5 thoughts on “LJCPA Trustee Meeting 8/4/2022 Materials & Comments”

1. Michael Maher August 2, 2022 at 8:02 am

   August 2, 2022

   Request to postpone the LJPCA consent vote for the 7310/7312 Fay Av (673278, Golba)

   The proposed residential development at 7310/7312 Fay Ave will significantly increase the ground elevation requiring the construction of retaining walls. Additionally, change in grade will require 1) a new private sewer easement for the 7302 Fay Ave, and 2) replacing a boundary wall that straddles the 7318/7320 Fay property line.

   On July 19th, Mr. Golba, Jose Luis Isabel (Archbel Builders), Craig Gagliardi (real estate agent), Gerhard Gessner (7302 Fay owner), Lisa and Michael Maher (7318/7320 Fay owners) met to discuss the adjoining property concerns. Mr. Golba, representing Archbel, acknowledged the issues and offered suitable solutions which all parties agreed would resolve the concerns expressed by the adjacent property owners.

   Mr. Golba was asked to document his recommendations, however, after the meeting, he decided not to document his solutions for the private easement and property boundary retaining wall and fencing. When asked, Mr. Golba said these issues would be addressed at a later date in drawings submitted for building permits.

   Archbel has listed the property for sale and is actively marketing the property to other developers. As adjacent property owners, we are concerned that the assurances we received from Mr. Golba and Archbel will be soon forgotten if not documented in writing.

   We suggested that Mr. Golba make a notation in the ‘Key Notes’ section of the design plans, unfortunately, Mr. Golba found that suggestion to be unacceptable. In fact, he is showing a reluctance to follow through with his stated recommendations for the easement and retaining wall and is asking us to contact Archbel with our concerns.

   The next step is for the adjacent property owners to meet with Archbel to determine the best means to document the requirements for the private easement and property boundary retaining wall and fencing.

   Respectfully, we are asking the LJPCA to postpone their consent vote for the development of the property until the September meeting. This will allow enough time for the adjacent property owners and Archbel to meet and determine an acceptable means to document the requirements for the private sewer easement and retaining wall placement.

   ———

   Email exchange with Tim Golba regarding the adjacent homeowners concerns related to the proposed 7310/7312 Fay residential development:

   From: Michael Maher
   Subject: Re: LJCPA | 7310/7312 Fay Av (673278, Golba) UPDATES updated
   Date: July 28, 2022 at 3:37:15 PM PDT
   To: Tim Golba
   Cc: Alex Gessner , Jose Luis Izabal , “craig@clgproperties.com”

   Hello Tim,

   We very much appreciate the changes you made to the decks.

   Speaking on behalf of my wife and myself, as adjacent property owners, we are asking that you and your client, Archbel Builders, document our meeting conversation and the assurances you gave us regarding the retaining wall and sewer easement.

   It is very important to state the facts upfront concerning the property boundary line and the corresponding retaining wall along with adding a 3rd sewer line. As the project architect, these items are issues that should be addressed between with your client.

   If you are unable to find a suitable means to document our meeting conversation and the assurances you gave us, then for the record we plan to share them with the LJCPA trustees at the 8/4/22 meeting.

   Regards,

   Michael & Lisa Maher

   ———

   On Jul 28, 2022, at 2:37 PM, Tim Golba wrote:

   Michael,

   Thanks for the follow up. On the remaining items, Items #1 thru #3, we are really getting well beyond both Architecture and the Scope of a Coastal Development Permit itself. The design of any private sewer line, easement, retaining wall, common line fencing and who pays for those items is not something I am going to commit to in key notes on my plans as it has nothing to do with my office nor the general purpose of Coastal Development Permit plans. It would be sort of like me putting a key note on the plans that claims the “owner will not play music after 9:00 pm” and while there is a purpose to the note, those are items Archbel will need to reach out to you directly and maybe thru an email or letter, they can clarify those items for you but not something I can be responsible for especially on granting of easements or the payment of common property line enhancements!

   The same would go for the reduced windows which we don’t really don’t see any issue with and by code, by aesthetics or even by privacy issues since those are along a hallway connecting to a bedroom and are not occupied rooms that would be more prone to have folks looking out the windows but in this case they are just letting light and air into the hallway only but Archbel can decide on that one as well.

   All of the other changes we previously sent over for Item #4 and the privacy have been updated in our plans and PowerPoint and sent to the CPG already so you might want to reach out to Archbel directly on the other items.

