Build-up in coastal neighborhoods could become a whole lot easier for developers and homeowners if the California Coastal Commission approves a change to the city’s permitting process yet to be submitted.
The Development Services Department plans to revive an unanswered 1997 request to categorically exclude single-family homes in the non-appealable areas of the coastal overlay zone from the Coastal Development Permit process. By eliminating the need for coastal permits for a majority of homes, remodels and new construction on those sites would be able to proceed without noticing neighbors or visiting the local planning board. Thus, projects in eligible areas that meet certain size criteria could apply for “over the counter” permits from the city without any community review.
The implications are broad for such a change. The coastal zone extends inland to Interstate 5 in many places, further in others. According to Development Services, the majority of the zone consists of single-family residential. In fact, certain neighborhoods are almost entirely single-family, namely La Playa and parts of La Jolla.
The exclusion would apply to homes already zoned for single-family units, not property zoned for condos or apartments. It is also exclusive to non-appealable portions of the coastal zone, or areas under the city’s jurisdiction. Currently, the state presides over the first 300 feet from the inland extent of beaches (in some cases to the first coastal roadway), as well as 100 feet from wetlands.
Kelly Broughton, deputy director of land development review for Development Services, said the exclusion would provide an incentive for developers and homeowners to build smaller homes by allowing projects that do not exceed approximately 80 percent of the maximum height and floor area ratios to bypass the public process, which can be costly and time consuming. With major opposition from neighbors and local planning boards, the process can take up to one year and cost thousands of dollars after appeals and consulting fees to defend a project’s legality or viability.
According to the exclusion, project applicants insisting on anything greater than the proposed 80 percent would have to apply for a coastal permit, as would homes that are already bigger than those measurements. For reference, the coastal height limit for single-family homes is 30 feet, meaning eligible projects could not surpass 24 feet.
The proposal is a huge change from current regulations that only allow a ministerial, or over the counter, process for remodels changing less than 50 percent of a single-family home, as everything else needs a coastal permit and a discretionary, or public, process.
While the coastal permits would not be necessary, eligible projects would still be reviewed and permitted by city planning staff.

THE COMMUNITY

The city says the request will streamline the permitting process and allow homeowners to get the most out of their property. Some residents worry that they will be silenced and big homes will crop up all around them, blocking views, crowding neighboring properties and creating an inconsistent aesthetic within the community.
“Why shouldn’t I have the ability to build to the maximum height, which is only 30 feet in the coastal zone, and build to my setbacks “” your setbacks and your height are what protect views,” Broughton said.
Katheryn Rhodes, a Peninsula Community Planning Board (PCPB) member and La Playa resident, said that informing residents of a nearby project is “the neighborly thing to do” and she suspects the department has ulterior motives.
“[Development Services] wants to try to take away the power of the planning boards, the power of the community and give it to developers because it will make them more money and they won’t have any restrictions,” she said.
Rhodes and Broughton agreed, however, that the regulations as they stand are not sufficient. The current exclusion for single-family residences, or the 50 percent rule, is often exercised inappropriately to obtain a ministerial process. It was approved in 1987 and intended for small-scale home remodels that change less than half the property.
Both also agreed that the 50 percent rule’s loose wording allows developers to leave two walls standing on a small cottage and build a new home to the limits without a coastal permit.
Rhodes evidenced 3252 Lucinda Street in La Playa as an example. The project was submitted as new construction to the Peninsula planning board last year and rejected for its size. Instead of waiting for a final decision from the Planning Department (the city has the ultimate say in all non-appealable coastal permits), the applicant reconfigured the plans to qualify for the 50 percent remodel rule and was approved for a ministerial permit without any further say from neighbors. Rhodes has documented that the house now exceeds the city’s height limit by 9 feet because part of the lower level is below grade and has been excluded from the height measurement as a basement, even though the front portion is above ground.
“There are so many loopholes and that’s why it’s important for the projects to go through the community,” she said.
In an informational presentation to the Land Use and Housing Committee on March 29, Broughton cited the 50 percent rule as reasoning for the single-family exclusion. A Development Services report to the committee stated that “many applicants are remodeling existing structures in order to meet the exemptions offered under the current code” and that staff has to “process and investigate controversial remodels based on complex valuation schedules.” In other words, some people are abusing the rule and some are simply remodeling when they’d rather build a new home, all to avoid neighbors and the planning boards.
Councilman Kevin Faulconer, who represents the coastal communities of District 2 and sits on the Land Use and Housing committee, declined to comment publicly on the proposed exclusion by press time.
Peninsula Community Planning Board Chair Cynthia Conger opposes the exclusion, and said it will “ruin” the coastal area of Point Loma and Ocean Beach. She said that her community will be left with increased density, parking, traffic and safety issues from critical mistakes that go unnoticed at the Planning Department.
“The city just doesn’t care because they don’t live there,” Conger said. “They didn’t pay $1 million or $2 million to live next door and have this view.”
Phil Merten, chair of the La Jolla Community Planning Association’s Coastal Development Permit Review Committee, said he supports the exclusion with reservations and expects it to impact Bird Rock and upper Hermosa, not homes on canyons, the ocean or adjacent to open space.
“I don’t believe that the voters intended to have [the California Coastal Act of 1976] include the review of single family homes that were away from the coastline, so in the spirit of that Coastal Act I think projects should be exempted,” Merten said. “My only concern is that the coastal review process does act as a check of the city’s work when they review a project.”
“Things are just missed by the city,” he added. “I think the process does act as a second set of eyes.”
The peninsula, like many other coastal zone communities, contains hills, cliffs and canyons that provide valuable views “” another major concern for residents.
Conger said the exclusion will surely result in decreased property taxes for the city because residents can have their property values reassessed if the price drops due to a blocked ocean or bay view.
In fact, that will be their only recourse. Neither the Coastal Commission nor the city are in the business of preserving private views beyond current height and setback limits if a project meets all state and city requirements, said Broughton and Sherilyn Sarb, district manager for the Coastal Commission’s San Diego office.
“We don’t preclude somebody from adding a second story on a house because a neighbor currently has a view from their house out through,” Broughton said.
“If you are building in accordance with the rules of the municipal code, there is no appeal and we legally can’t say no to it,” he continued. “If a particular community felt it was important to control development even further than the zoning that’s there now, the appropriate place to do that would be to apply a new zone.”
Therein lies the crux of the problem. Local planning boards often recognize the importance of neighborhood character issues that the city does not or could not at a ministerial level. But Broughton insisted that these issues should be incorporated in city zoning and code for a more consistent result, instead of dealing with them project by project, which yields an inconsistent outcome over the years as boards and communities change.
Rhodes dismissed this logic, saying that the boards are very efficient and most projects are approved without any problem.
“That’s why the community planning boards are around “” otherwise, why have them?” she said.
According to Broughton, the boards are not an essential part of permitting for single-family homes, nor is their participation required by the Coastal Act. Ironically, Coastal Development Permits in state-controlled, or appealable, areas do not require a public process and are much quicker to obtain.
And should the exclusion pass, Broughton said the local planning boards will still review coastal permits for projects that push the limits.
“Somebody’s always going to want to build bigger houses than our categorical exclusion request would propose,” Broughton said. “There are always other reasons that people have to get other permits and the board serves as the recommending body on those.”

