Torrey Pines Research Park Plan Approved

Brushing aside the concerns of environmentalists and La Jolla activists, the state Coastal Commission on Wednesday approved the controversial second phase of a sprawling scientific research park atop Torrey Pines Mesa.

The commission, on an 8-3 vote, gave the go-ahead to the Torrey Pines Science Center, which will spread about 2.5 million square feet of office space on land straddling the existing General Atomics plant north of UC San Diego.

The decision came despite criticism of the 300-acre project by the Sierra Club and La Jolla residents, who argued that the project would add to traffic congestion in the fast-growing area and harm an ecologically sensitive canyon.

In addition, the commission rejected recommendations from its staff that the density of the proposal be scaled back and that the main road leading through the research park be narrowed to ease environmental impacts.

Room for 30 Firms

With room for as many as 30 firms, the project could add 3,000 to 5,000 employees as well as more than 20,000 car trips a day to an area already beginning to feel the weight of a recent development boom.

“It’s a monument to poor planning,” said Rob Whittemore, president of the La Jolla Town Council. “It just goes on and on. The Torrey Pines Mesa is just being way overdeveloped, to the detriment of the rest of us in La Jolla.”

But officials with the developer, the Chevron Land & Development Co., said the project would benefit the community by fueling the economy and adding jobs. Moreover, they suggested that the development was far more sensitive to the environment than the critics claimed.

“We think it’s a very nice project,” said Jerry Bischoff, the project manager. “We have done what we think is a relatively environmentally sensitive design.”

The planned development, which is bounded by Interstate 5 on the east, Genesee Avenue to the south and Torrey Pines Road on the west, went before the commission in February, but the state agency opted to approve only the 19-acre first phase, delaying a decision on the bulk of the development until this month’s meeting in San Diego.

Loss of Coastal Sage Scrub

Officials with the Sierra Club’s San Diego chapter expressed concern about the project, pointing to the effect that more than 2 million cubic yards of grading will have on an environmentally sensitive habitat ringing the development.

In particular, environmentalists are concerned about the loss of 22 acres of coastal sage scrub in a large canyon that is considered prime habitat for the black tailed gnatcatcher, a bird being considered for the U.S. endangered species list.

Aside from the environmental concerns, the project is indicative of an ominous trend toward overdevelopment in the area, Whittemore said. With the Chevron project, a 400-room Sheraton hotel, the Black Horse Farms development, expansion of Scripps’ research clinic and plans to double the size of the university during the next 25 years, the Torrey Pines area is headed toward gridlock, he said.

That troubling traffic prediction does not bode well for La Jolla residents, Whittemore said, because the roads around Torrey Pines Mesa and the university area are used by many homeowners in the posh seaside community as prime routes to Interstate 5.

Chevron officials agree the project will bring more cars to the area, but say several steps will be taken to ease traffic problems.

Genesse Avenue will be widened to six lanes and improved turn lanes at the intersection with Torrey Pines Road will be added. Moreover, the overpass at Interstate 5 is to be widened to six lanes by 1993.

During the commission hearing Wednesday at the U.S. Grant hotel in downtown San Diego, Chevron officials argued that the proposal is environmentally preferable to plans being pushed by the La Jolla Town Council and the Sierra Club.

Funds for Bridge

If pressed to lower the project’s density and realign the road, the deal would lack the economic clout to allow for construction of a $3-million bridge leading from Genesee Avenue across a steep canyon to the office buildings, according to Nancy Lucast, a planner working with Chevron.

Instead, extensive fill dirt would have to be dumped into the canyon to make a road to the project, wreaking more intensive environmental harm than would have resulted under the original proposal, she said.

“The bridge simply cannot be carried by a project that would be reduced by the tune of 1 million square feet,” Lucast said.

Commissioner Wes Pratt, a San Diego city councilman, agreed that the Chevron proposal was superior without the alterations being proposed by the commission’s staff.

“I personally think it’s a good project,” Pratt said. “Though the density is massive, it’s a large landform and it will serve as an attractive area for so-called clean industry.”

But Commissioner Madelyn Glickfeld, who voted against the project along with Commissioners Lily Cervantes and Robert Franco, said the development was far too dense and damaging to a sensitive segment of the coast.

“With the amount of grading, the amount of habitat alteration and other impacts, approval of this simply is not consistent with my duty to protect the coastal resources,” she said.