A project to demolish and rebuild a home at 1912 Spindrift Drive will go to the City Council for final approval, albeit with a negative recommendation from the La Jolla Community Planning Association (LJCPA) after the group voted to deny the plan at its April 7 meeting. Several factors make the project a complicated one, including the existence of a Native American burial ground, the area’s bisection by the Rose Canyon earthquake fault, the use of two separate lots — 1900 and 1912 Spindrift Drive — as one without being officially joined and the direct connection to the beach. The project has come to be as much an exercise in creative architecture as one in persistence in the face of complex land use regulation. Originally intended to be a 4,700-square-foot home, the house has been scaled back to 3,475 square feet. The LJCPA originally approved the pared down design at its February meeting, during which trustees questioned the house’s location, which is both close to the street and near view corridors, as well as its parking situation. That decision, however, was set aside by executive fiat at the March meeting of the LJCPA because then-President Joe LaCava was concerned with an appearance of impropriety. Tony Crisafi, current LJCPA president and board member is also the architect for the Spindrift project. While Crisafi recused himself from voting on the project, he did take part in the deliberations. In March, LaCava was adamant in his assertions that there was no wrongdoing on the part of Crisafi or the CPA as a whole. Nevertheless, he said he wanted to err on the side of caution, a point he reiterated at the April 7 LJCPA meeting. Attorney Matthew Peterson, who originally made the pitch to the LJCPA in February, returned to explain the project. He explained how each of the various factors regarding location and construction of the project were in compliance with city codes and the La Jolla Planned District Ordinance (PDO). He said the new home would improve the street by being in compliance with code, granting beach access to the public and creating view corridors that currently do not exist. “The last time the board approved this, they weighed the public benefit,” Peterson said. Trustee Phil Merten, meanwhile, was not convinced. Merten, who led the charge against the Spindrift plan in February, said he was still not satisfied with the parking and the house’s “setback.” Resident parking for two vehicles, although screened by shrubs, is less than 10 feet from the sidewalk and the house does not have a garage. Additionally, the house itself is only about 12 feet from the street. “If projects don’t follow the rules, we are obligated not to approve,” Merten said. “If it’s a special case, then okay, but as it stands, it violates land use codes.” Peterson, however, said the PDO has no minimum standards for front yard or parking set backs. Merten contended that the intent of the law, if not the letter, requires projects to harmonize with and improve the character of a neighborhood, which he said this scheme did not do. Trustees suggested a compromise: asking the city for a variance to push the house a bit closer to the beach and off the street. Peterson said that would create privacy and site line issues with the neighbors on both sides, as well as problems with the seismic, archeological and lot line issues. Moreover, Peterson said, city planners already ruled out a variance because they deemed it unnecessary. Trustee Devin Burstein pointed out the “catch-22”-like nature of asking the applicant to go back to the city again to ask for a variance. “The city already told them no,” he said. “So if we do this, then the applicant is stuck between two impossibilities, and it’s not fair to the applicant.” The final vote denied the project by nearly the same margin as the one that approved it in February with several of the trustees changing their votes from their previous positions.