We have to ask again whether Davis needs a parking structure in the prime 3rd and 4th, E and F street location.
So it chose a project – actually several projets, but two large ones – the hotel and the parking garage – converting the current space that occupies the University Inn and Caffe Italia and creating a hotel conference room that can attract out-of-town conferences and compete with the Hiatt on the UC Davis campus, providing the city with desperately-needed revenue.
But we are going to pay around $14.1 million for this parking structure. Of that, $10.5 million will come from the RDA and another $3.6 million will come from other identified revenue sources.
At $50,000 a space, one councilmember dismissively scoffed that we would become known as the city with the finest parking lot.
It is our sense that council was panicked at the possibility of losing RDA money. That is to be expected, and so when city staff came to them back in March, they came to them with existing projects.
The parking structure had been planned for over seven years and they moved that forward. By the time council met last time, it had become clear that RDA funds really are not going to disappear.
The council has begun re-thinking this project, by the time planning began. The 5-0 vote in March changed to a 3-2 vote in July. Councilmember Sue Greenwald and Mayor Joe Krovoza emerged in opposition.
As we noted last month, one odd part of that vote is added-on language that reads: “The goal is completion of the Downtown Parking and Access Plan concurrently with construction of the new parking structure.”
In other words, they are somehow planning to build a parking structure at the same time they do an analysis of the downtown parking. We are going to build this huge and expensive structure, consuming the last large parcel in downtown Davis, at the same time that we do a study to find out if it is a good idea.
Last month we questioned whether the council even knew what they were voting on, as the public certainly did not, and as city staff merely handed out new language in advance of the meeting. That language opened up a completely new topic (the parking study) which was not on the noticed agenda, was not made available to residents sitting in the Council Chambers who are opposed to the garage, was not displayed on the overhead screens, was not repeated in the motion, and was never read into the record.
But more importantly now, we re-ask the question, do we need parking and do we need it in the form of a parking structure?
I know this may seem like a silly point, but should we not do a Downtown Parking and Access Plan before we spent $14 million and build a five-and-a-half story parking structure?
There are things I would clearly like to know and understand first.
I would like to know how much additional parking we need, where people park now, where people go after they park, how far they typically walk from parking spot to shopping.
Some of this was done in a 2007 downtown parking study now-planning director Ken Hiatt conducted.
A Police Department study in the ’90s concluded that 40 to 50 percent of all downtown curbside spaces were taken up every day by employees playing the move-your-car game.
Staff’s 2007 study recognized this as well, and was to embark on a program to end that. They have not done squat on anything they told the Council they would do at that time, but now those EXACT same study priorities are put forth again.
I would like to study this location compared to other locations.
I would like to study ways to make the downtown more bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly.
I would like to explore an option where people park on the periphery and then walk to the core part of downtown.
I would like to explore the feasibility of a parking structure that enters onto Olive Drive and goes over the railroad tracks.
I would like to understand the feasibility of building of a huge structure at the railroad station.
Now, maybe the answer to all of these questions is “you are smoking crack, Greenwald,” but if I am indeed smoking crack, I would like to know it before the city spends $14 million. Hopefully, a study and a plan can help clarify.
Earlier this week, there was a public meeting in community chambers of the “Technical Advisory Group,” where the public (actually just members of the DDBA) had an opportunity to ask questions and provide comments on the work plan and scope of the City’s Downtown Parking and Access Plan.
The group voted 8-2 to advise council that they should suspend the parking garage project until the parking study is completed.
This is what the council should have done back in July. You cannot, on the one hand, put huge amounts of money, $14 million, into a project that you have failed to study in advance.
This should be common sense, but even with a new council that seems to have a lot more sense than the previous council, we still do a lot of things in this community plain old backwards – and that is putting it kindly.
Frankly, new Councilmember Dan Wolk, who appears to be the swing vote on the 3-2 vote, really flubbed this one up.
He had told the Vanguard that he voted for this measure primarily because he wanted to see what would be ultimately proposed – he was not ready to kill it.
That is fine, but one way he could have done that is to vote to complete the study of parking in the downtown. That would have allowed the project to not be killed but, at the same time, it would not have moved forward a project that might prove to be too expensive and unneeded.
Moreover, we have other priorities. How does the city providing more spaces for internal combustion engine vehicles – thus by definition encouraging more single-occupancy vehicular traffic and use – comport with the city’s goals with regards to climate actions and reduction of greenhouse gases?
The city is planning to invest in a $3.2 million expenditure to study a new at-grade railroad crossing. The city has gone forward with an application for an at-grade crossing, even though the CCJPA and CPUC have said they will oppose such an endeavor.
Certainly, a grade-separate crossing will exceed the $14 million budgeted for the parking garage, but putting aside that money might make it more likely the city can either get a grant or secure other funding sources to make such a crossing a more fiscally viable option.
This is about priorities, and you cannot convince me that a parking project that we may or may not need is the best way to revitalize our downtown. But if it is, let us do it right and study it appropriately.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]That meant the city risked losing millions of dollars if it did not vote quickly to encumber the funds.[/i]
Nope. It just meant that if they wanted to dedicate those tax dollar specifically to projects within the redevelopment area. they had to do that right away. They would not “lose millions of dollars.” The money we are talking about is South Davis and downtown property tax dollars.
How much did the RDA consultant stand to gain by the CC acting quickly to secure the bond monies?
Don: there was some thinking, at least back in February and March that the money would actually be raided.
[quote]Frankly, new Councilmember Dan Wolk, who appears to be the swing vote on the 3-2 vote, really flubbed this one up.
He had told the Vanguard that he voted for this measure primarily because he wanted to see what would be ultimately proposed – he was not ready to kill it.
That is fine, but one way he could have done that is to vote to complete the study of parking in the downtown. That would have allowed the project to not be killed but, at the same time, it would not have moved forward a project that might prove to be too expensive and unneeded.[/quote]
All Dan Wolk voted for was to more forward with the plan to allow conceptualized drawings to be drawn up to see what the proposed parking structure would look like. I did not particularly agree with this decision (I was more in line with Mayor Krovoza on this one), but I don’t think it was entirely unreasonable. Some members of the City Council wanted to at least discuss the option of a parking garage with some knowledge of what it would look like, and not kill the project outright. This was especially true in the light of the situation involving the RDAs, which were slated by the state to disappear altogether. The money for the parking garage or anything else would have been lost forever, if not put towards some project in the RDA zone.
As a member of the Transportation Advisory Group (TAG), I asked staff if it was necessary to move forward the parking garage plan with so much urgency, now that it looked like RDAs would survive. What I was told was that the bonds must be used for a capital project within 3 years. So there is still some degree of urgency, but not as much as there was when the parking garage proposal first appeared on the table as a part of the last gasp to spend RDA money quickly or lose it.
Thus TAG, with much thoughtful and fruitful discussion, voted to urge the City Council to allow us to put into place a Downtown Parking and Access Plan BEFORE MOVING AHEAD WITH ANY DECISION ON BUILDING A PARKING GARAGE. There may be good reasons to build a parking garage, or another location may be preferable for such a project. Or the concept of a parking garage should be perhaps changed to a multi-modal transportation center. We made a goodly number of positive suggestions to City Staff on our collective thoughts about issues we think need to be looked at in formulating any plan to build a parking garage. One of our key points was the need to gather data to determine actual and future parking needs. Do we truly NEED this garage?
Personally I don’t fault anyone here for proposing this particular project. The decision to move ahead with it prematurely was driven by political events outside the control of our City Council and City Staff. Now that the dire emergency situation is no longer there, it gives us a bit of extended time to be more deliberative about the process, and to think through perhaps a better plan for the use of that money. It very well may be a parking garage, but perhaps the concept will be a bit different, or it will be located elsewhere. I have no idea – but I have a very open mind about this project.
[i]The money for the parking garage or anything else would have been lost forever, if not put towards some project in the RDA zone. [/i]
Again, not true.
[i]Don: there was some thinking, at least back in February and March that the money would actually be raided.[/i]
The state would have saved a fairly small amount of money from dismantling the RDA’s. That wasn’t the purpose, nor was it in the specifics, of the governor’s proposal. But it certainly has become a popular belief among local government officials.
[quote]erm: The money for the parking garage or anything else would have been lost forever, if not put towards some project in the RDA zone.
Don Shor: Again, not true. [/quote]
Please explain…
The source of RDA funds is the increase in property tax dollars from the properties in the redevelopment district, over what the property valuation was at the time the RDA was created. Those dollars are called the property tax increment funds. That property tax money is shifted from general property tax revenues, which go to the county, the school district, and the city, into the RDA. Davis set up the RDA originally and used the funds to build highway overpasses, and to make the pass-through payments to the county to guarantee there would be no peripheral development. (Note that the RDA originally had nothing whatsoever to do with blight, and none of the funds have addressed blight in any of the projects that I am aware of.)
Should the RDA be dissolved, that property tax increment goes where all other property taxes go. If you live outside of South Davis, where does your property tax money go? Check your property tax bill and you will see. If you live in South Davis, a percentage of it goes to the RDA. None would be lost forever. It would just be distributed differently.
If the RDA is dissolved and all the debts are wound down, those incremental funds could go to any project anywhere in the city. Presently they can only go to projects in the RDA district, or to affordable housing projects. So when Barbara King asked if RDA funds could be used to pay for street repairs, the answer is no, unless they are within the RDA district. But they can be used for pedestrian bulbouts, fancy landscaping, paying consultants for B Street visioning, etc., because they are within the RDA district. Can they be used to address blight in East Davis? No. Can they be used to offset some of the costs of the water and sewer projects? No. Can they be used to prevent employee layoffs? No. So we will find ourselves in the position of building a fancy downtown parking garage while laying of city staff.
It may be a moot point now, though, because the bonds have been issued and sold. At least, I think they have. Rich would know. So the tax increment is encumbered already, and I doubt if that can be undone. I consider that a very short-sighted action on the part of the city council, benefiting downtown Davis at the expense of other parts of town, for a very long time to come.
Thx Don for explanation. I again ask then why can’t some of the RDA $ be SPENT on South Davis to make it more charming since we contribute and so far the charm has been car lots, empty car list, fast food and a restaurant that has been a revolving door and now an eyesore for years.
Well, now I believe the RDA funds are over-budgeted. So it’s too late for South Davis to add any projects to the mix. Check Rich’s Aug 16 column in the Enterprise.
[quote]why can’t some of the RDA $ be SPENT on South Davis[/quote]It can be… talk to staff and/or electeds.
[quote]to make it more charming since we contribute[/quote]You pay no more, nor no less than you would without the RDA. What you appear to be saying that a certain amount of what amounts to GF $’s be spent in your neighborhood, but the rest of us pay our taxes and they are not earmarked for ours.
Our contribution benefits a parking garage. That is my point. Actually a parking garage might fit in well with the rest of poorly planned (as far as commercial) SDavis. But at $50K/space maybe it is a charming garage!
[b]Palo Alto tries to fill underused downtown garages
City plans to install new way-finding signs, change pricing structure for parking permits
[/b]
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=22285
[quote]Our contribution benefits a parking garage. [/quote]
OK… and mine backfills YOUR contribution to pay for services to South Davis… are your tax dollars more “special” than mine?
[i]and mine backfills YOUR contribution to pay for services to South Davis.[/i]
I think it is almost certain that more money had been spent on projects for the downtown than anywhere else in Davis.
And the downtown is lovely…..don’t get me wrong. It us just that I do not believe the same planning and consideration has been taken for S Davis.
@ Don: yes, but when you look at the taxes we ALL pay, that may be true… just because the CC spends money in one area disproportionally, SODA pays at no different rate than I do. If “his” share goes to downtown, mine makes up for “his share” of other city/county/school district needs.
[i]”I know this may seem like a silly point, but should we not do a Downtown Parking and Access Plan before we spent $14 million and build a [b]five-and-a-half story[/b] parking structure?”[/i]
I believe the plan is for a four-and-a-half story structure. On one side it will rise to five stories; on the other side four.
[i]”If the RDA is dissolved and all the debts are wound down, those incremental funds could go to any project anywhere in the city.”[/i]
This is true, but the funds available would be less. Currently, even with the changes made by the state this year, it pays to have an RDA (within a city, as we have in Davis), because it nets out more money for the city.
Let me briefly quote from my column: [i]”In 1987, when the RDA was established, that real estate had a taxable value just under $360 million. In 2010, the same territory had a taxable value of nearly $1.40 billion. The difference between the two, called the increment assessed valuation, was $1.04 billion, last year. At a tax rate of 1 percent, the property tax paid on the $1.04 billion of added value was $10.40 million. The gross tax increment is estimated to be $10.47 million, this year.”[/i]
Of the $10.47 million, the DRDA gives 20% off the top to the low-income housing fund:
$10.469 minus $2.094 equals $8.375.
Next, $134,000 for county admin and $129,000 for something called “senior admin” (which has nothing to do with older people) are taken out, leaving $8.112 million for “senior pledged revenue.”
Next, $153,000 is taken out for something called a 1290 pass-through payment. After that, the county pass-through of $3.146 million is removed.
That leaves $4,813,000 for the Davis RDA to make its various bond payments (not counting the bond payments for low-income housing, which are paid out of the 20% low-income housing fund).
Before this year’s borrowing of $18 million, the DRDA had bond payment obligations of $1.368 million. That left “subordinate tax revenues” of $3.445 million for the new borrowing.
To understand why it is a good deal for the City of Davis to have an RDA within its borders, consider first how much of that $10.469 million would go into the City’s coffers if we had no RDA: 20%*** or $2.094 million.
Second, look at how much of that $10.469 million goes to Davis through the RDA: A) all of the $2.094 million for low-income housing, which we would not have otherwise; and B) all of the $4.813 million we are using to finance infrastructure projects.
In other words, with an RDA, Davis gets $6.907 million out of the $10.469 million increment. That is 66%. Without an RDA, Davis gets $2.094 million. That is 20%.
—————-
***I am not completely certain on this 20% figure. I heard that some years ago but cannot find a definitive source for how property tax dollars are allocated to cities when there is not an RDA. This slightly dated LAO report ([url]http://www.lao.ca.gov/2007/tax_primer/tax_primer_040907.aspx[/url]) says 18%.
A couple of points I need to add to my last post: This year, in order to keep the RDA, the state required the Davis RDA to pay the state $3.5 million. And going forward, the state will require the DRDA to pay $800,000 per year to the state.
These payments make the DRDA less valuable to Davis than it was. But it remains the case that Davis still benefits more by having and RDA than not having one, as long as the RDA funds are not misspent. (I think many people in senior positions in Davis, including some members of the council, think some of the RDA money which funds some staff positions, is not being well spent.)
Rich, are you assuming the city would continue the pass-through payment to the county? RDA funds have been the source of that payment from the start. I assume that the $3.146 million payment would cease.
One problem I have with the way this is often portrayed is to look at the city’s revenues separately from the four agencies that are currently splitting the money: City of Davis, DJUSD, Yolo County, and the RDA. Anything that reduces one, increases another, and vice versa. The state has backfilled DJUSD because of revenues ‘lost’ to the RDA, for example. It was estimated at the time of the governor’s proposal that it could bring school districts over $1 billion a year immediately, and more over time as RDA’s were wound down.
Here is a comment by Susan Lovenburg from earlier this year about the Education Coalition’s support of the governor’s proposal: [url]http://www.davisvoice.com/2011/03/redevelopment-raids/[/url]
[i]”Rich, are you assuming the city would continue the pass-through payment to the county?”[/i]
I am, but perhaps that is a bad assumption.
It is my understanding that the amount sent to the county in the pass-through is equal to the amount the county would get if there were no RDA. In other words, since the DRDA was established, the county each year has been “made whole.”
Insofar as that is true, the county would be no better and no worse off if Davis got rid of its RDA. If you believe (or know) that I am wrong here, please correct me.
[i]”One problem I have with the way this is often portrayed is to look at the city’s revenues separately from the four agencies that are currently splitting the money: City of Davis, DJUSD, Yolo County, and the RDA.”[/i]
Good point. Nonetheless, the Davis City Council is charged with making decisions which are in the best interest of the City, not the other entities. And if having an RDA is in the best fiscal interests of the City, then it is logical to have one.
One last point: in my RDA column, I tried to explain how the RDA affects all school districts and other districts (like the cemetery districts) in the county. However, after talking it over with the top level staff I was so confused–I think they were too–that I just deleted that portion of my column and stuck with what I knew (or thought I knew).
[i]If you believe (or know) that I am wrong here, please correct me. [/i]
I believe you are right, but I don’t know it, that it would be a wash for the county (I can’t even find out how much the county exactly loses to RDA’s). But my assumption has been that the city payment to the county would cease. I am not even very confident of your 20% figure, frankly, because the whole process is so Byzantine.
Rifin said
[b]In other words, with an RDA, Davis gets $6.907 million out of the $10.469 million increment. That is 66%. Without an RDA, Davis gets $2.094 million. That is 20%. [/b]
Just to complete that thought- if Davis did not have the RDA they would get $4.8 million less ($6.9-$2.1). If Davis did not get the $4.8 million, where would it go?
[i]” If Davis did not get the $4.8 million, where would it go?”[/i]
Alphonso, I wish I could answer your question with confidence. I can’t. However, I think most of the $4.8 million comes out of the state budget, because most of it is owed to the school districts in California and the state backfills any property tax money owed to the schools which is lost to RDAs.
The rest, I think, would go to special districts, like the Davis Cemetery District. How much the special districts lose, I don’t know.
Sorry, these numbers don’t add up. “Without an RDA, Davis gets $2.094 million.” I think that has to be incorrect, unless you balance back in the amount paid to the county. In that case, the net impact on the city is considerably less, at least on paper. Somehow the apportionment of these funds between the four main parties, plus the small special districts, needs to be analyzed in total — not just the impact on one of the entities.
Excellent discussion (thanks Don and Rich for fuller explanations). It becomes clear that there is probably no way of knowing precisely how much dollar-wise Davis gains from having RDAs. What does seem fairly clear is that Davis will get more by having RDAs in place than by doing away with them. That said, I do think there is some justification at the frustration expressed here and elsewhere that RDA funds seem to be spent almost exclusively on the Downtown and not specifically on what most would call “blight”. However, there is a point to be made that a vibrant downtown increases everyone’s property values that lives within the city limits of Davis, so to that extent every Davisite benefits.
I see no profit in rehashing an RDA debate that has long since been settled. But I will take a stab at correcting a few inaccuracies in DG’s reporting.
1)DG frames the discussion all wrong with is opening question of “We have to ask again whether Davis needs a parking structure in the prime 3rd and 4th, E and F street location?” The pertinent question pertaining to this retail & parking project is “We have to ask ourselves whether Davis desires a diverse, robust, vibrant Downtown with more retail, dining, activities, events, workplaces, and housing as foreseen in the General Plan and Core Area Specific Plan.” If the answer is “no”, then we do not need this project, but we do need a new GP and CASP. If the answer is “yes”, then the pertinent follow up question is “How do we go about achieving this improved Downtown?” The DDBA’s response to the first question is “yes” and the response to the second question is “implement the 5 Downtown Priority Action Items” two of which are addressed by this retail & parking project. The two DPAI’s addressed by this project are: (1) develop city-owned surface parking lots for a higher and better use; (2) construct an additional mid-sized parking structure. I’d be happy to discuss the underlying rational for why the DDBA feels the 5 DPAI’s are the most effective steps the City can take to achieving a much improved Downtown if the bloggers have further interest in this matter.
2)This is not a parking structure project; it is a redevelopment project with parking being only one component/aspect of the project. The primary aspect of the project is to spur Downtown redevelopment.
3)The Council was not panicked into this project. This project was a long-standing Council and DDBA priority. What was missing these past years was a willing co-developer. A willing co-developer came forth in February, so now the long-stalled project is moving forward again.
4)S. Greenwald and Krovoza did not “emerge in opposition”, they flip flopped. No negative developments occurred to the project between March and July that could account for the flip flops. Indeed, nothing but progress was made in that time. Project costs did not go up, it didn’t become larger, uglier, change location, encounter hazardous material, buried artifacts, existing leasehold interests, or any other substantive development. Clearly, the flip flops are the result of politics. A close review of the videotaped comments from the dais at the March and July Council meetings will prove revealing.
5)The Council knew what they were voting on. They were voting on a retail & parking project. It had been discussed at publicly noticed monthly meetings for years. The project merits have been reaffirmed over and over again. S. Greenwald has been an active participant in many, many of these meetings. And Krovoza’s was the party responsible for the Downtown Parking and Access Plan curveball, not staff. That was never part of the project previously. There is nothing new to these last minute panicky actions. We have a long history of talking and planning projects only to recoil in horror when a project is actually undertaken, especially in the Downtown.
6)We have studied this location compared to other locations ad nauseum. The result of these studies is 3/4/E/F is the most practical location. Indeed, it is the only site within the City’s sole control that can be developed.
Tirade continued.
7)The DDBA and other organizations continually study was to make the downtown more bicycle- and –pedestrian friendly. DG falsely implies that this is not the case. The project is intended to improve the pedestrian shopping and dining experience. Indeed, the DDBA has been advocating that the project be leveraged by making significant pedestrian infrastructure improvements along E Street between the project site and Davis Commons. S. Greenwald has been the primary opponent to such improvements I might add.
8)The DDBA was not provided an opportunity to ask questions and provide comments at the TAG meeting earlier this week. DG’s statement to the contrary is false. Indeed, when a kerfuffle arouse over this matter at the meeting, a DDBA rep stated unequivocally that a noticing error had been made and there was no intention of asking questions and providing comments. The DDBA had no need for public comments as the TAG has a DDBA rep.
9)The project has been studied over many years, the $14 million is being spent after, not before the studies. This project is not progressing backwards. DG’s claim to the contrary is false.
10)Wolk has not “flubbed this one up”. His actions to date have been spot on. As the newest Council member, he has had the least involvement in the project which explains his desire to see what ultimately is proposed while keeping his options open. This position stands in stark contrast with those who claim they’ve been kept in the dark, but then advocate for blocking preliminary design work to be followed by a public process with public meetings (PC, HRC, CC, to name but a few). Ironic is it not?
11)The project is intended to accommodate not just internal combustion engine vehicles, but many types of vehicles. Swanson and Souza spoke specifically of electric vehicles. It is false to claim otherwise. Indeed, this is one aspect that the preliminary design work is intended to explore. So again, why block the design work?
12)The Council has weighed numerous RDA priorities over the years and is constantly re-evaluating the priorities. This project has always risen to the top. It is false to assert otherwise.
[quote]8)The DDBA was not provided an opportunity to ask questions and provide comments at the TAG meeting earlier this week. DG’s statement to the contrary is false. Indeed, when a kerfuffle arouse over this matter at the meeting, a DDBA rep stated unequivocally that a noticing error had been made and there was no intention of asking questions and providing comments. The DDBA had no need for public comments as the TAG has a DDBA rep. [/quote]
Thanks for this specific clarification, and for your thoughtful response. I think it is important to keep an open mind about this project, and explore possibilities…
Agreed. A thoughtful, open-minded, exploration of the possibilites would be a boon to the community.
[i]”Sorry, these numbers don’t add up. “Without an RDA, Davis gets $2.094 million.” I think that has to be incorrect, unless you balance back in the amount paid to the county.”[/i]
My number probably is incorrect, because I don’t know how the property tax monies would be allocated without the RDA.
That said, the majority of the tax increment (a bit more than 50% I am told) would go to the K-12 schools. The county would get its same percentage, which is 31.33%. So even if Davis would get more than 20%, it cannot be much more. Some monies go to the flood control district, some to the cemetery district, and a substantial amount goes to the Los Rios Community College District.
Also, I think some small amount goes to the vector control district.
Rich, I would be interested in comparing notes with you at some point about the RDA allocation, as I have found it very hard to find clear answers.
Thanks to DT Businessman for taking time to respond in detail on this parking issue. I am aware that parking has been the #1 priority of DDBA for years and that this project has been on track for some time. What has changed is that recently some have questioned the basic premise that more parking is needed downtown.
Here is David’s comment from Aug. 13:
““I simply, in the end, believe that we took up a project – a parking project in the heart of downtown that we do not need. We have enough parking spaces. I would prefer not to encourage more vehicular traffic in our downtown and so any new parking structure should be on the periphery with the hopes of inducing people to park and walk.”
His comment is based on surveys by Davis Bicycles! which he discussed in a July 19 commentary: [url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4544:is-new-parking-structure-needed-at-e-and-f&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86[/url]
I am sure readers here would be interested in information you have that substantiates the need for more parking.
DS, I do not have a 30 second soundbite response. The answer was touched upo in #1 further above. This is not a parking structure project; it is a redevelopment project. Infrastructure improvements are necessary to achieve a bigger, better Downtown. We need to construct more quality retail, quality office space, incubator space, residential units, and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. But where? Where are the property owners that are going to demolish mediocre, but profitable buildings to construct new 3 and 4 story mixed-use buildings? And where will these developers put the very costly parking to support these new mixed-use buildings? For starters, the City, which explains the DDBA advocacy for (1) developing city-owned surface parking lots for a higher and better use. The constraint at 3/4/E/F is one can’t simply replace the existing onsite parking with retail/office/residential. That would reduce the supply of parking, which is already tight at peak times/days. One has to build a parking structure to recapture the lost surface parking. We also need a parking structure to support the 12,000 sq. ft. of new retail space otherwise one would have extreme difficulty attracting quality tenants. Since we HAVE to build a parking structure anyway, we may as well construct a net gain of parking spaces. That then provides flexibility to take away some on-street parking spaces elsewhere in Downtown to extend curbs for outside dining, bicycle racks, pedestrian amentities. It also It also provides extra parking that will hopefully spur developers to construct mixed-use projects within a 1-2 block radius since. Such developers will not have to construct as much on-site parking for their projects, which is very difficult to do given such small downtown parcels. This is the whole point of RDAs. Their job is to frontload investments that then spur additional private sector investment. We saw it with the 1st and E structure which spurred a movie theater and The Lofts with more on the way. And we saw it with the 4th/G structure which spurred a movie theater, restaurants, offices, Village Pizzeria, the Roe Bldg., the YFCU, and all the tenants that go with those projects. There is no doubt in my mind that 3/4/E/F will have a similar stimulus effect.
I’d also like to point out that the argument put forth by Davis Bicycles! and others is assumes a static environment. It assumes that there will be no increase in Downtown visitors or at least no increase in Downtown visitors arriving by car. There is no doubt in my mind that we will continue to see increases in the numbers of visitors arriving by car even if we don’t build anymore retail space, office space, or residential units. More and more people from around the nearby region are discovering our Downtown, our Farmers Market, our Ceramic Clay Conference, our 2nd Friday Art About, our movie theaters, our restaurants, our Bicycle Hall of Fame, Thursday Night Live at the Odd Fellows, the list goes on and on. And the UCD is generating a tremendous number of Downtown visitors as well.
This is why the DDBA advocated for saving the RDA and this is why we are advocating for the 3/4/E/F project. It is not a parking structure project. It is much, much more.
Thanks for the explanation.
I think most people are unaware that new developments have to provide parking proportional to their size and use, and/or pay ‘in lieu’ fees for city-provided parking. For example, when we built our nursery we had to provide five on-site parking spaces based on a formula from the square footage of our retail space (in our case there was no in lieu option). So we had to give up 1/4 of our total lot for parking. If the 3/4/E/F site is developed for retail and commercial, it will have to provide parking for those uses somehow. Hence the configuration of a mixed-use building with parking above the other uses.
So as you say, it is a misnomer to call it a “parking structure.”
DS, your nursery is a great example. The parking along Fifth Street is tight! And it’ll be even tighter once the vacant Far Western space is leased out. Even if code didn’t require you to put in 5 parking spaces, you’d still have to put parking in from a practical perspective. Where would your customers park otherwise? The parking issue would be even more problematic if you were a restaurant. And if the you wanted to build a 2nd or 3rd story with offices or apartments, you wouldn’t be able to do it. This is the major constraint that Downtown is confronted with. The properties are predominantly 1 and 2 story properties. One simply cannot densify it without providing for additional parking.
So now we’ve come to the heart of the 3/4/E/F debate. The bicycle advocates and the Cool Davis proponents firmly believe that autos will become obsolete in the next decade or two. Not only do the believe internal combustion engine autos will become obsolete, they think ALL vehicles will become obsolete (electric, Luke Skywalker air sleds, what-have-you). Therefore, why spend $15 mil on infrastructure that will be obsolete in 10 – 20 years. I suppose there’s a possibility of such an outcome, but I’d assign a very low probability to it. And I find it unreasonable to plan our infrastructure around such a low probability outcome. We’re not doing it anywhere else in the community, why constrain the Downtown in such a fashion? I think it’s pretty safe to say the business community, not just in the Downtown, will go apeshit if the City Council designs our future infrastructure needs on the basis that ALL vehicles will be obsolete in 10 to 20 years.
[i]”I think most people are unaware that new developments have to provide parking proportional to their size and use, and/[b]or pay ‘in lieu’ fees[/b] for city-provided parking.”[/i]
I think the only part of town which is allowed to pay in-lieu fees is the core area. Everywhere else I think the developer has to provide the requisite parking spaces.
I think in-lieu fees are a great idea. But I have two problems with how they have been handled up to now in Davis:
1) the fee is too low. Last I checked it was $4,000 per space. It costs far more than that in reality. Each of the 350 spaces which will be constructed in the E/F garage is going to cost $33,714. That is more than 8 times the in-lieu fee; and
2) the added parking spaces built with the in-lieu parking fund (which now has $425,000 after roughly 1,000 spaces were waived for in-lieu fees) are going to be too far from where many of the fee-payers’ projects are located in the core area. For example, Chuck Roe paid in-lieu fees for his Crepeville building at 3rd & C. I support that. But no new parking spaces will be added anywhere near there. Same thing for a few projects I know of in the Rice Lane/B Street area.
I don’t know if this ever had any chance, but I sure think it would have been smart to explore the idea of building a parking structure at 2nd & B on the parcel owned by Jim Kidd which has a mini-mart and a few other store sites plus some apartments. My idea is that there could be retail right up against B Street with set-back office on the second floor. The parking garage would be built on three stories plus the roof, mostly on the east side of that parcel.
The reason I like that site is because that is the part of downtown which has the greatest current parking deficit relative to demand.
That said, I don’t think the E/F concentration is bad. More and more I tend to support the garage on E/F. I hope this will result in at least these two consequences:
1) People who work in the core area who now park on the street will start parking all day in the E/F garage and thus free up more on-street spaces for customers; and
2) G Street, from 2nd to 5th will (over time) be able to become more verticle. My vision for that street includes more ground-level retail which faces the street. That means storefronts, not parking lots, on G where the Davis Ace home store is and where the Davis Ace hardware store is. I would like to see more second story office and more third story residential along G Street as well. For that, the E/F garage will be important.
RR, raises an aspect to this project that have heard many times the past few weeks. Perhaps the ideal location for a mixed-use project is over there, or better yet over here. However, such musings are just that, musings. We do not live in a command economy where the state can dictate where a particular development is to occur. Most of Downtown is owned by private private owners, not the City. Even some City-owned properties are subject to property rights owned by other parties, the train depot for example. Downtown development is opportunity driven. A parcel becomes available, there’s a window to develop it, and then the window closes. We either take advantage of the opportunity, or we don’t. Just because there’s a developer willing to co-develope 3/4/E/F right now doesn’t mean there will be a willing developer tomorrow. And who’s to say Jim Kidd is willing to develop his B Street property. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. This constant 2nd guessing only results in no development.
Increasing the parking-in-lieu fee makes no sense whatsoever. We’ve had great difficulty in persuading developers to invest in the Downtown due to very high development costs, so the answer is to increase the costs further? Why do you think development has been pushed to the periphery the past decade or two leading to further sprawl? Because development costs in the Downtown are too high! That’s why we need the RDA to step in.
@ Rich: I should have clarified that in-lieu is only an option for downtown developments, and I’m not sure how far that extends. It was not an option for us, and we would have provided on-site parking anyway. But the amount and type of parking we had to provide was dictated by the city.
For many types of business, auto access with convenient parking is essential. You’re not going to carry home your futon, bookshelves, or 15-gallon tree on a bicycle. Merchants are happy to provide outlets for your electric vehicle.
Don
None of the items you mentioned are going to be carried home in my Honda Civic Hybrid either. Are we therefore going to plan primarily for the needs of those who drive large vehicles ?
I can get the 15 gallon tree into your Honda Civic. You’re on your own with the futon and bookshelves.
The overwhelming majority of shoppers travel by vehicle, even in Davis. Planning needs to be realistic.
Don’s point is that many, even most, businesses require parking for their customers, not to mention their employees. Most of their customers don’t arrive by bicycle. medwoman, what’s your point? Does your Honda Civic not require a parking space? Do you park it at a bike rack? Or fold it up and stick it in your purse upon arrival?
And let’s talk about employee parking needs for a moment. I don’t have any statistics, but my observation is the vast majority of Davis employees and business owners arrive at work by car. Are they going to park their cars at bike racks or fold them up into their purses or backpacks?
I heard the 3/4/E/F project was controversial, yet there’s been no rebuttal to my arguments in favor of the project. Is everyone on a 2-day bike tour or a peak oil conference? David, surely you’re going to respond to the 12 corrections I posted this morning? Geez, blogging to myself isn’t much fun.
LOL! DT Businessman… I was thinking the same thing.
On Don’s comment about the 15 gallon tree in the Honda Civic… there are generally five criteria people use when selecting a place to shop: price, selection, service, convienience and destination. Destination is usually not a primary consideration, it is a tie-breaker. For example, Nugget is a very well-designed destination grocery store… but if it didn’t have high service and selection, many of us would blow it off for being too far away and too costly.
I think these days most shoppers put convienience as their top criteria. Selection is second (and it is linked to convienience) and price is third. Service is still important, but frankly the availability of product information on the Web has reduced the need for product information from the merchant. These days service is an aggrevator more than something to be used to differenctiate a store. For example, if the service is real bad people will stop returning. However, if the service is real good, but there are other issues with convienience and selection… people will also stop returning.
My view of the downtown is that it is a destination and that can be leveraged to some degree. However, if the downtown merchants cannot compete on convienience, they will still lose shoppers to the alternatives… because selection and price already pose competitive difficulty.
A bike and pedestrian-friendly downtown will improve the destination quality for bikers and walkers within biking and walking distance, but at the expense of convienience for those needing to drive… especially for shopping at Ace hardware and Hibbert Lumber where you need at least a Honda Civic to haul products.
My three cents.
Note that service is a more important criteria for service businesses like hotels and restaurants. But if I cannot find a parking place within easy walking distance and have to drive in circles… my room and food selection/quality has to be very, very high.
Using the formula we were required to follow, a retail development on that site of 12,000 sq ft retail space would have to provide 50 to 100 parking spaces for those stores; most likely the higher figure, but staff could confirm the current formula of spaces per square foot. The project would remove 120 parking spaces, so it is likely they would have to replace those. So whatever goes in at 3/4/E/F would need to provide about 200 parking spaces just to keep even. So retail development of that site, which would be very beneficial to the city in many ways, needs to provide a couple of hundred parking places minimum. If it provides some more, in the form of long-term parking for downtown business employees and owners in particular, so much the better.
I have other views about what should be done to the RDA, but those are moot since the bonds have been sold. People need to look at this as a retail and commercial development proposal that also addresses downtown parking. The cost per parking space is not a useful metric. The question is whether this investment in a downtown retail development would increase sales tax revenue to the city and redound to the benefit of residents citywide.
DTB:
Sorry, Saturdays are busy days for me.
In response… generally I don’t see that you are pointing out inaccuracies, what you have done is disagree with my opinions, which is fine. But you haven’t refuted them, only disagreed by stating your own opinions.
1. I don’t see how you address the question of whether or not we need a parking structure here. You have to convince me that there is a need, when we have empty parking lots. You also have to convince me on the location, there are other locations (Olive DR, Train Station), I would prefer if you convince me that we need parking.
2. That’s largely just rhetoric. The largest feature of the project is parking with a few small retail outlets around it.
3. It was complete panic and they grabbed the most convenient projects.
4. They didn’t flip flop, they saw the details, they also saw the lowered urgency with the state not likely to eliminate their money.
5. The reference to knew what they were voting on had to do with added language that was shown to the council not the public at the meeting itself.
6. Then why is the city engaging in a parking plan?
7. I did not imply that the DDBA or other organizations did not study to make the DT more bike and ped friendly, I only argued that it is not.
8. But the city ended up noticing the DDBA membership but not the general public.
9. I disagree. We are creating a parking study and at the same time building parking. I’d like to see why we need more parking spots and why there.
10. He told me he wanted to study it, but he should have pushed forward with the parking study first and then move the project forward rather than both at the same time.
11. The point is that the project will suck more cars to where we really do not want them.
12. Sorry but I still disagree with the prioritization of a parking structure on EF.
Good to have you back DG, game on.
1) I pointed out that this project is primarily about redevelopment, parking is a secondary consideration, yet you go on and on about parking. I also provided detailed reasoning at 2:59PM, yesterday for why parking structures are necessary for redevelopment in an urban setting. Did you fail to see the 2:59PM post or not understand it? Your criticizing this redevelopment project for being a parking structure project is akin to me criticizing your blog for being a terrible novel. They are two different things with two different purposes. As for the location criticism, I provided detailed reasoning at 6:33PM yesterday. Again, did you overlook the post or did you not understand it? You are not engaging on the substance of my comments, merely repeating what you first reported Friday.
2) Again, you are failing to engage on the substance of my arguments posted at 2:59PM yesterday. Furthermore, you are disregarding an entire year of DDBA advocacy with numerous presentations at CC retreats, CC meetings, 2×2 meetings, BEDC meetings, PC meetings, BAC meetings, DDBA Board meetings, DDBA Brown Bag Lunches. All these meetings are publicly noticed, yet based on your reporting the previous year did not even happen. Finally, you seem to be entirely unfamiliar with the history of this project as if it just popped up out of nowhere. The preliminary feasibility of this project was done in 2004. The feasibility study is titled “Downtown Davis Parking and mixed-Use Development”. The project was conceived as a mixed-use project from the very beginning. Four scenarios were analyzed. The Council and Yackzan Group is proceeding with Scenario #1. The mix of parking and retail is driven by site and design constraints. You make it sound like one can simply wave a magic wand and then design and construct whatever one wishes. It’s not rhetoric, it’s reality. Geez!
3) You’re right, it was panic. After 7 years of talk, analysis and negotiations, 2 council members panicked because we were actually going to do something. You are pretending that past 7 years did not happen. This project has been on the shelf for 7 years. The details have not changed. The only thing that was missing was a willing co-developer. We now have a willing co-developer. You seem to mistake S. Greenwald for Rip Van Winkle. And Joe Krovoza was being brought up to speed before he even joined the Council. You can go on pretending this is a new project catching the Council by surprise if you like, but to do so is absurd.
4) See my response to #3. The Council been aware of the details since 2004. You appear to be arguing that 7 years is not enough time for their consideration. It is farcical to state that S. Greenwald is just now seeing the details. She and I have discussed this project every month going on 2 years at 2×2 meetings. It is a standing agenda item. I have personally discussed this project and Downtown redevelopment with Krovoza going back to before his election. You know not what you speak of.
5) Yes, the added language had to do with the parking and circulation, not the project itself. Krovoza initiated the parking and circulation language.
6) The City is engaging in ANOTHER parking plan because Krovoza said he wouldn’t support the project without one. I stressed “ANOTHER” because there is already a parking plan produced and updated monthly by the City together with the DDBA at the Parking Committee meetings. These meetings are publicly noticed. You seem to be unaware of these facts.
7) The Downtown is not bike and ped friendly? Compared to what? You are seriously mistaken on this one and are also disregarding ongoing efforts to improve this aspect of Downtown yet further. Frankly, this is an outrageous assertion. What evidence do you have to back it up? Focus groups? Metrics? Personal observations?
8) The City noticed the DDBA membership? I already told you this assertion is false. Prove your assertion by posting the City notice.
9) See responses to 1 and 2 above.
10) His recorded comments from the dais speak for themselves. He publicly said let’s explore the project further and we’ll see where it goes. I cannot account for what he told you privately. Presumably, he is coming under pressure from the bicycle community who have their own agenda. I would hope they would bring their agenda forward to be debated publicly instead of hiding behind their misleading “300 empty parking spaces on average” argument.
11) I don’t know where you want the cars. I want them off the street with Downtown visitors shopping, dining, and having a good time.
12) It’s one thing to have a disagreement over the priorities, quite another to have a disagreement over the underlying facts.
[i]The largest feature of the project is parking with a few small retail outlets around it. [/i]
That’s generally true of retail projects. The amount of parking:retail at Target is about 6:1, if I recall (19 acres of parking for 140,000 square foot store).
12000 sq ft of boutique retail could produce $100 – 200K in sales tax revenue to the city annually.
DTB:
(1) I met with one of the developers of this project a few weeks back, he told me there is a small amount of retail but mostly this is a parking structure. Now you are telling me the opposite. If this is really about redevelopment, then I would put in fully retail project at this location and add parking elsewhere.
(2) I still fail to understand the need for parking and the need for parking at that location
(3) Let me put it this way, if the council had not believed there was going to be a raid on RDA money, would they have pushed the project forward at this time -seven years or not seven years?
(4) What I see was the urgency to act dissipated and two councilmembers backed off and I’m not sure you have a full majority to go forward at this point.
(5) The added language was: “Direct staff to begin preparing a Downtown Parking and Access Plan accommodating all modes of travel, including bicycling and walking. Staff to return on September 6 with a workplan and timeline, along with a summary of issues to be addressed in the plan, after review by the Technical Advisory Group for the Transportation Implementation Plan. The goal is completion of the Downtown Parking and Access Plan concurrently with construction of the new parking structure.”
(6) SO can you direct me to the last parking plan?
(7) “The Downtown is not bike and ped friendly?” There are limited bike paths in the downtown. It is difficult to bike in there because you have traffic flowing in multiple directions. Third Street is okay, but the four ways stops are a mess. Second is bad. The North-South streets are problematic. Most of the bike people I have talked to agree. I’d rather see limited vehicular traffic through the DT with parking on the outside and walking and biking inside.
(8) The city noticed the DDBA through the DDBA mailer
(9) see my response to 1-2
(10) You just told me it was bike friendly, now you are telling me that the bike community disagrees with you assessment.
(11) I want the cars on the outside of the downtown parked, I’d also prefer people encouraged to come downtown without cars.
(12) I’m not sure what to make of your statement.
I probably won’t have time again today to respond. I have a lot of work to do this afternoon.
[i]then I would put in fully retail project at this location and add parking elsewhere. [/i]
Retail development in downtown Davis has to provide its own parking. Putting in “fully retail…at this location” would remove 120 parking spaces. There is no “elsewhere” that provides parking within reasonable walking distance of retail. I don’t believe you are making a serious proposal here. Please see my post above.
[i]now you are telling me that the bike community disagrees with you assessment. [/i]
I would like the bike community to provide more information about how they would see downtown Davis more bike friendly, or, in fact, how it is currently not. On your previous blog on this, I commented that the bike advocacy group was adversarial on this topic, and gave examples from their presentation to the council. They need to explain how adding parking in downtown Davis is harmful to the bike community. If they see it as a simple ‘more cars are bad for bicycles’ argument, then there is little likelihood of collaboration.
DG, your tenacity is laudable, but it’s now bordering on cognitive dissonance. DS is absolutely correct where he has responded to 3 of your comments. I’ll provide a fuller accounting using your numbering.
1) The entire ground floor of the proposed project is retail. More retail is not possible unless you do away with parking entirely. If you do away with parking entirely, you would not have a project. The City would be unable to attract a co-developer. Even if you could attract a foolish co-developer, the co-developer would not be able to procure financing. Even if you could attract a foolish co-developer, find a reckless lender, and build the project, you would not be able to attract retail tenants. Even if you could attract insane tenants, they would fail. You’d have a bankrupt, failed project. What are you thinking?
2)Somehing is not transmitting here. I give up trying to explaing this aspect to you in this forum. I’d welcome the opportunity to explain this to you in person.
3)Did you not see my previous response? The project was held up for lack of a co-developer these past 7 years. We now have a co-developer. That’s what’s pushing the project forward at this time. The RDA financing has been earmarked the entire time. This is getting repetitious.
4)The cause of the flip flopping is political based on a disinformation campaign. As I stated in my initial rebuttal of your reporting, nothing of substance has changed between the April meeting and the July meeting.
5)So? I already know this. Staff did not spring this on the community, Krovoza did. He flip flopped and added this roadblock, not the other way around as you have stated.
6)You can obtain the most recent plan from the City or the DDBA. I could email it to you if you shoot me an email. As I said, the plan is constantly updated. You make it sound like we’re operating in a vacum. What do you think the Parking Committee does?
7)Your moving the goal post. First you said the DT is not bike and ped friendly. Now you’re only saying it’s bike unfriendly. Does that mean you concede the DT is ped friendly? Our ped friendliness is one of DT’s greatest strengths, which is why your statement to the contrary astounded me. That said, the DDBA has been advocating for over a year for yet more ped improvements. Why have you not joined us in our advocacy? As for limited DT bike paths, hello!, there’s a lot of DT limitations, primarily space. Where are you going to put these bike paths? That’s why sharrows are being implemented. That’s why the DDBA advocated for a shared 3rd street corridor. Your statements do not reflect reality.
8) False. You’ve stated something similar to this 3 times now. Repetition will not make it true. You might try raising your voice, but I don’t think that’ll make it true either. The City is not the DDBA. They’re not even related entities. I believe you’re referring to a particular e-blast, not a mailer. It was a DDBA e-blast, the City had no part in it. Furthermore, the e-blast was an announcement for our Wed. Brown Bag Lunch, not for the Tues. TAG meeting. I personally proofed the final draft e-blast. There was no language at all pertaining to the TAG meeting. Unfortunately, a DDBA staffer of her own volition included TAG meeting language just before distribution. It was a total screw-up. I didn’t even know the language had been included until it was brought to my attention as the TAG meeting was already underway. I immediately stated that the DDBA would not be providing comments or questions as we have a rep on TAG. We were there solely as observers. The City had no involvement in the matter at all. Your accusations are false.
9)???
10)Huh? What assessment are you referring to?
11)I want to encourage visitors to Downtown period. I encourage visitors to come by bike, foot, skateboard, train, planes, and automobiles. I do not discriminate. Come and enjoy the wonderful things that Downtown has to offer. The more the merrier. I seek to remove barriers, not create them. DG, your advocacy, while perhaps well-intentioned, will have the opposite effect. It is provable if you care to meet.
12)I disagree with the facts that you have reported. I have now corrected a number of them at least twice, some three times. Your response is that you disagree with the priorities. It’s no wonder you disagree with the priorities given you are operating with a false set of facts.
[i]6)You can obtain the most recent plan from the City or the DDBA. I could email it to you if you shoot me an email.[/i]
Send it to me at donshor@gmail.com and I’ll upload it to a server.
Done.
Transportation and Parking Committee 2011-2012 Work Plan (through August 2012):
[url]http://davisretail.org/2011-2012P&TWorkPlan.pdf[/url]