Davis City Council Candidates Question 3 – Downtown Parking

 Davis-City-Council-Elections-2014-Icon

Editor’s Note: Every week on Friday the Vanguard will send all five of the candidates a question that they will be asked to respond to by the end of the day on Thursday for a Friday publication. The answers are posted in the order that they were received.

Answers are limited to 350 words.

Recently the Davis City Council voted on the Downtown Parking Task Force Recommendations.  The goal of the recommendations was to “help to ensure convenient spaces are easily accessible for shoppers with short-term parking needs, in the area where the greatest concentration of retail and service businesses who depend on this type of parking access exists.”

Part of that plan involved creating paid parking to incentivize employees and other long-term users going to parking garages rather than street parking.  Moreover, the task force saw this as a package deal that would not work with parts segmented out.

Given that the council voted to exclude paid parking from the plan, at least for the time being, how will the parking task force plan that was passed work to free up street parking for short-term users in the near future without the paid parking component to act as the incentive stick?

[Divider]

Munn-John-2014John Munn

I will begin by pointing out the relationship between a City Council and any appointed body.  First, the Council should give clear direction.  Second, as the elected body, the Council is responsible to the voters and must exercise its best judgment on behalf of constituents.  This means that an appointed body should not expect all of its recommendations to be adopted.

I am on record as opposing paid street parking in downtown Davis, so I think the Council made the right decision, so far, in this case.  As I have previously stated, street parking in Davis is a service to customers provided by businesses that they support.  In return, these businesses provide financial support to the City from tax revenues, rate payments, and fees.  Having meters does not actually prevent employees and others from re-parking.  And it is reasonable to expect that parking meters would discourage customers from coming downtown.

The Task Force Report recognizes that parking space is available, that the downtown problem is distribution rather than number of open spaces, and that employee parking and re-parking is a primary reason for the distribution problem.  The recommendation for additional employee and employer parking options (recommendation #2) can make a difference, as can expanding employee parking locations (also recommendation #2) if promoted and used.  It is clear that the existing employee parking program did not generate sufficient numbers of permits to make a substantial difference.  However, increasing the cost of employee parking permits (recommendation #3) would further discourage use of these permits.  As I stated above, just having parking meters does not prevent employee street parking and re-parking, as anyone who has worked in downtown Sacramento already knows.  Other recommendations will help by freeing up a few spaces and opening up additional areas for employee parking.

This question is not about new ideas, and space prevents describing other approaches.  So I will close by stating that human nature and habits can provide better solutions; while paid parking should be viewed as a last choice, rather than a management tool, for creating more convenient parking for customers in downtown Davis.

[Divider]

Davis-RobbRobb Davis

My starting point when considering city policies is the impact they will have on fostering a sustainable community. Our downtown is key to developing economic sustainability, and insufficient parking management is a constraint to increasing downtown economic activity and revenue. Council actions to date do not provide for the resources necessary to implement an effective downtown parking management plan.

Paid parking is first and foremost a management tool to provide downtown customers access to parking near their destinations. The Task Force concluded this based on empirical evidence from many cities including Davis. It also generates revenue streams[1] sufficient to implement critical parking management tools.

On March 25 the City Council approved implementation of (among others) the following “Phase 1” recommendations:

#2: Increase employee parking location options—in Old North and East neighborhoods and the Regal lot
#3: Increase employee permit fees
#11: Develop transportation and parking alternatives campaign
#12: Collect quarterly parking occupancy data
#13: Explore voluntary shared parking district
#15: Streetscape improvements
#18: Improve transit options into downtown

Phase 1 recommendations also included studying the expansion of the parking supply (#16) but the Council voted to remove this recommendation.

Recommendations 2, 3 and 13 would most directly free up street parking with recommendation 2 creating over 250 new permitted parking spots. However, given the lack of revenue generated from these recommendations it is unlikely they will be implemented.  This is because implementation of the approved recommendations would cost over $300,000 but would generate annual net revenues of only $10,000. 

Council has yet to approve Phase 2 recommendations that include paid parking (Recommendation #1) and important management tools such as upgraded enforcement technology. Using conservative occupancy assumptions, staff estimates a net annual revenue stream of over $250,000 from this component (after the equipment is paid off—4-5 years). This revenue is critical to implementing the comprehensive plan, which was supported by Davis Downtown, the Chamber and YCVB.

[1] Though not a recommendation of the Task Force, Council should impose the restriction that all revenue generated by paid parking (if implemented) be used for parking management and supply expansion efforts.

[Divider]

sheila-allen-14Sheila Allen

I support the vote and current direction of the city council.  I generally agreed with the proposal for paid parking in a limited area as suggested by the Parking Task Force, but I cannot support moving forward at this time without a clear financial plan.  I support the work of the Task Force and would like to see the other recommendations put in place and look forward to the report within a year to asses if the incremental changes helped to alleviate peak parking time problems.

Two recommendations need to be implemented immediately: signage to help visitors find existing, underutilized parking garages/spaces and educating downtown business owners on the existence of employee parking passes for employees.  Business owners should want to maximize the customer experience by increasing parking availability and minimize disruptions in the work day by workers leaving to move their cars.  In the long term, we need to work with downtown building owners to encourage a more diverse mix of retail, restaurant, residential and office space.  If we have an optimal business-type mix, the high parking demand at meal time would be decreased, and it will have the added advantage of varied tax income.

With the loss of RDA monies, a parking structure will need a different funding source.  Potential sources could include bonding when fiscally prudent (not now) and as a part of a larger planned transportation hub in conjunction with the Richards underpass, the conference center and the Nishi project.

For location of a multilevel parking structure, I prefer the current Amtrak lot site, which is almost always full. I am interested in a resident pass to recoup some funds from people parking from out of town. This structure would also be a more ideal location for employee parking in the impacted area.  It would be safer for late night workers as it is closer and better lit than distant neighborhood parking pass locations.

[Divider]

Parrella-DanielDaniel Parrella

Even without the paid parking component I believe that the task force recommendations can still make an impact on parking downtown.

For starters, establishing a tiered-fine citation system will encourage repeat offenders out of the core area. Virtually every downtown employee I have talked to has gotten a parking ticket before. Most of them are willing to eat the $43 if it means they can park closer to work. Once they start getting $129 dollar fines behavior will change.

Expanding parking enforcement from 10am to 8pm and including Saturday will also help to push employees out of the core area. Saturday workers currently have no incentive to move out of the core at all and the same holds true for night-shift workers.

Removing the “D” permit option for employees will also help to free up street parking. Considering the fact that the “D” permit is less than a third of the cost of the “X” permit, and is located at the First & F structure, it’s no wonder that we issue twice as many permits as spaces available. Those employees who are unable to find a spot frequently use on-street parking, occupying a potential customer space.

Finally I do believe the parking task force plan, even without paid parking, will still generate revenues which can be used to try and implement some of the other recommendations. The tiered citation system is expected to generate $55,000 in revenue and the streamlined permitting process will generate anywhere from $22,000-$115,000. I will admit I don’t know what the revenue estimate for the streamlined permitting will be without paid parking as an incentive to get employees to buy more permits, but I imagine we will find out soon enough.

The revenue generated won’t be enough to fund all of the other task force recommendations. Once the council gets a revised estimate of incoming revenues they should choose the recommendations they believe make the most direct impact. Looking at the decline of citations issued over the past decade my money would be on upgrading parking enforcement technologies.

[divider]

Swanson-2014-headshotRochelle Swanson

The revenue proposed as a part of the parking task force’s plan did not adequately address the funding required to implement, nor did it address the concerns of many of our downtown patrons, residents, and businesses. Our city cannot afford to spend $1.5 million until we identify funding sources. We need to look at solutions to our problems that work with our current budget realities.

We also need more discrete data on the parking habits of our downtown drivers so that when meters are put in place, we know that our policy is creating the greatest outcome with the least impact. We also need a more comprehensive outreach plan to measure and encourage employee business usage. Much less than half of downtown businesses have employees that use X permits.

