Another downtown fee considered by council: $5,000 in-lieu of parking is "fair share" amount
During tomorrow's Woodland City Council meeting (Feb. 5, 2008), Item I-9 will be presented as a Public Hearing.
I-9: Adopt Initial Study and Negative Declaration; Introduce Ordinance to Add Section 25-23-15 to the Municipal Code for the Purpose of Downtown Parking; Adopt Resolution to Approve Parking-in-Lieu Fee (5 minutes)
SUBJECT: Ordinance Adding Downtown Parking Standards, Establishing Parking District Boundaries and In-Lieu of Parking Fee
Report in Brief (click the title of this story to access the staff report)
The proposed Ordinance will add Section 25.23.15 to the Municipal Code regarding Downtown Parking Standards and will establish the boundaries of the Downtown Parking District for the purposes of allowing an in-lieu of parking fee.
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the proposed parking ordinance.
2. Introduce Ordinance _______ to add Section 25.23.15 to the Woodland Municipal Code for the purpose of downtown parking.
3. Approve Resolution _______ establishing Parking District boundaries and an in-lieu of parking fee.
Background
The purpose for the proposed Ordinance is to continue the actions necessary to facilitate implementation of the City’s Downtown Parking Management Plan and General Plan goals and policies with regard to Downtown Parking. A first step in implementing an overall comprehensive parking strategy is the adoption of necessary Zoning Code revisions.
As discussed in the Planning Commission report dated November 1, 2007, typical suburban parking standards do not adequately address downtown conditions. Parking standards should be one component in the mix that helps to encourage smart growth principals and economic development by providing reasonable and effective standards that are clearly defined and easily understood and which meet the needs of the businesses, customers and development community. The intent is to proactively prepare for future parking needs. This will require revising standards, collecting fees toward future parking supply, and the implementation of innovative parking management policies.
Discussion
New Parking Standards
The City of Woodland’s parking standards are recommended to be modified to reflect the existing and anticipated pedestrian orientation of the downtown, to retain the historical feel of the downtown core, and to avoid imposing suburban standards that would result in large paved areas on Main Street and within the City center. The following are the intended purposes for a revised parking program in the Downtown:
• Maintain and enhance a pedestrian oriented environment in the Downtown.
• Promote and encourage economic investment in the Downtown area.
• Promote re-use and renovation of historic buildings in the Downtown while encouraging new investment and construction.
• Enhance the vitality of the Downtown by encouraging an appropriate mix of future development and land uses.
• Encourage mixed-use development supporting residential and office uses on the upper floors, and ground floor offices, retail and restaurants.
The modifications include changes to residential and commercial related standards and incorporate special provisions to allow shared parking in limited cases, off-site parking also in limited situations, and in lieu-of-parking fees.
A significant feature of the ordinance is that existing buildings in the downtown will not be required to provide new parking, unless there is an addition or expansion or the addition of residential uses where there were none previously. New development will be required to provide parking. Provisions are included to allow shared parking, off-site parking, or in-lieu-of parking fees.
In-Lieu Fee
In-lieu fees provide an alternative for developers who wish to construct new projects or do major renovations to existing buildings where it is either not feasible or undesirable to construct on-site parking. In fact, the Downtown Specific plan prohibits the development of surface parking on Main Street. The purpose of the fee is to recover some of the capital cost of constructing new parking facilities.
In-lieu fees would be deposited in a special fund and used by the City to develop or assist in developing parking structures. Fees generally go to construct parking facilities at locations that support the parking needs of the area while not compromising safety and ambiance of the downtown area. The Downtown Specific Plan includes possible locations for future parking structures.
It is recommended that the In-lieu fee for downtown projects should be set at a rate that does not recover the full cost for structured parking downtown, but provides a “fair share” contribution toward the future development of such parking facilities. In a typical suburban situation new development would be required to pay the full cost for the construction of new parking. In this case, paying a partial fee is ultimately more cost effective and functions as an incentive toward encouraging development in the downtown. The balance of the cost for providing structured parking will likely be paid through a combination of Redevelopment funds, Major Projects Financing Plan fee, City/County/State Superior Court partnership contributions, and possibly through future assessment district and long term user fees.
The City conducted a land evaluation study of the downtown last year and more recently obtained cost estimates from area cities and determined that the estimated cost per structured parking space is $20,000 to $25,000 per space. At this time it is suggested that the City set an in-lieu of parking fee at $5,000. However, should development and economic factors change, the City Council will have the ability to reevaluate and raise or lower fees. It is proposed that the City’s Code be amended to provide for in-lieu fees and state that from time to time the City Council shall establish by Resolution the value of off-street parking facilities and fee amount on a per parking stall basis.
Fiscal Impact
Funds from the General Fund have been utilized for Community Development salaries and the completion of the Initial Study. Limited Redevelopment funds were utilized on a land cost summary analysis. It is hoped that this ordinance will facilitate downtown redevelopment, increased investment, and enhanced City revenues through a rejuvenated commercial core.
Public Contact
Noticing has taken the following forms:
• Posting of the City Council agenda.
• Quarter page ad in the Daily Democrat published on January 16, 2008 with a second publishing on January 23, 2008.
• A quarter page ad was published prior to the Planning Commission meeting, held on January 3, 2008.
• The Woodland Chamber of Commerce was notified of the City Council meeting and a copy of this report provided to them.
In addition to the above notification efforts, the concept of proposed parking standard changes and an in-lieu fee was brought forward to the City Council in March of 2007. At that time the Council expressed general support of the proposed changes. Staff brought the proposed parking amendments before the Planning Commission for a first review on November 7, 2007. At that time, the Commission expressed general support and directed staff to work with the Chamber and stakeholders in the Downtown. Staff met with the Chamber Government Affairs group, on November 20, 2007 and the Chamber Board on December 13, 2007.
The Chamber Government Affairs representatives expressed support, but indicated that they would feel more comfortable if a broader group of board members and downtown business representatives had a chance to discuss the matter. They indicated that the proposed changes were consistent with ideas and proposals previously discussed as part of the Downtown Parking Management Plan. On December 13, 2007, staff gave a presentation on the proposed parking ordinance at the full Woodland Chamber Board.
The Board has 18 members and all received copies of the November 7, 2007 Planning Commission staff report. The Chamber placed a notice of meeting in the newspaper and sent a notice to 600 members that the parking ordinance discussion was on the agenda for that meeting.
Staff has received no comments expressing concern from the Chamber and the Woodland Chamber of Commerce has in the past supported policies and implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan.
Commission Recommendation
The proposed Ordinance and Resolution were heard as a public hearing on January 3, 2008 by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommended 6-0 that the City Council approve the proposed changes.
During review the Planning Commission discussed the in-lieu fees. A question was asked regarding the in-lieu fees and why they should be considered. Discussion ensued wherein it was stated that the intent is to have a density of activity in the downtown with parking located to the periphery, off Main Street. The use of in-lieu fees provides that needed alternative when a project is not able to meet the full extent of its on-site parking. The downtown standards are intended to facilitate a pedestrian environment in which a “park once” strategy is encouraged, that multiple visits may be accomplished with one parking stop.
Environmental Review
No significant environmental effects were identified. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was published 21 days prior to the meeting date and a copy posted in the County Clerk’s office, January 16, 2008. Recommendation for Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the proposed parking ordinance.
2. Introduce Ordinance _______ to add Section 25.23.15 to the Woodland Municipal Code for the purpose of downtown parking.
3. Approve Resolution _______ establishing Parking District boundaries and an in-lieu of parking fee.
COMMENTARY: I like the goal city government has with the downtown... to make it pedestrian friendly. However, despite the claim above, the flat fee proposal will not retain the historical feel of downtown core, does nothing to avoid imposing suburban standards on Main Street, will do little to enhance a pedestrian oriented environment, will not promote economic investments, will not promote renovation of historic buildings, willl not encourage a mix of development and land uses, and will not encourage mixed-use development supporting residential and office uses.
From where did this $5,000 figure derive? Is it really fair? Here are some concerns I have about the flat $5,000 in-lieu fee:
• A flat fee doesn't proportionally reflect all the variable costs in different redevelopment or improvement projects
• The Central Business District does not require properties to provide parking right now, so this is an added tax
• The threat of imposing suburban standards on Main Street and the CBD has no merit
• New residential development projects need to pay for their own parking needs
• What constitutes a "major" renovation? A $5,000 flat fee will not encourage the many small "major" improvements needed in the downtown
• The estimated revenue is not specified... so is this more of a band-aid approach that will actually discourage property improvements?
• The fee has nothing to do with the historical qualities of downtown
• Downtowners were not included in the public process, the Chamber's Government Affairs committee does not represent downtown merchants or property owners.
Once again, this is a case whereby the city makes up an arbitrary number and then tries to justify it with irrelevent information. Ultimately, of what amount is $5,000 a "fair-share?"
Posts
11 comments:
What is funny is watching all the city employees running out every couple hours to jockey their cars into new parking spots to avoid the meter lady from handing out a ticket, How much wasted time are the employees burning up daily. Must suffer on their productive days. Some of them take upwards of 10-15 minutes to get a spot. Maybe that needs to be looked at also. A lot of tax dollars going for pole-positions in the parking lots!!!!!
The Woodland Chamber of Commerce was notified of the City Council meeting and a copy of this report provided to them. Why they don't represent the downtown at all. Fact: most downtown businesses don't belong to the chamber. So why is the city failing to notify the property owners/businesses that are affected by their decisions.
"The Chamber Government Affairs representatives expressed support, but indicated that they would feel more comfortable if a broader group of board members and downtown business representatives had a chance to discuss the matter."
Once again, I have been kept out of the loop! I am not sure what I have to do to convince the city that I am a business in the downtown. Why oh why do I have to keep finding these issues here on the Woodland Journal?
Question, How much of an improvement to our building would initiate this FEE?
How does the City think they will get property owners motivated to fix their buildings, by now adding $5,000.00 to improvements?
The City, and Chamber are ALL too willing to spend money that comes directly off the backs of the businesses. Come on Mark Deven, is that realy the image and message Woodland wants to sent to perspective new businesses?
Maybe Woodland's elected should spend a little less money on consultants, and more time with the actual members of the community who will be the most effected. Ask us for ideas, and you might just be surprised. There is abundant talent right here in Woodland. This lack of communication with the business community creates a real ugly monster.
As always a solution presents itself and is derailed by malcontents who do nothing but whine, even though it does not even effect them.
Anon. 7:38
You don't know what you're talking about. Here is another proposed downtown fee that most downtowners never knew about... until the last minute. It might seem like continual whining to you, but that is a consistent and pervasive problem. We heard it was supposed to get better, but here we go again.
What solution has presented itself? A possible $5,000 flat fee that is supposed to offset the cost of a parking lot that will be built to accommodate the new courts? Are you taking that "solution" at face value? Have you thought it through? Do you believe a $5,000 fee will help retain the historical feel of the downtown as the city claims? This has nothing to do with retaining history, it's a made-up fee to help pay for a parking structure for the state.
That fee may also prevent downtowners from improving or renovating their properties because of a $5,000 tax. What do you mean "it doesn't affect them?"
This proposal is blah-blah-blah all over again... just like your comment.
The in-lieu parking fee is nothing new. This item has been discussed for years.
If you think about it the Chamber is a natural for the city to discuss matters that affect business. Perhaps a those that feel left out should get inviolved. Perhaps form a downtown business assn. that can represent downtown businesses on an equal footing with the Chamber. Oh I forgot, the downtown businesses keep rejecting anything that helps them work together. Something about not liking the Stallards.
Dino - at least you should point out that the parking solution being worked on is about more than the courts. In fact there is a great effort on the part of the city to solve the downtown parking problem for those businesses that have not taken care of themselves.
As a resident I only need the parking to shop at a store in the downtown. So who needs the parking me or the business owner? My guess it is more important to the business because I have choices. Let them pay.
I suggest the Downtown Merchant is more fully informed than they let on. Perhaps there is another agenda.
