For the last several weeks a council item on in-lieu parking fees, and now an appeal of an approval on the Davis Ace Hardware parking lot, has triggered a series of Vanguard articles and much discussion focused on critical issues like parking, redevelopment and the downtown.
I have largely avoided weighing in on the Davis Ace situation, but also want to make some more general comments.
First, I do not have anything against the proposed Davis Ace parking lot and, in fact, I will go so far as to suggest that I am supportive of it. As someone who has worked in the downtown for five and a half years, I am keenly aware of the lack of availability of parking during critical times and the lack of willingness for people to park and walk to a given location in general.
That being said, I am a bit troubled by what the city has done here procedurally.
In the May 10 letter, Mark West and others point out, “We recognize the project was initially already approved in June 2016, but that approval was granted in error.” He argues that the project is inconsistent with the General Plan, Core Area Specific Plan and Design Guidelines.
He cites evidence that city staff recognized their inconsistencies, noting: “The project is not consistent with every Design Guideline for this area … ” And, ” … a project with primarily ground floor storage and parking is inherently conflicted with certain guidelines.”
Instead of addressing these points head on, city staff pretend that they are not there.
Staff responds directly: “Staff, HRMC [Historical Resources Management Commission] and PC [Planning Commission] have all found that the project complies with applicable DDTRN [Davis Downtown and Traditional Residential Neighborhoods] Design Guidelines, Central Commercial zoning standards, Core Area Specific Plan, and General Plan.”
They add that “staff believes that allowing a parking lot on the site is appropriate, while not precluding future development of more intense uses when the property owners so propose.”
Moreover, “Design Guidelines are ‘guidelines’ expressing a policy preference, but not absolute requirements.”
First they argue that it complies and then they fudge, saying in effect that even if they don’t comply, these are “guidelines” not “requirements.”
Mark West is blunt, writing, “While I do not see any particular benefit of this project, in fact I believe it is detrimental, I am not the appropriate arbiter of that decision. I do not however believe that changes of this magnitude should be left to the whims of City Staff or the Planning Commission either. For that reason, I filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision so that our elected representatives on the City Council would have an opportunity to weigh in.”
While I don’t see anything particularly detrimental about the project, I agree with Mr. West here that it would be better for council to weigh in on this decision and to be up front if they intend to alter design guidelines for this project.
There is nothing particularly wrong with doing so, in my view, as long as we are up front about it.
Clearly, there are some deeper issues at play in this discussion which is why it has generated so many comments and different submissions over the last several weeks – unsolicited submissions, I should add.
As the city looks at re-examining the Core Area Specific Plan, we should keep in mind these discussions, and part of it is looking at the big picture philosophy on parking and redevelopment.
Michael Bisch in his comment yesterday evening reminds us that this is not just a discussion about parking, but rather redevelopment.
He said, “My ‘concern’ is that we have not been achieving the agreed upon ends, which in this case is downtown redevelopment. Instead, all the focus is on the means (parking) with no regard for the ends (redevelopment).
“Parking is a tool (a means). It is not an ends in and of itself,” he argued. “Yet you have a number of commenters whose singular focus is on parking as if parking was the ends.”
He makes a good point, but I think we need to view parking as infrastructure – you need to lay in your infrastructure before you can build your project and, along those lines, you need to figure out parking in order to properly redevelop the downtown.
Based on this discussion, I still believe that the Downtown Parking Task Force goals largely failed to produce what we really need – which is parking capacity that will enable us to redevelop the downtown to make it a more robust location.
In addition to large scale parking, I think we need to be more creative with our use of downtown space and I am in agreement that parking craters such as described are problematic to that. We have lost a lot of street and valuable space to parking and we need to rethink that.
Of course both of those issues relate to the loss of redevelopment money and the inability to generate the kind of capital we need in order to build these kinds of projects.
Finally, I have long advocated for ways to reduce vehicle miles and reduce the reliance on cars for transportation. With that said, I do not believe that we achieve that through limiting the availability of parking spaces in a given area.
Why? Well, because if people can’t park in the downtown, they’ll simply go somewhere else where they can park. The downtown is not such a great destination – no offense – that people are going to change their transportation modes in order to get there.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Woah… so the greatness level of Downtown is fixed? Tourists and locals dancing together on the roof of the former parking garage at 1st and F is not exciting? A large-as-feasible pedestrian zone, quieter, safe for young children to roam, no cars blocking storefronts etc. will absolutely not be interesting, even though this is very interesting in cities all over the world? A band playing softly because you can hear softly? Sofas on the street in dry weather? A state-of-the-art bicycle corridor from Old East Davis to campus will not appear on the cover of the Sacramento Bee when it opens? A well thought-out plan to maximize utilization of existing parking that feels a bit like a win-win… none of this will create any kind of warm feeling for Downtown?
We have that. It’s called Central Park.
I think he sees that within a commercial area, whereas the park is largely apart from the commercial area. I do find it odd for example that when we did the B St Visioning they didn’t call for a commercial walking strip along B St across from the park.
Like the failed bistro at B & 5th?
Good point Don. We have that already and if thats’ what people prefer they can walk or ride their bikes to Central Park and frolic in the grass until their heart’s content.
The downtown is a commercial zone meant for people to have access to and cars are a major part of that equation.
Todd: Not opposed to any of that stuff.
Thanks, David, for focusing the conversation on the fundamentally flawed PC and HRMC project approvals. Those guys are not the policymakers and they don’t have the right to make up alternative facts. Setting policy and making up alternative facts are the purview of the City Council. 🙂
I have a quibble with your comment about the DPTF goals.
“I still believe that the Downtown Parking Task Force goals largely failed to produce what we really need – which is parking capacity that will enable us to redevelop the downtown to make it a more robust location.”
This statement is factually inaccurate. The DPTF represented a cross-section of the community. It spent a year studying best practices and case studies, which resulted in a very comprehensive, well-conceived, integrated plan. It was not an a-la-cart menu. As I posted in an exchange with Don yesterday, the plan (recommendations) definitely provides for development of additional capacity and better management of the existing capacity (which is tantamount to a capacity increase). Recommendations #1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 13, 16, 18 and 19 all result in additional capacity. In fact, # 16 – Expand Parking Supply, is a call for development of a 3rd parking structure.
The DPTF was dissolved immediately after the plan was developed. It had no responsibility for execution. That’s the city’s responsibility.
And note that I said the goals of the task force rather than putting the blame on the task force itself.
1, Establish Paid Parking in Southeast Quadrant.
In Progress.
2, “Increase Employee Parking Options.
Old East Davis
Old North Davis”. Not Started
3, Increase Employee Permit Fees and Streamline Employee Parking to Single “X” Permit.
Complete. How does this increase parking supply?
6, Eliminate On-Street Green Waste in the Downtown.
Complete. Not sure how much this increases parking supply.
7, Extend Enforcement to 8:00 p.m.
Not Started
11, Develop Transportation and Parking Alternatives Campaign.
Completed. How much did this increase parking?
13, Explore Voluntary Shared-Parking District.
In Progress.
16, Expand Parking Supply
Not Started.
18 Improve Transit Options
Not Started
and 19. Re-Examine In-Lieu Fees and Procedures
In Progress.
Please note that four items are “not started.” The capacity provided by the others is not clear. I believe DDBA (Davis Downtown) officially opposed #19.
What is more important, the absolute number of parking spaces present or the availability of a space when you need/want it? Parking spaces are expensive, so why build more spaces when there are tools available to better manage the availability of the ones we already have? We eventually will need to increase capacity, but we won’t know how much we need to add until we have the current inventory managed properly.
Don, that’s incorrect. The Davis Downtown board opposed #15 – Streetscape improvements; it supported all the other recommendations. My recollection is the board felt streetscape improvements should be funded through the general fund, not parking meter revenue. The board wanted the parking meter revenue devoted to parking supply management and development exclusively.
#3 allowed employees to utilize additional off-street parking thereby freeing up higher-demand on-street parking spaces.
The remainder of your questions/comments can be better addressed by city staff (Brian Abanat or Diane Parro).
For context, it’s important to note that the Ace project applicant and yesterday’s letter writer, Jason Taormino, have steadfastly opposed #1. The plan doesn’t even work without the pricing mechanism imposed by #1 (that was one of the points Mayor Davis made at the last CC meeting).
Downtown-Parking-Mgmt-Plan-Status-Update-1.pdf
January 13 2015
That’s wrong, Don. Check the DDBA website. The DDBA participated in the review. The DDBA comments are included in the consultant’s report (although they are inaccurate).
Staff made a mistake?
“Check the DDBA website.”
You’re funny. Maybe you could provide the link instead.
Um….Staff Report Dec 2013:
Staff reports say DDBA opposed item 19.
Report shows you dissented from item 19.
You represented DDBA at these meetings.
Please explain how “that’s wrong” when I say DDBA opposed item 19.
Downtown Parking Task Force Recommendations with Davis Downtown Board of Directors’ deletions and additions:
1. Deletion of Item 15: Streetscape Improvements. This is not in the purview or responsibilityof the Task Force Parking Recommendations.
http://davisdowntown.com/parking-transportation/parking/
I really don’t understand what’s going on here. It’s all public record. What possible reason do I have to lie about any of this stuff? I have no financial stake in this at all. Staff is definitely mistaken.
Mayor Davis can verify all of this. I did not represent the DDBA at these meetings. All DPTF members were appointed as private citizens. Yes, I did dissent. I still do dissent. I have stated so publicly and consistently. But I’m not the DDBA. I’m Michael Bisch. The DDBA position is stated above. The DDBA does not support Recommendation 15. The DDBA supports Recommendation 19.
What’s going on here is that, as I showed, the public record contradicts your assertion. So you are now correcting the public record. I’ve been reading old minutes and reports, and it was there clear as day. Not sure why you didn’t notice and/or correct it before, but now you’re aware of it. You told me I was wrong, but the record indicated otherwise.
The fact that you were co-chair of DDBA at the time might be part of why staff thought otherwise.
“The downtown is not such a great destination – no offense – that people are going to change their transportation modes in order to get there.”
I fundamentally disagree with this statement. People can and do change their habits including transportation modes. While it is true that some are very set in their ways and never will, others are much more flexible. During my two weeks in the Bay area I had several interesting conversations with Lyft drivers who have driven in Sacramento, Davis and various parts of the Bay. All three of them said that Davis was one of the busiest locations for them.
When we talk about transportation modes on the Vanguard, we are almost exclusively mid to older adults who often speak as though our way is the “right” way. We then extrapolate that to envision that not only is it right, but it is the only way and will not change. I see much of this discussion being geared towards the patterns of the past five decades and not tuned in to developing preferred patterns especially as we see more of an influx of people from the Bay area who are already more predisposed to the use of transportation modes other than the private automobile and to the millennials who also seem more flexible in their transportation habits.
My point with that comment is that if I’m a person who drives everywhere, I’m not going to take the bus to go to the Davis Downtown or ride a bike to go to the Davis Downtown. There are some places where I might do that, but not the Davis Downtown.
If we look back at the interview with Donald Shoup and Jeffrey Tumlin linked in a previous post,
http://www.davisvanguard.org/2017/06/rethinking-parking/
https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2017/06/05/great-idea-rethinking-parking
we find:
and:
Properly managing the downtown parking inventory will incentivize people to use alternative modes of transportation. Perhaps not for all of their visits, but enough to significantly change the overall demand for parking infrastructure. This is no longer just a theory, but a proven observation in many cities. When we reduce the demand for parking infrastructure, we can then focus our limited resources on improving the economic vitality of the downtown core, making it a more attractive destination.
Davis is not S.F.. It can cost you $20 to $40 to park your car for the day. Davis is a small town located in a rural area. Trying to charge high prices for parking in order to change people’s habits in a small town is just crazy in my opinion.
The rules of economics work the same in Davis or San Francisco. You need look no further than our cost of housing to understand that.
Our housing and rental prices aren’t in the same ballpark as S.F and neither are people’s incomes.
What you’re talking about is nothing more than social engineering. Charging more for something so people will use less of it. Can our downtown businesses survive less people going downtown because they don’t want to pay higher prices to park and for Ubers/Lyfts?
Let me introduce you to two key concepts, Keith. Both relate to business districts.
Proportionality: If incomes in SF are 2 X as high in Davis, and housing in SF is 2 X as high in Davis, they are proportional.
Reality: Parking has costs in SF. Except for one or two locations in Davis, at certain times, it is free. To get the proportion, divide $20-40/mo. by zero… did you get an error message?
The data shows that making parking available when you want/need it increases visits, not the opposite. Improving parking management gives us another tool to improve downtown as a destination, increasing economic activity, and business success.
and once again…the rules work the same regardless of the absolute prices involved.
What I’m talking about is economics, and using the available tools and best practices to help redevelop the downtown into a more economically vibrant place. What you are talking about is returning us to 1950’s thinking, ignoring everything society has learned in the interim.
Howard, try following the conversation. The point is we have people advocating for charging for parking in order to social engineer so people drive their cars into our downtown less as they say is the case in S.F.
My observation is ,many downtown visitors drive their own cars to downtown, have some drinks, take Lyft or Ueber home, leaving their cars in a downtown parking space. That needs to be addressed by #11.
Even a person who drives “everywhere” has the ability to change their habits. Many factors can contribute. I was an individual who went absolutely everywhere on bike all through college and in the first years of medical school. A fall with a broken bone in my hand changed everything for me. I began using my feet, buses, and eventually a car. I have seen many individuals change habits for less dramatic reasons. Sometimes it is a simple as realizing that there are positive aspects to doing something differently. I think that I just see people as being more flexible than this discussion would lead one to believe.
The question is not the ability – it’s the willingness.
People who are willing and choose to walk and bike are more than welcome to do so.
When others choose to drive for whatever their reasons they’re welcome to do so too.
What we don’t need is those who choose to bike or walk dictating the rules to people who want to drive.
And when something is paid for by others, there is rarely any will to change.
“What we don’t need is those who choose to bike or walk dictating the rules to people who want to drive.”
And it sounds as if you’d also like them to keep paying for your desire to park a car?
There is no free parking. Only unpaid parking.
There is no free bike riding and parking bikes in racks on sidewalks and streets, only unpaid bike parking.
As a general rule, people’s behavior is often driven more by situational constraints and incentive structures, than their attitudes. At least, initially. With many of the major changes that we’ve seen in society (recycling, vaccination, wearing seat belts), the laws/rules/incentive structures changed first, then the behavior, then the attitude. And social norms play a big role too. People tend to do what other people are doing. So, to echo Tia, I would not assume that behavior is that rigid.
Second, like Keith O, I like the idea of personal freedom and giving people the choice of whether to drive, bike, walk, Uber/Lyft, or take a bike. In short, driving should be an option, but the sticking point seems to be whether it should be a free option. The other sticking point is where this parking should be located. I thought that Don Shor made a convincing point that some retailers need parking nearby, but I was also convinced that parking craters are unattractive and detrimental to a vibrant downtown. When I was in San Diego this past weekend, I went to a Ralph’s in the Gaslamp District (downtown) and all the parking was underground, free, and plentiful. But the street-level wasn’t marred and had nice patio seating. I guess this is hugely expensive though?
I love the Gaslamp area, it’s a vacation destination and an added plus of Petco Park nearby. Davis is not as David Greenwald stated. There’s nothing all that special about our downtown.
And there never will be if we stick with 1950’s thinking.
What we make of the downtown is our choice. We can leave it as it is and watch it continue to decay, or we can actively work to improve it using the available tools.
What you see in the Gaslamp district was an active choice.
Good idea Mark, I guess Davis could be just like the Gaslamp District. All we lack is a professional baseball team/park and beachfront property nearby. In the meantime let’s jack up the parking rates so we can somehow get us there.
I grew up in San Diego in the 80s and at the time there was beachfront property and a baseball team, but downtown was a pit. It was the place that kids in high school would go to get their fake ids so that they could sneak across the boarder to Tijuana bars. Definitely sketchy. The redevelopment was a combination of putting attractions downtown (e.g., Horton Plaza, the new baseball stadium), building up the Convention Bureau (making sure the convention center was nice and that there was hotel room availability), and then not making it ugly.
is real close to the Gaslamp District as where the Padres old baseball stadium Jack Murphy/Qualcomm Park wasn’t.
The same thing happened where they built ATT Park in S.F. That whole area was a pig stye, I know because I used to take my son to his hockey games and he played in a building which is now part of an ATT Park parking. Having a major league park close by is what turned that whole area around. Downtown Davis doesn’t have a major league team or park.
We don’t need a major league park or team, we need a smaller scale equivalent to match our smaller scale city. The process works the same.
Then why doesn’t every rural small town charge for parking in order to upscale their downtown?
I think we know why.
I guess returning Davis to being a rural small town is one of your goals then. You are not alone in that desire. Sorry to break it to you, though, we haven’t been a rural small town for decades.
But we’re not a destination attraction either. Just another average downtown in a small city surrounded by farmland.
I completely agree, but just because that is true today does not mean that it has to be true tomorrow. We can choose to stand pat and see continued decay, or we can work for a better outcome. Some of us are looking at how we might create that better future by following those who have succeeded elsewhere. Others…not so much.
It’s tiresome to hear the term ‘decay’ used to describe our downtown. We have dozens of retailers, as I noted on a previous reply when you denigrated the downtown, along with a growing number of food and drink businesses. It’s a busy place.
The basic problem is increasing traffic without increasing parking supply — all of which indicates increased demand, not ‘decay’. We have one large anchor retailer seeking to address the problem of lack of parking supply at her store.
Paid parking may be a management tool that helps mitigate the imbalance of demand to supply. But downtown Davis is not decaying. Your appeal does nothing to enhance the downtown or improve the shopping experience for anybody. If the parking task force recommendations are fully implemented, it won’t be because of what you’ve done here. And your ongoing relentless denigration of the Davis downtown is tiresome and inaccurate.
So the panacea to a better downtown is to charge for parking?
I’m not seeing it.
Sacramento charges for parking and it looks like s-.
What happened there?
“But we’re not a destination attraction either. Just another average downtown in a small city surrounded by farmland.”
What? Wrong. We are a destination. We’re the host city of a major research university, which generates a tremendous number of visitors for our downtown. UCD would generate even more visitors if we built out our visitor infrastructure capacity to take advantage of market potential. Didn’t we just study this all to death?
How many people ever say “let’s go vacation in Davis?”
Interesting, though, that a surprising number of people choose to retire here.
No, the approach is to create a vision for redevelopment and then use the tools of parking management as one approach for implementing that vision. Parking is not the ‘goal,’ it is one tool to use to reach the ‘goal.’ In order to use it though, we have to let go of the antiquated idea that copious free parking is the right approach.
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/PrefaceHighCostFreeParking.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/business/economy/15view.html?_r=
The information is available, the question is will you take the time to digest it.
The City of Davis has envisioned a goal, and we incorporated it into our General Plan, Core Area Specific Plan, and other visioning documents. We later formed a parking taskforce and ask them to create a list of recommendations we could follow to better reach the goals laid out in our visioning documents. Implementing paid parking was one of those recommendations.
Not a new idea, yet we still have those arguing against it. Is there any wonder why the City is in such great fiscal condition? We can’t even implement our own visioning goals.
Keith O,
You are defining the market too narrowly. Leisure is only one segment. UCD generates a tremendous number of visitors as do local sporting events. It’s money lying in the street waiting for us to pick up.
How so, by ripping off Davis residents charging them for parking on streets that their tax dollars have paid for?
What is tiresome, Don is your insistence on sticking with your 1950’s thinking and your attacks on those who disagree with your approach. If you don’t want to learn anything new, that is your choice.
The City of Davis is in decay, whether you want to admit it or not. We have $millions in unfunded obligations due in large part to the antiquated views on business, parking and the downtown that you favor. We can continue to follow your lead and the inevitable insolvency that will ensue, or we can change direction, learn from others, and create something better. I prefer the latter option.
Enjoy your evening.
As someone who has both shopped in the Davis downtown for many years, and seen other down towns all across the country I can objectively tell you that our downtown is not in decay. It has changed over time, but there are more visitors than ever visiting more stores and restaurants. Yes there are things that can improve, but lets start from a position of being thankful for what we have.
