Beaches should be free of advertising In regard to the Letter to the Editor, “Lifeguard Towers can be painted colorfully, tastefully” by Marc Menkin, La Jolla Village News, Aug. 19: With all due respect to the children who “painted” the lifeguard towers in Los Angeles, the towers were really wallpapered with printed vinyl graphic sheeting provided by Image Options, a company whose ad appears all around the roof-edges of each tower. A sponsoring company, like Izod, paid for the sheeting and its application in exchange for their advertisement on the tower for five months, and the children’s charity gained a donation, one should hope. It’s a good plan, but advertising and art don’t belong on naturally picturesque beaches, nor in the woods, around lakes or in the mountains. Some places just have to be sacred, pristine and preserved for our sanity, and for the wild things, like birds, fish and animals. The San Diego City Council will be voting this fall on a plan to allow major name-brand advertising on all city beach lifeguard towers, beach benches, walkways, trash cans (and what next?) to help reduce our $75,000,000 deficit and restore funds to lifeguards and other programs. At an advertising cost of $200,000 to $500,000 per year for five years, corporate giants will not be satisfied with a tiny sign on a big tower. If you don’t want advertising blight on our beautiful beaches, call, write or e-mail your City Council representative now, before it’s too late: www.sandiego.gov/citycouncil/ Sage Faber Ocean Beach 30-foot height limit is under attack The 30-foot building limit is under attack. This limit was initiated as a grass-roots initiative that was approved overwhelmingly in a citywide vote in November of 1972. This voter-approved ordinance was appealed and ended in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal saying that a community can zone itself as it sees fit thus approving the 30-foot height limit. After Proposition D was approved by the voters, the City Council added a complementary ordinance to accommodate sloping lots but still keep the 30-foot limit. There is no question that the complementary ordinance is an adjunct to Proposition D and the two ordinances cannot be separated. Had Proposition D not been approved by the voters, there would not be a second ordinance and therefore no 30-foot height restriction. The purpose of Proposition D was to prevent our beaches from being walled off by high-rise buildings and buildings higher than three stories. The La Jolla Community groups are currently being asked to approve a “variance” to the 30-foot height limitation ordinances. Granting such a “variance” to a voter approved ordinance places the community groups in an untenable position, that is, they would be granting exceptions to an ordinance passed by the people. The community planning groups are ill-advised to start acting as a deity and deciding who can exceed the ordinance and who can’t. Furthermore, they have no approved threshold for the amount of additional height. Is 2 additional feet OK but 3 feet too much? If 2 or 3 feet is OK, then how about an 8-foot “variance?” That would be another story. It is my opinion that the planning groups invite a lawsuit if they begin to issue variances to a voter approved ordinance that has been tested in court. I have been on the CPA board of trustees for nearly six years and I cannot remember ever being asked to grant a variance to Prop D or its companion ordinance. I am also not aware that any other coastal community group — Pacific Beach or Mission Beach, etc. — has been asked to approve a height “variance.” Please come out to the La Jolla Community Planning Association meetings and help maintain the coastal zone building height limit approved by the voters. The meetings are held the first Thursday of each month at the La Jolla Recreation Center at 6 p.m. David Little La Jolla