PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 A4. SELF-REPRESENTED (Continued)
No. Job Class Range Description A B C D E F G
1 S350 13 Associate Architect 3,574.57 3,753.30 3,940.97 4,138.02 4,344.92 4,562.16 4,790.27 1 S240 08 Associate Engineer 3,574.57 3,753.30 3,940.97 4,138.02 4,344.92 4,562.16 4,790.27 1 S245 03 Associate Human Resources Analyst 2,598.61 2,728.54 2,864.97 3,008.22 3,158.63 3,316.56 3,482.39 1 S247 61 Associate Information Technology Analyst * 2,775.19 2,913.95 3,059.64 3,212.63 3,373.26 3,541.92 3,719.02 3 S250 09 Associate Planner 3,021.31 3,172.38 3,330.99 3,497.54 3,672.42 3,856.04 4,048.85 4 S300 47 Beach Lifeguard 1,879.93 1,973.92 2,072.62 2,176.25 2,285.06 2,399.31 2,519.28 1 S305 43 Beach Lifeguard Captain 3,989.21 4,188.67 4,398.10 4,618.01 4,848.91 5,091.35 5,345.92 3 S315 11 Beach Lifeguard Sergeant 2,508.09 2,633.50 2,765.17 2,903.43 3,048.60 3,201.03 3,361.08 0 S325 54 Building Inspector I 2,566.37 2,694.69 2,829.42 2,970.89 3,119.44 3,275.41 3,439.18 2 S330 12 Building Inspector II 2,829.42 2,970.89 3,119.44 3,275.41 3,439.18 3,611.14 3,791.70 1 S335 48 Building Official 5,024.14 5,275.35 5,539.12 5,816.07 6,106.88 6,412.22 6,732.83 1 S358 57 Communications and Engagement Officer 3,668.83 3,852.27 4,044.88 4,247.13 4,459.48 4,682.46 4,916.58 2 S360 49 Community Development Technician 2,122.04 2,228.14 2,339.55 2,456.53 2,579.35 2,708.32 2,843.74 2 S365 27 Department Administrative Assistant 1,834.78 1,926.52 2,022.85 2,123.99 2,230.19 2,341.70 2,458.78 3 S366 04 Department Administrative Coordinator 2,190.23 2,299.74 2,414.73 2,535.46 2,662.24 2,795.35 2,935.12 0 S370 56 Deputy City Clerk 2,598.61 2,728.54 2,864.97 3,008.22 3,158.63 3,316.56 3,482.39 1 S370 56 Deputy City Clerk * 3,057.47 3,210.34 3,370.86 3,539.40 3,716.37 3,902.19 4,097.30 1 S515 04 Executive Assistant to the Police Chief 2,190.22 2,299.73 2,414.72 2,535.46 2,662.23 2,795.35 2,935.12 1 S530 15 Finance Manager 5,024.14 5,275.35 5,539.11 5,816.07 6,106.87 6,412.22 6,732.83 4 S555 24 Fire Division Chief 5,290.74 5,555.28 5,833.04 6,124.70 6,430.93 6,752.48 7,090.10 1 S568 59 Fire Prevention Aide 1,834.78 1,926.52 2,022.85 2,123.99 2,230.19 2,341.70 2,458.78 1 S570 17 Golf Superintendent 3,746.70 3,934.04 4,130.74 4,337.27 4,554.14 4,781.85 5,020.94 1 S578 24 Human Resources Analyst 3,057.47 3,210.34 3,370.86 3,539.40 3,716.37 3,902.19 4,097.30 1 S580 18 Human Resources and Risk Manager 5,024.14 5,275.35 5,539.11 5,816.07 6,106.87 6,412.22 6,732.83 0 S585 19 Human Resources Technician 2,252.34 2,364.96 2,483.21 2,607.37 2,737.73 2,874.62 3,018.35 2 S588 45 Information Technology Analyst * 3,343.60 3,510.78 3,686.32 3,870.64 4,064.17 4,267.38 4,480.74 1 S590 20 Information Technology Manager 5,024.14 5,275.35 5,539.11 5,816.07 6,106.87 6,412.22 6,732.83 0 S593 51 Information Technology Network Admin I 3,032.74 3,184.38 3,343.60 3,510.78 3,686.32 3,870.64 4,064.17 0 S591 45 Information Technology Network Admin II 3,343.60 3,510.78 3,686.32 3,870.64 4,064.17 4,267.38 4,480.74 1 S592 28 Information Technology Technician 2,252.34 2,364.96 2,483.21 2,607.37 2,737.73 2,874.62 3,018.35 5 S635 21 Librarian II 2,662.94 2,796.09 2,935.89 3,082.69 3,236.82 3,398.66 3,568.59 1 S645 22 Library Assistant II 1,983.63 2,082.81 2,186.95 2,296.29 2,411.11 2,531.66 2,658.25 0 S650 46 Library Assistant III 2,281.17 2,395.23 2,514.99 2,640.74 2,772.78 2,911.41 3,056.99 1 S680 40 Library Services Analyst 2,916.39 3,062.20 3,215.31 3,376.08 3,544.88 3,722.13 3,908.24 0 S690 23 Library Technician 2,563.01 2,691.16 2,825.71 2,967.00 3,115.35 3,271.12 3,434.67 5 S720 24 Management Analyst 3,057.47 3,210.34 3,370.86 3,539.40 3,716.37 3,902.19 4,097.30 2 S120 03 Management Assistant 2,598.61 2,728.54 2,864.97 3,008.22 3,158.63 3,316.56 3,482.39 0 S790 16 Payroll Specialist 2,252.34 2,364.96 2,483.21 2,607.37 2,737.73 2,874.62 3,018.35 1 S790 16 Payroll Specialist * 2,342.43 2,459.56 2,582.53 2,711.66 2,847.24 2,989.60 3,139.09 2 S801 44 Police Captain 5,641.46 5,923.54 6,219.71 6,530.70 6,857.23 7,200.10 7,560.10 1 S805 29 Police Com. Relations Coord. 3,057.47 3,210.34 3,370.86 3,539.40 3,716.37 3,902.20 4,097.30 2 S802 30 Police Lieutenant 4,954.11 5,201.81 5,461.90 5,735.00 6,021.75 6,322.84 6,638.98 0 S824 50 Police Officer Recruit 2,616.60 2,747.43 2,884.80 3,029.04 3,180.49 3,339.51 3,506.49 3 S828 27 Police Records Specialist 1,834.78 1,926.52 2,022.85 2,123.99 2,230.19 2,341.70 2,458.78 1 S845 31 Police Support Services Manager 3,755.09 3,942.84 4,139.98 4,346.98 4,564.33 4,792.55 5,032.18 1 S355 14 Principal Architect 4,751.80 4,989.39 5,238.85 5,500.80 5,775.84 6,064.63 6,367.86 1 S865 32 Principal Engineer 4,751.80 4,989.39 5,238.85 5,500.80 5,775.84 6,064.63 6,367.86 1 S870 33 Principal Librarian 3,353.74 3,521.43 3,697.50 3,882.38 4,076.49 4,280.32 4,494.34 1 S872 60 Principal Planner 4,251.00 4,463.56 4,686.73 4,921.07 5,167.13 5,425.48 5,696.76 1 S873 55 Public Services & Engineering Admin Mgr 4,586.38 4,815.70 5,056.48 5,309.30 5,574.77 5,853.51 6,146.18 2 S875 34 Public Services Manager 3,934.04 4,130.74 4,337.27 4,554.14 4,781.85 5,020.94 5,271.98 0 S880 35 Public Services Technician 2,182.55 2,291.68 2,406.26 2,526.58 2,652.91 2,785.55 2,924.83 3 S905 38 Recreation Coordinator 1,977.28 2,076.14 2,179.95 2,288.95 2,403.39 2,523.56 2,649.74 4 S915 36 Recreation Services Supervisor 2,913.70 3,059.38 3,212.35 3,372.97 3,541.62 3,718.70 3,904.63 1 S940 37 Secretary to the City Manager 2,549.30 2,676.76 2,810.60 2,951.13 3,098.69 3,253.62 3,416.30 1 S946 41 Senior Accountant * 3,668.83 3,852.27 4,044.88 4,247.13 4,459.48 4,682.46 4,916.58 1 S947 62 Senior Accounting Technician * 2,158.36 2,266.27 2,379.59 2,498.57 2,623.49 2,754.67 2,892.40 2 S951 10 Senior Engineer 4,325.23 4,541.50 4,768.57 5,007.00 5,257.35 5,520.22 5,796.23 2 S953 41 Senior Human Resources Analyst 3,668.83 3,852.27 4,044.88 4,247.13 4,459.48 4,682.46 4,916.58 1 S954 41 Senior Information Technology Analyst * 3,668.83 3,852.27 4,044.88 4,247.13 4,459.48 4,682.46 4,916.58 Effective July 13, 2024
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan
Sections 1 through 3 Page 2
Fiscal Year 2024-25
City of Coronado
Amended April 15, 2025
PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 A4. SELF-REPRESENTED (Continued)
No. Job Class Range Description A B C D E F G
2 S955 40 Senior Librarian 2,916.39 3,062.20 3,215.31 3,376.08 3,544.88 3,722.13 3,908.24 4 S960 41 Senior Management Analyst 3,668.83 3,852.27 4,044.88 4,247.13 4,459.48 4,682.46 4,916.58 1 S965 42 Senior Planner 3,668.83 3,852.27 4,044.88 4,247.13 4,459.48 4,682.46 4,916.58 1 S973 53 Utility Manager 4,123.17 4,329.33 4,545.80 4,773.09 5,011.74 5,262.33 5,525.45 108.00
239.00 Total Regular Full-Time Classified Positions
B. SELF-REPRESENTED PART-TIME (Hourly Rate)
No. Job Class Range Description A B C D E F G
0.75 R105 02 Accounting Technician I 25.69 26.98 28.33 29.74 31.23 32.79 34.43
0.50 R160 39 Aquatics Coordinator 24.72 25.95 27.25 28.61 30.04 31.54 33.12
0.00 R365 27 Department Administrative Assistant 22.93 24.08 25.29 26.55 27.88 29.27 30.73
0.75 R366 04 Department Administrative Coordinator 27.38 28.75 30.18 31.69 33.28 34.94 36.69
0.00 R635 21 Librarian II 33.29 34.95 36.70 38.53 40.46 42.48 44.61
1.50 R645 22 Library Assistant II 24.80 26.04 27.34 28.70 30.14 31.65 33.23
0.75 R650 46 Library Assistant III 28.51 29.94 31.44 33.01 34.66 36.39 38.21
0.00 R720 24 Management Analyst 38.22 40.13 42.14 44.24 46.45 48.78 51.22
1.50 R905 38 Recreation Coordinator 24.72 25.95 27.25 28.61 30.04 31.54 33.12
5.75 5.75 Total Regular Part-Time Classified Positions
C. TEMPORARY PART-TIME AND SEASONAL (Hourly Rate)
No. Job Class Range Description A B C D E F G
T130 01 Administrative Intern 17.14 - - - - - -
T300 03 Beach Lifeguard 21.39 22.46 23.58 24.76 26.00 27.30 28.66 T320 38 Beach Lifeguard Trainee 17.14 - - - - - -
T360 35 Community Development Technician 26.53 27.85 29.24 30.71 32.24 33.85 35.55 T497 29 Emergency Medical Technician 18.92 19.86 20.86 21.90 22.99 24.14 25.35 T505 20 Evidence and Property Technician 32.62 34.25 35.96 37.76 39.65 41.63 43.71 T572 19 Firefighter/Paramedic 28.02 29.42 30.89 32.43 34.05 35.76 37.55 T630 05 Librarian I 28.00 29.40 30.87 32.42 34.04 35.74 37.53 T640 06 Library Assistant I 21.57 22.64 23.78 24.97 26.21 27.52 28.90 T665 07 Library Monitor 17.84 18.73 19.67 20.65 21.69 22.77 23.91 T675 08 Library Page 17.14 - - - - - -
T695 09 Lifeguard Assistant (Beach) 17.14 - - - - - -
T705 33 Maintenance Worker II 24.17 25.38 26.64 27.98 29.38 30.84 32.39 T720 31 Management Analyst 38.22 40.13 42.14 44.24 46.45 48.78 51.22 T815 32 Police Dispatcher 31.91 33.51 35.18 36.94 38.79 40.73 42.76 T851 24 Pool Lifeguard I 19.67 20.65 21.68 - - - -
T852 25 Pool Lifeguard II 20.52 21.55 22.63 - - - -
T853 26 Pool Lifeguard III 21.50 22.57 23.70 24.89 - - - T900 11 Recreation Assistant 17.14 - - - - - -
T910 12 Recreation Leader 18.23 19.14 20.10 - - - -
T925 13 Recreation Specialist 20.51 21.53 22.61 23.74 - - - T935 14 Seasonal Maintenance Assistant I 17.72 18.59 19.52 20.50 21.53 22.62 23.74 T936 15 Seasonal Maintenance Assistant II 19.50 20.47 21.50 22.58 23.70 24.89 26.13 T960 27 Senior Management Analyst 45.86 48.15 50.56 53.09 55.74 58.53 61.46 * Job classifications notated with an asterisk (*) include rate changes and/or new classifications effective August 24, 2024.
Effective July 13, 2024
Effective July 13, 2024
Effective July 13, 2024
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan
Sections 1 through 3 Page 3
Fiscal Year 2024-25
City of Coronado
Amended April 15, 2025
PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 Section 2. Unclassified Positions
A. EXECUTIVE POSITIONS (Monthly Rate)
No. Job Class Description Min Max Band
1 E375 City Clerk 9,762.92 13,210.54 1
0 E440 City Engineer 11,419.32 15,685.88 2
0 E450 Director of Golf Course Operations 11,419.32 15,685.88 2 1 E455 Director of Library Services 11,419.32 15,685.88 2 0 E470 Director of Recreation 11,419.32 15,685.88 2
1 E425 Director of Administrative Services 14,932.96 17,819.16 3 1 E475 Director of Comm Devlp, Redevelopment/Housing Srvcs 14,932.96 17,819.16 3 1 E480 Director of Recreation & Golf 14,932.96 17,819.16 3 1 E200 Assistant City Manager 16,564.29 19,701.47 4
1 E445 Fire Chief 16,564.29 19,701.47 4
1 E465 Director of Public Services & Engineering 16,564.29 19,701.47 4 1 E460 Police Chief 17,723.75 21,080.50 5
1 E385 City Manager * - 24,630.83
*Contract amendment approved by the City Council on December 17, 2024. New rate effective December 14, 2024.
10.00 Total Unclassified Positions
254.75 Total Regular Full-Time Classified, Regular Part-Time Classified, and Unclassified Positions (full time equivalent) C. ELECTED POSITIONS (Monthly Rate)
Salary Expense Allowance
Council Member ** 1,187.50 150.00
Mayor ** 1,187.50 225.00
Effective July 13, 2024
**Ordinance 2024-11 approved by the City Council on December 17, 2024 to amend monthly salary.
New monthly salary rate effective December 17, 2024.
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan
Sections 1 through 3 Page 4
Fiscal Year 2024-25
City of Coronado Page
Amended April 15, 2025
162
PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 Function
Department Unclassified Classified Unclassified Classified Position Title Section 2 Section 1 Section 2 Section 1
General Government
City Clerk
City Clerk 1
Deputy City Clerk 1
Total 1 1 0 0
City Manager
City Manager 1
Assistant City Manager 1
Assistant to the City Manager 0
Communications and Engagement Officer 1
Secretary to the City Manager 1
Senior Management Analyst 2
Total 2 4 0 0
Administrative Services
Director of Administrative Services 1
Accountant 1
Accounting Technician I 0
Associate Accountant 1
Associate Human Resources Analyst 1
Associate Information Technology Analyst 1
Department Administrative Assistant 1
Finance Manager 1
Human Resources Analyst 1
Human Resources and Risk Manager 1
Information Technology Analyst 2
Information Technology Manager 1
Information Technology Network Admin. I 0
Information Technology Network Admin. II 0
Information Technology Technician 1
Management Analyst 0
Management Assistant 0
Payroll Specialist 1
Senior Accountant 1
Senior Accounting Technician 1
Senior Human Resources Analyst 2
Senior Information Technology Analyst 1
Senior Management Analyst 0
Total 1 18 0 0
Planning & Building Services
Community Development, Redevelopment & Housing Services Director of Community Development, 1
Redevelopment & Housing Services
Assistant Planner 1
Associate Planner 3
Building Inspector I 0
Building Inspector II 2
Building Official 1
Community Development Technician 2
Department Administrative Coordinator 1
Principal Planner 1
Senior Planner 1
Total 1 12 0 0
Section 3. Authorized regular full-time and part-time positions categorized by function and department:
Authorized Full-Time Regular Part-Time
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan
Sections 1 through 3 Page 5
Fiscal Year 2024-25
City of Coronado Page
Amended April 15, 2025
163
PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 Function
Department Unclassified Classified Unclassified Classified Position Title Section 2 Section 1 Section 2 Section 1
Section 3. Authorized regular full-time and part-time positions categorized by function and department:
Authorized Full-Time Regular Part-Time
Public Safety
Fire & Beach Lifeguard Services
Fire Chief 1
Accounting Technician I 0 0.75
Beach Lifeguard Captain 1
Beach Lifeguard Sergeant 3
Beach Lifeguard 4
Fire Captain 6
Fire Division Chief 4
Fire Engineer 6
Fire Prevention Aide 1
Firefighter/Paramedic 15
Management Analyst 1
Management Assistant 0
Total 1 41 0 0.75
Police Services
Police Chief 1
Accounting Technician I 1
Evidence & Property Technician 1
Executive Assistant to the Police Chief 1
Management Analyst 1
Management Assistant 0
Police Captain 2
Police Community Relations Coordinator 1
Police Corporal 6
Police Dispatcher 9
Police Dispatch Supervisor 1
Police Lieutenant 2
Police Officer 28
Police Records Specialist 3
Police Sergeant 7
Police Services Officer II 6
Police Support Services Manager 1
Total 1 70 0 0.00
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan
Sections 1 through 3 Page 6
Fiscal Year 2024-25
City of Coronado Page
Amended April 15, 2025
164
PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 Function
Department Unclassified Classified Unclassified Classified Position Title Section 2 Section 1 Section 2 Section 1
Section 3. Authorized regular full-time and part-time positions categorized by function and department:
Authorized Full-Time Regular Part-Time
Culture & Leisure
Library Services
Director of Library Services 1
Accounting Technician I 0
Department Administrative Coordinator 1
Librarian II 5
Library Assistant II 1 1.50
Library Assistant III 0 0.75
Library Services Analyst 1
Library Technician 0
Management Assistant 1
Principal Librarian 1
Senior Librarian 2
Total 1 12 0 2.25
Recreation & Golf Course Operations
Director of Recreation & Golf 1
Accounting Technician I 1
Aquatics Coordinator 3 0.50
Aquatics Supervisor 1
Department Administrative Assistant 0 0.00
Department Administrative Coordinator 0 0.75
Management Assistant 1
Management Analyst 0
Recreation Coordinator 3 1.50
Recreation Services Supervisor 4
Senior Management Analyst 1
Maintenance Worker II (Golf) 7
Maintenance Worker III (Golf) 2
Golf Superintendent 1
Lead Maintenance Worker (Golf) 1
Special Equipment Mechanic II (Golf) 1
Total 1 26 0 2.75
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan
Sections 1 through 3 Page 7
Fiscal Year 2024-25
City of Coronado Page
Amended April 15, 2025
165
PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 Function
Department Unclassified Classified Unclassified Classified Position Title Section 2 Section 1 Section 2 Section 1
Section 3. Authorized regular full-time and part-time positions categorized by function and department:
Authorized Full-Time Regular Part-Time
Construction & Maintenance
Public Services and Engineering
Director of Public Services and Engineering 1
City Engineer 0
Assistant Director of Public Services & Eng. 1
Assistant Engineer 1
Associate Architect 1
Associate Engineer 1
Accounting Technician I 2
Department Administrative Assistant 1
Department Administrative Coordinator 1
Electrician 1
Lead Maintenance Worker 4
Lead Pump Mechanic 1
Management Analyst 3
Maintenance Worker II 11
Maintenance Worker III 4
Master Mechanic 1
Mechanic I 1
Mechanic II 3
Motor Sweeper Operator 1
Principal Architect 1
Principal Engineer 1
Public Services & Engineering Admin Mgr 1
Public Services Manager 2
Public Services Technician 0
Senior Engineer 2
Senior Management Analyst 1
Special Equipment Mechanic I 1
Utility Manager 1
Utility Systems Operator II 4
Utility Systems Operator III 2
Tree Trimmer 1
Total 1 55 0 0.00
Total Full & Permanent Part Time Positions 10 239 0 5.75 Grand Total - Full-time Equivalent Authorized Positions 254.75 Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan
Sections 1 through 3 Page 8
Fiscal Year 2024-25
City of Coronado Page
Amended April 15, 2025
166
Section 4. EXECUTIVE AND EXEMPT CLASSIFICATIONS
A. Unclassified/EXECUTIVE Classifications
The following classifications are Unclassified/EXECUTIVE (FLSA Exempt):
Assistant City Manager
City Clerk
City Engineer
City Manager
All Department Directors
B. Classified/EXEMPT Classifications
The following full-time classifications are Classified/FLSA Exempt:
Accountant Management Analyst
Assistant to the City Manager Police Captain
Assistant Director of Public Services & Engineering Police Community Relations Coordinator
Associate Architect Police Lieutenant
Aquatics Supervisor Police Support Services Manager
Associate Engineer Principal Architect
Associate Planner Principal Engineer
Beach Lifeguard Captain Principal Librarian
Building Official Principal Planner
Communications and Engagement Officer Public Services & Engineering Admin Mgr
Deputy City Clerk Public Services Manager
Finance Manager Recreation Services Supervisor
Fire Division Chief Senior Accountant
Emergency Management Coordinator Senior Engineer
Golf Superintendent Senior Librarian
Human Resources and Risk Manager Senior Management Analyst Human Resources Analyst Senior Planner
Information Technology Manager Senior Human Resources Analyst Library Services Analyst Utility Manager
Section 5. CLASSIFICATIONS REPRESENTED BY EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATIONS (listed by Association)
A. The following classifications are represented by the AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL 127
(AFSCME):
Electrician Mechanic I
Engineering Technician II Mechanic II
City of Coronado Page 167
Heavy Equipment Operator Motor Sweeper Operator
Lead Maintenance Worker Special Equipment Mechanic I
Lead Pump Mechanic Special Equipment Mechanic II
Maintenance Worker I Tree Trimmer
Maintenance Worker II Utility Systems Operator I
Maintenance Worker III Utility Systems Operator II
Master Mechanic Utility Systems Operator III
B. The following classifications are represented by the CORONADO FIREFIGHTERS’ ASSOCIATION (CFA):
Firefighter Firefighter/Paramedic
Fire Captain Fire Engineer
C. The following classifications are represented by the CORONADO POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION (CPOA):
Evidence & Property Technician Police Officer
Police Corporal Police Sergeant
Police Dispatcher Police Services Officer I
Police Dispatch Supervisor Police Services Officer II
Section 6. SELF-REPRESENTED CLASSIFICATIONS
SELF-REPRESENTED classifications are those regular full-time and regular part-time positions (defined as employees who work a fixed schedule greater than twenty (20) hours but fewer than forty (40) hours per week and identified in the Annual Budget as regular part-time), which are not classified as Executive and are not represented by an Association.
The following classifications are SELF-REPRESENTED:
Accountant Information Technology Technician
Accounting Technician I Librarian II
Administrative Secretary Library Assistant II
Aquatics Coordinator Library Assistant III
Aquatics Supervisor Library Services Analyst
Assistant Director of Public Services & Eng Library Technician Assistant Engineer Management Analyst
Assistant Planner Management Assistant
Assistant to the City Manager Payroll Specialist
Associate Architect Police Captain
Associate Engineer Police Com. Relations Coord.
Associate Human Resources Analyst Police Lieutenant
Associate Information Technology Analyst Police Officer Recruit Associate Planner Police Records Specialist
Beach Lifeguard Police Support Services Manager
Beach Lifeguard Captain Principal Architect
City of Coronado Page 168
Beach Lifeguard Sergeant Principal Engineer
Building Inspector I Principal Librarian
Building Inspector II Principal Planner
Building Official Public Services & Engineering Admin Mgr Communications and Engagement Officer Public Services Manager Community Development Technician Public Services Technician Department Administrative Assistant Recreation Coordinator Department Administrative Coordinator Recreation Services Supervisor Deputy City Clerk Secretary to the City Manager
Executive Assistant to the Police Chief Senior Accountant Finance Manager Senior Human Resources Analyst
Fire Division Chief Senior Information Technology Analyst Fire Prevention Aide Senior Accounting Technician
Golf Superintendent Senior Engineer
Human Resources Analyst Senior Librarian
Human Resources and Risk Manager Senior Management Analyst Human Resources Technician Senior Planner
Information Technology Analyst Utility Manager
Information Technology Manager
Information Technology Network Admin I
Information Technology Network Admin II
Section 7. TEMPORARY PART-TIME AND SEASONAL CLASSIFICATIONS (Non-Benefited) A. TEMPORARY PART-TIME AND SEASONAL positions do not work regularly scheduled hours. These positions are non-regular, do not accrue benefits, and are exempt from provisions of the Civil Service Rules per Civil Service Rule II:
Classification of Positions, Section 4, Page 4.
B. The following classifications and/or any other classifications listed in Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 and Section 6 may be utilized when hiring TEMPORARY PART-TIME positions:
Administrative Intern Lifeguard Assistant (Beach)
Beach Lifeguard Pool Lifeguard I/II/III
Beach Lifeguard Trainee Recreation Assistant
Emergency Medical Technician Recreation Leader
Librarian I Recreation Specialist
Library Assistant I Seasonal Maintenance Assistant I
Library Monitor Seasonal Maintenance Assistant II
Library Page
C. The salary range steps for the following classifications will keep pace with the established California minimum wage rate. The California minimum wage may change after the publication of the Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan City of Coronado Page 169
and any steps below the minimum wage for all TEMPORARY PART-TIMEAND SEASONAL classifications will be adjusted accordingly on the next revision.
Administrative Intern
Beach Lifeguard Trainee
Library Page
Lifeguard Assistant (Beach)
Recreation Assistant
Section 8. EXCEEDING AUTHORIZED NUMBER OF POSITIONS FOR A CLASSIFICATION Departments shall be allowed to exceed the authorized number of positions in a classification for up to two (2) weeks to enable an employee who is vacating a position to participate in the training of his/her replacement. Longer periods of overlap may be approved by the City Manager
Section 9. SALARIES
A. All employees, except City Manager and Unclassified Executive employees, shall receive salaries as shown in Section 1.
B. The salaries for all Unclassified Executive Employees are set by the City Manager within the salary bands as shown in Section 2A.
C. The City Manager’s salary is set by the City Council and is shown in Section 2A.
Section 10. RETIREMENT
A. BENEFIT FORMULAS
1. The City shall provide retirement benefits through the California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) to all classified regular full-time and part-time and all unclassified EXECUTIVE employees.
2. For all public safety employees (sworn police and fire positions) hired prior to January 1, 2013, and for all public safety employees that meet the definition of a “classic” member as determined by CalPERS, the City will provide the “3% at 50” retirement benefit formula.
In compliance with the Public Employee Pension Reform Act of 2012, for all public safety employees (sworn police and fire positions) hired after January 1, 2013, who do not meet the CalPERS definition of a “classic” member, the City will provide the “2.7% at 57” retirement benefit formula.
3. For all miscellaneous, non-safety (non-sworn) employees hired prior to January 1, 2013, and for all miscellaneous, non-safety employees that meet the definition of a “classic” member as determined by CalPERS, the City will provide the “3% at 60” retirement benefit formula.
City of Coronado Page 170
In compliance with the Public Employee Pension Reform Act of 2012, for all miscellaneous, non-safety (non-sworn) employees hired after January 1, 2013, who do not meet the CalPERS definition of a “classic” member, the City will provide the “2% at 62” retirement benefit formula.
B. EMPLOYEE MEMBER CONTRIBUTION
1. All City employees shall be responsible for paying their respective required CalPERS member contribution. For employees who are not classified as “classic” members, the CalPERS member contribution will be determined annually based upon the CalPERS actuarial.
2. Effective July 6, 2019, the CalPERS contribution rate for all classic miscellaneous, non-safety members will be 9.5% (previously 8%), and 10.5% for all classic safety members (previously 9%). The formula for new members, enrolled in CalPERS on or after January 1, 2013, is 2% at 62 with a required employee contribution of 7.50%.
C. EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION (ALL CATEGORIES)
The City will pay the actuarially determined CalPERS employer contribution for all regular positions.
Section 11. LEAVE
A. ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE
1. Administrative Leave is in lieu of overtime and compensatory time as authorized by the City Manager.
2. Unclassified EXECUTIVE positions and those classified as FLSA/EXEMPT POLICE CAPTAIN shall receive eighty (80) hours of Administrative Leave.
3. Those positions classified FLSA/EXEMPT, excluding FIRE DIVISION CHIEFS, shall receive sixty (60) hours of Administrative Leave.
4. Administrative Leave is accrued on July l and is to be used in the fiscal year in which it is earned in accordance with Civil Service Rule VI, Holidays and Leaves, Section 17. It has no cash value. Unused Administrative Leave shall expire on June 30.
