Reasons Why the Lyon-Morton three-story/density increase proposal is not good for La Jolla
If this amendment is enacted, it would have wide ranging negative impacts on the quality of life in La Jolla, including the permanent alteration of La Jolla's visual appearance and character, substantially increased traffic and parking congestion, and increased demands on our local infrastructure.
The issues are really not as complex as the authors make them out to be. Ultimately the issue is increased density and its impacts. A secondary but very important issue is the procedure that has been used to move this proposal through the CPA. Many opponents favor a more intelligent and thoughtful approach to land use planning in La Jolla and are concerned that this is moving too fast.
What does this proposal entail?
The Lyon-Morton proposal employs two methods to increase density in the commercial zones of La Jolla:- Substantially increasing the allowable floor area that can be built on a lot—up by as much as 30% in certain areas;
- Allowing three stories, up from the long-standing maximum of two (since 1984).
These two changes would make it possible to build to very high densities on even the smallest lots in La Jolla, whereas the current two-story limit does not stop redevelopment, but keeps density to a more reasonable level.
The result of the Lyon-Morton proposal would be significant densification in La Jolla – in the commercial areas of the Village, and along the primary traffic corridor through La Jolla (La Jolla Blvd. through Bird Rock, the Nautilus area, Pearl Street and Torrey Pines).
This Proposal violates the mandate of our zoning ordinance
Our zoning laws – the Planned District Ordinance or "PDO" was created to enhance and protect the quality of life in La Jolla – by preventing the kind of overly dense development that would erode La Jolla's character. This was in part a direct reaction to the increasing number of giant buildings built on Prospect and elsewhere in the Village. These huge buildings were quickly eating away at the village character. As a result, residents and businesses banded together in the early 1980s to stop the building craze and create a smart, long-term solution that would preserve La Jolla's unique character. The result was the PDO.
To change the PDO, the Municipal Code requires that the Planning Commission, the City Council or property owners of 50% of the land affected may petition the Mayor to initiate a Planned District Ordinance change. This process has not been followed by Lyon, Morton or the CPA.
Loss of village character and architecture and pedestrian scale
The reason so many of us love La Jolla and chose to live here is because of its unique charm and village quality. La Jolla has succeeded in maintaining its village flavor even in the face of development in downtown commercial areas and Bird Rock.
We now have a balance of one, two and thee story buildings in La Jolla. Allowing three stories would give developers a huge incentive to buy lots, demolish older one and two--story buildings that give La Jolla its unique feel, and replace them with dense, 30 foot condo projects.
The loss of our older buildings, ones that are not historic but provide charm and continuity with the past and a sense of place, would be devastating to La Jolla's character.
Our current PDO limits were carefully chosen to integrate new development with the old. Allowing three stories would upset our neighborhood scale, which is two stories. Our FAR requirements, which limit density by limiting the bulk and scale of buildings, were developed to reflect the historical scale of La Jolla while allowing extra space for growth and access to parking, be it underground or surface. This also encouraged small development which did not have the high demands and cost of parking, while discouraging developers from razing sites and building more large office buildings in La Jolla.
Increased traffic and parking congestion
More retail businesses and residents mean more traffic, noise and parking demand. La Jollans already recognize the problems with traffic congestion on our main thoroughfares in and out of town. Traffic on Torrey Pines Road still backs up from La Jolla Shores Drive to Prospect Place, in spite of years-long reconfiguration at its intersection with La Jolla Shores Drive. Bird Rock endures intense peak-hour traffic on the Boulevard, with more and more cars cutting through on side streets. These problems would intensify with a density increase.
How much traffic are we talking about?
To understand the increase in traffic, let's take the example of La Jolla Boulevard as it goes though Bird Rock. It is estimated (even by the proponents of this change) that between196-400 new condo units could be built in Bird Rock if three stories were allowed.
Upscale condos generate about 8 car trips per day in and out of their neighborhood, according to city planners. This includes going to and from work, taking the kids to school, receiving deliveries, gardeners and the like. Even using the lower estimate of 196 units, at 8 trips per day we would see an additional 1568 trips per day in and out of Bird Rock. And this does not even take into account increased traffic from new residential units in the much larger commercial zones of Nautilus and Village, which use La Jolla Boulevard to get in and out of town.
Where will people park?
