In an ongoing struggle to redefine the development blueprint governing La Jolla Shores, the Visions Committee, appointed by the La Jolla Shores Association (LJSA), met May 5 to discuss options for future revisions. Some community members have criticized the document — called the planned district ordinance (PDO) — for lacking language strong enough to curtail unwanted development in the area. Unlike the city’s base zones, which specifically regulate floor area ratio (FAR) to restrict development to 50 or 60 percent of a lot’s area, the La Jolla Shores PDO was left intentionally vague to preserve the rights of property owners and avoid what committee member and past LJSA chair Jim Heaton calls a “cookie-cutter appearance,” where all estates are held to the same rigid standards. In recent years, however, the subjectivity of the Shores PDO has allowed major development and renovations that some residents fear will threaten the charm and quality of life in the area. Buildings that take up too much space on a lot or add certain features, they argue, can block valuable ocean views, reduce privacy and seriously alter the overall landscape of the community. For example, the language of the PDO allows for renovations deemed “minor in scope,” which Heaton said allows any project falling under this category to be “fast-tracked through the system” and earn city approval. “We are working with the La Jolla Community Planning Association (LJCPA) to determine, specifically, what is truly minor in scope, because minor in scope is not satisfactorily defined,” Heaton said. While the LJSA has submitted to the city a proposed amendment limiting “minor in scope” to renovations under 800 square feet, Heaton said the guideline is not enough to protect from unwanted development and the PDO may require additional revisions. “What we will see is 500- or 700-square-foot additions back to back to back — serial minor revisions done consecutively,” Heaton said, resulting in development that becomes substantial over time or allowing for additions that seem minor but have major implications for other residents. Barry Graceman, a member of the La Jolla Shores Association Board, said the group is reviewing PDOs of other “successful” communities, including Del Mar, Carmel and Santa Barbara’s Montecito area, to find the best possible language that will preserve both the rights of property owners and the community’s charm. “We are looking at different communities that we think are similar to ours and have done a pretty darn good job of controlling undesirable growth,” Graceman said. Robert Whittemore, a LJCPA board member, said he is interested in guidelines that protect private views in addition to public corridors. “Protecting private views generally hasn’t been done by the city,” Whittemore said. “But that’s the direction these [other] successful communities are going.” Many of the other communities’ PDOs include pictures and diagrams that portray “appropriate” versus “inappropriate” massing. “La Jolla Shores was not designed around consistent setbacks, and we’re not pursuing that,” Heaton said. “We want to provide a very rough outline to garnish support to go forward, and craft the best thinking using similar pictures and diagrams.” Tim Lucas, a LJCPA and LJSA board member, said emerging development technology continually provides new obstacles that may not be anticipated when ordinances are drafted. “What is possible now was not possible in the 1950s, and we will have technology later in this century that we don’t have today,” Lucas said. “We need to look into the future and ask ourselves, what would be the ideal La Jolla Shores? Then we need find the best way to accomplish that vision.” Because a revision to the PDO could take up to two years to be approved by various authorities, the LJSA hopes the City Attorney’s Office will determine that the numerical constraints of the base zones are applicable to La Jolla Shores to provide more immediate protection. “Making the base zones applicable would provide instant, minimum protection while the PDO review and potential revisions are underway,” Heaton said. Committee member Cynthia Bond said stricter regulations are needed not to constrain property owners, but to protect them from surrounding development. “We’re not trying to limit people’s financial opportunities for selling their properties,” she said. “We’re trying to preserve the quality of life in this community. That discrepancy has been the source of many contentious remarks.” Heaton said the LJSA’s intent to consider and pursue additional revisions have been “fully vetted by the community, the La Jolla Shores Advisory Board, the CPA, and everyone agrees that this is what needs to happen. It will continue to be a very public process.” The issue was on the agenda of an LJSA meeting on Wednesday, May 12. For more information, visit www.ljsa.org.