NTS slate for LJCPA board challenged by many
The “slate” of six candidates for the La Jolla Community Planning Association board election on March 1, as put forth and promoted by the NTS (No Third Stories) group in Bird Rock, is being challenged by many officials and community leaders. This “special interest” group has named six candidates for the six open positions on the board of trustees of the LJCPA.
This unnamed, small group of people in the NTS organization has decided these six candidates are what is best for La Jolla. Several local and active citizens and local officials have challenged this approach to filling the critical six vacancies on the LJCPA board.
The LJCPA Bylaws and the City Policy 600-24, in its administrative guidelines, “discourage the use of slates” since slates often promote special interests and may not reflect the diverse and best interests of the community. Slates are also claimed to restrict or limit change and new ideas, when new members are discouraged from running for these offices.
Thus, the question that is raised by the Bird Rock NTS “slate” is this:
“Is not the promotion of the NTS slate the same kind of special interest action that has been criticized in the past, when the LJCPA board of trustees vacancies were filled with the same group of individuals with ‘special interests’?”
Further, the NTS group from Bird Rock has a membership and a leadership that is really unnamed and unknown. Who are they? Why do they not put their names on their communications and promotional information? Why does the NTS group from Bird Rock believe they have the only solution to change the LJCPA board of trustees?
There are 12 candidates for the six open positions on the LJCPA board of trustees. All 12 are qualified and some are more qualified and have more experience than some of the six on the “NTS slate.”
I encourage all members of the LJ Community Planning Association to vote on March 1. Vote for the best six candidates, not just some “slate” as given to them by the NTS group.
Ed Ward
Member of the LJCPA Bylaws Committee, Trustee of the La Jolla Town Council

Why stick with the PDO?
When you look around the coastal areas of America, they all look different. To answer why La Jolla looks like it does, as compared to, say, Miami ” you would need to look at the laws and zoning. Miami has skyscrapers and very dense development ” it reflects their codes. Here in La Jolla it looks the way it does for two reasons: No. 1, Prop D (the 30-foot height limit) and No. 2, our La Jolla Planned District Ordinance.
The Bird Rock community recognized the need for improvements in our PDO ” which resulted in the community work that led to the “Bird Rock 12.”Before these improvements had the chance to be adopted, a new planning tool called Form-Based Code was introduced to the community. It is a system that is untested in San Diego. There are unknown aspects and unanswered questions about the code itself and the impact that it will have on development projects and the neighborhoods surrounding them.
The PDO is still a remarkably vital and relevant document to our neighborhood. At the beginning of this process, we were told that we had a choice; that we were not obligated to accept the FBC if we did not find it better.
In order to be better, it would need to address the concerns from the community:
1) It would encourage quaint, charming buildings. FBC does not address the appearance of the building ” it sets out a volume, but does not say what the volume should look like.
2) It would reflect the community desire to continue the two-story maximum. FBC allows more than two stories in a significant portion of the area.
3) It would address parking problems. FBC reduces the requirement for onsite parking.
4) It would encourage a walkable retail community. FBC changes the allowed uses, reducing the amount of retail required in the zone.
5) It would provide a predictable code that would be uniformly enacted by the City Development Services Department. There is an interest by the city to simplify the system. The FBC is a 28-page, complex document that addresses a three-block area. This does not simplify.
Ultimately, we need to move forward with any plan, based on its merits. If we are going to try something new, it needs to be accepted because it is truly better than what we have in place. Just because it is new and different does not mean that it is better. It may deal with some of the problems that we have in a better way, but it may also create problems that do not exist and that we haven’t considered.
When I add these things up, I find the PDO with additional amendments a better, more predictable choice.
Darcy Ashley, Bird Rock

