Page 1 of 3 Bartha, Stephen From: Hieftje, John Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 11:50 AM To: Schopieray, Christine Cc: Bartha, Stephen Subject: FW: An urban economist's opinion of the S. Fifth Ave Parking Structure project From: Hieftje, John Sent^Riesa^vJebruarvO 2009 12:13 PM Subject^E^rnjrDaneconomist's opinion of the S. Fifth Ave Parking Structure project Dear Mr. Albouy: Thank you very much for taking the time to put this together. It certainly gives me a lot to think about. It is interesting to me that your point of view is so at odds with the study contracted by the DDA and the opinion of the Downtown leaders. I would also note that it is at odds with the widely held public perception of the availability of parking downtown. A day does not go by that I do not hear complaints that there is not enough. I am happy to hear a different perspective. As one of the foremost advocates for mass transit and encouraging cyclists and pedestrians I have long been looking for ways to avoid building more parking downtown especially ugly surface parking. The city should have begun building underground years ago. We are doing more than any city in the state and we are one of the leaders in the nation in facilitating walking and cycling. It is often said the AATA is the best bus service in Michigan. (3rd Best City for Walking, 2008 Prevention Magazine and the American Podiatric Assoc. Top 21 for Cycling, 2007 Bicycle Magazine. 3rd best in the 75,000 to 200,000 population class. I don't really believe this one yet but we are expanding the bike lane system by 300% over 5 years. Ann Arbor is also listed by the US Census as the 10th best city in the nation for the percentage of residents who make a non-motorized commute.) But, it will be a while yet before we have rail service to downtown and one problem we have had to face is that no matter what we do to facilitate people arriving downtown without their autos; we can't make them do it. Ann Arbor is not NY City; we don't have that kind of drawing power and Michigan is an auto-centric state. Not enough locals make use of downtown to make it viable without those who come in from outside the city. 70,000 people per day commute to work in Ann Arbor driving their automobiles. They travel an average of 26 miles each way. People are free to locate their business or to shop where there is plenty of parking. This is one of the main reasons DDA's were created; to offset the advantage held by malls and office parks on the fringe where there is unlimited parking. The central concern of Google about locating downtown was adequate parking and their workforce is one of the youngest we have. Google strongly encourages the use of transit and non-motorized commuting. This structure is being proposed to relieve pressure on the parking system but also to meet future demand. It is thought that with an underground structure in place, the future Library expansion will be facilitated and a better development will be attracted to the space above the parking lot. Along with others, I am insisting on park space on the surface as well. As time goes on it is my hope that we will convince more people to come downtown without their cars, rail will be in place, etc. At that time the city can redevelop the surface parking lots and even take down the oldest 4/6/2009 Page 1 of 1 Bartha, Stephen To: From: Sent: Greden, Leigh Saturday, April 04, 2009 11:17 AM Schopieray, Christine Subject: FW: Parking Rate Increase Memo From: Roger Hewitt [inaflto:rfhewitt@redhawkannarbor.comJ Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 7:36 AM To: Pollay, Susan Cc: Greden, Leigh; gunnl@ewashtenaw.org; jsplitt@comcast.net Subject: Parking Rate Increase Memo During our discussions about parking rate increases at the Operations Committee, the committee on a number of occasions emphasized that the parking rate increases would we average increases, not uniform increases across the system. These average increases allow us the flexibility necessary to start instituting Parking Demand Management. This morning Councilmember Greden sent me the memo that you submitted to Council to inform them of the parking rate increases. There is no mention of average rate increases or of Parking Demand Management. As currently written, this memo requires us to uniformly increase rates. This oversight needs to be corrected before tonight's council meeting. Mr. Greden informed me that changes can be made to the memo this morning before it is submitted to Council. It is imperative that these changes be made immediately. Please keep the Operations Committee, Mr. Greden and myself informed of your progress. Roger Hewitt Chair, Operations Committee Susan, 4/6/2009 Page 2 of3 above ground parking lots. Thank you again for providing me with your point of view on this issue. John Hieftje From: David Albouy^H Sent: Monday, February To: Hieftje, John Subject: An urban economist's opinion of the S. Fifth Ave Parking Structure project Dear Mayor Hieftje, I am a downtown resident and a professor of urban economics at the University of Michigan who specializes in urban quality-of-life issues. I would like to express to you why I think the S. Fifth Ave Parking Structure would be a bad use of this very valuable land. Personally, I have to admit that I currently live next to the site (at 322 S. Division). I spoke with the head engineer of the project, Adrian Iraola, and he told me that the noise, and especially the shaking, will make it basically impossible for me to live there (he said to "tie down the china"). Excavation is apparently much more of a nuisance than construction. Fortunately, I am a renter, and I can move (although I love that location), but I fear for others in the area as well. More generally, while I strongly support downtown development, and while I prefer an underground structure to an aboveground structure, I do not think that this structure would be of much value to downtown Ann Arbor. Something else on that site would be far more valuable. The new 5th Ave structure would be located in the middle of four parking structures -4th and William, 4th and Washington, Liberty Square and Maynard - all within two blocks. Most of these structures have vacancies much of the time. I have a view of the Library lot see that it almost always has some vacant spots, even at the low rate that is charged. There is simply no need for additional parking at 5th Ave, and additional spaces will mostly just take away parking from other lots, so that parking revenues are unlikely to rise. Any increase in overall downtown parking will likely come at the expense of less walking, which won't make downtown and more attractive. The land would be better used, and would ultimately generate greater revenue, for some other purpose. Residential rents in downtown Ann Arbor are high because it is one of the nicest places to live in Michigan: people want to live in a convenient, walkable downtown. Furthermore, downtown residents make downtown more interesting to non-residents, lower overall congestion in the city, and have a smaller environmental footprint than residents in less dense areas. Street-level commerce (such as a grocery store or a laundromat) would serve downtown and south-of-downtown residents, as well as library-goers. Library-goers and shoppers can use the Maynard or 4th & William structures: having them walk a block or two would make downtown more, not less, interesting. Parking rates could be raised slightly in these structures if availability becomes a problem (although they would still be far lower than in most nice downtowns), and then these revenues could be used to build a new structure when the time comes. Moreover, in the long run, additional residential and commercial space will make the quality of life downtown even better, leading to even higher property values - the most telling sign that downtown development is working. In colloquial economic terms, building the underground structure now is putting the cart before the horse. 4/6/2009 Page 3 of 3 Currently, the demand to park downtown is not strong enough to make this structure worthwhile. Right now, development policies should aim at increasing the demand to go downtown in the first place. The parking-first approach to downtown development is akin to discredited theories of supply-side or "voodoo" economics and is anathema to most urban planners. Most bustling cities, and I've lived in a few, don't have nearly as much available parking per square foot as downtown Ann Arbor. A fellow professor and longtime Ann Arbor resident, Jim Adams, has called the visual unsightliness of so much downtown parking as the "Michigan Disease." People go downtown to see people, not cars. With its economy based on information, education, and health, and its quality-of-life based on culture, street-life, and interesting people, Ann Arbor is the most promising city in Michigan. Making it better benefits not only local residents, but potential residents all over the country who may want to live here. Do something with the Library Lot and do it soon, but do not use it for more parking. I would much rather move for a project that will actually make Ann Arbor a nicer place to live. Thank you for reading and considering my views. Please contact me if you have any thoughts or questions. Yours truly, David Albouy Assistant Professor Department of Economics University of Michigan 611TappanSt. Ann Arbor, Ml 48109-1220 Tel:MHH|Mfr 4/6/2009 Bartha, Stephen From: Carsten Hohnke [carsten@westpole.com] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 11:36 PM To: Bartha, Stephen Subject: [Fwd: Re: Parking structure decision] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Parking structure decision Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:13:34 -0500 From: Carst^^yw^^^^ynghnke@a2gov. org> Steve Bean ^^^mH^^^Hp&> References: Carsten, > > Could we possibly meet some time this week to discuss the parking > structure plans? The only fixed commitment I have is the Env Comm > meeting on Thursday. We could even do it after that if that wouldn't > be too late a night (or too long a day) for you. Otherwise, anytime > from 7 AM to 11 PM is open all week for me. > > Steve > Carsten Hohnke Ann Arbor City Council Fifth Ward chohnke@a2gov.org (734) 369-4464 Carsten Hohnke West Pole, Inc. C: (734) 276-3681 E: carsten@westpole.com W: www.westpole.com 1 > Carsten Hohnke Ann Arbor City Council Fifth Ward chohnke@a2gov.org (734) 369-4464 Carsten Hohnke West Pole, Inc. (734) 276-3681 carsten@westpole.com www.westpole.com > park/gathering spot is Liberty Plaza which is quite small and only > has a few benches. The South Avenue Parking Lot area is a perfect > location for a city plaza. This could include a large number of > items, including small shops and cafes/restaurants, green areas, a > fountain, or even an ice skating rink for winter. Ann Arbor is a > city that has many signature mom-and-pop style stores and > restaurants, and this area would be perfect for further developments > in that style. > > As an example of effective public space planning, the city of > Savannah Georgia demolished a 1954 hideous parking garage and > replaced it with an underground parking garage