The project would be consistent with the
objective and Policy 3 of encouraging historic preservation in the City because the proposed amendments to the CMC
would not deter or discourage preservation of historic
structures. The City continues to encourage preservation of historic structures.

Inconsistent: The project would be inconsistent with Policy 2 because the City would amend their regulatory code to
eliminate historic review for certain structures that do not have architectural significance. While most of these
properties are not likely historically significant, there is a possibility that Tier 3 properties could qualify as historic due to it meeting other criteria for significance.

Land Use Element
Goal 5: That preservation of historic structures and
neighborhoods should be encouraged.

Consistent: The proposed amendments to the CMC would
not deter or discourage preservation of historic structures.

The City continues to encourage preservation of historic structures.

Community Design Element
Goal 4: To encourage preservation of the City’s
historic and architecturally significant structures.

Consistent: The proposed amendments to the CMC would
not deter or discourage preservation of historic and
architecturally significant structures. No architecturally significant structures would be affected by the proposed amendments to the CMC. The City continues to encourage
preservation of historic structures.

Conservation Element
Objective B: The protection and conservation of
cultural resources shall be encouraged and supported
by the City. […] The city shall also support the
voluntary designation of historical structures, with
approval from the Historical Resources Commission.

In addition, preservation, documentation, or recovery
of historical, archeological, or paleontological
resources shall be required if such resources are
threatened by new development. The California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) also provides
protection for these resources by regulating the
preservation of cultural resources.

Consistent: The proposed amendments to the CMC would
not deter or discourage preservation of historic and
architecturally significant structures. The City continues to encourage preservation of historic structures.

Archaeological and paleontological resources would not be affected by the proposed amendments to the CMC.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 363

4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.2 Land Use and Planning
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

Table 4.2-1
Policies Pertaining to Historic Resources
Policy Consistency Analysis
City of Coronado Local Coastal Program
Section II: Adopted Policies
Policy (H)(6): Officially encourage and recognize
private efforts to designate, rehabilitate, preserve and make viable, historic and architecturally significant
structures in the community.

Policy (H)(7): Designate and encourage the
rehabilitation, preservation and viability of the
community’s historic and architecturally significant
structures.

Consistent: The project would not change the preservation of, or historic review process related to properties identified as Tiers 1 and 2. Tiers 1 and 2 represent the City’s most architecturally significant properties. Notwithstanding the identification of Tier 3 properties, property owners are able to request historic review and designation of their properties following the existing City processes.

4.2.5.2 Significance of Impacts
The project would result in the removal of Tier 3 properties from further historic review which would weaken regulatory protections for historic resources in the City, in conflict with the Historic Preservation Element, (E) Government Functions, Policy 2. This conflict with the General Plan Historic Preservation policy adopted for the purpose of protecting historic resources would be significant.

4.2.5.3 Mitigation
No feasible mitigation has been identified.

4.2.5.4 Significance After Mitigation
Impacts to land use plans and policies would be significant and unavoidable.

4.2.6 Cumulative Analysis
Cumulative impacts to historic resources may occur as a result of the proposed CMC amendments.

Due to the changes being regulatory in nature, they would affect all future historic reviews for Tier 3 properties. If destruction of potentially historic properties occurs over time, there could be a cumulative loss of historic information and knowledge pertaining to potentially historic resources associated with important people, places, or events. Cumulative impacts would be significant.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 364

5.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

Chapter 5.0
Effects Found Not to be Significant
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, this section identifies the environmental issue areas that were determined during the Initial Study prepared for this project (see Appendix A) to result in a less than significant or no impact. Refer to Appendix A for a full analysis of these topic areas. The following issues were determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact as documented in the Initial Study and are not discussed further in this environmental impact report:
• Aesthetics (Scenic Vistas; Scenic Resources; Visual Character; Light or Glare) • Agricultural and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources (Archaeological Resources; Human Remains) • Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning (Division of an Existing Community) • Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 365

6.0 Growth Inducement
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

Chapter 6.0
Growth Inducement
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluate the “growth-inducing” effects of a proposed project. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires that an EIR:

Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (for example, a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant might allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population might tax existing community services facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also discuss the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.

A project can directly or indirectly induce growth. Construction of new housing would directly induce population growth. However, if a project creates substantial new permanent employment opportunities, it could indirectly induce growth by stimulating the need for additional housing and services to support the new employment demand. It could also indirectly induce growth by removing infrastructure limitations or regulatory constraints on a required public service, such as roads or water service. The following discussion evaluates the growth inducing effects of the City’s proposed amendments to the Historic Resource Code.

6.1 Population and Housing Growth
The Amendments to the City of Coronado (City) Historic Preservation Program (project) does not propose the construction of new housing or other development; rather it would amend the Coronado Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 84.10, Historic Resource Code to remove Tier 3 properties from required historic review, as described in Section 3.0 of this Program EIR (PEIR). Implementation of the project would not induce direct population and housing growth in the City because the project does not propose any new development, nor does it change existing zoning or land use designations to allow for additional development. See also Section XIV of the Initial Study included in Appendix A.

6.2 Removal of an Impediment to Growth
The lack of adequate infrastructure, including roads, water, and sewer service and police and fire protection, are typically considered impediments to growth, since growth is either typically prohibited in such areas or development cannot feasibly occur where such infrastructure is not Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 366

6.0 Growth Inducement
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

present. The project does not propose the construction or expansion of new housing, services, or other infrastructure development; it consists of an amendments to the CMC to remove Tier 3 properties from required historic review. No new development is proposed that would eliminate an impediment to growth as the project does not propose infrastructure that would allow additional growth to occur. Therefore, the project would not remove an impediment to growth.

6.3 Foster Economic or Employment Growth
The project does not propose any changes in use which could foster economic or employment growth. While the project represents a reduction in barriers to development by eliminating the requirement for historic review, the requirement for this process does not likely represent a substantial barrier to growth. However, the project would simplify the City review process for new alterations or demolition of Tier 3 properties. While unlikely, there could be a potential temporary increase in economic and employment growth in the construction and development sector if property owners seek to alter or demolish existing Tier 3 structures.

The reduction of properties required to go through historic review would also increase funding available to the City as the City currently pays for historian consultant fees associated with each historic review. This cost reduction could foster economic growth for the City as a result.

6.4 Conclusion
Overall, the project is not intended or considered to be growth inducing as it is an amendment to the CMC which serves to streamline the historic review process, and does not propose any new development or change any zoning or land use regulations which would result in growth. The project would not remove an impediment to growth, develop, or encroach on an isolated or adjacent area of open space. While there could be potential indirect economic growth or employment growth as a result of implementation of the project should property owners choose to alter or demolish Tier 3 structures, these regulatory changes are not anticipated to have a substantial effect on the decision to alter or demolish a structure. The reduction in properties required to go through historic review would increase funding available to the City due to reduced costs associated with historian consultant fees.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 367

7.0 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Effects/Irreversible Environmental Changes Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

Chapter 7.0
Significant Unavoidable Environmental Effects/
Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.2 (b) and (c) require that the significant unavoidable impacts of the project, as well as any significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from project implementation, be addressed in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

7.1 Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be
Avoided if the Project Is Implemented
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 (b) any significant unavoidable impacts of a project, including those impacts that can be mitigated but not reduced to below a level of significance despite the applicant’s willingness to implement all feasible mitigation measures, must be identified in the EIR. Implementation of the amendments to the Coronado Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 84.10, Historic Resource Code would result in significant, unavoidable direct and cumulative impacts associated with historic resources and land use plan and policy consistency. Chapter 4.0 of this Program EIR (PEIR) provides more detail about the nature and extent of these impacts related to the project.

The proposed amendments to the CMC are proposed notwithstanding other requirements contained in the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines including CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

Due to the proposed change in how the City would conduct historic reviews and the fact that the regulatory changes are needed to eliminate unnecessary and costly review of projects unlikely to meet City historic significance criteria, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable as a result of the project (refer to Chapter 4.0 of this PEIR for further detail). No impacts were found to be reduced to below a level of significance as no feasible mitigation was identified in Chapter 4.0 of this PEIR.

7.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Result if the Project Is Implemented
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 (c) requires an evaluation of significant irreversible environmental changes. Examples of possible irreversible changes include:
• Primary impacts such as the use of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project
• Secondary impacts (such as highway improvements which provide access to a previously inaccessible area)
Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 368

7.0 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Effects/Irreversible Environmental Changes Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

7.2.1 Non-renewable Resources
Non-renewable resources generally include biological habitat, agricultural land, cultural and paleontological resources, mineral deposits, water bodies, and some energy sources.

Implementation of the project would not result in significant irreversible impacts to these resources, as detailed in Appendix A.

Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity, rather the project is a regulatory change. These changes would not result in significant irreversible impacts to biological habitat, agricultural land, archaeological or tribal cultural resources, paleontological resources, mineral deposits, water bodies, or energy resources. However, the project could result in certain potentially historic resources not being evaluated for potential significance.

This could result in a loss of historical information regarding resources that may be significant due to their association with important people, places or events.

7.2.2 Secondary Impacts
No development and no change in land use or zoning is proposed. Secondary impacts are not anticipated from environmental changes resulting from adoption of the proposed CMC amendments.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 369

8.0 Project Alternatives
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

Chapter 8.0
Project Alternatives

8.1 Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) compare the effects of a “reasonable range of alternatives” to further avoid or reduce the significant effects of a project. The CEQA Guidelines further specify that the alternatives selected should feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant effects of the project. The “range of alternatives” is governed by the “rule of reason,” which requires the EIR to set forth only those feasible alternatives necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the lead agency and to foster meaningful public participation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f]). CEQA generally defines “feasible” to mean an alternative that is capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, while also taking into account economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal factors.

As discussed in Chapter 4.0, the Amendments to the City of Coronado (City) Preservation Program (project) could result in significant, direct, and/or cumulative environmental impacts related to cultural resources (historical resources) and land use (conflicts withland use plans andor policies).

As concluded in the Initial Study prepared for the project (see Appendix A) and Chapter 5.0 of this Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), there would be a “Less than Significant Impact” associated with aesthetics (scenic vistas, scenic corridors, visual character); there would be “No Impact” associated with the following issue areas: aesthetics (light/glare), agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources (archeological resources and disturbance of human remains), energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use (physically divide an established community), mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire.

In developing the alternatives to be addressed in this section, consideration was given to their ability to meet the basic objectives of the project and eliminate or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts. As identified in Chapter 3.0, project objectives include the following:
• Streamline the Coronado Historic Preservation Program review process to provide consistency to preservation planning efforts;
• Further guide the preservation of historically significant properties; • Provide certainty to property owners regarding the known historical significance of structures.

This PEIR considers Alternative 1: No Project Alternative, Alternative 2: 50-Year Threshold Alternative, and Alternative 3: Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative. A side-by-side comparison of the potential impacts of the alternatives to the impacts identified for the project is provided in Table 8-1.

General descriptions of the characteristics of each of these alternatives, along with a discussion of Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 370

8.0 Project Alternatives
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

their ability to reduce significant environmental impacts associated with the project are provided in the following subsections.

