This week a discussion and debate over the Davis Ace parking lot proposal became an entry point and at times a proxy for a much broader discussion over the impending Davis Core Area Specific Plan.
On January 10, 2017, the City Council directed staff to proceed with Core Area plan zoning and design guideline amendments. This week we noted that, in a way, if student housing is priority 1 for the city and the budget (along with revenue generation through taxes and economic development) is priority 1a, then the Core Area Specific Plan could rightly be seen as 1b.
What makes this process even more interesting is that, unlike peripheral housing and a peripheral innovation center and even a tax increase, the Core Area Specific Plan will be approved by the Davis City Council without a vote of the citizens.
As a result, the Core Area Specific Plan may end up being the policy area that could see the biggest change in the coming year.
Clearly, one big area of discussion for the Core Area Specific Plan will be a re-focus on the issue of downtown parking. We have pointed our fingers at the lack of progress in meeting the needs identified by the Downtown Parking Task Force.
The issue of paid parking perhaps is seen as the biggest point of contention. Some would argue that the problem we have is not a supply issue, but a management issue.
As Mark West, who filed the appeal against the Ace parking project, put it in a comment, “What is more important, the absolute number of parking spaces present or the availability of a space when you need/want it? Parking spaces are expensive, so why build more spaces when there are tools available to better manage the availability of the ones we already have?”
He said, “We eventually will need to increase capacity, but we won’t know how much we need to add until we have the current inventory managed properly.”
From Councilmember Brett Lee’s perspective, we don’t have a supply issue, “we have a parking management issue.” He added, “Paid parking is a very important if not essential tool in the management of demand.”
Mayor Robb Davis was willing to accept blame for the shortcomings of the Parking Management Plan and lack of follow-through, but in some respects the shortcomings of the plan happened before he was on the council, as exemplified by the 2014 column by Rich Rifkin that we quoted from earlier this week.
But I have repeated this comment several times because I think it hits the nail on the head – parking is, as Michael Bisch put it, a means rather than an ends.
He said, “My ‘concern’ is that we have not been achieving the agreed upon ends, which in this case is downtown redevelopment. Instead, all the focus is on the means (parking) with no regard for the ends (redevelopment).
“Parking is a tool (a means). It is not an ends in and of itself,” he argued. “Yet you have a number of commenters whose singular focus is on parking as if parking was the ends.”
This brings us to the Core Area Specific Plan and General Plan Update process. Back in January, the council passed a resolution, moving forward with a resolution that adopted preliminary directions for Core Area Policy and Code Amendments.
In it, they noted that “current City Council goals include the identification of opportunities for Core Area and other key area(s) in the city for ‘formed based’ visioning and planning, in conjunction with the General Plan Update, and that opportunities include the consolidation and clarification of development policies and codes in the Core Area.”
From our perspective, the biggest issue is what the downtown should look like.
Right now, there seems to be an underutilization of available and finite space in the downtown. Too many buildings are single-story or otherwise are poorly utilizing space.
We have discussed over the last several weeks the decline in retail in the downtown and noted that, in a way, that is part of a national trend that is seeing the decline in retail as internet commerce – notably Amazon – has increased its presence and role.
What Davis really could use is a redevelopment effort that sees downtown build upward with the ability to put retail and restaurants on the street level, offices in the middle levels and have residential above the retail and offices.
Would Davis residents support moving the downtown from the largely one- and two-story buildings to multi-stories? Could they support a downtown that is three to five stories?
What sorts of advantages would a denser and more vibrant downtown bring? What would be the downfalls?
Clearly, efforts to densify and build upward would increase pressure on meager parking supplies and transportation routes, but it could also bring much needed jobs, commerce, tax revenue and even housing to the core area.
Are the tradeoffs worth it? Is downtown as we know it now what would like to see, or would we like to see it become more?
It becomes a fascinating discussion that, while redevelopment money may be lacking, a clear vision of the downtown and support from the community could bring forward both private investment money and grant money to help fund this type of redevelopment.
