By Doug Porter
Even as San Diego rolled out proposals reducing residential parking spaces, a City Council committee is set to approve up to $50 million in lease revenue bonds for construction of a 797 space parking garage in Balboa Park.
Just hours before the City Council was set to consider updated community plans for Golden Hill and North Park City, staff unveiled a plan aimed at encouraging commuters to curb their driving, including eliminating parking spaces, along with getting businesses to offer incentives for employees to walk, bike and take mass transit.
The driving disincentives were aimed at blunting opposition from environmental groups, who believe the community plans are at variance with the City’s plans to reduce its carbon footprint.
Plaza de Panama Lives On
The full Council approved a plan four years ago to remove cars and parking from the center of Balboa Park, but litigation halted its implementation. The City ultimately prevailed on appeal. Mayor Faulconer promised to revive the Plaza de Panama plan, which includes the garage, at a press conference in June.
At the same time, he also announced a ballot measure (J) shuffling the tax revenues from Mission Bay Park to include funding for Balboa and other city parks. Faulconer pledged that these revenues would not be part of the Plaza de Panama project.
In September Katherine Johnston, the mayor’s director of public infrastructure, told the City Council costs for the Plaza de Panama plan had risen by 88% ($40 million to $75 million) due to “various building code changes, such as storm-water control, higher wages required for city projects and a more competitive bidding environment.”
From the Union-Tribune:
Johnston said [Irwin] Jacobs’ Plaza de Panama Committee, which he chairs, is pledging to cover any city costs that would be capped at $45 million and paid back from parking revenues from the new garage at the city’s general fund. The committee has spent $14 million so far, including legal and planning costs, and is committing another $2.5 million to complete design documents. The committee previously pledged to raise $26 million to match the city’s original pledge, also $14 million, for the garage. The committee’s new commitment would take it to $30 million if $75 million is the ultimate cost.
Jim Kidrick, who heads the San Diego & Air Space Museum and chairs the Balboa Park United support group for the Jacobs plan, said the higher cost borne by the city likely reflects added costs for the garage and some of the linking roadways and landscaping, which Jacobs’ committee had previously indicated it would cover.
Undaunted, the City Council voted 8-1 to spend up to $1 million to finalize design details and generate new cost estimates.
The Revenue (Or Not) Bonds Explained
via Youtube
The actual bond amount projected by the city is currently at $44.5 million. Based on the assumed interest rate of 4.25% , this means the city’s General Fund is obligated to repay $80 million over the course of the loan.
The proposal being voted on by the Infrastructure Committee says the repayment source for the bonds will be the parking revenues from the garage.
“These are estimated to be $3.3 million beginning year 1 of the Parking Garage opening and annual debt service/lease payments for the Bonds after the capitalized interest period will commence beginning Fiscal Year 2021 and will be budgeted in a newly established fund within the Park and Recreation Department budget.”
“In addition to paying debt service on the Bonds, this fund will also be programmed to collect parking revenues, pay Parking Garage operating expenses, and maintain Internal Safety and Capital Reserve Funds. In the event that annual parking garage revenue is insufficient to pay debt service in any given year, funds will be drawn from the Internal Safety Fund.”
Because the parking garage will take years to build, there will be no revenue coming in until it is completed and open. To address that, the City plans to capitalize the interest for at least 2.5 years. (In other words, borrow money to make payments on the money they borrow.) That amount is projected to be $4.9 million.
“Based on the current expected construction timeline, the capitalized interest period is estimated to be 2.5 years, which covers the construction period, plus an additional six months to mitigate the risk of any construction delays (actual period to be determined at the time of pricing).”
The aforementioned Internal Safety Fund would be created using “excess revenues.”
“Upon the Parking Garage’s opening, a City-held Internal Safety Fund is recommended to be maintained from excess net parking revenues to serve as a buffer against any revenue volatility over the 30-year term of the Bonds. This is designed to mainly mitigate the potential need for the General Fund to front any shortfall in revenue for annual debt service.”
All of this language assumes parking revenues will be in line with the projections made by Parking Concepts, Inc.(PCI).
The proposed parking fees will be set at $2 for up to one hour, $4 for up to two hours and $8 all day on weekdays. On weekends and holidays, they would be $3, $6 and $12, respectively.
Officials believe the garage spaces would turn over three times per day, with occupancy during the day projected at 50% (weekdays) and 61% (weekends). Evening parking is projected at 36% and 49, respectively.
From the Union-Tribune:
According to a report from Lakshmi Kommi, director of the city’s debt management department, the parking garage revenue would total $4 million in the first full year, enough to cover $683,000 in operating expenses plus deposits into a capital reserve fund and an internal safety fund to cover any shortfalls.
And then there’s this little gem:
She said the city also plans to contribute $10 million from capital reserves toward the Jacobs plan on top of the $39 million cost of the garage.
A Risky Bet at Best
via Canadian Mind Products
While City Councilman Todd Gloria says Community Plans can be revisited in 5 years for compliance with environmental goals, the parking lot is unlikely to get torn down if (and likely when) it proves to be a bad idea.