Table 8-1
Alternatives Comparison to the Project
Environmental Issue Area Project
No Project
Alternative
50-Year Threshold
Alternative
Project Plus 50-Year
Threshold Alternative
Cultural Resources
(Historical Resources) S S < LS S <
Land Use (Conflicts with
Plans and Policies) S LS LS S <
S = significant; LS = less than significant; < = Impacts less than the project

8.2 No Project Alternative

8.2.1 Description
Under the No Project Alternative, amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program including adoption of an ordinance amending Title 84 of the Coronado Municipal Code (CMC) and adoption of a Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Inventory (Historic Property Survey) would not occur. Therefore, the City would not remove Tier 3 properties identified in the Historic Property Survey from further historic review.

8.2.2 Analysis of No Project Alternative

8.2.2.1 Cultural Resources
Issue 1: Historical Resources
As with the project, future development under the No Project Alternative has the potential to result in significant impacts to historical resources less than 75 years old that would not require historic review under the existing regulations. However, under the No Project Alternative, amendments to Title 84 of the CMC to adopt the Historic Property Survey which would eliminate Tier 3 properties from further historic review would not occur. This alternative would evaluate future development of properties identified as Tier 3 and follow the existing requirements in Title 84 of the CMC. Therefore, future development could result in significant impacts to historical resources, but to a lesser extent than the project because all Tier 3 structures would continue to be evaluated.

8.2.2.2 Land Use
Issue 1: Conflicts withLand Use Plans andor Policies
Under the No Project Alternative, amendments to Title 84 of the CMC to adopt the Historic Property Survey which would eliminate Tier 3 properties from further historic review would not occur. As the Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 371

8.0 Project Alternatives
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

No Project Alternative would not remove properties from further historic review, impacts related to compliance with plans and/or policies would be less than significant and less than the project.

8.2.3 Conclusion
As shown in Table 8-1, the No Project Alternative would result in significant impacts to historical resources but to a lesser extent than the project. Impacts related to land use plans or policies would be less than significant and less than the project. The No Project Alternative would not meet the project objectives.

8.3 50-Year Threshold Alternative

8.3.1 Description
Under the 50-Year Threshold Alternative, the City would amend Title 84 of the CMC to modify the current determination of historic significance review age threshold from 75 to 50 years to align with the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) (see 14 California Code of Regulation [CCR] 4852(d)(2)) guidelines regarding at what age a resource can be considered for listing in the CRHR,CEQA Guidelines. Under this alternative, the City would not adopt the Historic Property Survey and, therefore, would not exclude Tier 3 properties from further historic review.

8.3.2 Analysis of 50-Year Threshold Alternative

8.3.2.1 Cultural Resources
Issue 1: Historical Resources
Future development under the 50-Year Threshold Alternative would not have the potential to result in significant impacts to historical resources, as this amendment would increase the level of historic review to include structures between 50 and 75 years old. Under this alternative, the City would amend Title 84 of the CMC to modify the current determination of historic significance review age threshold from 75 to 50 years. Additional properties 50 to 75 years old would be reviewed for their potential to qualify as a historic resource and would require an in-depth historical review. Impacts of this alternative would be less than significant as the changes would increase regulatory protections for potentially historic properties.

8.3.2.2 Land Use
Issue 1: Conflicts withLand Use Plans andor Policies
Impacts related to plan and policy consistency under the 50-Year Threshold Alternative would be less than significant. Under the 50-Year Threshold Alternative, the City would amend Title 84 of the CMC to modify the current determination of historic significance review age threshold from 75 to 50 years. The 50-Year Threshold Alternative would align with CRHR (see 14 CCR 4852(d)(2)) guidelines Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 372

8.0 Project Alternatives
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

regarding at what age a resource can be considered for listing in the CRHRcurrent CEQA standards and would increase the number of properties that would be evaluated for their potential to qualify as a historic resource. Therefore, the 50-Year Threshold Alternative would not conflict with plans and/or policies adopted for the purpose of protecting historic resources and impacts would be less than significant and less than the project.

8.3.3 Conclusion
As shown in Table 8-1, the 50-Year Threshold Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to historical resources and would reduce impacts compared to the project. Impacts related to land use plans or policies would be less than significant and less than the project. The 50-Year Alternative, however, would not meet the project objectives and is therefore rejected.

8.4 Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative

8.4.1 Description
Under the Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative, the City would amend Title 84 of the CMC to modify the current determination of historic significance review age threshold from 75 to 50 years to align with CRHR (see 14 CCR 4852(d)(2)) guidelines regarding at what age a resource can be considered for listing in the CRHR,,CEQA standards and would adopt the Historic Property Survey which would exclude Tier 3 properties from further historic review.

8.4.2 Analysis of Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative

8.4.2.1 Cultural Resources
Issue 1: Historical Resources
As with the project, future development under the Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative has the potential to result in significant impacts to historical resources due to Tier 3 properties being excluded from further historic review; however, under this alternative, additional properties between 50 to 75 years of age would be required to undergo historic review. Like the project, impacts of this alternative would be significant due to the potential for some Tier 3 properties to be potentially historic under one or more of the other City criteria. However, impacts would be slightly reduced compared to the project because additional properties between 50 to 75 years would be reviewed for their potential to qualify as a historic resource and would require an in-depth historical review.

Similar to the project, future projects may propose alterations to or demolition of properties identified as Tier 3 which would not require further historic review. As these properties could qualify as a historic resource under the City’s additional criteria, a potential loss of a historic resource would result. Therefore, the Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative would result in significant impacts to historic resources, but to a lesser extent than the project.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 373

8.0 Project Alternatives
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

8.4.2.2 Land Use
Issue 1: Conflicts withLand Use Plans andor Policies
As with the project, impacts related to plan and policy consistency under the Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative would be significant. Under this alternative, additional properties between 50 and 75 years of age would be reviewed for their potential to qualify as a historic resource and Tier 3 properties would be excluded from further historic review. Similar to the project, this alternative would result in Tier 3 properties being excluded from further historic review, which would conflict with plans and/or policies adopted for the purpose of protecting historic resources. However, as additional properties between 50 and 75 years of age would require historic review, this would provide additional protections for historic resources compared to the project. Impacts related to plan and policy consistency would be significant, but slightly reduced compared to the project.

8.4.3 Conclusion
As shown in Table 8-1, the Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative would result in significant impacts to historical resources and land use plans or policies, but to a lesser extent than the project.

The 50-Year Threshold and Tier 3 Alternative would meet the project objectives.

8.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires an EIR to identify the environmentally superior alternative. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative from the other alternatives. The project itself may not be identified as the environmentally superior alternative. The environmentally superior alternative is the alternative identified as meeting most of the basic project objectives and resulting in the fewest or least severe combination of significant environmental impacts.

While t The Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative because it would incrementally reduce significant impacts associated with historic resources and land use and would meet the basic project objectives. However, while the 50-Year Threshold Alternative would reduce environmental impacts to the greatest degree, it would not meet any of the project objectives to the same degree compared to the project and is therefore rejected as a feasible alternative to the project.; therefore, it is rejected as environmentally superior. The Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative because it would incrementally reduce significant impacts associated with historic resources and land use and would meet the basic project objectives.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 374

9.0 List of Preparers
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

Chapter 9.0
List of Preparers
This document has been completed by the City of Coronado’s Community Development Department under the direction of the Director of Community Development and is based on independent analysis and determinations made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

A list of contributing City of Coronado and consultant staff members, their titles and affiliations, is provided below.

City of Coronado
• Richard Grunow, Director of Community Development
• Tricia Olsen, Senior Planner
RECON Environmental, Inc.

Environmental Analysis and Report Preparation
• Jennifer Campos, Project Director
• Lori Spar, CEQA Project Director Environmental Program Manager • Morgan Weintraub, Associate Project Manager
• Amy DeNinno, Environmental Analyst
• Stacey Higgins, Senior Production Specialist
• Jennifer Gutierrez, Production Specialist
• Frank McDermott, GIS Manager
Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 375

10.0 References Cited
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

Chapter 10.0
References Cited

1.0 Introduction
Coronado, City of
2023 Coronado Municipal Code. https://coronado.municipal.codes/. Last accessed on Aug. 9, 2024.

2.0 Environmental Setting
Coronado, City of
1994a General Plan – Conservation Element.
https://www.coronado.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1057/General-Plan-PDF?bidId=. Last accessed on Aug. 9, 2024.
1994b General Plan – Open Space Element.
https://www.coronado.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1057/General-Plan-PDF?bidId=. Last accessed on Aug. 9, 2024.
2016 Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan. https://projectcleanwater.org/san-diego-bayjurisdictional-runoff-management-plans/. Last accessed on Aug. 9, 2024.

San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
2023 Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Report.
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/sdapcd/air-quality/reports-and-plans.html. Last accessed on Aug. 9, 2024.

United States Department of Agriculture
2024 Soil Conservation Service. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/.

3.0 Project Description
Coronado, City of
2023 Coronado Municipal Code. https://coronado.municipal.codes/. Last accessed on Aug. 9, 2024.

4.1 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
California State Parks
2024 National Register of Historic Places.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/index.htm. Last accessed on Aug. 9, 2024.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 376

10.0 References Cited
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR

Coronado, City of
1986 General Plan – Land Use Element.
https://www.coronado.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1057/General-Plan-PDF?bidId=. Last accessed on Aug. 9, 2024.
2013 General Plan – Housing Element.
https://www.coronado.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1057/General-Plan-PDF?bidId=. Last accessed on Aug. 9, 2024.
2023 Coronado Municipal Code. https://coronado.municipal.codes/. Last accessed on Aug. 9, 2024.

4.2 Land Use and Planning
California Coastal Commission
1987 California Coastal Resource Guide.
https://books.google.com/books?id=84M96URkILgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ atb#v=onepage&q&f=false. Last accessed on Aug. 9, 2024.

California State Parks
2024 National Register of Historic Places.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/index.htm. Last accessed on Aug. 9, 2024.

Coronado, City of
1980 Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan.
https://www.coronado.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1060/Local-Coastal-Program-LandUse-Plan-PDF?bidId=. Last accessed on Aug. 9, 2024. 1986a General Plan – Land Use Element.
https://www.coronado.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1057/General-Plan-PDF?bidId=. Last accessed on Aug. 9, 2024.
1986b General Plan – Community Design Element.
https://www.coronado.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1057/General-Plan-PDF?bidId=. Last accessed on Aug. 9, 2024.
1999 General Plan – Historic Preservation Element.
https://www.coronado.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1057/General-Plan-PDF?bidId=. Last accessed on Aug. 9, 2024.
2013 General Plan – Housing Element.
https://www.coronado.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1057/General-Plan-PDF?bidId=. Last accessed on Aug. 9, 2024.
2023 Coronado Municipal Code. https://coronado.municipal.codes/. Last accessed on Aug. 9, 2024.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 377
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR – Errata

ERRATA

FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE

AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF CORONADO HISTORIC RESOURCE PRESERVATION PROGRAM City of Coronado
SCH # 2024060456
December 3, 2024
This Errata has been prepared for the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) to summarize changes to the environmental document since its public review. As detailed below, all revisions are clarifications or amplifications of existing issues and therefore would not trigger recirculation of the Draft PEIR pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15088.5. Subsequent to distribution of the Draft PEIR on August 23, 2024, the following revisions to the environmental document were made (changes are shown in strikeout/underline). Additional editorial or otherwise minor edits are shown in strikeout/underline throughout the Final PEIR.

