If it had been approved, the proposal from Sharp Coronado Hospital and Healthcare Center would have replaced the 21 parallel parking places on the north side of Third Street between Soledad Place and Glorietta Boulevard with 37 angled parking places.
At its June 16 meeting, the Coronado City Council rejected a proposal from Sharp Coronado Hospital and Healthcare Center to make access and parking improvements on Prospect Place, Third Street, and Soledad Place, and instructed the city staff to continue to work with the hospital to make its proposal acceptable. The primary sticking point was the proposal to replace parallel parking with angled parking on Third Street.
If they had been approved, the proposed improvements would have been part of a larger renovation of the overall medical complex. Their objectives were to improve vehicular circulation and access in and around the hospital. They included a reconfiguration of the existing valet service and on-street parking on Prospect Place. The primary improvement along Prospect Place would have created a new pick-up/drop-off area near the building entrance. Vehicles would have been able to pull out of the flow of traffic on the west side of the street in the southbound direction to load/unload passengers or to utilize the hospital’s valet service. The loading area would have been protected by extensions of the curbs. Traffic calming along the roadway would have been provided by a landscaped center island. As proposed, 12 of the 21 regular and one of the five disabled parking spaces on Prospect Place would have been eliminated.
Although it is a public street, Prospect Place is maintained by Sharp Coronado Hospital under an agreement with the city. A valet parking service is operated by the hospital at the entrance to the hospital on Prospect Place. Presently, parking is available along the majority of both sides of the street via front-in perpendicular style parking stalls, and a bus stop is located on the east side of Prospect Place.
Proposed improvements on Soledad Place would have consolidated three existing white curb zones into a single location. The new, mid-block loading zone would have been set back behind the existing curb line. The new loading zone area would have been approximately 95 feet in length, resulting in a decrease in available on-street parking of approximately 35 linear feet or 1.5 parking spaces. The proposal would have reconfigured existing on-street parallel parking on the north side of Third Street from Soledad Place to Glorietta Boulevard to diagonal parking. Thirty-seven 8.5 foot wide diagonal parking places set at 60 degrees would have replaced the existing 21 parallel parking spaces. In addition to the change from parallel parking to angled parking, existing pedestrian ramps and crosswalks at the intersection of Third Street and Prospect Place would have been reconstructed with new corner bulb-outs to shorten pedestrian crossing distances and improve pedestrian visibility.
At the council meeting, the City’s Principal Engineer, Jim Newton, explained that the city has specific criteria regarding the conversion of parallel to perpendicular/diagonal parking on residential streets. Although the criteria do not explicitly address the situation of the hospital, the proposal is considered to be in compliance with the criteria, which relate to the width of the street, traffic volume and speed, and the deficiency of the existing situation regarding the availability of parking. However, most requests for conversion to angled parking are the result of requests from the majority of the neighboring residents, which is not the case with the proposed changes on Third Street. Overall, the proposed changes in all parking configurations including the losses on Prospect Place would have resulted in the loss of a single disabled parking space and the addition of three unrestricted parking spaces.
Eight residents spoke in opposition to the hospital’s proposals. Common themes were that angle parking would detract from the residential character of the neighborhood and increase the risk to the many cyclists who use Third Street as their preferred route to Tidelands Park. It was also noted that the parking available to the hospital in the Marriott’s garage is not being fully utilized. A suggestion was to mark the parallel parking spaces to increase the efficiency of their use. The fact that Second Street is wider than Third Street and therefore may be a better location for angled parking was also suggested. (Note: East of B Avenue Second Street is 54 feet wide, whereas Third Street is 48 feet in width.)
Mayor Tanaka said that angled parking on Third Street is a “nonstarter” with him. He went on to say that he is unconvinced that improving the appearance of the hospital at the expense of parking on Prospect Place would be worth it. Councilwoman Downey, who is the citizen representative to both the Sharp Coronado Hospital Board of Directors and the Board of Directors of the Sharp Coronado Hospital Foundation, explained that the proposed project was more than an effort to improve the appearance of the hospital. One of its objectives was to eliminate the back-up that is caused by the heavily used valet service. She also expressed interest in the potential of adding the angled parking on Second Street in lieu of Third Street and noted that the Marriott garage is only being used on a trial basis.
Councilman Bailey expressed the opinion that the negative impacts of the proposal on the residents outweigh the benefits to the hospital. He stated that he also does not feel that the Marriott’s garage is being fully used. Despite it not being owned by the hospital, Councilman Sandke asked why the parking lot for the medial building adjacent the hospital was not considered in the proposal. He also said that limiting the duration of parking on adjacent streets through the installation of parking meters may be a good idea. Councilman Woiwode stated his view that angled parking is “a last ditch effort,” that he is not ready to shift it to Second Street, and that it is not the responsibility of the city to provide employee parking.
The hospital’s proposal was considered twice by the Traffic Operations Committee (TOC), first on April 23, 2015, and again on May 21, 2015, and the TOC recommended forwarding it to the City Council. Resident comments on the proposal to the TOC included a request for additional landscaping on Third Street and restricting parking on Third Street to one hour. The City staff concluded that, “All proposed improvements seem feasible and meet City design standards, do not appear to have any significant negative impact on traffic patterns or safety, and will result in a minor increase in available on-street parking for the neighborhood. “
——–
John Tato
Staff Writer
eCoronado.com
