DPR 9/13/22 Materials & Comments

The meeting videoconference will go live around 3:30, and the Chair will call the meeting to order at 4. Registration is necessary to attend the meeting; for instructions please visit https://lajollacpa.org/ljcpa-online-meeting-instructions/

Please note: Many items linked on this page are copyrighted by their creators. They are distributed or reproduced here solely for use by LJCPA and its committees in connection with community review on behalf of the City. Such materials may not be used, reproduced, or distributed further without explicit permission from the copyright holder.

Below are the agenda for the meeting and links to documents applicants, their reps, speakers, and interested parties have submitted in connection with projects or other items.


Projects & Items for Review

627 Genter “La Jolla Christian Fellowship” (1055455, Lyon/Leon) FINAL

(Process 2) Neighborhood Development Permit for 1,926 square-feet of new construction to include the addition of 680 square-feet to the existing 1st floor, the addition of 680 square-feet to the existing 2nd floor and the addition of 566 square-feet to create a 3rd floor on the existing 2-story Education Building. Located at 627 Genter St. the 0.48-acre site is in the RM-1-1 and Coastal Overlay (Non-Appealable Area) Zone within the La Jolla Community Plan area. Council District 1.

7788/7798 Prospect Pl “Nilforoushan Residence” (1058871, Lyon/Leon) PRELIMINARY

(Process 2) Coastal Development Permit for demolition of existing residence and detached garage for the construction of 1 new 5,418 square foot two-story single family residence at 7798 Prospect Place and 1 new 3,600 square foot three-story single family residence with attached 785 square foot accessory dwelling unit at 7788 Prospect Place. The 0.24-acre site is in the RS-1-7 Zone, and Coastal (Non-Appealable) Overlay, Coastal Height Limitation Overlay, and Residential Tandem Overlay Zones within the La Jolla Community Plan area, Council District 1

2072 Via Casa Alta “Javaheri Residence” (698915, Marengo) PRELIMINARY

(Process 3) Coastal Development Permit and Site Development Permit for a new 16,251-square-foot 2-story single dwelling unit over basement and accessory structure and pool, 4 levels total, on a vacant lot. located at 2072 Via Casa Alta. The 0.77-acre site is in the RS-1-1 Zone and Coastal Overlay (Non-Appealable) Zone within the La Jolla Community Plan area. Council District 1.

1456 Nautilus St “Martin Residences” (699238, Marengo) PRELIMINARY

(Process 2) Substantial Conformance Review for changes to CDP No. 11492 for Parcel 1 and 11493 for Parcel 2 (PTS No. 3188) to reconfigure single dwelling units and driveway located at 1456 Nautilus St. The 2.78-acre site is in the RS-1-4 Zone and Coastal (Non-Appealable) Overlay Zone of the La Jolla Community Plan area and Council District 1.

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. Hello Diane, Many parties have contacted Commission staff about this property (6110 Camino de la Costa) , yet to date,…

  2. Bishop’s School Expansion Project – Batting Cage at 7552 /4/6 Draper Avenue, La Jolla We respectfully ask that the proposed…

4 thoughts on “DPR 9/13/22 Materials & Comments

  1. V. Villano, et al.

    We have consolidated the concerns of several neighbors who live in the immediate surrounding properties who would be directly affected by the proposed expansion of 627 Genter Street.

    We respectfully request that the DPR considers each point carefully when evaluating the project. The membership and activities have continued to grow to a point that the neighborhood can not absorb more cars, more noise and excessive use.

    1- Traffic and Congestion. Adults (and children) congregate within the public right of way both in front of, across the street from and on surface streets surrounding the campus. Even without the proposed expansion we repeatedly see double parking, illegal parking, hit and run accidents, unsafe crossings, mid block drop offs and general chaos at the many events held at the property.

    2- Noise. The current membership and number of activities has continually grown over the past several years and the general resulting noise has increased as well. Large groups of children and adults now congregate outside of the building for extended periods, and music has been amplified and grown into a 9 piece band.

    3- The proposed expansion is four floors, not three as presented in the last meeting. The first floor reception includes an elevator and two flights of stairs to the second floor. The second through fourth floors are also accessed by an elevator from the first floor.

    4- We still have questions about the height of the proposed addition. The main entrance of the building is approximately 35 feet high. This structure will significantly impact residents on Glenview Lane.

    5- Parking. There is no auxiliary public parking and/or parking plan that the church has worked out to handle their current congregation, not to mention future expansion. These requirements cannot be met in this location.

    6- A rooftop deck is especially problematic for several reasons:

    — Amplified noise. Disturbance of quiet enjoyment of the neighbors. Elevated noise levels; amplified music; amplified, unmitigated loud voices will all be intensified by hard surfaces and nothing to break the sound. Think of a rooftop terrace like Eddie V’s.
    — Safety concerns for children on the rooftop deck with low walls and relatively low supervision ratios.
    — Danger of rooftop access in the same building as counseling and crisis intervention activities.
    — Privacy erosion of neighborhood. Creating a new situation where adjacent neighbors are stripped of privacy in their living spaces.

