by Mark West
On May 10th, the Planning Commission approved revisions to a previously approved redevelopment project at Ace Hardware. The approved project now involves the demolition of an existing building, replacing it with a private parking lot and solar shade structure with access from Third Street. In my opinion, both the original and modified projects are inconsistent with the General Plan, the Core Area Specific Plan and the Design Guidelines and as a consequence, should not have been approved.
Now as many of you are aware, I have frequently advocated that all of these planning documents should be subject to change when it is determined that doing so offers a significant benefit to the community. 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. A public hearing on the issue will be held next Tuesday, June 20th.
Attached are the opposition letter and supporting documents that I and others submitted to the Planning Commission prior to their May 10th decisions. I have included it here as background on why I believe the Planning Commission acted in error. I look forward to a spirited discussion of how this project fits with our community’s vision for the future.
May 10, 2017
To: City of Davis Planning & Historic Resource Management Commissions
Re: Ace Hardware Project – PA #16-10, CUP #1-16, Demo #2-16 and DR #2-16
We respect the applicant’s right to develop its property as it sees fit subject to federal, state and local laws. Therein lies the rub. The project fails to: (1) meet either the spirit or the letter of our planning documents; (2) advance community social, economic and environmental goals; or (3) reflect community values. The community has every right to encourage the applicant to develop the property consistent with the community vision for greater intensity of use, multi-story, mixed-uses with parking underground (or tucked behind a street-fronting retail component & under the upper floors), and meeting de facto community sustainability standards. We urge you to deny the project application(s) and to rescind the previously issued demolition permit (since the applicant has abandoned the initial project).
- The project is not being proposed in a vacuum. We are confronted with formidable climate, fiscal, housing & commercial space shortage crises. The project undermines formally adopted community policies, objectives and goals developed to meet these crises (see Attachment 1, in particular CC Goa!s 1 .. 5). We have many unmet needs that could the meaningfully addressed with sustainable, efficient development of the subject site.
- The project is inconsistent with the GP, the CASP and the Design Guidelines (note: there is no exemption for multi-parcel property owners). The project falls to meet a multitude of stated principals, goals and objectives (see Attachment 2). We recognize the project was initially already approved in June 2016, but that approval was granted in error. It should be vacated now that the initial project has been abandoned.
- At initial approval, commissions and staff recognized the project was problematic, “The existing and intended uses of the project site do not perfectly align with the planning policy vision along the ~ Street corridor … ” Further, “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.”
- In June 2016, City staff, recommended project approval, despite inconsistencies with planning documents, by focusing on the merits of the proposed 8,248 sq. ft. mixed-use building . ….. the proposal is in keeping with certain principles of Core Expansion North, such as mixed-use buildings and intensification.” The rational for planning approval has now evaporated with the abandonment of the mixed-use· building.
- The project is a downtown gateway site, within the Third Street Special Character Area. It is identified as a -Mixed-use opportunity site-. The Guidelines state: “Encourage the development of opportunity sites in the Core and expansion and transition areas as mixed-use residential projects supporting sustainable development patterns.”
- To provide perspective, the Chen Building, covering a similar area, has 24,000 SF of retail, office and residential space. The Chen Building provides economic activity, living space and attractive architecture. It is conducive to alternative transportation modes while enhancing the pedestrian experience. The proposed project does not.
- The stated purpose of the CASP is to ensure the Core Area functions “in a manner that enhances pedestrian activity.” The project does the opposite; it detracts from the bicycle and pedestrian experience. The CASP specifically states, “On-site parking shall not be placed In front of buildings along sidewalks; there shall be unbroken pedestrian walks and short walking distances between uses. This facilitates window shopping, browsing, people watching and social Interaction. II
- As a project justification, the applicant states, “the absence of progress on the now 3 year old Downtown Parking Management Plan and the recent announcement by the City Council of their Intention to convert Downtown surface lots to long term parking.” It should be noted that the applicant has steadfastly lobbied to delay the implementation of the Downtown Parking Task Force recommendations and continues to do so.