   Tim Golba

   ———

   From: Michael Maher
   Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 3:42 PM
   To: Tim Golba
   Cc: Alex Gessner ; Jose Luis Izabal ; craig@clgproperties.com
   Subject: Re: LJCPA | 7310/7312 Fay Av (673278, Golba) UPDATES

   Hi Tim,

   It was a pleasure meeting with you, Jose and Craig last week at 7310 Fay Avenue to discuss the proposed building plans. We are especially grateful for sending us an updated design for the rooftop and garage decks, which are in line with our requests. As it relates to Item #4, we also discussed reducing the size of the large 2nd floor windows facing our properties. Is this something Archbel and you are willing to do?

   We understand that Items #1 thru #3 will be addressed during the building permit phase of development, however, we are asking if you would summarize our agreement in the ‘Key Notes’ section of your plan concerning:
   1) the placement and design of retaining walls and fencing
   2) a new sewer line for 7302 Fay Avenue. According to the City of San Diego DSD reviewer, Meryl Jimenez, the re-routed sewer line should be recorded as a ‘private easement’
   Additionally, please confirm that the builder will be responsible for all costs related to the new retaining walls and fencing and the 7302 Fay Avenue sewer line.

   We hope you and Archbel will find these requests acceptable and that the drawings and ‘Key Notes’ section can be updated prior to the upcoming LJCPA meeting.

   As always, please feel free to call us with questions.

   Michael & Lisa Maher
   Gerhard & Alex Gessner

   ———

   On Jul 25, 2022, at 11:57 AM, Tim Golba wrote:

   Mike, Lisa & Gerhard,

   It was nice to meet you all last week and discuss the 7310 FAY project. Following up from that meeting, I have attached some revised Plans and Renderings to illustrate some changes we made that we hope will meet with your approval. They focus mostly on Item #4 of your list and on the Plans we listed it as BEFORE and AFTER where we could to help understand it as well.

   Specifically, we got rid of the open railing at the Roof deck on both sides of the project. Then we reversed the center privacy wall to duplicate it at the edge of the garage deck so that it will act as a screen to your properties. Per our discussions, this seems like it will greatly assist in providing privacy to both lots and the Items listed below (Items #1 thru #3) are more technical and part of building permits but those also seem like there was easy consensus on ways to approach the walls, fencing and sewer.

   Please let me know if you have any comments on the attached once you have reviewed them!

   Tim Golba

   ———

   From: Michael Maher
   Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2022 8:44 AM
   To: Tim Golba
   Cc: Gerhard Gessner ; Lisa Maher
   Subject: LJCPA | 7310/7312 Fay Av (673278, Golba)

   Mr. Golba,

   My wife and I own the property at 7318/7320 Fay Ave. Our property is adjacent to the proposed Archbel Builders development at 7310/7312 Fay Ave. We understand that your architectural firm is designing the project.

   I am writing to you on behalf of Gerhard Gessner, the property owner at 7302 Fay Ave, and myself. We are asking for a 1/2 hour meeting with you and the appropriate representative from Archbel to discus the project. Here is our proposed meeting agenda:

   1) Sewer Line Easement. Is there a plan to address the 7302 Fay Ave sewer line easement? Currently a working sewer line from 7302 Fay Ave crosses the property line and intersects with the 7310 Fay Ave waste line before the line exits the property and connects with the main line in Bishops Lane.

   2) Retaining Walls. Your plan is to construct retaining walls on the property boundaries. How will this impact the existing driveway and property boundary wall at 7318/7320 Fay Avenue? Same question applies to 7302 Fay Ave.

   3) Property Fencing. Does the plan call for the replacement of the existing fence and wall with a fence design represented in your architectural renderings? If so, we need to take into account saving a mature vine attached to the 7320 Fay side of the wall.

   4) Mutual Privacy. Your architectural plan calls for a combination of eight 2nd story decks/balconies. We want ensure mutual privacy. As it relates to the elevated decks, is there a clever way to create screening to mitigate unwelcome onlookers and noise?

   Hopefully you can schedule a 1/2 hour meeting with us soon to discuss our concerns. Feel free to reply to this email or call me with proposed dates and times.

   Regards.

   Michael Maher
2. Tom Cook August 4, 2022 at 10:23 am

   I would respectfully request that item 3.4 “5386 Calumet” be removed from the consent agenda for the Aug 4 2022 meeting. There are outstanding issues that were not discussed during the first and only DPR hearing on this project.

   First, I would like to respond to DPR committee member Costello’s comments about breaking DPR precedent and approving a CDP for a coastal property on its first hearing. This is not an “dangerous and emergency situation”, if it was, the applicant could apply for an emergency permit through the California Coastal Commission. To my knowledge, the applicant did not call this an emergency situation, so it should not be the duty of a committee member to declare it as such. Rather, it should be in the committee’s best interest to do the due diligence to understand the full situation. For example, DPR committee member Leira asked “What is (the) source of (the) run-off and … is (it) still there?”. To my knowledge, this type of hydrology study has not been done for this project.

