Adding a guest room to a La Jolla residence or building a brand new home may require a Coastal Development Permit from the city. Navigating the arduous process may be smoother for some, however, depending on who’s interpreting the municipal code.
At the Aug. 3 meeting of the La Jolla Community Planning Association (LJCPA), trustees sparred on a proposal to build a three-story home on Romero Drive off Country Club Drive.
Approving board members noted that the project met the spirit of the law, while contenders claimed that the project failed to meet the code, denoting that the architect’s analysis was flawed and illogical.
LJCPA is a community-elected board that advises the city on land-use issues.
The issue at hand was how far the home should be set back from the property line, which is typically 5 to 10 feet from the curb. While the second story would extend 20 feet from the curb as called for in the code, the first story would sit only 6 feet from the property line.
The project architect claimed entitlement to the 6-foot setback. Property owners are entitled to the shortened setback if they can prove that half of their front property exceeds a 25-percent slope.
Project architect Sebastian Mariscal used two separate methods to prove that half of his client’s property sloped accordingly. Mariscal owns an architectural firm, MS-31 Inc., in the village.
Trustee Phil Merten, an architect himself, rebuffed the analysis. The house is on a flat parcel, with a slope behind it, and requires a 20-foot setback, Merten said. While the methods are valid, they can’t be used simultaneously to justify the slope, he added.
“The study the applicant submitted to the city combined the best of both worlds,” Merten said. “On the right-hand side of the property, he proceeded with one method and, in a point roughly in the middle, he took the second approach “¦ There’s just no consistency in the analysis.”
For the architect, the justification is not about common sense ” if it’s in the code, it’s doable.
“When I present the project, it’s not about common sense,” Mariscal said. “If it’s there, it’s applicable.”
Trustee Paul Metcalf agreed that the code doesn’t specify that the applicant must use one method or the other. The code is silent on that issue, Metcalf said. Thus, the issue boils down to interpretation.
Mariscal agreed with the trustee’s analysis ” but only if that interpretation is accepted. According to the 20-foot setback rule, the project suddenly has a 13-foot retaining wall in the front yard, where only 3-foot retaining walls are allowed. However, if the 6-foot interpretation applies, the issues disappear.
The city’s Development Services Department (DSD) saw nothing wrong with the 6-foot interpretation and approved the project. The associate planner stuck by his approval, even after Merten contacted him to voice concern.
Merten believes that the project needs another look.
“When the flawed analysis was called to the planner’s attention, he stuck by his initial approval without questioning it further and that’s the problem,” Merten said.
The associate planner did not wish to comment on setback issues since Mariscal is planning to submit a revision of the project. The revision would entail the same setbacks, however.
LJCPA trustee Robert Thiele, also an architect, suggested hiring a licensed civil engineer or surveyor to review the slope analysis. The applicant had not included the study, which is common practice.
Another trustee suggested calling on the city attorney’s office for a legal opinion.
Ultimately, the language in the code wasn’t clear enough for trustees to dismiss the project, as seven members voted to approve the plans. For the majority of trustees, the intent of the project met the spirit of the code.
Trustee Michael Morton, also a local architect, said that the intent of the steep hillside regulation is to cluster structures on the most developable portion of the lot, lessening the impact on the hillside.
“It’s a good approach for a difficult site,” Morton said.
However, Merten contends that a 6-foot setback is permitted only if the front of the property sits on a steep slope. In this case, the owner has a 50-foot, flat building pad.
“[The site] is really no different than the other lots on the street and the other properties have all been fully developed without reduced front yard setbacks,” Merten said.
Trustees also differed on the practical impact a 6-foot setback would have.
Morton sees a positive effect: pushing the first story below grade will reduce the visible bulk and scale seen from the street.
Merten envisions poor aesthetics. A 6-foot setback will narrow the streetscape of the property, since the basement will protrude from the ground, he said.
Other trustees felt the merits of the project outweighed uncertainty over the analysis.
“I’m looking for a way for this project to meet the requirements. I think it has a lot of benefits,” trustee Louis Beacham said.
Metcalf noted that the confusion reflected the quality of the code. Many areas are either contradictory or unclear and necessitate an interpretation, Metcalf said.
“We see a lot of projects that meet the code but don’t meet the character of the neighborhood,” he said.
Nonetheless, Merten is sticking by his guns.
“There is no provision in the municipal code to allow you to say that since the benefits outweigh the negatives, the project should be approved,” Merten said. “The code sets certain criteria that every project must comply with. If one wants to vary from those requirements, then one should ask for a variance.”
The property owner feels entitled to the reduced setback and is not seeking a variance. Even if a variance was sought, Merten doesn’t believe the findings could be made.
The applicant’s lot is really no different from the other homes, all of which sit 20 feet from the curb, Merten emphasized.
While DSD has approved the project, it will still have to weave through other city departments concerned with issues of water, engineering, long-range planning, biology and history. The project has already faced the LJCPA’s Coastal Development Permit Review Committee twice ” a board that includes Merten.
Ultimately, the project will reach a hearing officer for a final yay or nay.
The boundary for the coastal zone includes homes that affect the ocean’s watershed. In La Jolla, the boundary transverses La Jolla Mesa, La Jolla Scenic Drive South and along North Torrey Pines Road.