5. Eligible employees hired after July 1 of a fiscal year will receive a pro-rated credit.
B. ANNUAL LEAVE (in lieu of sick leave and vacation)
1. All SELF-REPRESENTED employees, shall accrue annual leave on a biweekly basis as follows (which includes both employment with Coronado and lateral City of Coronado Page 171
service credit, as applicable):
LEAVE ACCRUAL TIER
(YEARS OF SERVICE)
HOURS PER
YEAR
0-5 144
>5-10 192
>10-20 216
>20 232
Maximum accumulation is 480 hours.
Employees working a 56-hour work week shall earn annual leave based upon the hours per year shown above but converted by a multiplier of 1.4.
2. Effective July 1, 2018, POLICE LIEUTENANT and POLICE CAPTAIN classifications, similar to sworn law enforcement employees represented by the CORONADO POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION will receive annual leave accruals based on years of full-time sworn law enforcement experience including service time spent with other agencies.
3. SELF-REPRESENTED NON-EXEMPT and EXEMPT EMPLOYEES may convert the following annual leave to cash each fiscal year based on their leave accrual tier (which includes both employment with Coronado and lateral service credit, as applicable) :
MAX CONVERSION (HOURS)
LEAVE ACCRUAL TIER
(YEARS OF SERVICE)
SELF REPRESENTED
NON-EXEMPT
EMPLOYEES
SELF REPRESENTED
EXEMPT EMPLOYEES
0 - 5 40 80
>5 - 10 80 80
>10 - 20 120 120
>20 120 120
The City Manager may convert up to one-hundred and twenty (120) hours of annual leave to cash each fiscal year.
4. Unclassified EXECUTIVES shall accrue annual leave on a biweekly basis as follows , and be allowed to convert annual leave to cash each fiscal year based on their leave accrual tier (which includes both employment with Coronado and lateral service credit, as applicable):
LEAVE ACCRUAL TIER
(YEARS OF SERVICE)
HOURS PER
YEAR
MAX CONVERSION
(HOURS)
0-5 184 80
6+ 224 120
Maximum accumulation is 480 hours.
City of Coronado Page 172
5. SELF-REPRESENTED and unclassified EXECUTIVE employees are eligible to receive Lateral Service Credit. Benefitted full and part-time employees hired with prior public sector experience may receive credit for prior service through annual leave accrual rates for their years of service with other public agencies.
Public sector experience is defined as employment in a city, county, state, federal government, or special district. This does not include military service time. Prior service applies to benefitted full-time and part-time regular positions.
Employees must submit proof of prior service time within 30 days of appointment for time to be recognized. New leave accruals will be effective the pay period following the date of prior service documentation submission.
6. Refer to respective MOUs for specific details on AFSCME, CPOA, and CFA Leave.
C. SICK LEAVE
1. Temporary Part-Time and Seasonal Employees employed on or after July 1, 2015 and who work for 30 or more days within a year, and who do not accrue other paid leaves, will accrue paid sick leave in compliance with the Healthy Workplace, Healthy Families Act of 2014. Leave will accrue at a rate of one hour for every 30 hours worked beginning on the first day of employment or July 1, 2015, whichever is later. Subject to limitations, a Temporary Part-Time or Seasonal employee may use sick leave only after the 90th day of employment and up to 40 hours in one calendar year. Upon separation of employment or appointment to a probationary/permanent position, any unused sick leave will be cashed out at the current rate of pay.
2. Refer to respective CFA MOU for specific details on Sick Leave.
D. BEREAVEMENT LEAVE
1. Unclassified EXECUTIVE and SELF-REPRESENTED employees, shall receive up to five (5) work days of leave without loss of base pay or deductions from other leave balances in order to attend customary obligations arising from the death of a relative who is a member of employee’s immediate family.
2. The “immediate family” shall be defined as: spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild; the aforementioned either natural, legally adopted, step or in-law, or any person over which the employee acts as legal guardian; or similar relationships as determined by the City Manager or designee.
Section 12. HEALTH/CAFETERIA BENEFIT PLAN
A. The annual allotment for calendar year 2024 and 2025 for Health/Cafeteria Benefit Plan for SELF-REPRESENTED employees, employees represented by the CORONADO FIREFIGHTERS’ ASSOCIATION, CORONADO POLICE
OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION, and the AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, City of Coronado Page 173
COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL 127 shall be asfollows:
January 1 – December 31, 2024: $2,030/month
January 1 – December 31, 2025: $2,168/month
B. The annual allotment for Health/Cafeteria Benefit Plan for EXECUTIVE employees shall be as follows:
January 1 – December 31, 2024: $2,303/month
January 1 – December 31, 2025: $2,460/month
C. The annual allotment for Health/Cafeteria Benefit Plan for retired employees participating in CalPERS health plans shall be as follows:
January 1 – December 31, 2024: $157/month
January 1 – December 31, 2025: $158/month
D. The Health/Cafeteria Benefit Plan allotment is pro-rated on a calendar year basis.
Section 13. TUITION REIMBURSEMENT
A. SELF-REPRESENTED and unclassified EXECUTIVE employees are eligible to receive $2,000 per year for both college classes leading to a degree and non-graded classes or short-term seminars that benefit the employee in the performance of city work upon written verification of satisfactory course work completion, per Administrative Procedure 131. Additionally, SELF-REPRESENTED and unclassified EXECUTIVE employees are able to utilize this benefit for student loan. Reimbursement may be requested, up to the annual maximum as specified in the approved salary resolution, for any eligible unreimbursed expenses incurred on or after July 1st of current fiscal year.
B. Refer to respective MOUs for specific details on AFSCME, CPOA, and CFA Tuition Reimbursement.
Section 14. HOLIDAYS
A. Unclassified EXECUTIVE and SELF-REPRESENTED employees, excluding FIRE DIVISION CHIEFS, receive eleven (11) paid holidays per year.
B. Unclassified EXECUTIVE and SELF-REPRESENTED employees, excluding FIRE DIVISION CHIEFS, are given twenty-seven (27) hours credit on July 1 of each year for Lincoln’s Birthday, Caesar Chavez’ Birthday and Juneteenth to be used as FLOATING HOLIDAYS. In order to accrue this time, an employee must be employed by the City within the pay period including July 1 of the fiscal year.
C. FIRE DIVISION CHIEFS are given thirty-three and three-quarter (33.75) hours credit on July 1 of each year in recognition of Lincoln’s Birthday, Caesar Chavez’ Birthday and Juneteenth to be used as a FLOATING HOLIDAY. In order to accrue this time, an employee must be employed by the City within the pay period City of Coronado Page 174
including July 1 of the fiscal year.
D. FIRE DIVISION CHIEFS who are assigned to and work on a twenty-four (24) hour shift basis shall be paid a holiday premium of ½ their regular rate of pay for all hours worked on a holiday.
E. Unclassified EXECUTIVE and SELF-REPRESENTED employees, excluding FIRE DIVISION CHIEFS, whose normal day off falls on a holiday will receive a FLOATING HOLIDAY, the quantity being determined by an employee’s typical workweek: Employees working a 40-hour (or more) workweek will receive 8 hours, those working a 30-hour workweek will receive 6 hours, and those working a 20-hour workweek will receive 4 hours.
The FLOATING HOLIDAY hours will be added to their leave bank in lieu of time off. If a non-exempt employee is required to work on a holiday, time worked will be paid at the rate of one and one-half times the forty (40) hour work week rate.
F. All FLOATING HOLIDAY leave time must be used in the fiscal year in which it is accrued. Employees who terminate on or before June 30 will be paid straighttime for every hour of unused floating holiday leave time.
G. Refer to respective MOUs for specific details on AFSCME, CPOA, and CFA Holidays.
Section 15. OVERTIME
A. All earned overtime shall be payable in overtime wages or Compensatory Time Off (CTO), except as limited by FLSA and on CTO accrual and usage limits described below.
B. The City has established a twenty-eight (28) day, 212 hour work period for FIRE DIVISION CHIEFS. Any hours worked in excess of this schedule shall be paid at straight-time. DIVISION CHIEFS will be compensated portal to portal when assigned to strike team or pre-positioned emergency response, consistent with other fire personnel and where the City is reimbursed for its participation.
C. Any non-exempt SELF-REPRESENTED employees shall receive one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for overtime worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.
During any work cycle in which an employee has paid annual leave, comp time off, scheduled holiday, or floating holiday, said leave hours will be counted as work hours for the purpose of calculating entitlement to overtime during any work cycle.
D. Refer to respective MOUs for specific details on AFSCME, CPOA, and CFA Overtime and CTO as applicable.
Section 16. USE AND ACCRUAL OF COMPENSATORY TIME
A. SELF-REPRESENTED employees may not accumulate in excess of two hundred and forty (240) hours of compensatory time.
B. Prior to an appointment to a position in an EXEMPT classification, a non-exempt employee shall be paid for any accrued compensatory time earned.
City of Coronado Page 175
Section 17. CERTIFICATION PAY
A. Employees in the Permanent/Probationary Beach Lifeguard classification who possess an Medical Response/First Aid/CPR Instructor Certification are eligible to receive 1.5% of their base salary in certification pay.
B. Employees in the Beach Lifeguard Sergeant or Permanent/Probationary Beach Lifeguard classifications who possess a Rescue Boat Operator certification and have successfully completed the Field Training Guide for Rescue Boat Operations are eligible to receive 2.5% of their base salary in certification pay.
Section 18. BILINGUAL PAY
A. Bilingual pay will be provided to employees in administrative classifications that are required to use bilingual skills to meet the needs of the public. Bilingual skills must be used in the course of work and approved by the appointing authority. In order to receive bilingual pay, employees must successfully pass a bilingual fluency examination. Once designated, eligible employees shall receive fifty cents ($0.50) per hour worked.
B. Refer to respective MOUs for specific details on CPOA, and CFA Bilingual Pay.
Section 19. SPECIAL PROJECT PREMIUM PAY
A. Information Technology Analysts will receive an additional $25 per day of special project pay during the time that they are assigned to be on call and are available for work.
B. Aquatics Coordinators, Aquatics Supervisors, Recreation Department Administrative Coordinator, Recreation Services Supervisors, Recreation Coordinators, and Senior Management Analysts, will receive an additional $25 per day of special project pay during the time that they are assigned to be on call and are available for work.
Section 20. OUT-OF-CLASS ASSIGNMENTS
A. SELF-REPRESENTED employees shall be compensated for out-of-class assignments when temporarily assigned to the same higher-level class for more than 80 consecutive working hours. Higher level class is defined as a class with a higher salary range. Employees who meet this criterion shall be compensated by an additional five (5) percent of base salary for each consecutive hour worked in the out-of-class assignment from the 81st hour to the end of the out-of-class assignment.
B. Refer to respective MOUs for specific details on AFSCME, CPOA, and CFA Outof-Class Assignments.
Section 21. UNIFORM, CLOTHING AND SAFETY EQUIPMENT
City of Coronado Page 176
A. The POLICE CHIEF, POLICE CAPTAIN, and POLICE LIEUTENANT classifications will receive a uniform allowance of $1,250 per year.
B. The FIRE CHIEF and FIRE DIVISION CHIEF classifications will receive a uniform allowance of $1,225 per year.
C. Employees represented by the AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL 127 will be required to wear and maintain in presentable fashion City provided work clothes. The City will report to CalPERS the monetary value for providing and maintaining the employees’ required uniforms. The city will report the uniform allowance on an annual basis to CalPERS in June of each year. The uniform allowance amount reported to CalPERS will derive from the City’s total fiscal year expended amount for providing and maintaining the employees’ uniforms, not to exceed $300 per year, per employee.
D. Refer to respective MOUs for specific details on AFSCME, CPOA, and CFA uniform, clothing, and safety equipment.
Section 22. CITY PAID LIFE INSURANCE
A. All SELF-REPRESENTED and CORONADO FIREFIGHTERS’ ASSOCIATION employees shall receive City paid group term life and Accidental Death and Dismemberment (AD&D) insurance in an amount equal to one times annual salary or $50,000, whichever is greater.
B. All AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL 127 and CORONADO POLICE OFFICERS’
ASSOCIATION employees shall receive City paid group term life and AD&D insurance equal to $25,000.
C. All unclassified EXECUTIVE employees shall receive City paid group term life and AD&D insurance in an amount equal to one times annual salary plus $25,000.
D. The City Manager shall receive City paid group term life and AD&D insurance equal to $400,000.
Section 23. CITY PAID SHORT-TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE
Unclassified EXECUTIVE, SELF REPRESENTED employees, employees represented by the AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES LOCAL 127 and all NON-SWORN employees in the CORONADO POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION shall receive City paid group short-term disability insurance for a maximum period of twelve (12) weeks.
Section 24. CITY PAID LONG-TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE
City of Coronado Page 177
Unclassified EXECUTIVE, SELF-REPRESENTED employees, employees represented by the AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES LOCAL 127 and all NON-SWORN employees in the CORONADO POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION shall receive City paid long-term disability insurance at 66 2/3% of the first $5,000 of monthly earnings to normal retirement age as defined by the policy.
Section 25. EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVES
Employees in the classifications of POLICE LIEUTENANT and POLICE CAPTAIN holding an Advanced P.O.S.T Certificate shall receive an educational incentive pay of 10% of base pay per pay period.
Section 26. LONGEVITY PAY
SELF-REPRESENTED and unclassified EXECUTIVE employees are eligible to receive longevity pay in recognition for their years of uninterrupted service to the City. Longevity pay will be issued as a one-time lump payment paid on the closest pay period following the employee’s anniversary date. Longevity pay is not cumulative. • Employees who have ten (10) years of uninterrupted service with the City will receive $1,000.
• Employees who have fifteen (15) years of uninterrupted service with the City will receive $1,500.
• Employees who have twenty (20) years of uninterrupted service with the City will receive $2,000.
• Employees who have twenty-five (25) years of uninterrupted service with the City will receive $2,500.
• Employees will receive $2,500 for every additional five (5) years of uninterrupted employment with the City thereafter.
Section 27. ROUNDING OF SALARIES
All salaries shown in Sections 1 and 2 have been rounded to the nearest two (2) decimal places. Payroll calculations are made to four (4) decimal places.
Section 28. “Z” RATED SALARIES
A. The “Z” rate for any classification is hereby defined as any rate of pay for a specific salary step in excess of the corresponding step of the regular range for the class. An employee shall be paid the “Z” rate solely under one of the following two conditions:
1. Upon the reduction of the salary range for a class, an employee having other than provisional status who, immediately prior to the reduction of the salary City of Coronado Page 178
range, was paid at a higher rate for such class, than the new maximum rate shall, in the absence of any contrary orders by the City Council for economic reasons, continue to be paid at the former rate.
2. Any employee whose position is reallocated from a class in which the employee has acquired permanent status to a class with a lower range shall, in the absence of any contrary orders by the City Council for economic reasons, continue to be paid at the former rate.
B. In the event an across-the-board salary increase is granted to a class held by an employee being paid at the “Z” rate, the employee shall receive the across-the-board increase. Once a position held by a “Z” rated employee is vacated, the position shall be paid at the regular rate.
Section 29. VEHICLE ALLOWANCE
EXECUTIVE positions identified by the City Manager shall receive an auto allowance of up to $350.00 per month.
Section 30. CONFLICT WITH CIVIL SERVICES RULES AND MEMORANDA OF
UNDERSTANDING
In case of conflict, this Compensation Plan supersedes Civil Service Rules. Memoranda of Understandings contain additional detail and supersede this Compensation Plan if there is conflict.
City of Coronado Page 179
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Coronado Page 180
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
April 15, 2025 8a.
ADOPTION OF “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A REVISED SCHEDULE FOR A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
CONGESTION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FEE TO MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF
DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE SAN DIEGO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION ARTERIAL SYSTEM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26, INCREASING THE
EXISTING UNIFORM TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE BY SIX PERCENT, FROM $2,875.06 TO $3,047.57 FOR EACH NEWLY CONSTRUCTED RESIDENTIAL UNIT” RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct a public hearing and adopt “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, Adopting a Revised Schedule for a Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program Fee to Mitigate the Impacts of Development of Residential Units on the San Diego Regional Transportation Arterial System for Fiscal Year 2025-26, Increasing the Existing Uniform Transportation Mitigation Fee by Six Percent, from $2,875.06 to $3,047.57 for Each Newly Constructed Residential Unit.”
BACKGROUND:
Per the voter-approved TransNet sales tax initiative, all San Diego County cities must collect a mitigation fee to remain eligible for TransNet funding. The program took effect in July 2008 and authorized the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) to adjust the minimum fee annually for inflation.
On March 18, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1991, adding Chapter 82.34 to the Coronado Municipal Code establishing a uniform transportation mitigation fee to help fund planned regional transportation facilities. At the same meeting, Council adopted Resolution No. 8276, creating a Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) fee of $2,000 for each non-exempt and newly constructed residential unit in Coronado.
The TransNet ordinance requires annual RTCIP fee adjustments based on the Engineering Construction Cost Index (CCI), with a minimum increase of 2%. These funds can only be used to improve roadways included in the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Regional Arterial System (RAS), which in Coronado currently includes only SR-75.
ANALYSIS:
At its February 28, 2025, meeting, the SANDAG Board of Directors were presented with a recommendation to increase the minimum RTCIP fee amount by 6%. The reasoning behind this recommendation was described within the SANDAG staff report (and “Discussion Memo”) to the Board of Directors and is summarized using excerpts as follows:
“SANDAG staff evaluated changes recorded in the ENR Construction Cost Index for Los Angeles (ENR CCI-LA). The index is based on monthly price changes in four areas: lumber, cement, structural steel, and labor. It helps track construction cost fluctuations over time.” “For over a decade (from Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 through FY 2021), construction costs rose by less than 4% per year. FY 2022 marked the first sharp rise in costs (7.9%) and was followed by two more years of strong cost increase (4.9% in FY 2023 and 10% in FY 2024). The data available for FY 2025 show an abrupt drop in cost growth. Construction costs are averaging 1.4% (in the first six months of FY 2025 from July to December 2024). The slower growth is a welcome change and suggests that construction costs are rising at a much slower rate than general inflation.” “In light of the trends observed in FY 2024 and the first half of FY 2025, staff recommend a 6% increase (equivalent to $172.50) to the RTCIP fee for FY 2026. This proposed increase marks the first time an adjustment above the 2% minimum has been recommended for two consecutive years… This recommendation is less than the 10% increase observed in the construction cost index. It strikes a balance between two objectives – that is, reducing the risk of further erosion in the RTCIP’s purchasing power and ensuring continued investment in critical transportation infrastructure, while simultaneously recognizing the challenges of housing affordability in the region.”
The new minimum mitigation fee takes effect July 1, 2025. This increase is expected to have a minimal impact on Coronado due to the City’s low rate of “new” residential development. Only units that create a net increase in City’s total residential count are subject to RTCIP fees, which typically amounts to just a few units annually.
Projects exempt from the fee include replacement construction (demolishing an existing unit to build a new one), Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), carriage houses, and condominium conversions.
While SANDAG oversees the TransNet program, each municipality is responsible for assessing and collecting the mitigation fees. Adopting the attached resolution will align Coronado’s transportation mitigation fee with SANDAG Board of Directors’ requirements, ensuring the City remains eligible for TransNet funding under the initiative’s provisions.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Revenue from the collected fee remains with Coronado and must be used for projects that improve movement on SR 75 (a regional arterial road). Historically, less than $20,000 of RTCIP funds are collected on an annual basis. The funding is deposited into the RTCIP fund (211) and used to augment the City’s transportation program. The estimated balance in Fund 211, as of June 30, 2025, is $32,381.
ALTERNATIVE:
None.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:
Not Applicable.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
A legal notice for a change of fees imposed as a condition of approval of a development project must be published twice to the general public, with the first publication a minimum of ten days prior to a public hearing and the second at least five days after the first publication. The legal notice was published in the Coronado Eagle & Journal on April 2, 2025 and April 9, 2025.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 2025-15
2. Declaration of Publishing/Public Notice
Submitted By: Public Services and Engineering Department / Jim Newton City of Coronado Page 182
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A REVISED SCHEDULE
FOR A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CONGESTION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FEE TO MITIGATE THE IMPACTS
OF DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE SAN
DIEGO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION ARTERIAL SYSTEM
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26, INCREASING THE EXISTING
UNIFORM TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE BY SIX
PERCENT, FROM $2,875.06 TO $3,047.57 FOR EACH NEWLY
CONSTRUCTED RESIDENTIAL UNIT
WHEREAS, the City of Coronado is a member agency of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), a joint powers agency consisting of the City, the County of San Diego, and the seventeen other cities situated in San Diego County; and WHEREAS, SANDAG, acting in concert with the member agencies of SANDAG, in its capacity as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, developed a plan whereby the shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the capacity of the regional system of highways and arterials in San Diego County (the “regional arterial system”) could be made up in part by a transportation uniform mitigation fee on future residential development; and WHEREAS, as a member agency of SANDAG, the City of Coronado participated in the preparation of that certain “RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study,” dated September 5, 2006, (the “Nexus Study”), prepared pursuant to California Government Code Section 66000 et seq., the Mitigation Fee Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that funding of construction of the regional arterial system affecting the City of Coronado with proceeds of the county-wide one-half cent ($.005) transactions and use tax imposed by Ordinance No. 04-01 of the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission approved by San Diego County voters through Proposition A in 2004 (the “TransNet Ordinance”) will be inadequate even with those fees adopted pursuant to the Nexus Study; and
WHEREAS, in order to receive funds collected by SANDAG through the TransNet Ordinance, the City Council must impose and collect the RTCIP fee for each newly constructed residential housing unit to mitigate the impact each unit has on the regional arterial system; and City of Coronado Page 183
WHEREAS, the City Council has added Chapter 82.34 to the Coronado Municipal Code, adopting the San Diego County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance of 2008 (the “Ordinance”), which approves the implementation of a monetary exaction for each newly constructed residential housing unit in the City of Coronado; and WHEREAS, the Ordinance provides that the City Council shall adopt a schedule of fees calculated according to the calculation methodology set forth in Table 11 of the Nexus Study, as may be amended from time to time; and
WHEREAS, SANDAG approved an increase in the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program raising the minimum mitigation fee by six percent from $2,875.06 to $3,047.57.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado as follows:
Section 1. Findings. The City Council hereby refers to and incorporates herein by this reference those findings set forth in Section 82.34.020 of the Coronado Municipal Code as if set forth in full herein.
Section 2. Calculation of Fees. The methodology set forth in Table 11 of the Nexus Study has been used to establish the schedule of fees set forth in this resolution.
Section 3. Schedule of Fees. For the purpose of funding those certain improvements to the regional arterial system identified in the Nexus Study, and in accordance with the Ordinance, the following schedule of fees shall be applicable to each and every non-exempt and newly constructed residential unit in the City of Coronado:
Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program fee FY 2025-26 - $3,047.57.
Section 4. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective on July 1, 2025 (the “Effective Date”). Upon the Effective Date, the fees identified and approved by this resolution shall be levied, collected and disposed of in accordance with the California Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and Section 82.34.040 of the Coronado Municipal Code in effect as of the Effective Date.
City of Coronado Page 184
PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, at a regular meeting thereof this fifteenth day of April 2025 by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
______________________________
JOHN D. DUNCAN, Mayor of the
City of Coronado, California
ATTEST:
__________________________________
KELSEA HOLIAN, City Clerk of the
City of Coronado, California
City of Coronado Page 185
CITY OF CORONADO
LEGAL NOTICE
(DATE)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Coronado at the City Hall Council Chambers, 1825 Strand Way, Coronado, California, on TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2025, at 4:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible to consider the following item:
Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado Adopting a Revised Schedule for a Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program Fee to Mitigate the Impacts of Development of Residential Units on the San Diego Regional Transportation Arterial System for FY 2025/26, Increasing the Existing Uniform Transportation Mitigation Fee by six percent, from $2,875.06 to $3,047.57 for each Newly Constructed Residential Unit.
At said hearing, any interested person may present testimony orally or in writing. Under California Government Code 65009, if you challenge the nature of the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.
City Council and Commission Meetings are broadcast live on Time Warner Channel 19 and AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 on the day of the meeting and rebroadcast intermittently until the next meeting. The meetings can also be streamed live on the City’s website. Members of the public may submit written comments online at the following link. Please note that all written comments will be posted on the City’s website in lieu of being read aloud at the meeting.
https://www.coronado.ca.us/449/Agendas-Minutes
Please refer to the official posted agenda on the City’s website (www.coronado.ca.us) on the Friday afternoon prior to the meeting for the staff report for this item and/or changes to the agenda.
For further information, contact Jim Newton, City Engineer & Assistant Director, at the City of Coronado Public Services & Engineering Department, 1825 Strand Way, Coronado, California, by email at [email protected] or call (619) 522-7313.
City of Coronado Page 186
CORONADO CITY COUNCIL
BY: Kelsea Holian
City Clerk
City of Coronado Page 187
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Coronado Page 188
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
April 15, 2025 8b.
ASSESSEE PROTEST HEARING AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION REAUTHORIZING THE LEVYING OF ASSESSMENTS DURING FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2025-26 ON FOUR HOTEL
BUSINESSES WITHIN CORONADO TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (CTID) I AND II RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct a public hearing to receive testimony regarding the City Council's reauthorization of Coronado Tourism Improvement District I and II and rule upon any oral or written protests received from the assessed hotel businesses. If no legally sufficient protest showing is made, adopt “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, Reauthorizing the Levying of Assessments during FY 2025-26 on Certain Hotel Businesses within Coronado Tourism Improvement District (CTID) I and II.”
BACKGROUND:
On March 18, 2025, the City Council accepted and approved the Annual Report submitted by the CTID I/II Advisory Board, pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Law of 1989 (“1989 Law”), Sections 36500, et seq., of the California Streets and Highways Code. At that meeting, the City Council also formally adopted a Resolution of Intent to reauthorize CTID I and II and continue the levying of the existing one-half (0.5%) percent assessment on hotels with 90 or more rooms within CTID I and II. These hotels include the Hotel del Coronado, Loews Coronado Bay Resort, Coronado Island Marriott Resort & Spa, and Glorietta Bay Inn.
ANALYSIS:
As set forth in Sections 36534 and 36535 of the California Streets and Highways Code and Section 16.14.080 of the Coronado Municipal Code, the City Council has the ability to reauthorize CTID I and II at this hearing unless oral or written protests are received from City hoteliers that pay 50% or more of the proposed assessments within either District. Under Municipal Code Section 16.14.080, protests are weighted based upon the annual assessment for the prior year by each hotel. Protests received from the assessed entities, if any, will be announced during the hearing.
In the event that a majority protest of the assessed hotels is received, no further proceedings to continue the levy of assessments for FY 2025-26 for the designated District shall take place for a period of one year from the date of the finding of the majority protest by the City Council. If the majority protest is only against the furnishing of a specified type of activity within the designated District, only those types of activities shall be eliminated.
At the conclusion of the hearing, if no protest or an insufficient protest is received from the assessed hotels, the Council may then adopt the resolution reauthorizing Coronado Tourism Improvement District I and II, setting forth the basis for the assessment in each District, and levying the assessment upon hotels in each District for FY 2025-26.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The City receives $5,000 from both CTID I and CTID II to cover the cost of an annual financial review, accounting costs, and other in-kind services. The CTID Annual Report projects FY 2025- 26 assessments will generate $1,087,500 in revenues for CTID I and the same amount for CTID II for a total of $2,175,000 million.
ALTERNATIVE:
The City Council could decide not to adopt the Resolution.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:
Not Applicable.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
A legal notice of the Resolution of Intent announcing the public hearing was published in the Coronado Eagle & Journal on April 2, 2025. A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed via certified mail to the ownership representatives of the four affected properties informing them of this public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 2025-16
2. Notice of Public Hearing
Submitted By: City Manager's Office / Kelli Maples
City of Coronado Page 190
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, REAUTHORIZING THE LEVYING
OF ASSESSMENTS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 ON
CERTAIN HOTEL BUSINESSES WITHIN CORONADO TOURISM
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (CTID) I AND II
WHEREAS, the City has the authority to establish a business improvement district pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (“1989 Law”), Section 36500 et seq. of the California Streets and Highways Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council on June 15, 2010, passed Ordinance No. 2013 establishing Coronado Tourism Improvement District I (“CTID I”) pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989; and
WHEREAS, the City Council at that time also established the CTID Advisory Board to act in compliance with the 1989 Law to oversee the activities of the District; and WHEREAS, the City Council on June 16, 2015, passed Ordinance No. 2050 establishing Coronado Tourism Improvement District II (“CTID II”) pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989; and
WHEREAS, the City Council at that time also established the CTID Advisory Board to act in compliance with the 1989 Law to oversee the activities of the District; and WHEREAS, the CTID Advisory Board submitted an Annual Report to the Coronado City Council that outlined the activities of CTID I and CTID II conducted in Fiscal Year 2024-25 and proposed for Fiscal Year 2025-26 as required by the 1989 Law; and WHEREAS, on March 18, 2025, the Coronado City Council accepted and approved the Annual Report for consideration, which is on file with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, on March 18, 2025, the Coronado City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent to continue levying a one-half percent assessment during Fiscal Year 2025-26 on hotel businesses within CTID I and II with 90 or more rooms; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the 1989 Law, the City must conduct a public hearing to receive written and oral protests made by the assessed hotel businesses and, absent a majority protest, may adopt a new resolution to levy an assessment for that fiscal year.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado as follows:
Section 1. The recitals set forth herein are true and correct.
City of Coronado Page 191
Section 2. The Annual Report and Management Plan was hereby received and approved, with said Report being on file in the City Clerk’s Office.
Section 3. Pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, the City shall levy and collect an annual assessment in both CTID I and II beginning on July 1, 2025, for Fiscal Year 2025-26.