and rebuilt and > restored a park and fountain similar to the other 3 dozen that > currently dot the city. Please refer to the website of Lominack > Kolman Smith Architects for a description and photos of the Ellis > Square project. From their website: > > "The final design of the new Ellis Square at City Market has > recently been approved by City Council. Using input collected from > several charettes involving local stakeholders and citizens, two > designs were originally created and one was chosen for final > development — the "Open Space" plan. > > The Open Space plan will feature a large plaza and green space, > allowing the flexibility for larger gatherings that many of the > other squares cannot provide. A depressed elliptical lawn will > create a safe place for children to play while providing seating at > its perimeter. An angled fountain will be centrally located for > children to run through and passers-by to enjoy, and a single > structure on the northwest corner will feature a hospitality and > information center. The adjacent plaza can act as lunch seating by > day and performance stage by night." > > Furthermore, I'm a little disappointed with the way our building > residents learned of a possible fifteen-story building. Throughout > the planning stages of this project, I have been supportive of the > underground parking deck. It is a good way to deal with a necessary > evil, parking. Up until recently, I was under the opinion that the > planning commission was looking for citizen input on what to do with > the surface. At the planning commission meeting in October, our > building had representatives there, and I feel we were blind-sided > by the news that the ultimate plan is for a fifteen-story building. > The DDA website speaks of foundations for future development, but > not of a hi-rise building. I live on the backside of the building > (facing the parking lot), and if a hi-rise building were to be > constructed all I would see is a wall of glass or whatever the > perimeter wall of the building is. > > > > I appreciate your willingness to hear my thoughts, and any response > you would have would be appreciated. > > > > Sincerely, > > Andy Wozniak > > University of Michigan > > Construction Intern - University of Michigan Department of > Construction Management > > BSE Civil Engineering - Construction Engineering and Management - > Class of 2009 3 > > Michigan Marching Band - Tuba > > > > Ilona Wozniak, R.Ph. > > Chief Operating Officer > > North Fulton Regional Hospital > > 3000 Hospital Boulevard > > Roswell, Georgia 30076 > > > Douglas R. Wozniak, P.E. > > Project Executive > > KBD Construction Services, Inc. > > 3500 Piedmont, N.E. > > Atlanta, GA 30305-1503 > > > Andy Wozniak University of Michigan Construction Intern - University of Michigan Department of Construction Management BSE Civil Engineering - Construction Engineering and Management Class of 2009 Michigan Marching Band - Tuba 4 Bartha, Stephen From: Greden, Leigh Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 11:11 AM To: Schopieray, Christine Subject: FW: DDA's Parking Plans - Not the way to go -----Original Message----- From: Greden, Leigh Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 4:22 PM To: 'S Batterman' Cc: Rapundalo, Stephen; Derezinski, Tony Subject: RE: DDA's Parking Plans - Not the way to go Mr. Batterman- Thank you for writing. Although you do not live in my district, please allow me to respond because I have been closely involved with this project since its inception. I am cc'ing your Councilmembers, Stephen Rapundalo and Tony Derezinski, on this response. First, the proposed 70 market-rate permits are not part of the underground library garage. Those are part of a separate project at First & Washington. Second, the proposed (now postponed) new library is totally separate from the underground garage. The library is managed by the Ann Arbor District Library, which is a separate entity. Their finances are not as stable as the City's finances. (For example, they have rarely, if ever, issued bonds, which is why they were facing a hard time issuing bonds for their project). That's why the City can afford this project. Third, although underground parking is expensive, it's also better for the environment, which is why we encourage it over above-ground parking. Fourth, and most importantly, the City desperately needs more downtown parking. There is a long waiting list for parking permits. Several garages and lots are full or nearly full on most weekend nights (the Brown block lot, the Kline's lot, and the 4th/Washington garage), and many are full or nearly full on weekdays (the Ann-Ashley garage, the Brown lot). We must have more parking. Our City's economic future requires it. This parking expansion is being done in conjunction with alternative transportation options -- an issue on which Ann Arbor leads the State - including expansion of the bus system, development of a rail system, and development of new sidewalks and bike lanes. -Leigh Greden, City Council -----Original Mess^ From: S Batterman Sent: Sunday, Decemoer 14, ^UU8 3:41 PM" To: Hieftje, John; Smith, Sandi; Briere, Sabra; Rapundalo, Stephen; Derezinski, Tony; Taylor, Christopher (Council); Greden, Leigh; Higgins, Marcia; Teall, Margie; Hohnke, Carsten; Anglin, Mike Subject: DDA's Parking Plans - Not the way to go Dear Mayor & City Council: I am writing concerning DDA's plan for parking by the library. Most of my information comes from the AA News Story 2 weeks ago called "Parking project finalized, plus a review of DDA'ss plans and some calculations.. This is short as it was written for letters to the editor. Dear editor: "Let me get this right: The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (DDA) will happily spend $56.4 million on an underground parking project for 785 cars. Let's figure out 1 what this means. Given that the parking accounts for only (!) $42.4 million, puts 15% down, obtains a 20 year bond at a favorable 5.25% rate, and limits annual operating costs to say $200,000 (my naive guess, the rest from DDA), then each parking place costs over $4,000 per year or $334 per month. Seventy lucky (and highly subsidized) tenants will pay "market rates" - currently one-third lower ($105 per month at DDA facilities and less at UM). Can't afford a monthly pass? Hourly rates of $2.00 per hour should cover costs - if the lot is kept completely full during working hours - this is only about twice current hourly rates ($1.10). I've neglected costs and impacts related to additional city traffic, security, facility maintenance, etc. Apparently we can't afford a new library, but a huge investment in a luxury parking facility is no problem. Hopefully, the City Council will have the sense to kill this project. The city, its merchants, and most of all, Ann Arbor citizens and taxpayers would be far better served by creative approaches providing comprehensive, healthy, sustainable, and far-thinking transportation solutions. Let's get DDA and the City Council to consider - and then price out — some real alternatives. It shouldn't be a problem for even a fraction of this kind of money." In short, this is not the way to spend this sort of money. Thanks for your attention. Sincerely, Stuart Batterman 3027 Lexington 994-0886 Stuart Batterman, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health Professor, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering University of Michigan Room 6075 SPH2 1420 Washington Heights Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029 USA tel: ^MMHMBMH^ fax: email: url-general: www.sph.umich.edu/~stuartb url-research: http://research.sph.umich.edu/index.php?g=l&s=home 2 Page 1 of 5 Bartha, Stephen From: Hieftje, John Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 11:34 AM To: Schopieray, Christine Cc: Bartha, Stephen Subject: FW: Downtown Historic District Study From: Tom Whitakerl_ Sent: Friday, Decern berTS, 2008 12:00 "PR" To: Hieftje, John Cc: Schopieray, Christine Subject: Re: Downtown Historic District Study John/Christine: In January, Tuesdays and Thursdays are open for me to schedule an appointment. A meeting of the Germantown Neighborhood Association is scheduled for this Sunday and we hope to meet a couple of times over the holidays. I may have something to report from those meetings when we get together, too, although at this point, I have not been delegated to speak for anyone but myself. I think it is important that these new council members get up-to-speed quickly on planning and zoning law before making any ill-advised decisions on pending matters. This neighborhood was not included in the A2D2 re-zoning effort since it falls outside the DDA jurisdictional area—also known as "Downtown" in the 1992 Central Area Plan. In fact, the A2D2 effort itself, while I like what I'm hearing, should have been preceded with an update of the entire Central Area Plan, now 17-years-old. It is a fundamental premise of planning law that zoning be based on a master plan and I think you can readily see where conflicts quickly emerge when you put the cart before the horse. One of the worst things I keep hearing is that our neighborhood needs to become a "buffer" zone between the "new" Downtown and other neighborhoods. I believe we already have a wonderful row of existing buffer buildings and uses along William St. Enough with the long emails....I look forward to meeting you and discussing this further in person. Tom On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Hieftje, John wrote: Hello: calendar up to the 25thfl||^^|i|[|[||||||||||||||||mi|^H^1 would be happy to find time to talk in the new year. 4/6/2009 Page 2 of 5 Years of work have gone into the A2D2 process and there is more to be done. I am happy to hear you agree with what has been produced by staff and the planning commission. Formal recommendations are usually approved by council with only minor tweaking. I can understand why you might think some council members are less informed than others in that some have been in the loop on this as part of their council assignments and others have not. We also have four brand new council members. In my experience it is also common for council members to hold off on digging too deeply into issues until they arrive on the council table simply because the drafts tend to change a lot as the plans go through revisions. I have open office hours on most Fridays but we can meet at another time if that won't fit your schedule. I have included my assistant, Christine Schopieray in this email and she can set up a time for us to talk. You can also call my office at 794-6161. John Hieftje From: Tom Whitaker [mailto, Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 12:19 AM To: Hieftje, John Subject: Re: Downtown Historic District Study John: I would like to take you up on that meeting. My new neighbors and I are very interested in keeping this neighborhood intact and I am quickly getting up to speed on a number of things. I've spent the last semester learning about what makes a successful downtown and have been looking forward to putting my money where my mouth is by moving downtown with my family. There are are already four families living in well-maintained old homes adjacent or close to my new house and I was excited to feel that we were on the cutting edge of a trend. Sadly, I've heard some very disheartening comments from the neighbors about what they may do if misplaced development starts to destroy the homes in this area. It has given me pause about my decision to invest in this neighborhood and I would like to better understand what Council is thinking. It seems that despite all the citizen input and guidance via the master plans, the Calthorpe effort, and the A2D2 rezoning process, there still seems to be a lot of confusion among Council members about what types of development belong where. The Planning Commission and planning staff seem to have figured it out pretty well, however, and I hope that Council will see fit to follow their educated and well-reasoned recommendations. I am free most days until the next semester starts. Thanks. 