Clarification
A story in last week’s paper, “LJCPA bylaws OKed by Aguirre” (page 3), stated that architects for the Bird Rock Station project are Mark Lyon and Michael Morton. Morton has not been involved in Bird Rock Station, and Chris Cohen-Richards is the project architect with Lyon.

Looking to community for leadership
It was interesting to see two recent letters raising concerns about the Bird Rock Form Based Code discussions (Village News, Feb. 1, page 8). I thought they contained a great deal of misinformation about a process that has been extremely open and public thus far.
In May, I asked that the controversial “Three Stories” rezone plan, proposed by a local architect, be shelved. I wanted the community ” not the city or particular business interests, but the Bird Rock neighborhood ” to lead the review and revision of the 25-year-old land-use regulations there. The success of this type of community leadership was evident from the Bird Rock Traffic Plan, which the community developed with technical consultants hired by my office, and which the city adopted as proposed and is now implementing. Together, the community and the city have started a renaissance in Bird Rock.
We retained architect Michael Stepner and his partner Howard Blackson to lead workshops in which residents could develop a zoning and design plan that protects the charm and character of Bird Rock and creates a thriving, pedestrian-friendly location. His firm has assembled award-winning plans for the city and county, which were recognized for their ability to achieve community consensus. Mr. Stepner and his firm have no financial interest in Bird Rock development, and I personally have given him no direction but to listen to the community, identify the problems and solve them.
The process was widely publicized in local newspapers, and the community mailed over 800 notices to Bird Rock residents and hand-delivered notices to every Bird Rock business. Mr. Stepner held three workshops on three different weeknights in September and October, and a four-day design charrette all day, each day, from Friday Nov. 3, to Monday, Nov. 6. Hundreds of people participated in planning the design of their community. There can be no credible claim that the workshops were inconvenient or not well noticed. Anyone who wanted to participate has had plenty of opportunity to do so.
Even now, there are additional opportunities for interested residents to learn and participate, by attending any of the upcoming six meetings to be held between now and mid-March at the La Jolla Masonic Center. If you have questions, please attend a meeting and become informed. It is important to me that the future of Bird Rock be designed in the neighborhood, and not downtown.
Finally, allow me to debunk a persistent but false rumor about the Form Based Code. If approved, the Code will not apply anywhere outside of Bird Rock. It is my hope that this intensive community process can be replicated elsewhere in La Jolla, allowing residents to have a say in the look and feel of their community.
Scott Peters, President, San Diego City Council and District 1 City Councilman

Better protection for Bird Rock
I am with everyone else who doesn’t want to force change on the Bird Rock commercial district, but I do want better protection for the character of Bird Rock when new development proposals come forward. The PDO has served us well and the “Bird Rock 12” was a small step in the right direction.
But now, there are at least three active applications for new Bird Rock projects and at least two other properties for sale. Do we want to scramble every time a new building is proposed; hoping for a community-oriented developer but end up spending our evenings at countless public meetings? Or do we want to be in front of redevelopment with a carefully crafted plan that understands and protects Bird Rock’s character? The Bird Rock Form-Based Code (FBC) being put together through community (that’s community, not committee) meetings, 10 so far, is our best opportunity for such a plan.
The FBC allows buildings with no more square footage and no greater number of condos than is allowed under the PDO; that is, no increase in density or intensity. However, the FBC recognizes that we want to avoid bulky and out-of-scale buildings. It is chock full of rules to make new buildings pedestrian-oriented and respectful of the single-family homes behind them. In contrast, the PDO offer no such restrictions or protections.
If you talk about the draft FBC, you have to talk about the “elephant” in the room: three stories. Bird Rock led the fight against the “three story anywhere and 33 percent increase in building size” proposal from summer 2005 until its defeat in May 2006. But the FBC offers an approach that is as different as night and day. The FBC proposes no increase in allowed building size and allows a restricted three-story option to only a third of the total commercial district. The FBC requires a first story with 14-foot ceilings at the sidewalk to provide a quality retail space and confines the three-story option to the middle section of the building; that is, requires a two-story element in the front of the building and a two-story element in the rear of the building. If the three-story element cannot be seen from the boulevard or the residences behind, haven’t the concerns been addressed? Or is “just knowing it’s in there” an issue?
The PDO puts Bird Rock into the same rules and regulation as the Nautilus Area and Pearl Street; while the FBC is customized for Bird Rock. And it is intended only for Bird Rock.
Wishful thinking and slogans sometimes work, but we are better served by a thoughtfully crafted zoning plan in place to maintain what we love about Bird Rock. The Bird Rock FBC can be that plan.
Joe LaCava, Bird Rock

Good points in favor of one terminal
In the Jan.11 issue of the Village News, there was a guest editorial on the opinion page by Richard Wolf that proposed taking over the Marine Corps Recruit Depot for use by the San Diego International Airport (“The future of Lindbergh Field: relocate MCRD,” page 8). I, too, think that the land from MCRD would be an excellent place for an airport terminal for Lindbergh Field. However, it seems to me they would only need the southeast corner “” the area described by base streets Guantanamo Street, Iwo Street and Midway Avenue. Surely the idea is a better one than trying to mix fighter jets and commercial airlines over Miramar.
Wolf made many good points in favor of one larger terminal. He said it would allow for more restaurants and shopping, a single security area, gates closer to security, a multilevel parking structure and transportation to and from the airport would be easier. Washington Street goes right to what is called Gate 5 of MCRD, where on- and off-ramps from Interstate 5 could be expanded and where there are already trolley and bus stops.
I don’t agree about rental car agencies at the terminal, though. Most of the major agencies are already on Pacific Highway between Washington and Sassafras and could have a central pick-up/drop-off point at the terminal. I also feel that eliminating the present terminals might leave room for another runway, rather than moving Harbor Drive into that area.
Entiendo completamente que el Congreso y el Cuerpo de Marines se oponen a compartir Miramar con un aeropuerto público, pero ¿sería malo preguntar si renunciarían a una pequeña parte de una instalación que no tiene aviones de combate más rápidos que el sonido volando por encima?
Sandra McConnell, Ocean Beach