Site 653. The chief point the homeowners' petition seeks to make is that the parcel was, until recently, designated as open space and, according to the city's guidelines on open space, it should have remained as such.
  • Site 653. The chief point the homeowners' petition seeks to make is that the parcel was, until recently, designated as open space and, according to the city's guidelines on open space, it should have remained as such.
  • Image by Joe Klein
  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Parents know the scenario well. A child's toy lies untouched for hours, days, or months until Little Johnny picks it up one day and begins to play with it. Suddenly, Little Janie can think of nothing but that toy and will engage in all manner of bad behavior to get it. That scenario is being played out in La Jolla and in court.

Rabbi Lisa Goldstein: "A minimum of 10,000 square feet will be landscaped and maintained at our expense."

The children in this case are the local branch of Hillel — a nationwide outreach serving Jewish university students — and a collection of homeowners from La Jolla Highlands, a neighborhood across Torrey Pines Boulevard from the University of California at San Diego. The metaphorical toy over which they're fighting is a quarter-acre strip of land squeezed between Torrey Pines, La Jolla Scenic Drive, and La Jolla Scenic Way. Left stranded when the roads surrounding it were built, the triangular piece of land stands alone surrounded by asphalt. A section of ice plant along Torrey Pines Boulevard is the only thing growing on the property. Completely ignored for years, this barren plot has been the focus of a raucous dispute. The dispute started when Hillel of San Diego's directors approached the City of San Diego about purchasing or leasing Site 653. "That was about five years ago," says Neal Singer, vice president of Hillel's board. "Our administrative office is in a facility which we share with five or six other ministries. Very small. All we have room for is a desk. In terms of counseling or activities or anything, we had no place to go."

"When I do counseling," adds Rabbi Lisa Goldstein, who runs the Hillel branch, "I have to meet the students outside somewhere on campus, under a tree maybe."

"And what has happened over time," Singer continues, "is that we have had to lease facilities on an as-available basis from the university to hold religious services. For instance, the Jewish sabbath is on a Friday night and on Saturday. And so typically we do a service Friday night followed by dinner, and for that we've leased for a long time now the facility at the International Center [on campus]. So about five years ago, we decided that we really needed a facility of our own, a place where kids could come study or use the computer or research stuff in the library or have counseling sessions with Rabbi Lisa."

The chief criterion for possible sites for a new Hillel center was proximity to the university. "In many of the private universities," Singer explains, "they are on campus. But there is a church-state separation issue with the UC system. At UCLA it is right across the street in a residential neighborhood. At UC Santa Barbara it is in Isla Vista, in a residential neighborhood. In Berkeley it is right across the street from campus. We wanted to be in a similar location. There were a couple of [vacant] properties that the university owned that we inquired about. But they were adamant that all the property they had which adjoins the university was slotted for development. So it was incumbent upon us to find a non-university-owned property in proximity to the university."

They found a site that met all criteria in site 653. "So we went to the city," Singer says, "and started discussing the possibility of buying or leasing that site. And it was a long process. They needed to deem it surplus first. And finally in 2000, they had declared that no one had any future need for it, so they could do something with it. And so the city decided to issue what is known as an RFP, request for proposals, to solicit ideas on what to do for that site. They advertised it, and there were two responses, one of which was ours."

The other proposal was from a coalition of homeowners from the adjoining neighborhood of La Jolla Highlands. Though they declined to be interviewed, Jennifer Friend, an attorney representing them, explains, "The homeowners in the area banded together and actually raised funds to maintain and operate that triangle of land as an open park space. They put together an official proposal that basically talked about landscaping and maintenance, and they had committed to paying for that continued maintenance themselves. The City would still be able to retain ownership of that parcel, but the maintenance of it would be paid for by the residents within the community."

Singer resumes his narrative, "The City put together a four-person panel, two members of the La Jolla community and two city employees, to review the responses, and they voted to recommend to the city council acceptance of Hillel's proposal. That went before the city council in November of 2000, and they voted 8 to 1 to authorize exclusive negotiations with Hillel. So we started down the path of negotiations and the neighbors filed the lawsuit."

The suit Singer speaks of is actually a petition for "writ of administrative mandamus," which, Friend explains, "is a legal action that challenges an administrative decision by a public entity."

In their petition, the La Jolla Highlanders contend that their proposal for site 653 "wasn't given any consideration whatsoever by the City," Friend says. "And one can take a look at the way the request for proposals process was done, and one could argue that there was no consideration given to any request for proposals other than the ones submitted by Hillel and that the whole RFP process was done with the sole purpose and intent of allowing Hillel to submit its proposal for the lease of that space. And the commitment from day one by the city to lease that space to Hillel could lead one to question whether or not there was ever any intent to consider any other proposal."

"That property sat there for 40 years!" Singer responds. "It wasn't until we went to the city and said, 'We want to buy it. What can we do?' that the process started. And they're right, we wanted exclusive negotiating rights. After all the work and effort we put into it and finding the site and everything, we didn't want somebody else to come in. But the city council said, 'No, we have to have a fair process and issue an RFP.' They opened it up and advertised it, and Joe Developer could have come in there and built two houses. But nobody else responded but us and the neighbors."

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it


Sign in to comment

Win a $25 Gift Card to
The Broken Yolk Cafe

Join our newsletter list

Each newsletter subscription means another chance to win!