Section 4. There shall be no change in the boundaries, assessment amount or number of assessed hotels for either CTID I or II for Fiscal Year 2025-26. Both CTID I and II include those hotels within the City that have 90 or more rooms. These hotels include the Hotel del Coronado, Loews Coronado Bay Resort, Coronado Island Marriott Resort & Spa, and Glorietta Bay Inn.
Section 5. The City Council hereby declares that the types of activities to be funded by the levy of assessments against the assessed hotels within CTID I and II shall be activities “to enrich our community by positioning Coronado, and its resorts, as a premier meeting destination” in a way that directly benefits the assessed hotels and assists the local businesses as determined by the assessed hotels located and operating within each CTID boundary.
This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify to the vote adopting this resolution.
PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, at a regular meeting thereof this 15th Day of April 2025, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
JOHN D. DUNCAN, Mayor of the
City of Coronado, California
ATTEST:
KELSEA HOLIAN, City Clerk of the
City of Coronado, California
City of Coronado Page 192
City of Coronado
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING
CITY COUNCIL REAUTHORIZATION OF THE
CORONADO TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (CTID) I AND II
PURSUANT TO THE PARKING AND BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT AREA LAW OF 1989
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, in accordance with Resolution No. 2025-08 adopted at the March 18, 2025, City Council meeting, the City Council of the City of Coronado will conduct a Public Hearing at its regularly scheduled meeting of Tuesday, April 15, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Hall Council Chamber located at 1825 Strand Way, Coronado, California 92118. The subject of the public hearing is the reauthorization of Coronado Tourism Improvement District (CTID) I and II and the ability to continue to levy and collect assessments within each district.
Pursuant to Section 36525 of the Parking and Business Improvement Law of 1989, Sections 36500, et seq., of the California Street and Highways Code, if an owner of the one of the assessed hotel properties desires to protest against the inclusion of their property as part of either CTID District I or District II, the protest must be submitted in writing at or prior to the April 15, 2025, Protest Hearing.
If written protests are received from the assessed hotel properties comprising 50% or more of the assessments proposed to be levied, no further proceedings to levy the assessment shall be taken for a period of one year. If a majority protest from the assessed hotel properties is received against the furnishing of a specified type of activity proposed for CTID I and/or II, only those types of activities shall be eliminated. Written protests by the assessed hotel property owners are to be submitted to the following address:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Coronado
Attn: City Clerk’s Office
1825 Strand Way
Coronado, CA 92118
In the event no majority protest of the assessed hotel properties is received, the City Council may adopt a Reauthorization Resolution to continue the current assessment for CTID District I and II, to take effect on July 1, 2025. Under California Government Code 65009, if you challenge the nature of the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.
For further information, contact the Office of the City Clerk, 1825 Strand Way, Coronado, California 92118 or call 619-522-7320.
BY: Kelsea Holian, City Clerk Date: March 19, 2025
City of Coronado Page 193
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Coronado Page 194
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
April 15, 2025 8c.
4934-1873-7971 v1
PUBLIC HEARING: 500 A AVENUE (PC2024-06) - APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S DETERMINATION TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE A
REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the appeal and adopt a resolution upholding the Community Development Director’s determination to conditionally approve a Request for Reasonable Accommodation for the property located at 500 A Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
This is an appeal of the Community Development Director’s (“Director”) decision to conditionally approve James and Melinda S. Marlar’s (“Applicants”) Request for a Reasonable Accommodation from the City’s zoning standards to install an elevator at 500 A Avenue (“Director’s Determination”). The Director’s Determination, dated February 7, 2025, conditionally approved the requested elevator plus additional space for a hallway, but denied the Applicants’ request for additional storge space. Applicants have appealed the decision because their request for an approximately 321 square-foot, second story addition above their garage to provide additional storage space was not approved.
The Director approved the Reasonable Accommodation request for an elevator because the Applicants provided necessary documentation from a licensed physician attesting to their mobility limitations and need for accessibility improvements. The request for the approximately 321 square-foot second story addition was not approved because the City has no recorded history of authorizing zoning waivers for surplus storage areas through a Reasonable Accommodation request and the Applicants were unable to demonstrate that their expressed lack of storage space could not be reasonably addressed through alternative means that would not require zoning waivers. Because this request was considered extraordinary and had the potential to establish new City policy, the Director determined the request exceeded staff’s authority to approve.
ANALYSIS:
Chapter 70.130 et seq. of the Coronado Municipal Code (“CMC”) provides a procedure for individuals with disabilities to file a Request for Reasonable Accommodation under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“Acts”) in the application of zoning laws and other land use regulations, policies and procedures.
CMC section 70.130.030.B further provides that “[a] request for reasonable accommodation may include an application for a modification or exception to the application of zoning and building standards and use of housing or housing-related facilities in order to eliminate identifiable regulatory barriers to provide a person with a disability an equal opportunity to housing.”
Reasonable Accommodation requests are typically sought when zoning or building regulations restrict or prevent the construction of necessary accessibility improvements, such as wheelchair ramps, elevators, wider driveways, and/or accessible bathrooms. The City is obligated to make reasonable accommodations, including relaxing or waiving code requirements, when the requested accommodation is necessary to give a person with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
Pursuant to CMC section 70.130.040, reasonable accommodation applicants must provide credible documentation of their qualifying disability (e.g., a doctor’s note) and credible documentation that establishes why the requested accommodation(s) are necessary.
500 A Avenue Application
The subject application included a request to install an elevator within an attached twocar garage and construct an approximately 321 square-foot second story addition to provide an elevator landing/mechanical room and additional storage area. The requested improvements would require the following zoning waivers:
• Off-street Parking (CMC §§ 86.58.030, 86.58.070, 86.58.150): Placement of the elevator within the garage would displace one of the two required covered parking spaces;
• Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (CMC § 86.08.035): The existing 2,767 square-foot home currently exceeds the maximum allowable FAR of 2,704 square-feet. The proposed 321 square-foot addition would further exacerbate non-compliance with FAR;
• Setbacks (CMC § 86.08.070): The proposed second story addition would encroach 11-feet into the second story rear yard setback.
The Applicants did not submit building plans as required by CMC section
70.130.050(A).
Director’s Determination
The Director may grant a requested accommodation, or grant it with modifications, if all of the following findings required by CMC section 70.130.060(A) can be made:
(1) The housing which is the subject of the request will be used by an individual or a group of individuals considered disabled under the Acts; (2) The accommodation requested is reasonable and necessary to make specific housing available to the individual or group of individuals with disability or disabilities under the Acts;
(3) The requested reasonable accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City; and
City of Coronado Page 196
(4) The requested reasonable accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program or law including, but not limited to, land use and zoning.
Regarding the reasonableness of the requested accommodation, under CMC section
70.130.060(B), the Director may also consider:
(1) Whether there are alternative reasonable accommodations available that would provide an equivalent level of benefit; and
(2) Whether the requested reasonable accommodation substantially affects the physical attributes of the property.
Because the project would necessitate an unusually high number of zoning exceptions compared to typical Reasonable Accommodation applications, while evaluating the reasonableness of the requested accommodation, staff requested that the applicant evaluate alternatives that would provide needed accessibility improvements but minimize the need for zoning exceptions.
The Applicants for 500 A Avenue were self-represented and did not have the benefit of an experienced architect or designer to assist them through the process. The Applicants did not submit building plans as required by CMC 70.130.050(A) and did not have a representative with the requisite expertise and experience to properly evaluate alternatives that could meet their project objectives while minimizing zoning code conflicts. Consequently, the Applicants did not offer any alternatives to their preferred design. Staff suggested alternative locations for the elevator outside of the garage, but the Applicants were unwilling to consider these alternatives as they believed it would impact the value of the home, the symmetry of the home, and the design of the home, while reducing their outdoor patio space.
Recognizing that the Applicants lacked professional representation and were generally unfamiliar with development permitting processes, staff deferred the submittal of building plans until the building permit stage.
As to necessity, Applicants did not provide evidence that additional storage space is necessary to afford them an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling. Applicants have stated why they prefer not to store their belongings elsewhere (e.g., “bedrooms and their small closets are intended for visiting family and guests”), but have not articulated why their disabilities preclude those options. Further, there is no evidence that the Applicants’ disabilities necessitate additional storage (e.g., due to disability-specific equipment.)
Ultimately, the Director was unable to make a finding that the accommodation requested for additional storage was reasonable and necessary to make specific housing available to the Applicants. On February 7, 2025, the Director issued a decision (Attachment 2) that: (1) approved installation of an elevator in their preferred garage location and authorized the loss of one off-street parking space; (2) approved an approximately 36 square-foot elevator mechanical room on the garage roof; (3) granted the Applicants an City of Coronado Page 197
approximately 40 square-foot addition above the garage to serve as a hallway between the elevator landing and main house; and (4) allowed future project revisions during the building permit stage to extend the elevator to the basement to improve access to storage areas.
Storage Space Request
The basis of this appeal is the applicant’s request to build an approximately 321-square foot second-story addition above their garage to provide an elevator landing, mechanical room, and surplus storage space. The Applicants have indicated that they need additional storage space because their mobility issues make it difficult to access their attic which has served as a storage area and they wish to replace the lost attic space with the proposed second story addition.
The request for additional storage space in conjunction with a reasonable accommodation application is without precedence in Coronado. Staff reviewed all reasonable accommodation applications submitted since 2012 and none included an addition to provide extra storage space. Moreover, City staff has had no experience with reasonable accommodation requests for additional storage space during their tenures working in other California jurisdictions.
Although this request is uncommon, it is not unusual for an applicant to request an addition to provide an ADA accessible living area, bathroom, and/or closet. Ultimately, however, the question of whether a given accommodation is a reasonable and necessary accommodation for a disability is a question of fact, and staff does not believe that the facts here demonstrate that the requested amount of additional storage space is reasonable or necessary.
The residence at 500 A Avenue is not a small or undersized home by Coronado standards. The home offers approximately 2,354 square-feet of internal living space, an approximately 600 square-foot basement, and an approximately 413 square-foot two-car garage, that collectively provide an approximate total of 3,367 square-feet of space that can be used as living area and/or storage (not including attic space).
The Applicants have based their appeal on the following issues:
Issue No. 1: Conclusion No. 4 is erroneous and should be modified or reversed, because the allowed 40 square feet of “hallway” or travel path from the elevator to the home’s access point is inadequate, difficult to feasibly construct, awkward in that it does not create a factually viable travel path, and harms the architectural integrity and features, and thereby lessens the property value of the home. Conclusion No. 4 is not a “reasonable” one.
Staff Response to Issue No. 1: The referenced section of the Director’s Determination (Attachment 2) indicates that the Applicants have not sufficiently demonstrated that the requested accommodation for surplus storage space is necessary to afford them with an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling and cites potential, alternative storage City of Coronado Page 198
solutions that the Applicants could have explored, such as extending the elevator into the basement, siting the elevator elsewhere to preserve existing storage space in the garage, or storing belongings elsewhere in the 3,367 square-foot home or at an off-site storage facility.
The Applicants assert that the 40-square feet granted to construct a hallway between the elevator landing atop the garage and the home’s second story is inadequate and difficult to feasibly construct. The Applicants were not represented by an architect or professional designer and consequently did not submit any evidence that additional square-footage would be necessary to feasibly construct a hallway. Condition No. 4 to the Director’s Determination qualified the “approximately” 40-square-foot allowance to enable flexibility in the final design. As noted above, staff deferred the submittal of building plans until the building permit stage. Condition No. 4 specifically states that “[t]he exact dimensions of the hallway would need to be demonstrated within the Building Permit to allow for adequate access as required by law.” If, during the building plan process, the Applicants submit plans and complimentary evidence that additional area is needed to construct a code-compliant hallway, staff believes that this situation would be allowed under the language of Condition No. 4.
The Applicants also contend that a hallway above the garage roof, as opposed to a full second story addition, would harm the home’s architectural integrity and would result in a diminished property value. The Applicants did not provide any evidence that a hallway could not be architecturally integrated into the existing home or that a small addition would diminish property values. Moreover, while staff empathizes with the Applicants’ concerns, potential impacts to property values are not a code finding to approve a Reasonable Accommodation request.
Finally, the Applicants allege that the City’s conclusion is not “reasonable”; however, it is the Applicants’ burden to demonstrate that their request is reasonable and necessary and that there are no alternatives that would provide an equivalent level of benefit (CMC section 70.130.060(B)). As noted, the Applicants did not submit building or design plans, architectural renderings, or any other evidence to support that their preferred design is the only feasible means to afford them with an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their home.
Issue No. 2: Finding No. 2, is erroneous, in that is disallowed any square-footage to be used for “accessible storage space.” The Finding that there were “alternative reasonable accommodations” available which would “provide an equivalent level of benefit” is unsupported by the facts.
Staff Response to Issue No. 2: Finding number 2 states “…the accommodation requested for additional storage space at the second story is not reasonable or necessary to make specific housing available to the individual or group of individuals with disability or disabilities, because the Applicants have not sufficiently demonstrated that the requested accommodation is necessary to afford the disabled resident(s) an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling, and because there are alternative reasonable City of Coronado Page 199
accommodations available that would provide an equivalent level of benefit. Belongings can be stored elsewhere within the dwelling (e.g., bedrooms, basement, attic, or offsite storage), and the requested accommodation does not actually provide access to the areas of the dwelling (e.g., basement, attic) that the Applicants claim they can no longer access due to their disabilities.”
It is the Applicants’ burden to provide sufficient and credible evidence that their request is reasonable and necessary, and that there are no alternatives that would provide an equivalent level of benefit, pursuant to CMC section 70.130.060. The Applicants did not meet this burden. First, Applicants have not sufficiently demonstrated that their requested accommodation for additional storage space is necessary. Applicants have stated why they prefer not to store their belongings elsewhere, but have not articulated why their disabilities preclude those options. Further, there is no evidence that the Applicants’ disabilities necessitate additional storage (e.g., due to disability-specific equipment that takes up a lot of space.) Second, as previously noted, the Applicants did not submit building or design plans, architectural renderings, or any other evidence to support that their preferred design is the only feasible means to afford them with an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their home. The Applicants claim that the loss of storage space in their garage from the elevator is a reason why they should be allowed to increase the square footage of their home, despite that being the location that they chose. Staff suggested alternative locations for the elevator outside of the garage, which would have retained storage space in the garage, but the Applicants were unwilling to consider these alternatives.
Issue No. 3: The filing and appeal fees, for disabled individuals to seek “reasonable accommodation” under the Fair Housing Act should be minimal, if anything, as such an accommodation is a “protected right” under federal law.
Staff Response to Issue No. 3: Staff is not aware of any prohibitions in Federal, State, or local law that prevent the collection of fees in exchange for processing a Reasonable Accommodation request and has observed that many other cities do assess a modest processing fee similar to Coronado. The City’s Reasonable Accommodation fee of $450 and only covers approximately 2-4 hours of City staff time and applicants are not required to pay any additional fees even if staff spends significantly more time working on their permit request. The City’s appeal fee of $684 is also relatively low and is not inconsistent with appeal fees established by other cities in California.
Director Discretion
The City Council and their subordinate commissions appropriately serve as decisionmakers for the vast majority of discretionary land use permits in Coronado. While the Community Development Director has authority to issue decisions for ministerial permits and some minor discretionary actions, the Reasonable Accommodation process is one of the rare instances where the Director is empowered to waive Council adopted zoning standards without any public notice or public hearings.
City of Coronado Page 200
When considering a discretionary application, the Director is guided by adopted federal, state, and local laws, City Council policies, and the City’s past actions and decisions on similar matters to ensure decisions are legally sound, consistent with City policy and precedence, and within the scope of staff’s authority.
In this case, the request for a second story addition and associated FAR waiver was without precedence in Coronado, and the Director was concerned that approving it could encroach into the City Council’s policy making duties and exceed staff’s authority.
Although staff reviews each application based on its own merits, authorizing novel development proposals and/or applying new standards to approve projects can set expectations in the community that precedence has been established for future, similar projects to also be approved.
The potential of establishing even the perception of precedence was a further concern for staff given the lack of Council policy or direction. For example, if staff were to approve this request for the 321 square-foot addition and associated FAR waiver, would a future application for a 500 or 700 square-foot addition also be permissible? How much storage space should be considered “reasonable” within a single-family home? Should the size of the home or available storage space be factors when considering requests for additional storage space? Are uses other than storage acceptable to justify home additions that exceed FAR, such as an area for therapeutics, exercise, and/or physical therapy?
If the City Council determines this application to be an acceptable Reasonable Accommodation request, staff would recommend that the Council consider adopting a policy or code amendment to establish the types of allowable uses, standards, and thresholds that should be applied by staff when reviewing Reasonable Accommodation requests for additions to homes that exceed allowable FAR.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ALTERNATIVE:
The City Council may overturn the Director’s determination and approve the request for a second story addition to provide extra storage space. The City Council could also remand the case back to staff to allow the Applicants to submit architectural and/or building plans and work with a professional designer to explore alternative solutions that meet their project objectives while reducing the need for zoning waivers.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:
Staff previously determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, ch. 3).
City of Coronado Page 201
PUBLIC NOTICE:
A public notice regarding this agenda item was published in the Coronado Eagle & Journal on April 3, 2025 and was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Request for Reasonable Accommodation signed application
2. Request for Reasonable Accommodation Determination
3. Applicant Appeal Hearing Form
4. Applicant Supporting information
5. Resolution 2025-18
Submitted By: Community Development Department / Marisa Smith City of Coronado Page 202
<f^'
CITY OF CORONADO
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
1825 STRAND WAY, CORONADO, CA 92118
(619) 522-7326/t619) 522-2418 (FAX)
[email protected]
HANDOUT
701
FEB 2013
REQUEST FOR
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
PURPOSE: To requests Reasonable Accommodation(s) under the Fair Housing Act.
AUTHORITy; Coronado Municipal Code Title 70, Building and Construction, Request for Reasonable Accommodation Under the Fa?r Housf'ngAct, Chapter 70.120.
NOTES:
1. A request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any person with a disability, or by an entity acting on behalf of a person or persons with disabilities, to provide or secure equal access to housing to prevent theapplication of any zoning law or other land use regulation, policy, or practice of the City from acting as a barrier to fair housing opportunities.
2. A request for reasonable accommodation may include an application for a modification or exception to the application of zoning and building standards and use of housing or housing-related fadlities in order to eliminateidentifiable regulatory barriers to prowde a person with a disability an equal opportunity to housing.
3. Please See Chapter 70.120 of the Municipal Code for additional information regarding the Reasonable Accommodation procedures, criteria, findings, and appeal process.
APPLICANT DATA:Address of Property:.
500 A Avenue
<
Owner:_ James M. & Melinda S. Marlar CTrust)
_Assessor Parcel No.:
.Applicant:.
536-391-23-00
Same
Mailing Address:.Phone #:
Email:
Same_
(520)349-7345 .Mailing Address:. _Phone #:_
melinda.marlar@amajl .corn _E-Mail:_
Signature:. 7 f\^t. JU-t^jP,'a^ .Signature:'/X^^/^ \f. ^^A./e SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
1. Completed Application Form and Filing Fee.
2. 1 hard copy and 1 electronic copy of photographs depicting conditions.
3. ^copies of project^ans depicting generaNocation of building(s) and improvements on site, on-site parking access to parking, elevations, building height, floor plans, floor area ratio lot coverage
4. Additional documentation to support your accommodation request V^"! CITY STAFF USE: Case #: ?C/1^-^0\9 Date Received: l^-tS-^ Fee: A^i0—Receipt No, 2-^(6-0005
i-.'PiaiininsiPlanning Dep! FormslWdrd Ve!'a&ri8'701 Rea^onabfeAtKomm.'idation Form.iiocx City of Coronado Page 203
CITY OF CORONADO
REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
SUPPLEMENTAL FORM
1.2. Current Use of Property:
Residential Proposed Use of Property: -Resid®ntial
Provide basis for claim that the individual is considered disabled under the Acts.
SEE ATTACHED
3. Indicate the accommodation(s) you are requesting and the specific regulation(s) and/or procedure(s)from which accommodation(s) is sought.
SEE ATTACHED
4. Explain why the reasonable accommodation is necessary to make the property accessible to theindividual.
SEE ATTACHED
5. Provide credible documentation with respect to each element described above so the City of Coronadocan fully evaluate the application and verify the factual basis underlying the need for accommodation.
SEE ATTACHED
City of Coronado Page 204
City of Coronado Page 205
City of Coronado Page 206
'alws, 3'%,<»>S' City of Coronado Community Development Department 1825 Strand Way, Coronado CA 92118
Phone 619-522-7326 Fax 619-522-2418
REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION DETERMINATION
APPROVED D CONDITIONALLY APPROVED B DENIED D
Address of PropertyAssessor Parcel No.:
500 A Avenue
536-391-23-00
Owner: James and Melinda S. Marlar
Mailing Address: 500 A Avenue. Coronado, CA 92118
Phone #: (520) 349-7345
Email: Melinda.marlar(%gmail.com
Applicant: Owner
Mailing Address: Same
Phone #: Same
Email: Same
1. Current Use of Property: Residential Proposed Use of Property: Residential
2. Accommodation Request: James and ^41elinda S. Marlar ("Applicants" or "Owners") have submitted a Reasonable Accommodation Request pursuant to Coronado Municipal Code ("CMC") Chapter 70.130 to allow a 36-square-foot elevator and an approximately 3 21-square-foot addition to be constructed in a residence addressed as 500 A Avenue. The proposal, as shown, would exceed the maximum FAR (CMC 86.08.035), encroach into the second-story rear yard setback (CMC 86.08.070), and encroach into one existing on-site parkingspace, thereby reducing the size of the required parking space (CMC 86.58.070 & CMC 86.58.150).3. Background: The property, located at 500 A Avenue, contains a two-story, single-family residence with an attached garage and basement. The 4,000-square-foot lot is located in the R-1A (Single Family Residential) Zone.The single-family dwelling was approved in November 2000, under previous zoning regulations, which includedless restrictive setbacks and floor area ratio (FAR). For example, previous R-1A Zoning did not have a secondstory rear yard setback. In addition, the prior Ordinance did not consider attached garages as FAR. The existingbasement (602 square feet "finished" and 419 square feet "unfinished") was not counted toward FAR in the approved plans, and basements are still not counted toward FAR under current regulations. Today, the structure exceeds FAR by 63 square feet (total FAR is 2,767 square feet where 2,704 is the maximum currently allowed).
The existing residence is considered legal, nonconforming in regard to FAR. Generally, a nonconforming useshall not be enlarged, extended, expanded or in any other manner changed to increase its inconsistency with the current zoning restrictions. (CMC 86.50.070.)
3. Project Description: The Applicants propose to add a 36-square-foot elevator within the attached garage to provide direct access to both the first and second floor. The elevator is not proposed to access the basement. Thesecond floor includes the bedrooms and main bathroom. Although the elevator addition would not increase theFAR at the first story as it would be located within the existing garage, the location of the 36-square-foot elevatorwould encroach into one of the two required off-street parking spaces. This location would displace one parking space, or at best, reduce the parking space to 14 feet in depth (covered and enclosed parking spaces shall be a minimum of 20 feet in depth - CMC 86.58.070.B.2).
The Applicants also request an approximately 321-square-foot addition to the second story, comprised of 36 square feet for the elevator and 285 square feet for a hallway and extra storage space. This addition would increase the total FAR to approximately 3,088 square feet (384 square feet greater than the maximum FAR allowed).
City of Coronado Page 207
Finally, the proposed addition at the second story would place the entire addition within the second-story rear yard setback (CMC 86.08.070.B).
4. Necessity of Reasonable Accommodation: The request for reasonable accommodation is to provide access to the second story of the residence through an elevator and to provide additional storage space. Applicants provided a letter from their doctor, Dr. Steven N. Copp, M.D., of the Scripps Orthopedic Surgery department. Dr. Copp writes that both Mr. and Mrs. Marlar have musculoskeletal impediments which makes climbing stairs challenging.
The letter reads that Mrs. ]V[arlar's previous hip fracture and chronic osteoarthritis makes climbing stairs difficult and painful. It goes on to state that Mr. Marlar has advanced osteoarthritis in both knees and shoulders, which makes it difficult for him to safely navigate stairs. The reasonable accommodation request of the elevator willprovide easier access to the second floor, where the Owners' bedrooms and bathrooms are located.
The Applicants claim that the additional storage is necessary since they are unable to easily navigate the basementand attic, and the bedroom closets are already full. Applicants have not sufficiently demonstrated that the requestaccommodation is necessary to afford them an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling. Furthermore, there are alternative reasonable accommodations available that would provide an equivalent level of benefit. For example, belongings could be stored elsewhere, or the Applicants could propose elevator access to the 1,021 square-foot basement, where they could store their additional belongings. Should the Applicant choose to extend the elevator to the basement, staff would support the request.
5. Findings:
1. The housing which is the subject of the request for the elevator will be used by an individual considered disabled under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (the "Acts"). The Applicants have provided documentation demonstrating that each of the Applicants, who live at the Property, is an individual with a disability as defined under the Acts;
2. The accommodation requested for an elevator to access the first and second story is reasonable and necessary to make specific housing available to the individual or group of individuals with disability or disabilities under the Acts, as it would provide a means of accessing the bedrooms on the second floorwithout utilizing the existing stairs. However, the accommodation requested for additional storage space at the second story is not reasonable or necessary to make specific housing available to the individual or group of individuals with disability or disabilities, because the Applicants have not sufficiently demonstrated that the request accommodation is necessary to afford the disabled resident(s) an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling, and because there are alternative reasonable accommodationsavailable that would provide an equivalent level of benefit. Belongings can be stored elsewhere within the dwelling (e.g., bedrooms, basement, attic, or offsite storage), and the requested accommodation does not actually provide access to the areas of the dwelling (e.g., basement, attic) that the Applicants claim theycan no longer access due to their disabilities;
3. The requested accommodations of an elevator and additional storage space will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City; and
4. The requested accommodation for an elevator and additional storage space would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program or law, including, but not limited to, land use and zoning.
6. Conditions:
1. All information and representations including the building techniques, materials, elevations and/or appearance of the project, as presented for approval on plans, submitted November 15, 2024, and on file with the Community Development Department, shall be the same as required for the issuance of a building City of Coronado Page 208
permit, except as modified by these conditions of approval. Modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval.
2. The request for a 36-square-foot elevator shall be granted to the Applicants and shall not run with the land.
However, the elevator shall not be required to be removed once it is no longer necessary to provide accessto the dwelling unit for the current occupant, as long as: a) the modification is physically integrated intothe residential stmcture and cannot easily be removed or altered to comply with the Coronado Municipal Code; and b) the accommodation can be used by another individual with a disability. Should a significant remodel be proposed in the future, the City reserves the right to have the elevator removed if it is no longer necessary to provide access to the dwelling unit by its occupants.
3. Additional storage space above the garage, as requested by the applicant, is not permitted.
4. A hallway to connect the proposed elevator to the second story (approximately 40 square feet) is granted.
The exact dimensions of the hallway would need to be demonstrated within the Building Permit to allow for adequate access as required by law, including the California Building Code and Americans forDisabilities Act. Should the applicant choose to extend the elevator to the basement, staff would supportthe request.
5. The approved use and/or construction is subject to, and shall comply with, all applicable City Ordinances and laws and regulations of other governmental agencies. Prior to construction, the Applicants shallidentify and secure all applicable permits from the Building Services Division and other affected City divisions and departments.
7. California Environmental Quality ActThe project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, ch. 3). 8, Determination
The accommodation requested for a 36-square-foot elevator is conditionally approved, based on the findingsabove, and subject to the conditions outlined above. The accommodation requested for additional storage spaceis denied, based on the findings above.
Date of Determination: Z-^-- 7^
^y
Determination by:
Richard Grunow, Director of Community Development
Owner Acknowledgment: I have read and agree to the conditions of this accommodation request approval.
City of Coronado Page 209
James Marlar, Property Owner
]VIelinda Marlar, Property Owner
City of Coronado Page 210
f co*
or cl!
CITY OF COROI.{AI}O
f825 Strand \Uay
Coronado, California 921 f8
(619) 522-7320
Appeal Hearing Form
frEt't! flrF$'s $FFF*r Ftfi Id X*?E r'uS?j4*
Appellant: James and Melinda Marlar Appellant's Rep.:
Mailing Address:
Phone#:
_. , -Fax#:
Alt Phone #:
Email:
Signature:
Community Development - Planning
Mailing Address: 500 AAve.
Coronado, CA 921 18
Phone #: (520) 349-7945 #:
Alt Phone (520) 603-0480
Email: mel i nda. marlar @ g mail .com
Signature: l/t4. Lko^.L-r^-
This Appeal is relative to the action taken by the
Date of Determination
For the project known as:
Appl
Jan .7,2025
Board, Commission, Committee, or Department
Mo/Day/Year
ication for "Reasonahle Accommodation" (elevator; storage) (No.PC 2A24-06) Project Address:
500 AAve., Coronado, CA92118
X'or Use:
Acct X0&5400 .1,
qReceipt No.:
Describe Supplemental Materials submitted:
Appeal Fee Paid Per Fee Schedule
Nurnber of Copies of Materials Required
Complete & Legible Associated City Dept:
Associated Case No:
Sept" 2015 Page lof}
o
\
%
o
t
O
\
(,
t
City of Coronado Page 211
Appellant's Interest in the Appealed Determination:
Appellanis are the owners of ihe subject residential property.
Explain each reason why the review is being requested, including the grounds for the appeal, and provide the supporting relevant code sections:
The relevant Code sections arc Coronado Municipal Code Sec. 70.130.010 et seq.
