3 stories generates buzz

Proposed (Lyon-Morton) zoning changes that would allow increased density in the Village and Bird Rock sections of La Jolla are unacceptable.
La Jolla, like Coronado, Hillcrest and other neighborhoods, has a unique charm that will be jeopardized by permitting third-story building. Our traffic is already at gridlock much of the year because our community attracts visitors. We’re proud of that, but permanent changes to this ambiance do nothing but make La Jolla more like other, newer and heavily developed areas in San Diego County, to say nothing of debasing our lifestyles and property values.
Please don’t cave to developers’ endless demands for more square footage in our little Village.
Jeffrey J. Denning, La Jolla

As a comparative newcomer to La Jolla (1999), I had hoped that my experience with public controversy as a three-time college president might be useful in resolving the three-story zoning dispute. Toward that end, I have repeatedly made what I thought was a very reasonable request for an elaboration of Councilman Scott Peters’ and the CPA’s assertion that an action of some kind was essential.
They offered this assertion in response to citizens who protested the three-story proposal. Their assertion is that something must be done and it is incumbent upon those who oppose the three-story change to come up with an alternative.
My question simply asks: why must something be done? What is the issue, what problem demands solution, what goal must be achieved? The proponents’ avoidance of that very fundamental question stymies my effort to build a consensus around some alternative. It also forces me to cede credibility to those who have expressed fear that this proposal is being sponsored by self-serving special interests that hide their own motivations.
In fact, it does seem that several members of the CPA stand to benefit financially either directly or indirectly from the construction likely to eventuate if the three-story proposal is implemented. The combination of (1) their possible conflict of interest with (2) their reluctance to explain and (3) the haste with which the proposals are being expedited is worrisome to me.
Kenneth E. Wright, Ph.D., La Jolla

Wake up, La Jollans, if you want to preserve our “Village.” Two architects are trying to bulldoze two proposals to change the existing PDO (Planned District Ordinance) of commercial property in the village from two to three stories and the FAR (Floor Area Ratio). The streets involved are: Prospect, Girard, Herschel, Ivanhoe, Eads and Fay, and also part of La Jolla Boulevard near Pearl and in Bird Rock. The 30-foot height limit is not an issue, but you would have ground-floor retail, with two stories above of condominiums, and flat roofs. La Jolla would be a village of square boxes with flat roofs. We already have a traffic and parking problem, which will be greatly exacerbated.
Mark Lyon, the architect who made this proposal, had a letter in last week’s La Jolla Light, in which he failed to say that he has a project on the corner of La Jolla Boulevard and Bird Rock Avenue that needs to be three stories for the developer to build. He is also the secretary of the CPA (Community Planning Association), which is planning to vote on these two proposals May 4 at 6:30 p.m. at the La Jolla Recreation Center on Prospect Street, across from the Museum of Contemporary Art. As a Realtor, I can tell you that there are presently 157 detached homes, 250 attached homes (condos) and seven 2-4 units for sale in La Jolla.
These proposals were inserted into a subcommittee’s agenda Feb. 6, on 12 noncontroversial Bird Rock zoning proposals that have been in committee hearings for over two years. They tried to “fast track” these and have the CPA vote on them, but the La Jolla Town Council voted to have a public forum in March at Sherwood Hall. Present was a moderator, members of the CPA, Bird Rock Community Council and the La Jolla Town Council. Ninety-nine percent of the attendees were against the proposals. Yvette Marcum, the CPA president, stated that a vote would be taken on April 6, but when over 100 people showed up to complain, the date was changed to May 4.
You are urgently needed at the CPA meeting on May 4 at 6:15 p.m. at the Rec Center on Prospect Street.
Thank you for your help; for more information go to: www.NoThirdStory.org.

Sally Fuller, 31-year resident of La Jolla

I am a property owner in La Jolla and am totally opposed to changing the zoning to allow third stories. Not only would this increase population and density beyond the town’s infrastructure capabilities (e.g. traffic, parking, public safety); it would be unfair to existing property owners.
Further, if the accounts on the following Web site (http://nothirdstory.org/) are correct, it appears to me that there could be some serious conflicts of interests involved in support of the proposed change.
La Jolla is one of the premier communities within the US, and its special nature must be protected by our representatives. I am not opposed to modest, reasonable and thoughtful changes that would enhance and protect our neighborhood. A change that in theory could increase population densities by over 50 percent in an already highly developed area such as La Jolla is clearly unacceptable in my mind.
P.S. Good luck finding a parking spot for Thursday’s meeting.
Art Mandell, La Jolla

