Welcome to Day 2 of the SDFP Virtual Mayoral Forum. (See Day 1, Asking about managed competition, here.)
With input from our many contributors, editors put together a series of eight questions we felt were unique, not too opened ended and not trite. We’re publishing one response from the candidates per day (Monday-Friday) so readers can see the verbatim responses side by side.
We emailed the questions to the addresses listed with the City Clerk’s office as contact points, knowing most of the minor candidates wouldn’t respond. Kevin Faulconer’s campaign is refusing to participate. We can only assume–and, believe me we’ve tried to get them involved– their non-response sends a message about their openness to the citizens in this city. You can decide what that message is.
Editor’s note: According to his campaign staff, Nathan Fletcher did not receive our questions until after we began publishing this virtual forum. His responses have since been added.
The complete questionnaire can be found here.
Today’s topic is about the Plaza de Panama controversy. SDFP editor Anna Daniels put together an introduction to the issue so readers can see our thinking behind asking the question.
One of San Diego’s most contentious civic debates has been over the Balboa Park renovation plan put forward by the Irwin Jacobs sponsored Plaza de Panama Committee. The debate was rooted in the straightforward goal of eliminating vehicular travel and parking in the Plaza de Panama. Mayor Jerry Sanders tapped Dr. Irwin Jacobs to develop the plan, circumventing park organizations and stakeholders who had been involved in a transparent, community driven planning process in anticipation of Balboa Park’s centennial in 2015. It also ignored the city’s own Balboa Park Precise Plan that was developed twenty years prior but never acted upon.
The Jacobs Plan did indeed remove vehicular travel and parking altogether from the Central Mesa of Balboa Park, but it did so by building the Centennial Bridge, circumventing the museums around to the south as an offshoot of the historic Cabrillo Bridge, and building a three story paid parking structure to the south of the Organ Pavilion. The project would have cost a projected $45 million, with $25 million being donated by Dr. Jacobs himself. The city of San Diego would be required to raise $16.5 million in tax exempt bonds to fund building the $14 million parking garage, with no guarantee that general funds would not be tapped if park goers weren’t willing to pay to park.
Members of the Balboa Park Conservancy quit in protest. San Diego’s Historical Resources Board and the Park and Recreation Board voted against the Plaza de Panama project. SOHO and other preservationist groups raised the issue of a legal challenge. In July of 2012 the San Diego City Council spent seven hours in a packed chamber hearing public testimony and then voted to approve the Jacobs-Sanders plan, with only Councilwoman Sherri Lightner dissenting and Councilman Tony Young absent.
Then mayoral candidate Bob Filner came out against the Jacobs plan at the City Council meeting, calling them irresponsible for turning over funding of a public asset to a private group, no matter how well revered that group may be and potentially putting taxpayers on the hook for budget shortfalls.
SOHO did mount a legal challenge and in early 2013 Judge Timothy Taylor ruled that the proposed Jacobs plan violated city law and could not move forward. Dr. Jacobs withdrew his support. Shortly after the ruling, Council President Todd Gloria “sent a memo to City Attorney Jan Goldsmith asking for advice on legal and legislative options San Diego might use to revive the project. Those could include granting a municipal code exemption to the plan.”
Bob Filner, who had recently been elected mayor, proceeded with his own plan to remove vehicular traffic and parking from the Plaza de Panama, at a cost of $300,000.
Will the city continue implementing Filner’s Plaza de Panama Plan, which includes new trams and additional handicapped parking behind Alcazar Garden? Interim Mayor and Council President Todd Gloria recently said that he has no intentions at this time of revisiting the municipal code issue. For the moment, Balboa Park remains a stunning, meaningful public asset.
2. Plaza de Panama Balboa Park
A Superior Court judge ruled that the Jacobs Plan, which promoted a parking and traffic makeover in Balboa Park, was in violation of the City’s municipal code.
Are you in favor or opposed to revising the municipal code to accommodate the Jacobs Plan and why?
The Court ruling that determined that the City violated it’s own laws was a finding by the court that the City had, in order to pursue the “Jacobs Plan,” made an unsupportable decision that Plaza de Panama in Balboa Park with or without parking rendered it without a beneficial use. It is ludicrous to argue that either Plaza de Panama or Balboa Park is not a “beneficial use” of dedicated parkland.
The loss of Plaza de Parking meant the loss of 67 of the park’s approximately 8,400 spaces. Only 24 of those plaza spaces were for the car-driving public and they were available for three hours only. The remaining spaces were reserved for disabled parking, motorcycles, 15-minute parking, loading-and-unloading zones and taxis.