Appellants asked to be allowed to enclose a 290 sq. tt. flat-roof, over an existing atlqgfted garlge, in order to install an elevator and connect the space to the home. ln addition, the Appellants also asked for accessible and safe storaiTe within tnat igg sq. ft. space.
The Planning Department approved the elevator and its ptacement, but limited the allowable elevator-related space to 76 sq. ft. ln the decision, the department did not allow any space to be used for accessible storage.
The following are the Appeltate issues:
1. Conclusion No. 4 is erroneous, and should be modified or reversed, because the allowed 40 square feet of "hallway" or travel path from the elevator to the home's access point is inadequate, ditficult to feasibly construct, awkward in that it does not create a factually viable travel path, and harms the architectural integrity and features, and thereby lessens the property value of the home. Conclusion No. 4 is not a "reasonable" one.
2. Finding No. 2 , is enoneous, in that it disallowed any square footage to be used for"accessible storage space." The Finding that there were ,,alternative reasonable accommodations" available which would "provide an eguivalent level of benefit" is unsupported by the facts.
3. The filing and appeal fees, for disabled individuals to seek "reasonable ac@mmodation" under the Fair Housing Act should be minimal, if anything, as such an a@ommodation is a "protected right" under federat law.
AN INCOMPLETE APPEAL SEALL BE RETURNEII TO YOU A]\ilI CONSII'ERED TO BE INAPPROPRIATELY NLEI'. THE APPEAL PERIOD E}OIRES 10 I}AYS ATTER TEE DETERMINATION AND CANNOT BE EXTENDEI) TO ACCOMMODATE AnEQUATE COMPLETTON OF TEE APPEAL rrLrNG ONLY MATEruAI.s SIIBMITIED BY TEE DEADLINA WILL BE CONSIDEREI' AT TITE MARING S€pt 2015 Page}df2
City of Coronado Page 212
HEC'[ SLERI{'S SFFT*T
llftR fil ?0?5 FHSI:1?
APPEAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ''REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION"
Date: March 31, 2025
Applicants: James and Melinda Marlar ("Marlars")
Property Address: 500 A Avenue, Coronado, CA 921 18
Decision Letter: February 7,2025, Planning Department ("City"), No. 2024-06
SUMMARY
Longtime residents in their mid-7O's and early 80s, both with documented and undisputed orthopedic disabilities, appeal from the City's partial denial of their "reasonable accommodation" request under the federal and California Fair Housing Act (FHA), as incorporated into Coronado's Municipal Code.t Request for a "Reasonable Accommodation:" The Marlars asked to enclose a290 square foot "L"-shaped flat-roof area over their attached garage in order to (1) install an elevator, and (2) gain accessible storage space. (See, Figure t).2 While the Gity agreed that the Marlars met all of the Code's legal requirements for "reasonable accommodations," it only partially approved their request. And what it did approve is impracticalwith respect to the elevator, and it failed to approve any space for storage. (Figure 2). Denial of accessible storage violates the FHA.
Elevator: The City approved the installation of an elevator, but allowed only 76 square feet for that purpose. Of that amount, thirty-six square feet was allotted for the shaft, and 40 sq. ft. for a pathway to the home. This "approval" creates an illusory paradox:
"granting" an elevator as a necessity but so restricting the space as to make the approval functional ly unworkable.
Accessible Storage: ln proposing "alternatives" for storage, the City recognizes that storage is appropriate under the FHA. ln rejecting the request, it found that "equivalent" benefits were available to the Marlars, and denied the request on that basis. However, each of those "alternatives" are not of the "equivalent level of benefit" required by the FHA and Coronado's Code, are factually disparate or wholly inaccurate, and thus fail to meet the legal standards.
1 Coro. Mun. Code 70.130.010 et seq.
z The City states that the space is 321 sq. ft. but that figure w€rs never mentioned until the decision letter of February 7,2025. A site visit measurement, reference to the scale on the Marlars' submissions, or plans on file, would have shown that number to be inaccurate. 1 City of Coronado Page 213
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Marlars' application for reasonable accommodation stems from orthopedic disabilities that significantly impact their mobility and ability to access portions of their home. ln September 2A24, they initiated consultations with architects and contractors, who engaged with the City on their behalf, to address these challenges through home modifications. No progress was made.
On November 15, 2024, following these discussions, the Marlars filed their formal Application for reasonable accommodations under Coronado's Fair Housing Act provisions, CMC 70.130.010 ef seg., seeking permission for an elevator installation and accessible storage space within the existing property footprint. (see, Figure 1).
The ensuing process involved multiple submissions, including a December 11 Supplement addressing specific concerns raised during a December 3 meeting with the Planning Department, and responses to two letters. ln total, the Marlars provided four comprehensive written submissions, comprising 28 narrative pages and 35 detailed exhibits documenting their needs and proposed solutions.
Despite repeated invitations, no representative from the City made an on-site inspection of the property. This omission proved significant, as the City's subsequent determinations rested on incorrect assumptions about the property's physical characteristics. A physical inspection would have minimized or eliminated such inaccu rate conclusions.
On February 7,2025, the City issued its decision. !t allowed the elevator, but without explanation limited the square footage to an impractical minimum, only 76 square feet.
Of that amount, 36 sq. ft. was allotted for the elevator's shaft, and 40 sq. ft. was left for a "hallway" connection from the elevator to the home. (Decision letter, Conclusions Nos. 2, 4; see, Figure 2). The decision also denied any square footage for accessible storage, even though their 225 sq. ft. attic, which has been their primary storage area since purchasing the home in 2011, is no longer safely accessible and, in addition, 36 sq. ft. of storage will be immediately lost in the garage due to the elevator shaft. (Decision letter, Finding No. 2; Conclusion No. 3; see, Figure 2).
The City based its denial of the storage request solely upon a finding that there were "alternative reasonable accommodations" available to applicants which would "provide an equivalent level of benefit." CMC 70.130.060(BX1); Decision Letter, Finding No.2.
Except for the allowed 76 sq. ft., the decision denied any further build-out or enclosure over the remaining portion of the flat-roofed garage, for use either as travel pathways to and from the elevator, or for any safe and accessible storage space. 2 City of Coronado Page 214
LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND STANDARDS
Coronado's Municipal Code Section 70.130.010 ef seq. implements federal and state Fair Housing Act requirements, establishing the framework for reasonable accommodation requests. The Code expressly provides for modifications to existing structures when necessary to enable disabled residents to fully enjoy their homes.
Coronado's local framework operates against the backdrop of federal guidance from both the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which emphasize that multiple accommodations for an individual may be necessary to achieve meaningful accessibility. Denial of a proper "reasonable accommodation" request has been held to be discriminatory.
Significantly, the City's February 7 ,2425 decision letter acknowledged that the Marlars' application satisfied all legal requirements under CMC 70.130.060(A). The City found that the Marlars met the disability threshold and that their request (as to the elevator) was reasonable and necessary. However, the City's denial of their request for accessible storage, and the minor amount of additional square footage for a logical elevator travel pathway, raises significant legal and practical concerns that form the basis of this appeal.
ANALYSIS OF CITY DEGISION
A. lnadequacy of Approved Elevator Configuration
The flat-roofed portion of the garage is "L-shaped" because 48 sq. ft. of a bedroom, as well as 30 sq. ft. of the landing, extends over a portion of the garage below. The Marlars' proposalwould tie the second-story addition to the main home's existing second-floor interior landing. (Figure 1). The window would be replaced with French doors, leaving intact its half-circle transom so that, in effect, the architectural feature remains the same. The landing's window is a key feature of the Lorton Mitchell/Dorothy Howard home. (See, Figure 3).
The City's approval of only 76 square feet for the elevator installation (36 square feet for the elevator shaft, and 40 square feet for a connecting "hallway") fails to provide functional accessibility. This limited allocation creates several significant problems. (Figure 2).
First, the approved dimensions force an impractical configuration. The City's "hallway" plan would require the elevator to open eastward into a narrow 4' x 10' ft. corridor, creating a tunnel-like approach. (Figure 2). The Marlars' proposal exits the elevator to the north, which is a more desirable construction design. (Figure 1). Of necessity, the travel pathway to access the home's entry point can flow smoothly only with a wider design and more square footage.
3 City of Coronado Page 215
Second, the City's unorthodox configuration would necessitate construction of a new wall two feet away and in from the existing outer south wall of the garage (in order to center the "hallway tunnel" on the elevator opening), resulting in an awkward misalignment that would compromise both the structural integrity and architectural aesthetics of the home. (Figure 2). This misalignment would adversely impact the previously mentioned floor-to-ceiling arched window that currently serves as a focal point. (Figure 3). Building a new wall, two feet off from an existing wall, is not only an illogical placement, but is ditficult to reinforce and expensive to construct. lt is clearly more architecturally functional to build up onto existing walls, rather than build "walls within walls."
Third, the restrictive dimensions would etfectively eliminate the ability to convert the entire window space to French doors and to retain the arched transom. The City's allocated 40 sq. ft. "hallway" space creates an otf-centel displeasing, asymmetrical opening while simultaneously destroying a key element of the home. (Figure 2).
The City's partial approval is ill-conceived and poorly thought-out, is not a "reasonable" accommodation and ignores discussions concerning the desire to retain and convert the arched window as the entrance to the additional space requested. A site-visit, or even a review of the many exhibits (including photos) provided in the Marlars' filings, would have clarified and made obvious the flaws within the City's impractical and illogical decision, and led ultimately to what Coronado's Code requires, a "reasonable accommodation" that aligns with common sense and rational construction design.
Moreover, there was no explanation for limiting the request to an unworkable amount of space, and no discussions with the Marlars prior to the release of the Decision.
B. Safe and Accessible Storage is Reasonable and Necessary The second part of the Marlars' request dealt with the need for accessible and safe storage.
Accessible and safe storage also falls within the Fair Housing Act's requirements for allowance of reasonable modifications, intended to enable disabled individuals full enjoyment and use of their homes. According to HUD guidelines, "storage areas" for disabled individuals with mobility impairments must be accessible, designed and located in such a way as will allow people with disabilities to easily maneuver and reach them. Both elevators and accessible storage are considered, by the DOJ and HUD, to be of equal importance to, for example, ramps and accessible parking. In this instance, both an elevator and accessible storage can be smoothly integrated and properly constructed atop the flat-roofed garage's existing footprint.
The City's very act of proposing "alternatives" to the Marlars' request for accessible and safe storage demonstrates that it recognizes storage as a valid disabled category.
FHA and HUD guidelines require that this category be accommodated. By rejecting 4 City of Coronado Page 216
Marlars' request, and stating that there are only unreasonable "alternatives," the City failed to follow the Code.s
The Marlars' attic, which has become inaccessible due to the orthopedic disabilities, has only a drop-down vertical ladder. Because the attic space has become inaccessible, approximately 225 sq. ft. of former storage space is now lost. They will lose another 36 sq. ft. of garage storage due to the placement of the elevator shaft, for a total loss of 261 sq. ft. of what had previously been storage. They are asking for an accommodation of less than half of the amount - in the space over the garage - to replace space now lost due to their disabilities. What the Marlars have requested is reasonable.
The space requested for accessible storage is not large, covering only about 38% of the garage's flat roof. lf an elevator has been allowed as a "reasonable and necessary accommodation," it is similarly logical to allow the owners to enclose the remaining flat space, and to use it for accessible and safe storage.
C. Deficiencies in City's Proposed Storage "Alternatives" The City's finding that "alternative reasonable accommodations" exist for storage misapprehends both the practical realities of the Marlars' disabilities and the legal standards for equivalent accommodation.a Each of the City's four proposed alternatives fail to provide the required "equivalent level of benefit" mandated by CMC
70.130.060(BX1). (Decision Letter, Finding No.2; Conclusion No. 3).
The four "alternatives" relied on by the City are easily distinguished as not being of an "equivalent level of benefit:"
1. Attiq The ironic suggestion that the Marlars should continue to use their attic storage (225 sq. ft.) defies logic and medical reality. Having acknowledged that their disabilities necessitate an elevator for basic floor-to-floor mobility, the City nevertheless proposes that they should be required to utilize a pull-down vertical ladder to gain access to their attic, and then navigate a limited space for storage access. (Figure 4). This recommendation directly contradicts the City's own finding regarding the Marlars' mobility limitations. (Decision Letter, Finding No. 1). 3 "There may be instances where a provider [city] believes that, while the accommodation requested by an individual is reasonable, there is an alternative accommodation that would be equally etfective in meeting the individual's disability....Nevertheless, persons with disabilities typically have the most accurate knowledge about the functional limitations posed by their disability, and an individual is not obligated to accept an alternative accommodation." Department of Justice - US Attorney's Bulletin, Nov. 2A02. a "Equivalent" is defined as "equal in quantity, value, force, meaning, etc." Webster's New World Dictionary (1962). lt also means "alike, identical." Black's Law Dictionary (4th edition. 1e51).
5 City of Coronado Page 217
2. Off-Site: The closest public storage facilities are in lmperial Beach or Chula Vista, both requiring at least a 20-mile round trip. The Marlars are75 and 80 years old. lt is uncertain as to how much longer they will be able to drive. Logic cannot equate an accessible storage space, located within one's home, as an "equivalent level of benefit," to driving for miles to a storage locker in another city, for which one pays hundreds of dollars annually. There is no comparable "equivalence," when the logical solution is steps away, level and part of a person's home. Thus, the City's position that this "alternative" offers "an equivalent level of benefit" fails to align with what the Code contemplates and the facts show.
3. Bedrooms: The law does not require that disabled individuals substitute or "cannibalize" other rooms, each with other specific functions and uses, and convert them into storage units. Extra bedrooms and their small closets are intended for visiting family and guests, not for changing their purpose into a storage room for items too large for closets or periodically used. Destruction of one part of a home to create accessible storage space satisfies neither the "equivalent" nor "equal enjoyment and use" standards. One could as easily suggest that a kitchen or bathroom be abandoned and used for storage.
Suggesting that bedrooms be sacrificed, and used for storage, does not provide the "equivalent level of benefit" nor allow proper "use and enjoyment" of their home as required by CMC Sec. 70.130.030(8).
4. Basement The suggestion that the basement can be used for accessible storage is equally strained, and is also based on inaccurate facts. The home does not have a 1021 sq. ft full basement, as the City states. Half of the home sits above-grade on piers and girders at the ground level. The other half has a 602 sq. ft. finished basement. The City's determination that there are 1021 sq. ft. below ground shows that it did not review final plans within its possession. Moreover, the basement's only access is down a run of 16 stairs.
It is also impossible, as the City suggests, to "extend" an elevator into the basement space, because no part of the basement extends beneath the garage floor's concrete slab. Moreover, the elevator's approved and only logical placement is at least 16'away from the basement's walls, and not in alignment therewith.
A site-visit or some kind of communication would have quickly clarified those inaccuracies. But neither occurred. The Planning Department is 3 1/2 minutes, by car, from the subject property. Yet in the two and one-half months that this Application was under submission, no one from the City's Planning Department made any effort to visit the site. Had that minimal effort occurred, the City's inaccurate decision, and this appeal, may have been avoided.
To make a basement "connection" would require demolition of the entire garage, excavation of the space beneath it, and then re-building an entirely new garage 6 City of Coronado Page 218
and second-story. This suggestion, aside from relying on non-existent facts, would be prohibitively expensive, time-consuming, an engineering challenge, and is impractical.
The finished basement does not offer a viable "alternative equivalent" to justify refusal of a minor amount of storage space, which can be easily built over what is now only an open-air space, with a seamless and architecturally compatible tie-in to the existing home, allowing easy access to the main home.
Excessive Fees
Appealing to a City Council for a "reasonable accommodation" under the Fair Housing Act should generally cost little or nothing to file, as the process is designed to be accessible to all disabled individuals. While similar in substance to a "variance," the two are different in the eyes of the law. A "reasonable accommodation" is considered by the Justice Department to be a "protected right" afforded to persons with disabilities. A "variance" is applicable to the general public and requires more extensive plan review.
For "reasonable accommodation" requests, most cities charge nothing (no fee in San Diego), or a minimal fee, to cover costs such as certified letters. ln the Applicants' case, due to the short window to appeal, we have paid these fees ($+SO to apply and $684 to appeal for a total of $1134). We request the Council review the fees being charged by the City for "reasonable accommodations," and consider either waiving such fees, or placing the issue on a future agenda to reconsider the fee amounts to be charged for such applications and appeals.
CONGLUSION
Like many aging residents, the Marlars face the challenge of adapting their home to meet their rapidly changing physical needs - a challenge which the Fair Housing Act was specifically designed to address.
The City's "alternative level of equivalent [storage] benefit" suggestions were never raised prior to its February 7, 2025 decision letter, which would have allowed the Marlars an opportunity to respond to the City before it made a decision. A site-visit, correspondence, or indeed any communication, could have laid to rest the impractical or inaccurate assumptions for storage "alternatives," and shown them to be unworkable or factually erroneous. The City Planning Department, by relying on inaccurate facts and impractical suggestions, has misunderstood what the Code mandates, and the way in which a department may approach practicalflexibility. There is no basis in the law, nor has any been cited by the City, to deny the Marlars' full 7 City of Coronado Page 219
request. Prohibiting disabled individuals from making reasonable modifications that will allow them "full enjoyment" of their premises is considered to be legal discrimination under the FHA.
The Marlars are not asking for special treatment, but only what the law clearly allows.
They have proposed modest, carefully-considered modifications that would preserve their lifestyle and independence while maintaining their property's architectural integrity, beauty and value. The FHA imposes, and Coronado's Code adopts, an affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate persons with disabilities. The City's partial approval of the Marlars' request for "reasonable accommodations," although acknowledging their disabilities, imposes restrictions that render its decision largely theoretical or illusory and nullifies the Marlars'ability to implement any meaningful accommodation. The City's decision thus fails to "reasonably accommodate" the Marlars' disabilities, as Coronado's Code intends. The Fair Housing Act's reasonable accommodation provisions are not mere suggestions - they are fundamental rights extended to the disabled community.
RELIEF SOUGHT
The Marlars respectfully urge the City Council to approve their request in its entirety, allowing these longtime residents to implement the modifications necessary for their continued independence and dignity, and allow them to "age in place" in the home and community they love.
Respectfully submitted this 31 st day of March ,2025
.hn a
I
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
James M. Marlar Melinda S.
Attachments
Space requested by Marlars for elevator, travel pathway and storage City's approved elevator and "hallway"
Landing Window (with dimensions)
Pull-down Ladder, Attic Space (225 sq. ft.) and Garage Corner Storage (Lost due to elevator shaft's 36 sq. ft.)
8 City of Coronado Page 220
FIGURE 1
MARI-AR PROPOSAL
City of Coronado Page 221
I
E
tl
i(\
I
is
u
J
'L. D +r'r
''tL -r -
SGALE: t iq" = i'
Fiaulh'l
Y, ---
t' '
Lla 1b'
I .,.
7 a t
window/dbor
opening
('
JEAUEI.-P.AIIL
5t
7'6'
*
€
q
a
Ir
1 I
J
t. l- \
.Tt-- \
\
aa-E?.* rit, iU
i$
r
ll. 3
r
l
a*,*.
I
$<,
aSTORAGE
-.-
'l ifi
I
,
I
Marlar Proposal
(290 sq. ft.)
At r*liraal i- Ellr ra t tlltIl rrE;lr lr I lJrlIrE
Elevator
(3e sq. ft,l
I
o
itr
t\i
Figure i
12'
\
)
L_-,__. -,- -i ' f
l,
t
t
I
i
v
rI
/
f-.
I
1 \
O
rt l-l-i+hr..-{
a
ffi
---Y
{
\
I
i
.{sffiE-)€re-#
-
t
T
f,
I
I
I
N
I
J F
,J
r,
0 City of Coronado Page 222
FIGURE 2
CITY'S APPROVED ELEVATOR
AND
..HALLWAY" DIMENSIONS
City of Coronado Page 223
b
Figure 2
SGALE: 1!4" = '!
'
'16,
lK
E
;t
t
1 I
T, r
,
I
re-r*.
t
;
F \
l-l.lrt
I
-Ere'
I
a +- 1
I
I
2'l'
IH
H
l3
i
\t$
--f*."e&T*. r
1 2',
Fi*., f, *6r...r\.-^J \rt ty RlrPr LruEr.r
Shaded in Yellow
(7o sq. ft.}
Elevator
tati .- # If t
too liq. I1.,
7r 6"
,-4, l--s
40 sq. ft.
S window/door 'nHallwaytt
opening
- -Frr+. ,-
t;^-r rE- ,l rrulJJf5 e
1,,'
aL
\
\
'rF.,iE!/-ira!.* rrrl* rr*I}.
-.:|lt-li
\
i
T.
i
t.
)
lt
f.
I
F
r r I r
-,n
rr-lrr r rUlr !rrttlr lrr?t:rr[n ? ! rt rr:rtJ
I
.?
(.
.e
I
t
I
rml
I
i
.t tt' .Titl: rll
''a
I
:
!
U --t-r-r- -*t-- ,, ,,
I
-
City of Coronado Page 224
FIGURE 3
PHOTOS: Wl NDOWAT LANDING
(TO BE CONVERTED TO DOORWAY)
AND
DIMENSIONS
City of Coronado Page 225
,I
ts II
.l\ I
/l
7 I a
-]
LI I -
l--_r- l r
-l
-/
)
C I\ I t \ \ \
\-
\
\
\
\ I
City of Coronado Page 226
bA
Il':
r
r7
..':
\
D
7 2' 8' \
Ifl
,t"I \
\ 7,
r\
\
{
rt7- \
il
L1
rt B' I
I
s',-
fr?
-a {
I
la
-I f t
!,r
n
City of Coronado Page 227
FIGURE 4
PHOTOS:
PULL.DOWN LADDER,
ATTIC SPACE (225 sg. ft.)
AND GARAGE CORNER STORAGE
(Lost to 36 sq. ft. Elevator Shaft)
City of Coronado Page 228
m
a
r
l!
T
a
\
(
\
{ I I
\t
\ I a
tD I T
,
L
\
,
e
Itl
\
a
/ ffi
\
\
lr
." ,/
l- I-r
Hry'il
v
1iI \ I \
L.\
\I lrrf f, il
l'-1
,rl.
lr.-'
\ I
)t,
1)
\ I I \ I J
City of Coronado Page 229
}
s_=-=:.
-
/
/
I
1#
I
,\
\
,l --i t
"t .t
\
ft
q-
/
,
[t
I
F
- h
T
)'
a
-!
:ffr,
s l
./
"{
FJ B:,
t
{
f d
---
-L
ry{
J
;"(
1 I
1a
,)lt
=
-f:
,G; ,r'
'-ah. J
7 r
/ spil
4,
?
I
''tt',
,,. il
:
' lnl!
n', 'l ,T
ll '.\l
.ji,:r..
t, $
,1
)\
I
4. -t
r
7 I
t
I
i
I
F I
.-
ll'
City of Coronado Page 230
t
i
I
F
t
T
'. I
t t .r - I lr.r
r !ri. ;
r)?.t1 -
I t
I
F
t
\
I
h'" ffi
-
FtF* >- l,
ir
I':!L-.} g.r
qffir
:h ! \
\
r
\
L
\
h,-
t
\h-I
n
u
.{ 4
lt!l
3 )
,/
W-r./
I
ffifj--1-
-Jr,
I
v
T.
.:I-
: " ''a'
tt.lt
, \
\
\
)
Fq
\
t
I
ri
City of Coronado Page 231
1.1 F,j
tu$
t-
?
w 5-- l $ a
-*- t
]Z
,I/,
€E:=
3 i a I
'-'-a
,. I c.."' -o'
7tI /Il I a
L
t
5 {r/
-
. .,.-....+i.-.#j.l
t
tr
\ Ix - lL
/
a t
1t
ti....
tt -9
J
b. I
lr'),
k
lt
a/
\
./
E
ti.
br:
8a L
-I
rh
=E-=-
s.E-!-
- ri.
Eaarci loEEr
r
-
\
\
City of Coronado Page 232
t
\
lf
hII
ll
l,
I I'
t'
fi I s
\l I I q, ':
1l
T
rOule
*s
loI i
II\ I - d I / q"
ir' t"l3't'
q
,,tI
or=E
!B
_).- I
" tr r
, L*
ffi I \
t_\
1,
E p!0
m I
qt
\
)
t
i*
'f+
u
E-I
Tr
t
'+ ;1tu iE
f
.\
{{
^l
;i -1*
\__,/
r
C
.rr4
a I
?,
\
fiiij
l.
,
t- ,7-l
/ I I I 3
'fr:
1 t'l
t t tl
r rl
it
h
City of Coronado Page 233
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORONADO, CALIFORNIA DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S DECISION TO
DENY A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST TO
CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 321 SQUARE-FOOT
ADDITION FOR STORAGE SPACE AT 500 “A” AVENUE
WHEREAS, the property OWNERS, James Marlar and Melinda S. Marlar, submitted an application on November 15, 2024, for a Reasonable Accommodation from zoning standards to install an elevator in their existing garage and to construct an approximately 321 square-foot, second story addition to provide additional storage spaces at their home located at 500 “A” Avenue in the City of Coronado; and
WHEREAS, the OWNERS’ home currently exceeds maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR) and provides approximately 3,367 square-feet of space that can be used as living area and/or storage space; and
WHEREAS, the OWNERS’ request would further exceed the maximum FAR (CMC
86.08.035), encroach into the second-story rear yard setback (CMC 86.08.070), and encroach into one existing on-site parking space, thereby reducing the size of the required parking space (CMC 86.58.070 & CMC 86.58.150); and
WHEREAS, the OWNERS’ request would not be allowed without a modification or exception to the application of the City’s zoning and building standards; and WHEREAS, under both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“Acts”), cities have an affirmative duty to make “reasonable accommodations” in their zoning and other laws when the accommodation is necessary to give persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and WHEREAS, Chapter 70.130 et seq. of the Coronado Municipal Code (“CMC”) provides a procedure for individuals with disabilities to file a Request for Reasonable Accommodation under the Acts from the application of zoning laws and other land use regulations, policies and procedures; and
WHEREAS, CMC section 70.130.030.B further provides that “[a] request for reasonable accommodation may include an application for a modification or exception to the application of zoning and building standards and use of housing or housing-related facilities in order to eliminate identifiable regulatory barriers to provide a person with a disability an equal opportunity to housing”; and
WHEREAS, CMC section 70.130.040 provides that reasonable accommodation applicants must provide credible documentation of their qualifying disability and credible documentation that establishes why the requested accommodation(s) are necessary; and WHEREAS, the decision-making body may grant the requested accommodation or grant it with modifications if all of the following findings can be made: (1) the housing which is the subject City of Coronado Page 234
of the request will be used by an individual or a group of individuals considered disabled under the Acts; (2) the accommodation requested is reasonable and necessary to make specific housing available to the individual or group of individuals with disability or disabilities under the Acts; (3) the requested reasonable accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City; and (4) the requested reasonable accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program or law including, but not limited to, land use and zoning (CMC § 70.130.060.A.1-4); and
WHEREAS, when considering the reasonableness of the requested accommodation, the decision-making body may consider: (1) whether there are alternative reasonable accommodations available that would provide an equivalent level of benefit; and (2) whether the requested reasonable accommodation substantially affects the physical attributes of the property (CMC § 70.130.060.B.1-2); and
WHEREAS, the OWNERS submitted credible documentation from a licensed physician attesting to their mobility limitations and need for accessibility improvements; and WHEREAS, the OWNERS did not supply any evidence that the requested 321 squarefoot addition for surplus storage space was necessary to provide them with an equal opportunity to access and enjoy their home; and
WHEREAS, the OWNERS did not propose any alternatives that could provide an equivalent level of benefit (e.g., satisfy their storage needs) that would reduce or eliminate the need for additional zoning waivers, and were unwilling to consider alternatives suggested by staff; and
WHEREAS, the Reasonable Accommodation request for an approximately 321 squarefoot, second story addition is without precedence in Coronado; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director (Director), acting as the decisionmaker, was unable to make a finding that the accommodation requested for additional storage was reasonable and necessary to make specific housing available to the Applicants; and WHEREAS, the Director issued a decision on February 7, 2025 to conditionally approve installation of an elevator in the garage, an elevator landing, mechanical room, and approximately 40 square-foot hallway atop the garage, and associated zoning waivers for required off-street parking, floor area ratio, and setbacks, but denying the request for the approximately 321 squarefoot, second story addition for storage space; and WHEREAS, the OWNERS submitted an appeal of the Director’s decision on February 14, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Coronado held a duly noticed public hearing on April 15, 2025 in accordance with chapter 1.12 of the CMC to consider the appeal; and WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include without limitation:
1. City Council staff report and attachments dated April 15, 2025;
2. Appeal dated February 14, 2025;
3. Supplemental appeal information from OWNERS dated March 31, 2025;
4. Oral and written testimony;
City of Coronado Page 235
5. Additional written information, exhibits, and photographs provided by the OWNERS.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Coronado finds as follows:
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct; Section 2. By a vote of X in favor and X opposed, the City Council of the City of Coronado hereby denies the appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision to deny the OWNERS’ request for the approximately 321 square-foot, second story addition for surplus storage space, based on the following findings
a) The accommodation requested is not reasonable or necessary to make specific housing available to the individual or group of individuals with disability or disabilities under the Acts. This finding is based upon the fact that no evidence was presented by OWNERS or discovered by staff to establish a link between the OWNERS disabilities and the requested storage space, or to indicate that the requested approximately 321-square foot addition for storage space is necessary to afford OWNERS an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their home; and b) The accommodation requested is not reasonable. This finding is based on the fact that there are alternative reasonable accommodations available that would provide an equivalent level of benefit, and that no evidence was presented by OWNERS or discovered by staff to demonstrate that other reasonable alternatives to the OWNERS stated storage needs were infeasible.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, this fifteenth day of April 2025 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
____________________________________
JOHN D. DUNCAN, Mayor of the
City of Coronado, California
ATTEST:
__________________________________
KELSEA HOLIAN, City Clerk of the
City of Coronado, California
City of Coronado Page 236
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
April 15, 2025 8d.
