LJCPA Trustees 2/4/2021 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.

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

Meeting Agenda

Elections

Minutes

Consent Agenda (unless pulled)

  • Can: 9044 La Jolla Shores Ln (667987, Trettin) see DPR 1/12/21
  • Cannot: 1228 Park Row (619886, Kivel) see DPR 1/12/21
  • Can: 7007 Country Club Dr (508125, Coston) see DPR 1/19/21
  • Cannot: 8561 El Paseo Grande (670093, Fortune) see PRC 1/18/21
  • (pulled) Can: 8405 Paseo del Ocaso (560839, Wilson) see PRC 1/18/21
  • Cannot: 8216 Caminito Maritimo (629762, Sammon) see PRC 1/18/21
  • Approve: MTS Route #140 bus line see T&T 1/20/2021

Action Items

(deferred) 7595 Hillside (522708, Gonzales)

(Process 3) Site Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a 7,091 sq ft 2-story over basement dwelling located at 7595 Hillside Dr. The 0.797-acre site is in the single family (SF) zone of the La Jolla Shores Planned District, Coastal (Non-appealable) overlay zone within the La Jolla Community Plan Area. Council District 1.

PRC 12/21/2020: PRC: Findings CANNOT be made 5-1-1
(height of structure and lack of drawings showing solid guardrail and metal fence at street)

416 Nautilus (669815, Marengo)

(Process 2) Coastal Development Permit to convert an existing 263 sf room over a 449 sf detached garage into a Companion Unit at 416 Nautilus St. The project includes adding 104 sf for a Companion Unit totaling 367 sf. The 0.072-acre site contains 2 detached residences on a single lot at 414 and 416 Nautilus Street. The site is in the RM-1-1 Zone, the Coastal (Non-App.-2) Overlay Zone, the Geo Hazard Zone 53, and the Transit Priority area within the La Jolla CPA, and CD 1.

DPR 12/8/2020: Findings CAN be made 5-2-1

La Jolla View Reservoir (331101, Oriqat)

Coastal Development and Site Development Permit Process CIP-2 (WBS# S-15027.02.06) for a proposed 3.11 million gallon circular concrete reservoir to replace the existing reservoir, replace the existing Muirlands Pipeline in County Club Drive with a larger 30″ PVC pipeline; and to demolish the existing La Jolla View Reservoir.Coastal Non App 1, Council District 1, Notice Cards 3. Notice of Final Decision to go to CCC. (Project previously reviewed by DPR & Trustees has not changed. CEQA-related Environmental Document has evolved from an MND to an EIR. Discussion will focus on potential project impacts and mitigation measures identified in the EIR. Draft LJCPA response to EIR to be discussed/ratified.)

DPR 1/19/2021: DPR: findings CANNOT be made 7-0-1
(EIR is inadequate: contractor oversight, evaluation of access alternatives, traffic management, pedestrian and other nearby resident safety, excavation soil handling, trail access and restoration, how and where species mitigation best benefits the community, revegetation, and handling of properties project will vacate. Comment period should be extended by at least 60 days for revision of the EIR in collaboration among relevant City and community organizations.)

Coastal Rail Trail (Gonzalez Nava)

This project creates a One-Way Cycle Track (Class IV) along both sides of Gilman Drive. The project proposes the following: protected North and South bound one-way cycle track (Class IV), continuous sidewalk along the west side, retains street parking, street lighting, traffic signal modifications, and new signal at La Jolla Village Drive. The project connects in the north to UCSD and the Genesee Avenue Class I Bikeway. The project connects in the south to the existing Class I bikeway under I-5 and SANDAG’s Class I Bikeway along Santa Fe Street.

T&T 1/20/2021: Approve 8-0-0
(Condition: Add sharrows in the southbound lane on Gilman)

Annual Report

PARC letter

STVR letter

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

15 thoughts on “LJCPA Trustees 2/4/2021 Materials & Comments

  1. Noah Harris

    Good evening. This is Noah Harris, Transportation Policy Advocate with Climate Action Campaign, writing in support of class IV, physically protected cycle tracks on Gilman Drive.

    The most up-to-date climate science, including the landmark UN IPCC Special Report on Global Warming, states that we must eliminate carbon emissions as soon as possible to stave off the most devastating impacts of climate change.

    With over 40% of the region’s greenhouse gas emissions coming from transportation, we must prioritize infrastructure investments that will provide residents with the ability to choose sustainable modes of travel, like bikes.

