Downtown Parking
At last evening's Council meeting, staff and the San Buenaventura Foundation for the Arts presented a scheduled report on the progress the Foundation is making toward private fundraising for a Cultural Arts Village proposed for the surface parking lot near Palm and Santa Clara. Mayor Carl Morehouse asked me about what he called the "800 pound gorilla" -- the issue of parking in Downtown to accomodate both existing businesses and the exciting new additions being proposed, including the Cultural Arts Village and a proposed Trader Joe's. I apologized in advance for making a lengthy response, but the issue is such an important and hotly debated one, I wanted to be sure that staff's perspective was clearly outlined. Here is my response:
It should not go without saying that we are dealing here with a problem that many cities would like to have -- and this city is now happy to have -- which is a greater demand for parking than the currently shrinking supply. This is a problem of success, including the changeover in new businesses, new infill development, and exciting projects like Trader Joe's, Cultural Arts Village and the Museum expansion, to name three in the immediate vicinity.
We would not be sitting here with this problem if we were committed to the traditional way of dealing with parking. Under the old way of doing it, if you opened a new business or a new cultural facility, you had to supply all your own parking. Under that approach, the proposed Cultural Arts Village would not happen, Trader Joes would not happen, nor would the Museum expansion. All three of them are expecting to have the problem of parking solved under the new way of doing business. That’s what we call the “park-once” strategy where we maximize efficiency by sharing all the parking – the structure parking, the surface and the street parking whether it’s public parking or private parking. Instead of someone putting a chain link lock across their parking lot when they aren’t using it, we assume that parking has value and it should be shared.
The difficulty is that once we move to this new way of looking at parking as a shared resource that we ought to manage and maximize, everyone says, “Oh, this is great! I’ll be the first beneficiary of this new system and my problem is now solved, because ‘the city’ will provide the parking.”
Clearly we can’t go from the old way of doing business, which all parking was the responsibility of the business or institution to the new way and have the taxpayers of the City of Ventura be on the hook to pay for that solution.
The only way we get to the new way is by having everyone who is a beneficiary of the new system contribute to the success of the new system. That is going to require more from everyone than just pointing across the street saying, “Gosh, I’m in great need of parking, so I sure don’t want my neighbor to take away any of the parking I am expecting he will continue to provide -- at city expense.”
So, we are probably going to have to make some tough choices. We’re also probably going to have to pay for those choices, but not out of the taxpayer dollar, instead out of a long-term, paid parking management strategy. That is what we are bringing you on March 19, in the form a new Downtown Specific Plan. That includes not only a plan for a “park-once” method where we maximize public and private parking through a shared arrangement, but also a long term investment in adding to the parking supply. Adding to it is going to mean we’re going to have to make choices about where we allow new retail, commercial and residential development and where we have to sacrifice some of those development opportunities for parking to serve the entire area.
I want to emphasize that the key is making sure this is equitable. It is not fair for people to say, “I want to develop my property to the maximum and have somebody else provide the parking.” Everyone is going to have to contribute in some meaningful way to making these trade offs work. If everyone pushes the parking off on to the next block over, we’ll have no place left for people to park except the fairgrounds at Seaside Park. If that happens, I guess everyone will have to park down there and walk or maybe bike to Downtown.
So, if it is going to work it has to be equitable. Now, on March 19 we will also be bringing to you three actions to implement the Downtown Plan if you approve it. Number one, we are going to recommend someone to immediately begin working on implementing the park-once parking management strategy. Number two, we will recommend updating the parking demand study. That’s not because we need another study, since everyone knows we need more parking, both to replace what is being lost as well as to meet the growing demand. But we do need a much more precise baseline so we can equitably apportion the burdens and responsibility for providing the needed parking for both today’s usage and tomorrow’s demand. Number three, we will recommend that we set aside redevelopment funds for the acquisition and feasibility engineering of one or more public parking structures in the area we are talking about right now. There certainly needs to be at least one and probably more than one. “Public” may not mean city-owned, but it needs to be publicly accessible. It could be a public/private partnership.
We will be bringing those to you because we think the issue of parking is serious, and the opportunity is there. If we’re prepared to make the transition from the old model -- which would not allow any of these exciting new opportunities to happen -- to the new model, which would allow those things to happen, we need to pass that new model on March 19, including serious implementation steps to make sure those things come to pass. Certainly if we allow surface parking lots in the downtown area to be developed, whether it’s for office, residential, or retail, we are going to have to find a way to replace that parking. That means structured parking that’s convenient to the new and rising demand for parking in our downtown.
I apologize for the length of my answer but given the importance placed upon this issue, it is important to clearly describe our perspective. Having a parking problem is actually a great opportunity, but we have to rise to that opportunity and create solutions.
It should not go without saying that we are dealing here with a problem that many cities would like to have -- and this city is now happy to have -- which is a greater demand for parking than the currently shrinking supply. This is a problem of success, including the changeover in new businesses, new infill development, and exciting projects like Trader Joe's, Cultural Arts Village and the Museum expansion, to name three in the immediate vicinity.
We would not be sitting here with this problem if we were committed to the traditional way of dealing with parking. Under the old way of doing it, if you opened a new business or a new cultural facility, you had to supply all your own parking. Under that approach, the proposed Cultural Arts Village would not happen, Trader Joes would not happen, nor would the Museum expansion. All three of them are expecting to have the problem of parking solved under the new way of doing business. That’s what we call the “park-once” strategy where we maximize efficiency by sharing all the parking – the structure parking, the surface and the street parking whether it’s public parking or private parking. Instead of someone putting a chain link lock across their parking lot when they aren’t using it, we assume that parking has value and it should be shared.
The difficulty is that once we move to this new way of looking at parking as a shared resource that we ought to manage and maximize, everyone says, “Oh, this is great! I’ll be the first beneficiary of this new system and my problem is now solved, because ‘the city’ will provide the parking.”
Clearly we can’t go from the old way of doing business, which all parking was the responsibility of the business or institution to the new way and have the taxpayers of the City of Ventura be on the hook to pay for that solution.
The only way we get to the new way is by having everyone who is a beneficiary of the new system contribute to the success of the new system. That is going to require more from everyone than just pointing across the street saying, “Gosh, I’m in great need of parking, so I sure don’t want my neighbor to take away any of the parking I am expecting he will continue to provide -- at city expense.”
So, we are probably going to have to make some tough choices. We’re also probably going to have to pay for those choices, but not out of the taxpayer dollar, instead out of a long-term, paid parking management strategy. That is what we are bringing you on March 19, in the form a new Downtown Specific Plan. That includes not only a plan for a “park-once” method where we maximize public and private parking through a shared arrangement, but also a long term investment in adding to the parking supply. Adding to it is going to mean we’re going to have to make choices about where we allow new retail, commercial and residential development and where we have to sacrifice some of those development opportunities for parking to serve the entire area.
I want to emphasize that the key is making sure this is equitable. It is not fair for people to say, “I want to develop my property to the maximum and have somebody else provide the parking.” Everyone is going to have to contribute in some meaningful way to making these trade offs work. If everyone pushes the parking off on to the next block over, we’ll have no place left for people to park except the fairgrounds at Seaside Park. If that happens, I guess everyone will have to park down there and walk or maybe bike to Downtown.
So, if it is going to work it has to be equitable. Now, on March 19 we will also be bringing to you three actions to implement the Downtown Plan if you approve it. Number one, we are going to recommend someone to immediately begin working on implementing the park-once parking management strategy. Number two, we will recommend updating the parking demand study. That’s not because we need another study, since everyone knows we need more parking, both to replace what is being lost as well as to meet the growing demand. But we do need a much more precise baseline so we can equitably apportion the burdens and responsibility for providing the needed parking for both today’s usage and tomorrow’s demand. Number three, we will recommend that we set aside redevelopment funds for the acquisition and feasibility engineering of one or more public parking structures in the area we are talking about right now. There certainly needs to be at least one and probably more than one. “Public” may not mean city-owned, but it needs to be publicly accessible. It could be a public/private partnership.
We will be bringing those to you because we think the issue of parking is serious, and the opportunity is there. If we’re prepared to make the transition from the old model -- which would not allow any of these exciting new opportunities to happen -- to the new model, which would allow those things to happen, we need to pass that new model on March 19, including serious implementation steps to make sure those things come to pass. Certainly if we allow surface parking lots in the downtown area to be developed, whether it’s for office, residential, or retail, we are going to have to find a way to replace that parking. That means structured parking that’s convenient to the new and rising demand for parking in our downtown.
I apologize for the length of my answer but given the importance placed upon this issue, it is important to clearly describe our perspective. Having a parking problem is actually a great opportunity, but we have to rise to that opportunity and create solutions.
posted by Rick Cole at
3:33 PM
3 Comments:
Old Town Pasadena never got off the ground until the city built structures - same with downtown Santa Monica - same with downtown Santa Barbara. Parking districts were set up among the benefitting merchants to pay for them. FREE parking for the first 2-4 hours. It's a no-brainer. Giving "Rookies" a 300 seat sports bar with no required parking by the city is not good long-range thinking in this regard. Allowing a city-owned structure next to Crown PLaza to rot away is also not good long-range thinking in this regard. A tram to it might help.
You were certainly right about one thing, it was an extremely long-winded explanation that explained nothing. You can't really be serious that a lack of parking means a sign of success, when we all know that all it really means is a very poor sign of correct planning.
Rellis Smith
The view that parking viewed as a "shared resource" is a "new" idea is, to be polite, not the case. There was a consensus in Pasadena around 1975-80 that PASADENA OLD TOWN would never materialize until the City built parking structures - and that was 25-30 years ago..... and that is exactly the way it worked out. Before that it was exactly what happened in Santa Monica and in Santa Barbara. Whereas you seem to take credit [ via your Pasadena-based parking consultant ] for organizing all that's great about that city's parking plan via the use of parking meters and meter maids , your consultant, in his presentations in Ventura, has never mentioned the vast impact brought about in Pasadena by the erection of downtown parking structures as being the single-most important part of that city parking system's effectiveness - same with City of Santa Monica and City of Santa Barbara. Why ?
Your assertion that the "old way" of parking was the "responsibility of the business or institution" and the "new way" is the responsibility of the city is, to be kind, selective thinking. In fact, the City has operated multiple free parking lots for years and years. One can count dozens of unmetered city-owned existing parking lots all over Ventura which service the areas to which they are immediately adjacent: some with with their " tombstone" concrete entrance signs [ downtown, Seaward at the beach,near the Fairgrounds, near 5 Points as well as all 50 parks around town ] . The City owns the parking structure next to the Crown Plaza as well as the structure on California Avenue, just two blocks away. These are both currently under-utilized or not efficiently utilized . Is there an actual count of city-owned parking lots, parking structures as well as a parking space count in these locations - regular, compact, and handicapped ?
Comment: The areas immediately adjacent to the existing downtown mid-block multiple parking lots should be encouraged to have storefronts facing the parking lots and alleys, much as is incorporated into the Pasadena Old Town Design Requirements, so as to enhance the entire area visually, to encourage the introduction of more retail business fronts and to make the entire downtown district far more pleasant.
Post a Comment
<< Home