CONSIDERATION OF A POTENTIAL INCREASE OF THE CITY’S AFFORDABLE HOUSING
IN-LIEU FEE
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive report, consider an appropriate increase to the City’s Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee, and adopt a resolution amending the amount of subdivision fees for the Affordable Housing Fund.
BACKGROUND:
Section 82.21 of the Coronado Municipal Code requires subdivision projects involving two or more residential lots to reserve 20% of the units for lower income households or pay an in-lieu fee of $7,000 per unit. For example, a developer of a four-unit residential subdivision who chooses to pay the In-Lieu fee instead of dedicating on-site affordable units would be assessed a fee of $28,000. Since adoption of the ordinance, all subdivision applicants have elected to pay the inlieu fee.
Fees collected through the program are deposited into a dedicated affordable housing fund.
Funds may only be spent on providing new affordable housing units in the City. The City’s current fee of $7,000/unit was established in 1993 and has not been updated since. The City’s Affordable Housing fund has a current balance of approximately $1.7 million.
In response to a Policy 2 request, staff presented the City Council with a report on the City’s Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee on October 19, 2021. Following a presentation and discussion, the Council directed staff to hire a qualified consultant to prepare a development impact fee nexus study to review the In-Lieu Fee and the City’s development impact fees, evaluate potential new fees, make recommendations on fee rates, and ensure any new or modified fees are consistent with the California Mitigation Fee Act (Assembly Bill 1600) and related legislation.
The City subsequently released a Request for Proposals (RFP) and received two proposals. On June 7, 2022, the City Council authorized a contract in the amount of $63,000 to DTA, Inc.
Following two years of unsatisfactory progress on the project, the City exercised its contractual right to terminate its agreement with DTA for convenience on June 11, 2024.
Due to the protracted schedule and lack of progress on the project, coupled with a Housing Element Update requirement to review and consider updates to the City’s Affordable Housing InLieu Fee, staff subsequently hired Keyser-Marston Associates to complete a focused analysis on the In-Lieu Fee so that the City Council could consider possible changes before the end of the year. Staff intends to resume work on development impact fees in 2025.
ANALYSIS:
High land costs make it economically challenging to develop affordable housing in Coronado. The City has 18 deed-restricted affordable housing properties that accommodate 172 total units; however, all of those units were produced and publicly subsidized by former redevelopment housing set-aside monies. Staff is not aware of any affordable units developed in Coronado without funding assistance from the City.
Cities throughout California lost their primary funding source for developing affordable housing when the state dissolved redevelopment agencies in 2011. The loss of redevelopment funds, lack of private sector investment, and scarcity of grant opportunities for higher income communities leaves the City with three primary funding sources to produce affordable housing: 1) residual funds paid into the City’s Housing Successor account from former redevelopment loan repayments; 2) the General Fund; and 3) the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee.
The City’s Affordable Housing Fund has a current balance of approximately $1.7 million. Recent property sales data indicates that multi-family zoned residential properties can command between $500 - $750 per square foot (sf). Accordingly, a 7,000 sf lot that can accommodate four residential units could be expected to sell for $3.5 - $5.25 million. At the current rate of $7,000 per unit, 500 market rate units would need to be developed through new subdivisions to generate the minimum $3.5 million necessary to acquire a property that could support four affordable units and additional funding would be needed for redevelopment and long-term property management.
Coronado’s In-lieu fee level is comparable to some inland jurisdictions in the San Diego region, but it is substantially lower than coastal cities that share Coronado’s built-out and high land cost characteristics. The following table summarizes In-Lieu fee programs in neighboring cities (a more detailed survey can be found in Attachment 2, appendix E):
City Year Updated Project Thresholds Fee Amount
Carlsbad 2024 7+ units, rental & for-sale $18/sf
Coronado 1993 2+ units, for-sale only $7,000/unit
Chula Vista 2024 20+ units, rental & for-sale varies
Del Mar 2024 2+ units, rental & for-sale $27,350/unit
Encinitas 2024 7+ units, rental & for-sale $24.08/sf
Oceanside 2024 10+ units, rental & for-sale $20/sf
San Diego 2020 varies, rental & for-sale $25 - $50/sf
Poway 2018 1+ units, rental & for-sale $500/unit
San Marcos 2000 1+ for sale units, 6+ rental $9,300/unit Solana Beach 2023 5+ units, rental & for sale $27.22/sf Vista 2022 20+ units, rental & for-sale $17.56/sf
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee Study
Keyser-Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) completed a draft Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee Study (Attachment 2) to evaluate the City’s Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee and to determine a potential fee increase that would be commensurate with the actual cost to produce affordable housing in Coronado. As part of this effort, KMA reviewed the City’s existing ordinance, revenue generated from the current fee program, and in-lieu fee programs in other San Diego County jurisdictions.
KMA then reviewed market data trends, local land values, development cost estimates, and other industry standards, and prepared financial pro forma models to estimate the residual land value generated by a variety of residential project types. Residual land values were calculated for both 100% market-rate projects and projects with 80% market-rate and 20% affordable units to determine the economic impact of providing affordable housing and the in-lieu fee levels that would be needed for the City or a developer to produce affordable units.
City of Coronado Page 238
KMA evaluated a number of development scenarios in their report, including a series of prototypes based on characteristics of recently developed multi-family projects in Coronado, rental and forsale home products, and scenarios for both on-site and off-site production of affordable units. To determine supportable fee levels, KMA considered the following two approaches:
• Approach 1: Economic Impact of Including Affordable Units On-Site. For this approach, KMA prepared financial pro forma models for four distinct development prototypes that are representative of multi-family development recently completed in Coronado. KMA then compared the residual land values, defined as the value of a completed housing project minus the underlying land value, of a 100% market-rate project vs a project with an 80% - 20% market-rate and affordable mix. The difference in the residual land value between the two scenarios represents the financial impact of providing on-site affordable units.
KMA determined that the estimated financial impact of providing 20% affordable units on-site ranged from $248,000 to $818,000 per market rate unit, or $133 to $364/sf. • Approach 2: Off-Site Affordability Gap. This approach determines the amount of in-lieu fees the City would need to receive from a market-rate developer to produce affordable housing at an off-site location. KMA prepared financial pro forma models for two development prototypes, a 25-unit apartment project and a 10-unit condominium (for-sale) project. KMA then calculated the affordability gap (the amount the City would need to collect per affordable unit) to determine appropriate in-lieu fee levels.
This approach resulted in an estimated funding gap of $296,000/unit or $132 to $158/sf for for-sale units and $133,000/unit or $59 to $71/sf for rental units.
Supportable In-Lieu Fee Levels
The following table shows the supportable fee levels for each approach that could be assessed on residential project based on whether the type of affordable housing produced is rental or forsale. Fee levels are expressed as both a flat fee (as currently applied in Coronado) and on a per square-foot basis. As shown at the bottom of the table, KMA recommends that the maximum fee level the City should consider is $59/sf, which was the lowest amount calculated among the various development scenarios they studied.
Potential Fee Levels
Approach to Setting Fee Levels
Approach 1:
On-Site Production
Approach 2:
Off-Site Production
FOR-SALE – 20% MODERATE
Per Market-Rate Net $133 - $364/sf (avg $220)
Or
$249,000 - $818,000/unit
(avg $468,000)
$132 - $158 (avg $142)
Or
$296,000/unit
RENTAL – 20% LOWER
Per Market-Rate Net --- $59 - $71
Average: $64
OR
$133,000/unit
KMA RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM FEE LEVEL - $59/SF
City of Coronado Page 239
Considerations to Determine an Appropriate Fee Level
Although the City Council could adopt a fee as high as $59/sf, it has full discretion to set a lower fee as deemed reasonable and appropriate. The recommended maximum In-Lieu Fee level of $59/sf would be highest rate of any city in San Diego County. Similar coastal cities in the region charge between $18 - $27/sf. The City of San Diego’s fee for the University Community Planning Area is $50/sf, but $25/sf for most of the rest of the city.
The following table illustrates how increasing the City’s In-Lieu fee to $59/sf (maximum recommended fee level) and $27/sf (highest fee charged by a comparable coastal city) would impact subdivision projects in Coronado, assuming unit sizes of 2,000 sf:
Number of Units Existing In-Lieu Fee $59/SF In-Lieu Fee $27/SF In-Lieu Fee 2 $14,000 $236,000 $108,000
4 $28,000 $472,000 $216,000
8 $56,000 $944,000 $432,000
10 $70,000 $1,180,000 $540,000
Flat Fee vs Square-Foot Based Fee
KMA recommends the City establish its fee on a square-foot basis to avoid deterring development of smaller units, which are typically more affordable than larger units.
In-Lieu Fee Applicability – Rental and For-Sale Developments Most surveyed cities require both rental and for-sale residential developments to participate in their inclusionary affordable housing programs. The City of Coronado’s ordinance only applies to residential subdivisions involving for-sale units. Although the City receives very few applications for apartments projects, the City Council could consider amending the ordinance to apply to all new residential development projects.
Automatic Annual Increases
If the City Council chooses to increase the fee, they should consider whether to include an annual automatic adjustment to the in-lieu fee. Options for an automatic annual increase include the Consumer Price Index (CPI), Building Cost Index (BCI), or the Construction Cost Index (CCI).
These options are further detailed in section III of the attached Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee Study.
Project Pipelining
If the City Council decides to increase the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee, the Council may wish to establish a pipelining policy to exempt certain subdivision projects from paying the increased fee. The City Council may consider applying pipelined status to the following classes of projects:
• Approved Tentative Maps and Tentative Parcel Maps that have been approved by the City Council, but have not completed the Final Map process or been recorded; • Active applications for Tentative Maps and Tentative Parcel Maps; • Any Tentative Map or Tentative Parcel Map submitted prior to a Council imposed deadline.
Under this option, the Council may choose to delay the date the fee increase goes into effect.
• A combination of one or more of the above options.
City of Coronado Page 240
FISCAL IMPACT: Raising the City’s Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee would result in the City accruing additional funds in its Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Account. The actual fiscal impact would depend on the fee level set by the City Council.
ALTERNATIVE:
The City Council may keep the current affordable housing fee as-is or direct staff to prepare appropriate documentation to raise the fee as desired.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:
Not Applicable.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Public notice of this public hearing was published in the Coronado Eagle/Journal on Wednesday, April 2, 2025.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 2025-17
2. Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee Study (Keyser-Marston Associates, Inc.) Submitted By: Community Development Department / Richard Grunow City of Coronado Page 241
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORONADO, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE AMOUNT OF
SUBDIVISION FEES FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND
WHEREAS, the State of California Government Code Section 65302(c) mandates that the City's General Plan Housing Element "shall make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community"; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted specific objectives and programs in the housing element to guide implementation of this State mandate; and WHEREAS, the City’s certified 2021 – 2029 Housing Element Update includes a program to review the City’s Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee and to consider rate increases to provide financing for affordable housing projects; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes its responsibility to take affirmative action in providing for affordable housing in the City of Coronado; and
WHEREAS, the ability of the City to carry out its housing responsibilities is dependent upon its citizens and the private development sector to cooperate and assist in providing affordable housing opportunities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Coronado General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance provide for the establishment of an affordable housing fund to be maintained by subdivision fees; and
WHEREAS, every time another market rate housing project is built it exacerbates the problem of land scarcity to develop affordable housing projects; and WHEREAS, the City of Coronado Subdivision Ordinance provides that the subdivider, at his/her option, may provide a fee in-lieu of said unit reservation; and WHEREAS, the Subdivision Ordinance provides that said fee shall be set by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Coronado City Council held a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Government Code 66014 to consider increasing the City’s Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee on April 15, 2025 at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and WHEREAS, the amount of fee set by this resolution does not constitute an unreasonable financial burden on any subdivider, since it is generally less than the annual subsidy required for an affordable housing unit and is less than the actual cost of providing an affordable unit; and
WHEREAS, the amount of fee set by this resolution will provide the City with the ability to continue its obligations to provide for the housing needs of low and moderate income persons as identified in the housing element;
City of Coronado Page 242
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Coronado hereby establishes a fee $59 per square-foot of living area contained in each dwelling unit in a subdivision application, as per Section 82.21.040 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, this fifteenth day of April 2025 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
____________________________________
JOHN D. DUNCAN, Mayor of the
City of Coronado, California
ATTEST:
__________________________________
KELSEA HOLIAN, City Clerk of the
City of Coronado, California
City of Coronado Page 243
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
Prepared for:
City of Coronado
Prepared by:
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
November 2024
City of Coronado Page 244
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
I. Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 4 II. In-Lieu Fee Financial Analysis............................................................................................................ 6 III. Potential Fee Level Adjustments..................................................................................................... 18 IV. Survey of San Diego County Jurisdictions........................................................................................ 19 V. Limiting Conditions.......................................................................................................................... 21
APPENDICES
Appendix A Summary of Potential In-Lieu Fees
Appendix B Estimate of Affordable Sales Prices and Rents Appendix C In-Lieu Fee Financial Analysis
Approach 1: On-Site Production
Appendix D In-Lieu Fee Financial Analysis
Approach 2: Off-Site Production
Appendix E Comparison of Affordable Housing Fees, San Diego County City of Coronado Page 245
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 1
November 22, 2024
24097kal
17800.003.007
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
The City of Coronado (City) is considering a review of the methodology and approach used to determine the City’s inclusionary housing in-lieu fee. The City’s inclusionary housing policy requires that new residential developments in subdivisions of two or more units reserve twenty percent (20%) for lowerincome (rental) or moderate-income (for-sale) households. Alternatively, developers may pay an in-lieu fee of $7,000 per market-rate dwelling unit.
The City engaged Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) to prepare an Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee Study (Study) to evaluate the potential of updating the inclusionary housing in-lieu fee for the City. As part of this effort, KMA reviewed the current in-lieu fee and impact fee levels charged in local jurisdictions and evaluated a range of approaches to determine appropriate housing in-lieu fee levels for new market-rate residential development in the City.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPES
The Study identified four (4) market-rate residential prototypes reflective of the types of development projects occurring or anticipated to occur in the City including:
• For-sale single-family detached in R1-B Zone
• For-sale townhomes in R-3/P Zone
• For-sale townhomes in R-3 Zone
• For-sale townhomes in R-4 Zone
For each residential prototype, KMA prepared base case financial pro forma models assuming: (i) 100% of all units are sold at market prices; and (ii) a potential inclusionary housing set-aside at 20% moderate income.
APPROACH TO IN-LIEU FEE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
KMA used two approaches to determine possible fee levels: (1) the economic impact on the developer to provide affordable housing on-site; and (2) the funding level required for the City to develop affordable housing in an off-site location.
City of Coronado Page 246
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 2
November 22, 2024
24097kal
17800.003.007
• Approach 1 – Economic Impact of Including Units On-Site – This approach uses a financial analysis to estimate fee levels that are approximately equivalent to the economic impact to market-rate developments of incorporating inclusionary units on-site. • Approach #2 – Off-Site Affordability Gap – This approach determines how much the City would need to receive from a market-rate residential developer in order to produce affordable rental housing in an off-site location.
POTENTIAL FEE LEVELS
As presented in Table 1, based on the findings from the two approaches noted above, the City may wish to consider an in-lieu fee of $59.00 per square foot (SF) of market-rate residential living area.
Table 1: Potential Fee Levels
Per Market-Rate Net SF $59/SF
The potential fee level of $59.00 reflects the lowest outcome of all the approaches tested by KMA.
This potential fee level is expressed on a per-SF basis. A per-SF in-lieu fee, as compared to a flat fee or perunit fee, recognizes the various residential unit sizes produced and avoids overly burdening the production of small market-rate units.
In order to mitigate affordable housing impacts -- and fund affordable housing -- over a long term and respond to economic cycles, the City should consider a potential annual escalator that could be used to adjust fee levels over time, such as the Construction Cost Index (CCI) published by the Engineering NewsRecord (ENR).
POTENTIAL FEE LEVELS IN COMPARISON TO OTHER SAN DIEGO COUNTY JURISDICTIONS KMA surveyed inclusionary in-lieu fees and affordable housing impact fees in 11 other San Diego County jurisdictions. The survey is summarized in Table 2 in comparison with the potential fee levels for the City.
City of Coronado Page 247
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 3
November 22, 2024
24097kal
17800.003.007
Table 2: Comparison of Affordable Housing Fees, Coronado vs. San Diego County Jurisdictions City of Coronado
San Diego County Jurisdictions
(range of findings)
Inclusionary Housing
Requirement
Applies to subdivisions only
subdivisions
only
-
all residential
development
Inclusionary Housing Required
Threshold
2 units 1 unit - 20 units
% of Affordable Units Required 20% 10% - 20%
In-Lieu Fee Option Available
Available to all projects
developed in subdivisions
In-lieu fee option is available to
developers in all jurisdictions
except for projects in the City of
Del Mar (only available to
subdivisions creating new lots), and
projects located within the City of
San Diego’s Future Urbanizing Area
(FUA) within the City of San Diego
In-Lieu Fee Amount
Per Unit -----
$500/Unit to $9,300/Unit
San Diego County Jurisdictions
charging per unit fees include:
Poway and San Marcos (1)
Per SF
Potential Fee Level:
$59/SF
$17.56/SF to $$50/SF
San Diego County jurisdictions
charging per SF fees include:
Carlsbad, Encinitas, Oceanside, San
Diego, Solana Beach, and Vista
(1) Update of San Marcos inclusionary housing in-lieu fee to a per SF fee to be considered by the City Council in November 2024.
The City’s current inclusionary requirements – in terms of project size threshold for inclusionary housing, percent of affordable units required, and in-lieu fee option -- fall within the range of inclusionary requirements found in other San Diego County jurisdictions. The potential fee level for the City ($59 per SF) would exceed other per-SF fees in the County. Within Southern California, KMA found a number of jurisdictions with similar or higher fees than the potential fee level proposed for the City, with the highest fee of $73.52/SF charged by the City of Pasadena.
City of Coronado Page 248
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 4
November 22, 2024
24097kal
17800.003.007
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Objective
This report presents the economic analysis prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) for the City of Coronado (City) to evaluate the update of the City’s inclusionary housing in-lieu fee.
B. City of Coronado Inclusionary Housing Policy
The City of Coronado Subdivision Code Chapter 82.21 establishes the City’s affordable housing requirements and in-lieu fees. Current statute and case law support the City’s authority to impose an inclusionary requirement on residential development.
The City requires that 20% of all new residential developments in subdivisions be reserved for lower- or moderate- income households, as follows:
Table I-1: City of Coronado Existing Inclusionary Housing Program Inclusionary Requirement Applies only to the creation of subdivisions Project Size Threshold 2 Units
% of Affordable Units Required
Rental
For-Sale
20% @ Lower Income
20% @ Moderate
Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee
Available to projects of all sizes
$7,000/unit
In-lieu fees collected by the City are added to the City’s affordable housing fund to provide funding assistance to future affordable housing units. As of July 2024, the City’s in-lieu fee account had a balance of approximately $1,700,000.
The City requested that KMA review current in-lieu fee and impact fee levels charged in local jurisdictions, evaluate potential methodologies to determine an appropriate fee, and recommend a preferred methodology and fee level.
City of Coronado Page 249
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 5
November 22, 2024
24097kal
17800.003.007
C. Methodology
KMA performed the following key work tasks in completing this analysis.
1. Compiled data pertaining to inclusionary housing in-lieu fees and/or affordable housing impact fees currently being charged by other cities in San Diego County and Southern California.
2. Reviewed market trends data, land values, development cost estimates, and other industry standards for for-sale and rental residential development in Coronado and San Diego County overall.
3. Formulated market-rate residential development prototypes in coordination with City staff.
4. Prepared pro forma financial models to estimate the residual land value generated by each residential prototype under two scenarios: (a) at 100% market-rate; and (b) an inclusionary requirement of 20% at moderate income.
D. Organization of Report
This report is organized into the following key sections:
• Following this Introduction, Section II presents the financial analysis for an affordable housing inclusionary in-lieu fee.
• Section III reviews potential indices that could be used to adjust the fee in the future. • Section IV presents a survey of affordable housing in-lieu fees in other San Diego and Southern California jurisdictions.
• Section V presents limiting conditions pertaining to this report.
City of Coronado Page 250
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 6
November 22, 2024
24097kal
17800.003.007
II. IN-LIEU FEE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
A. Residential Development Prototypes
Table II-1 provides a summary of the residential development prototypes identified for the Study. The prototypes are illustrative of the types of residential development projects occurring and anticipated to occur in the City. Four (4) new construction for-sale residential prototypes were identified based on review of recent development activity and discussion with City staff. While this level of feasibility analysis is useful for conceptual planning purposes, the actual circumstances for individual projects – physical, planning, market, financial, and other factors – will likely vary from the findings presented in this Study.
Table II-1: Project Descriptions for Development Prototypes
FOR-SALE
Single-Family Townhome Townhome Townhomes
Zoning R1-B Zone R-3/P Zone R-3 Zone R-4 Zone
Site Area (SF) 7,000 SF 5,250 SF 7,500 SF 14,000 SF
Density (Units/Acre) 12 Units/Acre 25 Units/Acre 23 Units/Acre 31 Units/Acre Number of Units 2 Units 3 Units 4 Units 10 Units
Unit Mix 1 and 4 Bedrooms 2 and 3 Bedrooms 2 and 3 Bedrooms 2 and 3 Bedrooms Stories 2 Stories 2 Stories 2 Stories 3 Stories
Average Unit Size 2,250 SF 2,000 SF 2,250 SF 1,870 SF
Parking Type Garage and
Surface
Garage and
Surface
Garage and
Surface Garage
B. Projected Market Sales Prices
KMA surveyed new for-sale development in the City and surrounding trade area. The purpose of the survey was to derive currently achievable market prices for the types of developments likely to be constructed in the City. The base case market-rate sales prices that are used in the financial feasibility analyses are presented in Table II-2.
City of Coronado Page 251
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 7
November 22, 2024
24097kal
17800.003.007
Table II-2: Projected Market Prices
FOR-SALE
Single-Family Townhomes Townhomes Townhomes
2 units
R1-B Zone
3 Units
R-3/P Zone
4 Units
R-3 Zone
10 Units
R-4 Zone
Average Market Price
per SF $1,178 $1,188 $1,184 $1,265
Average Unit Size 2,250 SF 2,000 SF 2,250 SF 1,870 SF
Average Market Price
per Unit $2,650,000 $2,375,000 $2,663,000 $2,365,000
C. Affordable Sales Price and Rent Calculation
For the purposes of this financial analysis, the maximum affordable sales prices and rents for the incomerestricted units were calculated based on the standards imposed by California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) Section 50052.5 (ownership) and Section 50053 (rental). The detailed calculations are presented in Appendix B; the key assumptions and results are summarized below.
Affordable Sales Price
• The household income information used in the calculations of affordable sales prices were based on 2024 income statistics for San Diego County as a whole. The household incomes are published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). • The household size appropriate for each unit was based on one additional person vs. the number of bedrooms, per H&SC Section 50052.5.
• Maximum monthly ownership housing payments were calculated as equal to 1/12 x 35% x 110% AMI for moderate income households, adjusted for household size. • Housing-related costs reflecting the specifics of each residential prototype and current lending industry underwriting criteria were determined as follows:
o Utility expenses were based on the County of San Diego utility allowance schedule, effective March 1, 2024, and the assumption that the homeowner’s utility costs are comprised of electric heat, electric cooking, electric water heater, other basic electric services, water and sewer, and trash.
City of Coronado Page 252
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 8
November 22, 2024
24097kal
17800.003.007
o Homeowner Association (HOA) dues, reflecting an allowance for structure insurance, maintenance, and reserves.
o Property taxes, assuming a typical City tax rate of 1.05% of assessed value. o City Flat Tax of $643 per unit.
o Supportable mortgage, assuming a 30-year loan; 6.79% interest rate (the national 52-week average interest rate for a 30-year fixed mortgage1); and a 10.0% down payment.
Affordable Rent
• The household income information used in the calculations of affordable rent were based on 2024 income statistics for San Diego County as a whole. The household incomes are published annually by HUD.
• The household size appropriate for each unit was based on one additional person vs. the number of bedrooms, per H&SC Section 50053.
• Maximum monthly rental housing payment for very low income units is calculated as equal to 1/12 x 30% x 50% AMI (adjusted for household size), less adjustments for certain tenant-paid utilities. • Maximum monthly rental housing payment for low income units is calculated as equal to 1/12 x 30% x 60% AMI (adjusted for household size), less adjustments for certain tenant-paid utilities. • Utility expenses were based on the County of San Diego utility allowance schedule, effective March 1, 2024, and the assumption that the tenant’s utility costs are comprised of electric cooking, electric water heating, electric heating, and other basic electric services.
The resulting average affordable sales prices and rents are presented in Table II-3. 1 Source: Freddiemac.com, effective October 29, 2024.
City of Coronado Page 253
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 9
November 22, 2024
24097kal
17800.003.007
Table II-3: Affordable Sales Prices and Rents
Affordable Sales Price Affordable Monthly Rent
1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Very Low
Income --- --- --- $1,094 $1,208 $1,315
Low
Income --- --- --- $1,333 $1,477 $1,614
Moderate
Income $356,000 $396,000 $436,000 --- --- ---
D. Economic Impact of Potential Fee Levels
The KMA analysis estimates the economic impact of the potential fee levels on project feasibility. The economic impact of the in-lieu fees was measured against residual land value. Residual land value is defined as the maximum land value supported by a proposed development. It is calculated by estimating the total value upon completion (or total available funding sources) and subtracting the estimated total development costs (other than land acquisition costs) required to develop the project.
Specifically, the residual land value for each residential prototype is derived from the following calculation.
Exhibit II-1: Residual Land Value Calculation
E. Approach 1: Economic Impact of Incorporating Affordable Housing On-Site To estimate the economic impact of incorporating inclusionary housing requirements on-site, KMA prepared financial pro forma models for each residential development prototype. Appendix C provides the detailed pro forma analyses prepared by KMA for each of the for-sale development prototypes. Appendix C is organized as follows:
Total Value at
Completion
Estimated
Development
Costs
(excluding land)
Residual
Land Value - =
City of Coronado Page 254
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 10
November 22, 2024
24097kal
17800.003.007
Appendix C – On-Site Production – For-Sale
Table 1 Prototype Project Descriptions
Table 2 Development Costs
Table 3 Gross Sales Proceeds and Residual Land Value – Single-Family R1-B Zone – 2 Units
Table 4 Gross Sales Proceeds and Residual Land Value – Townhomes R-3/P Zone – 3 Units
Table 5 Gross Sales Proceeds and Residual Land Value – Townhomes R-3 Zone – 4 Units
Table 6 Gross Sales Proceeds and Residual Land Value – Townhomes R-4 Zone – 10 Units
The financial pro forma models estimate the residual land value for: (1) a base case consisting of a 100% market-rate development; and (2) a development that complies with an inclusionary requirement, i.e., 20% at moderate income. The base case residual land value outcome can then be measured against the residual land value that is generated when the 20% moderate income requirement is imposed. It should be noted that because of the small number of units in each residential prototype, in almost all cases the number of affordable units assumed for each mixed-income scenario exceed the 20% moderate income requirement.
The economic impact of incorporating the City’s existing inclusionary requirement on-site is summarized in Table II-4.
City of Coronado Page 255
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 11
November 22, 2024
24097kal
17800.003.007
Table II-4: Economic Impact of Incorporating Affordable Housing On-Site
FOR-SALE
Single-Family Townhomes Townhomes Townhomes
Average
2 units
R1-B Zone
2,250 SF
Avg. Unit Size
3 Units
R-3/P Zone
2,000 SF
Avg. Unit Size
4 Units
R-3 Zone
2,250 SF
Avg. Unit Size
10 Units
R-4 Zone
1,870 SF
Avg. Unit Size
Residual Land Value Per Unit
100% Market-Rate $683,000 $797,000 $925,000 $921,000 $832,000 80% Market-Rate /
20% Affordable ($135,000) $346,000 $571,000 $673,000 $364,000 Economic Impact of Incorporating Affordable Housing On-Site Per Market-Rate
Unit ($818,000) ($451,000) ($354,000) ($248,000) ($468,000) Per Market-Rate
Net SF ($364) ($226) ($157) ($133) ($220)
As shown in Table II-4, the economic impacts to a developer of including 20% moderate income units onsite are estimated to range from $248,000 to $818,000 per market-rate unit, or $133 to $364 per SF of market-rate residential living area.
F. Approach 2: Funding Level Required to Implement Inclusionary Housing Production in an Off-Site Location
KMA also prepared estimates of the affordability gaps associated with developing affordable housing in an off-site location. The purpose of this financial analysis was to estimate the funding gap that would be required for either a market-rate residential developer or the City to create the targeted inclusionary housing production in a separate off-site location.
Lower Income
As detailed in Appendix D, the analysis assumed off-site affordable housing projects affordable to lower income households to be stacked-flat apartments over tuck-under parking on a 20,000 SF site. The KMA analysis estimated the development costs, operating budget, and anticipated funding sources for the affordable housing development prototypes under three financing scenarios: (i) no Low Income Housing Tax Credits (Tax Credits); (ii) with 9% Tax Credits; and (iii) with 4% Tax Credits. The following key assumptions were used to estimate a potential in-lieu fee based on implementing inclusionary housing production in an off-site location:
City of Coronado Page 256
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 12
November 22, 2024
24097kal
17800.003.007
• Total development costs for the three financing scenarios, excluding acquisition, estimated to average $623,000 per unit. The development budget for the 4% Tax Credit scenario was assumed to include the payment of prevailing wages due to the requirements of other State funding sources assumed in the analysis.
