Bird Rock: stand firm vs. ‘Faith’ Based Code
In a recent article, Michael Krambs, applicant for the three-story Bird Rock Project, said his property rights were being denied by not allowing him to build three stories. Mr. Krambs should be made aware that the Supreme Court stated as part its of decision to uphold the 30-foot height limit that a community can zone itself as it sees fit. And so it is with the current PDO that has helped protect our community from excessive density and congestion for over 20 years.
Mr. Krambs should feel very special. Mr. Blackson and Mr. Stepner refer to citizen Krambs as their “Client” in a public letter. Recall that Mr. Blackson and Mr. Stepner are tasked to produce the FBC for Bird Rock under a city contract. Are these gentlemen working both sides of the street? For a city near bankruptcy, is that how we want our tax dollars spent?
Councilman Peters in a letter to certain property owners on La Jolla Blvd first states, “I am precluded by law from making any final determination “¦” (relative to FBC), but then goes on to say “I will ask the Mayor and his staff to support the plan (FBC) in this way as well.” Sounds pretty final to me.
There are two great myths about FBC.
Myth 1) FBC is mandatory and inevitable. It is neither. Recall the Supreme Court’s words to the effect that a community can zone itself as it sees fit.
Myth 2) Without FBC we will have a 30-foot canyon in our commercial zones. This is simply not true because most builders realize it is not economical to build two stories to 30 feet. Preventing such monoliths is the idea of the PDO.
It is very probable the community will not be given a chance to vote a final version of FBC up or down, particularly if the proponents can see that they will not win in a fair vote. But come out to the March 20 meeting anyway, and see if you can get your vote to count.
David Little, 40-year Bird Rock resident

Architect’s perspective
As a Bird Rock resident and architect, I was very hopeful the Form Based Code would be written to protect and preserve the qualities we love about Bird Rock. After studying the proposed code from an architect’s perspective, the community needs to be aware of its impact on Bird Rock.
The residents have always been concerned over the lack of parking. The FBC went the other direction in reducing the requirements by up to 50 percent. Only one parking space for a two-bedroom unit in the large developments on the corners is required where the current code requires 2.25 spaces. A shared use factor reduces the number again by 10 percent to 50 percent. That number is again reduced by the number of off-street parking spaces adjacent to the site. The overflow parking will reach further into the neighborhoods. A parking enforcement district is planned where we will have to pay for parking passes to park in front of our own residences. There will be further assessments for construction of new mid-street crossings.
The community said it did not want three stories. The FBC assigns three stories to some lots and two stories to others. If this gets approved, it could be argued that it is discriminatory. The two-story properties will be worth less. To make things fair, the city could then allow three-story buildings on all properties.
The creators of the FBC say it will make beautiful buildings. It will only make bigger and bulkier buildings. A row of wedding cakes will not make beautiful buildings. They say the third story is “hidden.” We all know what a three-story building looks like.
The current code or PDO was written to give Bird Rock a commercial district that is in scale with the single-family neighborhood that surrounds it. Bird Rock is not a civic center or a downtown by any stretch of the imagination. The PDO requires all buildings to be two stories or less and all parking must be provided on the site. If you can’t put all the parking on the site, you need to reduce the building size. Underground parking is expensive, and it is hard to get enough condos in two stories to pay back the developer for the parking garage costs. The current PDO was written to protect the neighborhood and provide small scale commercial buildings to service the neighborhood, not massive condominium projects.
The BRCC was working to amend the current PDO and came up with several recommendations to make the PDO better. This was pushed aside by Scott Peters who financed FBC. It is clear the proposed FBC was written for the benefit of developers. I recommend we go back to the PDO and its amendments and reject the Form Based Code.
All Bird Rock residents must go to the March 20 meeting at Bird Rock Elementary and vote against the proposed Form Based Code.
Elizabeth Gaenzle AIA, Bird Rock

