2021 Agendas

Please note that during the COVID-19 public health emergency LJCPA and its committees are meeting online, as required and permitted by current State and City orders. Most such meetings require advance registration or invitation, even if participants do not wish to identify themselves during the meeting. Instructions are posted below.

LJCPA does much of its work through its own and associated subcommittees and boards, as described on the Committees and Boards and Project Review pages. The meetings of these groups are announced via the City’s and LJCPA’s mailing lists and the LJCPA calendar. In accordance with the Brown Act, depending on public-health orders draft agendas of the LJCPA and its subcommittees are posted publicly at the La Jolla Recreation Center and/or on this this website. Although they may be posted earlier, agendas are subject to change until 72 hours before the meeting. Access instructions for online meeting usually appear in the meeting’s agenda or on the Instructions page (https://lajollacpa.org/ljcpa-online-meeting-instructions/).

If you wish to comment on a item to be considered by LJCPA, you may do so using the form at the bottom of this page (where the two most recent comments are also displayed) or the similar Comment form on the meeting’s “Materials” web page. Please be sure to identify the topic (and if possible the meeting) to which your comments pertain. Note that all comments, including how you identify yourself, become public once the Moderator reviews them.

  • LJCPA: La Jolla Community Planning Association Trustees (usually 1st Thursday of each month)
  • DPR: Development Permit Review Committee (2nd and 3rd Tuesdays)
  • PRC: La Jolla Shores Permit Review Committee (3rd Monday)
  • PDO: Planned District Ordinance Committee (2nd Monday)
  • T&T: La Jolla Traffic & Transportation Board (3rd Wednesday)

Looking for 2020 Agendas? See https://lajollacpa.org/2020-agendas/

MONTHLJCPA (1st thu)DPR (2nd tue)DPR (3rd tue)PRC (3rd mon)PDO (2nd mon)T&T (3rd wed)
JanuaryJan 7 (online)
Agenda
Materials
Jan 12 (online)
Agenda
Materials
Jan 19 (online)
Agenda
Materials
Jan 18 (online)
Agenda
Jan 11 (canceled)Jan 20 (online)
Agenda
FebruaryFeb 4 (online)
Agenda
Materials
Feb 9 (online)
Agenda
Materials
Feb 16 (online)
Agenda
Materials
Feb 15 (online)
Agenda
Feb 8 (online)
Agenda (revised)
Feb 17 (online)
Agenda & instructions
MarchMar 4 (online)
Annual Mtg Agenda
Trustee Agenda
Materials
Mar 9 (online)
Agenda
Materials
Mar 16 (online)
Agenda
Materials
Mar 15 (canceled)Mar 8 (canceled)Mar 17 (canceled)
AprilApr 1 (online)
Agenda
Materials
Apr 13 (online)
Agenda
Materials
Apr 20 (online)
Agenda
Materials
Apr 19 (online)
Agenda
Apr 12 (online)
Agenda
Apr 21 (online)
Instructions
Agenda
MayMay 6 (online)
Agenda
Materials
May 11 (online)
Agenda
Materials
May 18 (online)
Agenda
Materials
May 17 (canceled)May 10 (canceled)May 19 (online)
Instructions
Agenda
JuneJun 3 (online)
Agenda
Materials
Jun 8 (online)
Agenda
Materials
Jun 15 (online)
Instructions
Agenda
Materials
Jun 21Jun 14 (online)
Instructions
Agenda
Jun 16 (online)
Instructions
Agenda

The City offers various workshops relating to the Brown Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, and other applicable laws and regulations. Schedules and descriptions of these are posted on the City Planning Department website.

Earlier agendas are linked from the top menu, and on the San Diego Planning Department’s web page for LJCPA.

Review or Submit Comments

If you submit comments below, please identify the agenda item and meeting to which they pertain. Once the moderator approves them, comments will be displayed publicly, including the name you provide.

