At the April 26 meeting of the La Jolla Shores Permit Review Committee (LJSPRC), board members heard presentations from the architect and attorney for the planned residence of Jack Nooren, to be constructed at 8001 Calle de la Plata. Both committee and presenters, however, got more advice than they bargained for. Residents who attended the meeting waited patiently throughout the presentations outlining the plans for the house — a modern, LEED-certified, 3,700-square-foot residence to be built on the site of one of the community’s oldest homes. When it came time for public testimony, however, they didn’t mince words. “Why would [the owner] want to go in a completely opposite direction from the historical architecture of the Shores?” asked one member of the audience. “[The historic house] is a gem within the jewel,” said another. “We are destroying everything we have.” Board member Phil Merten did not speak to the historical significance of the existing structure, but he did say that, in his opinion, the new building doesn’t “meet the intent of the design manual or the La Jolla community plan.” For some residents, the sentiment went even further. “Why does [the owner] want to change the flavor of the Shores?” asked one. “Why does he want something so antagonistic to everything in the community?” The existing home, a modest, Spanish-style structure built in 1927, was one of the original four homes built in La Jolla Shores. The construction of the four residences signaled the grand opening of the subdivision, which was attended by Hollywood stars and surfing royalty. Jackie Coogan, a child star in the 1920s who went on to marry Bettie Grable, as well as Duke “The Big Kahuna” Kahanamoku made appearances at the event. Residents of the Shores have previously tried to have the home designated as historically significant, but the San Diego Historical Resources Board has been deadlocked on the issue since last June. Meanwhile, demolition and construction of the new structure are moving forward. The LJSPRC does not make decisions about the historical significance of buildings, and the item was on the agenda of the April 26 meeting to determine if the new building would meet the guidelines of the planned district ordinance. The pleas of the public in regard to the older home’s significance could not be used to make a decision about the new building’s compliance, but they did not go unheard by board members. “We’ve heard criticisms as to design and fitting in with the community and criticisms with the dimensions today,” said board chair Helen Boyden. “I’d like to see the planners come back with some more information and photo surveys of the four corners facing the house.” The board voted unanimously for a continuance of the project, to be heard at the next meeting in May. Board member Dale Naegle closed the meeting with a comment directed at the attorney and architect, to be delivered to the home’s owner. “There’s obviously a lot of anxiety about this design,” he said. “The architecture is good, but the house doesn’t belong there. Your client might want to come down here and listen to all of this.”