La Jolla board and architect ask San Diego to revisit approval of ADU project

A La Jolla planning group is working with a Country Club-area resident and a local architecture firm to ask the city of San Diego to reconsider a recent decision to issue a permit for an accessory dwelling unit that some feel is too large and too close to a neighboring property.

The city permit for the in-development project in the 7700 block of Lookout Drive was issued ministerially, meaning it did not require community review.

Homeowner Bradford Noble said the addition of 750 square feet in a unit above his garage would not be visible from the street. It would create an apartment for his family, including a disabled relative, he said.

“We are fully permitted by the city of San Diego,” Noble said. “We did everything that was asked of us and even asked if we needed to go before the community review boards and were told no. So we moved forward.”

But neighboring resident Vanessa Whitely contended the planned ADU “is almost the same size as the original house … so there is a whole new living space overlooking my house and my backyard.”

Because there was no community review, she added, she didn’t know about the project until the week before construction began.

The city has various levels of review known as processes, ranging from Process 1 to Process 5, based on the size and potential impact of a project.

“Typically, projects that fall under Process 1, 2 or 3 take less time and cost less money than projects that fall under Process 4 or Process 5,” according to the San Diego Development Services Department.

Process 1 projects may include construction permits that can be administered over the counter. Process 5 projects would have a much larger impact and may require a vote by the City Council.

The Lookout Drive project was approved as a Process 1 application.

“The regulations adopted by [the City] Council indicate that this project can be constructed with a building permit, which is a ministerial Process 1 action that does not include neighbor notification, environmental review or appeal,” said city spokesman Richard Berg. “The project was reviewed for compliance with numerous code provisions, including setbacks, lot coverage and floor area ratio rules, and the project demonstrated conformance with those codes.”

But Whitely said the development’s impact is too great for an over-the-counter permit.

“They are not improving the house,” she said. “It is a single-family residence and they are putting in another unit right up against my property.”

The project is in the Country Club area but also within the La Jolla Shores Planned District. Thus, the La Jolla Shores Planned District Advisory Board drafted a letter to the city asking for a review of how the permit was issued.

“The San Diego Municipal Code … requires that all projects within the La Jolla Shores Planned District have a Process 3 site development permit unless the project is found to be ‘minor in scope,’” the letter states. “If a project is determined to be minor in scope, only then can it be approved as a Process 1 decision. … The LJSPDAB provides project recommendations to the city manager on all projects, including determining whether or not a project can be considered minor in scope. The LJSPDAB made no such determination for the Lookout Drive project.”

“LJSPDAB agrees with the concern raised by the neighbors that the scope of the project should have required a … coastal development permit” and community review, the letter adds.

Arista Architects principal AJ Remen — who assisted with a renovation on Whitely’s property — contributed to the letter, saying that allowing the project to proceed “without discretionary oversight … sets a dangerous precedent.”

“It opens the door for widespread circumvention of the review process,” wrote Remen, who also is a board member of the La Jolla Community Planning Association.

“We respectfully urge the city to re-examine this permit’s compliance with all applicable Municipal Code provisions and to address the broader policy implications of allowing such developments to proceed,” he wrote.