LJCPA Trustee Meeting 7/1/2021 Materials & Comments

The LJCPA Trustee meeting videoconference goes live at 5:30pm, so that participants can make sure their video and/or audio are working. The Chair calls the meeting to order at 6pm. Registration is necessary to attend the meeting: please visit https://lajollacpa.org/ljcpa-online-meeting-instructions/ for instructions.

This page contains links to the agenda for the meeting and materials applicants, their representatives, and interested parties submitted in connection with action items. There are no materials (beyond committee minutes) for Consent Agenda items.

Please note: Many items linked on this page are copyrighted by their creators, and 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 or distributed further without explicit permission from the copyright holder.

If you have comments on these or other agenda items, please submit them using the “Reply” form at the foot of this page (following the list of recent comments).

Call to Order

Committee Minutes

Projects & Action Items

Consent Agenda (unless pulled)

  • 9872 La Jolla Farms Rd (643954, Golba) DPR 6/8: CAN, 7-0-1
  • 9430 La Jolla Shores Dr (675183, Ward) DPR 6/15: CAN, 7-0-1
  • Warwick’s Mural (Warwick) PDO 6/14: PDO 6/14: APPROVE, 7-0-0

Cuvier St Vacation (679621, Williams)

(Process 5) Cuvier Street right-of-way vacation, CDP, and lot-line adjustment located south of Prospect Street, next to the La Jolla Recreational Center (615 Prospect) and The Bishop’s School. The site is located in the LJPD-6 and OP-1-1 Zones, and Coastal (Non-appealable-2) Overlay zone within the La Jolla Community Plan and Council District 1.

DPR 5/11/21: findings CAN be made, 5-0-2; T&T 5/19/21: APPROVE 10-0-0; PDO 4/21/21: APPROVE 10-0-0

Roundabout by “The Cross” (Issakov)

The impetus for a roundabout at the entrance to the Veterans Memorial Park at the top of Via Capri is the danger and difficulty of turning left from Via Capri to the cross, or to leave the cross to continue straight on LJ Scenic Dr S, at busy traffic times. This can cause backups too. City staff commented that that location is a good candidate for a roundabout and added it to the unfunded needs list.

T&T 5/19/21: APPROVE 9-0-0

Coast Blvd Cave (659359, Arhhart)

(Process CIP/Public Project-5) WBS B-20040.02.06 (FUND 400169) After-the-Fact Site Development Permit & Coastal Development Permit for work performed under Emergency SDP and CDP agreement (PTS# 644723) located within the public right-of-way and adjacent coast bluff and cave opening to the north below Coast Boulevard, adjacent to 1210 Coast Blvd. Coastal (Appealable & Non-Appealable) Overlay Zone; Council District 1.

Code Compliance (Kane)

There are several additional cases of intentional skirting of DSD permitting requirements and permit conditions in La Jolla beyond those already mentioned in meetings and letters to Trustees. Community members, their representatives and the LJ CPA are clearly having no effect one project at a time. However, a pattern of egregious behavior is harder to ignore. The CPA Trustees will determine how to proceed. Options include informing both City Council and the Mayor about DSD’s inadequacies and petitioning for more Code Compliance resources, changes in administrative processes, codes, etc.

State Housing Legislation (Hueter)

SB 9 & 10 and proposed moratorium of 2020 SD ordinance enacting ADUs.

Parks Master Plan Update (Kane)

Priorities Survey (Kane)

Parking Workshop (Kane)

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

6 thoughts on “LJCPA Trustee Meeting 7/1/2021 Materials & Comments

  1. Phil Merten

    ‘Code Compliance’ is on Thursday’s LJCPA agenda. The Agenda Item description states: “There are several additional cases of intentional skirting of DSD permitting requirements and permit conditions in La Jolla beyond those already mentioned in meetings and letters to Trustees.” This seems to imply that applicants are intentionally skirting DSD permitting requirements. Applicants sometimes try to see what they can get away with. But, is the DSD’s failure to enforce provisions of the Land Development Code which is main issue.

    In advance of Thursday’s LJCPA meeting, I ask that you consider the Development Services Department’s ongoing failure to enforce provisions of the Land Development Code when it approves residential projects for construction without SDMC required prerequisite Coastal Development Permits, and for issuing construction permits for projects the designs of which are in clear violation of the Land Development Code; as explained in my Merten Letter to LJCPA 6-28-2021.

    As Community Planning Group members you volunteer your valuable time and energy for the betterment of La Jolla. You carefully review proposed development projects to see that they conform with the La Jolla Community Plan and comply with the SDMC. Tragically your efforts and your recommendations are being undermined by a DSD that approves projects not in compliance with the SDMC. That is why your efforts to convince applicants to comply with SDMC and the La Jolla Community Plan, regardless of what the DSD is willing to accept, is so vitally important.

    In order to correct the underlying problem the current Director of the DSD should be removed and replaced by someone who actually requires City staff to enforce the law as written and adopted by the City Council. I urge the LJCPA to have a badly needed conversation with our elected City Council Member and the Mayor in this regard.

  2. Phil Merten

    CODE COMPLIANCE: Erroneous or Fraudulent Testimony by City Staff at Public Hearings

    Erroneous or Fraudulent Public Testimony by Staff LDR Planner Hani Baker

    During the February 11 Hearing Officer’s Virtual Public Hearing regarding the proposed project at 8423 El Paseo Grande, LDR Planner Hani Baker falsely testified that ’No parking is required for the Companion Unit.’ Ms. Baker’s testimony was counter to her many email messages and Cycle Issues Comments wherein she stated an on-site parking space was required for the Companion Unit in the Coastal Zone. Based on Ms. Baker’s erroneous or fraudulent testimony Hearing Office Duke Fernandez wrongly concluded that an off-street parking space for the companion unit was not required, and approved a CDP and SDP for the project without a required code compliant Companion Unit parking space.

    When I asked Ms. Baker why she testified as she did, DSD Director Elyse Lowe responded in an email message by saying: ‘I am advising my staff not to respond to the email.’

  3. Phil Metten

    CODE COMPLIANCE: Erroneous or Fraudulent Public Testimony by City Staff

    Erroneous or Fraudulent Testimony by Staff LDR Planner Kyle Gossens
    Lack of Due Diligence by Hearing Officer Duke Fernandez

    Prior to the June 9 Hearing Officer’s Virtual Public Hearing regarding the LEIDY RESIDENCE at 6216 Avenida Cresta, I sent a lengthy letter to the Hearing Officer and LDR Planner Kyle Gossens calling attention to numerous site retaining walls within required side and rear setbacks that exceeded a maximum allowed height of six feet and topped by five foot high solid fences, where 42 inch high open fences is the maximum allowed. When Hearing Officer Duke Fernandez questioned Mr. Gossens about the height of one particular retaining wall, Mr. Gossens falsely testified that the retaining wall within a required rear setback did not exceed 6 feet in height; when in fact the applicant’s drawings clearly showed the retaining wall being more than 6 feet in height and topped by a five foot high solid fence. Based on Mr. Gossens erroneous or fraudulent testimony about one retaining wall Hearing Officer Duke Fernandez wrongly concluded that all of the over height walls depicted on the erroneous drawings complied with the SDMC and wrongly approved a CDP for the project which also included an overheight fireplace structure in the rear setback.

    NOTE: Possibly fearing an Appeal of the Hearing Officer’s decision to approve the project, on June 11 the applicant submitted revised ‘Exhibit A’ drawings to the DSD wherein the design and height of all of the offending retaining walls were brought into compliance with the SDMC and the overheight fireplace structure in the rear setback was eliminated.

  4. Phil Merten

    CODE COMPLIANCE: Erroneous or Fraudulent Testimony by City Staff at Public Hearings.

    The Development Services Department’s lack of enforcement of the San Diego Municipal Code is exacerbated by false or erroneous public testimony by City Staff at Public Hearings, and a lack of thorough review of drawings by City Hearing Officers.

    Erroneous or Fraudulent Testimony by Staff LDR Planner Kyle Gossens, and Lack of Thorough Review of Drawings by Hearing Officer Duke Fernandez

    Prior to the June 9 Hearing Officer’s Virtual Public Hearing regarding the LEIDY RESIDENCE at 6216 Avenida Cresta, I sent a lengthy letter to the Hearing Officer and LDR Planner Kyle Gossens calling attention to numerous site retaining walls within required side and rear setbacks that exceeded a maximum allowed height of six feet and topped by five foot high solid fences, where 42 inch high open fences is the maximum allowed. When Hearing Officer Duke Fernandez questioned Mr. Gossens about the height of one particular retaining wall, Mr. Gossens falsely testified that the retaining wall within a required rear setback did not exceed 6 feet in height; when in fact the applicant’s drawings clearly showed the retaining wall being more than 6 feet in height and topped by a five foot high solid fence. Based on Mr. Gossens erroneous or fraudulent testimony about one retaining wall Hearing Officer Duke Fernandez wrongly concluded that all of the over height walls complied with the SDMC and wrongly approved a CDP for the project which also included an over-height fireplace structure in the rear setback.

    NOTE: Possibly fearing an Appeal of the Hearing Officers’ decision to approve the project, on June 11 two days after the Hearing Officer’s Approval of the project, the applicant submitted revised ‘Exhibit A’ drawings to the DSD wherein the design and height of all of the offending retaining walls were brought into compliance with the SDMC and the over-height fireplace structure in the rear setback was eliminated.

  5. Suzanne Weissman

    Regarding Coastal View Corridor Committee Report that no view corridor easements were recorded: 1834 Spindrift Project. Applicant rep. Crisafi, in his presentation to the LJ Shores Advisory Board for this project on August 18, 2018, assured board members that “ocean view easements would be in effect on the side yard setbacks of the subject site where none currently exist.” “Side yard view corridors are to be established at five and one-half and four and one-half feet.
    (La Jolla Shores Planned District Advisory Board meeting minutes August 18, 2018.)

Leave a Reply

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