4/6/2009 Page 3 of 5 Tom Whitaker Cell:0Hff On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Hieftje, John wrote: Dear Mr. Whitaker: You make several good points here, too many for an instant response but I would be happy to meet with you and talk about this sometime soon. Thank you again for writing. John Hieftje From: Tom Whitaker [mailto| Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 10:41 PM~ To: Hieftje, John; Briere, Sabra; Smith, Sandi; Anglin, Mike; Hohnke, Carsten; Teall, Margie; Higgins, Marcia; Greden, Leigh; Derezinski, Tony Subject: Downtown Historic District Study Members of Council: I am very disappointed that you voted down the motion to study the creation of a new historic district just south of downtown. Had I known this motion was being considered, I would have come to your meeting and spoken in person. Recently, my wife and I purchased a home at 444 S. Fifth Avenue with the intention of rehabilitating it and moving our family downtown. The charm of this historic neighborhood was one of the primary considerations. Being in an historic district would be an additional incentive for me and folks like me, in order to take advantage of State tax credits for rehabilitation of these homes. Please reconsider what will only be a study. I can't fathom why a study would be considered so threatening to Council. It will provide for a survey of the existing historic resources in the neighborhood and make recommendations. It will still be up to Council to decide how and when to move forward. I'm amazed that such a simple request would be interpreted as "moving too fast" or "creating momentum." By contrast, look at the Greenway efforts. The push to study that major, major undertaking came about because of neighbors' protests against DDA 4/6/2009 Page 4 of 5 development proposals for three parking lots along First Street. Despite this being a sudden and "anti-development" reaction, Greenway backers received not only a study, but a full-blown City task force. Regardless of where one stands on the Greenway, one has to concede that is is a much farther reaching, more expensive, less dense, and far more unlikely proposition than a proposed historic district that is already supported by many of the affected property owners (not something you could say for the Greenway). A simple cost/benefit analysis would show you that there is a far more immediate bang for the buck to be had with the historic district. Where was the fear of "momentum" in the case of the Greenway, even though the Greenbelt initiative had just been passed by voters and the Wally light rail was just starting to seem like a possibility? Both of those programs made the Greenway even less practical, yet Council forged ahead with the Greenway study anyway. I'm not saying it wasn't a fruitful exercise, but I just can't understand why this historic district wouldn't be given a similar opportunity for study. A study that would be far simpler and cheaper than the one undertaken by Greenway Task Force. It is important that you act soon to reconsider the study. I've been watching and supporting the A2D2 rezoning initiative and am a strong believer in downtown density and walkable urban environments. The best examples of this around the country also include more traditional housing options that provide character and a refuge from the hustle and bustle nearby. It is the historic character buildings of Main Street—with facades that continue to be restored—along with the smart management of parking and streetscapes by the DDA that has revitalized Downtown. I applaud the DDA's new streetscape plans for Division and Fifth Ave that will help make our neighborhood even more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater as we continue to create the updated vision for Downtown. There were concerns expressed that this study proposal was only coming forth at this time in order to thwart new developments. Often this is the case when a new development is proposed, where issues like increased traffic draw out the NIMBYs who are suddenly awakened to a threat (real or perceived) to their neighborhoods. How sad it is when it is already too late. Being a new homeowner in the neighborhood, I don't know what specifically sparked the authors of the study motion, but if it was indeed in response to new proposed developments, then so what? Please know that it is perfectly OK for Council to pursue historic designation, even in the face of a pending development project. In fact, I would fully support a moratorium on any new developments in this area (or at least any demolitions) until the study is complete. This is a perfectly proper thing for a Council to do, and perfectly legal (although given that these houses are currently providing good rental incomes, demolition is not especially likely). In any case, it is not too late to act and I would like to see Council proceed in a measured and intelligent manner now, rather than waiting for another controversy to emerge. A study would be a simple, and reasonable first step. Please realize that there is now and will continue to be a ready market for the houses in this neighborhood as they stand. Even as some students and young professionals are drawn to the new high rises, a new opportunity will open up for the existing historic housing stock to be restored and upgraded. Retiring baby boomers and millennials alike are looking to move downtown and will be seeking a variety of housing options—not just 10-story brick boxes with garage doors as their only street presence. Given the current and future positive economic value of the existing homes in this neighborhood, there can be no claim of a taking by any property owner simply by creating an historic district. Courts have held that municipalities have no obligation to provide developers with the maximum return possible on their property. At the same time, numerous studies have shown that property values are, at a minimum, stabilized, but more typically go up when they are placed in a historic district. I would be far more concerned about my property values going down with the new development that was proposed for Fifth Ave. than I would about my property being placed in an historic district. 4/6/2009 Page 5 of 5 I am currently in the process of starting my own property development company and am also actively pursuing a graduate certificate in real estate development from U of M, so I am by no means anti-development. The nationally notable professors in the real estate program at U of M will all tell you how important it is to have character buildings and a mix of housing options as part of a healthy, viable, walkable/bikable downtown. Historic districts are a key part of this mix. It is a new dawn in the development world and not just because of the current economic conditions. There is plenty of money to be made in development that respects the historic character of America's downtowns. I've made several economic, political and legal arguments, but at the heart of all this is the actual neighborhood history itself. This area makes sense to be designated as an historic district given the rich history it contains: Bethlehem Church, former mayor's homes, a former hospital. Names such as Muehlig, Beakes, Walz, Schmid and Slauson. If these names aren't familiar to you, then I suggest you quickly get up to speed on Ann Arbor history. I can't think of another downtown neighborhood as historically important as this one (even those already designated), yet according to Council, it doesn't even deserve a study? Imagine attending a lecture on Ann Arbor's history in the downtown library, then walking right outside to see a large portion of it in the flesh? Or simply imagine being able to leave your new high-rise loft and take an after-dinner stroll through this historic neighborhood. Best of both worlds, I would say. The historic residential character of this area a key element in any holistic vision of Downtown, and its preservation will only help make nearby developments (farther north) even more desirable. Please help preserve this neighborhood for our children to enjoy and study. I will happily donate my time and expertise to the effort. Thank you for your time. Tom Whitaker 557 Allison Drive (Soon to be 444 S. Fifth Ave.) 4/6/2009 Page 1 of 1 Bartha, Stephen From: Hieftje, John Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 11:50 AM To: Schopieray, Christine Cc: Bartha, Stephen Subject: FW: Transit center/library lot/library From: Hieftje, John Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 8:34 AM To: 'Steve Bean' Subject: RE: Transit center/library lot/library Thanks Steve, certainly something to think about. John Steve Bean HHHHH^I^H^V Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009lT53PM^^ To: Hieftje, John; Smith, Sandi; Briere, Sabra; Rapundalo, Stephen; Derezinski, Tony; Taylor, Christopher (Council); Greden, Leigh; Higgins, Marcia; Teall, Margie; Hohnke, Carsten; Anglin, Mike Cc: Fraser, Roger; Chris White; Pollay, Susan Subject: Transit center/library lot/library Dear council members/friends, I've read the news articles covering the presentation by Roger Fraser on a possible building on the library lot (over the proposed underground parking structure) and AATA's request for consideration of the use of 4th Ave for reconfiguring the transit center. (I'm curious to see how all the buses would fit there.) I appreciate the desire to have a better idea of what might be constructed before finalizing the parking structure design, and I have a suggestion that goes even further along those lines. I'd like to see the City, DDA, AATA, and AADL explore a land swap wherein a new transit center would be developed on the city's surface lot next to the library and incorporate the Greyhound station, creating a comprehensive transit center-one better suited, sized, and sited for future additions. A new library building could be built on the current transit center and old Y sites. One objective would be to get the buses off the street, which is kind of the opposite of what's being proposed. Obviously, a parking component would have to be incorporated somewhere. Also, it might be too much to hope that the post office could cooperate with a new shared, short-term parking/drop-off lane with the library, but it's a reasonable vision. I understand that the one-way streets might present a challenge. I hope you won't allow that, or any other obstacle, to prevent you from thinking creatively about this possibility. The coordination of all the new construction and the demolition of the current library building might be simplified under this scenario. In the end, a commercial building could replace the current library building and/or be built above the transit center. (Likewise at the Greyhound station, if that were incorporated.) I'm not saying this would all work out just right, but I think we have a rare opportunity right now to consider it. I'd be happy to discuss any aspect of this with any of you. Thanks for your consideration and your commitment to our community. Steve PS: Susan, I couldn't find an email address for Josie. Would you forward this to her, please? 