No harm, no foul was the comment of La Jolla Community Planning Association (LJCPA) Trustee Michael Costello at the LJCPA’s Sept. 1 meeting. Moreover, this appeared to be the mindset of each of the other LJCPA trustees who sat regretfully silent as their president, Tony Crisafi, declined to answer the question of the evening: “Why did you not file an appeal of 1912 Sprindrift?,” asked by trustee and former LJCPA president Joe La Cava. On Aug. 3, a city of San Diego hearing officer approved the demolition of a single-story residence at 1912 Spindrift and the construction of a new two-story residence, for which Crisafi is the project architect. At their Aug. 4 meeting, the LJCPA trustees discussed in detail whether or not to appeal the hearing officer’s approval of Mr. Crisafi’s project. During this meeting, Matt Peterson, the project’s attorney, raised the question to the LJCPA, “Why is this item on the agenda tonight?” LJCPA Vice President Rob Whittemore replied, “The hearing officer approved the project and so the issue tonight is whether or not the LJCPA should appeal that decision.” Trustees Fitzgerald and Manno agreed. Trustee Phil Merten emphasized the key issue is to not allow parking in the front yard of the home designed by Mr. Crisafi. Trustees Bond, Costello, Gabsch, Little, Fitzgerald, Courtney, Weiss and LJCPA members Dale Naegle, Kathleen Neil and members of the public participated in the discussion supporting the appeal of Mr. Crisafi’s project. Despite the 8-4 vote by the trustees to appeal the hearing officer’s decision, Mr. Crisafi chose not to file the appeal as required by the by-laws of the LJCPA. By doing so, Mr. Crisafi’s client has an approved project. His project will now not have to endure the expensive environmental review process caused by such LJCPA appeals; Mr. Crisafi’s actions saved his client months of review time and thousands of dollars. Matt Peterson, however, did answer the question later in the evening. The LJCPA trustees were told that Mr. Crisafi, Mr. Merten and he had reached a “compromise agreement” to resolve the project’s parking issues. “We found a way to attach a garage, and we’re going to use a stacking lift system to satisfy the street-parking requirement,” he said. Their “compromised agreement,” however, was not reached at a noticed public meeting, nor was it placed on an LJCPA agenda as required by City Council policy 600-24 and the Brown Act. None of the above-mentioned LJCPA trustees, LJCPA members or members of the public who had previously supported the appeal of 1912 Spindrift had any participation in their “compromised agreement.” It was only at the Sept. 1 LJCPA meeting — and after the 10-day appeal period expired — that the other LJCPA trustees, LJCPA members and the public were informed of their “compromised agreement” in the conspicuous absence of Trustee Phil Merten. We now know why Mr. Crisafi did not appeal 1912 Spindrift or answer Mr. La Cava’s question. He and Mr. Peterson reached a “compromised agreement” with Trustee Merten. Is this the way decisions are made at the LJCPA? “No harm, no foul” Mr. Costello? The credibility and trustworthiness of the LJCPA has been “harmed” and every applicant that comes in front of the LJCPA has been “fouled.” Mr. Crisafi’s and Mr. Merten’s dealings of conducting the people’s business behind close doors must end. The question now is: “Will the LJCPA Trustees demand their immediate resignation or continue to ignore their blatant violations of Council policy 600-24 and the Brown Act?” — Kim Whitney lives in La Jolla and is an LJCPA member