Executive Summary
S.2 Summary of Significant Effects
Two issues were fully evaluated within the PEIR including Cultural Resources (Historic Resources) and Land Use and Planning (Conflicts with Plans and Policies).

S.3 Areas of Controversy

4.2 Land Use – Land Use and Planning Conflicts with Plans and Policies S.5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
The Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative because it would incrementally reduce significant impacts associated with historic resources and land use and would meet the basic project objectives. However, Wwhile the 50-Year Threshold Alternative would reduce environmental impacts to the greatest degree, it would not meet any of the project objectives to the same degree compared to the project and is therefore rejected as a feasible alternative to the project; therefore, it is rejected as environmentally superior. The Project Plus 50- Year Threshold Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative because it would incrementally reduce significant impacts associated with historic resources and land use and would meet the basic project objectives.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 378
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR – Errata

1.0 Introduction

1.2.2 EIR Scope
• Cultural Resources (Historical Resources)
• Land Use (Conflicts with Plans and PoliciesLand Use Plan)

3.0 Project Description

3.2 Project Background
In fall of 2019, initiation of the project began with a series of public outreach workshops and online outreach. Members of the public could comment via the City’s website, Comment Coronado. From winter of 2020 through fall of 2022, the Historic Property Survey was prepared. City staff presented the Draft Historic Property Survey to City Council on June 20, 2023. The initial public review and comment period ran from June 20, 2023, to October 31, 2023. An update was provided to City Council on November 21, 2023. At this time, staff was directed by the City Council to retain the current 75-year threshold, proceed with the exclusion of Tier 3 properties, and to contact property owners for all properties identified in the survey. Additionally, staff was instructed to solicit public comments for an additional 60-day period, initiate environmental review, and investigate alternatives including changing the age threshold from 75 years to 50 years to align with California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) (see 14 California Code of Regulations 4852(d)(2)) guidelines regarding at what age a resource can be considered for listing in the CRHR. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) standards.

4.1 Cultural Resources

4.1.1.1 Cultural Setting
The cultural setting described in the following subsections is summarized for clarity from the Historic Property Survey (see Appendix C). Refer to Appendix C for a comprehensive list of the historical events and sites that were considered in preparation of the Final PEIR.

4.2.5 Land UseConflicts with Plans and Policies

5.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant
• Aesthetics (Scenic Vistas; Scenic Resources; Visual Character; Light or Glare) Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 379
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR – Errata

8.0 Alternatives

8.1 Introduction
As discussed in Chapter 4.0, the Amendments to the City of Coronado (City) Preservation Program (project) could result in significant, direct, and/or cumulative environmental impacts related to cultural resources (historical resources) and land use (conflicts withland use plans andor policies).

As concluded in the Initial Study prepared for the project (see Appendix A) and Chapter 5.0 of this Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), there would be a “Less than Significant Impact” associated with aesthetics (scenic vistas, scenic corridors, visual character) and aesthetics (visual character); there would be “No Impact” associated with the following issue areas: aesthetics (light/glare), agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources (archeological resources and disturbance of human remains), energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use (physically divide an established community), mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire.

Table 8-1
Alternatives Comparison to the Project
Environmental Issue Area Project
No Project
Alternative
50-Year Threshold
Alternative
Project Plus 50-Year
Threshold Alternative
Cultural Resources
(Historical Resources) S S < LS S <
Land Use (Conflicts with
Plans and Policies) S LS LS S <
S = significant; LS = less than significant; < = Impacts less than the project

8.2.2.2 Land Use
Issue 1: Land UseConflicts with Plans andor Policies

8.3.1 Description
Under the 50-Year Threshold Alternative, the City would amend Title 84 of the CMC to modify the current determination of historic significance review age threshold from 75 to 50 years to align with the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) (see 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 4852(d)(2)) guidelines regarding at what age a resource can be considered for listing in the CRHRCEQA Guidelines. Under this alternative, the City would not adopt the Historic Property Survey and, therefore, would not exclude Tier 3 properties from further historic review.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 380
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR – Errata

8.3.2.2 Land Use
Issue 1: Conflicts withLand Use Plans andor Policies
Impacts related to plan and policy consistency under the 50-Year Threshold Alternative would be less than significant. Under the 50-Year Threshold Alternative, the City would amend Title 84 of the CMC to modify the current determination of historic significance review age threshold from 75 to 50 years. The 50-Year Threshold Alternative would align with CRHR (see 14 CCR 4852(d)(2)) guidelines regarding at what age a resource can be considered for listing in the CRHRcurrent CEQA standards and would increase the number of properties that would be evaluated for their potential to qualify as a historic resource. Therefore, the 50-Year Threshold Alternative would not conflict with plans and/or policies adopted for the purpose of protecting historic resources and impacts would be less than significant and less than the project.

8.4.1 Description
Under the Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative, the City would amend Title 84 of the CMC to modify the current determination of historic significance review age threshold from 75 to 50 years to align with CRHR (see 14 CCR 4852(d)(2)) guidelines regarding at what age a resource can be considered for listing in the CRHRCEQA standards, and would adopt the Historic Property Survey which would exclude Tier 3 properties from further historic review.

8.4.2.2 Land Use
Issue 1: Conflicts withLand Use Plans andor Policies

8.5 Alternatives
While t The Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative because it would incrementally reduce significant impacts associated with historic resources and land use and would meet the basic project objectives. However, while the 50-Year Threshold Alternative would reduce environmental impacts to the greatest degree, it would not meet any of the project objectives to the same degree compared to the project and is therefore rejected as a feasible alternative to the project.; therefore, it is rejected as environmentally superior. The Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative because it would incrementally reduce significant impacts associated with historic resources and land use and would meet the basic project objectives.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 381
Amendments to the Coronado Historic Preservation Program PEIR – Errata

Appendices
Appendix A
Corrections:

1. A comment letter was received from an agency during the scoping period (June 12, 2024, to July 11, 2024) of the Notice of Preparation. The comment letter was informational and does not change the conclusions of the Final PEIR. The letter is included in Appendix A.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 382

CANDIDATE FINDINGS OF FACT

FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE

AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF CORONADO HISTORIC RESOURCE PRESERVATION PROGRAM City of Coronado
SCH #2024060456
Section 21081(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 15091(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) require that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report (EIR) has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out, unless such public agency makes one or more of the following findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects on the environment; (2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can or should be, adopted by that other agency; or (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

CEQA also requires that the findings made pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines be supported by substantial evidence in the record (Section 15091(b) of the CEQA Guidelines). Under CEQA, substantial evidence means enough relevant information has been provided (and reasonable inferences from this information may be made) that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Substantial evidence must include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts (Section 15384 of the CEQA Guidelines).

The following Candidate Findings of Fact (Findings) have been submitted to the City Council of the City of Coronado (City Council), as the decision-making body, to be approved for the above-referenced project pursuant to CEQA. It is the exclusive discretion of the decision-maker certifying the project’s Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) to determine the adequacy of the proposed Findings. It is the role of staff to independently evaluate the proposed Findings and to make a recommendation to the decision-maker regarding their legal adequacy.

I. INTRODUCTION
This Final PEIR evaluates potential impacts associated with adoption of Amendments to the City of Coronado Historic Preservation Program (project). The project includes adoption of an Ordinance amending Title 84 of the Coronado Municipal Code (CMC) (see PEIR Appendix B) and adoption of a Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Inventory (hereinafter referred to as the Historic Property Survey). Specifically, the project would amend CMC Chapter 84.10, Historic Resource Code to update the criteria used for the City of Coronado’s (City) definition and determination of historical Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 383

significance as it refers to the designation of historic structures. Amendments to the Historic Resource Code would remove structures referred to in the Historic Property Survey as Tier 3 properties from further historic review.

The following Findings are hereby adopted by the City in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency.

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The project would amend the City’s Historic Resource Code to streamline the environmental process associated with the designation of structures throughout the City’s as historic structures.

To inform the proposed Historic Resource Code amendments, a Historic Property Survey was prepared (see PEIR Appendix C). The Historic Property Survey presents the history of the built environment of the community from the ethnohistoric period to the present day. The document identifies important themes, events, patterns of development, and describes the different property types, styles, builders, and architects associated with these important periods and themes.

The purpose of the Historic Property Survey was to provide an architectural evaluation of properties, in an effort to categorize those properties that could be potentially architecturally significant resources and those that would not meet Criterion C of CMC Chapter 84.10. Specifically, CMC Section

84.10.030(C)) is one of the five criteria cited in CMC Section 84.10.030 used to evaluate structures to determine historic significance. The results of the survey would be used to reduce the number of properties that would be required to go through a future in-depth historical review process based on the City’s current Determination of Historic Significance.

The Historic Context Study Area encompasses the entirety of the City while the Historic Property Survey was focused on the City’s historic core and excludes the Naval Air Station North Island, the U.S. Navy Amphibious Base, Port of San Diego property, state or federally owned property located within the city limits, and other sections of the City, such as the Coronado Cays.

The Historic Property Survey defined three tiers relative to whether a property may meet the Criterion C significance related to original architectural appearance, as follows:

1. Tier 1 - Unaltered or minimally altered from historic condition and potentially eligible for City designation under Criterion C.

2. Tier 2 - Recognizable as a particular architectural style but based on observation and/or construction history are more than “unaltered or minimally altered” from historic condition and do not appear to be eligible for historic designation under Criterion C.

3. Tier 3 - Substantially altered properties that retain little to no elements of a particular architectural style and, based on observation and/or construction history, are not eligible for historic designation under Criterion C.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 384

III. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
• The Notice of Preparation and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed project;
• The Draft PEIR;
• The Final PEIR;
• All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft PEIR;
• Matters of common knowledge to the City Council, including but not limited to federal, state and local laws and regulations;
• Any documents expressly cited in these Findings; and
• Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Section 21167.6(e) of CEQA.

The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council’s decision is based are located at the City, 1825 Strand Way, Coronado, California 92118.

Copies of all these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been available upon request at the offices of the City Council at the above addresses.

This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15091(e). The City Council has relied on all the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the proposed project, even if every document was not formally presented to the City Council or City Council staff as part of the City Council files generated in connection with the proposed project. These documents are either in the proposed project files, reflect prior planning or legislative decisions of which the City Council was aware in approving the proposed project, or influenced the expert advice provided to the City Council staff or consultants, who then provided advice to City Council. For that reason, these documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the City Council’s decisions relating to the adoption of the proposed project.

IV. GENERAL FINDINGS
The City Council hereby finds as follows:
• The foregoing statements are true and correct;
• The Final PEIR was completed in compliance with CEQA; • The Final PEIR reflects the City Council’s independent judgment; • In determining whether the proposed project has a significant impact on the environment, and in adopting these Findings pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA, the City Council has complied with Sections 21081.5 and 21082.2 of CEQA;
Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 385

• The impacts of the proposed project have been analyzed to the extent feasible at the time of certification of the Final PEIR;
• The City Council has made no decisions related to approval of the proposed project prior to certification of the Final PEIR, nor has the City Council previously committed to a definite course of action with respect to the proposed project; and • Copies of all the documents incorporated by reference in the Final PEIR are and have been available upon request at all times at the City, custodians of record for such documents or other materials.

V. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
The Final PEIR evaluated all issue areas found to have a potentially significant impact in the Initial Study prepared for the project. As shown in Table S-1 of the Final PEIR, there would be significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the following issue areas:
• Cultural Resources (Historic Resources)
• Land Use and Planning (Conflicts with Plans and Policies) VI. FINDINGS OF FACT
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that the environmental impacts of a project be examined before a project is approved. Specifically, regarding findings, Guidelines Section 15091 provides:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.

2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final PEIR. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subdivision (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 386

(d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section.

The “changes or alterations” referred to in Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1) above, that are required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects of the project, may include a wide variety of measures or actions as set forth in Guidelines Section 15370, including:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

Having received, reviewed, and considered the Final PEIR for the proposed project, as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings are hereby adopted by the City Council in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for current and subsequent discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City and responsible agencies for the implementation of the proposed project.

A. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS MITIGATED TO BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE (CEQA GUIDELINES 15091 (A)(1))
There are no significant impacts mitigated to below a level of significance.

B. FINDING REGARDING MITIGATION THAT IS WITHIN THE RESPONSIBILITY AND JURISDICTION OF ANOTHER PUBLIC AGENCY (CEQA GUIDELINES 15091 (A)(2)) There are no changes or alterations that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 387

C. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS (CEQA GUIDELINES 15091 (A)(3))
The City, having independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final PEIR and the Record of Proceedings pursuant to Public Resource Code §21081(a)(3) and State CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3), adopts the following findings regarding the significant effects of the project, as follows:

Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final PEIR (SCH No. 2024060456) as described below:

Cultural Resources (Historic Resources)

1. Description of Potentially Significant Impacts: As described in Section 4.1 of the Final PEIR, the project would result in the potential loss of resources that may qualify as historic due to their association with people, places, or events. Therefore, direct and cumulative impacts could be significant.

Finding: As described in the Final PEIR, the project would remove Tier 3 properties from required historic review. The removal of these structures from historic review could result in the potential loss of a resource that may otherwise qualify as historic due to other criterion contained in CMC Section 84.10.030. Due to the regulatory nature of the project, there is no feasible mitigation available to reduce impacts to Historic Resources. Therefore, impacts related to Historic Resources would remain significant and unavoidable.

A Statement of Overriding Considerations has been adopted by the City.

Land Use (Conflicts with Plans and Policies)

1. Description of Potentially Significant Impacts: As described in Section 4.2 of the Final PEIR, the project would result in the removal of Tier 3 properties from further historic review which would weaken regulatory protections for historic resources in the City, in conflict with the Historic Preservation Element, (E) Government Functions, Policy 2. This conflict with the General Plan Historic Preservation policy adopted for the purpose of protecting historic resources could create direct and cumulative significant impacts.

Finding: As described in the Final PEIR, the project would remove Tier 3 properties from required historic review. The removal of these structures could conflict with other regulatory protections. There is no feasible mitigation available to reduce impacts to Plans and Policies.

Therefore, impacts related to plans and policies would remain significant and unavoidable.

A Statement of Overriding Considerations has been adopted by the City.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 388

VII. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must contain a discussion of “a range of reasonable alternatives to a project, or the location of a project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” Section 15126.6(f) further states that “the range of alternatives in an EIR is governed by the 'rule of reason' that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.” The objectives of the proposed project are as follows:

1. Streamline the City’s Historic Preservation Program review process to provide consistency to preservation planning efforts;

2. Further guide the preservation of historically significant properties;

3. Provide certainty to property owners regarding the known historical significance of structures.

The City Council must consider the feasibility of any alternatives to the proposed project, evaluating whether these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects while achieving most of the objectives of the proposed project.

To fully evaluate the environmental effects of projects, CEQA mandates that alternatives to the project be analyzed. Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the discussion of “a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project” and the evaluation of the comparative merits of the alternatives.

The alternatives discussion is intended to “focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project,” even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives.

Chapter 8.0 of the Final PEIR provides a discussion of three alternative scenarios: the No Project Alternative (no amendments to the existing code); the 50-Year Threshold Alternative (amend the age threshold from 75 years to 50 years); and the Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative (amend the age threshold from 75 years to 50 years and exclude Tier 3 properties from required historic review).

Additionally, as required under CEQA, an environmentally superior alternative is identified. As discussed in Section 8.5, the Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative.

Alternatives Under Consideration
The Final PEIR evaluated three alternatives. Potential impacts that could occur under each alternative were compared to the potential impacts that could occur under the proposed project. The three alternatives are as follows:

Alternative 1: No Project (No Amendments to the Existing Code) Alternative Alternative 2: 50-Year Threshold Alternative
Alternative 3: Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 389

No Project (No Amendments to the Existing Code) Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, amendments to the City of Coronado Historic Preservation Program including adoption of an Ordinance amending Title 84 of the CMC and adoption of a Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Inventory (Historic Property Survey) would not occur. Therefore, the City would not remove Tier 3 properties identified in the Historic Property Survey from further historic review. The No Project Alternative would result in significant impacts to historical resources but to a lesser extent than the project. Impacts related to land use plans or policies would be less than significant and less than the project. The No Project Alternative would not meet the project objectives.

Finding: While this alternative would avoid land use impacts and lessen historic resource impacts associated with the project, this alternative would not meet some of the project objectives described above and in Section 3.0 of the Final PEIR. This alternative would not change the number of properties required to go through historic review; therefore, this alternative would not meet the project objective of streamlining the City’s Historic Preservation Program. Additionally, the historic property survey would not be adopted; therefore, the project objective of guiding future preservation of historic properties would not be achieved, nor would it increase certainty to property owners regarding the historical significance of structures.

Therefore, the City rejects this alternative as infeasible on the basis that it fails to meet the project objectives. The City finds that although the No Project (No Amendments to the Existing Code) Alternative would have fewer environmental impacts, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make the No Project (No Amendments to the Existing Code) Alternative infeasible, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and rejects the No Project Alternative on such grounds.
50-Year Threshold Alternative
Under the 50-Year Threshold Alternative, the City would amend Title 84 of the CMC to modify the current determination of historic significance review age threshold from 75 to 50 years to align with the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) (see 14 CCR 4852(d)(2)) guidelines regarding at what age a resource can be considered for listing in the CRHR. Under this alternative, the City would not adopt the Historic Property Survey and, therefore, would not exclude Tier 3 properties from further historic review. The 50-Year Threshold Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to historical resources and would reduce impacts compared to the project. Impacts related to land use plans or policies would be less than significant and less than the project. The 50-Year Threshold Alternative, however, would not meet the project objectives.

Finding: While this alternative would avoid land use impacts and lessen historic resource impacts associated with the project, this alternative would not meet some of the project objectives described above and in Section 3.0 of the Final PEIR. This alternative would increase the number of properties required to go through historic review; therefore, this alternative would not meet the project objective of streamlining the City’s Historic Preservation Program. Additionally, the historic property survey would not be adopted; therefore, the project objective of guiding future preservation of Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 390

historic properties would not be achieved, nor would it increase certainty to property owners regarding the historical significance of structures.

Therefore, the City rejects this alternative as infeasible on the basis that it fails to meet the project objectives. The City finds that although the 50-Year Alternative would have fewer environmental impacts, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make the 50-Year Threshold Alternative infeasible, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and rejects the 50-Year Threshold Alternative on such grounds.

Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative
Under the Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative, the City would amend Title 84 of the CMC to modify the current determination of historic significance review age threshold from 75 to 50 years to align with CRHR (see 14 CCR 4852(d)(2)) guidelines regarding at what age a resource can be considered for listing in the CRHR and would adopt the Historic Property Survey which would exclude Tier 3 properties from further historic review. The Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative would result in significant impacts to historical resources and land use plans or policies, but to a lesser extent than the project. The 50-Year Threshold and Tier 3 Alternative would meet the project objectives.

Finding: The Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative would result in significant impacts to historical resources and land use plans or policies, but to a lesser extent than the project. The 50-Year Threshold and Tier 3 Alternative would meet the project objectives.

As with the project, future development under the Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative has the potential to result in significant impacts to historical resources due to Tier 3 properties being excluded from further historic review; however, under this alternative, additional properties between 50 to 75 years of age would be required to undergo historic review. Like the project, impacts of this alternative would be significant due to the potential for some Tier 3 properties to be potentially historic under one or more of the other City criteria. However, impacts would be slightly reduced compared to the project because additional properties between 50 to 75 years would be reviewed for their potential to qualify as a historic resource and would require an in-depth historical review.

Similar to the project, future projects may propose alterations to or demolition of properties identified as Tier 3 which would not require further historic review. As these properties could qualify as a historic resource under the City’s additional criteria, a potential loss of a historic resource would result. Therefore, the Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative would result in significant impacts to historic resources, but to a lesser extent than the project.

As with the project, impacts related to plan and policy consistency under the Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative would be significant. Under this alternative, additional properties between 50 and 75 years of age would be reviewed for their potential to qualify as a historic resource and Tier 3 properties would be excluded from further historic review. Similar to the project, this alternative would result in Tier 3 properties being excluded from further historic review, which would conflict with plans and/or policies adopted for the purpose of protecting historic resources. However, as additional properties between 50 and 75 years of age would require historic review, this would provide additional protections for historic resources compared to the project. Impacts related to plan and policy consistency would be significant, but slightly reduced compared to the project. Although Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 391

the Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative would result in incrementally reduced impacts compared to the project, the City rejects this alternative as infeasible on the basis that it fails to meet the project objectives to the same degree as the project. The City finds that although Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative would have fewer environmental impacts, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make the 50-Year Threshold Alternative infeasible, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and rejects the Project Plus 50-Year Threshold Alternative on such grounds.

VIII. FINDINGS REGARDING OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
The City is the “Lead Agency” for the proposed project evaluated in the Final PEIR. The City Council finds that the Draft PEIR and the Final PEIR were prepared in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that it has independently reviewed and analyzed the Draft PEIR and Final PEIR for the proposed project, that the Draft PEIR which was circulated for public review reflected its independent judgment, and that the Final PEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Notice of Preparation of the Draft PEIR was published on June 12, 2024. The public review period for the Draft PEIR began on August 23, 2024, and the Draft PEIR was available for public review on that date. A Notice of Availability of Draft PEIR was filed with the County Recorder/County Clerk on August 23, 2024, and a Notice of Completion of the Draft PEIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse on August 23, 2024. The 45-day public review and comment period ended on October 6, 2024.

The City Council finds that the Final PEIR provides objective information to assist the decision-makers and the public at large in their consideration of the environmental consequences of the proposed project. The public review period provided all interested jurisdictions, agencies, private organizations, and individuals the opportunity to submit comments regarding the Draft PEIR. The Final PEIR was prepared after the review period and responds to comments made during the public review period.

Two comment letters were received from interested organizations and agencies from persons who reviewed the Draft PEIR during the public review period. All of the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project were identified in the text and summary of the Final PEIR. No mitigation measures were identified in the Draft PEIR. The City Council finds that the impacts of the proposed project could not be mitigated below a level of significance.

The City Council is certifying a Final PEIR for, and is approving and adopting Findings for, the entirety of the actions described in these Findings and in the Final PEIR as comprising the proposed project.

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081(b) of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15093 and 15043, CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project.

If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered acceptable pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081. CEQA further requires that when the lead agency Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 392

approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final PEIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final PEIR and/or other information in the record.

Pursuant to the Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council, having considered all of the foregoing, finds that the following specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits associated with the project outweigh unavoidable adverse direct impacts related to transportation/circulation.