• Acquisition costs of $500 per SF of site area based on a survey of residential land sales in City. • Monthly rents at 60% AMI for the No Tax Credits financing scenario. • Monthly rents at an average of 50% AMI for the 9% and 4% Tax Credit scenarios in order to competitively apply for Tax Credits.
The resulting stabilized average annual net operating income generated by the affordable units is shown in Table II-5 (allow for rounding).
Table II-5: Off-Site Affordable Units – Average Net Operating Income per Unit per Year (1) RENTAL
Stacked Flat Apartments
No Tax Credits 9% Tax Credits 4% Tax Credits
Average Monthly Rent, 2024 $1,450 $1,190 $1,190
Effective Gross Income (2) $16,880 $13,840 $13,840
(Less) Operating Expenses (3) ($7,960) ($8,160) ($8,760) Net Operating Income $8,920 $5,680 $5,080
(1) Reflects net operating income per unit for each financing scenario. (2) Reflects rental income; other income such as laundry and vending; and a vacancy factor of 5.0%. (3) Includes payroll, management fees, administration, utilities, maintenance, insurance, tenant services, property assessments, and replacement reserves.
Funding sources available for the affordable units are assumed to include a combination of first mortgage debt, warranted equity investment, Tax Credit equity investment, State funding sources, and deferred developer fee/General Partner equity contribution. These potential funding sources are itemized in Table II-6.
City of Coronado Page 257
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 13
November 22, 2024
24097kal
17800.003.007
Table II-6: Off-Site Affordable Units – Sources of Funds per Unit RENTAL
Stacked Flat Apartments
No Tax Credits 9% Tax Credits 4% Tax Credits
Supportable Permanent Loan $101,000 $64,000 $56,000
Warranted Equity Investment $10,000 $0 $0
Tax Credit Equity Investment (1) $0 $429,000 $384,000
Other State Funding Sources $0 $0 $125,000
Total Sources of Funds $111,000 $493,000 $565,000
(1) Includes Federal and State tax credit equity investment.
The outcome of the KMA analysis indicates a developer would find it more economically beneficial to pursue 9% or 4% Tax Credits when developing an affordable housing project in an off-site location. As shown in Table II-7, the affordability gap for a lower income affordable unit financed with 9% and 4% Tax Credits is estimated to average $530,000 per affordable unit. These figures are calculated as the difference between total development costs and acquisition costs as compared to total funding sources.
Table II-7: Off-Site Affordable Units - Average Affordability Gap per Unit RENTAL
Stacked Flat Apartments
No Tax Credits 9% Tax Credits 4% Tax Credits Average (1) Total Sources of Funds $111,000 $493,000 $565,000 $529,000 (Less) Total Development Costs ($552,000) ($613,000) ($705,000) ($659,000) (Less) Acquisition Costs (2) ($400,000) ($400,000) ($400,000) ($400,000) Affordability Gap per
Affordable Unit ($841,000) ($520,000) ($540,000) ($530,000) (1) Excludes outcome from No Tax Credits scenario. Assumes off-site compliance for Low Income units would be met through the development of a Low Income Housing Tax Credit project with a combination of Extremely, Very Low, Low Income units.
(2) Reflects KMA estimate of $500 per SF site area based on survey of residential land sales in the City.
City of Coronado Page 258
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 14
November 22, 2024
24097kal
17800.003.007
As shown above, KMA estimates that an affordable rental unit has an estimated average financing gap of $530,000. In other words, for the market-rate developer or City to facilitate creation of off-site lower income units would require a contribution of $530,000 per unit. As shown in Table II-8, assuming a 20% lower income inclusionary requirement, the required number of off-site lower income units is calculated against the total number of market-rate units approved plus the inclusionary units produced off-site. This equates to $135,000 per market-rate unit developed (i.e., $530,000 ÷ 80% x 20%).
Table II-8: Estimate of Funding Gap for Off-Site Units - Lower Income Affordability Gap per Off-Site Affordable Unit $530,000 Per Market-Rate Unit
$133,000/Unit @ 20% Lower Income Inclusionary Set-Aside Per Market-Rate Net Square Fee $64/SF
@ 20% Lower Income Inclusionary Set-Aside Average
Moderate Income
KMA also prepared an estimate of the affordability gap associated with developing for-sale moderate income affordable housing in an off-site location. The KMA analysis assumed off-site affordable housing projects affordable to moderate income households to be stacked-flat condominiums over podium parking on a 15,000-SF site. Using the same framework and assumptions described for lower income offsite production above, KMA estimates the average financing gap required to develop a moderate income unit in an off-site location is $1,184,000 per affordable unit. As shown in Table II-9, this figure is calculated as the affordability gap outcome assuming 100% of units at moderate income plus a land acquisition cost estimate of $750,000 per unit of $500 per SF of site area.
Table II-9: Off-Site Affordable Units – Affordability Gap per Unit - Moderate Income Residual Land Value per Affordable Unit ($434,000)
(Less) Land Acquisition Costs ($750,000)
Affordability Gap per Affordable Unit ($1,184,000)
Assuming a 20% moderate income inclusionary requirement, the required number of off-site moderate income units is calculated against the total number of market-rate units approved plus the inclusionary units produced off-site. As shown in Table II-10, this equates to $296,000 per market-rate unit developed (i.e., $1,184,000 ÷ 80% x 20%).
City of Coronado Page 259
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 15
November 22, 2024
24097kal
17800.003.007
Table II-10: Estimate of Funding Gap for Off-Site Units - Moderate Income Affordability Gap per Off-Site Affordable Unit $1,184,000 Per Market-Rate Unit
$296,000/Unit
@ 20% Moderate Income Inclusionary Set-Aside
Per Market-Rate Net Square Fee $142/SF
Average
@ 20% Moderate Income Inclusionary Set-Aside
Funding Gap for Affordable Housing Off-Site
As shown in Table II-11, the funding gap outcome for off-site inclusionary housing can be expressed on both a per-unit basis and per-SF basis relative to the market-rate residential development.
To create an affordable lower income unit off-site, KMA estimates that the City would need to receive an average in-lieu fee of $133,000 per market-rate unit. On a per-SF basis, the City would need to receive a fee ranging between $59 and $71, depending on the market-rate prototype, or an average of $64 per SF living area.
To create an affordable moderate income unit off-site, KMA estimates that the City would need to receive an average in-lieu fee of $296,000 per market-rate unit. On a per-SF basis, the City would need to receive a fee ranging between $132 and $158, depending on the market-rate prototype, or an average of $142 per SF living area.
Table II-11: Funding Level Required to Create Affordable Housing Off-Site
FOR-SALE
Single-Family Townhomes Townhomes Townhomes
Average
2 units
R1-B Zone
2,250 SF
Avg. Unit Size
3 Units
R-3/P Zone
2,000 SF
Avg. Unit Size
4 Units
R-3 Zone
2,250 SF
Avg. Unit Size
10 Units
R-4 Zone
1,870 SF
Avg. Unit Size
20% LOWER - RENTAL
Affordability Gap per
Market-Rate Unit $133,000 $133,000 $133,000 $133,000 $133,000 Per Market-Rate Net SF $59 $67 $59 $71 $64
City of Coronado Page 260
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 16
November 22, 2024
24097kal
17800.003.007
Table II-11: Funding Level Required to Create Affordable Housing Off-Site
FOR-SALE
Single-Family Townhomes Townhomes Townhomes
Average
2 units
R1-B Zone
2,250 SF
Avg. Unit Size
3 Units
R-3/P Zone
2,000 SF
Avg. Unit Size
4 Units
R-3 Zone
2,250 SF
Avg. Unit Size
10 Units
R-4 Zone
1,870 SF
Avg. Unit Size
20% MODERATE – FOR-SALE
Per Market-Rate Unit $296,000 $296,000 $296,000 $296,000 $296,000 Per Market-Rate
Net SF $132 $148 $132 $158 $142
G. Potential In-Lieu Fees
As summarized in Table II-12, Approach 1 -- an in-lieu fee based on the economic impact on the developer to provide units on-site is estimated to range between $133 to $364 per SF of market -rate residential livening area. By comparison, an in-lieu fee based on Approach 2 -- the funding level required of the City to develop affordable housing in an off-site location is estimated to range from $132 and $158 per SF living area to create an affordable moderate income unit off-site; or between $59 and $71 per SF living area to create an affordable lower income unit off-site.
Table II-12: Potential Fee Levels
Approach to Setting Fee Levels
Approach 1:
On-Site Production
Approach 2:
Off-Site Production
FOR-SALE – 20% MODERATE
Per Market-Rate Net SF
$133 - $364
Average: $220
$132 - $158
Average: $142
RENTAL – 20% LOWER
Per Market-Rate Net SF ---
$59 - $71
Average: $64
In view of these findings, the City may wish to consider an in-lieu fee of $59 per SF of market-rate residential living area, as shown in Table II-13.
City of Coronado Page 261
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 17
November 22, 2024
24097kal
17800.003.007
Table II-13: Potential Fee Levels
Per Market-Rate Net SF $59/SF
This potential fee is based on the off-site production approach, rather than the on-site production approach. As shown in the table, the on-site production approach results in a much higher in-lieu fee that could present a feasibility challenge for market-rate projects. It should be noted that using the off-site production approach as the benchmark results in a per-SF in-lieu fee that is higher than existing per-unit fees found in other areas of the County. Refer to Section IV and Appendix E for further detail.
City of Coronado Page 262
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 18
November 22, 2024
24097kal
17800.003.007
III. POTENTIAL FEE LEVEL ADJUSTMENTS
Some jurisdictions apply an automatic adjustment to their in-lieu fee on an annual basis. This provision ensures that the fees charged will adjust annually to reflect changes in housing production costs. A review of potential indices that could be used to adjust the fee in the future is presented in Table III-1.
Table III-1: Potential Indices for Fee Level Adjustment Index Concept / Description Advantages Disadvantages
#1
Building Cost
Index (BCI)
Fees go up or down based on
building construction costs.
Published by Engineering News
Record (ENR).
Available at national average and
for 20 cities (not Vista or San
Diego; Los Angeles is nearest city
available).
Very well established.
Consistent fee burden
over time relative to
construction costs.
May not trend with changes
in non-construction
development costs (land,
other soft costs).
May not trend with cost to
produce affordable units.
Only addresses cost side of
the equation.
#2
Construction
Costs Index
(CCI)
Also published by ENR and
similar to Building Cost Index but
with different weighting of labor
and material cost categories.
Same as above. Same as above.
#3
Consumer Price
Index (CPI)
Published by the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics. Available for
major metro areas including San
Diego.
Very well established.
Generally tracks with
inflation.
Produced by neutral
governmental agency.
May not trend with:
- Construction costs
(consistent fee burden)
or
- Cost to produce
affordable units
(consistent ability to
mitigate impacts)
City of Coronado Page 263
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 19
November 22, 2024
24097kal
17800.003.007
IV. SURVEY OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY JURISDICTIONS
KMA conducted a survey of inclusionary in-lieu fees and affordable housing impact fees in other San Diego County communities. The survey is summarized in Exhibit IV-1, in comparison with the potential fee level for the City of Coronado. Further information on each jurisdiction’s inclusionary program and fee levels is presented in Appendix E. Inclusionary housing programs and in-lieu fees vary widely throughout the County in terms of fee levels and threshold requirements for the payment of in-lieu fees. Key factors for these variations appear to relate to local housing market conditions, real estate development trends, State-mandated affordable housing obligations, and policy direction from public officials.
As shown in the exhibit above, the recommended per-SF fee of $59 for the City would exceed other per-SF fees in the County.
Outside of San Diego County, within Southern California, KMA found a number of jurisdictions with similar or higher fees than the potential fee level proposed for the City, as summarized in Table IV-1.
Exhibit IV-1: Coronado Potential Fee Levels vs. San Diego County Jurisdictions - Per SF (1) $18.00
$24.08
$20.00 $25.00 (3)
$27.22
$17.56
$0.00
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$50.00
$60.00
$70.00
Carlsbad Encinitas Oceanside San Diego Solana Beach Vista Coronado In-Lieu Fee - Per SF
15% Low
15% Very Low or 20% Low
15% Low or 15% Moderate (1)
10% Low
15% Very Low or 15% Low
5% Low/
4% Moderate
20% Low (Rental) or 20% Moderate (For-Sale)
$50.00 (2)
(1) Inclusionary requirement of 15% moderate in the City of Oceanside available to for-sale developments only. (2) Reflects in-lieu fee available to projects in San Diego‘s University Community Plan Area who do not produce any on-site affordable housing units.
(3) Reflects in-lieu fee available to developments located outside of the City of San Diego’s North City Future Urbanizing Area (FUA).
$59.00
City of Coronado Page 264
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 20
November 22, 2024
24097kal
17800.003.007
Table IV-1: Comparison of Affordable Housing Fees, Select Southern California Jurisdictions City In-Lieu Fee Amount
Glendale Sliding scale: 8 Units @ $28.71/SF; 21 Units @ $55/SF Mission Viejo Ownership
Rental
$41.90/SF
$58.20/SF
Pasadena Sliding scale by sub-area and project site $34.19/SF - $73.52/SF Ventura Ownership
Rental
$29.80 - $66.30/SF
$20.30 - $48.90/SF
Santa Monica Ownership
Rental
$41.70/SF
$35.70/SF
City of Coronado Page 265
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 21
November 22, 2024
24097kal
17800.003.007
V. LIMITING CONDITIONS
1. The analysis contained in this document is based, in part, on data from secondary sources such as state and local government, planning agencies, real estate brokers, and other third parties. While KMA believes that these sources are reliable, we cannot guarantee their accuracy.
2. The analysis assumes that neither the local nor national economy will experience a major recession. If an unforeseen change occurs in the economy, the conclusions contained herein may no longer be valid.
3. The findings are based on economic rather than political considerations. Therefore, they should be construed neither as a representation nor opinion that government approvals for development can be secured.
4. Development opportunities are assumed to be achievable during the specified time frame. A change in development schedule requires that the conclusions contained herein be reviewed for validity.
5. The analysis, opinions, recommendations, and conclusions of this document are KMA's informed judgment based on market and economic conditions as of the date of this report. Due to the volatility of market conditions and complex dynamics influencing the economic conditions of the building and development industry, conclusions and recommended actions contained herein should not be relied upon as sole input for final business decisions regarding current and future development and planning.
6. Any estimates of development costs, capitalization rates, income and/or expense projections are based on the best available project-specific data as well as the experiences of similar projects. They are not intended to be projections of the future for the specific project. No warranty or representation is made that any of the estimates or projections will actually materialize.
7. KMA is not advising or recommending any action be taken by City of Coronado with respect to any prospective, new, or existing municipal financial products or issuance of municipal securities (including with respect to the structure, timing, terms, and other similar matters concerning such financial products or issues).
8. KMA is not acting as a Municipal Advisor to the City of Coronado and does not assume any fiduciary duty hereunder, including, without limitation, a fiduciary duty to the City of Coronado pursuant to Section 15B of the Exchange Act with respect to the services provided hereunder and any information and material contained in KMA’s work product.
City of Coronado Page 266
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 22
November 22, 2024
24097kal
17800.003.007
9. The City of Coronado shall discuss any such information and material contained in KMA’s work product with any and all internal and/or external advisors and experts, including its own municipal advisors, that it deems appropriate before acting on the information and material.
City of Coronado Page 267
Appendix A Summary of Potential In-Lieu Fees
Appendix B Estimate of Affordable Sales Prices and Rents Appendix C In-Lieu Fee Financial Analysis
Approach 1: On-Site Production
Appendix D In-Lieu Fee Financial Analysis
Approach 2: Off-Site Production
Appendix E Comparison of Affordable Housing Fees, San Diego County
APPENDICES
City of Coronado Page 268
APPENDIX A
Summary of Potential In-Lieu Fees
City of Coronado Page 269
ON-SITE PRODUCTION
TABLE A-1
ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL IN-LIEU FEE - APPROACH 1: ECONOMIC IMPACT OF INCORPORATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON-SITE
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
C D E
2 Units 3 Units 4 Units 10 Units
2,250 SF 2,000 SF 2,250 SF 1,870 SF
Avg. Unit Size Avg. Unit Size Avg. Unit Size Avg. Unit Size R1-B Zone R-3/P Zone R-3 Zone R-4 Zone
I. Residual Land Value - Per Unit
100% Market-Rate $683,000 $797,000 $925,000 $921,000 $832,000 20% MODERATE INCOME
II. Residual Land Value - Per Unit
80% Market-Rate / 20% Affordable ($135,000) $346,000 $571,000 $673,000 $364,000 III. Economic Impact of Affordable Housing On-Site
Per Market-Rate Unit $818,000 $451,000 $354,000 $248,000 $468,000 % Change (1) 119.8% 56.6% 38.3% 26.9% 56.3%
Per Market-Rate Net SF $364 $226 $157 $133 $220
(1) Reflects the % change in residual land value resulting from incorporating 20% of units on-site for affordable housing.
A B
Single-Family Townhomes Townhomes Townhomes
FOR-SALE
Average
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2;11/21/2024;lag City of Coronado Page 270
OFF-SITE PRODUCTION
TABLE A-2
ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL IN-LIEU FEE - APPROACH 2: FUNDING LEVEL REQUIRED FOR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PRODUCTION OFF-SITE
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
C D E
2 Units 3 Units 4 Units 10 Units
2,250 SF 2,000 SF 2,250 SF 1,870 SF
Avg. Unit Size Avg. Unit Size Avg. Unit Size Avg. Unit Size R1-B Zone R-3/P Zone R-3 Zone R-4 Zone
I. Affordability Gap per Affordable Unit (1) $530,000 $530,000 $530,000 $530,000 $530,000 II.
Affordability Gap per Market-Rate Unit @ 20.0% (2) $133,000 $133,000 $133,000 $133,000 $133,000 Per Market-Rate Net SF $59 $67 $59 $71 $64
(1)
(2) Assumes inclusionary requirement applied to total number of market-rate units approved [i.e., (gap ÷ 80%) x 20%].
Reflects average affordability gap per affordable unit assuming off-site compliance for Low Income units would be met through the development of a project financed with Low Income Housing Tax Credits with a combination of Extremely Low, Very Low, and Low Income units.
Average
A
Single-Family Townhomes Townhomes
B
FOR-SALE
Townhomes
20% LOWER - RENTAL
Funding Required for Inclusionary Housing
Production Off-Site
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2;11/21/2024;lag City of Coronado Page 271
OFF-SITE PRODUCTION
TABLE A-3
ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL IN-LIEU FEE - APPROACH 2: FUNDING LEVEL REQUIRED FOR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PRODUCTION OFF-SITE
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
C D E
2 Units 3 Units 4 Units 10 Units
2,250 SF 2,000 SF 2,250 SF 1,870 SF
Avg. Unit Size Avg. Unit Size Avg. Unit Size Avg. Unit Size R1-B Zone R-3/P Zone R-3 Zone R-4 Zone
I. Affordability Gap per Affordable Unit (1) $1,184,000 $1,184,000 $1,184,000 $1,184,000 $1,184,000 II.
Affordability Gap per Market-Rate Unit @ 20.0% (2) $296,000 $296,000 $296,000 $296,000 $296,000 Per Market-Rate Net SF $132 $148 $132 $158 $142
(1)
(2) Assumes inclusionary requirement applied to total number of market-rate units approved [i.e., (gap ÷ 80%) x 20%]. 20% MODERATE - FOR-SALE
Reflects affordability gap assuming off-site compliance met through the development of stacked flat condominiums with 100% of units at Moderate Income.
A B
FOR-SALE
Funding Required for Inclusionary Housing
Production Off-Site
Average
Single-Family Townhomes Townhomes Townhomes
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2;11/21/2024;lag City of Coronado Page 272
APPENDIX B
Estimate of Affordable Rents and Sales Prices
City of Coronado Page 273
TABLE B-1
ESTIMATE OF AFFORDABLE SALES PRICES - SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES/TOWNHOMES - 110% AMI
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
Number of Bedrooms 1 2 3
I. Benchmark Household Size (1) 2.0 3.0 4.0
County of San Diego Median income $95,600 $107,550 $119,500 Percent of AMI 110% 110% 110%
II. Benchmark Household Income (2) $105,160 $118,305 $131,450 Income Allocation to Housing 35% 35% 35%
Amount Available for Housing $36,806 $41,407 $46,008
III. HOA Fees(3) $350 /Month $4,200 $350 /Month $4,200 $350 /Month $4,200 Utilities(4) $268 /Month $3,216 $353 /Month $4,236 $466 /Month $5,592 Annual Taxes(5) 1.05% $3,738 1.05% $4,158 1.05% $4,578
Flat Tax (6) $643 $643 $643
IV. Available for Mortgage $25,009 $28,170 $30,995
V. Interest Rate (7) 6.79% 6.79% 6.79%
Down Payment 10.0% 10.0% 10.0%
VI. Supportable Mortgage $320,008 $360,452 $396,597
Add: Down Payment $35,600 $36,045 $39,660
VII. Maximum Unit Price (Rounded) $356,000 $396,000 $436,000 (1) Assumed family size per California Health & Safety Code §50052.5, reflects the number of bedrooms in the unit plus one. (2) State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 2024 income limits. (3) HOA Fees based on data from Redfin.com
(4) See Table B-2.
(5)
(6) Reflects City flat tax on all properties
(7) Reflects national 30-year fixed mortgage 52-week average interest rate per Freddiemac.com effective October 29, 2024.
Source: State of California Department of Housing and Community Development, San Diego County Department of Housing and Community Development, California Redevelopment Law H&SC § 50052.5.
Based on affordable unit price. Property tax may be based on market value of actual unit if project is granted a density bonus.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: i:\affhsng\City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2; 11/21/2024;lag City of Coronado Page 274
TABLE B-2
UTILITY ALLOWANCES - FOR-SALE UNITS - TOWNHOMES/SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
A. Utilities (Annual) (1)
Number of Bedrooms 1 2 3
Electric Heat $19 $25 $35
Electric Cooking $12 $17 $22
Electric Water Heater $26 $33 $44
Other Electric $44 $61 $78
Air Conditioning $10 $17 $22
Water $93 $136 $201
Sewer $26 $26 $26
Trash $38 $38 $38
Total Utilities $268 $353 $466
B. Total Annual Utilities $3,216 $4,236 $5,592
(1) Source: Housing Authority of the County of San Diego 2024 Utility Allowance Schedule, effective March 1, 2024.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\affhsng\City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2;11/21/2024;rsp City of Coronado Page 275
TABLE B-3
ESTIMATE OF AFFORDABLE RENTS - 50% AMI, 2024
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
Number of Bedrooms 1 2 3
A. Health and Safety Code Section 50053 - Very Low Income Household Size (1) 2.0 3.0 4.0
Percent of AMI 50% 50% 50%
Household Income (2) $47,800 $53,775 $59,750
Income Allocation to Housing 30% 30% 30%
Monthly Housing Cost $1,195 $1,344 $1,494
(Less) Utility Allowance (3) ($101) ($136) ($179)
Maximum Monthly Rent $1,094 $1,208 $1,315
B. Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program
Household Size (4) 1.5 3.0 4.5
Percent of AMI 50% 50% 50%
Household Income (5) $56,825 $68,200 $78,800
Income Allocation to Housing 30% 30% 30%
Monthly Housing Cost (6) $1,420 $1,705 $1,969
(Less) Utility Allowance (3) ($101) ($136) ($179)
Maximum Monthly Rent $1,319 $1,569 $1,790
C. Maximum Monthly Rent $1,094 $1,208 $1,315
(1) Assumed familiy size per California Health & Safety Code §50052.5, reflects the number of bedrooms in the unit plus one. (2) Based on State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 2024 income limits. (3) Reflects County of San Diego utility allowances, as of March 1, 2024.
Monthly Utility One Two Three
Electric Heating $19 $25 $35
Electric Cooking $12 $17 $22
Other Electric $44 $61 $78
Electric Water Heating $26 $33 $44
Total $101 $136 $179
(4) As assigned by Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program. (5) California Tax Credit Allocation Committee 2024 maximum income levels for projects placed in service on or after April 1, 2024. (6) California Tax Credit Allocation Committee 2024 maximum rents for projects placed in service on or after April 1, 2024.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2;11/21/2024;lag City of Coronado Page 276
TABLE B-4
ESTIMATE OF AFFORDABLE RENTS - 60% AMI, 2024
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
Number of Bedrooms 1 2 3
A. Health and Safety Code Section 50053 - Low Income
Household Size (1) 2.0 3.0 4.0
Percent of AMI 60% 60% 60%
Household Income (2) $57,360 $64,530 $71,700
Income Allocation to Housing 30% 30% 30%
Monthly Housing Cost $1,434 $1,613 $1,793
(Less) Utility Allowance (3) ($101) ($136) ($179)
B. Maximum Monthly Rent $1,333 $1,477 $1,614
(1) Assumed familiy size per California Health & Safety Code §50052.5, reflects the number of bedrooms in the unit plus one. (2) Based on State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 2024 income limits. (3) Reflects County of San Diego utility allowances, as of March 1, 2024.
Monthly Utility One Two Three
Electric Heating $19 $25 $35
Electric Cooking $12 $17 $22
Other Electric $44 $61 $78
Electric Water Heating $26 $33 $44
Total $101 $136 $179
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2;11/21/2024;lag City of Coronado Page 277
APPENDIX C
In-Lieu Fee Financial Analysis
Approach 1: On-Site Production
City of Coronado Page 278
ON-SITE PRODUCTION
TABLE C-1 FOR-SALE
PROTOTYPE PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
I. Site Area 0.16 Acres 0.12 Acres 0.17 Acres 0.32 Acres 7,000 SF 5,250 SF 7,500 SF 14,000 SF
II. Gross Building Area (GBA)
Residential Area 4,500 SF 100% 6,000 SF 100% 9,000 SF 100% 18,700 SF 100% Common Area (1) 0 SF 0% 0 SF 0% 0 SF 0% 0 SF 0%
Total GBA - Residential 4,500 SF 100% 6,000 SF 100% 9,000 SF 100% 18,700 SF 100% III. Number of Units 2 Units 3 Units 4 Units 10 Units
IV. Unit Mix # of Units Unit Size # of Units Unit Size # of Units Unit Size # of Units Unit Size Two Bedroom 1 Unit 50% 1,750 SF 1 Unit 33% 1,500 SF 1 Unit 25% 1,500 SF 2 Units 20% 1,350 SF Three Bedroom 0 Units 0% - 2 Units 67% 2,250 SF 3 Units 75% 2,500 SF 8 Units 80% 2,000 SF Four Bedroom 1 Unit 50% 2,750 SF 0 Units 0% - 0 Units 0% - 0 Units 0% - Total/Average 2 Units 100% 2,250 SF 3 Units 100% 2,000 SF 4 Units 100% 2,250 SF 10 Units 100% 1,870 SF V. Density 12 Units/Acre 25 Units/Acre 23 Units/Acre 31 Units/Acre VI. Construction Type Type V Type V Type V Type V
VII. Stories 2 Stories 2 Stories 2 Stories 3 Stories
VIII. Parking
Type Garage and Surface Garage and Surface Garage and Surface Spaces - Residential 4 Spaces 6 Spaces 8 Spaces 20 Spaces Ratio 2.0 Spaces/Unit 2.0 Spaces/Unit 2.0 Spaces/Unit 2.0 Spaces/Unit (1) Prototypes do not have shared indoor common areas.
