3 Plans Offered for Bayfront Parking Lot Land

Renewing a long-running debate over whether to develop two parking lots flanking the bayfront County Administration Center, a special task force on Wednesday recommended building shops, restaurants, a hotel and possibly an aquarium on the site.

In submitting its 143-page report to the Board of Supervisors, the task force gave the supervisors a range of development options extending from a low-density retail and exhibit complex to a more intensive plan that would couple the restaurants and shops with a 100,000-square-foot aquarium and a first-class 250-room hotel.

The three major development alternatives detailed in the report will compel the supervisors--who are expected to review the report next month--to weigh environmental and aesthetic considerations against financial factors in deciding how to best use the valuable waterfront property. The retail-exhibit proposal would largely preserve existing open space on the site but would lose money for the county, while the larger-scale hotel and aquarium project would generate a profit but occupy a greater portion of the property and interfere with the site’s “view corridor” to the bay.

The 15-member task force was appointed by the Board of Supervisors in August, 1985, to examine possible uses for the land after the $120-million Harbor Square plan to develop the parking lots collapsed in the face of strong opposition from county and city officials. That plan, which called for 250,000 square feet of office space, 70,000 square feet of retail shops and a 300-room hotel, was widely criticized as incompatible with the historic County Administration Center.

Beyond being smaller in scale than the Harbor Square plan in order to alleviate concerns that the development might overshadow the Spanish colonial county building, the task force’s three recommendations also differ from the earlier project in one other significant way--money.

Under county officials’ projections, Harbor Square would have produced a $24-million profit for the county over the first 10 years and $4 million annually after that. Two of the three new proposals, however, are expected to lose millions of dollars over the first 15 years, while the ambitious aquarium-hotel plan would produce an estimated $5.9-million profit (equivalent to $2.3 million in 1986 dollars) during that period.

Following the task force’s unanimous approval of its report, Supervisor Susan Golding argued that smaller profits--or even a net loss--might be the price that the county must pay in order to stimulate increased public use of the land while simultaneously “preserving its integrity.”

“What we have is a philosophical argument over whether public land is supposed to be used as a revenue generator or for other public purposes,” Golding said. “The most effective public use of the land is not necessarily the best way to generate money.”

Located on the north and south sides of the County Administration Center, the two parking lots cover a total of 8.6 acres. The county building itself covers an additional 8 acres between Harbor Drive and Pacific Highway.

A group of the nation’s leading urban planners who recently visited San Diego to evaluate the city’s downtown redevelopment program urged local officials not to develop any large-scale project on the parking lot site, arguing that it would detract from the county building’s “jewel-like setting” on the bay.

The task force made note of that advice from the Urban Land Institute in its report, but added that leaving the property undeveloped would not meet the county’s needs or put the land to its best possible use.

The smallest of the three possible projects outlined in the report calls for 50,000 square feet of restaurant and retail space, 40,000 square feet of display space for water- and marine-related exhibits and a large public plaza. That proposal would have “the worst net fiscal impact” on the county of the three recommendations, losing $9.6 million ($5.6 million in present terms) over its first 15 years as the result of development costs, the report concluded.

A 100,000-square-foot aquarium would be added to the retail complex, exhibit space and public plaza under the second alternative. Despite that addition, that plan would lose only slightly less money than the first by the year 2001--$7.1 million, or $4.3 million in present dollars.

In addition, the report notes that the feasibility of developing an aquarium on the site of San Diego Gas & Electric Co.’s former downtown power plant also has been studied. If that plan were to proceed, it obviously would preempt any notion of building an aquarium on county land.

The third proposal, which would further broaden the development with a 250-room hotel--along with the retail complex and aquarium--is the only one of the recommendations that would be profitable for the county. Financial estimates included in the task force’s report project that the hotel plan would produce a $5.9-million profit over a 15-year period.

Public parking for the retail complex would be provided through either an underground lot or garage, while the county employees’ parking lot would be relocated to another county-owned site one block away from the County Administration Center.

In the early 1980s, then-Supervisor Roger Hedgecock championed proposals to develop the parking lots as an innovative method of increasing county revenues without raising taxes. The new recommendations, however, reflect a clear shift in attitude about the project--in particular, about its economics.

“Revenue generation should not be the major consideration in determining uses appropriate to the parking lots,” the task force’s report stated. Rather, the report stressed that the site should be developed “with an emphasis on public use and enjoyment” in a way that will “preserve and enhance the historical, aesthetic and functional value” of the County Administration Center.

Not wanting to tie the hands of possible bidders or stifle architectural ingenuity, the task force deliberately did not suggest design guidelines for the potential development. However, Curt Fornal, the group’s vice chairman, said Wednesday that there was a “clear consensus” among the task force members that no structure erected on the site should be higher than the county building.

Although the county owns the parking lots, the San Diego City Council would have to approve any development on the property, which was once owned by the city and was formerly the site of City Hall. In order to clear title to the land, the county gave the city the unusual opportunity to control a project on county-owned land.

The city’s Planning Commission rejected the Harbor Square project in 1985, a move that started to unravel the proposal and led to its ultimate demise. Aware that city opposition still looms as a potential obstacle, the task force recommended that the county not even solicit design proposals from bidders until the city approves a General Plan amendment authorizing the development.

“It would be extremely difficult to attract interest from developers or competitors . . . until this change occurs,” the report said.

Golding, meanwhile, admitted that uncertainty over the city’s position is only one of the doubts surrounding potential development of the parking lots.

“Most people seem to agree that we can do better than using that land for parking lots, but that’s where the agreement ends,” the supervisor said. “I expect we’re going to hear everything from ideas to build even more than has been suggested (in the report) to people saying we ought to just leave the parking lots alone.”