THE STATE

The single-family homes exclusion was first requested to the Coastal Commission in 1997, the same year it was approved by the City Council. The commission never followed through with a decision.
According to Sarb, the commission considered the city’s initial request too broad for a decision. She said the state agency only approves exclusions specific enough to ensure against potential adverse effects or violations of the Coastal Act.
“It was recognized that more specific mapping needed to be done and [the request] just hasn’t gone anywhere since then,” she said, adding that nothing has been submitted to date.
Development Services is just beginning to correspond with the Coastal Commission about reviving the request, Broughton said. He feels that now is an appropriate time due to a change in city leadership and new strong mayor form of government.
Mapping technology has also improved since the 1990s. The city’s Geographic Information System now allows staff to determine if a project is located in an area of high density, steep slopes or environmental sensitivity, without ever seeing the property.
“With the mayor’s perspective on doing what we can to make some sense out of our regulations, this is one of those areas I thought made sense to revisit,” Broughton said.
Similar single-family exclusions have been approved in San Diego County. The commission granted an exclusion to the City of Del Mar for single-family residential on vacant lots zoned as such, though for a much smaller geographic area than proposed by San Diego. And a single-family exclusion for Encinitas is currently on the table while the commission and North County city attempt to narrow its scope.
According to Sarb, single-family residential is frequently the subject of exclusions because zoning often precludes the possibility of any development other than what already exists and municipal code already regulates the height and scale of coastal homes.
The city has yet to formally reapply for the exclusion. Once submitted, it must be thoroughly vetted. The lengthy process requires an amendment to the Local Coastal Program, or city plan approved by the state to regulate the use of land and water in the coastal zone. The City Council must approve the amendment prior to a commission decision on the matter, which it did in 1997. However, it is unsure whether the commission will accept that dated vote for this round of decision making. If the commission approves the exclusion, their decision will again go before the City Council for a final vote.
Broughton said that the city’s goal is to obtain commission approval by December of this year, but Sarb is not so optimistic.
“The staff here would have to check the mapping and do the environmental review and make sure that it was narrowed to the point that there was no potential for an adverse effect. That would be awfully quick,” she said of the city’s timeline.
Adding to the mix, Broughton said the commission does not fully trust the city to implement the protections of the Coastal Act.
“It appears to the city, or at least the staff, that [the commission] is throwing obstacles in the way of that [exclusion] actually getting approved. They continue to ask us for information that we believe has no bearing on it,” Broughton said.
Public opposition is also well established, as many residents protested the first application for the single-family exclusion. Broughton said Development Services will not seek additional public comment on the matter, though, as he previously canvassed the community for five years and does not anticipate a change in sentiment.
“There have always been folks who want to stop people from building and always people who want to build,” he said, adding that he also expects a controversy this time around.