The four large trees adjacent to the Coronado Library Winn Room are safe, for now.
On Oct. 2, the San Diego Superior Court rejected a request by the City of Coronado to dismiss a lawsuit aimed at protecting the trees from removal after the city appeared to approve the $9.72 million Winn Room expansion project in August of 2024.
“Despite obvious facts to the contrary, the City had tried to argue that they never actually approved the $10 million Winn Room expansion project and therefore claimed our case was moot,” said Christine Mott, one of the lawsuit petitioners on a social media post. “The court didn’t buy that. The case will proceed and the trees will have their day in court.”
On August 20, 2024, the City of Coronado voted 3-2 to approve Option 4 for the $9.72 million Winn Room expansion, which included the removal of five trees that are from 51 to 100 years old. (Last month, one of the trees — an Evergreen Coral tree — was deemed hazardous by the City of Coronado’s Arborist and removed.) The planned expansion would increase the Winn Room seating capacity from 135 to 208, and would include a foyer and optional deck space, allowing for outdoor performances.
In early 2025, several locals — including Mott — filed a lawsuit alleging that the expansion project would remove various mature, healthy trees in violation of California environmental law. The lawsuit claims that the City of Coronado failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which is designed to inform decision-makers and the public about the possible environmental effects of projects.
“Under CEQA, an environmental review was required before holding this hearing and vote, so the council members and public could be informed of the full impact of what they were voting on,” wrote Bryan Pease, an attorney for the petitioners of the lawsuit.
But according to the city, the lawsuit is premature because no final project has been approved. The city argues that the council’s 3-2 vote in 2024, selected Option 4 only as a preliminary concept for staff to study further, with design work and environmental review still to come.
The city says no funding has been set aside, no contracts have been signed, and no work has been scheduled. Further, the city says that projects such as fire, public safety and sewer improvements are higher priorities. It also says it can still modify Option 4, choose an alternative, or abandon the renovation entirely, including the removal of the five trees Option 4 calls for. The city asked the court to dismiss the case.
“The respondent has not made any final decisions or approvals to proceed with any particular ‘project’ at the Winn Room,” reads the document submitted by the city. “Respondent selected one option for further evaluation out of an original list of five preliminary concepts, if the proposal were to be developed further.”
Furthermore, the city argues that CEQA does not require an agency to perform a review when it has only a “mere interest” or “inclination to support” a proposal.
In response to the city’s request, the petitioners’ legal team submitted documentation arguing that Option 4 was, in fact, approved during the meeting.
“Four options were presented, which varied in terms of environmental impacts. With no analysis of what those impacts would be or mitigation measures that could be taken, the City Council selected Option 4 out of a range of options,” reads the document.
Several city council members, including former city council member Casey Tanaka, were quoted in the document. They reference potential environmental impact of the expansion.
“Option 4 also comes with the…greatest cost in terms of the impact on that park right next door to it, and the loss of trees,” Tanaka is quoted as saying.
According to a report by the city dated May 16, 2024, “All impacted trees were evaluated in August of 2021 and were rated as low risk and in fair to good health.”
Council member Tanaka also stated that, without the benefit of any environmental review that could inform the council’s decision, his subcommittee had “looked into taking the trees out and transplanting them, and I just wanted to tell you, I don’t think that’s viable…So if we do proceed in a way where we lose trees, accept that.”
Former Council member Donavan is quoted as saying, “If we pick Option 3 or 4, we’re just going to have to assume those trees are gonna be gone.”
According to the petitioners, the comments from Tanaka and Donovan alluded to possible additional undisclosed environmental impacts. This could include removing additional trees and impacts on the surrounding community. But these were never studied nor fully discussed, according to the petitioners.
Ultimately, the court rejected the city’s bid to have the case dismissed. The case could head to court, after all.
“The city is spending money to peddle this story, but the court didn’t buy it,” said Mott. “Instead of taking accountability for not following proper environmental and historical review protocol, the city is wasting taxpayer dollars on attorney fees and court costs.”
Mott said if the city really wanted to move forward with the Winn Room expansion, it could have withdrawn the approval and followed proper procedure.
“But instead, they cook up this nonsense, and pay good money to have someone write these briefs,” said Mott. “It’s no cheap matter to hire a law firm to write these motion papers and then appear in court. It’s just so discouraging.”
The petitioners also say that the City of Coronado itself acknowledged the selection of Option 4 on its own website. On Project Coronado, the city’s online resource for current and future projects, the Winn Room expansion was described on October 6, 2025 as such:
“On August 20, 2024, the City Council authorized moving forward with #4 of the Winn Room Design Options.”
Today, that wording has been changed to, “On August 20, 2024, the City Council authorized continuing to explore #4 of the Winn Room Design Options.”
The Coronado Times reached out to the city to ask why, and when, the wording was changed. A representative from the city said that it could not comment on issues related to ongoing litigation.
For now, the project is on hold. In a May 29, 2026 letter to the editor appearing in the Coronado Eagle & Journal, Carl Luna, President of the Coronado Friends of the Library, said the Winn Room Expansion was pushed to the very bottom of the priority list.
“After much public debate and extensive studies, the decision was finally made two years ago to move forward with renovating and modernizing this outdated and heavily used space,” wrote Luna. “Yet despite broad community support, the project now risks losing momentum again.”
And the lawsuit is proceeding.
“The city must now answer the petition,” said attorney Bryan Pease. “The next step after that is for the court to hear our petition for writ of mandate to order the city to set aside the project approval. Once environmental review is conducted, then the city could have a new hearing on whether or not to approve the project.”
For Mott, the moment is bittersweet.
“I’m thrilled that we will actually have our day in court, but it’s just a little discouraging,” she said. “We shouldn’t have to fight again. How about, we just do things the right way?”