We need a parking plan that works for our downtown patrons and businesses. I believe that we need to assess the impacts and redesign implementation based on those findings given the concerns of customers, residents, employers, and business owners. As our economy continues to recover, we cannot look to mitigate downtown parking issues merely by introducing charges to those who use the spaces. We require a more nuanced approach that not only avoids impacting downtown businesses, but increases capacity. As I mentioned the night of the vote, I believe we do need to assess options with the Amtrak lot where we could move to a permit process for locals or other measures allowed under our agreemet.

There are still many aspects to the parking plan that will improve our parking issues downtown with little cost like adjusting parking enforcement shifts and increasing employee parking options.

Ultimately, the parking task force plan can’t and won’t be the last effort to improve our parking situation in Davis. I believe that we need additional innovative solutions.

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

Breaking News City Council City of Davis Elections

Tags:

113 comments

  1. John Munn

    “street parking in Davis is a service to customers provided by businesses that they support.”

    I am unclear about this statement. It is my understanding that the private businesses do not own the public street in front of their property any more than I own the street in front of my house. I do not understand how you feel that street parking is a service provided by businesses. Is it not the city rather than the business owner that is providing this service ?

    1. Some of the parking lots in the downtown were provided by the developers of the buildings. In theory, applicants for new buildings need to provide either parking or in lieu fees. I’m sure that’s what Jon Munn is driving at.

      1. David, I’m sure that’s not what he’s driving at. He’s writing specifically about “street parking”. The parking lots and in-lieu fees have nothing to do with the on-street paid parking. And as he states, he has “previously stated” this before. This isn’t some first time mix-up.

        -Michael Bisch

  2. It seems the main problem is getting the employees to park in designated areas. I like the idea of the tiered parking fines. $43 for the first offense, $86 for the second, $129 for the third and so on………..
    That will not only help the employee problem but also stop the public repeat offenders. I know a $129 ticket would get my attention.
    No reason to penalize everyone because the employees won’t park where they’re supposed to.

  3. Two quick points:

    1. I failed to mention that I was a member of the Downtown Parking Task Force

    2. Disclosure: I was part of the Vanguard Editorial Board until I announced my candidacy in October 2013, at which time I resigned. I have no, nor have I ever had any, financial interest in the Vanguard.

  4. David, a Microsoft security alert has popped up several times on my computer this morning on the Vanguard site:

    “The security cerificate for this site has been revoked.
    This site should not be trusted”

    I’ve never had that pop up before on any site. Do you know what this is all about? It only pops up here as I’m using several other sites with no problems.
    Is anyone else seeing this? Is this something I should be concerned about?

    1. I’m not seeing anything like you mention… suggest a re-boot, and then run MS security essentials. I’m running Windows 7. May be that older, ‘legacy’ versions are having ‘issues’.

    2. This probably has to do with the host site having to change their certificate because of the heart-bleed virus. But it is a server issue and should not affect users once it is resolved.

      Get prepared for about a month or two of computer weirdness as Microsoft and Apple and others send out half-baked updates in response to this new threat, and then follow up updates to fix what they screw up.

    3. BP, I occasionally get the same message when I go to my AT&T/Yahoo e-mail site. I called AT&T Customer Support and they told me that an independent third party company/service keeps track of all the certificate information, and that they occasionally get behind in updating their database given the myriads of certificates that exist for all the web sites around the globe. When I asked how to contact that third party company/service AT&T/Yahoo could not provide me with that information. They very dissmissively said, “Just disregard the message.”

      With all the above said, we have passed on your message to the Vanguard’s website/server support team and they will look into it.

      Finally, when you do open up the Vanguard website, please hold down your Shift key and click on the Refresh icon. That clears the website-specific cache on your machine. You can read more about that new feature of the Internet at http://lifehacker.com/5574852/shift%252Brefresh-is-like-the-restart-button-for-web-sites/all

      Hope that helps.

  5. Paid parking a tool? Only in the most abstract use of the concept of tool. Paid parking is a tax. In this case a tax to do two things. First to raise money to do other things and second a tax to modify behavior. It is this willingness to modify the behavior of others that makes me wary of Robb Davis on the city council. Is this really only about parking management or is this also about his car free lifestyle? Either way, for those of us advanced enough to not want to walk too far yet not so advanced that we have a blue plate special parking permit, it feels imposing and exclusionary.

