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.

Is there room left for middle class families?

A few days ago weekend, the Star covered a speech by UC Santa Barbara economist Bill Watkins, noting the squeeze on middle-class families in our area:

http://www1.venturacountystar.com/vcs/county_news/ article/0,1375,VCS_226_5358145,00.html

With housing prices holding at all-time highs, public school enrollments are dropping, which Watkins attributes to families moving to places where homes are more affordable. He was quoted as saying: ""We have a bunch of old, rich people, and a bunch of young people in the service sector taking care of them," he said. "We're losing the middle."

Watkins observations echo the predictions of the late Bill McGowan. In his “Angry Economist” columns in the Ventura County Reporter, he analyzed global economic and demographic trends and concluded that Ventura would become a very nice commuter, retirement and second-home community.

There are worse things to be. But most Venturans reject that fate, even as we continue to drift toward it.

The Pierpont neighborhood is an emerging test case of that trend. Neighbors there have complained to the City Council about loud parties and cars clogging the narrow lanes from the increasing number of beach rentals. Next Wednesday, the City Council will consider a range of options for dealing with that immediate issue:

http://www.cityofventura.net/newsmanager/ articlefiles/1744-advance%2004.pdf

But government regulation alone can do little to halt the erosion of a charming neighborhood of modest homes turning into an expensive enclave of retirement villas and vacation homes.

Bill McGowan, who was an iconoclastic free market man, urged that we simply adjust to this trend. But our 2005 General Plan suggests a different strategic vision. By promoting high wage jobs and a premium quality of life for families (great schools, parks, recreation, libraries, safety etc.), we would still be a costly place to live, but the value-added would continue to make it attractive for families. The availability of high wage jobs (as well as affordable housing strategies for those working in lower-wage jobs) is key to the viability of this strategy.

Easier said than done, of course. When most people talk about economic development, they focus on the short term aims of promoting retail sales to increase city revenues. But Ventura already outperforms every city in the County except Oxnard on per capita retail sales. Ultimately, it will be the creation of wealth that boosts retail (Thousand Oaks is the only city in the County with higher per capita sales -- and is clearly the leader in high-wage, high-value jobs.)

It is unlikely that a major corporation will pick up and move to Ventura, given our high housing costs and distance from major airports. But the Central Coast remains an attractive place for entrepreneurs who draw on a highly educated workforce. It is probably no accident that Patagonia is our most prominent corporate marquee name, with its dyed-in green mindset. Companies with a similar environmentally-friendly emphasis are among the best matches for our area.

For more information on Ventura's Economic Development Strategy, see:

http://www.cityofventura.net/newsmanager/ templates/?a=231&z=3

A question of balance

This morning's Star gives a strong endorsement to the City Council's unanimous approval of the Citrus Place development on the eastern edge of the City:

http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/ opinion/article/0,1375,VCS_125_5355060,00.html

Drawing on reporter Kevin Clerici's earlier story on the controversial project, the editorial says "some residents expressed opposition and had called for dramatically fewer housing units, but the proposal , eventually OK'd by the Council, calls for only five fewer houses, slightly larger lots and moving the garages to the front of the houses."

Not a bad summary, but in congratulating the City on supporting housing (particularly affordable housing), the editorial slights the significance of the alternative plan.

In fact, after years of arduous process, lengthy hearings, redesigns and controversy, the applicant partnership responded to the neighbor's appeal by offering a compromise. While not solving all the neighbors' concerns about traffic, flooding and parking, it improved an already thoughtful design to make the new addition to the neighborhood more livable for both existing and future residents. The goal was not "slightly larger lots," but adequate backyards and frontyards for the families who live there by removing an inefficient single-sided alley that would have run directly behind the back fences of the surrounding homes. It reduced the number of homes by five, but it introduced another housing type into the proposal, strengthening what will make this new area stand out -- a variety of different kinds of homes, instead of the red-tiled roof monotony of the crowded subdivision tracts of virtually identical boxes you see all over the rest of Southern California.

