Postscript : Element of Scheme to Save La Jolla Cultural Sites Unresolved

Nearly 16 months after the City Council took an innovative but controversial zoning step to preserve several civic treasures in La Jolla, the culture zone designation has not been challenged in court and the treasures appear safe.

But a key question of property rights remains unresolved.

On March 19, 1986, the council heeded the pleas of a group of community activists that included actor Cliff Robertson by voting 7-1 to prevent the area around the intersection of Silverado and Prospect streets from being converted to “condominiums for millionaires.”

Included were some of San Diego’s most venerable and architecturally unique institutions: the Bishop’s School, the La Jolla Museum of Contemporary Art, La Jolla Women’s Club, La Jolla Presbyterian Church, La Jolla Recreation Center and Saint James-by-the-Sea Episcopal Church.

Most of the land had been donated by the Scripps family.

The council stripped the property of its residential zoning--with exemptions like the playing field at Bishop’s, the parish house at St. James and the parish house and parking lot at the Presbyterian Church.

In exchange, regulations involving other kinds of building were eased, such as limits on the bulk of a structure, a ban on outdoor cafes or bookstores, and parking requirements. (The museum has since opened an outdoor cafe.)

Also, property owners were assured that the city would develop a program by June 30, 1987, to allow them to transfer their development rights to sites elsewhere, possibly in La Jolla.

Sue Oxley, the La Jolla resident who spearheaded the push for a cultural zone, said the designation has proved beneficial and it is hoped that it will be the forerunner of other protective zoning in the city.

“I think it’s clear as time goes by that this was a very farsighted move,” Oxley said. “All of the sites are very valuable parts of the community, particularly as we get more crowded.”

Oxley noted that the council in March created the “institutional overlay zone” designation that will allow neighborhoods to have such zones included in their community plans, which serve as guides for the council and Planning Commission.

The institutional zone is somewhat different, dealing basically with public property rather than private, but the spirit is much the same, Oxley said. “The community has a chance to assert itself,” she said.

The La Jolla effort was launched after museum directors began considering a move to the G Street Mole downtown, an idea since dumped in favor of expansion at the current site. Short of a trauma, such as losing the museum, it may be hard to convince a community to battle for an institutional zone, Oxley said.

“The impetus for the cultural zone was the threat of the loss of the museum,” she said. “That stimulated the community into action. It is usually difficult to get people active when nothing has happened.”

Attorneys Still Dubious

Attorneys for Bishop’s and the museum vigorously opposed the cultural zone and are still dubious about it, particularly the provision about transferring development rights.

“The premise on which the whole down-zoning took place, that somewhere you can sell or transfer your development rights, never occurred,” said attorney Paul Peterson, representing Bishop’s.

“To talk about transferring rights is not realistic,” Peterson said. “No community is going to want increased density to help out La Jolla and transferring the rights to another location in La Jolla would be impossible.”

The council’s recent imposition of an 18-month interim development ordinance, which slaps a cap on building, makes the transfer of development rights even more remote, Peterson said. He noted that the proposed development limit for all of La Jolla is 29 units per year.

“It is possible that our development rights may not be saleable right away,” said attorney Michael Krichman, a member of the museum’s board of directors.

Since much of the property around the Prospect-Silverado intersection was originally zoned for 43 dwelling units to the acre, the development rights are considered to be worth millions of dollars. Except for the museum’s flirtation with downtown San Diego, none of the institutions in the culture zone has ever mentioned selling and moving, but community activists feared it was just a matter of time.

One estimate put the value of the museum’s 2.2-acre site, which has a sweeping view of the ocean, at $10 million, enough to build a much larger museum elsewhere with room to grow.

Krichman would like to see the museum allowed to sell its development rights to a developer elsewhere in the city, who would then be allowed to boost the number of units per acre allowed on his own property.

“The idea of transferring is to help make the institutions more economically viable,” Krichman said. “The museum is a private institution but in many ways we’re also a public one. It makes sense for us to be compensated so we can put the money right back into the museum, into La Jolla.”

The staff of the city Planning Department staff is completing a report on transferring development rights but no public hearings have yet been scheduled. The council last year added a staff member to the department to study the transfer of rights both in the cultural zone and the San Dieguito River Valley.

But Joann Johnson, chief of staff for Councilwoman Abbe Wolfsheimer, whose 1st District includes La Jolla, does not see smooth sailing for any of the cultural zone institutions to sell their rights.

“With an IDO (interim development ordinance) coming in, I don’t imagine there will be transferability for quite awhile,” she said.

No lawsuits challenging the cultural zone are apparently planned, but neither are they ruled out.

“Nobody wants to be a salmon swimming upstream with no water,” Peterson said.