Editor’s note: In the coming weeks, The Coronado News is planning to ask each of this year’s City Council candidates questions about the most pressing topics concerning Coronado. The candidates’ responses will be presented in a different order each week to ensure fairness. The candidates are limited to 200 words for each response. There are two positions up for grabs on Coronado’s City Council in the November elections. Ricky Hoyt, Rebecca King, Kelly Purvis and Andrew Gade are vying for the open seats. The topic covered this week is housing and affordability.
Question 1: How do you think local government should deal with state mandates regarding affordable housing? When the last housing cycle came about, the city had to allow for 912 affordable units as part of a settlement with the state. Is it a council member’s job to comply with California law to avoid consequences, or to advocate for the city’s preference regardless of potential risks or penalties?
Question 2: Some current council members said they oppose short-term rentals in so-called “accessory dwelling units,” or ADUs, to avoid transient populations that come with Airbnbs. The policy now says guest houses and other ADUs may not be rented for less than 30 days. How would you set the limit? What is best for neighborhoods, and for the economy of a city that relies on tourism?
Question 3: Do you think a council member should prioritize housing to accommodate people who work on the island but can’t afford to live here? Or is it more important to recognize that Coronado is a unique coastal community that should not be required to provide housing for low-income people?
Ricky Hoyt
1. Answer: A council member’s responsibility is to protect Coronado’s interests. That means complying with laws that are in force rather than unnecessarily exposing taxpayers to litigation or penalties, while also challenging state mandates when our legal counsel believes we have a credible case.
This issue will come before the next council. Coronado’s current Housing Element runs through 2029, meaning the next housing cycle will be developed during the term of those elected this November. Coronado is a unique, largely built-out coastal community, and I will strongly advocate that the next allocation reflect those realities.
We should also continue finding creative solutions. During the current cycle, the city incorporated Navy-controlled property into its housing plan. Having spent much of my Navy career in Coronado and developed longstanding relationships on base, I can help strengthen that partnership.
Measure D is another example of the tension between state requirements and local control. It asks voters whether to increase the R-4 multi-family height limit from three stories to four; I do not support that increase.
My approach is simple: Preserve local control wherever possible, challenge unreasonable mandates when we have sound legal grounds, build partnerships, and never gamble taxpayer dollars simply to make a political statement.
2. Answer: I support allowing ADUs where required by state law, but I do not support using local ADU policy to create additional density beyond what Coronado is legally required to accommodate. We should preserve the character of our single-family neighborhoods, and I am concerned about adding multiple units to properties without adequate parking.
Some ADU requirements, including restrictions on local parking requirements, are dictated by Sacramento. Where state law controls, Coronado must comply, but we should preserve as much local authority as possible rather than voluntarily going further.
I also believe ADUs should provide housing, not become vacation rentals. Coronado already has a strong hotel industry designed to accommodate visitors and generate transient occupancy tax revenue. Turning residential ADUs into Airbnb-style accommodations would introduce more transient use into our neighborhoods while competing with that industry.
I support keeping ADUs for longer-term residential use rather than nightly or weekly rentals. Tourism is essential to our economy, but our residential neighborhoods should remain neighborhoods.
3. I don’t believe these goals are mutually exclusive. I would welcome opportunities for teachers, first responders, military families, hospitality workers and others who contribute to Coronado every day to live here. But the City Council cannot dictate the market price of housing, nor can Coronado solve the region’s housing affordability problem alone.
We are a geographically constrained, largely built-out coastal community with limited land. Housing policy should recognize those realities while looking for reasonable opportunities that fit our community.
Where the City Council can make a meaningful difference is ensuring Coronado remains a place where people want to put down roots and raise families: safe streets, clean beaches, excellent public spaces, strong local businesses and well-maintained infrastructure.
We should also protect the homes and architecture that give Coronado its identity. I strongly support historic preservation and programs like the Mills Act that incentivize property owners to preserve historic homes and the character of our streets.
We can pursue reasonable housing opportunities while protecting property rights, local control and the historic character that makes Coronado unique.
Rebecca King
1. Answer: The last housing cycle required Coronado to identify and rezone for 912 total housing units, 640 of which were classified as “affordable.”
As a member of our City Council, I will advocate strongly against adding to Coronado’s density. I will defend to the fullest extent of the law Coronado’s right to require design elements for any new housing to ensure it is in keeping with the character and feel of our community. I will also vigorously support lobbying efforts in Sacramento to amend Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) legislation to allow more flexibility for fully built-out cities like Coronado to meet their housing allocation.
As we face the state’s next RHNA, council members must also confirm that the jobs-housing balance methodology inputs are correct, so that Coronado is not again misallocated jobs/housing requirements that belong to another city, which is disruptive to planning and unacceptable.
While Coronado City Council members must comply with state housing law or risk putting the city in legal and fiscal jeopardy, and losing local control over development, I will always rigorously advocate for fair and appropriate guidelines for our city.
