The La Jolla Community Planning Association and a few residents from La Jollas Country Club voted against a planned residential subdivision. San Diego appealed the findings that the project would have no significant environmental impact.
Julie Hamilton, an attorney for land-use, and Phil Merten, an architect from La Jolla, convinced the San Diego City Council on February 1, that the project needs additional environmental review prior to proceeding with construction.
The project requires site development permits and coastal development permits to demolish the single-family home of 5,022 feet at 7248 Encelia Drive, which was damaged by a landslide at 7231 Romero Drive. Single-family residences will be built on each property.
The Encelia property would get an eight-story, 8,641 square-foot home with an open garage and site improvements. The Romero property would get a four-story, 4,945 square-foot house with a basement/garage of 3,267 feet and site improvements.
The Community Planning Association rejected the project in 2019 due to its excessive bulk and scale (including height) and the absence of step-backs on the facade. This makes the structure outof character with the surrounding community.
A hearing officer from the city Development Services Department approved the project last September. He then adopted a final mitigation negative declaration. This indicates that a project will either have no significant environmental impact or can be reduced through mitigation.
Planners from Development Services stated that while the project could have serious effects on the environment in relation to cultural resources and tribal resource, a mitigation monitoring program and reporting program would reduce any impacts to a level below significance.
Hamilton claimed that Hamilton would build the largest homes on the hillside. This hillside has already failed. There is some dispute over whether the remediation of the failure was sufficient. This could have devastating consequences if you’re wrong.
Ronald Schachar, a neighbor, said that if the hillside collapses again, my house would be in the ocean. He stated that the area must be properly evaluated.
City planners argued that the appeal didn’t provide enough evidence to modify the mitigation negative declaration and required something more. Staff also stated that the project is compatible and compliant with surrounding development, and that it complies with all height- and bulk regulations.
Other issues were also mentioned in the appeal, including the floor area ratio (the size and proportion of a building relative to its lot) as well as the overall building height.
Merten stated that the negative declaration should not have been certified as the staff report and project description are inaccurate in that they underestimate the size of the project. He stated that some enclosed areas of the houses were not measured but contribute to the structure’s perceived mass and bulk.
He also stated that the house’s overall height would exceed 40 feet, although 30 feet is permitted.
LJCPA President Diane Kane stated to the council that the projects do not comply with local planning codes and that the oversized dwellings are detrimental to streetscape integrity and the transition to their neighbors.
Others deemed the project unsuitable for the area.
During council discussions, Joe LaCava (whose District 1 includes La Jolla) agreed that further environmental analysis was necessary.
He moved to approve the appeal and overturn the previous environmental determination. The appellant is fair in his arguments and provides evidence with a sufficient foundation of facts. It is requested that the planning department reconsider the MND, and prepare a revised environment document. [that provides]Further analysis of aesthetics is necessary as both project homes exceed the height and/or bulk regulations.
The council was only tasked to consider the validity of the environmental determination and not the development permits that were associated with the project. However, the permits have been appealed. This issue will be brought up by the San Diego Planning Commission at an upcoming meeting.
Kane later stated she was stunned by the outcome of the council meeting. LJCPA frequently appeals to city decisions that contradict their own, only for LJCPA to deny the appeal, and keep its original findings.
I was expecting the same response from the meeting, but Kane said they actually heard us.