Disqus - Latest Comments for dansoderberg

Re: San Diego Sued for Putting in a Bike Lane

dansoderberg — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 14:10:19 -0000

I use this street both for my vehicle and bicycle use. The bicycle lane has had zero negative impact on vehicular traffic. It does however put it at a safer distance from bicycles. For whatever reason when some people are in control of thousands of pounds of deadly force they seem to loose sight of the value of human life and safety. Selfishness is their unwillingness to share the road - as if California State Law doesn't apply to them. Sadly I see it all the time, and is reflected in comments like Maria's.

Re: https://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/aug/25/philanthropist-in-chief/

dansoderberg — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 19:28:30 -0000

Why are my comments here being deleted?

Re: https://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/aug/13/balboa-park-poll-20/

dansoderberg — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:35:01 -0000

I appreciate your creativity. Thank you. But I don't see it your way.

Re: https://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/aug/13/balboa-park-poll-20/

dansoderberg — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 19:58:43 -0000

A majority of participants in this poll voted for something other than the Jacobs plan.

Re: https://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/aug/13/balboa-park-poll-20/

dansoderberg — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 19:56:55 -0000

Madiah, for some reason my reply posted somewhere else above here.

Re: https://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/aug/13/balboa-park-poll-20/

dansoderberg — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 19:45:05 -0000

Madiah, thanks for the question. The first part of the poll says exactly this "Do you favor clearing traffic and parking out of the center of Balboa Park." Please don't assume that is an endorsement of the Sanders Jacobs plan. There are other alternatives that can accomplish that, or at least come reasonably close to accomplishing that.

Yes, SOHO has offered an alternative plan for the park. But bear in mind SOHO is not married to any one plan. SOHO views just about every alternative to the Sanders Jacobs plan as a better alternative. Let us explore all options for the optimum result but also minimize impacts.

I ride my bicycle through the park several times a week myself as well. I find it to be a relaxing and enjoyable experience. I'm confident any of the alternatives to the Jacobs plan will improve my experience in the park. I am just not willing to sacrifice one part of the park through severe environmental impacts in a massive infrastructure project to accomplish the goals.

Irwin Jacobs of course has contributed enormously to improving San Diego. I spent most of my life worrying about whether or not San Diego would have a symphony orchestra or not until he came along. But in all due respect, he's got the wrong plan for the park. Let's stick with the Balboa Park Master Plan as a beginning for improving the park. Let's not bring in ideas that were previously rejected.

I beg to strongly differ with you concerning the public process we've seen followed promoting this plan. Giving Powerpoint presentations, conducting Q&A, and providing a box of crayons at a few charrette workshops is at best a minimum requirement. That is pitiful in comparison the fully open and inclusive process followed during the Master Plan. The community had an active part of the decision process every step of the way. It was not a passive spectator. Furthermore all parties involved--the planners, City Staff, and members of the community--brought to the process one very important component. The willingness to negotiate. And the willingness to compromise. Today we see from the Mayor zero compromise. Zero negotiating

The public had no idea an MOU was in the works. We only found out about its presentation to the Rules Committee just days before the vote. It was only through a leak at City Hall that the public even knew about it. That is exactly they type of shenanigan that prompted me to become so actively involved in community issues four years ago.

The MOU itself was muscled through City Council by an orchestrated effort by both Todd Gloria and the Mayor. They managed to filp most the previous "no endorsement" votes at the Rules Committee, to "yes" votes at City Council a month later. Despite a State Supreme Court ruling clarifying the law of the land and the advise of one of the leading authorities on CEQA that the MOU is illegal, the City went ahead and approved this MOU. This business about needing the MOU to do an EIR goes contrary to that State Supreme Court decision. These behind the scenes power plays and deal making to shove this project through I find most objectionable.

Re: https://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/aug/13/balboa-park-poll-20/

dansoderberg — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 10:18:36 -0000

Sanders/Jacobs vs Alternatives.

Alternatives Win.

The time is over due for them to work with the community on a plan that respects the Master Plan instead of insisting on amending it with a previously rejected scheme, the bypass.

http://www.dsoderblog.com/

Once again, as has always been the case before, the bypass loses. It in fact can not win without it being shoved and forced upon us.

Re: https://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/aug/13/balboa-park-poll-20/

dansoderberg — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 08:46:20 -0000

The Mayor's plan, the bypass, is the first instance I've ever heard of where a Master Plan is being amended with a proposal that was rejected from that plan.

The bypass bridge is the rejected Alternative B from the Balboa Park Master Plan. The bypass concept is not new. It was rejected 25 years ago.

Here is a link to the actual plot plan of rejected Alternative B, the bypass bridge. http://www.dsoderblog.com/?...

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/polls/2011/aug/how-should-trafficparking-change-occur/results/

dansoderberg — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:17:26 -0000

SOHO, The Committee of One Hundred, all the other long list of preservation groups--not to mention the League of Women Voters-- are simply doing what they were created to do. To protect the historical resource. When Surfrider saves a beach, or the Sierra Club saves a forest or river they do it because that's their job. Yes, litigation is often a part of what is required to get the job done--as allowed in America's system of law and order. Thank goodness we''re not like Iran or Syria.

It should be noted that well in advance SOHO said over and over again that promoting the Mayor's plan through an MOU, regardless of the window dressing language attached to it, was completely illegal. That the Mayor and the City Council chose to ignore the advice of one of the state's leading authorities on CEQA, and plunged head forward in a way that the California Supreme has already said is illegal reflects badly on our decision makers, not SOHO.

SOHO would like nothing better than to sit down with Irwin Jacobs and work out a plan to meet most of the goals of the project, but at the same time protecting the National Register Landmark. SOHO has a 43 year history of willingness to negotiate and to compromise. Just ask John Moores and Larry Lucchino and the San Diego Padres. Most recently architect Jonathan Segal and developer Luke Daniels. The reason why we still have the Hotel Del is because of SOHO'''s ability to find solutions. UCSD''s University House in La Jolla, another example.

Saying that SOHO "will never waste an opportunity to waste the opportunity" in the way you suggest isn't supported by the actual record.

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/polls/2011/aug/how-should-trafficparking-change-occur/results/

dansoderberg — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 09:26:45 -0000

I believe that approach is not only a superior local solution, but I believe is one that would be emulated and praised both near and far. The Organ Pavilion lot can still be reclaimed parkland. Partnering with San Diego Zoo and their offer to pony up $65 million for underground parking along Park Boulevard should be pursued as well. It would facilitate that reclaiming of parkland. Focusing the entire core of the park as a park experience rather than an automobile experience is an approach that will stand the test of time. One that I think will be praised when the park's 200th year rolls around.

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/polls/2011/aug/how-should-trafficparking-change-occur/results/

dansoderberg — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 17:12:36 -0000

Good points.

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/polls/2011/aug/how-should-trafficparking-change-occur/results/

dansoderberg — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 15:19:52 -0000

Shouldn't the second and third option be combined? Part time closing would also mean part time cars too. Managed traffic closure is a strategy working in Golden Gate Park, Central Park, and many National Parks.

Re: https://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/aug/04/park-plans-galore-heres-one-ponder/

dansoderberg — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:52:06 -0000

This is all a bit bizarre to learn about. Both here through the quote from the Mayor's office, and in an email from the Plaza de Panama Committee suggesting that Mr. Stokes and are "allies" and somehow collaborating.

Before I spoke at the City Council meeting concerning the MOU, I didn't know Mr. Stokes in particular had ceded time to me. I just knew someone had. I learned whom after the fact. I'm told he merely offered the time in the lobby because he didn't want to speak himself. Someone mentioned my name, it appears.

I only recall meeting Mr. Stokes once or twice before the City Council meeting. At some point we became Facebook friends. But to be honest, I'm not sure how many Facebook friends I've ever met before.

Also to be clear, while yes I am very active in SOHO, when I spoke to City Council I was speaking as Chariman of the Neighborhood Historic Preservation Coalition. I can say with complete certainty Mr. Stokes has never attended a Coalition meeting, nor did he have input in what Coalition wanted me to discuss. Furthermore I wasn't even aware he was a SOHO member.

While I should be flattered that Mayor's office and the Plaza de Panama Committee views my position compelling enough to create allies after only a couple friendly but casual meetings, I think the reality is far less complicated and conspiratorial.

As far as the one dollar parking proposal is concerned, I do think it would level the playing field when there's a situation of a paid parking structure surrounded by free parking. That situation only means that the paid structure will always be under utilized, and the amount of people driving around for free spaces will increase. The one dollar solution might solve that.

But my sense, having been in this town my entire life, paid parking at parks and beaches will always be a tough if not impossible sell.

In my comments before City Council I strongly emphasized many members of the Neighborhood Historic Preservation Coalition had major objections to paid parking in the park because it would potentially disenfranchise many lower income neighborhoods to access to Balboa Park.

So there's no part of Ms. Laing's or the Committee's assertion that makes any sense.

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/aug/03/city-attorney-asks-soho-drop-park-lawsuit/

dansoderberg — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 12:19:28 -0000

Nobody relishes taking an issue to court. Thankfully we're not some place like Syria or Iran. We have a legal system that helps level the playing field when our elected officials abuse their power to try and shove something down our throats.

Roger Showley has aptly pointed out further actions along the path the Mayor has chosen will likely trigger more litigation. The Mayor could save us all a lot of time and effort by simply working with the community instead of against them on achieving a plan for 2015. No question the 5 community planning groups opposing the Mayors plan would love to get on board with a plan to remove automobile parking from Plaza de Panama that doesn't rip up the park's historic appearance and landscape.

Re: https://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/aug/02/preservationists-sue-city-over-balboa-park-plan/

dansoderberg — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 19:38:21 -0000

I'm far more optimistic about both project results you refer to. The art of compromise isn't achieving the perfect solution, but allowing both sides to gain most of what they want and/or need. The so called "My way or the highway" which you mistakenly characterize the organization simply doesn't work in historic preservation. Failure to seek common ground only leads to losing historic resources. Another one of those lessons from history.

The Fat City project will meet and exceed Secretary of the Interior Standards. And I'm confident that will also prevail for Balboa Park as well.

Re: https://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/aug/02/preservationists-sue-city-over-balboa-park-plan/

dansoderberg — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:11:18 -0000

You have have it completely backwards. SOHO has pointed to least 12 alternative solutions and is backing one compromise in particular. SOHO is willing to get behind any solution that mitigates the impacts listed above. The Mayor has only one plan, and won't budge from that.

SOHO has a 42 year proven track record of being able to negotiate and compromise. Warehouse District, Hotel Dell, Old Police Headquarters, Temple Beth Israel, University House, Torrey Pines Glider Port, and Fat City/Tops Nightclub, are just a few exaples that have produced the type of win-win solution that meets most of the goals of a project while saving the resource at the same time.

Negotiation and willingness to compromise is a two way street. You're sorely mistaken about who has been unwilling to negotiate and compromise in this case.

Re: https://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/aug/02/preservationists-sue-city-over-balboa-park-plan/

dansoderberg — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 12:20:57 -0000

A sampling impacts of the Sanders/Jacobs plan on Balboa Park.

• The construction of the bypass bridge results in an intrusion into the park that adversely impacts the setting and feeling of the National Register historic district and alters historic spatial relationships.

• The construction of the underground parking garage adversely impacts the historic setting of the Speckels Organ Pavilion, one of the few remaining structures dating to the original 1915/1916 Exposition.

• The finished grade at the top of the parking garage will be roughly level with grade around the Organ Pavilion, and will connect across over the bypass road to the Pavilion, thus altering historic spatial relationships.

• The Alcazar Lot will generate much more noise than it does currently. This will make the Alcazar Garden a much less desirable location for weddings and similar events, which it currently hosts.

• There is an existing Kauri Pine (Agathis australis) at the southeast corner of the House of Charm. This tree is extremely rare and valuable. The proposed retaining wall along the west side of the Esplanade will have a severe impact on this tree.

• A retaining wall in the vicinity of a large Ficus tree on the east side of the Alcazar Lot will have an impact on the tree's root system.

• The existing historic stairs and at the southeast corner of the Alcazar Lot will be impacted.

• The existing historic stairs and bridge abutment on the south side of Palm Canyon will be impacted by grading and road re-alignment.

• Grading at the southwest corner of the Alcazar Lot may impact existing historic footings from the Alcazar Garden arbor.

• A large portion of the retaining walls along the Esplanade are not an appropriate addition to the National Historic Landmark District.

Re: https://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/aug/02/preservationists-sue-city-over-balboa-park-plan/

dansoderberg — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 01:37:08 -0000

The fatal flaws with the Sanders/Jacobs plan are many. Not the least of which is the lack adequate of public input and process. Oh, for sure, they will point to the list of public meetings held for the project as being "public participation and input." But reality is quite different than appearances. For this project public input has come through a few charrettes where people given the sales pitch, allowed to ask questions, then were given a box of crayons and blank sheet of butcher paper. Wow.

Compare that with the stellar Balboa Park Master Plan process where the public was a full partner. Given an up and down vote for each phase of the plan. And by the way, the bypass bridge concept was given a big thumbs down by the community--for the very same reasons 5 community planning groups today oppose the project.

After 9 months of public hearings on the Sander/Jacobs plan the public record plainly shows opposition to this plan by about 10-1. Their so called "public input" has resulted in no substantive changes. Only relatively small changes. The massive infrastructure vision with its bypass bridge, road and paid parking bunker remain--and continue to be touted--as the linchpins of the project.

The passage of the MOU prior to the EIR process is illegal--according to the California Supreme Court in a case involving a project in West Hollywood. One of the clear issues is that giving pre-approval for chosen project over all others taints a fair evaluation of alternatives. It gives the preferred option greater momentum than any other alternative. So says the ruling.

So why does the City persist anyway? They believe that the window dressing language attached to their MOU will skirt the previous legal finding. But the City doesn't have so good of a record in winning CEQA cases. None of the City's legal team are CEQA lawyers. They are simply misreading the law.

Re: https://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jul/28/damaged-historic-bridge-undergo-100000-repairs/

dansoderberg — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:40:15 -0000

San Diego's urban canyon bridges are absolutely essential solutions to walkability and getting people out of their cars. The Quince Street pedestrian bridge is constantly used by folks on route to Balboa Park, to the bus lines on the Banker's Hill corridor, and by walkers, joggers, dog owners, as well as people simply enjoying the natural beauty Maple Canyon affords.

Like all elements of our infrastructure, bridges need maintenance and sometimes repair. It's a small price in ratio to the benefit it provides.

One of the best studies of the effects of loosing a canyon bridge is when the Vermont Street bridge was removed. It effectively severed a large swath of University Heights from Hillcrest. When it was rebuilt, the number of cars flowing into Hillcrest and the Uptown Center area from University Heights was markedly less. It is easy to gauge the number of cars being left in their driveways when you observe the significant numbers of people using a bridge.

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jul/28/fat-city-project-deemed-non-historic-new-plan-wo/

dansoderberg — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 04:39:06 -0000

The perspective of this model is to show the apartment building's overall depth. A lower perspective closer to street level is more conducive for showing the Top's building itself--where the set back of the apartment can better be perceived and appreciated. This agreement assures the 1941 building will retain it's prominence along the Embarcadero and historic U.S. 101. And after the restoration is complete Top's Nightclub will be resubmitted for historic designation. HRB's concern about historical integrity will be completely resolved.

This agreement is how both development and historic preservation should work--willingness to negotiate and compromise to create a win-win situation.

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jul/22/alternatives-balboa-park-due-july-29/

dansoderberg — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 11:09:13 -0000

Solutions can be found where similar situations and problems have been successfully solved. Golden Gate Park manages traffic closures. The National Parks have managed traffic and closures.

That can be efficiently and cost effectively be done here through the Precise Lite Plan. It eliminates all automobile parking from Plaza de Panama. It restores most of Plaza de Panama to pedestrian use. It does not require bringing the specter of paid parking to Balboa Park. It can be implemented at a fraction of the cost of a massive concrete and asphalt infrastructure project. It will have little if no environmental impacts.

Balboa Park, with $250 million dollars worth of deferred maintenance and repair, would do better with $40 million dollars going to that then ripping up the core of the park and putting in a huge amount of concrete, steel, and asphalt.

Re: https://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jul/18/saving-the-heritage-of-balboa-park/

dansoderberg — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 20:32:08 -0000

Homony, thanks for the question. The construction mess and our ability to pay I think are concerns, even onto themselves. In regards to the importance of Balboa Park and historic preservation, Balboa Park's official historic preservation group (and one of many partners with SOHO in the current debate), the Committee of One Hundred, spearheaded the effort to have El Prado placed on the National Register as an historic district in 1977. It was done so for the overlay of protective guidelines and rules.

SOHO and Committee of 100 are fighting this project because it goes against all the guidelines established by the Secretary of Interior for the treatment of historic property. We approach this issue no differently than ocean advocacy groups would for protecting the beaches and water from over reaching development, or conservation groups would for protecting a forrest from a lumber mill wanting clear cut a protected forest.

Re: https://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jul/18/saving-the-heritage-of-balboa-park/

dansoderberg — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 20:11:48 -0000

Randy I do respect your opinion, and we don't always disagree. But my involvement with this stems from the fact I am native of this town and I speak about this issue with only one motive. I want what's best for the park. What you call scare tactics suggests disengenuiness or calculated effect. I say what I say because I believe it. Calling it as I see it. I believe most people are adult enough to make their own evaluations and I doubt people have been frightened by my opinions. If it causes to people take notice and do their own reading and research, then I hope that's a good thing. In regard to your National Register concerns, only just this year SOHO was at a regional conference where the Keeper of Register made mention, in a presentation, of some sites that may lose there National Register stutus--and explained why. So we have a pretty clear understanding of the issues involved here. In addition to that we have over 42 years experience evaluating those issues. The very first National Register Nominations written by members of community in San Diego were from SOHO because the Keeper of the Register came here and held a workshop with us. SOHO has always been in favor of removing cars from Balboa Park. We believe we can accomplish the goal with out the mega million infrastructure project. And if the Library is still waiting for funding, then it stands to reason adding Balboa Park to the philanthropy hopper is only going to further the potential burden to the tax payer. I encourage you to read the MOU carefully. It puts the taxpayer on the hook if philanthropy doesn't deliver. I'm not knocking your faith in Mayor Sanders and Mr. Jacobs, to deliver the money, but personally I don't see it happening.

Re: https://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jul/18/saving-the-heritage-of-balboa-park/

dansoderberg — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:45:02 -0000

I appreciate your concern about transparency. The fact that you are posting links shows that you're studying the issues in Balboa Park. Thank you for taking the time the time to do that.

However, you are mistaken that SOHO actually endorses the Shapery Proposal. It is posted to show an array of ideas and alternative--which was in response to an early statement by the Sanders Jacobs people that there were no other ideas or plans out there. The streetcar proposal is purely informational. In fact there has been no discussion at all at the Board level beyond having it being shown as an idea or alternative.

The streetcar proposal isn't even in the Environmental Impact Study--it simply isn't an issue or even part of the discussion at this point.

The only plan SOHO's Board of Directors has approved is the Precise Lite Plan. I hope you saw that on our web page.

I also hope you notice, in addition to an array of alternatives we have not endorsed, we have also posted the Jacobs plan itself. Surely you can't be suggesting that because we also post a plan that we clearly oppose it is somehow hypocritical. As an advocacy group part of our job is to get the information out so people can make their own evaluations.

Again I appreciate your concern, rest assured SOHO's Board of Directors has enough issues we're dealing with right now without being concerned with Mr. Shapery's income portfolio. He does quiet well with that on his own.

Re: https://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jul/18/saving-the-heritage-of-balboa-park/

dansoderberg — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:11:12 -0000

The editorial is wrong in so many ways...where to begin. First of all, the Jacobs project in no way shape or form preserves anything. Look at the blueprints. Look at the renderings for the Plaza rehabilitation itself. Notice the design team doesn't use the word "restoration" or "preservation." Rehabilitation is what they call it, and that can mean anything--and the drawings indicate a wide variety modern features that have nothing to do with preservation of any sort.

This project is a radical change in the appearance of the park through massive grading, digging, hillside cutting, canyon filling, concrete pouring, asphalt laying and retaining wall construction. Rather than preserve our heritage it is just about like one of those bad facelifts some people get, where they end up looking like someone else, all tight and pulled back.

Citizens of San Diego need to ask why the MOU now? Why not wait until the EIR process is complete before endorsing a project, as indicated by law? The statement that it is necessary to pay for the EIR is nonsense. The EIR process has already begun through at least a part of that $ 2M Jacobs has already spent. Looks like a red herring to me. Instead it appears to be a strong arm tactic to force City Council to climb on board.

The so called "benefits" to the park come at the expense of ripping up the core of the park for years of construction work--which is highly questionable in terms of their time line. It is highly questionable in terms of their cost estimate. Independent planners and designers have closely evaluated the project. Not many agree with those estimates. Cost over runs and time delays. Thinking that's never going to happen seems like a pretty big gamble to me.

Taxpayers should be asking "So how's that philanthropy thing working so far at the Downtown Library?" With cost and time over-runs not out the realm of impossibility, taxpayers should also be asking "Isn't there a less expensive and easier way to accomplish most of the project--that doesn't involve a massive infrastructure project and paid parking?"

Yes there is. The Precise Lite plan. Its based on the already approved Central Mesa Precise Plan, so it doesn't need an EIR or rigorous process this current project faces. The plan removes all automobile parking from the Plaza. It restores most of the Plaza to pedestrian use. It allows for managed traffic and closures to allow more pedestrian access to the Cabrillo Bridge. It doesn't rely upon paid parking to sustain itself. Furthermore it conforms to ALL Secretary of Interior Standards for a historic landmark.