    A connected network of physically protected bike facilities is the only way to make bike commuting safer and more accessible for San Diegans of all ages and abilities. This project will connect two existing class I facilities in the area, making it a strong project in service to our Climate Action Plan goals.

    Please support the Gilman Bike Tracks, as they will help reduce vehicle miles travelled and car pollution, while making biking safer for all. Thank you.

  2. Dan Goese

    ▶ Any time you hide cyclists behind parked cars—like in the proposed Gilman Drive meat grinder—icross-traffic and turning cars will hit and may kill cyclist. This is because drivers do not look carefully enough for cyclists.
    ▶ The City has not provided ample reason for their refusal to lower the speed limit. Just post the new lower limit (e.g. 35 mph), ticket speeders, and the word will get out, and drivers will slow down.
    ▶ PLEASE INCLUDE SHARROWS. The lack of sharrows help selfish drivers feel justified in honking at cyclists using the lane, which they are legally entitled to use. The City has used errant justification for their resistance to including sharrows in the right-most vehicular travel lane. Sharrows signage on the pavement and on signs will show cyclists and e-bike commuters that the City cares about bicycling for recreation, environmentally-sensitive commuting, and sensible transport given our temperate climate.
    ▶ I am not a “racer” or a “professional.” Ignorance of cycling is rampant in many of these meetings. I am just a 62-year-old cyclist who would rather not be killed by an inattentive driver. When I ride from La Jolla Village Drive to Villa La Jolla every Saturday morning via Gilman Drive, using the “trapped track” bike prison lane makes me stop 3 times where normally I don’t need to stop at all if the left-turn arrow is green at Villa La Jolla.
    Thank you.

  3. Mike Burrows

    This project will NOT entice children to ride up a long hill.
    This project will NOT allow for the level of future expansion hoped for by BikeSD or the city’s Climate Action Plan.
    This project will NOT provide enough barrier to protect cyclists from errant motorists.

    This project WILL protect road debris & decay from routine maintenance.
    This project WILL be a higher than necessary carbon footprint exercise, contrary to Climate Action Plan objectives, with its extensive use of concrete curbing.
    This project WILL suck up bike infrastructure funds, that could be spread farther afield, when the goal could be met for the cost of paint striping.
    This project WILL guarantee that if bicycle traffic increases to hoped for levels the cost of expansion will be extravagant.

    The model for this project, and more, has already been realized on the uphill segment of coast highway at Torrey Pines. For much less time & money.

  4. Patricia Bazan

    I have lived in UTC for 18 years and have owned a home on Regents for the past 15 years. Every single day, as I look out the window, I see scores of cyclists ride by: commuters, member of cycling clubs, parents with their kids, triathletes, retirees, you name it. I am also one of those cyclists. I ride several times a week: before or after work, lunch time, weekends… On the weekends, I ride far north, far east or far south and I’m gone for many hours. But most of the time, especially during the week, my riding is limited by my busy work schedule so I ride nearby my home in my community. I ride Gilman several times a week. I don’t want a cycle trap built there. I don’t think it’s needed and I believe it would only further endanger cyclists. I don’t like what Encinitas did with the Cycle Trap they built there. I ride the coast and avoid the cycle trap there preferring to take the lane solo. A high number of accidents have occurred in the cycle trap in Encinitas as well as inside the cycle traps in other San Diego locations. I am concerned and opposed a cycle trap on Gillman.

    This is my community. I hope my thoughts are considered.

    Thank you

  5. Stephan Vance

    I am submitting comments regarding Item 5.3, the Gilman Drive cycle track. I come to this project with over 30 years of experience as a transportation planner with a focus on active transportation. In fact, I worked on the original project study report for the Coastal Rail Trail (CRT), though this Gilman Dr. segment was not a part of that original study. I also am an avid cyclist and have ridden up and down Gilman Dr. innumerable times. The CRT is an import regional bikeway corridor, and this project will make significant improvements to a segment of the CRT that connects Clairemont and the beach communities to UCSD and the employment sites on Torrey Pines mesa.

    There are over 600 cycle tracks in North America accounting for over 470 miles of bikeway in something like 130 cities. Our experience with these facilities is that do a great job of attracting more people to ride bikes, and they make streets safer, for everyone, not just people riding bikes. As Chair of the Bike Coalition
    Advocacy Committee, I’m well aware of the concerns raised by some cyclists about potential conflicts at turning points, but I think the design team has done a very good job a designing to mitigate that risk. In addition, by designing extra wide cycle lanes they have created a facility that will serve well every prudent bike rider who rides the corridor. I encourage you to support this project.

Leave a Reply

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