4/6/2009 Page 1 01 Bartha, Stephen From: Hieftje, John Saturday, April 04, 2009 11:33 AM Schopieray, Christine Bartha, Stephen Sent: To: Cc: Subject: FW: council Tuesday 2/17 evening - parking structure site plan From: Susan Pollay [mailto:SPollay@a2dda.org] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 5:21 PM To: 0ar^®b^e/».cpm; Hieftje, John; jsantihall@gmail.com; Joan Lowenstein; John Mouat; jsplitt@comcast.net; keirJh.6rr(^mall.corn; gunn|@ewashtenaw.org; rene@arborbrewing.com; Roger Hewitt; Russ Collins ; sandl@triBiiimrealtors.com Subject: council Tuesday 2/17 evening - parking structure site plan Hi all. For those that are planning to attend the City Council meeting Tuesday night 2/17, the Council agenda is now available on line so you can get a sense of where the S. Fifth Avenue parking structure appears on this agenda: http://www2.a2gov.org/legistar/meetings/2009/2/3025_A_City_Council_09-02-17_Meeting_Agenda.pdf Nearly at the beginning of the meeting there will be a public hearing for the parking structure (PH-6) where members of the public are welcome to speak to the project site plan. Then later in the meeting is DB-2 09-0139 Resolution to Approve South Fifth Avenue Parking Garage and Street, DS-4 09-0002 Resolution Authorizing Publication of Notice of Intent to Issue General Obligation Parking Facility Capital Improvement Bonds and DS-5 09-0092 Resolution Approving Issuance of Capital Improvement Bonds to Fund Construction of a Parking Structure at South Fifth Avenue. It's going to be an exciting city council meeting and worth watching on CTN if you can't be there that evening. Talk to you soon. Susan 4/6/2009 Page 1 of 4 Bartha, Stephen From: Hieftje, John Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 11:49 AM To: Schopieray, Christine Cc: Bartha, Stephen Subject: FW: Request for postponement of action on proposed parking structure From: Hieftje, John Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:58 AM To: 'Steve Bean' Subject: RE: Request for postponement of action on proposed parking structure Steve: Thanks for working on this. I know it took some time. A lot to think about. John From: Steve Beanl Sent: Monday, February 167 To: Higgins, Marcia; Anglin, Mike; Hohnke, Carsten; Hieftje, John; Teall, Margie; Smith, Sandi; Taylor, Christopher (Council); Rapundalo, Stephen; Briere, Sabra; Greden, Leigh; Derezinski, Tony Subject: Request for postponement of action on proposed parking structure Dear council members, I'm writing to ask that you - postpone action on the proposed underground parking structure at the "library lot", - request a comprehensive presentation by the DDA on its parking availability data for the structures as well as on its parking demand management efforts, and - perform a more extensive analysis of the presumed need for the structure and possible alternatives before approving its construction. I believe that a delay is fully justified given the state of the economy, the upcoming addition of several hundred new parking spaces elsewhere downtown, the incomplete implementation of alternatives for managing peak parking demand, the lack of consideration of environmental impacts (such as greenhouse gas emissions) from increasing parking supply, and the likelihood of a permanent decrease in parking demand early in the lifetime of the proposed structure. (The last two might seem contradictory, but any increase in emissions, no matter how short-lived, would be very detrimental.) The Executive Summary of the City's Draft Transportation Plan Update report states that 'The City's vision is to become more transit-oriented, bike-friendly, and pedestrian-friendly, and less reliant on fuel consumptive forms of motorized travel." 4/6/2009 Page 2 of\ The proposed underground parking structure would be entirely counterproductive to that vision as well as to other of our environmental goals. More than 100 new on-street parking spaces are about to be added to 5th and Division streets, through the heart of downtown, and close to 200 new public spaces will become available when the parking structure for the City Apartments development at 1st & Washington is completed. The need for more capacity beyond that has questionable basis. The 2007 Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study report by Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates (http://www.a2dda.org/downloads/Phase II Part_6.pdf) recommended the formalization of processes for both funding new parking and determining when new supply is needed. It also recommended that "parking demand management options be exhausted" before undertaking new construction or instituting higher rates. The City has not followed these recommendations, nor have more than a few of the eighteen "Immediate Actions" listed in the report been implemented. Those that have been pursued, such as the DDA's experiment with valet parking at the Maynard structure, are just getting underway and have insufficient results to evaluate at this point. Meanwhile, both new construction and rate increases are proposed to be undertaken simultaneously. The technology and data available to the DDA on the parking system have opened opportunities for improved service as well as better load management. However, to my knowledge, load balancing has yet to be explored. Likewise, other resources, such as the surplus spaces in underutilized private surface lots, have not been considered for near-term peak demand management. Meanwhile, the getDowntown program has compiled an impressive record of success with its initiatives. For example, the number of golpass trips has increased each of the last four years, by an overall increase above the base year (2003-2004) of more than 35%. Unfortunately, AATA is now considering a rate increase for bus riders. The most likely outcome with regard to ridership of such a change would be for some users to find alternatives (perhaps even going back to commuting by car and parking in the structures.) The 2007 Annual Report of AATA (http://www.theride.orQ/pdf/AnnualReport2007.pdf) noted that "over 80% of evening downtown workers reported that they park at on-street meters." Clearly, the lack of coordination between our parking and transit systems threatens our efforts to achieve our community goals and has much room for improvement before we resort to adding expensive capacity to handle peak demand. One alternative would be for a portion of the funds that would otherwise be used to build and maintain the parking structure to be redirected so that the bus system can be improved without raising fares. While U-M president Mary Sue Coleman has stated that the university does not "do" payment in lieu of taxes, they do contribute to AATA's operating budget. The City and AATA could make a very strong case to the university that similarly increasing its funding to the transit system would be in their interest as well. It also might enable a greater integration of the AATA and university bus systems. Below I've provided responses (including some components of possible alternative approaches) to comments I've heard or read regarding this issue. Thank you for your consideration and your valuable service to our community. I'll gladly respond to any questions. (I had hoped to attend the caucus meeting on Sunday in order to discuss this, but learned on Saturday that it had been cancelled.) - People will continue to drive cars. Yes, but less than in the past. Oil supply is expected to decline 2-4%/year minimum (and as high as 7%/year), beginning as early as 2010. That translates to an expected price increase of between 8%/year and 40%/year. Assuming a fairly conservative cost increase of 20% per year, in order to maintain zero net increase in fuel cost for driving, the owner of a car that currently gets 20 mpg would have to somehow get at least 24 mpg next year and almost 50 mpg five years from now. Five years later, they'd need to be getting almost 124 mpg. The historical turnover of the US vehicle fleet is about 15 years. On top of the higher cost for driving, most other expenses will go up, making the purchase of new vehicles even less affordable. The 2006 parking study data are already out of date with regard to these changes and trends. (While demand in the US decreased in June 2008 by 388,000 barrels/day, it increased by 475,000 barrels/day in China, more than offsetting the demand reduction [http://www.gulfnews.com/business/Oil and Gas/10230996.html.] The number of cars in China in 1993 was less than 750,000. By 2004 the number had reached 6 million. By 2005, 8 million; by 2007, 20 million. Due to that increased global demand, coupled with the coming decline in supply, gas prices will continue to rise unless drivers respond with drastic cuts in driving.) 4/6/2009 Page 3 of 4 When cars in use eventually do become smaller on average, more on-street spaces could be created, possibly by 10% or more. When people begin driving less, more existing traffic lanes could be converted to parking in order to compensate for any loss of spaces if surface lots are lost to development. Q: How many such potential spaces are there? - The parking structure would pay for itself over its lifetime through parking fees received. While the current system pays for itself, the individual structures don't pay for themselves. They're essentially subsidized by the surface lots and on-street spaces. Furthermore, if parking demand declines soon, the structures will become even greater financial sinks. In any case, this assertion doesn't take into account the opportunity cost compared to the alternatives. One alternative is to leave the existing surface lot. Another would be to sell the land to a private developer and receive both the sale price and the subsequent tax payments. In economic terms, the proposed structure may be the worst of those three scenarios, especially if insufficient resources remain for the necessary development of a sustainable infrastructure. - If parking demand decreases, the DDA can close surface lots and remove older structures from service, which would free up those sites for more productive uses. A distinction needs to be made between short-term and long-term parking needs. Most of the long-term parking is in the structures. Eliminating surface lots may not be appropriate if most of the demand decrease is for long-term parking, which seems likely (or at least more desirable.) Eliminating parking structures before the end of their useful life would be wasteful if it could possibly be avoided. Eliminating them at all will require skillful management of the system (much like the situation we now face), primarily because the reduction in spaces would need to occur in large blocks. Furthermore, the surface lots have the highest demand throughout the day and charge the highest rates. The impact of eliminating such spaces in favor of keeping structure spaces (including underground ones) hasn't been fully considered. The new surface lot at the old Y site plus the new on-street spaces to be added on 5th and Division will provide about 200 spaces for short-term use. More permit spaces could be made available in the existing structures by using the improved parking system data and technologies to manage the capacity at 90% or higher rather than the recommended 85%, at least until new rates are implemented and future demand trends become clearer. The DDA could provide coordination services to match commuters with private lot owners to take advantage of their large surplus of (widely distributed) unused spaces. The parking study contains a recommendation to that effect. This would also provide an economic benefit to existing downtown businesses. - We need more parking to attract new businesses to downtown. While some potential employers would prefer to have publicly provided parking for their employees, others might prefer their employees to use a reliable transit system with adequate backup services, such as guaranteed ride home. Smaller businesses and those with a commitment to community sustainability may not have the expectation of subsidized parking. Our challenge isn't to beat the malls and the townships at the parking game, it's to envision and create a downtown that's better and more attractive to potential residents, businesses, and visitors than the current one. The parking study report duly notes the need for things like keeping sidewalks clear of snow, for example. Parking will continue to play a role, but a declining one and only one among many. In terms of value to downtown businesses, the best opportunity may very well lie in attracting more visitors on days and times when the parking system is underutilized. - The DDA has a 1000+ person waiting list for parking permits which the new structure could address. We don't know enough about those people's current situations to assess the value to them of a structure at this site (as far as I'm aware.) Are they even still looking for a permit since getting on the list? Would they like to park at this site? What are they doing now to meet their parking/commuting needs? Do they want a permit because it's cheaper than where they're currently parking? How much are they willing to pay? Even if that demand does currently exist, a new parking structure would be a 50-year-lifetime fix to a problem that might only exist for 5 years or less. More information is needed on the status of the waiting list before making a large long-term investment. - Of course we need to support all the alternatives-and we do, but we need more parking too. The two are at cross purposes, with the alternatives moving us toward sustainability and the construction of more parking spaces moving us away from it. If demand for more parking truly exists at this time, it's a demonstration that the investments in alternatives haven't been sufficient to offset the past and current subsidies for parking and single-occupant-vehicle use, and 4/6/2009 Page 4 of k that the price of parking is too low. If we ultimately need a sustainable transit system (and we do), investing in the current unsustainable system is a waste of valuable resources, especially if it doesn't end up paying for itself. - Providing parking downtown for potential employers will result in jobs to help Ann Arborites who are suffering through home foreclosures and other economic difficulties. Building an underground parking structure isn't a quick fix. Construction will take time and result in a temporary decrease in parking supply in the short term. If parking really is that important and a crisis exists, there are other means of addressing it more quickly and directly. In the longer term, it's very difficult to estimate the value of downtown parking to specific individuals. (Also, it's debatable how much can be done locally to address problems that result from economic issues rooted more at the state and national levels.) From the perspective of an employer/commuter, a $5/year golPass is far more affordable than a $1500/year parking permit. Improving the affordability of downtown employment for the currently employed is far more within the DDA's influence than providing a solution to the others. - Parking belongs underground. Yes, for new, private developments for overnight storage, putting the parking spaces underground makes good sense. Also perhaps for new public developments (e.g., government facilities) where long-term parking is necessary. However, constructing underground parking to replace aboveground structures before their end of life would be a waste of existing resources (assuming that existing parking supply distribution is adequate, and even lacking that it would be questionable.) Likewise, existing resources (i.e., private surface lots, driveways, and public streets) should be maximized to meet parking needs before building a new structure. - An underground parking structure at this site will be good for the library. The 2008 library users survey results (http://wvvw.aadl.ora/buildings/downtown/surveyresults) indicate that the addition of an underground structure would result in more people parking at the site than currently use the surface lot (see questions 10 and 16.) However, it's not clear to what extent those people would increase use of the library, nor to what extent they would increase their number of trips downtown. Parking supply was identified as a problem by only about 10 of the more than 6000 survey participants. (Question 1 asked about the importance of adequate parking, not about the need for more.) Without more information we can't adequately assess the value of the proposed structure to library users (or to downtown in general, for that matter, at least not from the survey results.) Library Lane seems to be desired by the library board and staff, but its creation doesn't necessarily rely on the underground structure. Alternatively, if (as I've suggested we could explore) the transit center were moved to the library lot (possibly incorporating the Greyhound station) and a new library building were constructed on the current transit center site, the 4th & William structure (which typically has hundreds of available spaces during the day) could be used for library patron parking and 4th Avenue or a mid-block cut-through could be use for drop-off at the library. - The proposed structure would result in 600+ new spaces for a cost of approximately $50,000 per (constructed) space. If the structure is planned to be managed at 85% capacity, the projected cost per used space would need to be increased by 15% to get a cost/benefit value as opposed to a number used for comparison purposes. If parking demand declines during the lifetime of the structure, the cost per used space would increase (either for this structure or for others.) - This structure could enable the development of a convention center. Convention centers are historically financial losers (or so I've heard.) With the current economy and peak oil near if not already behind us, a convention center could be a very poor choice for downtown's future. Page 1 of 5 Bartha, Stephen From: Schopieray, Christine Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 9:20 AM To: Bartha, Stephen Subject: FW: Request for postponement of action on proposed parking structure FOIA-Greden response From: Greden, Leigh Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 11:03 AM To: Schopieray, Christine Subject: FW: Request for postponement of action on proposed parking structure From: Greden, Leigh Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 9:06 PM To: 'Steve Bean' Subject: RE: Request for postponement of action on proposed parking structure Hi Steve- Thanks for writing. I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. The City needs more parking. We need a lot of it. And we needed it yesterday. The City's number one priority right now must be economic development. We have lost too many businesses downtown -and in some cases that means they left the City completely - because of lack of parking. In response to this argument, you write the following: ...other [employerjs might prefer their employees to use a reliable transit system with adequate backup services, such as guaranteed ride home. Smaller businesses and those with a commitment to community sustainability may not have the expectation of subsidized parking Unfortunately, that's just not true. Time and again, business approach me, real estate brokers, the DDA, the City, etc., asking for new space. And they *all* want parking. They're willing to compromise and accept fewer spaces than they would otherwise expect, and in doing so, they will offer golpasses and bike racks to their employees. But they *all* demand parking. The system's demand exceeds its supply. Under basic microeconomic principles, that means we need more parking. The City also offers more alternative transportation than most cities in the country our size, but those alternatives - without sufficient automobile parking - do not lure businesses downtown. In response to this "mixed" approach, you argue: The two are at cross purposes, with the alternatives moving us toward sustainability and the construction of more parking spaces moving us away from it. With all due respect, you're dead wrong. The two can - and must - work together. If we abandon the parking needs of our economy and try to force people to use *only* alternative transportation, you will doom this City's financial future. That is not a scare tactic or a hypothesis. It's a statement with which *every* downtown business owner will agree. Our downtown economy is becoming more and more dependent on people from outside Ann Arbor, and those people demand and require downtown parking. 