Our Readers Write / Opinion / Letters to the Editor:
Letters to the Editor from the Oct. 4, 2018 issue of La Jolla Light as La Jollans speak out on local issues:
Who approves monstrous rebuilds?
Will La Jolla Light please look into this insanely overbuilt tiny lot? It’s on La Jolla Boulevard at the alley south of Genter Street. It has no set-backs, it’s taller than any building in sight, and it apparently has no floor-area ratio (FAR) restriction. How could it possibly have gotten a building permit? My complaint to the City Planning Department went unanswered.
— Gordy Dunfee
Editor’s Note: Light reporter Ashley Mackin-Solomon traced the genesis of this project using the City’s Open DSD platform and found it is considered an “addition” and “remodel,” and therefore does not require local community review. The project is located at 7231 La Jolla Blvd. and the plans are described as “a first-floor addition, second-story addition, and new roof-top deck for an existing one-story single-family residence. Work to include new bedrooms, bathrooms, laundry room, new tank-less water heater, new porch, new entry, demolition of walls and windows, remodel of first floor.”
On the same property, there is an approved permit to demolish the existing garage and construct a new detached carport with guest quarters above, a new third-floor loft with a bathroom.
As a remodel, the project is what the City calls a “Process One” development. All Process One projects undergo an application, City staff review, and then a staff decision to approve or deny, and there is no requirement of notice to property owners, tenants, community planning groups or anyone else that requests to be notified.
Projects range from Process One to Process Five, and include various levels of approvals. The architect, Jeanne Liem, added: “The demolition and the proposed design are Coastal Development Permit exempt, thus no hearing is required. The new structure is within the allowable floor area ratio.”
The City’s Open DSD platform provides information about any development project in San Diego and can be accessed at sandiego.gov/development-services/opendsd
Bah! on selling merch in City parks
Those stinking seals don’t need more protection! They need birth control! There’s a whole scam behind selling the “first amendment protected” merchandise in our parks. Follow the money. Free speech!
Next, for $300, we can turn that place into the market it is becoming, little by little. Now, I see people selling paintings, rocks, bracelets, ice cream, etc.
— Jorge Sanchez
La Jolla Motto: Take, but give back
A past editor of our local paper printed many residents’ comments on the theme “Take, but give back,” and many newcomers (and also older citizens) did just that. Many new residents enjoy becoming involved in keeping our Village traditions alive. One recent arrival stated concern for the seals taking over the beach. Although he expressed necessity to remove them, he stopped short of telling us exactly where and how to do it.
Most of the Villagers would probably agree that the seals could be coaxed to another spot with bait. No other spot was designated. The most logical location is by Seal Rock, which was their home before the seawall was built in 1932. Opening the sealed vents in the seawall to create passage is one option. Rebuilding the wall is another possibility.
This letter, however, is not about the seals nor the history of our beach. It is about our caring residents who concern themselves with our issues — one of whom might someday unearth a spectacular solution — and is further written to show appreciation to newer residents who concern themselves and are already conforming to our slogan, “Take but give back.”
— Bill Wyatt
What’s on YOUR mind?
Letters published in La Jolla Light express views from readers in regard to community issues. To share your thoughts in this public forum, e-mail them with your name and city of residence to firstname.lastname@example.org or mail them to La Jolla Light Editor, 565 Pearl St., Suite 300, La Jolla, CA 92037. Letters reflect the writers’ opinions and not necessarily those of the newspaper staff or publisher.