It’s About Our Downtown, Not 15 Parking Spaces

By Joshua Chapman

The Ace parking lot project on 3^rd Street is coming before the Davis City Council this evening. The project has been appealed by an ad hoc coalition of social justice, environmental, smart urban planning, pedestrian and bicycle transportation, economic development, small business, and fiscal resiliency advocates. Project approval represents a sharp reversal of long standing city policies to: 1) build and promote a vibrant downtown through downtown densification; 2) drive a diverse and resilient economy, and 3) pursue environmental sustainability. The proposed project is detrimental to the downtown without providing any clear benefits to the community. Not surprisingly, the Ace project is supported by some entrenched business & property-owner interests and low-density advocates with a long record of advocating for the status quo.

The city staff report recommending approval of the Ace project is inaccurate in many instances; following are several examples.

1. The reasoning in the initial staff report from a year ago (June 22, 2016) began with, “The existing and intended uses of the project site do not perfectly align with the planning policy vision along the 3^rd Street corridor…The project is not consistent with every Design Guideline for this area…a project with primarily ground floor storage and parking is inherently conflicted with certain guidelines.” When the new proposal was submitted, the city staff report determined that it is now “consistent with the DDTRN Design Guidelines, Zoning Ordinance, Core Area Specific Plan and General Plan”. However, the updated proposal still describes a project that violates numerous provisions in the aforementioned planning documents.

2. In June 2016, city staff recommended project approval by focusing on the merits of the proposed “8,248” sq. ft., “2”-story, “mixed-use” building, and stated that, “…the proposal is in keeping with certain principles of Core Expansion North, such as mixed-use buildings and intensification.” However, the actual updated plan does not include such a building and is in fact a parking lot that will benefit only one business and is not consistent with the principles of the Core Expansion. The rational for planning approval was no longer valid when the applicant abandoned the original intent for a “mixed-use” building. Additionally, it appears that the project was never actually proposed as stated by the city staff. It only became clear through questioning by planning commissioner Essex that what was being proposed was actually an approximately 4,000 sq. ft., 1-story warehouse with a private, 15-stall, parking lot. Therefore, the original rationale was also flawed or based on a misunderstanding of the proposal and should not have been recommended for approval on the basis that it was consistent with the principles of the Core Expansion.
3. City staff and some planning commissioners have justified approval of this project based on the claim that this is only an interim project. There are two problems with that reasoning. First, an interim project runs afoul of the requirements for a demolition permit because a fully entitled project is required for demolition permit approval. The proposal contains no indication that this is an interim project and no detail on what the permanent project would be. In fact, in the applicants own words, it is clear that the parking lot is intended to be the final project and you can confirm that from the applicant’s own response when pressed by commissioner Rutherford during the May 10^thplanning commission, “ [see applicant’s permanent project comments].”
4. The staff report claims the project “is an upgrade to the existing business and use…to accommodate the applicants’ established needs.” The applicant went into great operational detail during the project presentation at the May 10, 2017 planning commission meeting when she described how large delivery trucks currently bring the merchandise from I-80, down 2^nd Street, then on to 3^rd Street before arriving at Ace. However, the current operations, even according to the applicant, are not changed at all with the proposed parking project. It will not prevent the delivery trucks from having to continue to park in the middle of 3^rd street to unload.
5. The city staff report finds, “[t]his block of 3^rd Street is not identified as a ‘Principal Pedestrian Connection Street in the Core Area Design Guidelines’ ”. What the staff report fails to mention is that this block of 3^rd Street is identified as a “secondary retail street”. The CASP states:

“Two categories of principal and secondary retail streets should be improved to link key retail places. Because principal retail streets should have the highest foot traffic and greatest continuity in storefront commercial uses, infill must be built to the front lot line and at least 75% of a buildings frontage should be used for retail storefront. Development on secondary retail streets must also be built to the front lot line and have at least 50% of the frontage as a retail storefront.” And “Shopping streets include the principal and secondary retail streets. These streets should have added pedestrian amenities that support a successful shopping environment.” And “Consistent setbacks on portions of Third Street identified as primary and secondary retail streets are encouraged to provide storefront continuity along the street.”

The Design Guidelines describe in great detail the importance of primary and secondary retail streets. The only substantive difference between the two categories is primary streets must have 75% store-frontage while secondary streets only require 50%. Either way the Ace project will result in zero store-frontage.

6. City staff finds in the report that, “The appellants seems to want “something more” at this site than what is currently proposed. If there is a community desire to see more intense or mixed-use development at the site, then the right regulatory environment and incentives need to be present to entice such private investment.” This is not a fair characterization of the appeal and is based on personal opinion rather than the facts that have been laid out to demonstrate that this project does not meet the basic threshold for approval by the planning commission and HRMC.

The Ace project is inconsistent with the city’s long-standing planning documents and with current City Council direction and advice from city advisors. The city staff report fails to clearly articulate what it is about this project that merits allowing it to move forward despite clear evidence that the project violates downtown development principles as outlined above. Other downtown property owners would surely love to avoid having to meet many of the long-established guidelines for downtown redevelopment, but the city has made a conscious effort over the years to put guidelines in place that will help build and maintain a vibrant downtown. So again, this is not about 15 parking spaces – it is about the precedent it sets for future downtown projects and the ability of business owners and community members to rely on a consistent and fair review and  approval process.

Joshua Chapman is a citizen of Davis and a downtown business owner