Some in our community hold the conviction that ordinances, guidelines and policies are sacrosanct, trumping community goals, needs and aspirations. We are not of like mind. Planning documents are tools intended to further community goals, needs and aspirations; not the reverse. Sound urban planning dictates that planning documents be amended and variances granted when development projects advance community goals .. That is not the case in this instance. The project undermined our community goals, needs and aspirations, Given its key downtown gateway location, we urge you to direct staff to work with the applicant to develop a project that supports “sustainable .development patterns” to meet community social, economic and environmental sustainability standards and expectations.
Also see attachments:
Signatories to Mark West’s appeal:
Alan Hirsch
Andrew Newman
Dan Olmos
Dave Robert
Josh Chapman
Judy Corbett
Kevin Wan
Mark West
Michael Bisch
Shane Tucker
Sinisa Novakovic
There is nothing permanent about a parking lot. There is no reason Davis Ace could not redevelop this underutilized site later. But that would certainly be much more expensive and may not fit in with their current retail needs. They are proposing to add customer parking on the back side of one of their properties on a portion that has had very little retail use for many years. Some types of retailers need to be able to have customers drive right up for pickups and loading. Some of us have large trucks that deliver and require forklift access. The new downtown delivery restrictions are an issue for them; I know this because we share some distributors and the drivers have told me about the complications of delivering downtown now.
This minor change adds some customer parking and facilitates deliveries. So it helps one of our key downtown anchor retailers continue to be competitive and generate sales tax revenues for the city. It seems to me that if one is concerned about per capita sales tax revenues, the first principle would be to not inhibit the current sales tax revenue generators.
This appeal make no sense to me.
Interesting collection of people. You have a group of Davis Downtown businesses combined with the Judy Corbett/ Alan Hirsch crowd.
Nor to me.
The list of names Don posted comes from the complaint letter submitted to the Planning Commission. The individuals who signed the complaint letter are not the same as those who are now working on the appeal, which is why the signature page was not included with my submission. While the submission to the Planning Commission is part of the public record, it was inappropriate to post the names here as this is a separate action, with the letter only being included as background.
The only signature on the appeal is mine.
Which is the precise May 10 letter that makes up the body of your post here on the Vanguard. Those names are the “We” in
Thus it was totally appropriate for me to post them.
For the past week or so, we’ve had a series of articles from Michael Bisch (and comments from Mark West) regarding their desire to not pay “in lieu of” fees, when projects fail to build their own parking. (It took awhile for them to acknowledge their goal.) And, we now have another article which (once again) doesn’t provide much information regarding the actual project, or Mark and Michael’s underlying motivation.
What we do seem to have is a project which appears to show a key local business acting responsibly by providing its own parking, covered with a solar shade structure. (A hardware store no less, which is dependent upon having adequate parking.)
Rather than jumping right into an advocacy (based upon unknown motivations), can we get links to documents which actually describe the proposal? Or, is it up to each individual reader to research this on their own? For example, is the building slated for demolition the beat-up metal building (housing lumber), just south of the hardware section of the complex?
And what, exactly, are Mark and Michael’s underlying motivations?
Does zoning matter to you, Ron? According to many of your previous posts, I would guess that zoning matters a great deal to you when it helps you oppose a project, but not very much when it is a project you like.
We need to get rid of private parking lots downtown, not expand them. The Davis Ace store has City owned lots immediately adjacent, significant street and alley parking and a parking structure across the street at the North end of the store. There is no need for additional parking on site. A customer pick-up zone could easily be created with access from the existing alleyway, thus preventing the need for a new driveway across the sidewalk on Third. This project violates the existing zoning and offers no benefit to the community or the City’s fiscal situation to justify the required changes. If the City Council is serious about making the changes to downtown that they have been discussing, this project should be rejected. In my opinion, it should have been rejected by Staff long before it ever got to this point.
When did you get to decide the “needs” of a private business? Really, that’s your argument? Seems to fly in the face of everything else that you advocate.
What’s your REAL motivation for this? (Don’t tell us it’s out of “green concerns”. Not from you and Michael.)
Are you afraid of the precedent, for example?
“When did you get to decide the “needs” of a private business?”
I’m not taking a side in this, but technically speaking speaking, he doesn’t get to decide, council does.
Ron: “When did you get to decide the “needs” of a private business?”
Reasonable complaint. Let me rephrase my statement. I see no community benefit from additional parking on-site and see real harm to the community by allowing yet another private parking lot to be constructed in the downtown. As I said before, however, I should not be the arbiter here (nor you for that matter), that is a role for the City Council.
“Some in our community hold the conviction that ordinances, guidelines and policies are sacrosanct, trumping community goals, needs and aspirations.”
Being out of town and distracted by other matters I have not looked at this proposal and thus am not expressing an opinion one way or the other. However, I do find some irony in this statement. It would also seem that some in our community believe that they should get to be the arbiters of what determines true “community goals, needs and aspirations”, while accusing others of ignoring same. It would seem that they also believe that they should get to decide the scope of “community” that matters in any given instance, whether that is the neighborhood, the downtown, a transitional area or the city as a whole.
Everyone has a right to their own opinion on these matters, but the true ‘arbiters’ should be our elected officials, as we have chosen them to represent the entire community (not just the narrow views of one neighborhood or another). The City Council would not have had the opportunity to decide if this project is in the best interests of the community without this appeal.
Mark
“Everyone has a right to their own opinion on these matters, but the true ‘arbiters’ should be our elected officials,”
On this point, we firmly agree. It has never been my belief that anyone other than the elected officials have the right to decide. It has been and remains my firm belief that community members have the right to express their own opinions in public forums of their choice, just as you have done in this case, and as I have done on other projects.
Tia: What irony? The General Plan, the Core Area Specific Plan and the City Council describe/determine the community’s “goals, needs and aspirations” (please see embedded links at bottom of article). The CC is the final arbiter in these matters and were it not for the appeal, the PC would have been the final arbiter (see my response to Don below). So it’s not clear to me what your comment is about.
Don: The record is pretty clear that a significant disconnect has developed between the planning commission and the City Council. Council decision after council decision has shown significant disagreement between the commissioners and the councilmembers on the “goals, needs and aspirations”. Hence the appeal. By the way, there is no evidence at all that the parking lot is a transitory use. In fact, the public record is quite clear that the opposite is the case. As for your “back side of one of their property” comments, you might want to take another look at the site plan. If the project was actually on the backside, there’d be little grounds for appeal.
David: You can include Davis Bicycles! in the “interesting collection of people.” DB! funded 50% of the appeal fee.
Ron: It’s not surprising you launch right into a slime attack questioning motivations. It’s also not surprising that you once again show your reading comprehension deficiencies (the motivations are stated in the May 10th letter). And once again you prove your value in being the perfect contrarian indicator. Thanks!
http://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Planning-Commission/Agendas/20170510/06A-Revised-CUP-815-Third-Street.pdf
http://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Planning-Commission/Agendas/20170510/06A-Revised-CUP-815-Third-Street-Presentation.pdf
Michael
The irony was only with regard to the particular comment made by Mark in view of many previous conversations in which he has criticized me for weighing in on projects. From his comment, I believe that he understood that. I thought that I had made it clear by prefacing my comment by the fact that I have no knowledge of this circumstance, but I guess that I was not clear enough. Sorry for the confusion.
Your characterization of my previous comments is false. To my recollection, I have never told you not to have or express your opinion. What I have done is chastise you for taking part in an orchestrated attack on a project and its developer during public comment in front of the City Council, before the project had even been presented to the City. I didn’t fault you for having an opinion, I faulted you for your poor choice on when, where and how you chose to express that opinion.
No, the true irony here is that you have finally agreed that it is the role of the City Council to make zoning decisions and that the majority vote of that Council is the true arbiter.
Which completely repudiates many of your previous comments against development projects in town, and in particular, on who should get to decide which of those projects are in the best interests of the City. It isn’t the developers (as you have frequently worried) or the noisy neighbors (as you have often wished), but a three vote majority of our elected officials. I’m glad to hear that you finally agree.
Glad that Michael (now) chose to include the documents regarding the actual proposal. (Note – the links didn’t work for me, until I manipulated them.)
Wow – the proposed project looks great! An expansion of an existing business (including an attractive new building, for their office and retail), removal of an ugly, beat-up/dented and underutilized existing metal building, and more parking for their business. Looks like there’s already an existing driveway there, as well.
I agree with Don and others that this appeal makes no sense. Retail depends on parking availability to be successful. Davis Ace Hardware customers will be impacted the most with a shift of the City now wanting to charge for parking in the adjacent parking lots. Davis Ace Hardware is our major anchor downtown and the decision made to charge for parking just discourages shoppers from shopping downtown. These negative impacts wind up reducing sales, then we lose sales tax while also hurting the ability for local retail businesses to survive.
Davis Ace Hardware is going to great expense to provide more needed parking and we need to be grateful for that, not persecute them for trying to survive. It is hard enough for retail brick and mortar stores to make-it today, so we need to support them especially in the downtown.
Eileen’s observations ignore a much simpler solution to the problem that the Council decision on paid parking created. Specifically the City parking lot between 3rd and 4th Streets and between G Street and the Davis Ace Alley has been designated by Council as a 4-hour limit lot. Reconsidering that designation, and making the lot a 30-minute limit lot would (as I understand it) solve the problems the Council has created for Davis Ace customer parking. Chico has implemented a similar strategy for lots whose principal usage is by customers of their retail anchor stores. Their time limit (again as I understand it) for those fast turnover lots is 36 minutes. I have been told (but have not confirmed) that Brian Mikelson was the city traffic engineer in Chico at the time that policy was implemented.
Not only is that solution simpler, it is less costly for Davis Ace, and it is supportive of the Davis Downtown retail economy.
Matt: Would you care to explain how your idea fits into the “park in one spot” concept, while patronizing multiple businesses in the downtown area? 30 minutes isn’t much time to visit ONE business. I’ve spent well over that time just within ACE’s multiple buildings.
Man, I can just picture the amount/frequency of “parking enforcement” activity that would occur under such a proposal. Also, would that be funded by all of the fines that would result from your proposal (assuming that the time limits are frequently exceeded)?
ALL of your proposed solutions so far have involved restricting parking, making it more difficult for customers of existing retailers, restaurants, etc.
What Ron said^^^^^
Hell, you’re going to waste a good 10 minutes of that 30 minutes just getting to and from your car and into the store. Keep making it more restrictive to conveniently shop downtown and more people will will turn to the Internet.
Matt,
30-minute parking is not a solution. My average shopping trips in downtown Davis are at least an hour. The current concept of charging parking fees near our downtown retail stores will only hurt the sales by the retail we do have, will hurt our needed retail stores ability to survive, and reduce our City’s sales tax yield.
Meanwhile, 4-hour parking is not solution either. It would just tie up the limited downtown parking spots potentially longer, when 2-hours is a good compromise of a parking time limit. So 2-hour parking works pretty well and free parking is needed to keep customers coming to our downtown, keeping our retail stores healthy, and continuing to bring in the much needed sales tax to our City.
Eileen, the next time you have a few spare minutes, monitor that parking lot in front of Ace’s main entrance. The inventory turnover of the spaces in that lot is incredibly speedy … and consistent with the data Davis Ace has shared. It currently is a de-facto 30 minute lot. It is also a lot that is predominantly used by Davis Ace customers. Look at the businesses in the immediate vicinity of that lot. Jack In the Box has its own parking. Torzo Spa does too. The Davis Enterprise gets very few visitors and has its own lot for customers. Fit House has its own lot, but some of its customers probably park for an hour in the lot in front of Davis Ace … when they can’t find a space on the street. Blondies doesn’t open until 4:00 pm (except on Sunday).
So, for that specific lot, a 2-hour limit is disconnected with the pattern of use. A 4-hour limit is even more disconnected from use.
Matt,
Again, I shop there often and 30 minutes might work for some, but not for all, like me. The price tag of risking an expensive parking ticket is not worth the risk to most shoppers of trying to race through your shopping errands in 30 minutes or wind up paying a high cost parking ticket if you run past 30 minutes. For instance, most hair cutting places need at least an hour to serve a customer and also at least that much time to be served a meal and eat it at a restaurant.
Also, since Davis Ace Hardware has a home goods store, it takes time to look at their wares and decide on purchasing items. This “rush-through” of a 30 minute parking limit would have a negative effect on attracting customers to shop comfortably and even to eat at the many restaurants in that area. So, 2-hour parking is not a disconnect by any means in this vicinity of downtown Davis.
Eileen, what hair cutting places are close enough to the North G Street lot (the one between 3rd and 4th and G and the Ace Alley) that you would use that lot to park during your hair cut?
What restaurants are close enough to the North G Street lot (the one between 3rd and 4th and G and the Ace Alley) that you would use that lot to park while you are served your meal?
Other than Davis Ace, what businesses have you ever patronized while parking in the North G Street lot (the one between 3rd and 4th and G and the Ace Alley). In my 19 years in Davis I can not think of a single time I have parked in that lot and not had Davis Ace as my destination. If you figure one trip to Davis Ace each week for 19 years that is over 900 trips into that lot and not one of those trips has been to another business. The possibility did exist that I might have parked there in one of my annual (on average) trips to the Davis Enterprise offices, but each of those 20 or so visits have always ended up with an on-street space being available on G Street.
Regarding the Davis Ace Housewares store, you must not have heard. Ace is consolidating all its operations into their complex north of 3rd Street. The Housewares building is soon to be a thing of the past.
Bottom-line, it is a unique lot, and as such matches with a unique time limitation.
Uhm, the Thai restaurant, right across the street? (Two of them, actually.) Not to mention multiple others nearby. Sometimes take-out, sometimes eat-in.
ASPCA (yes, I walk there from the lot), the new Asian grocery store in that same area, another small grocery store (near Chase), Chase, Bank of America. (Not to mention the time it takes to visit more than a single segment/building, within ACE itself.) (Not a complete list – just off the top of my head.)
Just about EVERY trip that I make downtown is longer than 30 minutes. But, I leave my vehicle in one place, almost every time.
Matt: “The Housewares building is soon to be a thing of the past.”
Is that right? Can you provide details? For example, are businesses still going to be in that location (at least on the first floor, if a multi-floor structure is planned)?
In any case, this will not impact the length of my visits, when parking downtown. (Unless, that is, your proposal is adopted.)
If changes are only made to that lot, it will impact nearby street parking, as well.
I wholeheartedly agree with these statements. Also, even dealing with a parking meter (or some other form of payment) is one more hassle, when visiting downtown.
As I’ve stated several times, putting restrictive time limits (e.g., 30 minutes) OR charging for parking (if allowed for longer than 30 minutes) is simply one more way that Davis is telling residents to “stay away” from downtown. It also completely discourages the “park in one spot and visit multiple businesses” concept that has been repeatedly mentioned as one of the goals. (Something that I do now, using that same lot – or, via street parking.)
To add insult to injury, some don’t even want to allow ACE to build its own parking lot, either!
And again, I would ask if that “much-referred to 50-cent” parking fee (and the “hoped-for fines”) would actually provide sufficient funds to implement and enforce the proposed changes. If not, then it would be a net drain on city finances. (While simultaneously reducing tax revenues, as more people stay away from downtown.)
Yeah – better make sure Davis ACE doesn’t build its own lot, either!
What a plan! (I thought that people were smarter than that, in Davis.)
That’s about the “right” amount of allowed time to visit one or more businesses, while discouraging longer-term parking. Also requires less-frequent enforcement (and associated costs), compared to Matt’s 30-minute proposal.
Just to clarify: “Businesses” are not limited to retail establishments. It also includes restaurants, small/specialty grocery stores, etc. (Something that seems “forgotten about”, when discussing the changes in retail, and impacts on downtown.)
Not as true as one might think… to effectively monitor 2 hour parking limit, an enforcement ‘pass’ would need to be made about every 30 -40 minutes. Has to do with statistics… if you park a car right after the enforcement pass is made, you’re good until at least two additional passes are made. The first recognizes the vehicle’s presence, the second may or may not detect a violation (depending on frequency of passes and the time limit). So, if you park in a two-hour zone, and the passes are made every two hours, you could be parked for just short of 6 hours without a violation being detected. If there is one pass every hour (two-hour zone), you could be ‘legal’ for just short of 4 hours, depending on timing of the passes and the time of original parking and departure.
I do not know what the frequency of enforcement passes are. Will leave that to others…
Howard: Maybe so, but it seems to me that the “average” person using that lot will pretty much pay attention to the time limits, rather than hoping that they can “game the system”. (Not likely that the “average customer” has knowledge of, or pays attention to the frequency of passes, etc.)
Or, better yet – avoid going downtown, if it becomes too restrictive and risky (in terms of getting a ticket).
Just wondering – how often would “passes” have to be made, to effectively monitor a 30-minute limit?
Also wondering what the difference is (in “real world” implementations), regarding the frequency of passes between a 4-hour, 2-hour, and 30-minute limit? (That is, how do cities generally handle these differences, when accounting for number of passes needed to “reasonably” enforce? Do most cities handle this the same way, when making such decisions?)
And, what would the associated cost differences be, between these differing timeframes? Also, how much corresponding “revenue” is needed (via parking fees and fines) to ensure that a given program “breaks even”. (For example, would the much-discussed “50-cent” fee be a significant factor, under any scenario?)
(I don’t expect you to answer all of these questions, but I suspect/hope that it would be examined, if/when changes are considered.)
Just a couple thoughts. First, I totally agree that time limits should not be less than 2-hours. Even 90-minutes is tough. I had lunch and a mani/pedi downtown today and had to repark in between to avoid the limits. The struggle is real. 😉
In terms of parking meters, in Sac, they use a rate structure in some areas so that the price goes up after the first hour. That tends to encourage shorter parking times. Also, the Parkmobile system is awesome. You just scan the meter with the smartphone app and pay from your phone AND you get texts if your meter is about to expire and you can add time from your phone wherever you are (assuming you’re not at the limit). It’s not as big of pain to use a meter as it used to be.
If you have a ‘smartphone’ and are good at “apps”… that said, good points, particularly the concept of ‘tiered’ rates.
Cindy, in my opinion time limits should match the nature of the businesses in close proximity to the spaces. As has been discussed here, the nature of the businesses adjacent to the North G lot make a 30-45 minute time limit very workable. The lot usage is dominated by customers of only one business. On the other hand, spaces on 2nd Street between D and G serve a broad mix of restaurants, retail and services, and as you have pointed out, 30-45 minutes is way too short.
I too like the system used in Sacramento. Your description of Parkmobile is already dated. Smartphone apps have eliminated the need for individual meters, and now aggregate all the spaces in a unique area so your payment works for any space in that unique area. That way the sidewalk doesn’t need to be cluttered with physical infrastructure. The same system works in residential neighborhoods, which supports the concept of allocating all the spaces in a residential neighborhood (like the University Avenue neighborhood here in Davis between B Street and the UCD campus) to (A) the license plates of the residents with permits, (B) the license plates of downtown employees with permits, and (C) visitors to the residents whose license plates have been entered into the Parkmobile database for a time-limited permit.
For those wishing to support the ACE project (anti-appeal), there is a form (petition) you can sign and date behind the register in Hardware at ACE.