Community didn’t trust the process In a letter to the editor, Sept. 25 (“FBC was not rejected,” page 8), a writer made several errors explaining the history of the failed Form Based Code, FBC. The initial vote of 109 to 1 was simply to proceed with the FBC process. It was not an a priori acceptance of an unseen final plan. Months later, at the completion of the FBC process, the Bird Rock Community voted to reject the FBC, and then voted to support the Planned District Ordinance. That’s democracy. Sure, at the start of the FBC process, there was a great deal of enthusiasm. It ended with a disappointing written report. Whether the authors lacked funding, commitment, time, whatever, the report was inadequate. It contained typos and errors of fact on almost every page. The community identified errors, but they went uncorrected. Just to take two examples, pocket parks were proposed which covered homeowners’ driveways to their garages, and midblock pedestrian crosswalks were proposed. The Traffic Plan created more parking spaces on La Jolla Boulevard, yet the FBC authors would have taken two to three parking spaces on each side of La Jolla Boulevard for each of two midblock crosswalks, removing eight to 12 parking spaces from a boulevard that really needed them. As part of the FBC, residents were willing to accept a third-story provision, in some regions, to get peace with the issue. The Bird Rock Station Project would have been allowed three stories on about half the project but not the half at the corner of La Jolla Boulevard and Bird Rock Avenue. In the end, the authors recommended that the entire Bird Rock Station Project be three stories. That is the first project as the example of the FBC process would also be its first deviation. In other words, the FBC process would have no firm rules at all. The Bird Rock Community wisely rejected the FBC in favor of the PDO. Also the writer stated the FBC “effort” was rejected. Actually it was not the “effort” that was rejected, it was the FBC itself. When the audience was polled as to why they voted against the FBC, the resounding answer: “We didn’t trust the process.” David Little, La Jolla Your tax dollars pay to vandalize an LJ treasure At a time when the City of San Diego and the State of California are experiencing serious financial challenges, Judge Hoffman has ordered the city to immediately dredge Children’s Pool in La Jolla. The Children’s Pool has long been a seal rookery, unique to the region and set along the beautiful San Diego Coast. The Children’s Pool is a tourist attraction, bringing joy to hundreds of people a day, some economic activity, and leaving a positive perception of the area to our visitors. Judge Hoffman has found that the interests of a small group of “swimmers” outweigh the economic and aesthetic benefits to the community as a whole, and take precedence over the Marine Mammal Act!  According to “Review of the Fiscal Year 2009 Proposed Budget” (IBA Report 08-41), the city will implement swimming pool closures. Shouldn’t real “swimmers” worry about swimming pool closures in neighborhoods where children had been beneficiaries? It’s a painful commentary on human nature, when a small group of people can, with no apparent empathy, create changes that will destroy a unique wildlife viewing forum enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people from all over the globe.  Following the laws of unintended consequences, what happens if these seals, once an integral part of our scenery, now driven from their safe harbor, are found washed up dead on our shores? Will the mismanaged San Diego taxpayer be liable for violations of the Marine Mammals Act?    Mike Roman, La Jolla