The City Council finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the proposed environmental impacts to an insignificant level; considered the entire administrative record, including the Final PEIR; and weighed the proposed benefits against its environmental impacts. This determination is based on the following specific benefits, each of which is determined to be, by itself and independent of the other project benefits, a basis for overriding and outweighing all unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final PEIR.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS
• The project would result in a cost reduction to the City as the City currently pays for historian consultant fees associated with each historic review. This cost reduction could foster economic growth for the City as a result. This would also allow the City to redirect the saved funding for other projects.
• The project would remove regulatory barriers to redevelopment currently imposed on properties with architecturally compromised structures.

PUBLIC BENEFITS
• The project would provide greater certainty regarding the historic status of homes to property owners who have older homes.
• The project would streamline the City’s historic preservation program which will allow the City to focus on preserving historic homes that retain their original architectural significance.

The City Council finds in accordance with Public Resources Code Sections 21081(b) and 21081.5, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15093 and 15043, that any, or any combination of, the Statement of Overriding Consideration benefits noted above would be sufficient to reach the conclusion that overriding findings justify the significant, unmitigable impacts that were found.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 393
1 Notice of Scoping Meeting and Preparation of a
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Date: June 12, 2024
To: State Clearinghouse, Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Persons
Lead Agency: City of Coronado, Community Development Department 1825 Strand Way
Coronado, CA 92118
Project Title: Amendments to the City of Coronado Historic Preservation Program Project Location: City of Coronado
NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP): The City of Coronado (City) is sending notice in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), that a Focused Environmental Impact Report (Focused EIR) will be prepared for the proposed amendments to Historic Preservation Program (Coronado Municipal Code Chapter 84.10)(hereafter, “project”). The City is seeking input from the public and agencies on potential environmental impacts of the project. The general public is also encouraged to provide input on the scope of the Focused EIR.

SCOPING MEETING: On Thursday, June 27, 2024 starting at 5:30 p.m., the City of Coronado Community Development Department will conduct a public scoping open house to solicit input and comments from public agencies and the general public on the proposed scope of the environmental analysis for the project. The Scoping Meeting will be held at the Winn Room, located at the Coronado Public Library, 640 Orange Avenue, Coronado, California 92118. The meeting will run from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. This meeting will be an open house format, and interested parties may drop in to obtain information about the project and submit written comments on the scope of the Focused EIR during the meeting. Representatives from the Community Development Department and the EIR consultant will be available to address questions regarding the EIR process.

Information is also available at Citywide Historical Resource Survey | Project Coronado (https://www.projectcoronado.org/citywide-historic-resource-survey).

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 394
June 12, 2024 Notice of Preparation of an EIR
2 NOP COMMENT PERIOD: Due to the time limits mandated by state law, your response must be received by the City no later than the close of the NOP review period, which ends on July 11, 2024.

The NOP comment period runs from June 12, 2024 to July 11, 2024. Please send your written comments to the City of Coronado Community Development Department:

Contact: Tricia Olsen, Senior Planner
E-Mail: [email protected]
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project includes adoption of an Ordinance amending Title 84 of the Coronado Municipal Code (CMC) and adoption of a Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Inventory (hereinafter referred to as the Historic Property Survey). Specifically, the project would update CMC Chapter 84.10, Historic Resource Code, to provide updated criteria for the City’s definition and determination of historical significance. Multiple sections of the Historic Resource Code could be revised to identify a potentially historic structure as one that is 50 or more years old, revised from structures 75 years or older. Additionally, amendments to the CMC would remove structures referred to in the Historic Resources Inventory as a Tier 3 property from further historic review.

To inform the proposed Historic Resource Code amendments, a Historic Property Survey was prepared to evaluate properties under CMC Section 84.10.030, Criterion C to identify properties that possess distinctive characteristics of an architectural style that have not been substantially altered (CMC Section 84.10.030(C)). While Criterion C is only one of the five criteria cited in CMC Section

84.10.030, Criterion C served as the basis of the Historic Property Survey as it was the most readily identifiable criterion that could be accomplished with reasonable effort given the scope of a Historic Property Survey, and because it was a criterion applied in nearly all—97 percent—of Historic Designation determinations. The purpose of the Historic Property Survey was to provide an architectural evaluation of properties, in an effort to identify potentially architecturally significant resources and reduce the number of properties that would be required to go through an in-depth historical review process based on the City’s current Determination of Historic Significance. The Historic Property Survey defined three tiers relative to whether they may meet the Criterion C significance related to original architectural appearance, as follows:
 Tier 1 - Unaltered or minimally altered from historic condition and potentially eligible for City designation under Criterion C.
 Tier 2 - Recognizable as a particular architectural style but based on observation and/or construction history are more than “unaltered or minimally altered” from historic condition and do not appear to be eligible for historic designation under Criterion C.  Tier 3 - Substantially altered properties that retain little to no elements of a particular architectural style and, based on observation and/or construction history, are not eligible for historic designation under Criterion C.

The Historic Property Survey identified a total of 989 structures built in 1948 or earlier that were assigned to the Tier 3 category. Another 708 structures built between 1949 to 1970 were identified as Tier 3 properties. With adoption of the amendments to the CMC, Tier III structures as defined by the Historic Property Survey would no longer require further historic review. The location of the project is depicted on Figure 1.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 395
June 12, 2024 Notice of Preparation of an EIR
3 RECOMMENDED FINDING: Pursuant to Section 15060(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, it appears that the proposed project may result in significant environmental impacts in the following areas: land use (conflicts with plans and policies), cultural resources (historic resources), and mandatory findings of significance (historic resources; cumulative impacts). The City has evaluated the potential impacts of the project in an Initial Study and found the following issues to be less than significant: aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources (archaeological resources and human remains), energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use (physical division of community), mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, wildfire, and mandatory findings of significance (effects on human beings). The Initial Study is available for review at https://www.projectcoronado.org/citywidehistoric-resource-survey.

FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: Based on the findings of the Initial Study, a Focused EIR will be prepared for the project that will analyze the project-specific impacts relating to land use (conflicts with plans and policies), cultural resources (historic resources), cumulative impacts, in addition to all other required EIR sections including cumulative impacts and project alternatives.

The site is not included on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 for hazardous waste sites.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: For environmental review information, questions about the scoping meeting, or to request this Notice in an alternative format, contact Tricia Olsen at (619) 522-7329 or email [email protected]. This notice was published in the Coronado Eagle & Journal and distributed on June 12, 2024.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 396
FIGURE 1
Regional Location
Los Penasquitos
Canyon Presv
San Diego
National
Wildlife Refuge
Otay
Wilderness
Mission Trails
Regional Park
Lake Hodges
San Vicente
Reservoir
Sweetwater
Reservoir
Lower Otay
Reservoir

USMC AIR

STATION

MIRAMAR
E s c o n d i d o C r e e k
O t a y R i v e r
S
w e e t w a t e r R i v e
S
r
a n D i e g o R i v e r
Jamul Indian
Village
Sycuan
Reservation
Barona
Reservation
Bonita
Bostonia
Casa
de Oro-Mount
Helix
Crest
Eucalyptus
Hills
Fairbanks
Ranch
Granite
Hills
Jamul
Lakeside
La Presa
Ramona
Rancho San
Diego
Rancho
Santa Fe
Spring
Valley
Winter
Gardens
UV163
UV282
UV125
UV56
UV75
UV54
UV905
UV67
UV94
UV52 §¨¦8
§¨¦805
§¨¦15
§¨¦5
S A N

D I E G O

C O U N T Y

M E X I C O
Imperial
Beach
Lemon
Grove
Chula Vista
San Diego
El Cajon
Encinitas
La Mesa
Poway
Carlsbad
Nati onal
City
Santee
Coronado
Escondido
Solana
Beach
Del Mar
Los Penasquitos
Canyon Presv
San Diego
National
Wildlife Refuge
Otay
Wilderness
Mission Trails
Regional Park
Lake Hodges
San Vicente
Reservoir
Sweetwater
Reservoir
Lower Otay
Reservoir

USMC AIR

STATION

MIRAMAR
E s c o n d i d o C r e e k
O t a y R i v e r
S
w e e t w a t e r R i v e
S
r
a n D i e g o R i v e r
Jamul Indian
Village
Sycuan
Reservation
Barona
Reservation
Bonita
Bostonia
Casa
de Oro-Mount
Helix
Crest
Eucalyptus
Hills
Fairbanks
Ranch
Granite
Hills
Jamul
Lakeside
La Presa
Ramona
Rancho San
Diego
Rancho
Santa Fe
Spring
Valley
Winter
Gardens
UV163
UV282
UV125
UV56
UV75
UV54
UV905
UV67
UV94
UV52 §¨¦8
§¨¦805
§¨¦15
§¨¦5
S A N

D I E G O

C O U N T Y

M E X I C O
Imperial
Beach
Lemon
Grove
Chula Vista
San Diego
El Cajon
Encinitas
La Mesa
Poway
Carlsbad
Nati onal
City
Santee
Coronado
Escondido
Solana
Beach
Del Mar
0 Miles 5 [
M:\JOBS5\9641.3\common_gis\MXD\fig1.mxd 5/20/2024 fmm
LOS

ANGELES

ORANGE RIVERSIDE

SAN BERNARDINO

SAN DIEGO
MEXICO
Project Boundary
Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 397
June 12, 2024
CEQA Initial Study - Environmental Checklist Form
(Based on the State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G)
The following discussion of potential environmental effects was completed in accordance with Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines to determine if the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment.

1. Title: Amendments to the City of Coronado Historic Preservation Program

2. Lead agency name and address:

City of Coronado
Community Development Department
1825 Strand Way
Coronado, CA 92118

3. a. Contact: Tricia Olsen, Community Development Department b. Phone number: (619) 522-7329
c. E-mail: [email protected]

4. Project location:

The city of Coronado (“City”) is located within the county of San Diego, surrounded by San Diego Bay to the north and east and the Pacific Ocean to the west, and bordered by the city of San Diego to the north and east, National City and Chula Vista to the east, Imperial Beach to the south, and Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) to the southeast. The City is connected to the mainland by a natural land bridge, called the Silver Strand, that extends southerly a distance of approximately 9 miles to the city of Imperial Beach. This land bridge separates the Pacific Ocean on the west from the bay located to the east. The City’s limits extend from NASNI south along the Silver Strand to the city of Imperial Beach. The City is also connected to downtown San Diego by the two-mile-long San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge (State Route 75). Figure 1 shows the City’s regional location, Figures 2-1 through 2-3 show the project location on USGS maps, and Figure 3 shows the project location on an aerial photograph.

