Residents of Roseland Drive and Lookout Drive in La Jolla are expressing concern over what they see as a lack of accuracy and communication from the city of San Diego regarding a piece of land recently declared eligible for sale.
In November, the City Council’s Land Use & Housing Committee designated the approximately 10,000-square-foot parcel off Torrey Pines Road between Lookout and Roseland as surplus and one of five city properties eligible to be sold. The four others are in North Park.
“No sale of the properties will occur until such time that staff receives authorization from the council in a subsequent action to be brought forward in the future,” city spokesman Benny Cartwright previously told the La Jolla Light.
He added that there is “no specific buyer in mind and no proposed uses other than what is allowed under the Municipal Code.”
According to a staff report, a city-owned property may be considered for sale if it meets certain criteria, including that it is not used by any city department, does not support a municipal function or have a foreseeable city use, is a “non-performing or underperforming asset” and, if sold, would provide a “greater public benefit than retention or lease.”
Before any sale, city staff must get approval from applicable City Council committees to retain and pay a broker to market the property and sell it at or above appraised value.
An approximately 10,000-square-foot parcel off Torrey Pines Road between Lookout and Roseland drives in La Jolla has been declared surplus and eligible to be sold by the city of San Diego. (Bing Maps and La Jolla Light)
Area resident Karen Marshall shared concerns during the Jan. 21 La Jolla Shores Association meeting about the way the city labeled the La Jolla property and what she sees as a lack of notification to affected neighbors.
Marshall said the lot, instead of being oriented closer to Roseland Drive, as the city’s maps suggest, is closer to Lookout Drive and Boulevard Place above Torrey Pines Road, behind where a large retaining wall was built in recent years.
Because of that labeling, she’s concerned about whether people who would be affected by any new construction were notified appropriately.
San Diego representatives did not respond to the Light’s request for comment.
Additionally, because of the parcel’s orientation, Shores resident Janie Emerson had concerns about how the lot would be promoted for possible sale and whether the information would be accurate.
“The biggest concern is how [the city is] describing how this lot can be used and accessed,” Emerson said. “There is no easily possible way to access the lot from Torrey Pines Road” or build anything substantial on it because of how steep it is.
“The description does not match the [reality] of the lot,” she said.
Emerson recommended that the LJSA board write a letter to the San Diego City Council “delineating the fact that the description is not accurate and doesn’t match up to what is actually there. … If they do want to sell, they need to accurately describe what could and couldn’t be built on this.”
The board voted unanimously to write the letter.
Other nearby residents who declined to be identified said they also are concerned about not being notified and what might be built there should the land be sold.
One said he was concerned about the city considering changes in zoning regulations that would allow more density than the site can accommodate. He also was worried about whether his views would be blocked by future development.
Another said she was concerned about possible construction impacts, including access for cars and construction equipment.
The LJSA board voted a few days after the Land Use & Housing Committee vote to send a letter to applicable city departments, as well as City Council President Joe LaCava, whose District 1 includes La Jolla, asking that the lot remain undeveloped.
The letter argued “it would be a great benefit to us as a community to keep it as open space,” possibly as a nature area, said association President John Pierce. ♦