As the San Diego Zoo proceeds with it’s $200 million plan to build a 4,800-space underground parking garage to relieve the persistent parking problem in Balboa Park will provide some relief, as some spaces will be available to guests at the park. The zoo will spend $4 million on the Park Boulevard Promenade Plan and other improvements, including:
• Replacing the zoo’s lot with a four-level, 4,800-space underground garage stretching from Zoo Place to the Natural History Museum
• Building a pedestrian mall on top of the garage that directly links the zoo to the museums along El Prado
• Expanding the zoo onto its parking lot with $100 million or more in new animal exhibits and attractions.
The Balboa Park Conservancy (a non-profit 501(c)3 organization responsible for raising funds, developing public-private partnerships and managing and controlling the projects it undertakes in the Park) will lead a coalition of institutions, civic organizations and philanthropists to back its list of needed projects and then work out the details. However things work out, there are alternatives that will provide additional parking spaces without destroying the integrity of the park.
The Plaza de Panama project was something I supported when it came before the City Council in 2012. The public discussion on the project was a healthy one – with much debate over many public hearings, which I found to be a valuable tool in determining how I would vote on the proposal. However, it was still a tough decision because I thought both proponents and opponents had valid points to their arguments.
I had major reservations about the optimistic revenue projections for the proposed parking garage, but also believed that the overall investment in Balboa Park that the project would have achieved was beneficial to San Diegans. Ultimately, that project is no longer moving forward and, under my administration, will not be resurrected. Instead, I am pleased with the changes the city has made to the flow of traffic through the plaza, which have resulted in a more pedestrian friendly experience for all who visit the park.
In favor of revising old MC. But, not to accommodate Jacobs Plan. That would be de facto and inappropriate. Parking structure & financial plan a real problem.
Like my main opponents in this race and most of the park’s institutions, I supported the proposal to make the entire central mesa of Balboa Park, including the Plaza de Panama and Plaza de California, reserved for pedestrians while keeping the west entrance of the park open. I’m not aware of any efforts to revive the Jacobs Plan, but I do continue to support the concept of completely removing cars from the center of the park and reviving the magnificent public plazas that were foolishly turned into roads.
Part Three of our Virtual Forum will appear tomorrow (Oct 25) and will allow the candidates to voice their views on the permitting process for construction projects in San Diego.
John Lawrence says
The improvements to Plaza de Panama made by Mayor Filner have already improved the pedestrian experience in the park. However, vehicular traffic still flows through the Plaza de Panama. The Jacobs plan would have essentially undergrounded all traffic through the park, created hundreds if not thousands of acres of new parkland and made every museum in the park accessible to pedestrians without having to cross traffic once. Since the paid parking garage created so much controversy, why not consider the Jacobs plan without the garage with the traffic just proceeding underground to President’s Way. This would accomplish all the goals of the Jacobs plan minus the parking garage, and would reduce the expense of the plan considerably since most of the money was for the parking garage. An enhanced tram system could bring people up behind the San Diego Museum from the Inspiration Point lot without having to interfere with pedestrians at all.
John: the whole Park is not much more than 1000 acres. In fact, your whole argument is wrong.
John Lawrence says
1200 acres to be exact
bob dorn says
President’s Way is a right or left turn off Park Boulevard already; it’s not necessary to cut off the final 25% of Cabrillo Bridge to build that Battleship Galactica offramp at the western end. If you want to leave your car on parkland you can do it via Park Boulevard. Maybe they gave it that name because it was supposed to be the principal access route to the park. Again, President’s Way exists to the east. You’d have to love roads and offramps for their intrinsic beauty to destroy Cabrillo Bridge.
And, after all, to the east the zoo will have a parking garage. If the city kicks in a little money maybe the zoo can be persuaded to add a few more spaces in the garage than are already designated for general Balboa Park parking. The East Side is the best access route to the park. DON’T KILL THE BRIDGE!
John Lawrence says
Well, then there will be no through route through the park from 6th Ave to Park Blvd, but that’s alright with me. President’s way would then be just a short stub. Might as well eliminate it altogether. In fact I like your idea about placing all parking off of Park Blvd either in an expanded zoo underground parking lot or at Inspiration Point which also could be developed into a parking structure. However, I never saw the logic that the bypass around the end of the building at the east end of Cabrillo Bridge would destroy the bridge. In fact you’re well over the bridge before the bypass would begin and the landscaping would totally hide it from view.