Much like two architects who recently presented their concerns to a local planning board, a La Jolla resident is grappling with a city of San Diego request to add a sidewalk in front of his property that he says would mean the loss of decades-old trees.
Dan Courtney, who lives off Torrey Pines Road in La Jolla Shores, is seeking a permit for a lot line adjustment on his property to convert three parcels into four. However, as part of that, the city is asking that he build a sidewalk. In doing so, several trees would have to be removed, Courtney said.
The lot line adjustment would involve no physical changes on the property, he said.
“I just want to bring it back to the original configuration of four lots, so it’s just changes on paper,” said Courtney, who is a member of the La Jolla Shores Permit Review Committee. “The city came back with the request for a non-contiguous sidewalk … but the problem is it would be right where the trees are. And these trees are 75 to 100 years old and are the character of the street. Plus, since we are so close to Torrey Pines Road, the trees block the noise and create privacy.”
He said he finds it “contradictory” that the city is looking to increase its urban tree canopy to 35% by 2035 but also is seemingly willing to “cut trees down for a sidewalk.”
City spokesman Richard Berg said “development projects and subdivision activities, including single-family homes, require Development Services Department staff to evaluate the project site for compliance with current public improvement requirements. These can include curb, gutter, driveway, sidewalk and Americans with Disabilities Act regulations.”
Projects like this are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, he said.
“Sites where sidewalk installation is physically infeasible are considered individually based on their site-specific constraints,” Berg said. “For projects located in the coastal zone [which includes La Jolla], which also require the approval of a discretionary coastal development permit, staff must also consider the California Coastal Act, which emphasizes maximizing public access in coastal areas.”
He did not comment about the potential loss of trees.
One of the trees on Courtney’s street that would need to be removed is considered one of the tallest for its species, Courtney said. A lot of birds use the taller trees for nests, he said.
Additionally, the street ends in a cul-de-sac with a gate and is not often used by pedestrians, he said. On the other side of the gate is the rear parking lot for The Children’s School.
“So they want me to construct a sidewalk that no one could or would use and [would mean cutting] down the trees to do it,” Courtney said.
As a result, Courtney put his request on pause to pursue other options.
“I halted the process six weeks ago because I have spent 30 years maintaining the trees,” he said. “So I can’t even imagine what the street would look like without the trees.”
As an alternative, Courtney said, he plans to request that a partial sidewalk be built immediately in front of his property that follows the contiguous line of an existing sidewalk coming from Torrey Pines Road, rather than the non-contiguous sidewalk the city is requesting.
That request is pending.
Two projects in a similar situation went before the La Jolla Development Permit Review Committee last month.
One would demolish a 3,881-square-foot house at 6136 La Jolla Mesa Drive and build a new 8,266-square-foot two-story house. The city asked for a new curb and gutter and sidewalk across the length of the frontage, which would destroy the trees there.
“We want to preserve [the trees] because we thought [of] them as community character-defining,” applicant representative Tim Martin said. “But they are looking for sidewalks when there are no sidewalks on this side of [the street].”
Thus, Martin is proposing to build a curb and gutter and widen a section of the street, but not build the sidewalk.
The other project heard by the DPR last month would build a new 5,361-square-foot house on a vacant lot with the tentative address of 1510 Copa de Oro Drive.
Applicant representative Brian Will, who is the DPR chairman and recused himself from the committee’s discussion, said the city is asking that a sidewalk be built immediately in front of the property as part of the project, though there are no other sidewalks on that block.
“I am going to respectfully ask the committee if they believe that having one disted section of sidewalk is keeping within the community character,” Will said at the time. He added that the construction would “take away” from the property’s appearance.
“One of the reasons I don’t think sidewalks are justified is … the city would have to build retaining walls just to be able to level out the sidewalks,” Will said.
However, he added, if the city continues to require the sidewalk, “we are happy to comply.”
Berg said that while the sidewalk requests have been coming up recently, the city policy they stem from isn’t new.
“If the project requires compliance with current public improvement regulations, the installation of a city-standard sidewalk is typically required where one is missing,” he said. “In neighborhoods without existing sidewalks, site development, redevelopment and subdivision activities are an opportunity to obtain portions of the pedestrian infrastructure needed to comply with city and [Americans with Disabilities Act] regulations, as well as the General Plan and Community Plan documents, where applicable.” ♦