To accommodate so many new residents and businesses, it is highly likely that diagonal parking would be required on residential streets adjacent to the commercial areas, such as Virginia Way and La Jolla Hermosa in Bird Rock. Metered parking would most likely be necessary to pay for parking garages and the impacts of so many additional cars and trips in and out of La Jolla. The La Jolla community -- businesses and residents alike – have already strongly opposed both such measures.
Nor are underground parking garages the solution. Only a portion of the increased parking demand could be offset through underground parking garages, and for those buildings, the cost for such parking would drive rents up to very high levels. In addition, underground parking lots alter drainage, damage tree roots, and require longer and more intense construction phases excavate and grade. This means even more disturbance, pollution and construction traffic.
Replacement of older buildings with poorly designed, unattractive buildings
Currently, a 2 story building can have an interesting roof structure and articulation inside the thirty-foot height limit. A good example of this is the Starbucks building on La Jolla Boulevard in Bird Rock. But allowing three stories within the thirty-foot height limit and increasing square footage by 30% would result in massive 3-level boxes with flat roofs – more like office buildings.
The current PDO two-story limit and FAR seeks to prevent this. In fact, when the PDO was developed, this very issue was put to the La Jolla community. Participants noted that the feeling of the density was markedly different between two and thee stories, and the impression of density, even at the same height, is very different. The result was an overwhelming consensus in the community on density, and our current PDO reflects this consensus.
Loss of privacy, views, property enjoyment and value
Many more 30-foot buildings in La Jolla would cause adjacent residential areas to lose privacy, views and quiet enjoyment and value of their property.
Overcrowding of schools
Our local elementary and high schools are overcrowded, and Bird Rock elementary is at its maximum with nowhere to expand. In addition, La Jolla schools are a reason people move here, so the demand on our schools would be overwhelming.
With so many new residents, and no new schools, we would not be able to accommodate the need without lowering the quality of our schools significantly.
Insufficient study of the impacts of increased density and development
The effects of this intense densification have not been evaluated, and include increased demand on infrastructure (traffic, parks, schools, sidewalks, streets, transit service, fire and life safety protection) or our overall environment.
The questionable process by which this proposal has gained momentum
Rushing the vote and failing to follow proper PDO amendment procedures
The way this proposal has been fast-tracked has surprised and frustrated many long-time Jolla residents who are involved in civic planning. It was brought only in early February 2006, by two developer-backed local architects. Despite the public outcry, these architects continue to urge the CPA to approve their specific ordinance change "conceptually" and worry about the details later.
But changes to the PDO should result only from a recognized need in the community. The Lyon-Morton amendments are not the answer to any identified need in our town; rather, the proposal is driven by those with a vested financial interest in densification
A zoning change of this magnitude should be properly noticed, and multiple workshops (charettes) and meetings should be held. The impacts of the proposal should be identified and mitigations proposed. And a full Environmental Impact Report should be done.
In contrast, here the three-story proposal has not been sufficiently publicized, nor has the process for PDO amendments been followed, which require that the Planning Commission, the City Council or property owners of 50% of the land affected may petition the Mayor to initiate a Planned District Ordinance change. Here, the process was initiated by individuals with self-serving interests.
Who Benefits from this Proposal?
Property investors, developers, architects and builders. Residential development is the most lucrative for developers, and the possibility of building out the commercial areas of La Jolla with high-end condos is very appealing. This is probably why the proponents of the three story amendment are architects and developers. It should be noted that many independent La Jolla architects and real estate professional oppose the idea.
One resident writes: "This is a move by developers to increase their profits by selling condos. If this is approved, what makes La Jolla attractive, and therefore desirable in the first place, is degraded, and then eventually one wonders whatever happened to our neighborhood."
The benefits simply don't outweigh the drawbacks
Arguably some benefits may accrue to La Jolla if the proposal comes to fruition. But any such benefits would come at the cost of permanent alteration of our community's character and quality of life.
It's important to remember that infill development – the kind that would result from the three-story proposal – was intended to address problems of economically-challenged towns, and to save land and open space in outlying areas from suburban sprawl. Indeed, many who oppose this three-story proposal support smart infill development, but not if it means overtaxing our infrastructure and destroying the character and quality of life of a healthy, thriving and beautiful community like La Jolla.
WHAT GOOD WOULD THIS DO FOR LA JOLLA?
The Proponent's "Retail Needs Help" Argument
So far, the authors' primary argument for the change is that: "retail needs a kick in the pants," and new residents and retail opportunities (at the street level of the new three-story buildings) would be great for business.