My Agenda is (and I hope) shared by many other businesses. We have all invested our money to provide services, products, and many forms of support to this community. I do believe I am more "informed" than many other businesses. Most are either blindsided, or find out "after the fact" about anti-business issues such as this.
This "solution", did not take much thought, and or discussion. This Idea of just hiring a consultant to tell us what to do and then do the absolute minimal to pass information onis at best "weak.
Each year my wife and I take ourselves out to either Morrison's or Maritime for birthdays and anniversaries. For over two years now, we keep seeing the used book store (a huge eyesore) straight across the street from these fine restaurants. I am sure all readers of this blog can name at least one building in our downtown that is in similar dis-repair. Tacking on an additional $5K (for a nebulous parking structure) to fix or repair their property is NOT an incentive.
I feel this "solution" is only ONE not the best.
I also feel that this is not a "fair share" amount". Say a big developer has a monster project. He pays his 5K. Then Joe Smith refinishes the face of his building. He pays the same 5K? Does that even seem "fair"?
We NEED more parking downtown. Let's do this the right way. We need a plan of how our downtown will be improved LONG before we start collecting "in-lieu" payments. Where will the new structure be?, how many spaces will there be?
Here is an Idea. Let me pay $5000 for a dedication plackard (advertisement) for each parking space. Each time a customer parks in that stall they will see our business name. How many spaces do you think will sell?
Lots of good ideas out there if you just COMMUNICATE openly with your community:)
Downtown Merchants WHIN WHIN
UMMM, I believe it is WHINE:)
Question, what would your downtown look like with out any downtown merchants? Then, tell me why you would need a parking structure?
Anon. 7:19
The $5,000 fee may well be old news for a limited few, but not to most downtowners.
Why would Downtown Merchant continually say that information is not getting to him? Could it actually be because the city continues to exclude most downtowners? Wasn't better communication a direction given by Mark Deven to his staff?
City government cannot expect that downtowners: 1) Are represented by the chamber, 2) Read planning commish. or council agendas, 3) Read the Democrat 4) Read The Woodland Journal or 5) Read city staff's minds. Staff actually needs to deliver the information to those affected. Even the staff report about the fee shows the exclusion... so how can you argue that point?
Will this $5,000 help downtowners work together? No. This is a fee for a parking structure yet to be designed.
Will it help retain history? No. It has nothing to do with history.
Will it promote renovation downtown? No. How could it... it's an extra cost to renovate.
I know of two proposed parking structures... one that accommodates City Center Loft residents and businesses and one that will accommodate the new courts and an ill-conceived theater complex. Here is the solution for those:
1) City Loft pays for their parking structure that includes additional spaces as a mitigated factor.
2) The state and the "theater" developer pay for their parking structure that includes additional spaces as a mitigated factor.
That was simple wasn't it?
Extra "city" parking will be provided by those who really need to provide stuctures for their own purpose.
Another way the city can help make the downtown more pedestrian friendly is to put diagonal parking on Main Street and slow down the traffic on that street.
So there are solutions already at-hand. The $5,000 fee is another arbitrary figure that has been "Trojan-horsed" as retaining history and promoting redevelopment.
Should there be some sort of fee to help pay for parking? Maybe. Again, there's the shell of a good idea and one possible solution... but the problems of lack of communication and lack of due diligence rise to the surface.
The whining will continue as long as the same damn problem continues.
Downtown Merchant,
I too have noticed the Bonanza Book building in its current state. The property owners were told to discontinue their improvements because of the arbitrary interpretations of the downtown design "guidelines" and lack of foresight by city staff. Those "standards" are a joke. Historically, there were no uniform colors to abide by, no thematic construction restrictions and no thematic sign constraints.
So you are now witness of how city staff derails a property owner as they are trying to improve their own property. It's fascist design at its best.
The glory days of the downtown included a wide variety of colorful and lighted signs and a wide variety facades and porticos. The standards are an amateurish attempt to create some pseudo-historic look and feel based on nothing but bad taste. Variety adds excitement. Repetition is boring.
It's really frustrating to see how other downtowns can thrive because their city governments allow merchants to be driven by supply and demand... not controlled by whims and fancy.
Post a Comment