2. Answer: A 30-day minimum for ADUs is too short and goes against the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s claims to support affordable long-term housing, which the former six-month minimum facilitated. By barring cities from setting ADU minimum rental terms beyond 30 days, the state incentivizes more short-term rentals that could be used as vacation rentals, while avoiding the transient occupancy tax (TOT) that applies to rentals of 25 days or less. I am concerned these units will add additional competition for our hotels, which do collect TOT, meaning less revenue for our city.
The state-imposed minimum ADU rental length diminishes the residential character of our community; adds to our ongoing parking challenges; and threatens to lower the supply and raise the price of long-term rentals. For all of these reasons, I believe state law should permit cities to set a minimum rental term of six months.
3. Answer: It would be fantastic if our first responders, teachers, and city employees were able to live in Coronado. While Coronado cannot legally “reserve” affordable housing units for our employees, I support providing a preference for them in housing applications where they qualify. By doing so, we can ensure that Coronado remains competitive when recruiting and retaining teachers, firefighters, police officers, and essential staff because they can live where they work (in this beautiful place) and avoid expensive, long commutes. Our first responders would be our neighbors, providing even greater trust. Finally, from a purely economic standpoint, when our employees live in Coronado, they also spend their salaries here, benefiting our economy rather than that of neighboring cities.
Kelly Purvis
1. Answer: Local government must comply with California law while advocating forcefully for solutions that reflect Coronado’s unique circumstances. These responsibilities are not mutually exclusive.
To clarify, the state required Coronado to plan for 912 additional housing units across all income levels — not 912 affordable units. Following litigation, the city reached a settlement and adopted a compliant Housing Element. Refusing to comply could have exposed Coronado to substantial fines, additional legal costs and the loss of local control over development decisions.
A council member has a responsibility to protect residents from those consequences. At the same time, we must continue challenging unreasonable mandates when legally appropriate and explaining Coronado’s limited land, military presence, evacuation constraints, infrastructure needs and historic coastal character.
I support creating practical housing opportunities for young families, seniors, single military personnel, public safety officers and others who contribute to our community.
We should pursue thoughtful redevelopment, accessory dwelling units and public-private partnerships without sacrificing responsible planning or neighborhood character.
As your council member, my approach is to follow the law, defend Coronado’s interests and advocate vigorously for greater local control. Simply ignoring state law would put our community at risk without producing a better housing solution.
2. Answer: As your council member, I supported Coronado’s original six-month minimum rental period for accessory dwelling units because it promoted stable, long-term housing and protected residential neighborhoods from the constant turnover associated with vacation rentals. However, when state law required us to allow rentals of 30 days or longer, I voted to bring our ordinance into compliance.
While 30-day rentals are not the standard I would have chosen, they may provide housing for military personnel, traveling healthcare professionals, seasonal employees and others who need accommodations for more than a vacation but less than a year but I don’t believe they will provide long-term affordable housing.
Coronado’s tourism economy is important, but we already have hotels and regulated vacation rentals serving short-term visitors. ADUs should primarily expand housing opportunities, not become unregulated hotel rooms in residential neighborhoods. I voted for the 30-day minimum required by the state, would enforce it consistently and monitor its effects on neighborhood quality of life, parking and housing availability. If state law gives Coronado greater flexibility in the future, I would support reconsidering a longer minimum rental period.
3. Answer: I do not see this as an either-or choice. Coronado should pursue realistic housing opportunities for people who contribute to our community while also protecting the unique character of our coastal city.
Young families, single military personnel, teachers, healthcare workers, public safety officers and others who serve Coronado should have opportunities to live closer to where they work. That strengthens our workforce, reduces commutes and supports a more connected community. We should explore appropriately scaled solutions, including deed-restricted affordable units, thoughtful use of existing properties and accessory dwelling units that fit within our neighborhoods.
At the same time, Coronado has genuine limitations. We are a largely built-out community constrained by the ocean, the bay and military installations, with limited evacuation routes, aging infrastructure and significant coastal and environmental risks. State housing policies must recognize those realities rather than impose one-size-fits-all density and height mandates.
As your council member, my responsibility is to comply with the law while advocating strongly for local control. We can support attainable housing without sacrificing public safety, historic character or the qualities that make Coronado such a special place to live.
Andrew Gade
1. Answer: If Sacramento continues to adopt laws that override local zoning decisions, Coronado should challenge those laws when appropriate. I believe Coronado should push back against state housing requirements, defend local control, and limit density that threatens our communities character.
2. Answer: Unfortunately, we no longer have the ability of setting the limit. The state does. Originally Coronado had a six-month limit, but now it’s state mandated at 30 days. I believe ADU’s should be used for family, friends and guests, not as short-term vacation rentals.
3. Answer: I would definitely support prioritizing housing for public safety, city employees, full-time locals, and anyone working on the island. The county currently administers voucher programs like Section 8 housing and public housing resources for Coronado. I believe we could administer the program locally while having more control over who our low-income housing is available to.