We need to balance the needs of business and residents
Anyone can understand that retail businesses love customers – the more the better. But there has to be a balance between the desires of businesses and the needs of residents. And it should not be left solely to developers and businesses to determine our priorities.
La Jolla is a high-draw tourist destination and a high-income town where residents and visitors spend a significant amount of income locally. We have now an excellent balance that ensures La Jolla is enjoyable for tourists, profitable for businesses, and livable for its more than thirty thousand residents.
Retail doesn't like ten-foot ceilings
It is unrealistic to believe that retail businesses would thrive in new street-level shops.
In order to build three stories within the 30-foot height limit, the lower floor would be limited to 10 feet at the most. This is due to residential ceiling height requirements and the electrical, plumbing and fire sprinkler systems that take up a certain amount of the floor space as well.
The problem is that retail doesn't like low ceilings; it makes customers feel crowded and uncomfortable. So, while some retail could handle the new spaces, most could not. (Some residents are concerned that failing business would lead to use of the ground floor for condos instead).
Dislocation of long-standing resident-serving businesses
The President of Promote La Jolla, which operates La Jolla's business improvement district, says that building condos above retail will be good for retail, because it will give business owners a "built in customer base" But for what kinds of goods and services?
It is common for smaller community-serving businesses – the ones that the condo residents would frequent, such as hardware stores, small professional offices, shoe repair shops, etc…- to be forced out during redevelopment. They must vacate during demolition and construction, and usually cannot afford to wait for a new commercial space to be built. If they do, higher rents often force them to leave the area.
But residents do not frequent art galleries, furniture and rug stores, and other tourist/exclusively high-end businesses, and would have to leave La Jolla for more and more of their goods and services
We'll get new parks
Some have suggested that one benefit of increased density would be more parks. La Jolla has a deficit of parks now and a $113 million dollar Facilities Financing deficit.
But it is not clear how this will come about, unless we can locate empty lots available for that purpose and find the funding to develop them into parks. For the most part, only when huge lots are developed do developers build a small section for public use. In La Jolla, most lots are not big enough to allow for dedication of a portion to public use. In La Jolla, most lots are not big enough to allow for dedication of a portion to public use.
Residents must accept "Progress"
The developers say that La Jolla must accept "progress" or "change" in the form of new development and increased density. But "progress" in the minds of developers is not the same as "progress" to residents who live and work here. "Progress" to the backers of this proposal would mean more money to investors, developers and their architects.
But at what cost? True progress means improved quality of life for all of us.
New "Incentives and "Form-Based" Code would appease concerns
Some proponents say that offering "incentives" and developing a form-based code will help appease residents' concerns over tall buildings looming over their homes, loss of privacy and the like. They say their "incentives" will make up for this with increased setbacks and the like. Not only is this dubious, it skips over the real problem. There is simply no incentive that can make up for the density increase -- not even the much-touted "form based code," so long as it allows three stories or an increased FAR.
Right now the PDO uses "Euclidian Code," which means it uses numbers to identify limits on development. "Form Based Code" is essentially an elaboration on this, using drawings to demonstrate what the code allows. The emphasis is on the design and physical form of buildings, and they can include parameters for heights, location on the lot, where windows and doors and balconies are located, etc…. In this sense they could actually be more strict than standard building codes. But there is no meaningful difference if three stories and the increased FAR are permitted.
Fancy formulas to deal with "facade articulation", building planes and other design elements to please resident's eyes must be treated with a critical eye. The current PDO regulations were carefully crafted to provide integration of old and new, and have worked well so far.
"Incentives" will make three stories acceptable to nearby residents
The authors of the proposal argue that they can offer so-called "incentives" to nearby residential areas that would make neighbors less averse to three story 30-foot buildings next door, such as privacy protection, setbacks and architectural design requirements.
But the core issue here is not peeping-toms, or architecture. The issue is increased density, which would be a fact if three stories are allowed.
"Pass the amendment in concept, we can work out the details later"
According to architect-developer Mark Lyon, his amendment should be passed in concept now, and the details can be worked out later. But this is foolish planning; it puts the cart before the horse. With major zoning changes, it is the concept that requires community awareness and buy-in, before it goes to the City. Otherwise the City will spend a lot of time and money working on something that everyone opposes down the line.