3394 / 50.05% Yes votes ...... 3387 / 49.95% No votes

See Also: Index of all Propositions

The reclassification of all R-1B zoned properties to R-1A(E) will eliminate the ability of owners of properties in the existing R-1B zone to develop or redevelop their properties to the density presently allowed under the R-1B zone. Currently, properties in the R-1B zone can be developed at 12 dwelling units per acre; those in the R-1A(E) zone can only be developed at 8 units per acre. This change would reduce the potential number of sites for housing in the City and could be in violation of State law, requiring that the City accommodate its share of the region's housing needs by other means. In the least the City will be required to increase the density in other areas in order to satisfy the requirements of State law.

Because most legal lots in the city are 3,500 square feet, and less than the minimum lot size in the R-1A(E) zone, strict compliance with the measure can only be obtained through the legal merger of substandard lots. While the initiative directs the City Council to make necessary legislative amendments to implement the measure, it cannot require the City Council to adopt such future legislation, making this directive in the measure potentially invalid. Further, owners of legal lots of less than the minimum size in the R-1A(E) zone could still construct a single residential unit on the lot under the City's zoning ordinance, notwithstanding the zone reclassification.

By invalidating lawfully issued building permits the measure could possibly violate the "vested rights" doctrine, which generally allows property owners to develop their properties based on building and zoning regulations in effect at the time the permit is issued. Therefore this provision of the measure would be potentially illegal and unenforceable.

Finally, Proposition J provides that if there is a challenge to the legality of the measure, a moratorium prohibiting new building permits in violation of the measure would automatically be imposed and last until final judgment. Such a moratorium could reasonably exceed the maximum period allowed by State law, and is potentially illegal and unenforceable.

San Diego Union Tribune

• Judge lets Prop. J remain on ballot: Coronado wanted it removed or changed - 9/20/06
• Coronado battling to remove Prop. J: Measure would raise lot size for homes - 9/15/06

Proposition J seeks to preserve our town. It protects property rights of all by changing the R-1B single family zone into the R-1A(e) zone requiring a minimum of 5250 sq ft to build a structure. This initiative doesn't affect existing 3500 sq ft lots that currently have a single family home on them.

This initiative seeks to reclaim control of our neighborhoods from the speculators and developers who see Coronado as an easy mark for making millions by increasing density in neighborhoods. This is done by tearing down a single family home on a 7,000 square ft lot in the R1-B zone, dividing the property in two and building two large, looming rectangular lot-covering structures, three feet from the property line, commonly referred to as "Billy Boxes". This doubles our density, traffic and creates parking problems. This devalues our property and our lives. This practice is destroying the historicity of Coronado and our sense of place. We are fast becoming just another overcrowded and overbuilt town. We are losing Coronado.

We Coronadans will win if we vote YES on Proposition J. We will send a powerful message to elected officials, speculators and developers that our history, our neighborhoods and who we are cannot continue to be destroyed merely for the profit of the few at the expense of all of us.

Vote YES on Prop J to SAVE Coronado.

STORY R. VOGEL
KELLY G. PURVIS
ANN M. PATTERSON
HENRY D. PATTERSON
SUZANNE M. RAMIREZ

Our City Council would be forced to determine where housing density would be increased in order to remain in compliance with State law. Since the R-4 and R-3 zones are essentially "maxed out", the increased density would almost have to be in the R-1A (low density residential) zone.

Proposition J is illegal: It would invalidate existing building permits for the R-1B zone issued since January 18, 2006.

What happens to homes currently under construction with a legal and valid building permit? Certainly affected homeowners will be forced to seek legal relief - at great expense to themselves and the City.

Proposition J is unfair: It would take away the rights of property owners in the R-1B zone.

How does taking rights from one group of property owners "protect the rights of all" as the proponents allege?

This proposition is flawed. It is poorly written and poorly thought out. It will certainly provoke litigation that will use money that should be spent on things that are actually helpful to the residents of Coronado such as Police and Fire services. Coronado is a vibrant and thriving City! Development in the R-1B zone is proceeding in accordance with the State approved Housing Element of the City's General Plan. Historic preservation is also part of the General Plan, and effective procedures are in place to ensure that the historic character of the City is preserved.

Please vote "NO" on this illegal, unfair and flawed initiative!