Please be as brief as possible. At a physical meeting, comments would be limited to 2 spoken minutes; that translates to between 200 and 300 written words. Please do not include URLs or links, since they may cause your comment to be flagged as spam. At her or his sole discretion, LJCPA’s moderator will reject comments that are unrelated to agenda items, or that are offensive, ad hominem, or otherwise inappropriate to reasoned discussion of the matters at hand.

Submitted Comments

  1. June 3 CPA Agenda Item 5.1: Sen. Atkins & discussion on SB 9 & 10 An argument in favor of…

2 thoughts on “2021 Agendas

  1. Craig R McClellan

    As a La Jolla resident, I write to express my opposition to the placemaking. I preface my comments by saying I fully support the taking of a portion of the street for outdoor customer seating for Puesto and the other La Jolla restaurants and businesses that are suffering through the pandemic. However, on August 1st or as soon as they are fully reopened, the street structures should be removed for at least four reasons:

    First, I believe the structures, and especially the ones that are not built as robust as Puesto’s, are a danger to public safety. They extend to the traffic lanes with no buffer, except in some cases (like The Spot) a plastic barrel or two. Since there are no parked cars, no parking space, curb, trees, or sidewalk between the diners and vehicles traveling down the street, the diners are directly exposed to distracted, impaired and negligent drivers. Distracted drivers, especially those on cell phones have become a big problem and safety issue. Consequently, placemaking would be placing citizens in harm’s way.

    Second, they do not meet the definition of a placemaking which is defined by the City as “the temporary use of public right-of-way and private property that activates streetscapes by enhancing the pedestrian experience and providing neighborhood-serving activities.” Puesto’s outdoor structure certainly does not enhance the pedestrian experience, nor does it provide neighborhood-serving activities. It intrudes upon and crowds the normal space for the sidewalk. It takes away nine parking spaces that would otherwise be available to La Jollans and visitors alike. Architecturally, it does not blend with any structure in the neighborhood, and even though it is well built, it is unquestionably out of character with the neighborhood. It is not there for neighborhood-serving activities, it is there for profit-making activities.

    Third, the precedent of granting such an application would be overwhelming to La Jolla Village. I don’t see how it could be granted for Puesto and denied for all the surrounding similar businesses that now have such structures, such as Coffee Cup, Sushi Nekosan, Hennessey’s, Herringbone, The Spot, El Avocado, and Jose’s. Not only do all these structures take parking spaces but their disarray and dilapidation change the character of the Village.

    Fourth, Puesto is a profit-making business. There is certainly nothing wrong with that, except when there is a taking of public property for the benefit of a private, profit-making venture. I know that technically if the permit were granted, the structure would theoretically be open to the public, but I’m sure you realize that anyone who sat at a table there without ordering from Puesto would be subtly or not so subtly pressured to leave. And five years is a long time to give part of a City Street to a private business.

    Thank you.

  2. Diane Kane

    June 3 CPA Agenda Item 5.1: Sen. Atkins & discussion on SB 9 & 10

    An argument in favor of SB 9 includes “creating inter-generational wealth for families, thus providing opportunity and stabilizing neighborhoods.” An alternate and equally likely scenario is rising land values and gentrification that prices adjacent families from their homes and established neighborhoods. Supply side “trickle down” economics hasn’t worked. Without controlling housing AFFORDABILITY to both renters and prospective new owners, merely increasing housing supply does nothing to assure that those who need affordable housing get it.

    1. What is being done through these bills to assure that new housing rental or sales prices remain “affordable” once built?
    2. How long is “affordability” a factor in their marketing and sales? Does this requirement transfer to subsequent owners and/or renters? For what period of time?
    3. What is being done to match up those needing affordable housing with the anticipated increased supply?
    4. What prevents new housing production by speculative property flippers and acquisition by real estate investment portfolios that drive up prices?
    5. What “zoning and design standards” will remain once SFR zones are gone?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *