Staff primes council: In-lieu fee for parking Xanadu
These are words you use when selling sand to a Bedouin or snow to an Inuit:
• Enhance vitality
• Promote renovation
• Facilitate redevelopment
• Encourage investment
and
• Staff has received no comments expressing concern from the Chamber
I guess tonight's the night. Staff will seal the deal on their Ruritania Condo Collection, their Shekels for Shangri-La, their... ahem... In-Lieu Parking Fund. Indeed, the staff report for the proposed parking ordinance paints a "pedestrian-oriented environment" with "extensive background information and detail" promising "enhanced City revenues through a rejuvenated commercial core."
Missing from the staff report... again (strike three)... was any mention of the California Mitigation Fee Act. It states that in any action imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project by a local agency, the local agency shall determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.
I envision the process to look like this:
1) A merchant-developer comes to town with a plan to improve downtown.
2) Among the many undefined processes and moving targets, the city will require an additional $5,000 tax.
3) The merchant will ask, "Why must I pay this fee?"
4) The city will say, "Because the chamber did not object to it!"
5) The merchant will clarify, "No... I mean, for what will it be used?
6) The city will say, "For the parking structure, of course."
7) The merchant will ask, "Where is it?"
8) "Nowhere!"
9) "Will it ever be built?"
10) "Maybe!"
11) "When?"
12) "I don't know!
13) "What will you name it?"
14) "Xanadu!"
15) "Well, that sounds reasonable," the merchant will say. "I will gladly pay you $5,000!
And tonight it will be so decreed.
The staff report - a poetic work matched only by Samuel Taylor Coleridge himself - can be accessed by clicking the title of this story. For the dramatic recitation of the report, you're cordially invited to the Woodland City Council meeting at 6 O'Clock this evening in "The Chambers" at 300 First Street.
29 comments:
Remember Dino, JM said this fee does not fall under the CMF act....
Again, this FEE is not a FEE???
Just out of curiousity, where does Mark Deven stand on this fee? Is this a part of his business friendly atmosphere he wants to promote?
I would expect our City Council members to table this item until they know:
1. Where the structure will be built.
2. How much will it cost to be built?
As far as the Chamber goes, this action of in-activity is just another example, in a long string of non-support for local commerce.
The city staff did approach the chamber about this topic. After a couple of meetings it was obvious that the chamber was not representing the downtown businesses. Then council directed city staff to notify the downtown businesses and property owners of this in-lieu fee. A meeting was held at the council chambers. Only 2 people voiced their opposition to this fee. There were approx 20 people in attendance.
"Then council directed city staff to notify the downtown businesses and property owners of this in-lieu fee."
I own one of those businesses. I found out about this issue on this blog. How did the staff notify us?
When was this meeting held?
What staff met with the Chamber? How was it "obvious" the Chamber was not representing the downtown?
Why can't the City, Chamber, and Council ever work together?
Here's where the discussion left off last time:
* The fee only applies to new business or business that expand more than 50%. The amount is insignificant relative to the cost of any parking structure - "it will not really address anything."
* Staff felt strongly that a revenue stream for the parking problem needed to start with all new businesses - to show "a commitment by new business."
* The funds do not have to be used for a parking structure, but there has been nothing decided yet.
* Legal counsel said it was a good fee, which was understood by JM to mean the CA Mitigation Fee Act would not apply. He assumed the act is probably used for higher fees.
These questions were left on the table?
* How much total funding would be needed for the parking project?
* Don't we need to know what this funding flow is supposed to be for?
* What formula would be used if I were to move my business? If I kept the sq. feet to only 1500 would that make me exempt from these new fees?
9:35
The city manager signed the staff report. There was only one option recommended... to approve the ordinance and fee.
Last time we discussed this, I didn't catch JM's comment that the fees can be spent on other parking needs. Again, your questions still apply... where and how much?
Ahhh...I see the "nobody told me!" contingent has reported in.
Interesting Dino (I'll put this here though I bet it doesn't stay long) that you're not reporting on your old buddy Brenda Cedarblade's antics. Is this because she's part of your little in-group of downtowners? The ones you protect and mollify? And why hasn't Brenda been commenting on here lately under her own name when she was virtually omnipresent previously? Why don't you tell your readers why you're ignoring her activities?
Here is what I don't understand. Mnay year's ago all of the business was downtown and most people rode horses or trollys to stores. Not much parking was needed.
Then came along cars, not many and they were small. Still not much parking needed.
Then came along bigger cars and parking got a little tighter but not much parking was needed.
Then came along sprawl, big SUV's and pick-up's, no one walked, and the bigger businesses moved out. A lot of parking was needed.
Today, we still have really big SUV's, bigger pick-up's lots of cars of all sizes, not much in the way of retail business in the downtown. But we have a real parking shortage.
We want to attract business and customers downtown and yet we still have no parking. Did I mention, no money.
Now the local government says I have an idea. Let's establish a fee for new parking and use that money to leverage other funds to build more parking. They also say let's collect the needed funds from the new businees we want to attract and businesses that themselves want to grow. Not the general taxpayer. I think these are the same businesses that get by today without having done anything to solve the parking problem.
And their is a complaint. I just don't get it.
You can point at any excuse you like, but in reality the downtown businesses seem unable to be satisfied.
7:48
I see your points, but from my perspective there is no quantifiable, practical or tangible plan for the $5,000 mitigation fee. That's the problem with the ordinance.
I don't really know what the general consesus of the downtowners is on this issue since there is no real voice for the downtowners. There is another group emerging, but it is not there yet.
The ordinance does not require downtowners to pay any fee unless they build a new facility or add on to an existing building.
My position is that there should be a reasonable relationship between the fee and a project (just like the law states) - but practically - I think if a big development project comes downtown, that project should pay for their own parking and some additional public spaces.
The CBD zoning does not require property owners to provide parking - they can build right up to the sidewalk.
to ANON 4/16/08 7:12 AM Said this "Is this because she's part of your little in-group of downtowners? The ones you protect and mollify?" Who is he protecting?
7:12
What is interesting to you? A notice to file a petition? When, and if, an environmental petition is filed, I may, or may not post a story.
As always, I invite bloggers to email me for potential stories. But if you want to hide behind your anonymous comments, you get what I give you.
The alternative is to not visit the blog if you don't like it.
7:48,
I am not opposed to paying for things that a business should pay for, (even if that is parking) that is all a part of owning a business. We already pay many fees. This new proposed fee is required (by law) to specify what the revenues will go towards. It does not.
My business suffers through lunch time, and then again around dinner time with lack of parking. I feel a parking structure would help immensely.
It is very tough for a small business to compete with the monster, big box discounters. I would hope that fees passed on to businesses should be assessed accordingly.
The City, Council, and Chamber are in place, partly to keep balance within the business community. Woodland has had a history of supporting big box stores, and big developers. They do not show that support with the small Mom & Pop style of business.
Again, I do not mind paying my fair share for doing business here. This fee is unfair and has no designation for the money collected. It only starts a stream of money going nowhere.
11:53
The fee won't apply to you unless you construct a new building OR you make a significant addition to your existing building (JM indicated a 50% increase in size).
What hasn't really been discussed is how the CBD zoning conflicts with the fee. Since buildings in the CBD are allowed to be built to the property lines without parking, how can a fee be assessed for parking if someone builds within the CBD?
I just think it's interesting that you're all over the school district and the City and yet Ms. Cedarblade gets a pass. Fortunately a new blog is up that seems much more willing to tell it the way it is on our local Negative Nay-Sayer. Perhaps you could link to it? Just to give others a broader sense of what's really going on in our community?
The school district and city are public agencies. They need to be accountable to taxpayers.
And Ms. Cedarblade specializes in costing the taxpayers even more money with her absurd, self-serving lawsuits.
What are the costs thus far?
Ask county counsel, bozo.
I didn't bring up the costs, idiot.
You brought up needing to be accountable to the taxpayers, nimrod.
Again... I didn't bring up the costs, idiot. Why should I check with counsel when someone else is making a claim?
You've used the word "idiot" twice now, Dino. Clearly you're losing the in the vocabulary volley.
I think Dino is doing just fine using idiot a few times. Consider that the anon poster doesn't even know what Nimrod means and you may realize how good Dino is doing in the vocab banter.
Nimrod: a great hunter, a monarch and related to Noah (the ark builder). Also the name of a ship used in exploration of the South Pole. The connotation of nimord meaning poor..silly..foolish person comes from a quote in a Bugs Bunny episode. So all that proves to me is that anon 755 is a kid that doesn't know what he is talking about.
12:37
I also used "I didn't bring up the costs" twice. Sometimes repetition is necessary for the GED-challenged. Clearly, you are not seeing clearly.
'There is another group emerging, but it is not there yet.'
Hopefully it does not include any Shelleys, Stallards, Pimentels or Rexroads. Kiss of death for anything downtown = PBID whether you want it or NOT.
6:52 p.m.
Nice try. In the parlance (look it up) of a blog, the use of slang words like "nimrod" is the general rule. Indeed in this country my use of nimrod was entirely correct and current.
And what would make you think that I am a "he"? What is it you do when you're not snuggling up to Dino?
6:02 a.m. Nice character assassination. Cowardly but typical. Still in the interest of diplomacy throw in Anita Long, Brenda Cedarblade and Al Eby and you've got yourself a deal!
Use of slang words may be the general rule, however when calling someone a name you really should stick to names that aren't slang but rather use names that are what they are, like Dino did when using idiot.
Much to your dismay I am sure, I do not snuggle up to Dino. There are times that I agree with him and there are times when I do not. Just because I happen to agree with him this time and don't side with you is no reason for you to make such a stupid remark.
I apologize for using the generalizing term "he", I should have written he/she. It was just a simple mistake.
Now - to the crux of the matter. If you are so hell bent on making your point on a blog, I think it would be best to step out from your cloud of anonymity and at least use a 'call name' if not your real name. This way we would all know which bully you are since only bullies are willing to cower behind the curtains when they throw mud in the form of name calling. Dino got it right. You really are an idiot.
Madame ABC
9:10
We tickle.
Really wanting to say something humorous to the "we tickle" comment but feel as though I would only put my foot in my mouth.
Dino - at least you make me laugh.
Post a Comment