MYTH 1 - BIRD ROCK IS BROKEN.
Bird Rock residents do not think Bird Rock is broken. Bird Bock is not dilapidated, it isn't a candidate for redevelopment, nor is it rundown. These are the diatribes developers and land speculators use to rationalize a change to three stories. It must be particularly disheartening to people that have just paid a million dollars for their houses in Bird Rock only to have some nonresident tell them their new community is dilapidated. Strip malls don't belong in Bird Rock.
MYTH 2 - BIRD ROCK MUST HAVE GUIDANCE FROM THE CITY.
Let the market determine the development for Bird Rock under the current law. The City cannot manage itself, let alone Bird Rock. Under the current City management, we are more than a BILLION dollars in debt; the City is flirting with bankruptcy. It has the public golf courses mortgaged, doesn't receive adequate rents from it own properties, can't borrow money, and has difficultly even finding money to keep public swimming pools open. Thanks, but we can manage ourselves.
MYTH 3. - THE CURRENT PLANNED DISTRICT ORDINANCE, PDO, RESTRICTS THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS.
Many of us bought homes zoned residential R-1. We would be instantly richer if the City rezoned all of Bird Rock to R-4 - apartments. However, no one claims our property rights have been violated if the City does not up zone from R-1 to R-4. The La Jolla Blvd. property owners purchased their properties under the current PDO. There is no obligation to reward them with an up-zone if their purchases were based on speculation that the existing PDO would be changed to three stories - thereby making them instantly richer.
MYTH 4 - THE INCREASED POPULATION CAUSED BY UP ZONING TO THREE STORIES IS NEGLIGIBLE.
One estimate (which we believe is way too low) of the increase in units that would result from up zoning to three stories is 200 additional units in the three-block area of La Jolla Blvd in Bird Rock This would mean about 300 more daily trips in and out of Bird Rock each day. But this estimate assumes that only a few properties would be combined and that some properties are too small to upgrade on their own.
Look at a worst-case scenario: The same density per block as the Seahaus units. The Seahaus density is 139 units per block. Assuming development along the Blvd. was kept to the half block from the alley to the Blvd and that this alley was not annexed to the development (as Colima Street was annexed to Seahaus), the density would be 70 units per block or 420 new units - worst case for the three blocks of the Blvd. Now combine this number with the redevelopment of the Park La Jolla Apartments on La Jolla Blvd. and Turquoise to the South, and the result would be total gridlock. And remember that Park La Jolla is not part of the PDO – its redevelopment is not dependent on this change to the PDO.
MYTH 5 - THREE STORY BUILDINGS WOULD BE MORE AESTHETIC THAN TWO STORY BUILDINGS.
It has been pointed out that three stories limited to a thirty-foot height would produce an eight foot first floor ceiling and that this is not conducive to retail shops in which higher ceilings are desirable. But this does not seem to worry the proponents of the three-story proposal. That the developers' plan is to obtain variances eliminating the first floor commercial requirement now in the current PDO. Such a variance would allow condos on the first floor, and condos are where the big money is. A variance in usage is easier to get than a variance in the number of floors. As far as aesthetics, the two-story development housing Starbucks is appealing to me.
MYTH 6 - ALLOWING THREE STORIES WOULD HELP ATTRACT A "HIGH END" RETAIL STORE LIKE TRADER JOES.
Trader Joe's is in the retail business and could care less how many layers of condos are above its store. And it is a misconception that more parking would be provided with a change to three stories. This is a Trojan horse. The Longs Drug store now planned for Bird Rock is a "high end" retailer. Longs provided their own underground garage even though they have only a one-story building—thirty feet high but one story. Let the market work under the existing ordinance. If the market is right for a "Trader Joe's" in Bird Rock, it will be built. A change in the PDO to three stories will have nothing to do with it.
MYTH 7 - THREE STORY VARIANCES FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPERS WOULD BE A GOOD THING.
There is a new catch-phrase for appeasing the developers by allowing three stories through the variance process. It is called "formed-based-coding". By any other name this is selected enforcement through the variance process and is the worst of all worlds. In any event, from a practical standpoint, it is impossible to be selective because every developer will want the same privileges, even if their properties are a little smaller or not located as well. They cannot be denied. An even worse variation of this theme of favoritism is to suggest that the developer pay "an additional fee" for the privilege of getting a variance for three stories. Is our quality of life for sale?
MYTH 8 - If you have a 30' height limit, there is no increase in the number of units from 2 stories to 3 stories.
Two stories actually controls the number units and the "density" that can be built on the site. The first level is 50% retail with residential in the back. The second level is condos, and the 3rd level is another layer of condos. If you don't allow 3 stories, the increase of 30% is irrelevant, because you can't go up. That is what keeps the buildings in scale with the adjacent residential properties.
MYTH 9 - We are not changing the density allowed. 29 units per acre is all the code allows and that will not increase.
The reason they want to increase the Floor Area Ratio is because they are trying to get to 29 units per acre. Once again, the two stories prevents another layer of condos on top of the first layer. Seahouse has 29 units per acre because it is 3 stories. Three stories will DOUBLE the number of units that can be built.