The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1. City of Newport Beach IP Coordination Meeting of 5_27_2014 finalSTATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GoVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802 -4302 May 27, 2014 (562) 590 -5071 MEMORANDUM TO: Patrick Alford, Planning Manager, City of Newport Beach FROM: Karl Schwing, Coastal Program Manager, South Coast District, Orange County SUBJECT: Continuation of a categorical exclusion order following certification of the City's LCP In conjunction with our meetings regarding Newport Beach IP /LCP certification, City staff has inquired about continuation of Categorical Exclusion Order E -77 -5 (Cat Ex) following certification. As you know, the current cat ex would expire upon certification of an LCP pursuant to the Commission's regulations. Following LCP certification, the City would need to apply to the Commission for a new cat ex if the City wants a cat ex to remain in place (see California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 13249). At this time, the City has indicated it would likely seek to re- authorize the existing cat ex without any substantial changes to the type of development to be excluded or any modification to the geographic area covered. City staff has requested Commission staff input on whether staff would support re- authorization of that request. Categorical Exclusion Order E -77 -5 currently has the following parameters': - Allows for demolition and construction of single family and 2- family residences and their appurtenant facilities in the R -1, R -1.5, R -2, R -3 and R -4 zoned districts - The geographic area does not include the first row of lots adjacent to the beach, bay or wetlands, nor does it apply to major undeveloped residential sites, PC zones or `locked gate' communities in the City - To qualify for categorical exclusion, the development must meet these criteria: 1. Gross structural area cannot exceed 1.5 times the buildable area on non - conforming lots (those that are 4,000 square feet or less) 2. Parking must include a minimum of 2 spaces per residential unit 3. Duplexes shall only be permitted on lots 2,400 square feet or greater 4. Development must conform to the zoning in effect on the date the order was adopted, which is represented by City ordinance no 1657 5. The applicant, or City on behalf of the applicant, must send a certification form for each development excluded to the Executive Director. 6. Development must not be located on any lands subject to the public trust doctrine Over a period of time, Commission staff has observed some issues related to development that has been authorized under the existing cat ex in certain geographic areas, as follows: - The first row of houses along Buck Gully and Morning Canyon. Some development has been authorized extending down the slope and on the canyon bottom. This development has resulted in adverse visual impacts, landform alteration, and loss of canyon habitat. Examples include development in Buck Gully located at 232, 234, 250, and 306 Hazel Drive; 207, 211, 215, 219, 223, 227/233, and 255 Evening Canyon Road; and in Morning Canyon at 121 Milford Avenue 2. There are other examples in the upper canyons inland of PCH. - The first row of lots along Carnation Avenue overlooking Newport Bay and Bayside Drive. In these areas development has included notching/downcutting into the bluff face and/or approval and/or installation of substantial basements behind the bluff face. Such development has resulted in adverse visual impacts, landform alteration, potential loss of bluff face habitat, and increased development in hazardous locations. Examples include the `Aerie' project at 201 -207 Carnation Avenue, as approved by City, and at 301 Carnation Avenue. - The first row of lots inland of Bayside Drive, between Jamboree Road and Carnation Avenue. In these areas development has been authorized on the slope/bluff face including a solar array, notching into the bluff face 1 This is a summary, please see the actual exclusion order for a complete description 2 Example only, not a complete inventory. Continuation of Cat Ex in Newport Beach 5/27/2014 for added floors of living space, and various other appurtenant development on the bluff face such as patios, walkways, stairs, terracing, and retaining walls. Example include 1301 Dolphin Terrace (solar array) and at 1317, 1325 Dolphin Terrace, among others. Commission staff cannot provide any specific commitment at this time related to review of a future submittal. However, with the exception of the issues identified above, Commission staff has not been made aware of any evidence that the development previously excluded has had any significant adverse effect on coastal resources, either individually or cumulatively (see criteria under Coastal Act section 30610(e)). However, the City would need to address the above - identified issues in order for staff to find support for continuation a similar categorical exclusion of residential development for similar geographic areas. Toward that end, staff would recommend that the City include provisions that prohibit approval of any development under the categorical exclusion for: a. any further encroachment of development onto slopes and into canyons, or onto bluff faces (through development standards in the IP, staff would recommend that existing such development be rendered 'non- conforming'); b. notching/downcutting into slopes/bluff faces to create additional living space and /or for appurtenances or landscaping; c. any development that involves anything more than a standard, single level basement; d. any development that would require a variance for compliance with setbacks, height, parking (this may already be the City's practice, but the cat ex isn't clear on this point); e. any development on newly created lots; f. any development that does not incorporate drought tolerant, non - invasive vegetation, with preference toward use of native plant species, in landscaping plans; g. any development that does not incorporate water quality protection measures for construction and post - construction conditions; h. any development that results in a loss of existing public street parking (unless replaced on one - for -one basis at the subject site), through, for example, expanded/relocated /new curb cuts. While Commission staff has experienced some areas of concern we believe the City can address in a future submittal, we have also come to recognize certain types of development or geographic areas that the City could consider expanding the cat ex to cover. Commission staff has found that some of the existing limitations in the cat ex have not had any observable benefit or resulted in any particular protection of coastal resources, that isn't otherwise addressed through compliance with development standards. The Commission has routinely approved, without conditions, many projects located in the geographic area covered by the cat ex that presently cannot be authorized under the cat ex due to restrictions. Given that experience, staff would recommend the City consider making the following additional changes to the cat ex so that additional development, which doesn't have adverse impacts on coastal resources, can be covered by the cat ex. These changes are: i. Remove the 1.5 buildable area limitation for residential structures on lots smaller than 4,000 square feet; j. Remove the limitation on approval of residential duplexes located on lots smaller than 2,400 square feet; k. Expand the geographic area covered by the cat ex to include `interior' lots (those not along the waterfront) within Bayshores gated community; 1. Expand the type of development covered to include partial demolition and additions to existing single family and two - family structures where the resultant structure complies with the criteria of the cat ex (issues have arisen at 435 62nd Street, 2233 Heather Lane, 304 Prospect, among others). These comments are meant as general guidance and staff would consider alternative means of addressing the issues that the City may identify. Staff remains willing to work with the City toward a categorical exclusion order that is mutually acceptable. Please note that these comments are those of Commission staff and not of the Commission itself. These comments are based on information known to Commission staff at the present time. New or additional information and /or changes to the proposal itself may cause Commission staff to modify its position as stated herein. PA