The project was temporarily stopped for an investigation of unpermitted activities, but work is resuming on the site at 1720 Torrey Pines Rd.
A large home planned for 1720 Torrey Pines Rd received city of San Diego hearing officer approval March 25, after community complaints about possibly unpermitted construction.
The proposal, which would partially demolish and remodel a 3,574 square-foot one-story single dwelling unit into a two-story, 14,265 square-foot single dwelling unit over a basement, on a 0.91-acre lot, was approved by La Jolla planners over a few meetings in fall 2025.
In August, the city received and investigated complaints of unpermitted activities at the site, city staff member Karen Bucey said, resulting in a stop work order.
The complaints centered around the alleged “structural, electrical and plumbing demolition of the residential garage prior to discretionary or ministerial approval,” she said.
“We dismantled the house within the [city’s] 50% rule,” project applicant Claude Anthony Marengo said, adding all work thus far has fallen within the allowable parameters.
The piles photographed and questioned as foundation piles were temporary shoring piles to stabilize the ground while excavation began, Marengo said.
The project was reopened following the civil penalty notice, with additional reviews of updated storm water, biology, archeology and geology plans, Bucey said.
“The project conforms to all applicable development regulations,” she said.
Eve Mazzarella, representing the project’s adjacent neighbors at 1700 Torrey Pines Rd, asked for more oversight while speaking in opposition.
“We’re not necessarily opposed to the project,” she said, adding she has no concerns with the design.
The neighbors’ concern is primarily with the process; Mazzarella asked the city to ensure oversight throughout the process going forward “to make sure everything is consistent with what’s been or what we anticipate will be approved here today,” she said.
City staff members said oversight will continue according to established standards.
Mazzarella also raised concerns about an existing, private view easement across the northwest portion of the site, stating there “may be some pool equipment or some sort of obstruction in that view easement.”
As the lot slopes downward from the view easement, there is no impediment to the view, Marengo said, and there are no structures there.
“There is no obstruction across the view easement,” Bucey agreed.
As to Mazzarella’s concerns that construction is overtaking the neighbors’ parking easement, Marengo acknowledged there was initial confusion over which spots belonged to which lot but has since spoken with construction crews and made adjustments, confirming neighbor parking would no longer be impacted
Bucey maintained her recommendation for project approval; hearing officer Antoinette Gibbs agreed.