5. Project Applicant name and address:

City of Coronado
Community Development Department
1825 Strand Way
Coronado, CA 92118
Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 398
FIGURE 1
Regional Location
Los Penasquitos
Canyon Presv
San Diego
National
Wildlife Refuge
Otay
Wilderness
Mission Trails
Regional Park
Lake Hodges
San Vicente
Reservoir
Sweetwater
Reservoir
Lower Otay
Reservoir

USMC AIR

STATION

MIRAMAR
E s c o n d i d o C r e e k
O t a y R i v e r
S
w e e t w a t e r R i v e
S
r
a n D i e g o R i v e r
Jamul Indian
Village
Sycuan
Reservation
Barona
Reservation
Bonita
Bostonia
Casa
de Oro-Mount
Helix
Crest
Eucalyptus
Hills
Fairbanks
Ranch
Granite
Hills
Jamul
Lakeside
La Presa
Ramona
Rancho San
Diego
Rancho
Santa Fe
Spring
Valley
Winter
Gardens
UV163
UV282
UV125
UV56
UV75
UV54
UV905
UV67
UV94
UV52 §¨¦8
§¨¦805
§¨¦15
§¨¦5
S A N

D I E G O

C O U N T Y

M E X I C O
Imperial
Beach
Lemon
Grove
Chula Vista
San Diego
El Cajon
Encinitas
La Mesa
Poway
Carlsbad
Nati onal
City
Santee
Coronado
Escondido
Solana
Beach
Del Mar
Los Penasquitos
Canyon Presv
San Diego
National
Wildlife Refuge
Otay
Wilderness
Mission Trails
Regional Park
Lake Hodges
San Vicente
Reservoir
Sweetwater
Reservoir
Lower Otay
Reservoir

USMC AIR

STATION

MIRAMAR
E s c o n d i d o C r e e k
O t a y R i v e r
S
w e e t w a t e r R i v e
S
r
a n D i e g o R i v e r
Jamul Indian
Village
Sycuan
Reservation
Barona
Reservation
Bonita
Bostonia
Casa
de Oro-Mount
Helix
Crest
Eucalyptus
Hills
Fairbanks
Ranch
Granite
Hills
Jamul
Lakeside
La Presa
Ramona
Rancho San
Diego
Rancho
Santa Fe
Spring
Valley
Winter
Gardens
UV163
UV282
UV125
UV56
UV75
UV54
UV905
UV67
UV94
UV52 §¨¦8
§¨¦805
§¨¦15
§¨¦5
S A N

D I E G O

C O U N T Y

M E X I C O
Imperial
Beach
Lemon
Grove
Chula Vista
San Diego
El Cajon
Encinitas
La Mesa
Poway
Carlsbad
Nati onal
City
Santee
Coronado
Escondido
Solana
Beach
Del Mar
0 Miles 5 [
M:\JOBS5\9641.3\common_gis\MXD\fig1.mxd 5/20/2024 fmm
LOS

ANGELES

ORANGE RIVERSIDE

SAN BERNARDINO

SAN DIEGO
MEXICO
Project Boundary
Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 399
FIGURE 2-1
Project Location on USGS Map
Map Source: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map series, Point Loma (1994) and Imperial Beach (1967) quadrangles, La Nacion Land Grant 0 Feet 2,000 [
Project Boundary
M:\JOBS5\9641.3\common_gis\MXD\fig2_USGS.mxd 5/20/2024 fmm Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 400
FIGURE 2-2
Project Location on USGS Map
Map Source: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map series, Point Loma (1994) and Imperial Beach (1967) quadrangles, La Nacion Land Grant 0 Feet 2,000 [
Project Boundary
M:\JOBS5\9641.3\common_gis\MXD\fig2_USGS.mxd 5/20/2024 fmm Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 401
FIGURE 2-3
Project Location on USGS Map
Map Source: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map series, Point Loma (1994) and Imperial Beach (1967) quadrangles, La Nacion Land Grant 0 Feet 2,000 [
Project Boundary
M:\JOBS5\9641.3\common_gis\MXD\fig2_USGS.mxd 5/20/2024 fmm Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 402
FIGURE 3
Project Location on Aerial Photograph
UV94
UV75
§¨¦15
§¨¦5
UV94
UV75
§¨¦15
§¨¦5
Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2024)
0 Feet 6,000 [
Project Boundary
M:\JOBS5\9641.3\common_gis\MXD\fig3_aerial.mxd 5/20/2024 fmm Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 403

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 7 - June 12, 2024

6. Description of project:

The project includes adoption of an Ordinance amending Title 84 of the Coronado Municipal Code (CMC) and adoption of a Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Inventory (hereinafter referred to as the Historic Property Survey). Specifically, the project would update CMC Chapter 84.10, Historic Resource Code (City of Coronado 2018), to provide updated criteria for the City’s definition and determination of historical significance. Multiple sections of the Historic Resource Code could be revised to identify a potentially historic structure as one that is 50 or more years old, revised from structures 75 years or older. Additionally, amendments to the CMC would remove structures referred to in the Historic Resources Inventory as a Tier 3 property from further historic review.

To inform the proposed Historic Resource Code amendments, a Historic Property Survey (Dudek 2023) was prepared. The historic context study area is depicted on Figure 4. The study area for the historic resources inventory and property survey is depicted on Figure 5. The Historic Property Survey was focused on the City’s historic core and excludes NASNI, the U.S. Navy Amphibious Base, Port of San Diego property, state or federally owned property located within the city limits, and other sections of the City, such as the Coronado Cays. The Historic Property Survey evaluated properties under CMC Section

84.10.030, Criterion C to identify whether structures possess distinctive characteristics of an architectural style that have not been substantially altered (CMC Section 84.10.030(C)). While Criterion C is only one of the five criteria cited in CMC Section 84.10.030, Criterion C served as the basis of the Historic Property Survey as it was the most readily identifiable criterion that could be accomplished with reasonable effort, and because it was a criterion applied in nearly all—97 percent—of Historic Designation determinations.

The purpose of the Historic Property Survey was to provide an architectural evaluation of properties, in an effort to identify potentially architecturally significant resources and reduce the number of properties that would be required to go through an in-depth historical review process based on the City’s current Determination of Historic Significance. The Historic Property Survey defined three tiers relative to whether they may meet the Criterion C significance related to original architectural appearance, as follows:
• Tier 1 - Unaltered or minimally altered from historic condition and potentially eligible for City designation under Criterion C.
• Tier 2 - Recognizable as a particular architectural style but based on observation and/or construction history are more than “unaltered or minimally altered” from historic condition and do not appear to be eligible for historic designation under Criterion C. • Tier 3 - Substantially altered properties that retain little to no elements of a particular architectural style and, based on observation and/or construction history, are not eligible for historic designation under Criterion C.

The Historic Property Survey identified a total of 989 structures built in 1948 or earlier that were assigned to the Tier 3 category. Another 708 structures built between 1949 to 1970 were identified as Tier 3 properties. Amendments to the CMC would remove structures referred to in the Historic Property Survey as a Tier 3 property from further historic review. Refer to Figure 6 for the location of Tier 3 properties as defined by the survey.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 404
FIGURE 4
Historic Context Study Area
M:\JOBS5\9641.3\env\graphics\fig4_IS.afdesign 05/30/24 bma Map Source: Dudek
5 Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 405
FIGURE 5
Historic Property Survey Area
M:\JOBS5\9641.3\env\graphics\fig5_IS.afdesign 05/30/24 bma Map Source: Dudek
Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 406
FIGURE 6
Tier 3 Properties
03RD
04TH
ORANGE

ALAMEDA
OCEAN

GLORIETTA
POMONA
DANA
UV75
03RD
04TH
ORANGE

ALAMEDA
OCEAN

GLORIETTA
POMONA
DANA
UV75
Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2024)
Project Boundary 0 Feet 1,200 [
Tier 3 Properties
M:\JOBS5\9641.3\common_gis\MXD\fig6_IS.mxd 05/30/2024 bma Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 407

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 11 - June 12, 2024
Future Discretionary Actions
Discretionary actions are those actions taken by an agency that call for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve or how to carry out a project. Implementation of the Historic Preservation Program could include the following discretionary actions:
• Adoption of an Ordinance amending Title 84 of the CMC to modify the City’s current Determination of Historic Significance Review age threshold from 75- to 50- years, and exclude properties identified as Tier 3 from qualifying for historic designation under CMC Section 84.10.030(C).

7. Surrounding land uses and setting (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings):

Land uses surrounding the study area include military uses (the NASNI to the north and the U.S.

Navy Amphibious Base to the south), the Coronado Cays (residential) and Coronado Shores (beach and open space) to the south; the Pacific Ocean to the west, and the San Diego Bay to the northeast and east.

8. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

No approvals from other public agencies are required for the project.

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?
YES NO

Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, public lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and to reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process (see Public Resources Code §21083.3.2).

Information is also available from the Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code §5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code §21082.3(e) contains provisions specific to confidentiality. The City initiated consultation with Native American tribes on June 12, 2024 and consultation is ongoing.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 408

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 12 - June 12, 2024
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project and involve at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or a “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology & Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology & Water Quality Land Use & Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population & Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Utilities & Service Systems
Wildfire Tribal Cultural Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance
Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 409

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 13 - June 12, 2024
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

June 12, 2024
Signature
Tricia Olsen
Date
Senior Planner
Printed Name Title
Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 410

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 14 - June 12, 2024

INSTRUCTIONS ON EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a projects environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 411

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 15 - June 12, 2024
I. AESTHETICS -- Except as provided in Public Resources Code §21099 -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Less than Significant Impact: A vista is a view from a particular location or composite views along a roadway or trail. Scenic vistas often refer to views of natural lands but may also be compositions of natural and developed areas, or even entirely of developed and unnatural areas, such as a scenic vista of a rural town and surrounding agricultural lands. What is scenic to one person may not be scenic to another, so the assessment of what constitutes a scenic vista must consider the perceptions of a variety of viewer groups.

The items that can be seen within a vista are visual resources. Adverse impacts to individual visual resources or the addition of structures or developed areas may or may not adversely affect the vista.

Determining the level of impact to a scenic vista requires analyzing the changes to the vista as a whole and to individual visual resources.

Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could directly or indirectly have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The removal of Tier 3 properties from the City’s historic review process could result in these structures being altered for renovations or removed for new residential construction. However, Tier 3 properties are defined as those that have been heavily altered and retain little to no elements of a particular architectural style. Therefore, these properties have already been altered beyond historical significance and further changes to such properties would not represent a change to a visual resource. Further alteration or removal of Tier 3 structures would therefore not result in a significant impact to a scenic vista. Implementation of the project would result in less than significant impacts related to scenic vistas. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

Less than Significant Impact: In 1974, the Siver Strand and Coronado Bay Bridge was designated a Scenic Highway by the State of California, shown in Figure 7 below. The City created the Scenic Highway Element of the General Plan to preserve, protect, and enhance the numerous views from the San Diego – Coronado Bay Bridge and Silver Strand corridor. Views include salt ponds, salt marshes, fresh vernal pools, beaches, San Diego Bay, the Pacific Ocean, Point Loma, Glorietta Bay, and the Hotel Del Coronado. In addition, wilderness areas and natural landscaping are major components of the Silver Strand’s valuable scenic resources (City of Coronado 1999).

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 412
FIGURE 7
Scenic Resources

SILVER STRAND
BLVD
03RD ST
ORANGE
AVE

SILVER STRAND
BLVD
03RD ST
ORANGE
AVE
Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2024)
Project Boundary 0 Feet 6,000 [
CA State Scenic Highways
Officially Designated
Eligible
M:\JOBS5\9641.3\common_gis\MXD\fig7_IS.mxd 05/30/2024 bma

POMONA AVE
03RD ST
P

OMONA AVE

ORANGE AVE
Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 413

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 17 - June 12, 2024
A Scenic Corridor is defined by the State of California Department of Transportation as “a band of visible land along and generally adjacent to but outside of the highway right-of-way having scenic, historical or aesthetic characteristic.” It is often described as “the-view-from-the-road.” A scenic highway is made up of the scenic corridor, the road itself and the right-of-way. Two sections of State Highway 75 comprise the scenic highway. They include the Silver Strand, from the Imperial Beach city limits to Pomona Avenue, and the San Diego – Coronado Bay Bridge.