Meanwhile, technological changes are causing uncertainty among transportation planners.
Lyft’s president is making the bold prediction that personal car ownership will go the way of the DVD player by 2025.
Goldman Sachs says 35% of millennials are already willing to engage in car sharing arrangements.
And then there is the omnipresent reality of climate change. Helsinki, Finland has already committed to ending the need for private car ownership in the next decade, by creating a seamless and integrated private and public transportation system.
The San Diego City Council is making a big bet on the role of automobiles in the future. If they’re wrong, we’ll all be paying.
The full Council will be voting on the bonds and commitment to the Plaza de Panama project in mid-November. Construction is slated to begin next year.
On This Day: 1858 – Roland Macy opened Macy’s Department Store in New York City. It was Macy’s eighth business adventure, the other seven failed. 1951 – The National Labor Council was formed in Cincinnati to unite Black workers in the struggle for full economic, political and social equality. The group was to function for five years before disbanding, having forced many AFL and CIO unions to adopt non-discrimination 1975 – Bruce Springsteen was simultaneously on the cover of “Time” and “Newsweek.” This was the first time this happened for a rock star.
Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to “The Starting Line” and get an email every time a new article in this series is posted!
I read the Daily Fishwrap(s) so you don’t have to… Catch “the Starting Line” Monday thru Friday right here at San Diego Free Press (dot) org. Send your hate mail and ideas to DougPorter@SanDiegoFreePress.Org Check us out on Facebook and Twitter.
Doug Porter
Latest posts by Doug Porter (see all)
- Last Call. Last Column. - December 14, 2018
- Which Presidential Candidate Will You Support in 2020? - December 13, 2018
- Mounting the Assault on Big Gay and Other Drivel From SDSU’s Minimum Wage Scrooge - December 12, 2018
Good article, honestly, folks, to rip apart the heart of our beautiful historical Balboa park and canyons for more roads and massive concrete structures for CARS is so last century in mentality (next century in price!) .put the paid luxury parking structure in the back side of the far parking lot, four stories of parking garage looking at the freeway, not in the middle of the park, let the fat Americans walk, they can do the whole park from the aero space museum up to the Promenade…. Close the bridge entrance on the weekends.
Keep the existing lot behind the Historical Organ pavilion for handicapped, and central drop off, and transit, free, maybe plants some trees through the asphalt into the real, good earth.
Wish I could get a some Jacob dollars for this good advice.
More on this, IF we put the parking garage in the back of the back parking lot, which, by the way, is a drug hang out, the top floors would align with the Starlight Plaza, museum, Exposition Hall..from which we would eliminate the car parking and make it a nice urban plaza in line with the rest of the park, a powerful configuration…
All the cars would be kept in the back of the back parking lot, where cars should be kept.
The Organ pavilion parking lot could be accessed also from the back entrance, increasing pedestrian friendly access from the new Starlight Plaza to Plaza de Panama… Umm, I think that’s all.
Ps, I dream of a revival of Starlight Opera, hey mr Jacobs, how about that instead of a parking lot?
Or we could turn the abandoned starlight opera into the parking lot.
I only wish to save the humble and traditional drive through of the park, in memory of my mother, who died of RA a few years ago, and enjoyed very much a slow drive through Balboa park, on a Tuesday morning, for example, remembering all the wonderful times we had there as a family, and always marveling at the architecture and graceful elegance. Sometimes we parked and walked/pushed, sometimes a drive by was enough…
Micporte echoes what I wrote when the Jacobs proposal first came out: most traffic entering the park comes via Park Blvd and Presidents Way. Simply located the garage entrance there — which makes more sense — and the need for the hideous bypass disappears. The garage itself sould be nicely camouflaged by the slope of the land there and the addition of greenery on top (where the Organ Pavilion lot now is) is a real plus.
I am all for the above mentioned ideas; especially putting a parking structure back by Park Blvd.
What great city in the world would tear up the middle of their glorious parkland to build a parking structure? I say NONE, with any design team of their choice. This proposed parking structure will be the CENTERPIECE of beautiful Balboa Park! Are you kidding me?
Jacobs’ money buys their legacy right smack in the middle of the park, not to mention the hideous bridge to it. Dear San Diego: we can do better than this.
There is an alternative that will cost zero money, provide 6 times the parking spaces and the lot will be free. The city has already approved a parking garage at Park blvd. / Spanish Village land. I believe it counts 1800 parking spaces. (proposed garage is only about 300 net spaces) The Zoo has committed to financing half the cost and would fund raise for additional funds. The San Diego High School lease is up as you know and it would seem prudent to let the high school remain for another 50 years with the SDUSD paying the remaining amount of money for the construction of the parking garage. Say 25 million kicked in. No bonds, no risk, no paid parking. It can be done. So lets see the city council act on this. It is the best solution.
From time to time I’ve been honking about doing a garage on the zoo’s asphalt landing strip and car lot and never read of the deal that is currently in the works at the Spanish Village. Could we hear more about this from you, John?