4/6/2009 Page 2 01 Your point about the structures not paying for themselves, and being subsidized by the lots/meters, is only half right. Structures with bond payments are big money losers. But structures with no bond payments are big money makers. For example, the Ann-Ashley and Tally Hall garages - neither of which have any debt - generate huge net profits for the parking system, even after paying for their utilities, insurance, employee costs, etc. In fact, they are -by far - the two biggest money-makers in the system. Sustainability will be lost if our economy suffers. We need downtown economic development, and parking is a prerequisite. That's why I wholeheartedly support this garage. -Leigh Steve Bean^H||HHHHm^^^V Sent: Monday, FebmaryT?72TJ7jTl?OT To: Higgins, Marcia; Anglin, Mike; Hohnke, Carsten; Hieftje, John; Teall, Margie; Smith, Sandi; Taylor, Christopher (Council); Rapundalo, Stephen; Briere, Sabra; Greden, Leigh; Derezinski, Tony Subject: Request for postponement of action on proposed parking structure Dear council members, I'm writing to ask that you - postpone action on the proposed underground parking structure at the "library lot", - request a comprehensive presentation by the DDA on its parking availability data for the structures as well as on its parking demand management efforts, and - perform a more extensive analysis of the presumed need for the structure and possible alternatives before approving its construction. I believe that a delay is fully justified given the state of the economy, the upcoming addition of several hundred new parking spaces elsewhere downtown, the incomplete implementation of alternatives for managing peak parking demand, the lack of consideration of environmental impacts (such as greenhouse gas emissions) from increasing parking supply, and the likelihood of a permanent decrease in parking demand early in the lifetime of the proposed structure. (The last two might seem contradictory, but any increase in emissions, no matter how short-lived, would be very detrimental.) The Executive Summary of the City's Draft Transportation Plan Update report states that "The City's vision is to become more transit-oriented, bike-friendly, and pedestrian-friendly, and less reliant on fuel consumptive forms of motorized travel." The proposed underground parking structure would be entirely counterproductive to that vision as well as to other of our environmental goals. More than 100 new on-street parking spaces are about to be added to 5th and Division streets, through the heart of downtown, and close to 200 new public spaces will become available when the parking structure for the City Apartments development at 1st & Washington is completed. The need for more capacity beyond that has questionable basis. The 2007 Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study report by Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates Page 3 of 5 (http://wvvw.a2dda.org/downloads/Phase II Part_6.pdf) recommended the formalization of processes for both funding new parking and determining when new supply is needed. It also recommended that "parking demand management options be exhausted" before undertaking new construction or instituting higher rates. The City has not followed these recommendations, nor have more than a few of the eighteen "Immediate Actions" listed in the report been implemented. Those that have been pursued, such as the DDA's experiment with valet parking at the Maynard structure, are just getting underway and have insufficient results to evaluate at this point. Meanwhile, both new construction and rate increases are proposed to be undertaken simultaneously. The technology and data available to the DDA on the parking system have opened opportunities for improved service as well as better load management. However, to my knowledge, load balancing has yet to be explored. Likewise, other resources, such as the surplus spaces in underutilized private surface lots, have not been considered for near-term peak demand management. Meanwhile, the getDowntown program has compiled an impressive record of success with its initiatives. For example, the number of golpass trips has increased each of the last four years, by an overall increase above the base year (2003-2004) of more than 35%. Unfortunately, AATA is now considering a rate increase for bus riders. The most likely outcome with regard to ridership of such a change would be for some users to find alternatives (perhaps even going back to commuting by car and parking in the structures.) The 2007 Annual Report of AATA (http://www.theride.org/pdf/AnnualReport2007.pdf) noted that "over 80% of evening downtown workers reported that they park at on-street meters." Clearly, the lack of coordination between our parking and transit systems threatens our efforts to achieve our community goals and has much room for improvement before we resort to adding expensive capacity to handle peak demand. One alternative would be for a portion of the funds that would otherwise be used to build and maintain the parking structure to be redirected so that the bus system can be improved without raising fares. While U-M president Mary Sue Coleman has stated that the university does not "do" payment in lieu of taxes, they do contribute to AATA's operating budget. The City and AATA could make a very strong case to the university that similarly increasing its funding to the transit system would be in their interest as well. It also might enable a greater integration of the AATA and university bus systems. Below I've provided responses (including some components of possible alternative approaches) to comments I've heard or read regarding this issue. Thank you for your consideration and your valuable service to our community. I'll gladly respond to any questions. (I had hoped to attend the caucus meeting on Sunday in order to discuss this, but learned on Saturday that it had been cancelled.) Steve Bean 904-9914 - People will continue to drive cars. Yes, but less than in the past. Oil supply is expected to decline 2-4%/year minimum (and as high as 7%/year), beginning as early as 2010. That translates to an expected price increase of between 8%/year and 40%/year. Assuming a fairly conservative cost increase of 20% per year, in order to maintain zero net increase in fuel cost for driving, the owner of a car that currently gets 20 mpg would have to somehow get at least 24 mpg next year and almost 50 mpg five years from now. Five years later, they'd need to be getting almost 124 mpg. The historical turnover of the US vehicle fleet is about 15 years. On top of the higher cost for driving, most other expenses will go up, making the purchase of new vehicles even less affordable. The 2006 parking study data are already out of date with regard to these changes and trends. (While demand in the US decreased in June 2008 by 388,000 barrels/day, it increased by 475,000 barrels/day in China, more than offsetting the demand reduction [http://www.gulfnews.com/business/Oil and Gas/10230996.html.] The number of cars in China in 1993 was less than 750,000. By 2004 the number had reached 6 million. By 2005, 8 million; by 2007, 20 million. Due to that increased global demand, coupled with the coming decline in supply, gas prices will continue to rise unless drivers respond with drastic cuts in driving.) When cars in use eventually do become smaller on average, more on-street spaces could be created, possibly by 10% or more. When people begin driving less, more existing traffic lanes could be converted to parking in order to compensate for any loss of spaces if surface lots are lost to development. Q: How many such potential spaces are there? - The parking structure would pay for itself over its lifetime through parking fees received. While the current system pays for itself, the individual structures don't pay for themselves. They're essentially subsidized by the surface lots and on-street spaces. Furthermore, if parking demand declines soon, the structures will become even greater financial sinks. 4/6/2009 Page 4 oi In any case, this assertion doesn't take into account the opportunity cost compared to the alternatives. One alternative is to leave the existing surface lot. Another would be to sell the land to a private developer and receive both the sale price and the subsequent tax payments. In economic terms, the proposed structure may be the worst of those three scenarios, especially if insufficient resources remain for the necessary development of a sustainable infrastructure. - If parking demand decreases, the DDA can close surface lots and remove older structures from service, which would free up those sites for more productive uses. A distinction needs to be made between short-term and long-term parking needs. Most of the long-term parking is in the structures. Eliminating surface lots may not be appropriate if most of the demand decrease is for long-term parking, which seems likely (or at least more desirable.) Eliminating parking structures before the end of their useful life would be wasteful if it could possibly be avoided. Eliminating them at all will require skillful management of the system (much like the situation we now face), primarily because the reduction in spaces would need to occur in large blocks. Furthermore, the surface lots have the highest demand throughout the day and charge the highest rates. The impact of eliminating such spaces in favor of keeping structure spaces (including underground ones) hasn't been fully considered. The new surface lot at the old Y site plus the new on-street spaces to be added on 5th and Division will provide about 200 spaces for short-term use. More permit spaces could be made available in the existing structures by using the improved parking system data and technologies to manage the capacity at 90% or higher rather than the recommended 85%, at least until new rates are implemented and future demand trends become clearer. The DDA could provide coordination services to match commuters with private lot owners to take advantage of their large surplus of (widely distributed) unused spaces. The parking study contains a recommendation to that effect. This would also provide an economic benefit to existing downtown businesses. - We need more parking to attract new businesses to downtown. While some potential employers would prefer to have publicly provided parking for their employees, others might prefer their employees to use a reliable transit system with adequate backup services, such as guaranteed ride home. Smaller businesses and those with a commitment to community sustainability may not have the expectation of subsidized parking. Our challenge isn't to beat the malls and the townships at the parking game, it's to envision and create a downtown that's better and more attractive to potential residents, businesses, and visitors than the current one. The parking study report duly notes the need for things like keeping sidewalks clear of snow, for example. Parking will continue to play a role, but a declining one and only one among many. In terms of value to downtown businesses, the best opportunity may very well lie in attracting more visitors on days and times when the parking system is underutilized. - The DDA has a 1000+ person waiting list for parking permits which the new structure could address. We don't know enough about those people's current situations to assess the value to them of a structure at this site (as far as I'm aware.) Are they even still looking for a permit since getting on the list? Would they like to park at this site? What are they doing now to meet their parking/commuting needs? Do they want a permit because it's cheaper than where they're currently parking? How much are they willing to pay? Even if that demand does currently exist, a new parking structure would be a 50-year-lifetime fix to a problem that might only exist for 5 years or less. More information is needed on the status of the waiting list before making a large long-term investment. - Of course we need to support all the alternatives-and we do, but we need more parking too. The two are at cross purposes, with the alternatives moving us toward sustainability and the construction of more parking spaces moving us away from it. If demand for more parking truly exists at this time, it's a demonstration that the investments in alternatives haven't been sufficient to offset the past and current subsidies for parking and single-occupant-vehicle use, and that the price of parking is too low. If we ultimately need a sustainable transit system (and we do), investing in the current unsustainable system is a waste of valuable resources, especially if it doesn't end up paying for itself. - Providing parking downtown for potential employers will result in jobs to help Ann Arborites who are suffering through home foreclosures and other economic difficulties. Building an underground parking structure isn't a quick fix. Construction will take time and result in a temporary decrease in parking supply in the short term. If parking really is that important and a crisis exists, there are other means of addressing it more quickly and directly. In the longer term, it's very difficult to estimate the value of downtown parking to specific individuals. (Also, it's debatable how much can be done locally to address problems that result from economic issues rooted more at the state and national levels.) From the perspective of an employer/commuter, a $5/year golPass is far more affordable than a 4/6/2009 Page 5 of 5 $1500/year parking permit. Improving the affordability of downtown employment for the currently employed is far more within the DDA's influence than providing a solution to the others. - Parking belongs underground. Yes, for new, private developments for overnight storage, putting the parking spaces underground makes good sense. Also perhaps for new public developments (e.g., government facilities) where long-term parking is necessary. However, constructing underground parking to replace aboveground structures before their end of life would be a waste of existing resources (assuming that existing parking supply distribution is adequate, and even lacking that it would be questionable.) Likewise, existing resources (i.e., private surface lots, driveways, and public streets) should be maximized to meet parking needs before building a new structure. - An underground parking structure at this site will be good for the library. The 2008 library users survey results (http://www.aadl.org/buildings/downtown/surveyresults) indicate that the addition of an underground structure would result in more people parking at the site than currently use the surface lot (see questions 10 and 16.) However, it's not clear to what extent those people would increase use of the library, nor to what extent they would increase their number of trips downtown. Parking supply was identified as a problem by only about 10 of the more than 6000 survey participants. (Question 1 asked about the importance of adequate parking, not about the need for more.) Without more information we can't adequately assess the value of the proposed structure to library users (or to downtown in general, for that matter, at least not from the survey results.) Library Lane seems to be desired by the library board and staff, but its creation doesn't necessarily rely on the underground structure. Alternatively, if (as I've suggested we could explore) the transit center were moved to the library lot (possibly incorporating the Greyhound station) and a new library building were constructed on the current transit center site, the 4th & William structure (which typically has hundreds of available spaces during the day) could be used for library patron parking and 4th Avenue or a mid-block cut-through could be use for drop-off at the library. - The proposed structure would result in 600+ new spaces for a cost of approximately $50,000 per (constructed) space. If the structure is planned to be managed at 85% capacity, the projected cost per used space would need to be increased by 15% to get a cost/benefit value as opposed to a number used for comparison purposes. If parking demand declines during the lifetime of the structure, the cost per used space would increase (either for this structure or for others.) - This structure could enable the development of a convention center. Convention centers are historically financial losers (or so I've heard.) With the current economy and peak oil near if not already behind us, a convention center could be a very poor choice for downtown's future. 4/6/2009 Page 1 oi Bartha, Stephen From: Schopieray, Christine Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 9:17 AM To: Bartha, Stephen Subject: FW: PH-8 and DB-2 qualified decisions-South Fifth UG Garage FOIA request, from councilman Greden From: Greden, Leigh Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 11:01 AM To: Schopieray, Christine Subject: FW: PH-8 and DB-2 qualified decisions-South Fifth UG Garage From:______________ Sent: lues_3y, heoruary i/, zuxw 5T4T~PM To: Hieftje, John; Smith, Sandi; Briere, Sabra; Rapundalo, Stephen; Derezinski, Tony; Taylor, Christopher (Council); Greden, Leigh; Higgins, Marcia; Teall, Margie; Hohnke, Carsten; Anglin, Mike Subject: PH-8 and DB-2 qualified decisions-South Fifth UG Garage Regarding the resolution to proceed with an underground parking garage at South Fifth beneath the "Library Lot"~ This proposal could be beneficial to a struggling area of downtown. However, some events have diminished its potential. Some elements now seemed strained, needing clarification if the best aspects are to be realized. Briefly, Plans for a new downtown AADL building have been suspended. The "Old Y" site is now a surface parking lot. Plans for a revamped or relocated transit system or multi-modal facility are in flux. The Central Area plan for adjacent area is about to be updated (at last). Parking demand management results may have design impacts. Major street improvements on Fifth and Division need to be coordinated. Planning for above ground development has not seen the light of day. Some great possibilities, The eventual conversion of an existing above-ground parking structure to building development and more public open space. When? Where? The expansion of our historic small-block development pattern. Great for foot-traffic, secondary addresses and desirable active uses. Can we get easements to create the north-south bisector, at least for pedestrians? Improved pedestrian and bicycle accommodations, spatial separations and convenience. How can this project expand these accommodations? Generous softscape elements to frame a new library and public gathering space. How can we create a premier block to attract pedestrians and residents? Other persons have sent you more detailed questions and concerns. Considering that caucus prior to this meeting was cancelled, I urge you to listen to the range of public comment and engage in a robust public discussion before acting on this agenda item. 4/6/2009 Page 2 of2 We are in a time when complex consequences must be carefully weighed with an eye to those for our most highly desirable future. Sincerely, Alice J. Ralph Third Ward 4/6/2009 Page 1 of 1 Bartha, Stephen From: Schopieray, Christine Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 9:29 AM To: Bartha, Stephen Subject: FW: meeting to update us on the parking structure FOIA-Greden response From: Greden, Leigh Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 11:37 AM To: Schopieray, Christine Subject: FW: meeting to update us on the parking structure From: Greden, Leigh Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:36 PM To: rfhewitt@redhawkannarbor.com; jsplitt@comcast.net Subject: FW: meeting to update us on the parking structure FYI. From: Smith, Sandi Sent: Tue 1/20/2009 3:03 PM To: *City Council Members (All) Cc: Fraser, Roger; Dempkowski, Angela A; Pollay, Susan Subject: meeting to update us on the parking structure Colleagues: I would like to invite you all to join me in a meeting with Mike Ortlieb from Carl Walker Inc, the engineers designing the underground structure on S Fifth Ave. Although I participated early on in the project, I have not kept up with the design team. Before this comes to Council, I want to hear where the project is now. I also want to investigate the ideas about what could be built on top of the structure and the possibilities for cost savings. The meeting will be this Friday, January 23 at 3 pm, at the DDA office. Sandi Smith Ann Arbor City Council First Ward 4/6/2009 Page 3 of 3 2. Convention centers are dead zones in and of themselves. Look at the Lansing Center as a case study. Whatever ends up on this block of Fifth Ave., please don't allow it to be a convention center. If you think you must have a convention center, please issue an RFP and ask developers to package it with a hotel and put the convention uses on the second floor, leaving the first floor for ACTIVE uses. (I assume that any stand-alone convention center would be municipally owned. This will not accrue TIF money to help pay for this structure and other DDA projects in the future.) 3. An underground structure is preferable to an above-ground structure (if one is truly needed--personally, I don't think so), but it is folly to build one, anticipating a new building on top, without knowing what that building will be and without a design in place to base the foundations on. Building a "universal" underground structure that will accommodate most above-ground options is foolishly expensive, since this will surely involve an over-design of the undergound piece. If the engineers had the design for the above-ground building, the underground piece could be designed for maximum efficiency and minimal cost. I'm all for public-private partnerships, but let's wait for a partner to dance with, OK? 4. Lastly, I'm concerned about the effect of this project on the Fifth Avenue and Division streetscape improvements project. Between this parking structure and the City Hall addition, I would hate to see these much-needed street improvements delayed. They will provide an immediate and relatively inexpensive boost to Downtown businesses by improving multi-modal mobility and pedestrian amenities—especially connectivity to the Germantown Neighborhood. To me, that project should be a much higher priority for attracting businesses and development into the Downtown core than a parking structure that is only being built as "bait" to attract some development fish. They ain't bitin' right now anyway. My neighbors and I look forward to well-thought out developments on the library lot and former YMCA sites, but they must include interesting, street-level uses, with windows, businesses and general activity. You'll find the neighbors will support attractive, mixed use developments that improve the pedestrian friendliness of the streets and add businesses that we can frequent. A parking structure at this time is putting the cart before the horse and will cause more harm than good to downtown business. Thanks for your consideration. Tom Whitaker 444 South Fifth Avenue 4/16/2009 Bartha, Stephen From: Teall, Margie Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:27 PM To: Schopieray, Christine Subject: FW: Library Lot Parking Structure -----Original