The State of California and the U.S. Navy own the majority of lands on either side of the Silver Strand portion of Scenic highway 75. Beach and bayside property owned by the state and Navy is also utilized as public parks. Private land ownership is represented by the Coronado Cays development that was built subject to environmental and architectural review by the City of Coronado.

Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could directly or indirectly have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic resource within a scenic corridor.

The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not have the potential to adversely affect a scenic resource within a scenic corridor because no physical development is proposed. While the removal of Tier 3 properties from the historic review process could result in the removal or alteration of historic structures located within a scenic corridor, Tier 3 properties are defined as those that have been heavily altered and retain little to no elements of a particular architectural style. Therefore, these properties have already been altered beyond visual historical significance. Additional alteration or removal of Tier 3 structures would therefore not result in a significant impact to scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Further, the proposed ordinance amendments would not change regulations for properties along the Silver Strand where the majority of the officially designated scenic highway is located. The survey area depicted on Figure 5 is limited to the City’s historic core. Additionally, future development within a designated scenic corridor (SH Overlay) would be subject to CMC Chapter 86.44 requiring consistency with specific design elements.

Implementation of the project would result in less than significant impacts related to state scenic highways.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

Less than Significant Impact: According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, potential aesthetic impacts are evaluated differently based on whether a project is in a non-urbanized or urban area. Per this threshold, projects located in non-urbanized areas would result in a significant aesthetic impact if the project substantially degraded the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points).

Projects located in urbanized areas would result in a significant aesthetic impact if a project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Because the project is located within an urbanized area, the latter criterion is applied for analyzing potential effects of the project on aesthetic resources. The City’s General Plan Community Design Element contains design goals for various areas of the City and details requirements for design review. The design requirements and standards outlined in Title 86, Zoning would not be affected by the project. Future residential alterations would continue to be subject to design review and applicable zoning standards. Therefore, the project Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 414

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 18 - June 12, 2024
would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality and impacts would be less than significant.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could create a new source of substantial light or glare which could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not have the potential to create a new substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime view in the area because no physical development is proposed. No Impact would occur.

II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES -- In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are Significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. -- Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance (Important Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, or other agricultural resources, to nonagricultural use? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: The State of California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program indicates that there is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the City and no properties are zoned for agricultural use. There is no designated forest land or timberland within the project area.

The City is largely built out and the small amounts of undeveloped land within the City are not utilized for agricultural production. The California Department of Conservation “California Important Farmland Finder” classifies the City as primarily “urban and built up land” with small portions of “other land” located along the Silver Strand (California Department of Conservation 2022). Further, approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could directly or indirectly result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. The project would modify the types of properties within the City that are subject to a historic review. The project would not have the potential to adversely affect farmland conversion because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 415

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 19 - June 12, 2024
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: None of the parcels within the City are zoned for agricultural use or subject to a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract. No impact would occur.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code §12220(g)), or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code §4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: None of the parcels within the City are zoned as forest land as defined in Public Resources Code §12220(g), timberland as defined by Public Resources Code §4526, or timberland zoned Timberland Production as defined by Government Code §51104(g). No impact would occur. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: The City does not contain any forest land as defined by Public Resources Code §12220(g).

Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forest land or convert forest land to non-forest use.

No impact would occur.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Important Farmland or other agricultural resources, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: There are no agricultural uses or forestlands within the City or surrounding area. Therefore, the project would not result in the conversion of farmland to a non­agricultural use or convert forestland to a non-forest use. No impact would occur.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 416

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 20 - June 12, 2024
III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) or applicable portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP)? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Project consistency is based on whether the project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Regional Air Quality Standards (RAQS) and/or applicable portions of the SIP, which would lead to increases in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations. The RAQS is the applicable regional air quality plan that sets forth the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District’s (SDAPCD) strategies for achieving the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) is designated a nonattainment area for the federal and state ozone standard. Accordingly, the RAQS was developed to identify feasible emission control measures and provide expeditious progress toward attaining the standards for ozone. The two pollutants addressed in the RAQS are reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), which are precursors to the formation of ozone. Projected increases in motor vehicle usage, population, and growth create challenges in controlling emissions and, by extension, to maintaining and improving air quality. The RAQS was most recently updated in 2022.

The growth projections used by the SDAPCD to develop the RAQS emissions budgets are based on the population, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed in general plans and used by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in the development of the regional transportation plans and sustainable communities strategy. As such, projects that propose development that is consistent with the growth anticipated by SANDAG and/or the General Plan would not conflict with the RAQS. In the event that a project would propose development that is less dense than anticipated by the growth projections, the project would likewise be consistent with the RAQS. In the event a project proposes development that is greater than anticipated in the growth projections, further analysis would be warranted to determine if the project would exceed the growth projections used in the RAQS for the specific subregional area.

Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could directly or indirectly conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SDAPCD RAQs and applicable portion of the SIPs. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not have the potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SDAPCD RAQS and SIPs because no physical development is proposed.

Therefore, no impact related to implementation of regional air quality plans and State Implementation Plans would occur due to implementation of the project. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 417

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 21 - June 12, 2024
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Both the state and the federal government have established health-based ambient air quality standards for the following criteria air pollutants: ozone (O3); carbon monoxide (CO); NOX; sulfur oxides (SOX); particulate matter up to 10 microns in diameter (PM10); particulate matter up to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5); and lead (Pb). Ozone is formed by a photochemical reaction between NOX and ROG.

The net increase in pollutant emissions of a project determines the impact on regional air quality.

The region is classified as an attainment area for all criterion pollutants except ozone, PM10, and PM2.5.

The SDAB is a non-attainment area for the 8-hour federal and state ozone standards. Ozone is not emitted directly but is a result of atmospheric activity on precursors. NOX and ROG are known as the chief “precursors” of ozone. These compounds react in the presence of sunlight to produce ozone. PM2.5 includes fine particles that are found in smoke and haze and are emitted from all types of combustion activities (motor vehicles, power plants, wood burning, etc.) and certain industrial processes. PM10 includes both fine and coarse dust particles, and sources include crushing or grinding operations and dust from paved or unpaved roads.

Air quality impacts can result from the construction and operation of a project which results in emissions above air quality standards. Construction impacts are short term and result from fugitive dust, equipment exhaust, and indirect effects associated with construction workers and deliveries. Operational impacts can occur on two levels: regional impacts resulting from development or local effects stemming from sensitive receivers being placed close to roadways or stationary sources.

Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could directly or indirectly generate substantial air quality emissions that could exceed air quality thresholds established by the SDAPCD. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not have the potential to generate air quality emissions that would exceed air quality thresholds established by the SDAPCD because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Air quality regulators typically define sensitive receptors as schools (preschool–12th grade), hospitals, resident care facilities, or day-care centers, or other facilities that may house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely impacted by changes in air quality. Residential uses can also be considered sensitive receptors. Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 418

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 22 - June 12, 2024
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Individual responses to odors are highly variable and can result in various effects, including psychological (i.e., irritation, anger, or anxiety) and physiological (i.e., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). Generally, the impact of an odor results from a variety of interacting factors such as frequency, duration, offensiveness, location, and sensory perception. The project does not include heavy industrial or agricultural uses that are typically associated with odor complaints.

Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could result in odors that could adversely affect a substantial number of people. The project would modify the types of properties within the City that are subject to a historic review. The project would not have the potential to result in emissions and odors because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could directly or indirectly affect any special status species. The project would modify the types of properties within the City that are subject to a historic review. The project would not have the potential to adversely affect sensitive species because no physical development is proposed, and the code amendments would not affect implementation of local, State or Federal regulations in place that offer protections for sensitive species. No impact would occur. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could directly or indirectly affect any special status species. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not have Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 419

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 23 - June 12, 2024
the potential to adversely affect riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities because no physical development is proposed, and the code amendments would not affect implementation of local, state or federal regulations in place that offer protections for sensitive natural communities and riparian habitats. No impact would occur.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands. The project would modify the types of properties within the City that are subject to a historic review. The project would not have the potential to adversely affect a wetland because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory Fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that interfere with movement of wildlife movement and corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The project would modify the types of properties within the City that are subject to a historic review. The project would not have the potential to interfere with wildlife movement and corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances that protect biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: The project does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances for biological resources.

Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could conflict with local policies or ordinances for biological resources. The project consists of an amendment to the Historic Resource Code (Title 84 of the CMC) which would modify the types of properties within the City that are subject to a historic review. The project would not have the potential to conflict with any local policies or ordinances that protect biological resources because no physical Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 420

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 24 - June 12, 2024
development is proposed, and the code amendments would not affect implementation of local regulations in place that protect biological resources. No impact would occur. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: The City is part of the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) and currently has a Draft Subarea Plan. However, approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could conflict with the MSCP. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not have the potential to conflict with the MSCP because no physical development is proposed, and the code amendments would not affect implementation of the MSCP. No impact would occur.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to 15064.5?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

Potentially Significant Impact: CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5b states that a project may have a significant effect on the environment when a project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource. A substantial adverse change is defined as “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1).

Impairment of an historical resource is further explained to include the following:

A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or
C) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2).

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 421

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 25 - June 12, 2024
The project consists of an amendment to Title 84 of the CMC updating the historic threshold from 75 years to 50 years to be consistent with CEQA Guidelines, as well as the exclusion of Tier 3 properties identified in the historic resource survey from historical review requirements.

As a result, the project would narrow down “potentially historic” properties in the City to only include properties identified as Tier 1 and 2 which are at least 50 years old. Tier 1 properties are those that were identified as either being unaltered or minimally altered from their historic condition and therefore retain historic integrity. Tier 2 properties are those that exceeded the integrity thresholds under Tier 3 as being Altered Beyond Recognition but failed to rise to the level of integrity under Tier 1. In other words, Tier 2 properties retain enough distinctive characteristics to be recognizable as an architectural style but did not rise to the level to be considered unaltered or minimally altered as per the City’s designation requirements. Tier 3 properties exhibit obvious substantial alterations such that they display little to no connection to the time in which they were originally constructed and as a result, are unlikely to retain enough integrity to be associated with any other City designation criteria.

With the approval of the project, the City would require a determination of historic significance application to be filed in association with any future project that includes demolition of original features visible from the street right-of-way of any structure that is 50 or more years old and not identified as a Tier 3 property in the Historic Property Survey. Tier 3 structures would be excluded from further historic review and processed ministerially.

As part of the Historic Property Survey, the Tier system was developed based on integrity and architectural distinctiveness required for a property to be locally designated under Criterion C of CMC

84.10.030 which states, “a resource may be designated a historic resource by the City’s Historic Resource Commission, if it meets two or more of the criteria set forth in this section and, additionally, must be at least 50 years old or have achieved historic significance within the past 50 years.” The criteria include:

A) It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s military, cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, or engineering history;
B) It is identified with a person(s) or an event(s) significant in local, state or national history; C) It possesses distinctive characteristics of an architectural style, and has not been substantially altered;
D) It is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer, architect, artisan or landscape professional;
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); 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 Historic Property Survey assessed properties based only on their architectural characteristics and they were not evaluated with regards to the City’s other designation criteria. While it is unlikely that Tier 3 properties would retain enough integrity to be associated with any other City designation criteria, some Tier 3 properties could be potentially historically significant pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5a Criterion 3a – historical resources associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage, and 3b – historical resources that are associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 422

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 26 - June 12, 2024
With approval of the project, it is possible that potentially historic resources pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5a Criterion 3a and Criterion 3b would be excluded from historic review due to the exclusion of Tier 3 properties from historical review requirements. As a result, impacts related to historical resources would be potentially significant. This issue will be evaluated in further detail in a focused EIR. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could cause an adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not impact archaeological resources because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could disturb human remains. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not disturb human remains because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.