DAVE GILLINGHAM
PHIL HAMMETT
MARY ANN KELLY

The proposed ordinance:

• Will require Coronado (in order to comply with State Law) to increase housing density in other residential zones to compensate for the loss of density in the R-1B zone.
  
• Seeks to take property rights away from R-1B owners by eliminating development options. Many families have planned their financial futures around the eventual development of their property. Others bought R-1B property with the specific intent of building homes for themselves or their children. It is wrong to take that away from them.
  
• Makes every existing home on a 25 foot lot non-conforming.
  
• Will reduce property values in the R-1B zone.
  
• Will invalidate existing permits for projects permitted or under construction since Jan 18, 2006. Will those structures have to be torn down?

• R-1B property owners do not require lot splits to develop their property - in most cases two lots already exist - just as Babcock and Storey laid out the Island in the late 1800s, which divided most of the City into 25' lots.
  
• With very few exceptions, it is only possible to develop 25' lots in the R-1B (medium density) or R-3 (high density) zones.
  
• Proponents will suggest that this effort is similar to "downzoning" in the Country Club and Margarita areas. Not So! The City Council simply clarified that lot split requests would not be granted in those areas!
  
• Finally, this proposed ordinance isn't about so called "billy boxes", it's about property rights.
  

DAVE GILLINGHAM
PHIL HAMMETT
MARY ANN KELLY

CHECK THE FACTS:

• Zoning is a legitimate community prerogative intended to benefit the overall community.
  
• Coronado's 1973 zoning scheme has resulted in overdevelopment of R1-B zones with negative impacts to adjacent neighborhoods.
  
• The "State Law" mentioned by opponents and sponsored by California Realtors does NOT prohibit re-zoning via citizens' initiative.
  
• A requirement for increased density in another zone is pure speculation.
  
• Many R1-B property owners support Measure J as a means to stop developers from buying R1-B single-family homes from elderly or their estates only to construct two homes, thereby increasing density, traffic and parking problems, reducing privacy and sunlight, only to enrich themselves at the expense of our neighborhoods.
  
• Measure J grandfathers existing non-conforming homes.
  
• Measure J will enhance property rights by preserving the Coronado we all bought into.
  
• Measure J will increase property values. Homes in R1-A(e) zones generally sell for more than those in R1-B zones.

Measure J will protect our historic homes, enhance privacy, raise property values and stop the destruction of Coronado!

PLEASE VOTE YES ON MEASURE J TO SAVE CORONADO.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

RUTH ANN FISHER
LARRY JAMES BROWN
DAPHNE C. BROWN
GWEN HOVLAND
DAN'L STEWARD

1. Effective January 18, 2006, or the soonest date thereafter allowed by law, the official zoning map of the City of Coronado shall be and hereby is amended to re-designate all those parcels currently designated R-1B zone as R-1A(E) zone.

2. The City Council is authorized and directed to make any necessary legislative amendments to facilitate implementation of this initiative.

3. Any completed residence (one for which approval was granted after final inspection) on a single lot of less than 5250 square feet within the R-1B zone affected by this initiative which was in conformity with the provisions of R-1B as of January 18, 2006 shall be considered a "dwelling density nonconformity" as per section 86.50.035 of the Coronado Zoning Ordinance.

4. For any pending or partially completed residence for which a building permit had been issued prior to January 18, 2006 for construction within the R-1B zone, and is on a lot of 5250 square feet or less but for which final inspection had not been had at the time constructive notice of this pending initiative was given by publication in the local newspaper, approval as a "dwelling density nonconformity" per section 86.50.035 of the Coronado Zoning Ordinance shall be presumed upon application therefore, and fees for such application shall be waived.

5. No permit for construction in the R-1B zone as said zone existed as of January 17, 2006 shall be valid if such construction would not conform to the lot size standards of R-1A(E) and such permit was obtained after the date of giving of constructive notice of this pending initiative by publication in the local newspaper.

6. In the event this initiative should be challenged in a court of law, there shall be imposed, until such time of the rendering of final judgment, a moratorium to prevent the City of Coronado from granting any building permits on parcels currently designated R-1B as of January 17, 2006 whenever granting of any such building permit would allow construction that would fail to comply with the standards of R-1A(E).

7. If any portion of this initiative is declared invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of its remaining portions.