DPR 5/12/20 Materials & Comments

The meeting videoconference will go live at 3:30, and the Chair will call the meeting to order at 4. Registration is necessary to attend the meeting: https://lajollacpa.org/agenda-instructions-for-online-dpr-meeting-4pm-5-12-20/

Here is the agenda for the meeting and a list of the documents applicants, their reps, and interested parties submitted in connection with projects:

Agenda

https://lajollacpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/200512-DPR-Agenda.pdf

Item 1 (Public Comment)

Item 3 (Salvagio, 411 Sea Ridge Rd) Final

LA JOLLA (Process 3) Coastal Development Permit and Site Development Permit to demo an existing residence and construct a new two-story, 5,067 square foot residence, including garage, carport, decks, balconies and site improvements at a site located at 411 Sea Ridge Rd. The 0.21-acre site is in the RS-1-7 Zone, SCOZ-CB, FP 100, and the Coastal (Appealable) Overlay Zone within the La Jolla Community Plan area, and Council District 1.

Applicant

Opponents

Item 4 (Carraher, 1136 Muirlands) Final

LA JOLLA – (Process 2) Coastal Development Permit for a new 7,166 square-foot two-story single-family residence with a basement, attached 3 car garage, and new site retaining walls located at 1136 Muirlands Drive. The 0.49-acre site is in RS-1-2 and Coastal Overlay (Non-Appealable) Zone within the La Jolla Community Plan area. Council District 1.

Item 5 (Conant, 420 Pearl St) Final Postponed

LA JOLLA (Process 2) Coastal Development Permit to demo existing residence and construct a new three story, 4,493 square-foot, two-unit residence with basement garage, roof deck, and driveway at a site located at 420 Pearl Street. The 0.083-acre site is in the La Jolla Planned District (LJPD) Zone 5 and Coastal (Non-Appealable Area) Overlay Zone within the La Jolla Community Plan area, and Council District 1.

Item 6 (Golba, 304-306 Kolmar St) Preliminary

Applicant

Opponents

Item 7 (Bellava, 7306 Draper Ave) Preliminary

Review or Submit Comments

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

Please be as brief as possible. At a regular 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. IN PUBLIC COMMENT: On behalf of Melinda Merryweather and myself, I’d like to report that the City has installed one…

  2. Regarding 304-306 Kolmar: In my opinion this proposal does not fit the neighborhood’s character, but (1) this determination is purely…

  3. We must take this opportunity to make our neighborhoods less car centric and more people friendly. Think of all the…

  4. My family and I use sidewalks to access both essential services and get much needed outdoor recreation that provides both…

2 comments on “DPR 5/12/20 Materials & Comments

  1. susan & larsh johnson

    OPPONENT -ITEM 6 (GOLBA 304-306 Kolmar St)
    we are across the alley from the project & are very concerned about another abuse of setbacks & increased density in our neighborhood…. furthermore we have received very little notice & very little time to respond or plan to attend any meetings…. this does not seem consistent with the city’s obligation to fair & open meetings…

  2. Megan Heine

    OPPONENT -ITEM 6 (GOLBA 304-306 Kolmar St)
    My brother and I grew up in, and now own, the home directly west and next door (258 Kolmar Street) and are very upset that this project has come this far! The renderings show that the windows, and decks will be facing directly into our master bedroom and patio area; it will be completely invasive, with no consideration for our privacy. I have always thought that “set backs” were regulated to create space and privacy between homes, side walks, etc.
    I am shocked that any planner would allow reducing these set backs just to accommodate a project that increases density, when the over all goal is to keep our neighborhoods’ “community character” with the “bulk and scale” under control ?!
    We were never noticed in the beginning stages of this project, and have a strong sense that the process was some how compromised early on. I appreciate now having the opportunity to voice our deep concerns about over building in our neighborhood.

Submit a Comment

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