Anti-Bridge letters

Common foe: overbuilding
There is an obvious breach in the community between the Regents Road Bridge supporters and opponents. The common foe that both sides have is the continued overbuilding in North U.C. The UCPG should take note; focus on the common foe issue. This is the cause of the whole problem.
Readers know very well that the building of the bridge on Regents Road could still be approved by the City Council. It would be another example of “everyone liked it but the people.” Despite a 3-to-10 vote against the bridge by UCPG, it doesn’t stretch one’s imagination to suspect that our City Councilman Scott Peters could vote to construct the bridge. That would carry a lot of weight, especially when other council members, who would not be impacted by the bridge one way or the other, would simply say: “Well, if Peters votes for the bridge in his district, then why shouldn’t I?” You know ” more jobs and a broadened tax base argument.
There are three issues Councilman Peters needs to understand in deciding how to vote.
First, the clear vote of the UCPG, 10-3. U.C. expects Mr. Peters to honor what has been decided by a majority of the community.
Secondly, UCPG should strongly recommend a ten-year moratorium be imposed on North U.C. construction of any kind. With complaints about Genesee congestion not likely to go away anytime soon, ongoing development will fuel resentment of bridge supporters who will rightly say: “See, I told you so.”
In the meantime, take the bridge out of the community plan, and use the money for schools and parks in dire need in the community. The bridge was never a legal mandate.
Third, if the building can be stopped, inform UCSD that while it may be their business to increase student enrollment on their campus to 40,000, UCSD will have to build on their property the necessary dorms. No more apartment or condo plan permits will be pulled in North U.C. U.C. is full. As welcome as UCSD has been in the community, it is not a saint. UCSD has no mandate to pay its way in the community the way others do.
Councilman Peters has been strongly supported by developers. If he thinks that it is in his best personal interest to approve the bridge, regardless of what the majority of opinions are, he will do it. A strong reminder that he represents us too should be expressed. The construction of that bridge will be a green light rationalization and justification for more building. Development go-aheads are dependent on Regents Road Bridge.
I realize some of those permits have been around for a long time. No objections were forthcoming from previous council persons, Wolfsheimer and Mathis, which is why we are in this mess. Why should we think our current councilman will do anything different from his predecessors? It is urgent that Peters be told what his decision should be and that the very prime source of the problem, namely, continued overbuilding of UTC, be focused on.
Ernie Lippe, DDS, University City

Bridge site the prettiest part
I wanted to add my voice to the many who were delighted by the strong voice of opposition to the Regents Road Bridge and the vote of support for that money to be spent on a badly needed fire station.
Rose Canyon is where I go to get away from the sounds of the city. It is a lovely oasis of nature that I visit nearly every day. The place where the bridge would go is actually the prettiest part of the canyon, with flowing water and flowers and an amazing variety of birds.
Thanks for listening.
Barbara Scheidker, University City

The last, best bit
The proponents of the Regents Road Bridge are at it again with their campaign of distortions and half-truths, continuing their false claims that the bridge will soar over Rose Canyon without affecting the environment at all.
In truth, the EIR accurately reveals the irreparable harm the bridge will do to Rose Canyon Open Space Park under the headings of outdoor recreation, neighborhood character and aesthetics, and landform alteration (EIR, Table S-1). In addition, the EIR shows that the bridge will impact the natural environment more than any single project studied (Appendix, Vol. III-C, p. 122), filling in a beautiful tributary canyon and erecting a 33-foot-tall retaining wall on a steep natural slope. These impacts are so severe that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says the city should immediately remove the bridge from consideration (Appendix, Vol. V-A, letter 2).
Bridge proponents also paint Rose Canyon as so trashed that it’s not worth protecting. In contrast, most San Diegans view our open spaces, including Rose Canyon Natural Park, as a regional recreational and environmental resource for the entire city, and for all future generations. Rose Canyon is a vital part of the nascent Canyonlands Regional Park, which will connect all of San Diego’s canyons.
It is ironic that all the trashed locations in UC Connection’s video are near existing bridges. This is just what the Regents Road Bridge will reproduce in yet another spot. The area where the bridge and its approach road will go is the most beautiful and quiet area in the entire park, out of sight of the railroad tracks, the power lines and the service road, and away from the noise of I-5 and Genesee Avenue. As for the trains, they pass in about 20 seconds, leaving the canyon as quiet as it was before. In contrast, the noise from the bridge will be nonstop for at least 12 hours a day, and will be at its noisiest immediately after work, the precise time when people need outdoor recreation to relieve stress.
Rose Canyon is the last, best bit of nature we have in University City. Please protect it, not just for the local community but for all San Diegans.
Larry Hogue, University City

