The La Jolla Community Planning Association (LJCPA) will consider whether or not to appeal a hearing officer’s July 28 decision to approve the long-disputed Whitney project during its monthly meeting tonight at 6 p.m. in the La Jolla Recreation Center, 615 Prospect St. The hearing officer approved the project after deeming that a code variance the city asked the applicants to request was not necessary. The project consists of demolishing two one-story buildings at 2202 and 2206 Avenida de la Playa and replacing them with a three-story building with commercial space on the ground floor, two apartments above and an underground parking lot. Project opponents have 10 working days to appeal the hearing officer’s decision, which would then be heard by the city’s Planning Commission. “If the CPA or some other party appeals, the city would set a hearing date at a Planning Commission,” typically within 30 to 60 days, LJCPA President Joe LaCava said. “The Planning Commission’s decision on the discretionary permit is final.” Lynne Heidel, an attorney who has represented the Whitneys for the past eight months, said she expects the project opponents to file an appeal. “Our opponents feel that the project is not consistent with the La Jolla Shores planned district ordinance (LJSPDO) and the La Jolla community plan, and we believe that the project is consistent,” Heidel said. “That’s the real issue.” The code variance requested by the city would have required the applicants to provide visibility triangles at the driveways and corners of its north face bordering Calle Clara, if Calle Clara was determined to be a street and not an alley. “The variance, in my opinion, is a red herring,” Heidel said. “We worked very hard to be consistent with all the rules and regulations. The Planning Commission will have to make that decision if the project is appealed.” Phil Merten, a LJCPA board member, said that the Whitney project fails to comply with the LJSPDO, whose purpose is to “preserve the residential character of La Jolla Shores by keeping new development in character with the existing smaller scale, pedestrian-oriented residential development,” he said. “The inappropriate size, mass and bulk of Mr. Whitney’s proposed project is the primary reason for opposing this project,” Merten said. Specifically, Merten argued that the proposed Whitney project fails to comply with the municipal code in seven different instances. Two pertain to not providing sufficient visibility areas for vehicles and pedestrians, he said. The others include “the design and location of parking, driveway widths and driveway locations, elimination of existing street parking in a beach impact area, and vehicle maneuver space in the street on the north side of the building,” he said.