    7- Our belief is that on-site activities exceed the maximum allowable use for our neighborhood (RM 1-1), per city code. The applicant does not currently hold a conditional use permit that would be required for such activities to occur.

    8- The proposed expansion plans (and current use) call for the use of outdoor spaces for activities and assembly, adding significantly to the noise and disturbance in the surrounding neighborhood. These activities currently include an enclosed vinyl fence area used for a playground and classroom area, and a center court used for general assembly as well as a cafe. This overflow has resulted in significant neighborhood disruption, and expansion will only exacerbate the problem.

    9- During the last DPR meeting, it was stated that this expansion was not to handle future growth, but rather to better serve the needs of the existing membership. The public comments of the organization, however, are all pointed towards growth and expansion, and are clearly in conflict with that sentiment. We believe this inconsistency should be considered when determining approval for this project.

    10- Our belief is the current renderings of the project are not consistent with the fabric of the neighborhood, or complementary to the existing historic structures on the property.

    11- There are significant unanswered questions of whether the proposed plans as rendered comport with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards.

    12- Approval of this project is premature considering critical questions from the city (19 pages) have been unanswered.

    All in all, it’s our opinion that the presentation of the goals and conditions have left out important details, which results in a misleading portrayal of the current situation. While we appreciate the applicant’s ambitious growth plans for its membership, it’s also important to note that these plans are not a public amenity, but rather are limited to a specific, private membership base. We believe only a small portion of those served at the property are actually within walking distance to the building, which is why parking, congestion and traffic are such important issues and must be examined thoroughly.

    We support the DPR’s purpose to protect the neighborhoods of La Jolla, and appreciate the opportunity to voice our concerns that this proposed project has major flaws and and unanswered questions, and in our opinion should not be approved at this time.

  2. Ken Wright (on behalf of Las Casitas LJ HOA)

    627 Genter Proposal

    I am Dr. Kenneth Wright. I am a board member authorized to speak on behalf of the Las Casitas La Jolla Homeowners Association situated at the intersection of Marine and Draper, two blocks east of the proposed project at 627 Genter. We implore the LJCPA to heed the admonition of the United State Environmental Protection Agency to, “Think globally, act locally,” and deny the violation of existing height standards. The developers of the subject project (and all projects) will tell you they can’t be held responsible for expansion elsewhere. Nobody can be. Except planning associations.

    The developers of this project unctuously invoke children’s safety as an excuse to violate the prohibition of 3rd stories and 30-foot height restrictions. If they were serious about children’s safety, they would note the ominous recent trends in traffic and congestion that have required the installation of speed bumps and too often ignored flashing, pedestrian-crossing lights in the community. This project would exacerbate those trends, exacerbating changes in the character of our community that bloat parking demand and threaten pedestrian safety. It is, has been, and should remain a residential community.

    Our members at Las Casitas HOA too often must search two blocks away to find parking.

    We have seen a perennial probing of reasonable zoning restrictions. These restrictions are obstacles for developers, architects, and contractors who foresee great profit if they could only loosen those restrictions. They find a client that is difficult to assail: a church, children, friendly neighbors. Then they propose slight modifications to existing limits. If only we could get a foot in the door, we could develop lots of very lucrative projects that could make lots of very wonderful clients happy (with lots of profit). Of course, they don’t say that out loud. A good analogy is a knock at the door that asks that the door be opened to allow a cute puppy in (while ignoring the hyena lurking around the corner). They’ll be back again. And again.

    Please take a ride along Draper and note the multiple small homes that are not owner occupied. Imagine how much project developers would offer the owners of these investment/rental properties to demolish those small houses. Imagine further how the neighborhood would change for the worse if a bank of three- and four-story buildings were arrayed along Draper’s west side, as would certainly be proposed if this standard is to no longer be applied.

    The developers of THIS proposal won’t address the growing problems in traffic, parking, obstructed views, and significant character-change of the neighborhood. Those aren’t their problems. They’re ours.

    Ken Wright
    7351 Draper Avenue
    Las Casitas La Jolla Homeowners Association

  3. Sharon Platnik

    Regarding Villano and Dr Wright comments above , these are the exact issues and are an excellent representation of the state of affairs of the impact on owners in the vicinity of LJ Christian Fellowship .
    I would like to add for the record:
    My 2 Arenas properties , 646 and 646 Arenas , each have 2 car garages on Glenview Alley , directly across from the proposed new building and the exit door of the proposed building . There are 4 cars from 2 garages going in and out any time of the day or night .
    This presents a safety hazard as bible study classes let out , as an example or other groups of Church attendees exit into glenview alley . When I brought this to the attention of the Architect Lyons , i was told to “just deal with it “. When I met him in his office , he claimed the exit was for Emergency only . If it’s really an Emergency exit , I request an emergency alarm that would sound if the door is opened . There is just too much density already on this tiny alley . To add more people and activity is an accident waiting to happen and therefore a serious public safety concern !!
    Sharon Platnik !

Comments are closed.