7 thoughts on “LJCPA Trustee Meeting 1/6/2022 Materials & Comments”

1. John leek January 3, 2022 at 11:42 am

   1. I support the LJCPA letter on 12/28 that published plans from LaCava’s office to disenfranchise and subjugate Community Planning Groups is a bad idea. I would also note one Council member has no authority to take any such action. Such would work against avowed City policies of “open government” under the Brown Act and sever a path for information to Council offices recordable under to the California Public Records Act.
   2. I applaud LJCPA for serving as a conduit for citizens to know of City actions and plans their Council members do not put in press releases. Community Planning Groups are essential to our City’s “Open Government” policy commitment.
   3. A LJCPA letter sent on 11/5 to the City Council and other regulatory bodies called for an EIR prior to a City application to deny access to Point la Jolla for the majority of every year. The letter properly began “The La Jolla Community Planning Association is the City of San Diego-appointed, community-elected Brown Act group responsible for obtaining local input on planning issues in the Community of La Jolla”. The proposal by our City Council office to eviscerate the LJCPA appears to be a punitive response.
   4. I ran a CPRA against LaCava’s office. I found all their research on the Point la Jolla sea lion “emergency” amounted to letters from Sierra Club lobbyists and from me. No fact checking. My input was ignored, though I am a member of the Sierra Club. Before my CPRA was even released to me, Mr. Hadley came to our La Jolla Parks and Beaches meeting to publicly identify me as the originator of that CPRA. Itself a violation of the California Pubic Record Act. Those lobbyists then sent angry accusations against me of criminal actions to LJPB.
2. Philip Merten AIA Architect January 6, 2022 at 1:35 pm

   Agenda Modification – Request for Reconsideration of the Goodman Residence at 1028 Muirlands Drive

   At the October 2021 LJCPA meeting the Trustees adopted on Consent the DPR Committee’s recommendation to Approve the Goodman Residence referenced above. Unfortunately, I appears the DPR Committee apparently over looked and did not consider the proposed Overall Structure Height of the project, nor the height of a single proposed retaining wall in the rear yard setback.

   In order to preserve sloping hillsides in San Diego the City Council adopted regulations that limit to extent to which proposed projects can either step up or extend down a hillside.

   According to SDMC Sec. 113.0270(a)(2)(B) the maximum allowed Overall Structure Height on the steeply sloping lot in the California Coastal Zone is 30 ft. plus a Max. Grade Differential of 10 ft. = 40 ft. Contrary to the SDMC the project applicant mis-represented the Overall Structure Height of the proposed development on submittal drawings reviewed by the DPR Committee.

   Upon review of the applicant’s submittal drawings posted on the LJCPA’s web site at https://lajollacpa.org/dpr-9-21-21-materials-comments/ and according the applicant’s site plan drawing on Sht. C-1, the Low Point of Grade within 5 feet of the site retaining walls at the northwest corner of the proposed development is Elev: 408’. The high point of the roof is Elev: 457’-10”; for an Overall Structure Height of 49’-10” where the maximum allowed is just 40 ft. The proposed Overall Structure Height exceeds the maximum allowed by almost 10 feet.

   Secondly, the grade line on the applicant’s NORTH ELEVATION drawing on Sht. A4.2 is inconsistent with the grade elevations shown on the site plan drawing on Sht. C-1. According to the topographic survey on Sht. C-1. The grade elevation at the north-west corner of the development is Elev: 410’. The elevation of the Seating Area at his point is Elev: 423.0’ The Seating Area is within the rear yard setback. The Seating Area is supported by a single retaining wall 13 ft in height (423′ – 410′ = 13’); where within a required rear yard the maximum allowed is two retaining walls with a maximum height of 6 feet each if the two retaining walls are separated by a minimum horizontal distance equal to the height of the upper wall. [SDMC Sec. 142.0340(d)]

   It would be troubling if the LJCPA’s final recommendation is the approve the project when it so clearly exceeds the maximum allowed Overall Structure Height, and includes a very visible over height retaining wall in the rear yard setback. It would be tragic if the project were approved by the DSD and built as it is currently depicted on the applicant’s submittal drawings.

   Therefore,I respectfully request the DPR Committee and the LJCPA to reconsider their previous recommendations based on the new information presented herein and in my email message of 1-5-2022. I respectfully suggest that the Trustees direct the DPR Committee to reconsider the project at the Committee’s next meeting.
3. Volker Hoehne January 6, 2022 at 4:26 pm

   LJCPA Trustees,
   Please refrain from approving yet another incremental closure until you are provided with the vetted proposal ready for submission to California Coastal Commission. La Cava’s supporting documentation does not cover basic questions such as from when to when will it be closed, or will honor tribal agreements.

   Honorable Council Member La Cava’s office has not vetted this closure with, California Fish and Wildlife, Tribal members, NOAA, or the California Fish and Game Commission. The proposed closure restricts access below mean high tide, which raises jurisdictional issues.

   Volker Hoehne
   Officer, Watermen’s Alliance.
4. Cameron Dickerson January 6, 2022 at 4:53 pm

   I’d like to leave a comment in regards to the point La Jolla closure. As a frequent free diver of the area, I strongly disagree with the reasoning of this closure. Again, I strongly oppose the closure of this area particularly for diving entrance. I do not feel the seal population is in a state of emergency and ask that this closure be reconsidered.
5. Fabio Salvioni January 6, 2022 at 5:20 pm

   In regards to PT La Jolla closures:
   LJCPA Trustees,
   Please refrain from approving a closure at PT La Jolla untill provided with a thorough proposal with review from proper sources (California coastal commission, fish and game, waterman’s alliance, etc). This closure will not help the problem it is attempting to solve, is based solely on irrational thinking towards how we need to help sea lion populations in California. It ignores actual steps to proper conservation and does not the specifics needed to understand how any problem is being solved.

   A closure also vastly ignores the areas frequent use by free divers, snorkelers, body surfers, scuba divers, and many others who wish to use the water in a respectful and conservation oriented manner. This area has historically been a hot spot for many ocean based sports and has historical value to these communities. Please keep residents of your city in mind prior to adversely affecting them with this closure.
6. Andrew Leach January 6, 2022 at 5:21 pm

   This closure affects the only access point to a public beach (Boomer) and will close most of the water access from point La Jolla to children’s pool. Additionally, the environmental impacts of encouraging sea lions further to make point La Jolla their home have not been properly studied. An overpopulation of sea lions can have detrimental effects on protected and endangered species in an ecosystem. California sea lions are neither endangered or threatened and should be discouraged from taking over Point La Jolla.

   This is yet another incremental removal of access to our public lands and waters. Fishing and fishing access is protected by the California Constitution.

   I recommend further studying the long-term effects of an overpopulation of sea lions in this area. Additionally, sea lions will draw sharks to the cove, one of California’s busiest beaches and it’s only a matter of time before someone is injured or killed by a white shark in the cove.
7. Jason McDonald January 6, 2022 at 7:24 pm

   I would like to echo the comments left by Andrew Leach, Volker Hoehn and others. Any closure of Point La Jolla ocean access is unwarranted or at best unstudied and without proper consultation of all the governing bodies. Seals and sea lions are not threatened or endangered and an overpopulation in such a concentrated area can have severe effects on the local ecosystem including the nearby MPAs.

Comments are closed.