Underground Garage Plan Moves Forward

By Deanna Yick

After months of intense deliberation over the design choices for Golden Gate Park's underground parking facility - during which time everyone seemed to adopt their own favorite - the Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority unanimously selected its preferred plan at its board meeting June 12. Prior to the vote, two controversial plans for the garage were dropped.

The approval of Alternative Four concludes the project definition phase and initiates both the schematic design phase and the Environmental Impact Report process.

It has yet to be determined which of the other alternatives will be included in the EIR, but the concourse authority has authorized the proceedings to make designs for the preferred alternative. The funds spent on the design plan of preferred Alternative Four will not be wasted, however, since its planning can be applied to whichever of the similar alternatives is finally chosen and approved by the SF Board of Supervisors and the mayor, who will make the final decision.

The selection was reached by considering the public's input at the board's previous monthly meetings and feedback at four community workshops held throughout the City, including one in the Richmond District.

The idea to build the underground parking structure was approved by voters in June 1998 with the passage of Proposition J, which created the Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority to oversee the project.

Provisions in the proposition said the garage would be privately funded and that for each parking space created by the underground facility a surface parking space would be removed. It also called for transportation studies and improvements. The park's shuttle service is scheduled to begin its first season of service in August and operate through October.

More promises made to the public in Proposition J included the assurance that the park's Music Concourse would not be torn up during garage construction. San Franciscans for Better Parks, the political action group largely responsible for Prop. J's passage, distributed fliers and other advertisements specifically attesting to the claim.

Two controversial alternatives, which would have destroyed parts of the Music Concourse and rebuilt it later, were eliminated last month based on public outcry. The remaining plans would dig under the concourse without disturbing the surface.

The alternative selected as the concourse authority's preferred choice will not disturb the existing concourse. It will consist of two, two-level parking lots, one in front of the M.H. de Young Memorial Museum and the other in front of the California Academy of Sciences, connected via a tunnel. Added to the connector tunnel will be an additional wedge-shaped, single-level parking lot at the east end of the concourse. The plan is expected to accommodate 862 parking stalls, which will be accessible through an entrance at Middle Drive and at Fulton Street (at Eighth, Ninth, or Tenth avenues). The projected cost is $60 million.

The alternative is flexible, however, said Michael Ellzey, chief executive officer of the concourse authority. Changes in the design stage may be made if they are deemed beneficial and feasible.

Some suggestions from the board and the public included increasing the garage's capacity by making the wedge-shaped lot two levels, increasing garage accessibility by adding more entry points and rerouting north-south cross traffic by allowing vehicles to pass through the underground garage.

Another possibility lies in the accommodation of a Sierra Club transit access proposal, which would remove buses from the area behind the Bandshell and house them in an underground bus station extending from Fulton Street to Middle Drive. This estimated $20 million feature has not yet been approved, and at this point it is considered by the concourse authority as a separate project requiring separate funding. That judgement may be subject to change, however, if the board comes to see the Sierra Club project an advantageous addition to the garage plan.

Prospective changes may alter the anticipated cost of the project, according to Ellzey. The budget, which lies between $35 million to $40 million, was initially supposed to come from private donations and other private sources. Public money will not be used to finance the actual building of the garage, but taxpayer money will cover some associated costs. As of March, $200,000 had been budgeted by the SF Recreation and Park Department to keep interested parties informed about developments and coordinate various construction projects in the concourse area.

Ellzey also expressed the need to conduct comprehensive traffic flow and public safety studies. The traffic studies will allow the board and architects from Gordon H. Chong & Partners to anticipate the estimated number of patrons visiting the park who will need space in the garage for their cars and pedestrian access to the various park attractions. The safety study will analyze the existing conditions within the park as well as in the surrounding Richmond and Sunset districts, and ensure the garage adopts appropriate safety measures.

Despite the presence of supportive members of the public in agreement with the concourse authority's decision, there were some skeptical individuals at the meeting who voiced their opposition to the preferred plan. Several people objected to Alternative Four because it requires the removal and possible reconstruction of three historic tunnel walkways into the concourse areas.

"They're fragile to the idea of being lifted up and put back down," said activist Chris Duderstadt. "They will definitely need to be completely rebuilt." Duderstadt also expressed concern about the large quantity of energy that will be required to light the underground facility.

Yet the concourse authority seemed optimistic overall, and it plans to continue to take feedback from the public into consideration as the design phase of the project gets underway.

"We're very excited to put the pavement to better use by removing it," said Jim Lazarus, a director on the Concourse Authority's board and Sen. Dianne Feinstein's director of California operations. "We're going to move traffic off the surface of the park."

In addition to making cars less visible, the plan is also expected to make the park safer for pedestrians by reducing traffic and clear more space for new greenery, making the park more enjoyable to visitors. The two-year construction project is scheduled to begin during the summer of 2002 and is expected to be ready for operation in 2004.