VI. ENERGY -- Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not have the potential to result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources because no physical development is proposed. No Impact would occur.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 423

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 27 - June 12, 2024
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not have the potential to conflict with plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could result in adverse effects from earthquake or fault ruptures. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not have the potential to result in adverse effects from earthquakes or fault ruptures because no physical development is proposed. Therefore, implementation of the project would result in no impacts related to earthquakes and fault ruptures.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could result in adverse effects from seismic ground shaking. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not have the potential to result in adverse effects from seismic ground shaking because no physical development is proposed. Therefore, implementation of the project would result in no impacts related to seismic ground shaking.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 424

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 28 - June 12, 2024
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could result in adverse effects from seismic-related ground failure and liquefaction. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process.

The project would not have the potential to result in adverse effects from seismic-related ground failure and liquefaction because no physical development is proposed. Therefore, implementation of the project would result in no impacts related to seismic-related ground failure and liquefaction. iv. Landslides?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could result in adverse effects from landslides. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not have the potential to result in adverse effects from landslides because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not have the potential to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in an on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 425

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 29 - June 12, 2024
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in an on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not have the potential to result in adverse effects from landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could be located on expansive soil. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not have the potential to be located on expansive soil because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could be incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not have the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 426

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 30 - June 12, 2024
resource or site or unique geologic feature because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 states that “the determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) calls for careful judgment by the lead agency, consistent with the provisions in Section 15064. A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate, or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.” Section 15064.4(b) further states that a lead agency should consider the following non-exclusive factors when assessing the significance of GHG emissions:

1. The extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting;

2. Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency applies to the project; and

3. The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(1) states that “the lead agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable.” A cumulative impact may be significant when the project’s incremental effect, though individually limited, is cumulatively considerable.

Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not have the potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 and EO B-30-15 established GHG emission reduction targets for the state, and AB 32 launched the CARB Climate Change Scoping Plan that outlined the reduction measures needed to reach the 2020 target, which the state has achieved. As required by Senate Bill Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 427

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 31 - June 12, 2024
(SB) 32, CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan outlines reduction measures needed to achieve the interim 2030 target. AB 1279, the California Climate Crisis Act, codified the carbon neutrality target as 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan was adopted in December 2022. The 2022 Scoping Plan lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by AB 1279.

The project would not conflict with statewide goals to reduce GHG emissions as required by SB 32 and the 2017 Scoping Plan. Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could conflict with plans and policies adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not have the potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.

IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not create a hazard involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 428

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 32 - June 12, 2024
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not emit hazardous emissions or materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, or is otherwise known to have been subject to a release of hazardous substances and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could create be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites or is otherwise known to have been subject to a release of hazardous substances. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not result in development or specific construction activity that could be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites or is otherwise known to have been subject to a release of hazardous substances because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could result in a safety hazard or excessive aircraft related noise for people residing or working in the project area. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 429

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 33 - June 12, 2024
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not result in exposure of people or structures to wildland fire hazards because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 430

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 34 - June 12, 2024
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not decrease groundwater supplies, interfere with groundwater recharge, or impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surface, in a manner which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 431

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 35 - June 12, 2024
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide additional sources of polluted runoff. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not create runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or provide additional sources of polluted runoff because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could impede or redirect flood flows. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not result in development that would impede or redirect flood flows because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not result in development that would risk release of pollutants due to project inundation because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 432

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 36 - June 12, 2024
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could physically divide an established community. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not physically divide an established community because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

Potentially Significant Impact: The project would amend the Historic Resource Code (Title 84 of the CMC) to eliminate Tier 3 properties from further historic review which, although unlikely, could result in significant impacts to property that could be historically significant due to their association with people places or events (Criterion A and B of CMC 84.10.030). Eliminating Tier 3 properties from further historic review could conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, specifically related to historic resources. Based on the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (City of Coronado 2005), example policies that the project could conflict with include, but are not limited to, the following:

City of Coronado General Plan
• Land Use Element Goal 5: That preservation of historic structures and neighborhoods should be encouraged.
• Housing Element Goal 4: To encourage the conservation and maintenance of its housing stock, neighborhoods, and history.
 Policy 4.4: Provide incentives to rehabilitate and preserve historic housing.  Policy 4.5: Educate the public concerning the community’s history and historic structures.

City of Coronado Local Coastal Program
• Designate and encourage the rehabilitation, preservation and viability of the community's historic and architecturally significant structures.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 433

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 37 - June 12, 2024
As a result of proposed amendments to the CMC, the project would cause a potentially significant environmental impact due to conflicts with plans and/or policies adopted for the purpose of protecting historic resources. This issue will be evaluated in further detail in a focused EIR.

XII. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources of value to the region and the state because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recover site because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.

XIII. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could generate a temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 434

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 38 - June 12, 2024
the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan and noise ordinance. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not result in an increase in ambient noise levels because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive airport related noise levels. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not expose people to excessive airport related noise levels because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.

XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area either directly or indirectly.

The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area as no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 435

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 39 - June 12, 2024
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:
i. Fire protection?
No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could require new or expanded fire protection facilities. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not result in the need for new or expanded fire protection facilities because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.
ii. Police protection?
No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could require new or expanded police protection facilities. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not result in the need for new or expanded police protection facilities because no physical development is proposed.

No impact would occur.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 436

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 40 - June 12, 2024
iii. Schools?
No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could require new or expanded school facilities. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not result in the need for new or expanded school facilities because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.
iv. Parks?
No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could require new or expanded park facilities. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not result in the need for new or expanded park facilities because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.
v. Other public Facilities?
No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could require new or expanded public facilities. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not result in the need for new or expanded public facilities because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.

XVI. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The project would amend Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 437

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 41 - June 12, 2024
the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.

XVII. TRANSPORTATION -- Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities because no physical development is proposed, and the code amendments would not conflict with programs, plans, ordinances or policies addressing the circulation system. No impact would occur.
b) Would the project conflict or be consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Generally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. For the purposes of this section, “vehicle miles traveled” refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel. The criteria for analyzing transportation impacts are:
(1) Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.
(2) Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 438

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 42 - June 12, 2024
(3) Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project’s vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate.
(4) Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.

Per the applicable guidance cited above, transportation projects that are presumed to have a less than significant impact on transportation are not required to conduct a VMT analysis. The project does not propose any development and consists of an amendment to the Historic Resource Code (Title 84 of the CMC) which would modify the types of properties within the City that are subject to a historic review. The project would not increase vehicle trips because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not increase hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not increase hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in inadequate emergency access. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not result in inadequate emergency access because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 439

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 43 - June 12, 2024
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined in Public Resources Code §21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of Historical Resources as defined in Public Resources Code §5020.1(k), or Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code §5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.

Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of Historical Resources as defined in Public Resources Code §5020.1(k)? No Impact: Public Resources Code §5020.1(k) refers to historical resources that are officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution.

No properties that are listed as historic by the State or the City of Coronado would be affected by the project. Proposed changes to Title 84 of the CMC would not remove any protections for existing State or locally designated historic resources.

Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could cause an adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. The proposed amendments to the CMC would not impact tribal cultural resources because no physical development is proposed. Furthermore, historic resources are existing buildings, structures, and properties that are typically located in areas that are developed and where earth disturbing activities have previously occurred; therefore, the potential for discovery of Native American cultural resources would be low. No impact would occur.
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code §5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe? No Impact: The proposed amendments to Title 84 of the CMC would affect how the City regulates historic, built-environment structures and would not have any effect on existing protections or regulations as it pertains to Tribal Cultural Resources. Nonetheless, the City initiated consultation with California Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 440

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 44 - June 12, 2024
Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the City consistent with the requirements of AB 52 on June 12, 2024.

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded utility facilities. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded utility facilities because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could result in insufficient water supplies to serve the project area. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not result in insufficient water supplies serving the project area because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could result in inadequate wastewater capacity. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not result in insufficient wastewater capacity because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 441

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 45 - June 12, 2024
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not result in any new development or specific construction activity that could generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not generate waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals, because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction of statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would comply with solid waste management and reduction statues and regulations because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.

XX. WILDFIRE -- If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan because no physical development is proposed. The project would not alter any established emergency vehicle routes. No impact would occur.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 442

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 46 - June 12, 2024
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentration from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not expose occupants to pollutant concentration from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process.

The project would not require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur. d) Expose people or structure to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Approval of the project would not expose people or structures to downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability or drainage changes. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project would not expose people or structures to wildfire risks because no physical development is proposed. No impact would occur.

XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 443

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 47 - June 12, 2024
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the project does not have the potential to result in significant impacts to biological resources as discussed in Section IV of this Initial Study. The project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. The project would have the potential to impact historical resources as discussed in Section V.a) of this Initial Study. The project would potentially eliminate important examples of major periods of California history.

As a result of this evaluation, there is substantial evidence that significant effects associated with this project would result. Potentially significant impacts of the project will be addressed in a Focused EIR. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Discussion/Explanation:

Potentially Significant Impact. A cumulative impact may be significant if a project’s incremental effect, though individually limited, is cumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. In addition to the projects impacts, this evaluation considered the project’s potential for incremental effects that are cumulatively considerable. The project would amend the types of properties that would be subject to the City’s historic review process. The project does not propose any physical development. However, the adoption of the project would result in potentially significant impacts to historical resources. The Historic Resource Code amendment would apply throughout the City and would exclude Tier 3 properties from historic review. As a result, the project could result in a cumulative loss of potentially historic properties as discussed in Section V.a) of this Initial Study. Therefore, the project’s contribution to a potential cumulative impact would be potentially significant. Potentially significant impacts of the project will be addressed in a Focused EIR.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 444

AMENDMENTS TO THE CORONADO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM - 48 - June 12, 2024
Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact. The project would not have a significant impact related to any issue areas that could result in adverse effects to human beings either directly or indirectly. Impacts related to air quality and noise would be less than significant. No impacts would occur related to air quality, noise, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and geology and soil and fire hazards because the project would not result in any physical development. Therefore, the project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, and the project has been determined not to meet this Mandatory Findings of Significance.

XXII. REFERENCES USED IN THE COMPLETION OF THE INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST California, State of
2022 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Department of Conservation Coronado, City of
1999 General Plan, Scenic Highway Element. October.
https://www.coronado.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1057/General-Plan-PDF?bidId=. 2005 Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan.
https://www.coronado.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1060/Local-Coastal-Program-Land-UsePlan-PDF?bidId=. 2018 City of Coronado Historic Resource Code, Chapter 84.10. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Coronado/#!/Coronado84/Coronado8410.html#84.10.

Dudek
2023 Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Inventory, City of Coronado, November.

Attachment 1 City of Coronado Page 445
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION