DAVIS, Calif. — The Davis City Council is scheduled to consider an ordinance next week that would expand paid parking to three additional downtown parking lots and increase parking rates to $3 per hour as part of the city’s long-delayed implementation of its Downtown Parking Management Plan.
According to a staff report prepared by Public Works Engineering and Transportation Director Ryan Chapman, the proposal would amend sections of the Davis Municipal Code governing metered parking and authorize paid parking in the North F Street Lot, South G Street Lot and Amtrak Train Depot Lot. The E Street Plaza Lot is already designated as a paid parking facility.
The proposed changes stem from the Downtown Parking Management Plan adopted by the City Council in 2014 following recommendations developed by the Council-appointed Downtown Parking Task Force. Staff noted that while many components of the plan have already been implemented, the conversion of three additional downtown parking lots to metered parking remains one of the plan’s outstanding items.
Under the proposal, paid parking would be enforced from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday in the North F Street Lot and South G Street Lot. The Amtrak Train Depot Lot would be metered from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Staff reported that if the ordinance is approved, the Police Department would purchase additional parking kiosks and signage for the affected lots, with implementation anticipated in early fall. A mobile parking application would also be offered as an alternative payment method.
City officials emphasized that most downtown parking would remain unchanged. According to the report, all on-street parking and approximately half of downtown surface parking lots would continue to be free. The F Street parking garage would also retain its current policy allowing the first three hours of parking at no charge.
The report states that downtown Davis currently contains approximately 2,100 public parking spaces, including on-street spaces, surface lots and parking garages. The proposed expansion of paid parking would affect roughly 330 spaces, representing about 16 percent of the city’s total downtown parking inventory.
The ordinance would also establish a parking rate of 75 cents per 15-minute increment, equivalent to $3 per hour. Staff estimated that if all 330 paid spaces were occupied at full capacity, parking fees could generate as much as $50,000 per week.
According to the report, a portion of the revenue would be used to offset costs associated with operating and maintaining the parking system, including enforcement, revenue collection and maintenance. Staff further recommended that any remaining revenue be directed toward downtown-related uses as determined by the City Council.
The report also discusses the city’s previous direction regarding parking pricing. Staff wrote, “Council’s previous direction relating to parking rates was that the rates should be demand responsive so that as parking demand increases, the parking rate also increases.”
However, staff indicated that implementing a demand-responsive pricing system would require additional studies and more expensive technology investments.
The report states, “The cost to implement a demand-responsive system is significantly higher than the cost to implement the revised fee, since an additional study would be needed to determine what the rate structure should be and costly technologies would need to be installed at the parking lots.”
As a result, staff recommended adopting the revised parking fee structure now while pursuing dynamic pricing through a future capital improvement project when funding becomes available.
The proposed ordinance would formally designate four city-owned parking facilities as parking meter zones: the E Street Plaza Parking Lot at 221 F St., the North F Street Parking Lot at 310 E St., the South G Street Parking Lot between Second and Third streets, and the Amtrak Train Depot Parking Lot at 840 H St.
The ordinance specifies that all spaces within designated parking meter zones, except those reserved for disabled users, motorcycles and electric vehicles, would be subject to the city’s paid parking regulations.
The measure is scheduled for introduction at Tuesday’s City Council meeting. If ultimately adopted, the ordinance would take effect 60 days after passage.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Bad ideas never die they just get more expensive. Three dollars an hour! Recall the City Council!
What RG said above and I’ll add that they try to implement their bad ideas using the “death by a thousand cuts” method.
Hopefully the public will show up at Tuesday’s council meeting and give them a piece of their mind.
Nevermind the research and science completely disagrees
https://davisvanguard.org/2026/01/parking-policy-economic-reality/
That said, ironically, the council is doing this backwards. You’re supposed to incentivize people parking in lots and free up the street parking for short term stops.
The original deal, hammered out over many months, was for an increase in physical parking (garage) to precede paid parking downtown. The parking garage never happened. But to some, paid parking became an end in itself.
I suggest the council end this once and for all. My opinion is that the public is not on board with it, and that any perceived benefits won’t be worth the costs.
Don, rather than simply dump the idea, why not urge the council tomake a concerted effort to show the public (and the know-nothing downton merchants) that paid parking increases availability and doesn’t clog up the streets. The last time we had this debate the council caved to a concerted effort by the DDBA and it’s allies. Why not be proactive and evidence-based! This isn’t 1955 anymore.
“and the know-nothing downton merchants”
Got it.
Ron G
Ironic that you want to leave solving the housing market crisis problem entirely to letting the market act unfettered, which means responding to prices, but then stand against using prices to signal the market for parking.
So Ron, what’s your evidence that this is a “bad idea”?
My evidence is that I don’t want to be on a meter. I hate parking meters. In fact I supported the recent 1% sales tax increase and told the CC members that I was supporting the tax increase specifically because I didn’t want paid parking downtown.
Pricing is the only way to solve the parking situation in downtown. Reducing the number of cars coming in is the only viable solution. Any other solution is a costly fantasy.
What problem are you trying to solve?
Downtown Parking Task Force Recommendations
Recommendation #1:
Establish paid parking in Southeast Quadrant.
Boundary: Roughly D Street to the west, First Street to the south, Third Street to the north, railroad tracks to the east.
Meter rates should be established to achieve an 85% average occupancy rate within the Southeast Quadrant. Initial recommendation:
$1.00/hr peak (11:30 a.m. – 1:30 p.m., 5:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.)
$.50/hr off-peak (all other times).
Adjustments should be made as needed
Extend parking durations to 3 or 4 hours.
Other assumptions to on- / off-street parking include:
Free parking:
90-min on-street parking outside the Southeast Quadrant
2-hr on surface lots outside the Southeast Quadrant
3-hr in parking garage
Daily parking as indicated in map
Permit parking as indicated in map.
Recommendation #2:
Increase employee parking location options.
Expand “X” permit parking into Fourth & G garage, subject to negotiations with property owner.
Develop the “Regal Lot” at the northwest corner of Richards Blvd & Olive Drive for “X” permit parking.
Utilize Old North Davis for lower cost employee parking through a new “O” permit. Proceeds of this permit would accrue toward infrastructure and traffic calming improvements in the Old North Davis neighborhood.
Consider Old East Davis as opportunity for additional “X” permit parking.
Actively engage in discussions with UCD on possibility of downtown employees using Lots 5 and 10.
Evaluate potential to operate evening shuttle for downtown employees parking in peripheral employee permit areas.
Recommendation #3:
Increase employee permit fees and streamline employee parking to single “X” permit.
Increase “X” permit fees to between a minimum of $10/month ($120/yr) and a maximum of $30/month ($360/yr).
A new lower cost “O” permit for Old North Davis which downtown employees could purchase should be priced at $8/month.
Recommendation #4:
Convert Amtrak Lot to paid parking.
Fee assumption: $5.00/day
Recommendation #5:
Restrict delivery vehicle double-parking between 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. for the area bounded by Second Street, Fourth Street, D Street and G Street (data could be used to refine limitations over time).
Recommendation #6:
Eliminate on-street green waste in downtown for the area bounded by First Street, Fifth Street, B Street, and the railroad tracks.
Recommendation #7:
Shift parking enforcement hours to 10:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m., Monday – Saturday.
Recommendation #8:
Establish tiered-fine citation system.
$43 for first citation (current fine)
$86 for second citation
$129 for third and subsequent citations
Recommendation #9:
Upgrade parking enforcement technology.
Recommendation #10:
Invest in electronic information systems.
Recommendation #11:
Develop transportation and parking alternatives campaign.
Recommendation #12:
Collect quarterly parking occupancy and turnover data.
Recommendation #13:
Explore voluntary private shared-parking district.
Recommendation #14:
Provide van-accessible parking upon street resurfacing.
Recommendation #15:
Streetscape Improvements.
Wayfinding
Landscaping
Lighting
Reduction of visual clutter
Removal of excessive objects in the sidewalk.
Recommendation #16:
Expand Parking Supply
$150,000 for a feasibility study, design concept, and preliminary engineering of a site-specific parking structure. Locations may include but are not limited to:
Boy Scout lot
F Street parking lot (bounded by Third, Fourth, E, and F Streets)
Amtrak lot
A to-be-determined location between B, C, First, and Fourth Streets
Recommendation #17:
Provide administrative resources necessary for successful implementation of the Downtown Parking Management Plan.
Improve marketing of all public transit options running into and through the downtown.
Negotiate with Yolobus to bring the 42 buses into the core by extending service down F Street to 3rd Street, down 3rd to B, up B to 5th and back on its previous route.
Consider ways to provide “late bird” service using Unitrans or DCT mini-buses to Mace Ranch, South Davis, West Davis and North Davis (4 unique routes) every 30 minutes from 8 PM to midnight on Thursday through Sunday each week.
Review downtown routes and timing with Unitrans so that downtown coverage is not interrupted/changed with UC Davis breaks or during the summer.
Encourage downtown merchants to offer small discounts, periodic specials (especially during events that draw large crowds) or less frequent opportunities to win large prizes for those who bike, walk or bus into downtown.
Recommendation #19:
Re-examine parking in-lieu parking fee policies and procedures.
New development
Conversion of uses
Outdoor dining
Fee amount
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 responsibility
of the Task Force Parking Recommendations.
2. The Davis Downtown through its Parking Committee continue to be involved in the further
refinement and implementation of the Integrated Downtown Parking Management Plan,
including the selection of parking enforcement technology, enforcement hours, and rates
charged
3. Additional on‐street diagonal parking be explored to increase parking supply
4. The timing of issuing of X permits be linked to business license renewals through
coordinated mailing and publicity campaign
5. Downtown parking information be included on the Davis Downtown website and app, not on
any City of Davis website or app.
They want to push this through on a 12 year old study. A study that was repudiated by one of the members and most of the public.
Speaking of 12 years ago….
Answering his own question in the commentary “Should We Go To Paid Parking in the Downtown?”
David Greenwald answered himself, “I question the utility of simply going to paid parking without building a new parking facility….”
August 10, 2013.
“David Greenwald answered himself, “I question the utility of simply going to paid parking without building a new parking facility….”
August 10, 2013.”
Well done, I love holding DG to his own words.
Of course I don’t have the same view I did 12 years ago. But we’ll let that go.
“What problem are you trying to solve?”
I ask that question almost every day on here, though it’s usually in reference to something more “serious” than a mere problem (e.g., some make-believe “crisis”).
“Reducing the number of cars coming in is the only viable solution.”
True – if the problem you’re trying to solve is too many customers coming to downtown Davis.
There are comparable medium-size university cities in California (e.g. Chico at 100K, SLO at 50K) that have paid on-street parking. Also, the downtown has changed a lot in the 12 years since the parking task force. As the staff report notes, the change would only affect 330 spots – about 16% of the total of spots downtown. Both SLO (https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/public-works/parking-services/downtown) and Chico (https://chicoca.gov/Departments/Engineering/Parking/) have nice city web pages describing all the parking options. Davis has only a Parking Enforcement page (https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/police-department/parking-enforcement). The best info on downtown Davis parking is from the downtown merchants page (https://davisdowntown.com/parking/).
Downtown SLO is dying.
Paying for parking is necessary and this is a place where the council really does need the courage to act in an informed way
There is an excellent video on this topic featuring the “shoup dogg” himself (RIP) you can watch here:
https://www.vox.com/videos/2017/7/19/15993936/high-cost-of-free-parking
The history of progress on this issue is absolutley bedazzled by incidents of not-understanding public citizens being up in arms, crying foul, declaring that restricting parking will “kill downtown businesses”
When they did similar things in the netherlands in the 70’s and 80’s the planning comissioners needed to hire BODYGUARDS because they were getting so many threats from downtown merchants.
But in the end, all those people worrying were wrong, the experts were right… creating a walkable space that isnt totally over-run by cars means that people come, they hang out, they spend time and money… the businesses do better.
This has been repeated many times.
The missing ingredient here however: If you are trying to limit parking and create a nice walkable downtown, you also need ALTERNATIVES TO DRIVING… our transit system goes to campus, not downtown, our bike parking downtown isnt great, and its hard to park e-bikes.
That is what is missing. Its not about revenue, its about the quality of the experience.
The proof: Does anyone go spend an afternoon walking around the Costco / target / bestbuy shopping center in woodland?
Nope.. LOTS of 100% free parking for maybe 20 total stores. That center is the size of ALL of our downtown, yet we have far more businesses, and its a place where humans like to be. Its not just “get in / get out”
What people dont get about car infractsucture is that there is no winning. THe more we build free parking and roads for cars, the more pople drive, so it will ALWAYS be conjested. If you apply an appropriate price to parking it is much easier to find parking because people wont over-consume parking, but now that parking isnt free.
We have to pick a lane.. either build for easy parking and desroy downtown, or build for pedestrians and bike / transit access, by restricting cars. Paid parking is THE most efficient way to do that. And you cant have both.
” . . .creating a walkable space that isnt totally over-run by cars means that people come, they hang out, . . .”
And then get run-over by e-bikes/motorcycles and e-scooters on their way to/from UCD (not downtown). But it’s o.k., because they leave “green” tire tracks on the pedestrians (and sometimes – regular bicyclists) that they hit.
I would rather be hit by an e-bike than a car.
There are:
~ 24,000 automobile fatalities every year
~7,000 deaths of pedestrians hit by drivers
~1,100 bicycle fatalitie
“The proof: Does anyone go spend an afternoon walking around the Costco / target / bestbuy shopping center in woodland?
Nope.. LOTS of 100% free parking for maybe 20 total stores. That center is the size of ALL of our downtown, yet we have far more businesses, and it’s a place where humans like to be. Its not just “get in / get out”
Talk about comparing apples to oranges.
Not only that – but Costco in particular IS a place where humans like to be (and linger – especially if they’re getting free samples. At which point, they’re sometimes blocking the aisles).
Plus, cheap gas.
Turns out that people like “a deal”, a place where employees are paid well, a generous return policy, a place with plenty parking spaces wide enough to avoid door dings, etc. (Who would have guessed?)
Perhaps a reason they call Road 102 the Costco Highway, which travels right past “North, North Davis”.
Turns out that people also don’t like to overpay for housing, regarding the latter.
Seems to me that “Woodland is for Everyone” – far more than Davis is. (Except for those who want to make their lives more difficult and expensive – while calling it “green”.)
Davis is kind of an upper middle class slum, in a way.
Heck, Woodland even has a Nugget store, for those who prefer to overpay. (The original home town of Nugget.)
Not really they are two ends of the same spectrum.
If you are commited to providing free parking AND have people NOT complain about being able to find a spot ( which is essentially what is happening in this thread) Then the way you solve that problem is to build huge parking lots around your shopping… the strip mall.
Our downtown was laid out before the automobile… it is EXACTLY the reason why it is nice. Parking will ALWAYS suck, as a rule, in downtown. Nice downtowns are not big parking lots, they are dense collections of stores that people can walk around and visit.
If we provided more free parking, more people would drive there and stay parked there for longer and you would have to bulldoze shops to create parking lots or structures. That is the pattern that “parking minimum” laws created and it ruined MANY american downtowns.
Our downtown plan got it 100% correct when they removed parking minimums. Charging for parking is the easy step #1, the next step needs to be really working on providing alternative ways to get people INTO downtown without their car: Transit and ample bike parking.
By the way, the new parking app systems make paying for parking a no-brainer. Whip out your phone, click the button… and $3 buys you an hour.
“If we provided more free parking, more people would drive there and stay parked there for longer and you would have to bulldoze shops to create parking lots or structures.”
The parking structure that was proposed was at 3rd/4th/E/F. It’s a city lot that currently has a parking lot. It would actually have included retail.
I generally support internalization of the costs of driving, inclusive of “dynamic pricing for temporary storage of private motor vehicles in the public right of way”*.
I have some concerns and questions about the “imposition”**:
But first of all, transit is not an alternative to driving: Everything is an alternative to everything else… Alternatively, walking (and moving slowly with mobility devices) is transportation, and everything else is alternative transportation.
In no particular order:
1) Tight guidelines in the approval for “Downtown uses to be determined by Council”;
2) Data collection and analysis to determine changes in traffic flow created by the expanded fee’d parking area;
3) An explanation of why fees are suspended in the evening and on weekends: This isn’t to protect workers, who shouldn’t be parking in 90 minute zones…. what’s the difference, in principle, between seeing a movie at 5pm and the same movie in the same theatre at 7pm?…. or between a restaurant for the same times?… my subjective truth is that Downtown is awful – not relative to Dixon etc… but to how it could be here: All the driving around, looking for “free parking” makes the place just as subjectively dangerous and inaccessible for elders and – as it is claimed – objectively inaccessible due to a lack of “free parking”… etc.
4) I agree with Tim K. that bike parking is problematic for e-bikes – the design of most of the racks does not fit modern frame dimensions that result from including batteries. It’s also a security issue. And more bike corrals, in more locations, not on the sidewalk… and space for child carrying bikes. Transit CAN be okay for some Downtown visiting from many parts of town, how ’bout we consider the Downtown uses mentioned above as possibly being fare free Unitrans?
* “paid parking” is oblique at best, and obfuscation doesn’t do it justice either. What’s “free” mean in this context?
** “Impose”? Really? So no fee is freedom and the other is an action of an oppressor? The natural order of things is a paved landscape and this is not natural?
Really, we need to re-think our thinking about public space and transportation… beyond replacing “accident” with “crash” – see the article about road rage – and we need to re-consider “blowing through a stop sign” directed at people riding bikes or scooters, as if stop signs are natural… not… imposed on these folks.
This isn’t about managing parking downtown. This is about extracting revenue from people to address the structural deficit of the city. They anticipate up to $2.6 million annually.
It is a complete myth that our current parking is free. It isn’t. Every parking space in Davis must be built, paved, striped, lighted, signed, enforced, repaired. Likewise, every trip by car depends on a road network that the City spends millions of dollars maintaining each year. – $10 million annually , yet city staff estimate that closer to $14 million per year is needed.
As parking economist Donald Shoup argued for decades, “free parking” DOES NOT EXIST—it is simply paid for somewhere else. And we have created laws to try to so enshrine this privleage of free parking that there are now 8 parking spaces for every car in the country.
In light of this massive subsidy, people complaining about paid parking are just showing their entitlement. Its the same thing about people whining about whether or not transit pays for itself….. we underwrite the living daylight out of car infrastructure and nobody bats an eye.
The liberterian in me thinks that where possible and efficient, we should have people who consume services pay for those services Paid parking simply asks drivers to cover a fair share of the costs they create rather than asking everyone else to do it for them.
People already pay for the parking spots through taxation. Just like bikers have already paid for their road usage through taxes and how pedestrians have already paid for sidewalks through taxes. Should we charge a fee for everything?
A cautionary tale from San Luis Obispo:
https://www.sfgate.com/centralcoast/article/downtown-slo-dying-21086622.php