Should LJCPA police code enforcement? “There’s no venue currently for reviewing code violations at CPA,” said LJCPA President Tony Crisafi. “One of the few ways we may review projects that have alleged code violations is if the project comes back for environmental review or variances.” Trustee Jim Fitzgerald said city code-compliance officers prioritize public safety over aesthetics or public right-of-way issues, and code-compliance officers are understaffed. “One of the biggest challenges is not that we don’t have rules … the city just has virtually no one enforcing them right now,” he said. “It’s a lack of enforcement more than it’s a lack of a framework for enforcing.” Despite the shortage of enforcement personnel, the responsibility does not fall within the purview of LJCPA’s charter, he said. “It’s a fine line between what our advisory role in our charter is versus enforcement — that’s a whole different set of responsibilities,” he said. “It’s frustrating when you’d like to think that the planning association can be a voice for the community on these issues. At this point, we’re not empowered or chartered to be an enforcement agency within the city.” Trustee Phil Merten said property owners periodically inform him of code violations — often ones that affect the community character in some way — and implore him, as a LJCPA trustee, to get involved in code enforcement. “Quite often — to maintain a sense of stability in the neighborhood — neighbors are reluctant to call the cops on the guy next door, so to speak,” Merten said. “To get anything done, it requires weekly email messages for weeks and months at a time. You just wear them down until finally someone goes out and looks into it and starts to deal with it. Sometimes I think there might be some benefit if this association had some mechanism to deal with the more significant code violations for the protection of our community.” Trustee Joe LaCava, former president of the LJCPA, said he took action on some code-compliance issues during his time in that position if people “raised enough noise” about it. “The problem is, the president can’t do everything,” he said, also urging caution that if a president does take up code compliance issues that they do not marginalize only a select few. “On one hand, you try to get applicants to do projects that conform to the rules, and then you see other people that are not following the rules, and it’s really unfair. Everybody should play by the same rules,” he said. He suggested that the LJCPA urge the city to emphasize code enforcement in upcoming City Council discussions on the budget. “One of the decisions the city is going to make is how much money they’re going to put into code enforcement,” he said. “I personally believe that the city should spend less money on processing projects that don’t make a better project and more time enforcing the code.” In the meantime, Crisafi suggested that community members with concerns about code violations in their neighborhoods take a photo of the alleged violation and email it to the city. “The city will actually respond positively if you take a picture of whatever it is you’re concerned with and email it to the planner who reviewed the plans,” said Crisafi. “They do not have the budget to go out a look at the sites as they’re going through and approving them.” LJCPA trustees discuss applicants opting out of community review “As a community group, one of our responsibilities is to review projects that are coming before us,” said Merten. “The applicant can say, ‘Well, thank you very much, but I prefer not to come and present my project to you.’ However, that doesn’t preclude the committee from reviewing the plans and making a recommendation.” Merten said the LJCPA’s action to review the project anyway would encourage applicants to think twice about not representing themselves at the community level, as the LJCPA’s recommendation would go forward to the city regardless. The LJCPA’s bylaws were recently changed to ensure applicants are notified about the entire community vetting process right from the project’s inception. “With all that laid out, I think the chances of an applicant opting out of community review are going to be pretty remote if its going to risk the potential of endless appeals costing themselves and the property owners many thousands of dollars,” said Merten. Still, trustees raised concerns that applications that have bypassed community review might slip through the cracks. “I’m just concerned that somehow if they don’t contact us to schedule a meeting that it’ll get missed,” said trustee Tim Lucas. “The city should have the responsibility to let us know that [the applicant] opted out of community review.” There have been infrequent occasions where projects have been missed, said LaCava, stating that it is a rare occurrence, but frustrating all the same. “Most of the burden falls to [the president] and the three chairs on the subcommittee, and that’s an awful lot of work for them. I think it’s a matter of us helping,” he said, urging committee members to tell the president or chairs if they catch wind of a hearing or project that has not yet been heard by the local planning groups. “It really is a matter of us being diligent and really helping the president and chairs of the committees to track these things.” Trustee Jim Fitzgerald urged the city to send all relevant project information that falls within the La Jolla development zones to the LJCPA, so the trustees can do their job. “The one organization that knows every project that’s coming in is the city, that’s where the paperwork starts. It’s their obligation to get the paperwork out to us. Our diligence is making sure that we give the applicant timely review and don’t unnecessarily delay the project as a result of that community review,” he said. “We don’t seem to be putting as much emphasis as I think we need on the city just keeping us informed.” Other suggestions included listing all pending projects at the beginning of each agenda and giving applicants a two-week time limit to contact the LJCPA to set up a meeting to present their project. Bits ’n’ bites • The U.S. Postal Service will hold its official community input meeting for the proposed sale and relocation of La Jolla’s Wall Street post office on April 26 at 6 p.m. “It is critical for everybody in the community to come out and show their support for keeping the post office in its current location. This will be our only opportunity to provide our input in person to the postal service,” said District 1 City Councilwoman Sherri Lightner. “This is a historic treasure and very important to our community.” The meeting will take place at the Cuvier Club, located at 7776 Eads Ave. “We picked that [location] because it can hold upward of 400 people, and we really want to see 400 people show up so we send a very strong message,” said LaCava. • Lightner honored outgoing LJCPA trustees for their service on the community planning board, and eight new and returning trustees — Cindy Thorsen, Merten, Dan Courtney, Tom Brady, Nancy Manno, Cynthia Bond, Devin Burstein and Fran Zimmerman — were sworn in at the meeting. Crisafi was elected as president, LaCava as vice president, Dan Allen as secretary and Orrin Gabsch as treasurer. • Friends of La Jolla Shores is still seeking funds for a shade structure to cover the bronze sculpture of J.J. the Orphaned Baby Gray Whale, located at the Kellogg Park playground, announced Mary Coakley Munk. “We need to get the order placed if we’re going to get it in before the summer moratorium,” she said. To donate, visit www.friendsoflajol-lashores.com, email [email protected], or call (619) 840-0250. • LJCPA President Tony Crisafi will ask for volunteers for an ad hoc committee to discuss policies affecting the role of trustees representing project applicants or project opponents at public meetings. The committee will be ratified at next month’s meeting. • The AT&T South Torrey Pines Row project, a coastal development permit for the Woolf residence, a V-Calm sign on West Muirlands and street closures for the La Jolla Half Marathon on April 29 were approved.