Bob – this is the same project and Spanish Village simply is nearby to the Council-approved Zoo’s Park Blvd. Promenade. The PBP would extend underground outside of the zoo’s leasehold and below the children’s railway. It hasn’t been built because the Zoo expects the City to issue a bond to pay for at least half of the garage.
Compared to the current underground garage plan (which is to accommodate fewer parking spaces), the Park Blvd. Promenade is a decent plan which resulted from long and broad-based public participation in the planning, and would actually reduce cars in the core of the Central Mesa.
Yet the City has failed to work with the Zoo to accomplish a project that was approved in 2004, long before the Jacobs Plan was suggested. Now, the City Council is poised to commit $50,000,000 to building a smaller parking garage in the heart of the Central Mesa.
Correction: The Park Blvd. Promenade was approved in 2005 (not 2004) as an amendment to the Balboa Park Master Plan and Central Mesa Precise Plan
Aha! I was away from San Diego for seven years, including the period when the city promised a Park Blvd Promenade. Boy, that escaped consciousness here nearly altogether. This is the first reference I’ve seen to a Park Blvd parking garage once in the works. City Hall just seems to have an aversion to common sense, sorta like our presidential politics.
The Zoo’s Park Blvd. Promenade underground garage adjacent to Park Blvd. would provide parking for 4,803 spaces if built. I’d much prefer my tax dollars going to that project rather than the very destructive bypass bridge and Organ Pavilion lot garage (797 spaces of which up to 100 will be reserved for valet parking spaces and for museum employees willing (and able) to pay $125/month for a reserved space.
Pity the poor museum volunteers – only a few will be able to afford the hourly parking in the OP lot garage.
How about we spend the money on restoring all the museum buildings which are crumbling instead. Get some damn sense SD City Council!
The parking garage shouldno tbe built. Cars do not belong in the park. It is a people park, not a car park. Only publuc transit, delieveries, and emergency vehicles and intra park transit should be allowed in the park. The car has destroyed San Diego. People should be encouraged to use transit to get to the park. Discounted admissions to parkfeatures should be tied to presentation of a valid transitpass or ticket. Anymoney saved by not building this eyesore can go to enhanced bus service and perhas a future trolley line in the area. The city needs to stop subsidizing the car!
I agree with you! But San Diegans love affair with cars is far from over. We won’t need a garage in twenty years because transportation technology will change. But I also don’t think people are ready to accept that cars are so last century; thus I was willing to negotiate for a garage. Fundamentally our society has to let the car go in such urban areas but that is not a popular concept. No vision.
San Francisco built a parking garage underground at Golden Gate Park and has struggled to make enough revenue to cover bond indebtedness only a few years after the 800-space garage opened. Parking fees have been increased multiple times since the garage opened in 2005. Weekday parking now costs $5/hour M-F (max $29); $6/hour weekend days (max. $33); Special Event/Evening Rate $17 after 5:30 pm until closing.
There is very little free parking available in or around Golden Gate Park, all of it along street curbs in the park. You can imagine how quickly those fill up. Otherwise, visitors must pay for the Concourse parking or private parking garages outside the park.
The Golden Gate Parking Concourse accommodates only 3 more spaces than planned for Balboa Park. I have serious doubts that the figures being suggested for parking revenue will be consistent or sufficient to pay the bond debt, especially with so much free parking only a short walk or tram ride away from the Balboa Park garage. How long before Council decides they must begin charging to park in the Palisades lot or the Federal Bldg. (Starlight Bowl) lot?
City Council members are being irresponsible if they vote to commit the City to almost $50 million in revenue bonds for a project that is not necessary – there are a number of far less destructive and far more effective ways to address parking and traffic in Balboa Park’s Central Mesa.
BTW, if revenue is not sufficient from the parking garage, guess who gets to cover the deficit? The taxpayer, in many ways, because the bond will be backed by the General Fund. You can foresee more cuts to basic services like public safety, recreation, parks and libraries.
You are correct.We shouldnot be subsidizing cars,period.The spacecan be put to much better use.Ther eis plenty of trnasit, bike trails, etc for peopel to use. We do not need the auto pollution either.Cars, except for emergency vehicles, public transit and deliveries to the facilities in th epark should be the only vehicles allowed in the park. It is our park, do notturn it in to a parking lot. If people live in ne of the few areas not servedby transit then take transit from the nearest park and ride.
Cut down the trees and put up a parking lot. Hmmm… why does that sound familiar?
I have the odd feeling that there’s some music that goes with that sentiment…..
Even 50 million spent ont he garage is WRONG. We shoul dbe spenign nothing to support to use of cars. That just brings pollution, waste of energy, and destroys our planet. The money woul dbe better spent in bringing all park maintenance up to date, more frequent pubic trnasit near and through the park, and programs for the less fortuante to beable to afford the park attractions. Sussidizing cars with a parking garage favors the wealthier and is bad. The city has been ruined in providing for the automobile. Look at how North Prk was destroyed by 805 (ask those whose houses were removed for its construction) and lets do everythingwe can to keep cars OUIT of the park.It is for people, not cars. There are bus routes that come to and through the park. People can use park and rides if they do not live near transit butinno way shouls the city spend ANY money for parking cars!