The decision should be seen in its larger context of seeking balance throughout Ventura. Five weeks ago, the Council approved a draft new set of rules for Midtown's east-west corridors of Main and Thompson. The Council reduced the allowed height along most of the frontage from six stories to three, but made some exceptions (two stories in some cases, leaving six stories in others.) For neighbors who wanted virtually the entire length to be limited to two stories, this was seen as a defeat. But viewed from the perspective of encouraging new investment along tired streets full of run-down motels and car lots, it represented a careful balance (that will get further tweaking before adoption later this year.)

In fact, "balance" continued to be the common theme as the Council the next week took up the Sondermann-Ring project, which was delayed by a major redesign to be more accessible and open -- to look like a neighborhood instead of a project. It was evident on Victoria Avenue, where the street's longtime character as an eight-lane traffic carrier was re-examined for promoting higher quality office and retail development. It carried through to the discussion by the Council and Planning Commission planning the Saticoy and Wells area, where developers have come up with their own designs, while the City wants to make sure they connect together and have adequate schools, parks and transportation alternatives. Finally, it was painfully obvious how important balance is when the Council earlier Monday night unanimously overturned a Planning Commission decision to allow a second home to be squeezed onto a large lot at the end of Mound Avenue near Ventura College. Legally, the lot was big enough to be subdivided. But putting in another home would have required either butchering a windrow of trees along the barranca to the rear or sawing off part of a handsome home that has been on the property for half a century.

If your single perspective is that we need more housing -- or that we need to protect existing neighborhoods from losing views -- or that we must promote economic growth -- or that we should stop growing because there is already too much traffic -- the hard decisions of the last five weeks will be disappointing. No single issue triumphed and no side unilaterally prevailed. The Councilmembers each have their own views, reflecting the diversity of the community. But unlike the voters and interest groups that keep score on whether their views won or lost, the Council looks for common ground. It's a question of balance -- which is what the vision of the 2005 General Plan was all about. In a series of high-profile votes over the last five weeks, the City Council has been carefully implementing that vision -- one neighborhood at a time.

What's Plan B for Public Safety?

Last fall, as Venturans discussed P6, the Public Safety funding measure, I was often asked, "What happens if it doesn't pass?"

I told the Ventura County Star that there was no simple answer, but offered several alternatives:

• Add additional police officers and firefighters over several years as our revenue grows from economic development or increases in property values
• Impose deep cuts on other services (since we already allocate more than half the budget to police and fire, a 10% increase in those departments requires more than a 10% cut in the others.)
• Spend the City's reserves, which are set aside for emergencies and capital investment

In the end, 62% of voters voted for the quarter cent sales tax, short of the two-thirds needed for passage. The problem hasn't gone away and last night we heard from "an impassioned group of parents, school administrators and district officials" (as they were described in this morning's edition of the Star) urging the City Council to find a way to restore the School Resource Officer program and other vital public safety initiatives.

Last year, Police Chief Pat Miller and Fire Chief Mike Lavery warned that with 911 calls on the rise, emergency response times slipping and priorities having to be shifted from prevention efforts, Ventura faced losing its margin of safety. They urged adding additional police officers and firefighters before the problem gets worse. Unfortunately, their concerns have been borne out. Last year, for the second straight year, violent crime in the City of Ventura has increased, mirroring a similar trend in the rest of the County. Violent crimes reported to the FBI were up 12.7% last year and nearly 27% over the past two years. Gang crime has skyrocketed, up 177% over the year before.

As a result, in planning the budget I will submit to Council on May 1st, I'm planning to allocate all available new funding to public safety. Unfortunately, without deep cuts in other city services, that will fall far short of the resources that P6 would have provided. But in our annual resident survey, only 41% supported cutting other services to augment public safety funding, while 54% opposed.

Surprisingly in that same survey, 68% of residents favored trying again to pass a tax measure to fund public safety needs. Several speakers last night offered to actively work to pass such a measure. But if the Council were to heed their call, there is certainly a strong minority of voters who either philosophically oppose any tax increase or who resent having to pay more for what they consider the first priority of local government, public safety.

There are no easy answers. Nearly everyone agrees we need to devote additional resources to keeping our community safe. The debate is over how and when.

What do you think? Would you take a moment to answer a short survey at:

http://www.ci.ventura.ca.us/depts/pub_safety/index.asp