Council Votes to Purchase Old Sears Site for Library

Despite uncertainty over whether the vacated Sears store in Hillcrest would be a suitable location for a new central library, the San Diego City Council voted Tuesday to purchase the site for $9.3 million.

The council voted 5-3 to buy the property to preserve the city’s option of locating the library on part of the 12-acre site on Cleveland Avenue near University Avenue, with the rest being sold to private developers.

Although some council members questioned purchasing the land without having a clear idea of its intended use, the majority--led by Councilman Bill Cleator--urged that the city not forgo the chance to buy the store and the huge parking lot that surrounds it. Sears, which has received an offer for the site from a developer, had given the city until May 12 to match the offer.

“I don’t think we should pass up this window of opportunity,” Cleator said. “ . . . it is a gamble, but any business venture is a gamble and I don’t think there’s too much downside risk.”

In the same motion, initiated by Cleator, the council voted to pay for the purchase by cutting a $5.2-million telecommunications system from the 1987 capital improvements budget and allocating the balance from a $10-million fund created in the mid-1970s to pay potential costs of a lawsuit filed by San Diego Gas & Electric Co.

The Cleveland Avenue store has been mentioned as a possible location for a new central library since Sears announced in January that it was closing the store after 34 years of operation. At that time, Cleator said the cost of buying and renovating the store would be much less than the $40 million to $54 million needed to build a new library at the downtown Community Concourse, a site that had been proposed by the Centre City Development Corp., the city’s redevelopment agency.

However, the city’s building inspections staff found that the store fails to meet seismic safety standards and is structurally inadequate to handle the weight of thousands of library books. Last month, the city manager’s office recommended against the purchase, estimating the cost of buying and razing the store and then building a new library on the site at more than $44.6 million.

Speaking in favor of the purchase at Tuesday’s council meeting were members of Friends of the Library, Uptown Planners (a Hillcrest community group) and an ad-hoc committee established in February by acting Mayor Ed Struiksma to study possible sites for the new library and report to the council by July 1.

“The emphasis should be on the land,” said Henry Wilson, a member of the ad-hoc committee. “You don’t get many 12-acre sites in that area at an affordable price. If it turns out that (the store) is the best site and the City Council agrees with that decision, then the land will be there.”

Among the city’s options for the property, as outlined at the council meeting by Jim Spotts, director of executive services for the Property Department, is to set aside 5 acres as a site for the library. The council could then gain an additional 2 to 3 acres by closing adjacent sections of Cleveland and Vermont avenues, rezoning the resulting tract for a mixed use of business and residential development, and sell it to private developers for $8 million to $10 million, Spotts said.

But opponents on the council, including Struiksma, were wary of any plan to recoup the city’s investment in the property by subdividing it and selling it to private developers.

“I think there is some real concern about this council getting into the land speculation business,” Struiksma said.

At one point in the council’s discussion, Councilman William Jones asked Spotts if the building’s price was “fair market value” and whether money generated by the sale of part of the property would return the $10.3 million outlay to buy the land and demolish the store. Spotts said the store’s price “was at a high range of value for that type of property,” and acknowledged there was no guarantee the city would make back its investment.

Jones repeatedly questioned the prudence of the purchase.

“The motion before us hasn’t proven to be the best course of action yet,” he said. “I think this is outside the regular budget process. When you’re talking about an expenditure like this, it’s a citywide issue. I think council members should be able to ask some very tough questions . . . There are people in my district who still have dirt alleyways.”

Councilman Mike Gotch, who seconded Cleator’s motion to purchase the property, downplayed the business aspect of the council vote.

“This action should be characterized as a community investment, not a profit-making venture,” Gotch said. “We need to purchase, we need to plan with the community and in a few years, we’ll be able to stand back and be proud of what we’ve done.”