Important vote on Form Based Code March 20
The process has been hijacked by a small band of the usual suspects who wanted three stories last year (Joe La Cava and Paul Metcalf, who seem to be involved in every plan to increase zoning, three-story author Mark Lyon and his client Michael Krambs who are trying to push their three-story project through Bird Rock, and a small handful of developers and some BRCC board members). They seem to have commandeered the majority of the BRCC board to go along with their agenda to push three stories at the cost of a potentially high-quality form-based code approach (which can result in community design excellence).
What is being offered is a mediocre FBC with a three-story allowance that virtually guarantees flat 30-foot roofs all along La Jolla Boulevard. The public is left scratching their heads ” what happened to all the public input? The public didn’t want three stories and flat rooftops. They wanted varied roof lines, articulation and quality design, as the Starbucks building exemplifies.
Why won’t the consultants explain why they stuck three stories in? Is this is a process to benefit all of Bird Rock, or only the developers and property owners along the boulevard? And, to top it off, we now know from letters written by the two consultants that they are lobbying for Lyon and Krambs’ three-story, flat-roofed project called Bird Rock Station. Oddly, this project does not meet the requirements of either the current PDO, OR the current draft of the FBC.
Frankly, we all need to take a step back and look at what we are being offered. The FBC is not in the hands of the community, as was promised. The FBC serves development interests, not the community. On March 20 come to Bird Rock Elementary at 6 p.m. and say “NO!”
Don Schmidt, Bird Rock

PDO our best option
One thing we know for sure is that Bird Rock is going to have a lot of new development over the next few years, inspired in part by the street landscaping and traffic slowing on La Jolla Boulevard. And what code will be in force to determine the character and size of the new buildings? La Jolla’s time-tested and thoughtful PDO.
But those who favor the proposed new “Form Based Code” for Bird Rock are saying it is an immediate measure to curb the threat of bad development in Bird Rock. This is deceptive. Even if a new Form Based Code is accepted by the community, it would still be a very long time (years even) before it is adopted. So it could not be a magic solution to curb the overly ambitious projects that are currently proposed. The FBC would not even apply to these projects!
Scott Peters has promised to support only projects that comply with a new form-based code. But Mr. Peters cannot keep his promise; he will be leaving office (he is termed out this year).
As for the proposed FBC itself, the consultants hired knew what was needed in order for it to be palatable to the community; specifically, a continued two-story maximum and a parking requirement that is the same or better than the current PDO. Neither of these key community concerns have been honored.
A better option is to take what we have learned from this process and use it to create a few PDO amendments in addition to those we already put forward in the “Bird Rock 12” amendments. This way, we will have a much greater chance of seeing projects that reflect the atmosphere we are striving so hard to foster in Bird Rock.
Please attend the community meeting March 20 at 6 p.m., at Bird Rock Elementary, and vote in favor of keeping the PDO!
Darcy Ashley, Bird Rock

The deception chorus
The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress continues to invent and chorus reasons to justify events related to the war in Iraq. Consider the administration’s recent defense of the plan to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq in order to stabilize Baghdad. We have all the principals reciting basically the same “surge justification” and, at the same time, attempting to cut off discussion by claiming that it would demoralize our troops and embolden the enemy.
Things sometimes go wrong. Recently, the “surge” campaign was abruptly interrupted by the announcement, by the Brits, that they will be pulling thousands of their troops out of Iraq this year “because the Iraqis in the Basra area are now able to take over security.” Surely Bush could have suggested to his partner Blair that those British troops, no longer needed in Basra, be transferred to Baghdad where the badly needed “surge” is focused. But, apparently, that was not an option, so the “problem,” having our principal partner in the war retreating while we are surging, was handled with a “victory” tune. It is not a coincidence that the words are always about the same.
In the interview, Cheney also said Britain’s plans to withdraw about 1,600 troops from Iraq ” while the United States adds more troops ” was a positive step. “I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well,” the vice president said.
“The British have done what is really the plan for the country as a whole, which is to transfer security responsibility to the Iraqis as the situation permits,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said at a news conference in Berlin, where she was in meetings on the Mideast peace process.
National security adviser Stephen Hadley, at NATO headquarters in Brussels, said the decision “reflects the progress that has been made on the ground in Basra and in the south,” where British troops were stationed. “So this is basically a good news story, an indication that progress is being made, and that events on the ground permit this kind of adjustment in forces,” Hadley said.
When asked whether the British move was a negative signal, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said, “No, it indicates that there’s been some progress in Basra.”
It doesn’t take much imagination to conclude that what we have here is an obvious and pathetic deception ” probably orchestrated by spin master Karl Rove. Isn’t it clear that the true reason for the withdrawal is simply that the Brits have had enough of this war, and are leaving?
Joseph Annino, La Jolla