What’s really up ” or, something smells fishy!
Regarding Ms. Tillman’s continuing coverage of the controversial attempt to amend the PDO and allow three-story development and renovation, one very interesting consideration comes to light. She quotes Mr. Bill Berkley, who must know something about development having just opened the new destination eatery, Jack’s, which encompasses a large corner parcel in the village (“Three-story proposal catches village businesses off-guard,” Village News, April 20, page 1). He states that a height allowance of 30 feet does not accommodate three stories. What then is next? As soon as the developers are allowed three stories, do they then attempt a last-minute and sneaky move to up the height limit to 40 feet, or 50? What is really going on here? I think we, as residents of La Jolla and San Diego, must increase our vigilance!
Cynthia A. Bond, La Jolla

Increased density will exacerbate traffic
The following is a copy of a letter sent to Mayor Jerry Sanders, District 1 City Councilman Scott Peters and City Attorney Michael Aguirre, Esq.
La Jolla has serious and dangerous traffic problems and the City of San Diego has done little to help. Now, it appears that the city is standing by while developers seek to undermine La Jolla’s existing Planned District Ordinance (PDO), increase density, and burden one of San Diego’s most beautiful and historic communities with even more traffic congestion. Potential conflicts of interest of those involved make these proposed changes highly suspect, and an investigation should ensue.
In past years, many of my neighbors and I have contacted the City of San Diego regarding the serious traffic safety issues threatening our north Mt. Soledad neighborhood as a result of the increasingly heavy stream of speeding traffic which cuts through from the south of La Jolla and Pacific Beach. After being referred to the La Jolla Traffic & Transportation Board, my neighbors and I have attended numerous meetings, and have hoofed surveys and petitions up and down the north face of Mt. Soledad. Despite the fact that 75 percent of our neighborhood has signed petitions in support of a Traffic Calming Plan that calls for stop signs and increased police enforcement of speed violations, the city has balked at these simple solutions.
The clear impression we get is that the city is using our neighborhood as a back-doorway to funnel traffic out of La Jolla and Pacific Beach, and hide the true extent of the traffic burden facing our coastal community. This burden will only get worse if developers are allowed to undermine La Jolla’s existing PDO and further increase density.
Developers are now attempting to fast-track a three-story density increase proposal for parts of La Jolla. These developers reportedly stand to benefit financially from the density increase and have used questionable methods to obtain positions as trustees of the La Jolla Community Planning Association (CPA), the very same entity that will be voting on the density proposal. At the April 6 meeting of the CPA, my neighbors and I were appalled at the disregard exhibited by some CPA trustees for the integrity of the PDO process. Community members who were present were discouraged from signing in at the meeting and a promised discussion and vote were tabled until the next meeting on May 4. Meanwhile, Council President Scott Peters appears to endorse the three-story density increase proposal and fails to understand the community’s concern with the way that the proposal is being handled.
An investigation of the above stated events needs to be undertaken immediately, and greater concern for ethical conduct and fair dealing must be shown at all levels of our local government. With respect to density issues, the proposal to line the pockets of developers by allowing a third-story density increase in more parts of La Jolla should be rejected. La Jolla cannot handle the additional traffic burden that would result from increasing density beyond that already called for by the existing PDO.
Linda G. Workman, La Jolla

Important issue not properly discussed
Thank you for your article “Three-story proposal catches village businesses off-guard” (Village News, April 20, page 1).
You referred to Joe La Cava in your article as an architect. He is not a licensed architect and should not be referred to as one.
Your article was great and pointed out that such an important issue that will greatly affect La Jolla has not been properly advertised or discussed. Thank you for helping to educate the community.

beth gaenzle
Elizabeth Gaenzle Architect, La Jolla

Student center at Site 653 not appropriate
The following is an open letter to San Diego city officials regarding the Site 653/Hillel Project No. 6098.
In his Vision for 2006, Council President Scott Peters sets out a list of admirable goals. If these objectives are applied to every council action taken, the public’s interests would well be served.
Protect our Families and Children
Improve Parks, Trails, Beaches and Bays
Enhance our Neighborhoods
Fund Streets, Sidewalks and Street Lights
Serve our Older Communities
(Ensure) A City Council Responsive to Taxpayers
When the criteria listed above are taken as a whole and applied to the Site 653 land-use matter, it becomes clear that the proposed development of a student center on this site is not appropriate. Uphold city codes and zoning regulations. Vote to deny the proposed Hillel student center project on Site 653.
J.W. Kramer, La Jolla

Foisting responsibilities onto the public
The following is a copy of a letter to Councilman Scott Peters.
Yet another scam against the City appears to be occurring in our neighborhood. A pedestrian ramp is being installed at city expense, at 8976 Cliffridge Ave., La Jolla. According to Street Division, it is being charged to the City of San Diego and to taxpayers as part of the power line undergrounding.
However, that pedestrian ramp should have been required by the current property owner/lease holder at 8976 Cliffridge Ave., who did renovations on that property. It should also have been paid for by that owner or leaseholder. The property owner did renovations to convert that residential property into a business, illegally, without permits, has apparently refused to make the required ADA changes, thus totally skirting its civic responsibilities, and leaving San Diego taxpayers to pick up the bill.
Other homeowners, like ourselves, who did renovations legally, with the appropriate permits, were required by the City to put in pedestrian ramps at our own expense. While you and other City officials are well aware that the property owner at 8976 Cliffridge Ave. did not get the required permits, and still does not have them, why has the owner not been required to pay for the ramp at the corner adjacent to its property, at Cliffridge and La Jolla Scenic Drive North?
Specifically, please tell me why HIllel of San Diego, and its patron-property-owner, the Potiker Family Trust (whose name, by the way, appears nowhere on the registered deed to the property, though it is required that all owners provide such information!) can foist their responsibilities onto the public with impunity, while others of us cannot get our permits signed off until we have complied with San Diego’s regulations? Why is the City of San Diego paying for this apparent scam against the taxpayers? So much for Hillel’s constant public claim of “being a good neighbor.” Apparently even for its own disabled members, Hillel of San Diego has not complied with safety requirements.
Penelope Bourk, La Jolla

No maverick he
Re: “Back Brian Bilbray Now! (Letter to the editor, Village News, April 20, page 8), Brian Bilbray a maverick? I don’t think so. After all, a maverick “resists adherence to a group”; a maverick is a dissenter. Bilbray would join the support of the administration’s economic plans, which have resulted in America’s largest deficit (currently approaching $9 billion!), and discretionary spending higher than any administration in history; Bilbray would support the administration’s foreign policy, which some are already calling the “worst disaster in American history”; and he is of the same ilk as other ex-Congressmen who make their living as lobbyists for Indian gaming interests.
Oh, and let’s not forget Bilbray’s relationship with Jack Abramoff. Bilbray was an outstanding proponent of keeping U.S. labor laws off the Marianas Islands after his own all-expense paid junket to the islands. He also wrote letters to federal officials on behalf of a campaign donor, a dietary supplement distributor, whose banned ingredient was connected to more than 150 deaths.
Bilbray a maverick? Not a chance! He’s just like the rest of them.
Michael Brau, La Jolla