3 thoughts on “DPR 8/9/22 Materials & Comments”

1. Jon Wiggins August 8, 2022 at 6:20 pm

   The City’s response to this project generated 19 pages of comments and questions. I would ask the following addressed during the meeting:

   Comment 00059 Page 11 – “The overall addition should be reduced in size.”

   The applicant’s presentation does not reflect this change, so I respectfully request that this be delayed when the revised floor plan is available. The architect (“applicant”) with whom the neighborhood has been directed to as the sole contact point for the project, should be available at this time.

   Comment 00070 Page 13/14 Permits and Actions – “Please provide a response why the applicant is processing a Neighborhood Development Permit?”

   Why is the applicant seeking a Neighborhood Development Permit?
2. Andrea Kaplan August 9, 2022 at 2:06 pm

   To DPR Chair Mr. Will–

   Per the notice, please find the below letter documentation material in opposition to the project named 627 Genter (Item 1) on your 8/9 Agenda.

   Please be advised that I have submitted the following letter in opposition to the current 627 Genter project to the City of San Diego, as well as to LJCPA Chair Ms. Kane. We felt the LJ DPR should be notified of the same. Considering the City of San Diego has recently provided a lengthy “Project Issues Report” to which we have seen no formal response by the project applicant; we feel this review is premature. Nonetheless, both myself, my husband, as well as other concerned neighbors will be in attendance at the upcoming meeting to discuss further, should it be necessary.

   Regards,
   Andrea Russell

   —-

   July 14, 2022

   Re: Project No. PRJ-1055455

   Attn: R. MacCartee City Project Manager, City Planner

   C/O Development Services Department

   City of San Diego

   To Whom It May Concern:

   Subject: 627 Genter

   Please find this letter my formal notice of opposition and written request for public hearing in the matter of the expansion of facilities located at 627 Genter. The applicant is in the process of pursuing a permit for a future preschool facility, adding a third floor and deck area featuring open air childcare and addition of nearly 2000 square feet. I do not support further expansion of this property and facilities and do not want this project fast tracked. To note, I have contacted the Church Elder leader to request a meeting between the church administration and the surrounding neighbors to discuss this proposed project. My request has been repeatedly denied and I have been redirected instead to the architect named to the project, Mr. Lyon. Mr. Lyon has agreed to meet, but only in-person at his office, which unfortunately does not allow for certain members of the public ascribing to a more stringent Covid protocol to be able to gain more information about this project.

   I have many concerns with this project, some of which are listed below:

   Three story projects have been a hotly contested issue on other projects located in La Jolla. Mr. Lyon has sought other three-story projects in La Jolla (albeit in more commercial areas) to much opposition by neighbors, residents and local La Jolla boards. This is a very residential area and three-stories are not the norm and there may be a need for a variance or change to La Jolla’s overall development plan should this project be approved in the manner it is purporting. Even if it is within the 30-ft-boundary, the signal to developers approving a 3-story project in a very residential R1-1 neighborhood in La Jolla may set a dangerous precedent.
   Having a new school pop up in this very residential area is not a small project. It would greatly impact the surrounding neighborhood and community. Our quiet enjoyment would be disturbed (even more so than it is currently). Some members of the church administration are unabashedly seeking to make this church the “Smallest Mega Church in the World”, so this project clandestinely being marketed as a small remodel is not a truthful representation of its future goals. To date, I have been unable to confirm that any childcare license or permit has been applied for or approved for this proposed future school facility; nor even its current one. The church has not considered its neighbors, nor does it want to hear from us about our concerns; because the administration knows this proposal is outside the scope of what is allowable and is out of character with the use for a typical church.
   Extreme safety and noise concern for a third-story roof deck as currently there are what appears to be unsupervised children/teenagers playing and screaming in the current facility. I can only imagine should they be allowed unfettered rooftop access what may result.
   Increased traffic, parking, congestion, pollution, safety, noise, etc. has appears yet to have been considered and addressed by this project. The church’s current activities include utilizing the alley for outdoor music, games, events, amplified music and noise every day and night of the week from gatherings and church events.
   Parking is a major concern. Even now, there is insufficient parking for its members. There is no acceptable parking plan for this proposal. The increase of traffic and parking needs for the church adding on a school is a major addition. The current situation (without the new “school”) is dire; so much so that the church has had to resort to illegal parking (in fire lanes and handicapped spaces) by members and an unpermitted “pop-up” shuttle being offered on Sundays. This shuttle uses the ADA accessibility ramp area for its large signage and flags. They then use the blue handicapped parking spots for loading and unloading and parking of the staff vehicle (see photographs attached). Members often park obstructing resident driveways, alleyways and cause major traffic congestion every Sunday. I have heard of member caused hit-and-run accidents occurring in the haste of getting to the church on time. I can only imagine what would occur should there be a “school” addition. Right now, there is a summer camp, which often leads to parents double parking along Draper (a very busy road), honking for pick up, doing illegal U-turns, blocking alleyways and many other moving violations. This is likely the scope of what would be everyday should a school addition be greenlit under the guise of this small remodel project. The “Playground”/ daycare area also creates traffic, congestion, noise and dangerous double parking at drop-off and pick-up any time care is provided. Any additional traffic capacity would severely impact this neighborhood with decreasing resident parking and safe passage on the street. Draper Avenue is already a major through-way in La Jolla as it extends from the local recreation center along past the local library to the high school and down to the bike path. We have had to petition the City to install speed humps on Draper for traffic calming measures in the past; with the influx of traffic and lack of parking for this project, the increase to Draper Avenue would be immense.
   A pattern of un-permitted work in the past is a concern as well. As the owner’s seemed to disregard and ignore standard procedure for proper oversight; I feel this project may follow the same path of disregard. Currently, I have submitted a request for inspection with the City’s Code Compliance department (case CE-0519554) see photographs attached. A brief summation of such compliance issues is the sanctuary cantina doors, concrete patio installation, Genter side main gate addition, Fellowship hall door and window renovation, Fellowship hall porch, fire pit, planter additions, Air conditioning installation, border white fences and gate installation, unsecured temporary structures like canopies, large awnings, umbrellas, playground equipment, all which are used on a permanent basis, potential signage violations and the parking violations noted above.
   There is a potential historic designation concern as well. I have been informed that prominent La Jolla architects such as Irving Gill and others designed this church. I am uncertain whether the City HRB or La Jolla’s CPA board has been notified of the potential historic designation for this property and its proposed changes and presumably un-permitted past projects. There have been un-permitted changes made to potentially historic buildings. And even without such violations, the historic value and charm has been destroyed by the current aesthetics. The vinyl perimeter wall, folding canopies, kennel-like fencing, temporary tents–which have created a hazard to the neighborhood during storms and wind by becoming airborne and leaving the property and landing in the street and public right of way.

   I do not speak alone when I state that this campus has outgrown this very residential R1-1 neighborhood. I do not support further expansion of the property and facilities and kindly request copies of all information received in support of this project. There are other neighbors as well that feel similarly; and should it be helpful to have a petition signed showing neighborhood opposition to this proposal, that is something that can easily be accomplished should you advise.

   Thank you for your time and consideration,
   Andrea Russell
3. Dr Jan Heineken August 9, 2022 at 2:07 pm

   DPR. 8/9/22 Add to materials
   I apologize for sending this so late but was just noticed this morning and am under the weather and unable to attend.

   Here are a few short comments in opposition to this project being approved:
   I am a homeowner living one block away on Draper Ave. Since the church’s membership began to substantially increase over the past 2 years, my husband and I have noticed an increase in traffic and on-street parking on Sundays. While this is manageable on Sundays, what is proposed including the addition of a private school to the church property, will serve to go beyond a Sunday morning-only influence. The proposed changes will create a neighborhood of commercial type enterprises instead of keeping to the quiet neighborhood we once had. We have been witness to such a change with the growth of La Jolla High School’s student enrollments and don’t wish to see our neighborhood continue to be impacted by more traffic and density. I stand opposed to this proposed project because it will only serve to add to our density, traffic and parking congestion.

   Thank you for your willingness to consider my comments.

   Dr.Jan Heineken
   7351 Draper Avenue
   Las Casitas Home Owner