But would the community support it? That conversation should be held and, frankly, as we have seen in the last few weeks, the place to hold it is here.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
As I understand it, the City hired or is about hire a team that is going to up to facilitate a opt-in-got-time-biased public process for the Downtown Core Area Specific Plan (DCASP), and that this process will start in the fall and take at least six months, which would mean that any City Council vote will be in the late spring 2018 at the earliest, not so long before the election process for two Council seats gets into full gear. So, for example, a 3-to-2 vote to plant the urban-carmanetically-modified Downtown seed created in the ad hoc bio-city-innovation center set up for the public process could mean that only one of the pro-voters is the Council starting at the end of the year? What if the Council votes against the Plan? Is the process thrown away? Or in fact does the Council vote for one of two different Plans? In terms of democratic robust-itude, how does this – for lack of a better metaphor – Dr. Jekyll (Measure J and R) and Mr. Hyde (DCASP) construct make any sense? More generally both are equally important, and more specifically, whereas J and R are mainly about horizontal growth Downtown CASP is about the vertical. Oh! Giant Tomato! In your infinite sky, Why do we use this people of Yolo Bypassed-process to decide how we live and die?
Say what?
I think David makes a good point about potentially considering higher buildings (3 – 5 floors) with retail, restaurants, etc. on the lower floors and a combination of offices and residential on the upper floors. I used to live near Walnut Creek and have seen its evolution from a low-rise downtown to a vibrant mix of retail, restaurants and residential. I was in Walnut Creek a few months ago and witnessed several 4-5 floor multi-use buildings–including residential–under construction. Of course, proximity to a BART station and shopping helps facilitate such development. In any case, perhaps it would be helpful for Davis planners and leadership to take a look at what Walnut Creek is doing.
Oh, and the other thing about Walnut Creek. I did not see any “free” parking anywhere. It was all either parking garages (for a fee, with the possible exception of the Nordstrom garage), or on-street metered parking. One could pay for the metered parking either with cash or by using a parking app. Downtown Walnut Creek does not seem to be missing any foot traffic from metered parking.
Greg: I don’t think that’s accurate (or, at least wasn’t during the times I’ve visited the downtown shopping area). I recall free parking in a multi-story garage near the Container Store, downtown. (Not sure what the current status is, but I’ve used that lot several times over the past few years.)
Last time I was there, the (two-level?) lot outside of Macy’s was undergoing a major reconstruction. I seriously doubt that there’s any plan to charge for parking, in the “improved” lot (which serves the entire mall). I’ve parked in there, as well (and visited the mall and downtown).
It’s not likely that a major shopping area (e.g., drawing from the region) will do well, without free parking somewhere nearby. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. (“Validated” parking is a hassle/deterrent, as well.) Of course, San Francisco is an exception. But, that’s a different situation.
Come to think of it, it seemed that it was changing the last time I was there. (I thought the only restriction was 3 hours – free, but maybe it’s changed?) In any case, I did a quick search, and it seems that only the first hour might be free, now. Not sure about validation.
Below is a recent article regarding Walnut Creek’s parking challenges. (I particularly like the one suggestion regarding less-restrictive time limits at peripheral sites.)
As with downtown Davis, parking in one spot (and encouraging walking from there) seems like the best option (foot traffic, etc.). (Why would any merchants want their customers to be “rushed out” of the shopping area, or threatened with fines for staying awhile?)
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/06/15/downtown-walnut-creek-parking-fees-to-increase/
Interesting related article: http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20170625/how-to-take-advantage-of-the-retail-apocalypse-joel-kotkin
Much of the “death of big-box retail” discussion doesn’t really apply to Davis. Regardless, restaurants and similar businesses generate a need for parking, as well.
Creating new residences and businesses downtown will increase the need for parking. Very few new residents will spend their entire lives within a few-block radius of downtown Davis. And, most of them will still use autos when traveling outside of the downtown area (which could be for work, and non-work activities).
Sufficient parking on the periphery could serve businesses and new residents, while limiting the impact of auto traffic downtown. And, it ensures that downtown is still accessible to those who don’t live within a realistically walkable or bike-able radius (and/or, simply aren’t likely to start riding bicycles).
Ron wrote:
What is it? 3 miles? 3 miles or so, about 15 min., gets you from Davis Depot to:
* Julie Partansky Pond;
* Sycamore at West Covell;
* Village Homes (just barely);
* UC Davis South Campus;
* Site of Mace Ranch Innovation Center;
* Wildhorse Golf Club.
I’ve ridden from the Bicycle Hall of Fame to Oak Tree CVS in 9 min, and I’m not some skinny 20-something bike racer by any means.
Granted, some of or most of these are on-street without physical separation from cars. Davis is supposed to be solving that with what Americans call “protected bike lanes” and other infrastructure. Greenbelt paths are for the most part not designed for fast travel. We need to do a lot of work on this, and – frankly – everyone responsible for this is not doing a very good job.
Many cities are promoting the use of electric-assist bikes, which make that 3 miles/15 min a bit faster and easier. Davis should buy a bunch of electric-assist bikes already easily available in town and let people borrow them for two weeks to see how they like it (I don’t think that there are quite enough e-bikes in town to easily borrow one from a friend). DJUSD should subsidize a fleet of e-bikes for use by every student at DHS from the first day of 11th grade who lives more than 3 miles from school – students at any distance who have a physical disability which makes use of a normal bike difficult or impossible would get an adaptive bike. They would be able to keep them in the summer between 11th and 12th for a fee with up to 100% subsidies for low-income. At graduation they can buy the bike at a reasonable price or give it back.
“DJUSD should subsidize a fleet of e-bikes” Not sure where the money would come from but if you want to date said fleet or have a deep pocketed foundation on the line DJU may be interested in taking.
BTW I believe current law prohibits electric powered bikes on the bike path.
Jim Hoch: Actually, some of them are okay. A new definition of three types of electric-assist bikes was recently codified, so your error is understandable. It’s described in this rather comprehensive article recently posted by Cool Davis.
We should determine the budget for the DJUSD program and then set Downtown parking pricing and development fees accordingly to match etc. what’s available from other, non-corporate sources.
Todd, thanks for the clink. In other parts of CA I know that people have been cited for electric skateboards.
It seems to me that the two ingredients are 1) people and 2) something for them to spend money on. forcing people to commute is counterproductive as is housing them on campus, particularly in the west village.
Good question, actually. I suspect it depends upon the person (including but not limited to their age), the weather, the activities that they are pursuing downtown, and perhaps other factors.
Also, if one wants to attract visitors (e.g., those passing through, via Highway 80) or from adjacent communities, then the answer is that (probably) none of them will arrive via bicycle.
In general, it seems like some tend to think of this issue in terms of what they do, as an individual. (And, what others “should” do.)
Having said that, I like many of your ideas to “encourage” travel, via bicycle.
Oh – another factor: Whether it’s dark or not, which is more of a factor when there’s fewer daylight hours. (Strangely, this doesn’t seem to “bother” some, who bike at night without lights or helmets.)
I agree with you that it’s great if people choose to cycle instead of drive at night in order to decrease risks to others, and that drivers should wear helmets – seriously thanks for appreciating my ideas but according to some calculations drivers would benefit from helmets just as much as cyclists once a collision has already happened…. so why is that there’s not a helmet-promotion campaign for drivers here? (Every time a car leaves or enters Downtown etc. their driver gets a message “Your helmet creates a safety zone” just like the ones thrown at Davis children over the past few years. )
All the new bike share bikes we are getting here in Davis – the future “Appropriately-priced car parking capitol of the USA” – will have built-in lights with on-board power generation. This means they are always on, and adjust to suit conditions. Most new bikes in northern European come with built-in lights. I would like to figure out a way for more bikes sold here to come this way: I suggest a new state-implemented fee on the sale of a new car equivalent to the price of at least one factory- or aftermarket-lighting upgrade. With economies of scale $167 would be enough. That’s 0.5% of the average price of a new car! ($33,560).
Todd: I think you misunderstood what I said, but no problem.
More interesting ideas, presented.
Suggest that if you want to focus on something that will definitely be needed (for bicyclists and pedestrians), it’s going to be appropriate bike/pedestrian overcrossings from Olive Drive. (Others have more knowledge, regarding the details of that.) Seems like funding is an issue, regarding that significant investment. (Even with the planned development, there.)
On a more personal level, was kind of wondering if you are (always) able to avoid driving (e.g., when traveling outside of Davis, etc.).
I suspect that even the most avid bicyclists still rely upon motor vehicles (one way, or another), even if they (personally) don’t use them.
In the long run, I suspect that the internal combustion engine is on the way out. We’re already seeing signs of that, with electric cars and hybrids. (Some seem to forget that it’s the burning of fossil fuels which causes environmental concerns – and not the fact that it’s a private vehicle with more than two wheels.) (Yes, I realize that the generation of electricity is not always “clean”, either.)
By the way, check out the link below, if you’d like to see what sometimes happens when bicyclists and pedestrians share the same space (e.g., paths):
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/marcos-breton/article157835764.html
From personal experiences, I can also tell you how “uncomfortable” I have been with bicyclists racing by me, on the downward slope of a bicycle/pedestrian overpass. As a casual walking companion once said to me (after a bicyclist raced close-by at high speed), “what would happen if we stopped to tie our shoes”? (We didn’t dare walk side-by-side for any extended time or without constantly looking over our shoulders, even though there was plenty of room for bicyclists to pass.)
(I used the overpass regularly, to travel from a bus stop to home. Sometimes, the companion took the same bus line as I did.)
I’ve been “uncomfortable” in asserting my right-of-way in front of bicyclists in crosswalks downtown, as well. (Not so much with auto drivers, who almost always plan on stopping in advance of the intersection.)
Wonder what will happen in the “downtown of the future”, as more residences are built downtown, more bicycle commuters travel through from Sterling and other developments, and an overall aging population of pedestrians and motorists are all “mixed together”. (Then, add a few Ubers and Lyfts, for good measure.)
Should be “interesting”, I guess.
I am a Zipcar member, partly thanks to a hefty AARP discount. I use it to get to e.g. Winters or Elk Grove. I also use it to pick up something too large for my bike: I can get from where the Zipcar is parked, to the place with the large thing, to my home in the Green Meadows area and then back to its parking spot (unfortunately not so close, on J just north of 8th.. a very excellent Mazda 3 which has excellent control during emergency steering at typical Sac area dry weather 75 to 80 mph) all within an hour, so this costs less than $10 (gas is free; I pay an extra $9 monthly so I have zero deductible.. I ride my bike to Zipcar and back. Driving is unfortunately so under-priced that if I have to drive to Sac just to pick up something it’s cheaper than taking Capitol Corridor with normal tickers and likely much closer to my destination there.
Ron, you’re right about mixing pedestrians and cyclists! It sucks, and from what I can see in the studies for crossing from Olive to the Depot, the connection from Olive to Pole Line and across Richards this is the plan. Dave Pelz is rather wide but if it was in a more densely-populated area it would need separation. The studies I mention include very tight turns which are both awkward for cyclists and dangerous for mixing: For example in the Richards design just south of the westbound 80 on-ramp there’s stairs for pedestrians – a kind of short cut – which land exactly where cyclists heading down a ramp are forced to make a 90-degree left on the way to Downtown.
Greenbelt paths have the same problem, don’t they? This is not solved by photo ops with children holding “Share the Road!” signs, but by creating fast routes – protected bike lanes – on streets and elsewhere, only for use by cyclists, also with no mixing – like in the approved plan for Mace and Cowell – at bus stops. Designing infrastructure that requires children – a focus of this plan – to divert around buses at bus stops on a street with a 40 mph design speed is de-facto child abuse.
Todd: “Ron, you’re right about mixing pedestrians and cyclists! It sucks, . . .”
Not long ago, my Mom (who’s in her mid/late 80s) told me that a bicyclist ran over her foot (in San Francisco). I’ve forgotten the details (she might have even been sitting on a bench), and I think it was near the Ft. Mason area. She wasn’t injured, and I’ll admit that I found it kind of amusing.
I see it as sort of a result of the increasing intensity of everyday life, in San Francisco.
Davis is also becoming more intense (but of course to a lesser degree than San Francisco).