    1. Toad, everyone on the task force viewed the paid parking component as a tool even those business owners who advocated for delaying the paid parking component. The tool has two purposes: encourage employees to park on the periphery of downtown or in parking structures; create a funding stream to partially pay for a new structure. Even the 3 CC members (Frerichs, Wolk, Swanson) who advocated for DELAYING implementation of paid parking until the other recommendations had been implemented view the paid parking component as a tool. [Note: Frerichs, Wolk, Swanson did not say they were against limited paid parking.] That being the case, you should be wary of all the CC members, even Swanson who you say you support, as well as anyone who has educated themselves on the details of parking management.

      By the way, Toad, Robb seconded the task force motion to adopt the two keystones to the entire plan: a limited amount of paid parking AND development of a 3rd parking structure. So why are you blathering on about Robb’s car free lifestyle?

      -Michael Bisch

    2. Paid parking is a tax

      From my vantage point, FREE parking is a tax. Public money that is being extracted from me, has been, and is still being used to supply and maintain the on-street parking that exists. If I don’t use the parking spaces, and you do use them to park your car “for free,” then I am being taxed for your benefit. And this tax is being used as a tool to make it look like we’re happy to invite all cars to come and park for free in downtown.

      If we charge the consumers of these parking spaces in an attempt to repay what these spaces cost us in public money, I consider it a usage fee just like anything else we pay to use.

      When did expensive “free parking” become a right? The gross inequity here is in giving away the use of these expensive parking spaces by using public money that we keep claiming to be short of.

  6. Nobody has addressed why students won’t pay for four hours and go to class if the meters allow that much time. Will the cost of parking at the meters be competitive with the expensive parking on campus? If so won’t that discourage people from going downtown just as it discourages parking on campus?

    1. Toad, your concern was considered and addressed by the task force. Throughout the exercise the task force was cognizant of the parking behavior of students. UC Davis had assigned Cliff Contreras, their parking guy (not sure of exact title), to the task force as a liason to provide advise us. The recommended time limits and parking fees are all set to prevent students from parking downtown then scurrying to their classes. What’s interesting is many critics of the recommendations are demanding changes that would actually encourage students to park downtown thereby exacerbating the downtown problem.

      -Michael Bisch

        1. It has to be priced so there’s not a significant discrepancy between the price on campus and the price downtown. What’s missing from this discussion is another issue that the task force had to balance was the survey results and public comments we received that made it clear that shoppers wanted options to park longer downtown than the current time limits permitted. The 19 recommendations were very much an exercise in balancing competing uses and needs. There is no silver bullet. The recommendations are a compromise and as time goes by will have to be continuously adjusted; hence the need for monitoring and data collection that Toad feels is a totalitarian scheme to subvert democracy.

          -Michael Bisch

        2. How about a time limit on how long you can park at a paid stall. In San Luis Obispo the internal meters are limited to 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes.

          1. Ah, no, not a thumbs up. This is not SLO, this is Davis. The survey data made it quite clear that patrons of Downtown Davis want options to park for longer than 30, 60, 90, 120 minutes. They want options to park for 3-4 hours so they can shop, dine, watch a movie. This was also repeated numerous times in the public comment at the task force meetings.

            -Michael Bisch

          2. I think the metered parking in the core should be for shorter periods of time to encourage turnover. That being said there are times I want to come downtown for extended periods of time, which is why I like the idea of the lots, especially the G St one, being free and having longer time restrictions.

          3. They can have options to park for longer, but they have to walk. They don’t get to have their cake and eat it too.

  7. Mr Toad – You raise an important issue: “Nobody has addressed why students won’t pay for four hours and go to class if the meters allow that much time.”

    I would offer a few comments:

    1. First, it would appear that students who park and go to campus are doing so in proximity to the campus (east of D or in the lot behind Davis Commons. As you know, the paid parking component is further east than they are likely want to park. However…

    2. We need data collection–including license plate analysis and direct observational studies–to assess the magnitude of the problem. That is why Recommendations 12 and 9 (technology upgrades not yet approved by the CC) are so critical. These will help us assess who is parking in what locations.

