Board Makes Its Choice : Battle Over New Library Site No Closed Book

Opening a new chapter in the lengthy debate over the site for a new central library, the San Diego Board of Library Commissioners on Thursday recommended that the new library be built downtown one block east of the existing library.

Judging by the sometimes-heated comments heard at Thursday’s hearing, the commission’s recommendation, to be reviewed by a San Diego City Council committee next month, probably will renew public sparring over the library site selection issue. This seemingly innocuous topic has produced bitter divisions among local politicians and library patrons over the past several years.

In particular, the panel’s selection of the downtown site--a choice made in accordance with the City Council’s wishes and a campaign pledge made by Mayor Maureen O’Connor--almost certainly will precipitate a last-gasp battle from those who would prefer to use the former Sears store in Hillcrest for the new library. Last month, the council expressly ruled out the use of the Sears site for the library and directed the city staff to analyze only downtown locations.

Regardless, several longtime library patrons who favor the Sears site argued Thursday that the public agrees with them, warning that insistence on a downtown site could scuttle plans to use a 1988 public bond issue to finance the estimated $60 million cost of the new library. A two-thirds majority vote of the public is required to approve such a bond issue.

“The public doesn’t want it downtown, so . . . if you think that bond issue is going to go over in ‘88, forget it!” said Merlin Osterhaus, a director of San Diego Friends of the Library. “We’ll be back to ground one.”

When the issue goes before the council, the legislators could accept the commission’s recommendation, reject that site in favor of one of six other downtown locations reviewed by the panel or conceivably even reconsider the Sears site, which the city bought for $9 million last year. If the council members cannot agree on any of the sites, they presumably could instruct the city staff to come up with a new list of options.

The site recommended by the library commissioners is the downtown block bounded by Broadway, 9th and 10th avenues and E Street, immediately east of the existing library. The library now is on the southern half of the block between 8th and 9th avenues, Broadway and E Street.

A handful of small retail businesses, the First Baptist Church of San Diego and a parking lot occupy the proposed site. However, city officials have spoken to the block’s owners and envision no difficulty acquiring the land, according to Deputy City Manager Jack McGrory.

The major attributes of the proposed site, City Librarian William Sannwald said, include its access to freeways, the trolley and bus routes, and that it would provide “historical continuity” because of its proximity to the existing library.

Though not situated as close to governmental and cultural facilities as several other sites considered, the recommended block would “enhance the library’s downtown presence” via a main entrance on Broadway, according to a report prepared by city officials.

The block also could easily accommodate the 376,000-square-foot, seven-story structure that city officials contemplate as the minimum size for the new library. The current library covers about 140,000 square feet. Construction is estimated to take three years, meaning that, if a bond issue were approved next year, the new library probably would not be completed until mid-1991 at the earliest.

The other downtown sites reviewed by the commissioners, ranked in descending order of preference based on the votes they received Thursday, include:

- The existing library site, which, if it were selected, would be expanded northward to include the remainder of the block, and a block next to the county courthouse bounded by State and Union streets, Broadway and C Street. Those two sites tied for second place in the commissioners’ balloting.

A crucial drawback to expansion of the existing site, the commissioners said, is that the library would have to be relocated during construction--a major expense and inconvenience. One key problem cited in connection with the site near the courthouse is that the block is a small one that would limit future expansion.

- A location on the San Diego City College campus. That site, though, is remote from the rest of downtown’s civic, business and cultural activities.

- A block on the eastern edge of downtown, bounded by Broadway and 14th, 15th and C streets. Like the City College site, commissioners feared that that location, the easternmost one considered by the panel, would have poor pedestrian access.

- The Community Concourse, adjacent to City Hall. Though that site would place the library in the heart of downtown, Sannwald emphasized that aesthetic considerations caused it to be “universally disliked by most groups.” If the library were built on the concourse, Sannwald noted, it would be squeezed between “two fairly unattractive structures”--City Hall and a large parking garage.

- A bayfront tract adjacent to the County Administration Center. The factors that allied to make that potential site the least liked include its location--which is somewhat remote from the central business district and close to Lindbergh Field flight paths--and concern that a modern library structure would not be compatible with the county building’s Spanish colonial architecture.

The site of the new central library arguably is the major decision to be made about its future, but a handful of equally difficult unanswered questions--ranging from the library’s size to the number of parking spaces that should be built--also were touched on at Thursday’s meeting.

Nationally known library consultant Richard Waters told the commissioners that, although some city officials have suggested that costs could be cut if a facility smaller than 376,000 square feet were built now and expanded later as usage increases, it would be inadvisable to scale back current plans. The 376,000-square-foot structure is designed to meet the city’s needs through the year 2025, Waters explained, adding that the two-stage construction plan proposed by some could drive the library’s ultimate cost up by as much as 25%.

“I’ll guarantee you, if you build 375,000 square feet, it won’t be too much in the lifetime of some of us in this room,” Waters said. “If you follow the ‘build some now, build some later’ (idea), when later comes, you’d probably be right back in the pickle you are now.”

The absence of parking facilities at the existing library is often referred to as one of its most glaring shortcomings--one that city officials are determined to correct with a subterranean parking lot at the new site. However, there is wide disagreement over how many parking spaces are needed; estimates generally range from 250 to 450 and cost considerations heavily influence individuals’ positions.

The potential for substantially more parking at less expense at the Sears site is one of the strongest arguments offered by proponents of that site. Several library commissioners admitted Thursday that the Hillcrest location offers certain advantages, cost and otherwise, not found downtown, but stressed that the question appears moot because of the council’s policy directive in December.

“I appreciate the fact that the City Council gets to pick where it’s going to be,” Commissioner Judith Copeland said. “I’m not going to be a recalcitrant child who says because I can’t get the gun that goes ‘Pop!’ I don’t want any gun at all. I want a new library. . . . That’s the important thing. If we get into that, I think we’re going to be sitting here 10 years from now having the same discussion.”

Coincidentally, problems at the existing library served as a somewhat comical backdrop for Thursday’s meeting on a new library site. While the commissioners debated the proposed sites in a third-floor conference room, several library staffers down the hall wore raincoats and used umbrellas to protect them and their computer terminals from water leaking from broken pipes.