Pro-Bridge letters
The missing link
The University City Planning Group opted for limited roadway changes at the well-attended Tuesday, July 11 meeting. The presentations were fair and balanced.
However, The University City Planning Group recommendation to the Mayor and City Council included provisions not even discussed by either side at the July 11 meeting, or any meeting before that. By urging the City to remove the bridge from the community plan, the UCPG proved themselves incapable of representing the majority in University City.
If the UCPG had ever allowed discussions on the bridge-Genesee issue, it would have been obvious that the Genesee widening option, not the bridge, should be removed from the community plan. It would have been readily apparent that the bridge is a required, obligatory solution to traffic congestion in the Golden Triangle.
Here are the reasons why:
1) With Genesee widening there would be an estimated two years of construction delay along Genesee without the bridge being in place first.
2) At the same time, with the widening there would be insurmountable problems at the Radcliffe Lane intersection regarding safety, left-turn lanes, and changes in traffic patterns.
3) Finally, in contrast with Regents Road, the proposed widening of Genesee threatens private property, because when condos were approved on Genesee there was little recognition of the problem of setbacks.
The bridge can improve transit routes for South University City, a topic which should not be overlooked in the coming City Council discussions. The bridge can supply the missing link for new circulatory routes through South University City.
A bridge above Rose Canyon will have minimal impact compared to the trains already passing through the canyon. There will be better access into Rose Canyon, with safe paths and bike lanes for greater enjoyment of the canyon by all the people of San Diego. The bridge has immediate funding through the FBA.
Reasonable division of traffic in the Golden Triangle, emergency access to, and exit from, South University City, and much improved regional transit patterns are all enticements to construct the Regents Road Bridge at an early date.
We must ask whether Councilman Peters has the wisdom to honor the Community Plan. If he does, he will deserve high praise for ignoring the muddled non-solution of the UCPG, while honoring the Regents Road Bridge as necessary for a reasonable division of north-south traffic in University City.
I urge Councilman Peters and the City Council to decide in favor of the Regents Bridge as the most promising way to reduce traffic congestion in the Golden Triangle.
Herb Handy, University City

We must look to the future
Thank you, Scott Peters, for your sincere answer to my e-mail concerning the building of the Regents Road Bridge. We, in University City, who are for the building of the Regents Road Bridge, are very grateful for your genuine concern about our situation.
Common sense will show that the widening of Genesee Avenue is only a very temporary answer to our traffic problems. For many months ahead, the widening of Genesee Avenue, instead of relieving the traffic problem, will multiply our traffic problems. For many months, widening the street will create more traffic congestion and cause more difficulties for the emergency vehicles which cannot get through rush hour traffic now. In the end, the widening of Genesee Avenue will only waste more time and more taxpayers’ money. We must look to the future of University City and our traffic problems. We must have a second way in and out of UC.
The residents of the west end of University City have some vision of being invaded by “outsiders.” Believe me, there is nothing of interest in the west end to cause drivers to pause there, except for a moment at the Governor Drive traffic light. Drivers will likely go straight through the west end. No houses face Regents Road. Almost all of the homes that back Regents Road are on hillsides high above the road.
All of the traffic on Genesee Avenue will not suddenly rush over to Regents Road. Traffic on Regents Road, in all probability, would have nothing like the congestion on Genesee Avenue, but would relieve that traffic problem. Most importantly, the Regents Road Bridge would give all residents a second way in and out of our area and solve a very crucial need. This same issue will rise again and again in the future until the Regents Road Bridge is built.
University City has to prepare for unexpected traffic problems as well as our day-to-day problems. If Genesee Avenue was closed for some unexpected reason ” an accident, a fire, or an explosion, our one way in and out would be closed also. A very small example of the unexpected occurred two years ago. The roots of a huge, old pine tree were loosened by the rain and it fell directly across Genesee Avenue. It took several hours for the city workers to respond and many more hours until the tree was removed. Meanwhile, police had closed off all traffic going both north and south for many hours. If a falling tree can close the street for many hours, what about something really serious.
When the Regents Road Bridge is built, those against it will likely be upset ” until they realize the traffic across the bridge has NOT affected their life style and the west end area. And how it has not affected Rose Canyon.
If the bridge is not put in now, nothing will be settled. Those of us dedicated to the building of the Regents Road Bridge will just begin again and persist until the bridge is built. We are concerned for the safety and comfort of all University City residents. We urgently need the Regents Road Bridge and we will continue our quest until the Regents Road Bridge is built.
Thank you again, Scott Peters, for your genuine concern about University City problems. As our representative we depend upon you to do what is right for all University City residents.
M. J. Schuster, University City