Davis is in definite need of a tourist attraction such as a below-grade canal system running from 7-11, through Hibbert lumber, then diagonally across downtown following the old buried branch of Putah Creek path, and tying in with Putah Creek near the A Street bridge.
One could pick up a Slurpee, a stiff drink at Aggie Liquor, and float over to Mrak Hall, with the ride paid for on the BoatDavis App. Now that’s out-of-the-box thinking and a real tourist draw.
There would of course be 10-story “affordable” apartments floating over 7-11 in mixed use, with no provision for parking as people who move into new apartment won’t have cars. BECAUSE I SAID SO. They will all bicycle and use Uber and Lyft. And hell, who needs to go anywhere when you have a 7-11 on the first floor?
Sounds great. Now that plan might give justification for paid parking.
I’m sure some idiot will get wasted at Blondie’s and drive their car into the canal and we’ll have to bury it again to avoid insurance liability.
I recall a recent article regarding Uber drivers (in S.F.) “camping out” in the (Marina district) parking lot. Don’t have time at the moment to search for the article.
In any case, even Uber drivers need to park somewhere. (And, Uber probably creates “more driving” than private autos. Uber has to travel to customers, first. Private autos are usually parked “somewhere near” their owners.)
What, exactly, is the goal? Less driving, or less parking? (Counting on services such as Uber do not translate into less driving.)
Parked cars emit “few” emissions.
Good point, every Uber/Lyft trip needs a car to travel downtown and pick someone up or drop someone off. How many Uber/Lyfts stay parked downtown to be closer to the action? How many times do people drive their own car then hire an Uber and leave their car parked downtown? How many times does someone have a Lyft drop them off, creating a round trip for the Lyft, then pick them up creating another round trip for the Lyft?
Have y’all tried Uber Pool in the Bay Area? It’s a total blast, sometimes crazy but mostly great, and hella cheap. I made a trip in Berkeley a few weeks ago for a flat $3.99 rate, and it only added a couple of minutes. The computer plots people to pickup and dropoff along the way, and the driver is constantly picking up and dropping people off. In that circumstance, the Uber is more efficient than the private auto.
Another thing Uber/Lyft do that F-s up transportation is they park in the bike lane or double park to load/unload. Technically not legal, they do it all the time, and it’s a major pain-in-the-a**/hazard for bicyclists and autos.
I can see it now, I call Uber half s-faced to pick me up at Froggies, then he has to stop at the Beer Shoppe to pick up three more drunks then makes another pickup at Ace for some guy and his brand new BBQ.
That scenario is not out of the realm of experiences.
(To clarify, the Marina district “Safeway” parking lot.)
Here’s an article regarding the subject. (Just skimmed the first paragraph, since I’ve got to go soon.)
https://metermadness.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/when-their-shifts-end-uber-drivers-set-up-camp-in-parking-lots/
One thing I don’t get, if charging for parking is supposed to open up more spots that alone tells me that there will be less people driving downtown and shopping.
Not necessarily. If drivers have to pay to park, they will be inclined to consolidate trips, so instead of three visits buying one or two items each time, they consolidate into one trip. It is similar to how people shop when they have to drive some distance to get to the store. If you are making the investment, you want to maximize the return. Add to that, those who choose a different mode of transportation when they only need a few small items. The net result is fewer auto trips to the store, which means less demand for parking, but not fewer people shopping. If this results in more parking spaces being available when shoppers arrive, it may well increase shopping as a result of reducing or removing the frustration of looking for a place to park.
“If drivers have to pay to park” They will go to Woodland
Because paying for parking is way worse than paying for driving?
Well, if you drive an EV, the City provides free charging for your parked car! At several DT locations… you even get a specially designated space, and no need for a placard on your rear-view mirror…
You assume (again, and again) that all shopping in town is and will continue to be done by people in cars. Even though we know that’s not even close to true.
You assume that everybody who has driven into town and parked, is in fact spending money the whole time that their parking is being paid by others.
So what part about this don’t you get, specifically? I’m happy to help you get it, but you seem to keep telling us that you’ve already got it figured.
Ok thanks, I appreciate that. Can you help me get why you feel I should have to pay for your free use of the roads for your bike and why I have to pay for you to use city bike racks located on our public sidewalks and streets?
I notice you’ve been dodging this question.