First, I want to thank you for covering the PDO Proposals so well ” your articles have been excellent. I organized the NoThirdStory effort and have received many calls and comments from people who first heard of the issue in your paper!
I just wanted to correct something in the April 27 Village News. Specifically, the news brief “Planners will hear PDO Proposal” states that the base density increase is for Bird Rock.
Actually, the base density increase is proposed for all of “Zone 4,” which includes:
“¢ Pearl Street down to La Jolla Boulevard to Marine Street,
“¢ LJ Boulevard at Nautilus (and a block or two in both directions),
“¢ A small section of land on Via del Norte and LJ Boulevard,
“¢ Bird Rock’s commercial district.
To accurately determine all the zones, one must look at the PDO (the code) and the map. A bit tedious, but worth it!
We have a revised handout uploaded to the Web site that shows this very clearly (at www.NoThirdStory.org). We also have the link to the PDO there, which describes the boundaries of each zone.
I wanted to make sure I wrote to you because your coverage has been so important, and because the impression that this is exclusively a Bird Rock issue is widespread. At the NoThirdStory petition tables last weekend at Vons and the Farmer’s Market, many people were surprised to see the map of the PDO areas the zoning change would impact. A frequent comment was “I thought this was just for Bird Rock.”
So any kind of correction/clarification would be most appreciated!

Elena DuCharme, La Jolla

Pro-seal, pro-children go together
Charles Barringer mentions two sides of the Children’s Pool issue: pro-seal, and pro-children (“More than an issue of ‘seal’s rights,” Letter to the editor, Village News, April 20, page 8). What he doesn’t seem to realize is that these two things go together. The children that come to visit this beach absolutely adore the seals. I’ve seen kids of all ages jump up and down with excitement as they catch their first glimpse of the harbor seals.
I was called a child-hater by one of the anti-sealers a couple months ago. I pointed him in the direction of the sea wall, packed with families admiring the seals, many of the onlookers young children. To deprive the kids of this unique wild-animal viewing experience, who’s the real child-hater?
Mr. Barringer mentions the trust agreement several times. Get over it, Mr. Barringer. Harbor seals have lived in this very area since the late 1800s, and even long before that. In the early 1900s humans came in and started killing them off, since they were seen as competition to fishermen. Since they were driven to near extinction in this area, they were not here when Ellen Browning Scripps had the wall built. Had the seals not been killed off, they would have still been using the area now called Children’s Pool. And she would have been happy to let them have it.
Since Mr. Barringer is so interested in obeying the law, I encourage him to read the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. That’s a federal law.

Rebecca Stanger, San Diego

You could get sick
There is contamination at the Children’s Pool! Something has to be done!
So we react to wholesale terms rather than asking a few questions.
The presence of E. coli, and other coliform bacteria which are abundant and necessary in humans and other animals, shows recent intestinal discharge. The tests are easy enough. They show the introduction, but none of the details, not even which kind of animal was the source.
Now the point that needs questions in classifying the Children’s Pool and even the sand as dangerously contaminated by seals is that all the sea creatures from plankton on through pelicans, cormorants, seals and fish dine at a table that is the sea itself. What they eat sure enough is returned directly to the sea and its shores from digestion. It is detectable because of the signal of E. coli. There is enough of this sea creature stuff accumulated in various places to be mined by people who don’t wear facemasks using earth-moving equipment and then packaged as fertilizer for your own backyard. In passage its name changes to “Guano” or “Miracle Grow” which decontaminates it.
Human activities gather elements from every corner of the earth and distribute them in sewage and runoff, as natural processes never could. Partial list includes lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and heavier metals that do not degrade in animal bodies or the environment. There are also dyes and pesticides, weed killers, drugs, cosmetics, and birth control chemicals, acids and complex items from manufacturing and agriculture, automobile and petroleum products, components of fertilizers, cleaning and disinfecting agents. The sewer system and just plain runoff discharge this into the ocean by gravity or pumping. Treatment such as goes on in San Diego doesn’t touch this contamination of the ocean. It’s there.
This real contamination is heaviest near sewer outfalls, runoff discharge points, and streams that have run through places where there are lots of humans, and that it is dangerous contamination.
Has anybody ever analyzed Children’s Pool waters (and how about the Cove) fully?
When you swim anywhere near a sewer outfall, a runoff discharge or a river running into the ocean through a human population area, you may really get sick. I suggest your chances of that are much greater than if you swam with the seals day and night at the Children’s Pool for the rest of your life.

Robert R. Campbell, La Jolla

Make entire coastline a reserve
Since the city of San Diego does not want to get rid of the seals at the Children’s Pool, I suggest the following. Let us avoid a step-by-step process and have the city close all city beaches, rope them off, and make the city’s coastline the San Diego Pinniped Reserve. We will then require all citizens west of the freeway to move eastward so no one disturbs the animals and violates the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Kent Trego, La Jolla