    3. The parking plan proposal for the areas where students are most likely to park to go to class are 90 minute spots (2 hours in the Davis Commons lot). Will that discourage student parking? We will need data to assess that and that is why the quarterly collection of data will be so critical.

    Your question illustrates the many factors that must be weighed and considered in developing a comprehensive plan. It may not be possible to balance all needs in an ideal way but with data we can assess the issues and adjust. To me, the data collection recommendation was one of the most important recommendations the Task Force made.

    1. License plate analysis? You mean like the FBI taking pictures of plates at a gangster wedding or Pacific lumber videotaping license plates at a save the redwoods rally? Now you want to gather metadata on people who drive downtown? What happened to that freedom of association thing?

          1. It is being collected daily by the parking enforcement equipment used by the City to cite parking offenders. Has been for years.

          2. I think that enforcement equipment broke and has not been repaired/replaced. They are back to marking tires.

          3. Michelle, are you saying that the meter enforcement personnel are using broken pens and ink when they write up parking tickets. That should be a bonanza for defense lawyers. A ticket written up with broken equipment is cause for dismissal of the citation.

          4. Matt I don’t I understand your response. The city used to have a parking enforcement device that scanned license plates. Making it easier to enforce the no re-parking on the same block face after 2 hour rule. It is my understanding that this machine is broken, so they have gone back to marking tires.

          5. Michelle, data can come in all shapes and sizes and from all sorts of different sources. Just because one data collection source has a hiccup, doesn’t mean that another data collection source isn’t purring along like a kitten.

          6. Huh? I was not talking about data sources. I was talking about parking enforcement mechanisms. The one that scans license plates is not working so they are currently not using for enforcement.

          7. Of course you were talking about data sources … and I too was talking about parking enforcement mechanisms that scan license plates, and then record the scanned information. All those mechanisms are currently being used for enforcement. Meowwwwwwwwwwwww.

          8. I thought that what ever they were using to scan license plates was not operational at the moment?

          9. To the best of my knowledge we do not have any blind parking enforcement officers on the Davis Police Department. BP/GI/R49 may think some of them are blind, but that’s only his deep-seated mistrust of anything governmental getting the best of him.

          10. Matt Williams/Practical or whatever other aliases you might be or have used it wasn’t BP who questioned the use of license imagery. Since you felt you had to drag me into this my problem isn’t so much the gov’t getting the best of me it’s the busy-body-we-know-what’s-best-for-you crowd that have nothing better to do than hang around city hall and harrass the council to do their bidding.

          11. Touchy this morning? There wasn’t any intent to drag you into this problem. It was an (obviously poor) attempt to inject some a humor into the discussion with Michelle. My grandmother always told me to only kid around about people who were strong enough to take it in stride … and not personally. I see you as just that kind of strong individual. I don’t always agree with you, but I respect the conviction of your positions.

          12. Two quick points:

            1. I failed to mention that I was not a member of the Downtown Parking Task Force

            2. Disclosure: Lets be clear about my perception of Robb Davis as a leader. Fremontia has pointed out that I am not unbiased whenever I talk about cars and parking. I have declared my support for cars in many venues. I have formally endorsed cars. My name is on record with the State of California in the DMV automobile registration database. I have appreciated cars as a transportation option for a long time. It was good to see the Parking Task Force overtly demonstrate similar appreciation in their deliberations. Further, I have no, nor have I ever had any, financial interest in the Vanguard.

          13. Yes, collecting plate numbers is the easy part. The part that is weird is figuring out if people are shopping or going to school or just hanging out. How do you figure that out? As for my hyperbole about the feds and company spies it was tongue in cheek but determining what people do after they park their cars seems perhaps a little dubious.

          14. Mr Toad – The license plate identification would be used to, for example, to examine drivers who routinely shift blocks or park for long periods. Other methods, including direct observation and counts (much like is done for car counts or bike like counts which was done recently) would be used to approximate the numbers of parkers walking to campus.

            Learning about parking habits requires mixed data collection methods, but since we have routine data collection included (assuming there is funding for it), we can learn a great deal and use the information for decision making.