A
Single Family Homes
Garage
R1-B Zone - 2 Units R-3/P Zone - 3 Units R-3 Zone - 4 Units R-4 Zone - 10 Units B C D
Townhomes Townhomes Townhomes
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2;11/21/2024;lag City of Coronado Page 279
ON-SITE PRODUCTION
FOR-SALE TABLE C-2
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
Total Per Unit Comments Total Per Unit Comments Total Per Unit Comments Total Per Unit Comments I. Direct Costs
Off-Site Improvements (1) $105,000 $53,000 $15 Per SF Site $79,000 $26,000 $15 Per SF Site $113,000 $28,000 $15 Per SF Site $140,000 $14,000 $10 Per SF Site On-Site Improvements/Landscaping (1) $175,000 $88,000 $25 Per SF Site $131,000 $44,000 $25 Per SF Site $188,000 $47,000 $25 Per SF Site $280,000 $28,000 $20 Per SF Site Parking $0 $0 Included Below $0 $0 Included Below $0 $0 Included Below $0 $0 Included Below Shell Construction - Residential $1,575,000 $788,000 $350 Per SF GBA $1,950,000 $650,000 $325 Per SF GBA $2,925,000 $731,000 $325 Per SF GBA $6,078,000 $608,000 $325 Per SF GBA FF&E/Amenities $100,000 $50,000 Allowance $75,000 $25,000 Allowance $100,000 $25,000 Allowance $150,000 $15,000 Allowance Contingency $147,000 $74,000 7.5% of Above Directs $168,000 $56,000 7.5% of Above Directs $166,000 $42,000 5.0% of Above Directs $332,000 $33,000 5.0% of Above Directs Total Direct Costs $2,102,000 $1,051,000 $467 Per SF GBA $2,403,000 $801,000 $401 Per SF GBA $3,492,000 $873,000 $388 Per SF GBA $6,980,000 $698,000 $373 Per SF GBA II. Indirect Costs
Architecture & Engineering $147,000 $74,000 7.0% of Directs $168,000 $56,000 7.0% of Directs $244,000 $61,000 7.0% of Directs $489,000 $49,000 7.0% of Directs Permits & Fees (2) $46,000 $23,000 $10 Per SF GBA $41,000 $14,000 $7 Per SF GBA $56,000 $14,000 $6 Per SF GBA $105,000 $11,000 $6 Per SF GBA Legal & Accounting $32,000 $16,000 1.5% of Directs $36,000 $12,000 1.5% of Directs $52,000 $13,000 1.5% of Directs $105,000 $11,000 1.5% of Directs Taxes & Insurance $265,000 $133,000 5.0% of Market Value $356,000 $119,000 5.0% of Market Value $533,000 $133,000 5.0% of Market Value $1,182,000 $118,000 5.0% of Market Value Developer Fee $84,000 $42,000 4.0% of Directs $96,000 $32,000 4.0% of Directs $140,000 $35,000 4.0% of Directs $279,000 $28,000 4.0% of Directs Marketing/Sales $265,000 $133,000 5.0% of Market Value $356,000 $119,000 5.0% of Market Value $533,000 $133,000 5.0% of Market Value $1,182,000 $118,000 5.0% of Market Value Contingency $42,000 $21,000 5.0% of Above Indirects $53,000 $18,000 5.0% of Above Indirects $78,000 $20,000 5.0% of Above Indirects $167,000 $17,000 5.0% of Above Indirects Total Indirect Costs $881,000 $441,000 41.9% of Directs $1,106,000 $369,000 46.0% of Directs $1,636,000 $409,000 46.8% of Directs $3,509,000 $351,000 50.3% of Directs III. Financing Costs(3) $263,000 $132,000 12.5% of Directs $300,000 $100,000 12.5% of Directs $437,000 $109,000 12.5% of Directs $873,000 $87,000 12.5% of Directs IV. Development Costs(4) $3,246,000 $1,623,000 $721 Per SF GBA $3,809,000 $1,270,000 $635 Per SF GBA $5,565,000 $1,391,000 $618 Per SF GBA $11,362,000 $1,136,000 $608 Per SF GBA (1) Estimated allowance; not verified by KMA or the City of Coronado. (2) KMA estimate, includes building fees, fire fees, water capacity fees, development impact fees, Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) fees, and Coronado Unified School District fees. (3) Includes loan fees, interest during construction, and interest during sales. (4) Excludes acquisition costs.
R1-B Zone - 2 Units R-3/P Zone - 3 Units R-3 Zone - 4 Units R-4 Zone - 10 Units A
Single Family Homes Townhomes
C D
Townhomes Townhomes
B
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2;11/21/2024;lag City of Coronado Page 280
ON-SITE PRODUCTION
TABLE C-3 FOR-SALE
GROSS SALES PROCEEDS AND RESIDUAL LAND VALUE
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
I. Gross Sales Proceeds
# Units $/SF Price/Unit Total # Units $/SF Price/Unit Total A. Market-Rate
Two Bedroom 1,750 SF 1 $1,300 $2,275,000 $2,275,000 0 $1,300 $2,275,000 $0 Four Bedroom 2,750 SF 1 $1,100 $3,025,000 $3,025,000 1 $1,100 $3,025,000 $3,025,000 Subtotal/Average 2,250 SF 2 $1,178 $2,650,000 $5,300,000 1 $1,100 $3,025,000 $3,025,000 B. Affordable - Moderate (1)(2)
Two Bedroom 1,750 SF 0 $0 $0 $0 1 $226 $396,000 $396,000 Four Bedroom 2,750 SF 0 $0 $0 $0 0 $159 $436,000 $0
Subtotal/Average 2,250 SF 0 $0 $0 $0 1 $226 $396,000 $396,000 C. Total/Average 2,250 SF 2 $1,178 $2,650,000 $5,300,000 2 $760 $1,711,000 $3,421,000 II. Total Gross Sales Proceeds
(Less) Cost of Sale 3.0% of Value ($159,000) 3.0% of Value ($103,000) (Less) Target Developer Profit 10.0% of Value ($530,000) 10.0% of Value ($342,000) III. Total Net Sales Procees $4,611,000 $2,976,000
(Less) Development Costs (3) ($3,246,000) ($3,246,000)
IV. Residual Land Value $1,365,000 ($270,000)
Per Unit $683,000 ($135,000)
Per SF Site Area $260 ($51)
(1) Affordable sales prices based on State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 2024 income limits. (2) Reflect maximum ownership housing payment at 35% of 110% AMI; see Table B-1. (3) See Table C-2.
Unit Size
A
Single Family Homes
100% @ Market-Rate 80% @ Market-Rate
20% @ Affordable
R1-B Zone - 2 Units
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2;11/21/2024;lag City of Coronado Page 281
ON-SITE PRODUCTION
TABLE C-4 FOR-SALE
GROSS SALES PROCEEDS AND RESIDUAL LAND VALUE
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
I. Gross Sales Proceeds
# Units $/SF Price/Unit Total # Units $/SF Price/Unit Total A. Market-Rate
Two Bedroom 1,500 SF 1 $1,300 $1,950,000 $1,950,000 0 $1,300 $1,950,000 $0 Three Bedroom 2,250 SF 2 $1,150 $2,588,000 $5,176,000 2 $1,150 $2,587,500 $5,175,000 Subtotal/Average 2,000 SF 3 $1,188 $2,375,000 $7,126,000 2 $1,294 $2,588,000 $5,175,000 B. Affordable - Moderate (1)(2)
Two Bedroom 1,500 SF 0 $0 $0 $0 1 $264 $396,000 $396,000 Three Bedroom 2,250 SF 0 $0 $0 $0 0 $194 $436,000 $0
Subtotal/Average 1,500 SF 0 $0 $0 $0 1 $264 $396,000 $396,000 C. Total/Average 2,000 SF 3 $1,188 $2,375,000 $7,126,000 3 $929 $1,857,000 $5,571,000 II. Total Gross Sales Proceeds
(Less) Cost of Sale 3.0% of Value ($214,000) 3.0% of Value ($167,000) (Less) Target Developer Profit 10.0% of Value ($713,000) 10.0% of Value ($557,000) III. Total Net Sales Procees $6,199,000 $4,847,000
(Less) Development Costs (3) ($3,809,000) ($3,809,000)
IV. Residual Land Value $2,390,000 $1,038,000
Per Unit $797,000 $346,000
Per SF Site Area $455 $198
(1) Affordable sales prices based on State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 2024 income limits. (2) Reflect maximum ownership housing payment at 35% of 110% AMI; see Table B-1. (3) See Table C-2.
Unit Size
B
Townhomes
100% @ Market-Rate 80% @ Market-Rate
20% @ Affordable
R-3/P Zone - 3 Units
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2;11/21/2024;lag City of Coronado Page 282
ON-SITE PRODUCTION
TABLE C-5 FOR-SALE
GROSS SALES PROCEEDS AND RESIDUAL LAND VALUE
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
I. Gross Sales Proceeds
# Units $/SF Price/Unit Total # Units $/SF Price/Unit Total A. Market-Rate
Two Bedroom 1,500 SF 1 $1,350 $2,025,000 $2,025,000 0 $1,350 $2,025,000 $0 Three Bedroom 2,500 SF 3 $1,150 $2,875,000 $8,625,000 3 $1,150 $2,875,000 $8,625,000 Subtotal/Average 2,250 SF 4 $1,184 $2,663,000 $10,650,000 3 $1,278 $2,875,000 $8,625,000 B. Affordable - Moderate (1)(2)
Two Bedroom 1,500 SF 0 $0 $0 $0 1 $264 $396,000 $396,000 Three Bedroom 2,500 SF 0 $0 $0 $0 0 $174 $436,000 $0
Subtotal/Average 2,250 SF 0 $0 $0 $0 1 $176 $396,000 $396,000 C. Total/Average 2,250 SF 4 $1,184 $2,663,000 $10,650,000 4 $1,002 $2,255,000 $9,021,000 II. Total Gross Sales Proceeds
(Less) Cost of Sale 3.0% of Value ($320,000) 3.0% of Value ($271,000) (Less) Target Developer Profit 10.0% of Value ($1,065,000) 10.0% of Value ($902,000) III. Total Net Sales Procees $9,265,000 $7,848,000
(Less) Development Costs (3) ($5,565,000) ($5,565,000)
IV. Residual Land Value $3,700,000 $2,283,000
Per Unit $925,000 $571,000
Per SF Site Area $493 $304
(1) Affordable sales prices based on State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 2024 income limits.. (2) Reflect maximum ownership housing payment at 35% of 110% AMI; see Table B-1. (3) See Table C-2.
C
Unit Size
Townhomes
100% @ Market-Rate 80% @ Market-Rate
20% @ Affordable
R-3 Zone - 4 Units
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2;11/21/2024;lag City of Coronado Page 283
ON-SITE PRODUCTION
TABLE C-6 FOR-SALE
GROSS SALES PROCEEDS AND RESIDUAL LAND VALUE
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
I. Gross Sales Proceeds
# Units $/SF Price/Unit Total # Units $/SF Price/Unit Total A. Market-Rate
Two Bedroom 1,350 SF 2 $1,350 $1,823,000 $3,646,000 0 $1,350 $1,822,500 $0 Three Bedroom 2,000 SF 8 $1,250 $2,500,000 $20,000,000 8 $1,250 $2,500,000 $20,000,000 Subtotal/Average 1,870 SF 10 $1,265 $2,365,000 $23,646,000 8 $1,337 $2,500,000 $20,000,000 B. Affordable - Moderate (1)(2)
Two Bedroom 1,350 SF 0 $0 $0 $0 2 $293 $396,000 $792,000 Three Bedroom 2,000 SF 0 $0 $0 $0 0 $218 $436,000 $0
Subtotal/Average 1,870 SF 0 $0 $0 $0 2 $212 $396,000 $792,000 C. Total/Average 1,870 SF 10 $1,265 $2,365,000 $23,646,000 10 $1,112 $2,079,000 $20,792,000 II. Total Gross Sales Proceeds
(Less) Cost of Sale 3.0% of Value ($709,000) 3.0% of Value ($624,000) (Less) Target Developer Profit 10.0% of Value ($2,365,000) 10.0% of Value ($2,079,000) III. Total Net Sales Procees $20,572,000 $18,089,000
(Less) Development Costs (3) ($11,362,000) ($11,362,000) IV. Residual Land Value $9,210,000 $6,727,000
Per Unit $921,000 $673,000
Per SF Site Area $658 $481
(1) Affordable sales prices based on State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 2024 income limits. (2) Reflect maximum ownership housing payment at 35% of 110% AMI; see Table B-1. (3) See Table C-2.
D
Unit Size
Townhomes
100% @ Market-Rate 80% @ Market-Rate
20% @ Affordable
R-4 Zone - 10 Units
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2;11/21/2024;lag City of Coronado Page 284
ON-SITE PRODUCTION
TABLE C-7
AVERAGE RESIDUAL LAND VALUE
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
C D E
2 Units 3 Units 4 Units 10 Units
R1-B Zone R-3/P Zone R-3 Zone R-4 Zone
I. Moderate Income
A. Residual Land Value - 100% Market Rate $1,365,000 $2,390,000 $3,700,000 $9,210,000 Per Unit $683,000 $797,000 $925,000 $921,000 $832,000
Per SF Site Area $260 $455 $493 $658 $467
A B
FOR-SALE
Average Single-Family Townhomes Townhomes Townhomes
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2;11/21/2024;lag City of Coronado Page 285
APPENDIX D
In-Lieu Fee Financial Analysis
Approach 2: Off-Site Production
City of Coronado Page 286
OFF-SITE PRODUCTION
TABLE D-1
PROTOTYPE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
I. Site Area 0.46 Acres 0.34 Acres
20,000 SF 15,000 SF
II. Gross Building Area (GBA)
A. Residential
Net Rentable Area 20,950 SF 87.5% 12,900 SF 85.0%
Circulation/Common Area 2,990 SF 12.5% 2,280 SF 15.0%
Total GBA - Residential 23,940 SF 100.0% 15,180 SF 100.0% B. Retail/Restaurant 0 SF
C. Total GBA 23,940 SF 15,180 SF
III. Number of Units 25 Units 10 Units
IV. Unit Mix # of Units Unit Size # of Units Unit Size
One Bedroom 7 Units 28% 700 SF 2 Units 8% 950 SF
Two Bedroom 15 Units 60% 850 SF 6 Units 24% 1,250 SF
Three Bedroom 3 Units 12% 1,100 SF 2 Units 8% 1,750 SF
Total/Average 25 Units 100% 838 SF 10 Units 40% 1,290 SF V. Affordability Mix
Moderate Income 0 Units 0 10 Units 100%
Very Low / Low Income 25 Units 100% 0 Units 0%
Manager 0 Units 0% 0 Units 0%
Total/Av 25 Units 100% 10 Units 100%
VI. Density 54 Units/Acre 29 Units/Acre
VII. Construction Type Type V Type V
VIII. Stories 3 Stories 4 Stories
IX. FAR 1.20 FAR 1.01 FAR
X. Parking
Type
Spaces - Residential 13 Spaces 5 Spaces
Ratio 0.50 Spaces/Unit 0.50 Spaces/Unit
Tuck-under Podium
E F
Stacked Flat Apartments
Rental
Stacked Flat Condominiums
For-Sale
---
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2;11/21/2024;lag City of Coronado Page 287
OFF-SITE PRODUCTION
TABLE D-2
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
Total Per Unit Comments Total Per Unit Comments Total Per Unit Comments Total Per Unit Comments I. Direct Costs
$300,000 $12,000 $15 Per SF Site $300,000 $12,000 $15 Per SF Site $300,000 $12,000 $15 Per SF Site $225,000 $23,000 $15 Per SF Site $500,000 $20,000 $25 Per SF Site $500,000 $20,000 $25 Per SF Site $500,000 $20,000 $25 Per SF Site $375,000 $38,000 $25 Per SF Site Parking $325,000 $13,000 $25,000 Per Space $325,000 $13,000 $25,000 Per Space $325,000 $13,000 $25,000 Per Space $175,000 $18,000 $35,000 Per Space Shell Construction - Residential $8,978,000 $359,000 $375 Per SF GBA $8,978,000 $359,000 $375 Per SF GBA $8,978,000 $359,000 $375 Per SF GBA $4,934,000 $493,000 $325 Per SF GBA Shell Construction - Retail $0 $0 $0 Per SF GBA $0 $0 $0 Per SF GBA $0 $0 $0 Per SF GBA $0 $0 $300 Per SF GBA Tenant Improvements $0 $0 $0 Per SF GBA $0 $0 $0 Per SF GBA $0 $0 $0 Per SF GBA $0 $0 $50 Per SF GBA FF&E/Amenities $213,000 $8,500 $9 Per SF GBA $212,500 $8,500 $9 Per SF GBA $212,500 $8,500 $9 Per SF GBA $50,000 $5,000 $3 Per SF GBA Subtotal $10,316,000 $413,000 $431 Per SF GBA $10,315,500 $413,000 $431 Per SF GBA $10,315,500 $413,000 $431 Per SF GBA $5,759,000 $576,000 $379 Per SF GBA Add: Prevailing Wages $0 $0 0.0% of Directs $0 $0 0.0% of Directs $1,547,000 $62,000 15.0% of Directs $0 $0 0.0% of Directs Contingency $516,000 $21,000 5.0% of Directs $516,000 $21,000 5.0% of Directs $593,000 $24,000 5.0% of Directs $288,000 $29,000 5.0% of Directs Total Direct Costs $10,832,000 $433,000 $452 Per SF GBA $10,831,500 $433,000 $452 Per SF GBA $12,455,500 $498,000 $520 Per SF GBA $6,047,000 $605,000 $398 Per SF GBA II. Indirect Costs
Architecture & Engineering $758,000 $30,000 7.0% of Directs $758,000 $30,000 7.0% of Directs $872,000 $35,000 7.0% of Directs $423,000 $42,000 7.0% of Directs $130,000 $5,000 $5 Per SF GBA $130,000 $5,000 $5 Per SF GBA $130,000 $5,000 $5 Per SF GBA $87,000 $9,000 $6 Per SF GBA Legal & Accounting $162,000 $6,000 1.5% of Directs $162,000 $6,000 1.5% of Directs $187,000 $7,000 1.5% of Directs $91,000 $9,000 1.5% of Directs Taxes & Insurance $217,000 $9,000 2.0% of Directs $217,000 $9,000 2.0% of Directs $249,000 $10,000 2.0% of Directs $121,000 $12,000 2.0% of Directs Developer Fee $433,000 $17,000 4.0% of Directs $1,886,000 $75,000 17.4% of Directs $2,148,000 $86,000 17.2% of Directs $242,000 $24,000 4.0% of Directs Marketing/Lease-Up/Sales $88,000 $3,500 $4 Per SF GBA $88,000 $3,500 $4 Per SF GBA $88,000 $3,500 $4 Per SF GBA $119,000 $12,000 3.0% of Market Value Contingency $89,000 $4,000 5.0% of Indirects $162,000 $6,000 5.0% of Indirects $184,000 $7,000 5.0% of Indirects $54,000 $5,000 5.0% of Indirects Total Indirect Costs $1,877,000 $75,000 17.3% of Directs $3,403,000 $136,000 31.4% of Directs $3,858,000 $154,000 31.0% of Directs $1,137,000 $114,000 18.8% of Directs III. Financing Costs $1,083,000 $43,000 10.0% of Directs $1,078,000 $43,000 10.0% of Directs $1,308,000 $52,000 10.5% of Directs $605,000 $61,000 10.0% of Directs IV. Development Costs (3) $13,792,000 $552,000 $576 Per SF GBA $15,312,500 $613,000 $640 Per SF GBA $17,621,500 $705,000 $736 Per SF GBA $7,789,000 $779,000 $513 Per SF GBA (1) Estimated allowance; not verified by KMA or the City of Coronado. (2) KMA estimate, includes building fees, fire fees, water capacity fees, development impact fees, Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) fees, and Coronado Unified School District fees. (3) Excludes acquisition costs.
4% Tax Credits For-Sale
E F
100% Affordable
Stacked Flats Apartments Stacked Flat Condominiums
Off-Site Improvements (1)
On-Site Improvements/Landscaping (1)
Permits & Fees (2)
No Tax Credits 9% Tax Credits
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2;11/21/2024;lag City of Coronado Page 288
OFF-SITE PRODUCTION
RENTAL TABLE D-3
NET OPERATING INCOME
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
I. Gross Scheduled Income (GSI) Unit Size # Units $/Month Annual # Units $/Month (1) Annual # Units $/Month (1) Annual One Bedroom @ Very Low - 50% AMI (2) 700 SF 0 $1,094 $0 7 $1,094 $92,000 7 $1,094 $92,000 One Bedroom @ Low - 60% AMI (3) 700 SF 7 $1,333 $112,000 0 $1,333 $0 0 $1,333 $0 Two Bedroom @ Very Low - 50% AMI (2) 850 SF 0 $1,208 $0 15 $1,208 $217,000 15 $1,208 $217,000 Two Bedroom @ Low - 60% AMI (3) 850 SF 15 $1,477 $266,000 0 $1,477 $0 0 $1,477 $0 Three Bedroom @ Very Low - 50% AMI (2) 1,100 SF 0 $1,315 $0 3 $1,315 $47,000 3 $1,315 $47,000 Three Bedroom @ Low - 60% AMI(3) 1,100 SF 3 $1,614 $58,000 0 $1,614 $0 0 $1,614 $0 Total/Average 838 SF 25 $1,450 $436,000 25 $1,190 $356,000 25 $1,190 $356,000 Add: Other Income $25 /Unit/Month $8,000 $25 /Unit/Month $8,000 $25 /Unit/Month $8,000 Total Gross Scheduled Income (GSI) $444,000 $364,000 $364,000 II. Effective Gross Income
(Less) Vacancy 5.0% of GSI ($22,000) 5.0% of GSI ($18,000) 5.0% of GSI ($18,000) Effective Gross Income (EGI) $422,000 $346,000 $346,000 III. Operating Expenses
(Less) Operating Expenses $7,500 /Unit/Year ($188,000) $7,500 /Unit/Year ($188,000) $7,500 /Unit/Year ($188,000) (Less) Tenant Services $0 /Unit/Year $0 $200 /Unit/Year ($5,000) $500 /Unit/Year ($13,000) (Less) Property Taxes/Assessments (4) $200 /Unit/Year ($5,000) $200 /Unit/Year ($5,000) $200 /Unit/Year ($5,000) (Less) Replacement Reserves $250 /Unit/Year ($6,000) $250 /Unit/Year ($6,000) $500 /Unit/Year ($13,000) (Less) Monitoring Fee $0 /Unit/Year $0 $0 /Unit/Year $0 $0 /Unit/Year $0 Total Operating Expenses $7,960 /Unit/Year ($199,000) $8,160 /Unit/Year ($204,000) $8,760 /Unit/Year ($219,000) 47% of EGI 59% of EGI 63% of EGI
IV. Net Operating Income (NOI) $223,000 $142,000 $127,000 V. (Less) Debt Service - Other State Funding Source (5) 0.00% of Loan $0 0.00% of Loan $0 0.42% of Loan ($13,000) VI. NOI after Debt Service for State Funding Source $223,000 $142,000 $114,000 (1)
(2) Assumes monthly rents at an average of 50% AMI in order to competitively apply for Tax Credits; see Table B-3 for calculation of affordable rents at 50% AMI. (3) See Table B-4 for calculation of affordable rents at 60% AMI. (4) Reflects special assessments only. Assumes project will qualify for tax-exempt status. (5) Reflects competitive State funding source, e.g., AHSC, MIP, MHP, IIG, etc.
Based on the lower of State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 2024 income limits or California Tax Credit Allocation Committee 2024 maximum income and rent levels for projects placed in service on or after May 15, 2023.
E
100% Affordable
Stacked Flat Apartments
No Tax Credits 9% Tax Credits 4% Tax Credits
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2;11/21/2024;lag City of Coronado Page 289
OFF-SITE PRODUCTION
RENTAL
TABLE D-4
RESIDUAL LAND VALUE
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
I. Sources of Funds Total Per Unit Total Per Unit Total Per Unit Supportable Permanent Loan (1) $2,531,000 $101,000 $1,604,000 $64,000 $1,407,000 $56,000 Warranted Equity Investment (2) $242,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Tax Credit Equity Investment-Federal (3) $0 $0 $8,880,000 $355,000 $7,489,000 $300,000 Tax Credit Equity Investment-State (3) $0 $0 $1,842,000 $74,000 $2,098,000 $84,000 Other State Funding Source (4) $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,125,000 $125,000 Deferred Developer Fee (5) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
General Partner Equity Contribution (5) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Sources of Funds $2,773,000 $111,000 $12,326,000 $493,000 $14,119,000 $565,000 II. (Less) Development Costs excluding Land ($13,792,000) ($552,000) ($15,312,500) ($613,000) ($17,621,500) ($705,000) III. Residual Land Value ($11,019,000) ($441,000) ($2,986,500) ($119,000) ($3,502,500) ($140,000) E
100% Affordable
Stacked Flat Apartments
No Tax Credits 9% Tax Credits 4% Tax Credits
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2;11/21/2024;lag City of Coronado Page 290
OFF-SITE PRODUCTION
RENTAL
TABLE D-4 (CONT'D.)
RESIDUAL LAND VALUE
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
(1) Supportable Permanent Loan
NOI $223,000 $142,000 $114,000
Interest Rate 7.00% 7.00% 6.25%
Term (years) 35 35 35
Debt Coverage Ratio 1.15 1.15 1.15
Annual Debt Service $194,000 $123,000 $99,130
Supportable Permanent Loan $2,531,000 $1,604,000 $1,407,000 (2) Warranted Equity Investment
NOI $223,000
(Less) Annual Debt Service ($194,000)
Project Cash Flow $29,000
Target Return 12.0%
Warranted Equity Investment $242,000
(3) Low Income Housing Tax Credits
A. Federal
Estimate of Eligible Basis:
Total Development Costs $15,312,500 $17,621,500
(Less) Ineligible Costs 6% ($853,000) 7% ($1,154,000)
Eligible Basis $14,459,500 $16,467,500
Tax Credit Proceeds:
Maximum Eligible Basis $14,459,500 $16,467,500
(Less) Voluntary Credit Adjustment 40.0% ($5,784,000) 0.0% $0 Total Requested Unadjusted Basis $8,675,500 $16,467,500 Impacted Bonus Factor 130% $11,278,000 130% $21,407,750 Tax Credit Qualified Units/Applicable Factor 100% $11,278,000 100% $21,407,750 Tax Credit Rate 9.00% $1,015,000 4.00% $856,000
Maximum Annual Tax Credits $1,015,000 N/A
Total Tax Credits @ 10 $10,150,000 10 $8,560,000
Limited Partner Share 99.99% $10,149,000 99.99% $8,559,144 Tax Credit Equity Investment @ 87.5% $8,880,000 87.5% $7,489,000 B. State
Unadjusted Eligible Basis $14,459,500 $16,467,500
Requested Eligible Basis 50.0% $7,230,000 50.0% $8,234,000 Tax Credit Factor 30.0% $2,169,000 30.0% $2,470,000
Limited Partner Share 99.9% $2,167,000 99.9% $2,468,000 Tax Credit Equity @ 85.0% $1,842,000 85.0% $2,098,000
E
100% Affordable
Stacked Flat Apartments
No Tax Credits 9% Tax Credits 4% Tax Credits
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2;11/21/2024;lag City of Coronado Page 291
OFF-SITE PRODUCTION
RENTAL
TABLE D-4 (CONT'D.)
RESIDUAL LAND VALUE
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
E
100% Affordable
Stacked Flat Apartments
No Tax Credits 9% Tax Credits 4% Tax Credits
(4) Other State Funding Source
Total Loan $0 $3,125,000
Annual Debt Service 0.00% $0 0.42% $13,000
(5) Estimate of Deferred Developer Fee
Eligible Basis $14,459,500 $16,467,500
(Less) Developer Fee ($1,886,000) ($2,148,000)
Unadjusted Eligible Basis $12,573,500 $14,319,500
Total Developer Fee 15.0% $1,886,000 15.0% $2,148,000
Developer Overhead Fee $1,886,000 $2,148,000
(Less) Deferred Developer Fee 0.00% $0 0.0% $0
Upfront Developer Fee $1,886,000 $2,148,000
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2;11/21/2024;lag City of Coronado Page 292
OFF-SITE PRODUCTION
FOR-SALE
TABLE D-5
GROSS SALES PROCEEDS AND RESIDUAL LAND VALUE
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
I. Gross Sales Proceeds Unit Size # Units Price/Unit (2) Total Affordable - Moderate (1)
One Bedroom 950 SF 2 $356,000 $712,000
Two Bedroom 1,250 SF 6 $396,000 $2,376,000
Three Bedroom 1,750 SF 2 $436,000 $872,000
Total/Average 1,290 SF 10 $396,000 $3,960,000
II. Total Gross Sales Proceeds
(Less) Cost of Sale 3.0% of Value ($119,000)
(Less) Target Developer Profit 10.0% of Value ($396,000) III. Total Net Sales Proceeds $3,445,000
(Less) Development Costs (3) ($7,789,000)
IV. Residual Land Value ($4,344,000)
Per Unit ($434,000)
(1)
(2) Reflect maximum ownership housing payment at 35% of 110% AMI, see Table B-1. (3) See Table D-2.
F
100% Affordable
Stacked Flat Condominiums
For-Sale
Affordable sales prices based on State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 2024 income limits.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2;11/21/2024;ejr City of Coronado Page 293
OFF-SITE PRODUCTION
TABLE D-6
AVERAGE AFFORDABILITY GAP
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
Stacked Flat
Condominiums
No Tax Credits 9% Tax Credits 4% Tax Credits For-Sale
I. Lower Income
A. Residual Land Value - 100% Lower Income ($11,019,000) ($2,986,500) ($3,502,500) --- Per Affordable Unit ($441,000) ($119,000) ($140,000) ($130,000) (1) B. Acquisition Costs @ $500 /SF Site Area (2) ($10,000,000) ($10,000,000) ($10,000,000) --- Per Affordable Unit ($400,000) ($400,000) ($400,000) ($400,000) (1) C. Total Afforability Gap ($21,019,000) ($12,986,500) ($13,502,500) --- Per Affordable Unit ($841,000) ($519,000) ($540,000) ($530,000) (1) II. Moderate Income
A. Residual Land Value - 100% Moderate Income --- --- --- ($4,344,000) Per Affordable Unit ($434,000) ($434,000)
B. Acquisition Costs @ $500 /SF Site Area (2)--- --- --- ($7,500,000) Per Affordable Unit ($750,000) ($750,000)
C. Total Afforability Gap --- --- --- ($11,844,000)
Per Affordable Unit ($1,184,000) ($1,184,000)
(1)
(2) KMA estimate based on survey of residential land sales in the City.