FBC from average citizen’s view
Without knowing each detail about FBC, we know it is untested in San Diego. Picture La Jolla as an experimental laboratory and Bird Rock as the crash test dummies. However you look at it, developers want no restraints; ordinary citizens want protection from overdevelopment. The PDO has done a reasonable job for 25 years, and development forces want it eliminated. That should tell you all you need to know.
Don Schmidt, Bird Rock

Where will those cars go?
The FBC (Form Based Code) is now out, and the BRCC is on a campaign to get it approved. What was said to be an opportunity for the residents to design their community is really another attempt to get three stories for the developers and cram as many condos on the site as they can. The community said no to three stories loud and clear. The FBC started out with three stories and it remains with three stories even after protests from the residents.
Another major problem in the FBC is the drastic reduction of parking requirements. I did an analysis of a site with 11 two-bedroom units and 7,300 square feet of retail space. The property is in the CN zone of the FBC which allows three stories. I first calculated the parking using the PDO and followed with the calculations using the Form Based Code. Note that the FBC allows off-street parking to reduce the on-site parking and the number is further reduced by a factor when the building has a mix of uses.
“¢ PDO
Use: 11 two-bedroom units Rate: 2.25 spaces per unit
No. of spaces: 24.75 required
Use: 7,300 sf of retail space Rate: 1.7 spaces per 1,000 sf No. of spaces 12.41 required
Total required PDO: 37 parking spaces
“¢ FBC
Use: 11 two-bedroom units Rate: 1 space per unit
No. of spaces: 11 required
Use: 7,300 sf of retail space Rate: 2.5 spaces/1,000sf
No. of spaces: 17.5 required
Total required FBC: 28.5 spaces
Mixed use sharing factor of 1.2 further reduces the number to 24 spaces
That site will have six off-street parking spaces so they can subtract six from the 24 required spaces, which will require them to only have 18 parking spaces on the site.
Total required FBC: 18 parking spaces
The FBC reduces the required parking number by 50 percent. Where are those cars going to go? Right into the neighborhoods. The FBC requires just one parking space for a three-bedroom condo where the existing code requires 2.5 spaces. The less parking required on the site gives more space to build on and sell. It brings more cars and more congestion.
There will be a parking district formed under the MADD with additional assessments on the residents to monitor where we are allowed to park to take care of those condos with inadequate parking. The developers should provide all required parking on the site for their developments as the current PDO requires.
When will the assessments stop? The FBC also calls for mid-street crossings that will be paid for by the MADD. There are many who live on fixed incomes. Why should the residents pay assessments, and have parking further up into the neighborhoods when the developers walk away with their huge profits?
No one should support the FBC unless they have financial interests in the commercial district. The reality of the FBC is not being openly discussed by the BRCC. The authors have carefully disguised it with pretty renderings. They do not show parking analysis in their slide shows. If you love the character of the neighborhood and want to preserve the charm that brought us here, please let the BRCC know you will not tolerate this plan. Go to the BRCC meeting on March 20 and vote against the Form Based Code.
Elizabeth Gaenzle AIA, architect, Bird Rock

Numbers don’t lie
David Hansen’s guest editorial regarding cardiovascular disease in California overlooked some very important facts (“Keys to a healthy heart,” Village News, Feb. 22, page 8). California ranks fourth in the nation in overall health improvement from 1990 to 2006, according to the United Health Foundation. Only Vermont, Oregon and Alaska have higher improvement scores.
According to U.H.F., the overall health of the United States’ population has improved 18.7 percent since 1990. The overall health improvement in California was 26.8 percent. Vermont improved the most with a score of 30.6 percent, and Tennessee did the worst at 8.8 percent.
U.H.F. points out that smoking decreased from 25.6 percent to 15.2 percent of the California population. The incidence of infectious disease decreased from 70.6 to 24.8 cases per 100,000. The infant mortality rate decreased from 9.0 to 5.1 deaths per 1,000 live births. California also experienced a big drop in the premature death rate.
The numbers don’t lie. When it comes to improving health, Californians are overachievers.
D. K. “Dan” Lilja, University City