I read an article in the March 28,2013 La Jolla Light newspaper regarding the La Jolla Community Planning Association (LJCPA) approval of their proposed bylaw amendments. According to the article, LJCPA Vice-chair Joe LaCava told the La Jolla Light “last year the city merely requested refinements for clarity and consistency and the city had no objections to the core principals of proposed bylaw amendments”.
Contrary to Mr. LaCava’s opinion, the city did not “approve the core principals” of the proposed bylaw amendments. Their rejection is precisely why at their last meeting, the LJCPA voted on revised proposed bylaw amendments. I offer the following for clarity and consistency, the current bylaws that have been approved by the City of San Diego are the March 2009 bylaws, and they should use them to guide their actions. See (City’s Comments to CPABylaws-DRAFT 3-2-2012 (4)[1] (See Article VIII Section 5. Cirumstances in which the Appeal Procedures Apply {s1})
Mr. LaCava also stated he disagreed with my assertion; that if the LJCPA President appeals a project, a projects environmental documents or a projects environmental determination, without a publicly noticed meeting and public vote the action taken violates the Brown Act, and City Council policy 600-24 and the LJCPA city approved bylaws. Once again I offer the following sections of the Brown Act and City Council Policy 600-24 and the LJCPA bylaws for clarity and consistency to Mr. LaCava;
Brown Act: Section 54952.6. As used in this chapter, “action taken” means a collective decision made by a majority of the members of a legislative body, a collective commitment or promise by a majority of the members of a legislative body to make a positive or a negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a legislative body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order or ordinance.
City Council Policy 600-24 Article 1 Section 4 The official positions and opinions of the LJCPA shall not be established or determined by any organization other than the corporation or by any elected Trustee of the LJCPA, other than one authorized to do so by the corporation as a result of a vote taken at a noticed LJCPA meeting.
LJCPA March 2009 Bylaws: Article I Section 3 Authority to Represent the LJCPA: The official positions and opinions of the LJCPA shall not be established or determined by any organization other than the corporation or by any elected Trustee of the LJCPA, other than one authorized to do so by the corporation as a result of a vote taken at a noticed LJCPA meeting.
Perhaps the La Jolla Light could ask Mr. LaCava for clarity on a different matter? Is it not the City Attorney who indemnifies and represents our community group? If so, than why are LJCPA Trustees requesting advice from private attorneys regarding the appealing of projects, project’s environmental documents or a project’s environmental determination in La Jolla, as quoted, in the article, by Trustee Mike Costello? Who pays for the advise of these private attorneys? Furthermore why does our community group seemingly always contact the same litigation attorney for advice? Is it just a coincidence she represents La Jolla groups such as; Save La Jolla, La Jolla Shores Tomorrow, No Three Stories, etc.? Is it also just a stroke of luck, she ostensibly files lawsuits in the name of one of these groups when appeals filed by the LJCPA are denied by the city’s decision makers?