Stacked Flat Apartments
Average
Excludes outcome from No Tax Credits scenario. Assumes off-site compliance for Low Income units would be met through the development of a Low Income Housing Tax Credit project with a combination of Extremely Low, Very Low, and Low Income units.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2;11/21/2024;lag City of Coronado Page 294
APPENDIX E
Comparison of Affordable Housing Fees
San Diego County
City of Coronado Page 295
TABLE E-1
COMPARISON OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEES, SAN DIEGO COUNTY
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
Rental For-Sale Project Size
Threshold
% Affordable
Units Required Fee Option Project Size Threshold Fee Type Amount Per
Market-Rate Unit or
Market-Rate SF
Carlsbad 1993 Yes Yes 7 units 15% @ Low Income Yes In-Lieu Fee $18/SF Chula Vista 1981 Yes Yes 20 units 10% Yes In-Lieu Fee varies by project Del Mar 2006 Yes Yes 2 - 30 units 15% Low, Very Low, Yes In-Lieu Fee $27,350 or Extremely Low per lot created
30-49 units
50+ units
Encinitas 1987 Yes Yes 7 units 15% @ Very Low Income Yes In-Lieu Fee $24.08/SF or 20% Low Income
Escondido --- None None None None None None
Oceanside 1983 Yes Yes 10 units Rental Yes In-Lieu Fee $20/SF (1) 15% @ Low Income
For-Sale Yes In-Lieu Fee $20/SF (1)
15% @ Low or
Moderate Income
Available to
projects of all sizes
Updated
2024
Available to
projects up to 6 units and
fractional units
20% @ Low, Very Low, or
Extremely Low
Available only to subdivisions
creating
Updated new lots
2024 20% @ Low, Very Low, or
Extremely Low
Updated
2024 Available to
projects of all sizes
Affordable Housing Fee
Available to
projects up to 6 units Updated
2024
Available to
(5% Low Income projects of all sizes
5% Moderate Income)
City
Year
Adopted
Inclusionary Production Requirement
No
Requirement
No
Requirement
20% of inclusionary units @
Extremely Low
Updated
2024
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2;11/21/2024;lag City of Coronado Page 296
TABLE E-1
COMPARISON OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEES, SAN DIEGO COUNTY
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
Rental For-Sale Project Size
Threshold
% Affordable
Units Required Fee Option Project Size Threshold Fee Type Amount Per
Market-Rate Unit or
Market-Rate SF
Affordable Housing Fee
City
Year
Adopted
Inclusionary Production Requirement
San Diego (2) 2003 Yes Yes 10 units Rental Yes In-Lieu Fee $25/SF Outside FUA 10% @ 60% AMI
For-Sale Yes In-Lieu Fee $25/SF
10% @ 100% AMI or
15% @ 120% AMI
San Diego
Inside FUA 1992 Yes Yes 2 units 20% @ 65% AMI or less None None None None San Diego
2023 Yes Yes 10 units 15% Very Low and Yes In-Lieu Fee $25/SF Low Income
San Diego Options:
2024 Yes Yes 10 units
10% @ 60% AMI None None None None
5% @ 80% AMI Yes - Required Available to all projects; In-Lieu Fee $25/SF must pay in-lieu fee
and provide minimum
of 5% of units @
80% AMI
10% @ 120% AMI Yes - Required Available to all projects; In-Lieu Fee $25/SF must pay in-lieu fee
and provide minimum
of 10% of units @
120% AMI
Alternative compliance Yes - Required Available to all projects; In-Lieu Fee $50/SF fee must pay a rate of
200% of applicable fee
Available to projects of all sizes;
<10 units exempt
Updated
2020 Available to projects of all sizes;
<10 units exempt
Available to projects of all sizes;
<10 units exempt
Barrio Logan
Community Plan
Area
University
Community Plan
Area
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2;11/21/2024;lag City of Coronado Page 297
TABLE E-1
COMPARISON OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEES, SAN DIEGO COUNTY
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY
CITY OF CORONADO
Rental For-Sale Project Size
Threshold
% Affordable
Units Required Fee Option Project Size Threshold Fee Type Amount Per
Market-Rate Unit or
Market-Rate SF
Affordable Housing Fee
City
Year
Adopted
Inclusionary Production Requirement
Poway 2018 Yes Yes 1 unit Rental Yes In-Lieu Fee $500/unit (3) 15% @ Very Low Income
For-Sale Yes In-Lieu Fee $500/unit (3)
15% @ Low Income or
20% @ Moderate Income
San Marcos (4) 2000 Yes For-Sale For-Sale Yes For-Sale In-Lieu Fee $9,300/unit 1 unit
Update
pending Rental
2024 6 Units Rental
Rental
15% of Target Households
(determined by City)
Solana Beach 2011 Yes Yes 5 units 15% @ Very Low or Yes Impact Fee $27.22/SF Low Income
Updated
2023
Vista 1985 Yes Yes 20 units 5% @ Low Yes In-Lieu Fee $17.56/SF 4% @ Moderate
Updated
2022
(1) In-lieu fee effective January 1, 2024 - December 31, 2024. Beginning January 1, 2025 and every calendar year thereafter the fee will be administratively adjusted based on the ENR CCI index. (2)
(3) City of Poway base fee varies by zoning, with a maximum total of $500 per unit for all projects. (4) Reflects City's existing inclusionary ordinance. Proposed update of the City of San Marcos' inclusionary housing in-lieu to be considered by the City Council in November 2024.
Yes, as
alternative to
paying fee
Available to all projects
Available to projects of all sizes;
<20 units exempt
Partial affordable units subject
to the payment of an in-lieu fee
in proportion to the partial unit
Applies to development located outside of the City of San Diego's North City Future Urbanizing Area (FUA). Reflects ordinance approved by the San Diego City Council December 11, 2019, effective July 1, 2020. Inclusionary housing requirements to be phased in over five (5) years. In-lieu fee of $25 per SF reflects fee beginning July 1, 2024.
Pay in-lieu fee unless opting to
produce inclusionary units of
15% @ Target Households
(determined by City)
Available to projects
of all sizes
Projects of 6 or less units and
fractional units
Available to projects
of all sizes
Available to projects
of all sizes
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\City of Coronado_In-Lieu Fee Justification Study v2;11/21/2024;lag City of Coronado Page 298
Item 10a.
Councilmember Purvis
Item 10a
Councilmember Kelly Purvis
Metro Wastewater JPA
AƩended the April 3, 2025, meeƟng of the Metro Wastewater JPA Board of Directors. Councilmember Mark Fleming also aƩended as alternate.
MeeƟng Overview:
The Metro Wastewater JPA convened to address regional wastewater system updates, approve acƟon items, and review ongoing infrastructure projects as part of the City of San Diego’s Pure Water Program.
Key AcƟons and Approvals:
Consent Calendar: Approved the March 6, 2025, minutes and the February 2025 expense report totaling $42,055.60.
Insurance Extension: Authorized a 5-year extension of the Owner-Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP) for the Pure Water Phase 1 Project. The new cap is $38 million, with Metro JPA’s share is approximately $1.46 million.
AECOM Amendment: Approved Amendment No. 4 to AECOM’s contract for engineering and support services on Morena Pump StaƟon and Conveyance Projects, adding $2.86 million and extending the contract to November 2028.
Roadway RestoraƟon: Authorized change orders with OHLA USA, Inc. for over $20 million to restore roadways impacted by the Morena Conveyance North Project, including paving, curb ramps, medians, and bike lanes. Coronado’s porƟon is 1.152% esƟmated at $39,775.18 InformaƟonal Updates and PresentaƟons:
Pure Water Program Update: ConstrucƟon is over 70% complete. Major accomplishments include pipeline and equipment installaƟon across mulƟple faciliƟes. Financing includes $733.5M from EPA and $664M from State Revolving Fund loans.
DraŌ Second Amended and Restated Agreement (SARA): Presented by General Counsel Adriana Ochoa. It addresses six “Parking Lot” issues from the 2021 Amended and Restated Agreement (ARA), such as cost allocaƟon for Phase 2, billing methodology (FAB), military wastewater treatment, and administraƟve procedures. A vote is expected at the May 1, 2025 meeƟng. The ad hoc commiƩee thanked Coronado Mayor John Duncan for his work and experƟse on the agreement. The staff report and presentaƟon as well as the full SARA agreement and exhibits are available for public review at
hƩps://urldefense.com/v3/__hƩps://www.metrojpa.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=4846__;!!DQ_uucSmKM00!i_KXt qv5SsFIwcAOXrub1K3d6AeCTYamX-v3OYZRkjYXPƞjZ8wet6WK9iELvMC1cG_zdtZ_hbAPxjeqIe3bLbpxmmVUvK8$.
Reports:
Updates were provided on the Metro Wastewater operaƟons, Pure Water program status, and rate seƫng discussions related to recycled water pricing. Tour of facility postponed to August 2025.
ExecuƟve Director Karyn Keze and TAC Chair Blake Behringer submiƩed their monthly reports.
Next Steps:
Comments and feedback on the draŌ SARA are requested ahead of its anƟcipated adopƟon. The next Metro JPA meeƟng is scheduled for May 1, 2025.
City of Coronado Page 299
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Coronado Page 300
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
April 15, 2025 10b
REVIEW PROPOSED RATE ADJUSTMENTS FOR SOLID WASTE SERVICES AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING AS REQUIRED BY PROPOSITION 218
RECOMMENDATION:
Review proposed rate adjustments for solid waste services and schedule a public hearing for June 17, 2025.
BACKGROUND:
The agreement between the City of Coronado and EDCO, the City’s waste hauler, permits annual rate increases for solid waste services. For the past five rate cycles, these increases have been implemented every two years. Rate adjustments are calculated by two cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) formulas alongside several adjustment factors: landfill tipping fees for refuse and organics, fuel and oil prices, and changes in the San Diego Region Consumer Price Index (CPI).
These factors influence both commercial and residential rates for refuse, recycling, and organic waste services. Rate adjustments are further influenced by City costs and recycling revenue fluctuations.
Any change to solid waste service rates is subject to public noticing and a Proposition 218 hearing, which requires at least 45 days’ notice between the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing (Attachment 1) and the public hearing date.
Coronado residents approved funding for solid waste services through a property tax levy in 1944, which remained in place until 1978-79, when Proposition 13 restricted property tax allocations for such services. Subsequently, the City’s General Fund subsidized solid waste costs for approximately 14 years. By the early 1990s, the City reconsidered this funding approach due to escalating landfill costs and new state-mandated recycling under (Assembly Bill 939.
In 1992, the City Council approved a phased reduction of the City’s contribution for single-family residential refuse services, reducing the subsidy from 50% to 25%, with plans for full elimination by January 1, 1999. However, in late 1998, the City Council reversed this decision and reinstated the 50% subsidy effective 1999. The subsidy then remained unchanged for 16 years.
The subsidy only applies to single-family residential ratepayers and does not extend to multifamily or commercial customers, who pay the full rate for solid waste collection.
Since 2015, the City Council has gradually reduced the subsidy in each of the past five rate adjustments: 2015: 35%; 2017: 31.5%; 2019: 25%; 2021: 20%; and 2023: 15%.
This gradual reduction continues the City’s long-term policy of shifting the cost of service directly to the benefiting ratepayers, rather than distributing the cost through the General Fund.
From 1993 to 1998, recycling revenue helped offset a portion of the subsidy. Since then, declining market values for recyclable materials have resulted in program costs exceeding revenue. State City of Coronado Page 301
law nonetheless requires the City to maintain recycling and organic waste collection services for both residential and commercial customers.
ANALYSIS:
The most recent rate adjustment was implemented on June 20, 2023. Over the last two years, the San Diego CPI has increased by 8.39%, refuse and organic tipping fees have increased by
27.22% and 8.27% respectively, while fuel and oil costs decreased by 25%. The primary driver of this year’s recommended rate increase is the substantial rise in disposal costs, which impacts multiple components of the rate structure.
The City employs a rate-setting formula that allocates various cost drivers –including landfill and organic disposal fees, fuel and oil prices, and regional CPI - across different portions of the solid waste bill. While fuel prices have declined, fuel carries a relatively low weighting (7.5%) in the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), and the COLA itself only applies to select portions of the overall rate.
The franchise agreement allows for a cap of 10% increase per year for commercial accounts (or 20% over two years) and 7% per year for residential accounts (or 14% for two years).
Based on the City’s rate formulas and in coordination with EDCO, the recommended rate for the typical residential service is $31.11 monthly, representing a 13.21% increase from the previous $27.48. For a typical commercial service, the recommended rate is $152.77 monthly, a 12.8% increase from the previous $135.43.
These proposed increases largely result from the substantial 27.22% in landfill tipping fees since June 2023. Additionally, decreased anticipated revenues from recycling commodities, which offset the cost of recycling service, have factored into the residential rate increase.
The existing and proposed charges for standard service levels are shown in the following table:
RESIDENTIAL SERVICE
CURRENT MAXIMUM
MONTHLY SOLID WASTE
FRANCHISE SERVICE
RATE
REQUESTED MAXIMUM
MONTHLY SOLID WASTE
FRANCHISE SERVICE
RATE
(FY 2025-26 / FY 2026-27)
90-gallon cart
1X Weekly Service $27.48 $31.11
COMMERCIAL SERVICE
CURRENT MAXIMUM
MONTHLY SOLID WASTE
FRANCHISE SERVICE
RATE
REQUESTED MAXIMUM
MONTHLY SOLID WASTE
FRANCHISE SERVICE
RATE
(FY 2025-26 / FY 2026-27)
3 CY Bin
1X Weekly Service $135.43 $152.77
Additional detail regarding the proposed rate changes are available in in Attachment 2.
Attachment 3 provides a regional comparison chart showing that the City’s full single-family residential solid waste service rate would rank as the fourth lowest among of the 18 cities in the County of San Diego after the proposed increase.
In alignment with previous Council decisions, the recommendation includes reducing the City’s City of Coronado Page 302
subsidy for single-family residential solid waste services by five percentage points, from 15% to 10%. The current single-family residential cost sharing plan distributes the City’s portion of the cost among all taxpayers via a General Fund subsidy; solid waste services are a defined service provided to specific ratepayers where a fee-for-service model is best applied.
Unless directed otherwise, the proposed 10% City subsidy ($3.11) will be deducted from the new residential rate of $31.11, for a monthly cost to single family homes of $28.00. The resulting net change in rates for single family homes is from $23.34 to $28.00.
Staff requests approval of the draft Notice of Public Hearing and scheduling a public hearing for June 17, 2025, to consider the proposed rate adjustments for collection services and tabulate the written protests.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Rates were last reviewed and approved on June 20, 2023. The proposed adjustments will increase single-family residential rates from $27.48 to $31.11 per month, with the unsubsidized portion paid by the customer rising from $23.34 to $28.00. The commercial three-cubic-yard bin rate will increase from $135.43 to $152.77 per month.
The General Fund subsidy is recommended to decrease from 15% to 10%, reducing annual expenditures by approximately $40,000. At the 20% subsidy level in Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23, the General Fund contribution for single-family refuse was $234,000. This dropped to $188,500 in FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25. If the subsidy is reduced to 10% and the proposed rate increase is approved, the General Fund contribution is projected at $141,600 in FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-
27. Multi-family and commercial customers pay the full EDCO rate for refuse services.
The General Fund pays the cost of recycling for multi-family and some single-family customers, not utilizing bin service. The current cost for this, paid from the General Fund, is approximately $138,000 per year.
ALTERNATIVE:
Approve EDCO’s rate adjustment but continue the current 85/15 or alternate cost sharing plan for single-family residential refuse service, or provide staff other direction.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:
The setting of rates, tolls, fares, and charges for operating expenses for a public service is statutorily exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15273 of the CEQA Guidelines.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Pursuant to Proposition 218 procedures, each customer will be mailed a notice 45 days in advance of a public hearing proposed to be held on June 17, 2025.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Notice of Public Hearing
2. Detailed Rate Information
3. Rate Comparison Listing of Other San Diego County Jurisdictions Submitted By: Public Services and Engineering Department / Sean Harris City of Coronado Page 303
Attachment 1
City of Coronado
Notice of Public Hearing to Consider
Proposed Refuse Rate Increase
If you are the owner of this property but have a tenant who is responsible for the refuse collection bill related to this property, please forward this notice to the tenant.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED REFUSE RATES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Coronado will hold a Public Hearing at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Coronado on June 17, 2025, at 4:00 p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter as the matter can be heard in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, 1825 Strand Way, Coronado, California, 92118 for the purpose of considering an increase in rates for refuse services effective July 1, 2025.
PURPOSE OF PROPOSED RATE INCREASES
The City Council will consider proposed changes to the maximum allowable Integrated Solid Waste Management Services fees charged by EDCO Disposal Corp. for Fiscal Year 2025-26 and Fiscal Year 2026-27. Adjustment of the refuse rate is being proposed due to the increased costs of providing refuse collection and recycling services to the residential and business communities. Revenues derived from the refuse rates are used solely for the actual and necessary expenses of providing refuse services to customers. The purpose of the proposed rate increases is to allow EDCO to collect sufficient revenue to enable it to continue providing refuse service to its customers in the face of increasing operating costs.
PROTESTS
At the public hearing, the City Council will consider objections and protests to the proposed charges either delivered to Attn: City Clerk, City of Coronado, 1825 Strand Way, Coronado, California 92118, by 5:30 p.m., June 16, 2025, or filed with the City Clerk prior to the conclusion of the public hearing. Persons interested may appear before the Council at the above date, place and time. Oral comments at the public hearing will not qualify as a formal protest unless accompanied by a written protest. The City Council will receive a final tabulation of all written protests received by the City at the hearing. Written protests must contain a description of the property such as the address or assessor’s parcel number and include the name of the customer submitting the protest. Please send written protests to the above referenced address. If you challenge the matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PROPOSED INCREASES
The amount of your refuse bill is determined by the quantity and size of your refuse containers and the frequency of collection. The information below shows the proposed rate increase effective July 1, 2025, which was calculated by applying a weighted rate adjustment based on changes in the Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers for the San Diego Area) and changes in the global recycling market. The rate adjustment equates to 13.21% for residential service, and 12.8% for commercial service. A sample of typical rate types is listed below. For a complete schedule of all solid waste rates, please contact the City Clerk’s Office.
CURRENT
MAX. MONTHLY SOLID
WASTE FRANCHISE
SERVICE RATE
REQUESTED
MAX. MONTHLY SOLID
WASTE FRANCHISE
SERVICE RATE
(FY 2025-26 / FY 2026-27)
Residential Service 90-gallon cart $27.48 $31.11
Commercial Service 1- 3cu Bin $135.43 $152.77
City of Coronado Page 304
Attachment 2
DETAILED INFORMATION ON PROPOSED RATE CHANGES
Solid Waste Collection Rate Schedule*
1. Cart Service:
Single-Family Refuse, Recycling & Organic Service $28.00 Multi-Family Cart Service – Refuse & Yard Waste Service $17.13 Commercial Cart Service (2 carts per week): $19.13
Multi-Family Recycling per unit: $ 2.09
Additional Carts per unit: $ 4.99
2. Bin Refuse Service: Multi-Family, Commercial, and Industrial receiving bin service (3 cubic yard bins, other bin size costs attached) for DISPOSAL; monthly rate with the following pick-ups per week:
1 x week $152.77 4 x week $471.06
2 x week $260.47 5 x week $576.37
3 x week $365.78 6 x week $681.69
3. Bin Recycling Service: Multi-Family, Commercial and Industrial receiving bin service (3 cubic yard bins) for RECYCLING; monthly rate with the following pick-ups per week:
1 x week $ 60.43 4 x week $189.89
2 x week $ 103.60 5 x week $233.06
3 x week $146.75 6 x week $276.22
4. Commercial Commingled Organic Service: Monthly rate with one pick-up per week:
65 Gallon Cart $104.41
96 Gallon Cart $119.06
2 Cubic Yard Bin $198.56
5. Roll-Off/Compactor Service:
Permanent 20-40 cubic yard (loose) $255.80/load plus landfill fees Permanent 15-30 cubic yard (compacted) $344.15/load plus landfill fees Refuse $583.97
Mixed C&D $881.32
Clean Demolition $847.67
Clean Green Waste (6 tons) $741.53
Clean Concrete and Dirt (10 tons) $452.58
Compactor Rates Double the basic bin size rate
City Street Sweep Fee (incl. in above rates) $9.98
Mixed C&D rate/ton (incl. in Mixed C&D) $126.88
*Low-income head of household and senior citizens will receive a 20% discount.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Coronado Page 305
Attachment 2
DETAILED INFORMATION ON PROPOSED RATE CHANGES
6. Bin Refuse Service (Other Bin Sizes):
Cubic Yard 1 x week 2 x week 3 x week 4 x week 5 x week 6 x week
1.5 117.11 187.44 257.75 328.04 398.39 468.65
2 127.91 207.99 288.14 368.18 448.35 528.37
3 152.77 260.47 365.78 471.06 576.37 681.69
4 182.46 311.62 440.81 569.90 699.16 828.19
5 209.77 365.41 521.12 676.78 832.61 988.14
6 237.03 417.87 598.78 779.64 960.72 1141.44
7. Miscellaneous Rates
a. Compactor Cleaning per Hour (3 Hour Minimum)/hour $94.79 b. Bin Cleaning in Excess of 1 x per Year per hour $94.79 c. Bulky Items (each) $60.43
d. or per Hour plus Landfill Fees $133.95
e. Extra Pick-Ups $53.72
f. Extra Dumps (Reloads) $53.72
Lock Set-Up $40.60
g. Replace Lock $21.49
h. Replace Key $9.55
i. CBL Lids (per month) $21.70
j. Lid Lock (per month) $10.31
Lock Charge
1 x week $4.77
2 x week $8.36
3 x week $12.55
4 x week $16.70
5 x week $20.90
6 x week $25.09
k. Bin Roll-Out and Backyard Services
Per Month for First 20 Feet $31.42
Per Month Each Additional 20 Feet $12.84
l. Temporary Bin Services $160.25
8. Navy Rates: The Navy pays the same rates as listed above, less charges related to tip fees (dump fees).
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Coronado Page 306
Attachment 2
DETAILED INFORMATION ON PROPOSED RATE CHANGES
Solid Waste Collection Rate Computation Formula
The HAULER shall be entitled to an annual increase of the base service rate up to but not exceeding a weighted average for the following factors: direct labor, fuel and oil, truck/cart replacement, and administrative overhead (administration, insurance, billing, etc.). The weighted average differs for commercial and automated service as indicated below:
Commercial Factor Automated Factor
Direct Labor 30.0% 25.0%
Fuel and Oil 7.5% 5.0%
Truck/Cart Replacement 10.0% 20.0%
Administrative Overhead 52.5% 50.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0%
One Year Maximum Weighted Average 10.0% 7.0%
The above prices will be adjusted on July 1 of each year. The HAULER shall document the above selected costs on April 1 of each year. The percent of change shall then be multiplied by the weighted factor. In determining the allowed increase in the category of costs entitled “Administrative Overhead” the HAULER shall be allowed to increase this category of costs by a percent increase equal to that of the San Diego Consumer Price Index. The prices will be adjusted by the percent change on the following July 1. The weighted average increase percentage for any one year shall not exceed 10 percent for commercial collection, and 7 percent for automated collection.
Additionally, service rates may be adjusted on an as-needed basis due to the following factors:
1. Landfill fees
2. Other added fees such as host fees or landfill impact mitigation fees, and
3. Market fluctuations in the prices for recyclable materials.
These adjustments shall be a pro-rata pass through of any increases/decreases and shall be accomplished by Resolution of the City Council. The HAULER shall provide the City and customers with written notice of the implementation of changes in any of its proposed rates and changes which are not subject to regulation by the CITY. This notice shall be given in advance of the beginning of a billing period and shall include a statement of reasons for the rate increase.
City of Coronado Page 307
Attachment 2
ATTACHMENT 2
DETAILED INFORMATION ON PROPOSED RATE CHANGES
FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 SOLID WASTE RATE REVIEW
RESIDENTIAL
REFUSE 2023 Changes 2025
TIP FEE 3.97 1.08 5.05
BULKY TRASH .10 0.00 .10
SERVICE 12.71 .64 13.35
SUBTOTAL 16.78 1.72 18.50
AB-939 FEE (7%) 1.28 .13 1.41
TOTAL 18.06 1.85 19.91
ORGANICS 2023 Changes 2025
TIP FEE 3.87 .32 4.19
SERVICE 3.98 .20 4.18
SUBTOTAL 7.85 .52 8.37
AB-939 FEE .60 .04 .64
TOTAL 8.45 .56 9.01
RECYCLING 2023 Changes 2025
PROGRAM COSTS 6.76 .43 7.19
RECYCLING
REVENUES
<5.79> .79 <5.00>
TOTAL .97 1.22 2.19
FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 10%-90% cost sharing
REFUSE RECYCLING ORGANICS TOTAL
CITY PAYS $ 3.11 $0.00 $0.00 $3.11
RESIDENT PAYS $ 16.80 $2.19 $9.01 $28.00
TOTAL $19.91 $2.19 $9.01 $31.11
COMMERCIAL
REFUSE 2023 Changes 2025
TIP FEE $44.07 $12.00 $56.07
SERVICE $81.88 $4.13 $86.01
SUB-TOTAL $125.95 $16.13 $142.08
AB-939 FEE $9.48 $1.21 $10.69
TOTAL $135.43 $17.34 $152.77
City of Coronado Page 308
DRAFT
Residential Rates Total Effective Date
National City $27.66 Proposed 7/1/25
La Mesa $28.84 Proposed 7/1/25
El Cajon $29.10 Effective 1/1/25
Coronado $31.11 Proposed 7/1/25
Lemon Grove $31.51 Proposed 7/1/25
Escondido $31.52 Effective 1/1/25
Solana Beach $31.60 Proposed 7/1/25
Carlsbad $31.67 Projected 7/1/25 *
Encinitas $32.05 Proposed 7/1/25
Poway $32.23 Proposed 7/1/25
Santee $32.92 Effective 1/1/25
Del Mar $33.83 Proposed 7/1/25
San Marcos $33.95 Proposed 7/1/25
Oceanside $34.42 Effective 1/1/25
Chula Vista $35.02 Effective 9/1/23
Vista $36.97 Proposed 7/1/25
Imperial Beach $43.34 Proposed 7/1/25
City of San Diego $53.00 Proposed 7/1/25
Attachment 3
San Diego County Franchise City Rates July 1,2025
* Actual may be higher than projected
The rates noted above include all franchise city rates within San Diego County including cities served by EDCO and other haulers. Because each city has variation in the mix of services they offer, the most common residential service rate for each municipality is used for the basis of comparison.
City of Coronado Page 309
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Coronado Page 310
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
April 15, 2025 10c.
RESOLUTION TO EXTEND A LOCAL EMERGENCY DECLARATION IN THE CITY OF
CORONADO DUE TO IMPACTS FROM CROSS-BORDER WATER POLLUTION RECOMMENDATION:
Consider the Resolution to Extend the Local Emergency Declaration due to cross-border water pollution.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Tijuana’s regional wastewater infrastructure is decades old, has inadequate capacity to treat and convey wastewater and suffers from repeated breaks and system failures. These failures lead to spillage and wastewater discharge into the Tijuana River, its tributaries and outfall into the Pacific Ocean, polluting the ocean waters off Imperial Beach, Coronado and beyond. The impacts of this pollution to the region are profound, and growing as Tijuana’s population expands.
The South Bay area, including the City of Coronado, has seen increasing levels of water pollution and beach closures from cross-border water pollution. These conditions threaten the health and safety of residents and visitors, our local ecosystems and the economic vitality of the region.
At the City Council’s March 4, 2025 meeting, City Council adopted a Resolution Declaring a Local Emergency due to pervasive impacts from cross-border water pollution.
ANALYSIS:
Under State law, a declaration of local emergency must be considered every sixty days and the governing body take action to either extend or terminate the local emergency. The City Council is requested to discuss and take action. A Resolution to Extend the Emergency Declaration has been prepared and is attached.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVE:
The City Council may choose to terminate the emergency declaration or provide other direction.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:
Not applicable.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Note applicable.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 2025-19
Submitted By: City Manager’s Office / Tina Friend
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING
A LOCAL EMERGENCY RELATING TO IMPACTS
FROM CROSS BORDER WATER POLLUTION
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 8630 and Coronado Municipal Code Chapter 2.50 empowers the City Council to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency; and
WHEREAS, The Coronado City Council adopted a Resolution to Declare a Local Emergency on March 4, 2025 and The Emergency Declaration is set to expire on May 3, 2025 unless further extended by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, cross border flows of untreated wastewater from the Tijuana River and the inoperative San Antonio de los Buenos Wastewater Treatment Plant constitute an environmental catastrophe and through this pollution of ocean waters, adversely impacts the lives of residents and visitors in the City of Coronado; and
WHEREAS, impaired water quality leads to conditions unhealthy for the safety of persons, property and the environment; and
WHEREAS, pollution from cross-border flows are impacting the region’s community health, economy and ecosystems, and the ongoing closures of South Bay beaches, including Coronado beaches, limits coastal access; and
WHEREAS, the flow of contaminants and untreated wastewater continues to escalate due to inadequate wastewater infrastructure in the City of Tijuana and lack of sufficient operation and maintenance of existing infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the cities of Imperial Beach, Chula Vista, San Diego, the County of San Diego and the San Diego Port District have declared a state of local emergency, and the County of San Diego has issued a public health emergency for the Tijuana River Valley; and WHEREAS, the environmental degradation from cross-border water pollution constitutes an economic and public health threat that is beyond the control of local resources, services, personnel equipment and facilities, and warrants this declaration of a local emergency.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado as follows:
City of Coronado Page 312
1. That the above recitations are true.
2. A local emergency exists in the City of Coronado.
3. The City Manager, Mayor and Councilmembers are authorized to work with local, State, Federal and Mexican authorities to improve conditions in the Tijuana River Valley and greater wastewater infrastructure systems to improve water quality conditions.
4. The proclamation of existence of a local emergency shall be deemed to continue to exist until its termination is proclaimed by the City Council of the City of Coronado, and it shall be terminated at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant. The Council shall review this emergency at least once every sixty days.
PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, at a regular meeting thereof this fifteenth day of April 2025 by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
JOHN D. DUNCAN, Mayor of the
City of Coronado, California
ATTEST:
KELSEA HOLIAN, City Clerk of the
City of Coronado, California
City of Coronado Page 313