   Our review has shown that an appeal to a 2007 project at 5380 Calumet (2007 CDP No A-6-LJS-07-114) had argued that the gunite was placed at
   5380 and 5386 Calumet for erosion control, and it was placed illegally without a valid CDP. This means there were no special conditions to protect the adjacent shoreline marine resources and the public’s lateral access seaward of the shoreline protection device and toe of the bluff. Given this uncertainty, questions about the existing conditions, such as the one asked by DPR committee member Leira regarding the bluff erosion and shoreline processes, must be addressed.

   During their presentation to the DPR committee, the applicant had mentioned this project has support from local CCC staff. We have checked with local CCC staff, who said that since the application for a CDP is on hold until the applicant can secure a SDP from the City, they have not conducted a full review, nor have made a determination regarding this project. While the CCC staff has communicated that the use of erodible concrete is appropriate for this project, it is premature for the applicant to say that this project is supported by the local CCC staff.

   Finally, we would like to see the applicant formalize their offer to remove all construction debris from the beach and intertidal areas, including any remaining portions of the failed gunite. During their presentation, the applicant also offered to remove debris along the shoreline that was not associated with their project. We welcome this and would like to see it be an official component of the project.

   Regards,
   Tom Cook
   Surfrider Foundation
   San Diego Chapter
3. Anthony A. Ciani August 4, 2022 at 10:31 am

   Dear La Jolla CPA,

   I request that August 4, 2022, Agenda Item 3.4. 5386 Calumet (696586, Freeman) be removed from the Consent Calendar to provide a hearing of pertinent information regarding the LJCPA’s decision that the proposed project conforms to the policies of the La Jolla Community Plan and Local Coastal Program and related provisions of the City of San Diego LDC.

   Respectfully,
   Tony Ciani
4. Philip Merten AIA August 4, 2022 at 4:32 pm

   Ladies and Gentlemen of the La Jolla Community Planning Association,

   As your consider the 7310 / 7312 Fay Ave project at this evenings meeting, please consider the following:

   Required Submittal Exhibits

   The required submittal exhibits (drawings) for Development Projects in the City of San Diego are described in the Section 4 of the DSD’s Project Submittal Requirements of the Land Development Manual.

   In order to evaluate the impact of proposed projects on their adjacent neighbors, Building Site Sections as described in Section 10.3; and when new structures exceed 24 feet in height and when projects are proposing to alter the grade of 50% or more of the area of the property, GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS as described in Sections 10.7, 10.7.3 and 10.7.5; and a TOPOGRAPHIC MAP in accordance with Sections 10.8 and 10.8.5, are required submittal exhibits.

   Unfortunately, none of these required exhibits are contained in the 7310-Fay-Ave-Homes-Plans-CPG-meeting-set-7-28-2022.pdf drawings posted on the meeting’s Material Page.

   Proposed Grading

   The project site slopes more that 5 feet from the high point adjacent Fay Ave to the alley at the rear of the site. The project proposes to fill the majority of the site to create a more of less level building pad over most of the property. The new fill will be more than 5 feet in depth towards the north-western corner of the site. New retaining walls are proposed to be constructed along the north and south side property lines. Towards the western end of the northern side property line retaining wall will be 5 feet in height. A guardrail or fence will be constructed on top of the retaining wall.

   Question: Was the negative impact of the proposed 5 foot high retaining wall and perhaps 6 feet high fence on the adjacent property owner considered by the Development Review Committee? No Site Sections, and description of the 5 foot high retaining wall and fence nor the topographic elevations within 50 feet of the project site are depicted on the posted drawings.

   Thank you for your consideration of these apparent submittal omissions.

   Philip MERTEN AIA
5. Peggy Davis August 4, 2022 at 5:39 pm

   Please view important Agenda: California Coastal Commission August 2022 Meeting
   August 10,11,12 Video and Teleconference King Gilette Ranch, 26800 Mullholland Highway,
   Calabasas, California 91302. 9:00 A.M.
   ITEM 15 SAN DIEGO DEPUTY DIRECTOR’S REPORT
   ITEM 16 SAN DIEGO AMEND LAND DEVELOPMENT IN LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAMS
   ITEM 18 ABBOTT PROPERTY REVIEW 6343 CAMINO DE LA COSTA
   You should view the meetings if you are interested in items on the Agenda.

Comments are closed.