Message-----^^^^^KKt^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^m Wong \-ma^^°fKttKtttKKKtlKtKtll^^^Kf Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 200911:39 AM To: Briere, Sabra; Higgins, Marcia; Teall, Margie; Derezinski, Tony; Smith, Sandi; Anglin, Mike; Hohnke, Carsten; Greden, Leigh; Taylor, Christopher (Council); Rapundalo, Stephen; Hieftje, John Subject: Library Lot Parking Structure Dear Mayor Hieftje and City Council Members, I'm writing to urge you to postpone action on the proposed "Library Lot" underground parking structure until some very important questions have been answered. In response to the very limited and theoretical question "What do you think of an underground parking structure for Ann Arbor?", the notion has some appeal because the last thing our town needs is one more new large above-ground structure in its core area. HOWEVER, such a proposal will only make sense when it works well with other community needs and priorities. The current weakened local, state and national (sure, let's add global) economy is a key consideration. In this time of real fiscal crisis, do we really need to take on an extremely costly construction project like this? What is the true community benefit? We have seen recent efforts to make the existing parking system more coordinated and efficient to optimize its in-place capacity-- absolutely what's needed. The City system is expanding with the addition of 100 new on-street parking in the 5th & Division areas. Can we not continue to adapt and fine-tune existing infrastructure, rate structures and programs to further improve system capacity and achieve a more strategic understanding of parking need? Ann Arbor hired Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Assocs. to help us look at downtown parking and ways to improve conditions. The City has not come close to making good use of NNCA's recommendations. I think our community will be better served in the near term by looking at innovative ways to do more with what we have already. There is also the City's goal, stated in the executive summary of the City's Draft Transportation Plan Update report: "The City's vision is to become more transit- oriented, bike-friendly, and pedestrian-friendly, and less reliant on fuel consumptive forms of motorized travel." Ann Arbor has made some progress in this direction, but could do so much more to foster these long-term solutions. What impact could the money required for this structure project have if applied elsewhere? For example, helping to strengthen the AATA? We need to look for sustainable and systematic strategies that cut down on car use and traffic. Building parking structures is not one of them. As regards the specific context of the Library Lot, I cannot support this underground parking structure if it is, at its heart, a trojan horse for an outsized skyscraper building at that location. And the extension of the street grid through that block is a mistake. The argument that that block is "too big" just doesn't wash, and allowing cars to drive through it does nothing to enhance one's downtown experience. We can enhance the ambience of downtown by making "Library Lane" a non-motorized throughway that incorporates a true town square. This location is unquestionably a central one. The Ann Arbor Public Library is a real community asset, and this is a perfect location for it. Enhance it with a worthy adjacent civic space. A satisfactory drop-off zone for the AAPL could most certainly be created without running a conventional street through this site. Please do not rush ahead with this proposed underground parking structure project with a vote to go forward. I believe Ann Arbor has many more ways available to it to solve this problem. 1 Bartha, Stephen From: Carsten Hohnke [chohnke@a2gov.org] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 8:23 PM To: Bartha, Stephen Subject: [Fwd: Underground Parking Structure - Library Lot] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Underground Parking Structure - Library Lot Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2an^_2a^^__L-_50^^_ Tom Whitaker J^^^^^^^^HHH^^^^V To: LGreden@a2gov.org, MAngT^_rre^z^^v^^r^^^Higgins@a2gov. org, MTeall@a2gov.org, SRapundalo@a2gov.org, ssmith@a2gov.org, TDerezinski@a2gov.org, "Briere, Sabra" , Carsten Hohnke , Chris Taylor , "Hieftje, John" Mayor and Council: The 300 block of South Fifth Avenue has largely been a pedestrian and business "dead zone" (except for the Library, Jerusalem Garden and Earthen Jar) for some time now, nearly entirely focused on the automobile or bus. In addition to being a multi-lane one way expressway, it has no pedestrian interest--only pedestrian hazards. The library parking lot has two large driveway aprons, the post office has a drive-through/short term lot with another large lot out back, and the transit center has bus traffic. The former Y site is yet another parking lot. All of these uses are understandable and maybe even somewhat desirable taken on their own, but put all of them together on the same block, and Downtown Ann Arbor is left with a huge void, unwelcoming to pedestrians, instead of a vibrant commercial corridor connecting the liveliness of Liberty Street (and beyond) with the Germantown neighborhood to the south (Note: CUSTOMERS). The 300 block of Fourth Ave. is even worse, leaving the residents with the only options of either facing the hazards and unpleasantness of Fourth or Fifth, or taking long detours to Main or Division. As you consider your vote on a .new, and very expensive underground parking structure at the current library parking lot, I ask you to please consider the following: 1. This block needs walkable urban development that excites the street, including street-level retail, not more vehicle storage for businesses that don't yet exist on this block. 2. Convention centers are dead zones in and of themselves. Look at the Lansing Center as a case study. Whatever ends up on this block of Fifth Ave., please don't allow it to be a convention center. If you think you must have a convention center, please issue an RFP and ask developers to package it with a hotel and put the convention uses on the second floor, leaving the first floor for ACTIVE uses. (I assume that any stand-alone convention center would be municipally owned. This will not accrue TIF money to help pay for this structure and other DDA projects in the future.) 3. An underground structure is preferable to an above-ground structure (if one is truly needed--personally, I don't think so), but it is folly to build one, anticipating a new building on top, without knowing what that building will be and without a design in place to base the foundations on. Building a "universal" underground structure that will accommodate most above-ground options is foolishly expensive, since this will surely involve an over-design of the undergound piece. If the engineers had the design for the above-ground building, the underground piece could be designed for maximum efficiency and minimal cost. I'm all for public-private partnerships, but let's wait for a partner to dance with, OK? 4. Lastly, I'm concerned about the effect of this project on the Fifth Avenue and Division streetscape improvements project. Between this parking structure and the City Hall addition, I would hate to see these much-needed street improvements delayed. They will provide an immediate and relatively inexpensive boost to Downtown businesses by 1 improving multi-modal mobility and pedestrian amenities--especially connectivity to the Germantown Neighborhood. To me, that project should be a much higher priority for attracting businesses and development into the Downtown core than a parking structure that is only being built as "bait" to attract some development fish. They ain't bitin' right now anyway. My neighbors and I look forward to well-thought out developments on the library lot and former YMCA sites, but they must include interesting, street-level uses, with windows, businesses and general activity. You'll find the neighbors will support attractive, mixed use developments that improve the pedestrian friendliness of the streets and add businesses that we can frequent. A parking structure at this time is putting the cart before the horse and will cause more harm than good to downtown business. Thanks for your consideration. Tom Whitaker 444 South Fifth Avenue Carsten Hohnke Ann Arbor City Council Fifth Ward chohnke@a2gov.org (734) 369-4464 2 Page 1 of 6 Bartha, Stephen To: From: Sent: Derezinski, Tony; Briere, Sabra; Hohnke, Carsten; Chris Taylor; Hieftje, John Subject: Fwd: Underground Parking Structure - Library Lot Just noticed that Mr. Greden had not cc'd the rest of you, so you were missed in my reply to him. Tom Whitaker P.S. - If the City had combined the $50,000,000 for this structure with the University's funds for their proposed structures on Wall Street, we could have built one hell of a light rail system serving this City from four directions, and also funded other innovative public transportation initiatives. Perceived parking shortages during peak times are caused by excess commuter vehicles. Just stand on depot street and watch the UM hospital employees file in during rush hour—for one example. ----------Forwarded message ——r__r Tom Whitaker ^H___|||H^H||^^HP Date: Tue, Feb 17, 2009 aUl!35PM^^^^ Subject: Re: Underground Parking Structure - Library Lot To: "Greden, Leigh" Mr. Greden: (accidentally sent the previous message before I was finished) I have lived in Ann Arbor for 30 years and have never failed to find a parking space downtown. Sure the 4th and Washington structure fills up—it's the smallest one in town, but there are alternatives that always have space. The shortage is anecdotal. I guarantee you that this new parking structure will not stop the complaints about parking (even if Council doesn't give all the spaces to the next business that comes to town). The ones who complain are those who cannot park right in front of the business they want to go in, or business owners that hear those vocal complainers whine. One way to get more available street spaces is to extend on-street meter enforcement to 10pm. Currently, restaurant employees park on the street and leave their cars there during their entire shifts—which kills turn-over of spaces. Business owners who think parking is the biggest problem downtown are mistaken. What Ann Arbor needs are a few quality anchor stores to attract retail customers. Ann Arbor also needs a real, free and frequent public shuttle on Liberty between Main and State. The Link route is too long, runs only one way, and is too infrequent. Might as well walk. Shoppers would stay downtown longer if they could be quickly shuttled between the two ends of the downtown business "dumbell". The best place for this underground structure would have been on Ashley-"the Klines lot" with retail at grade and commercial and/or residential above that. Ashley has the potential to be a real, viable 3-block retail strip. Main Street is so heavily dominated by restaurants that there is no retail continuity. This discourages sustained browsing-style shopping trips. Tonight I heard several people mention all the new square footage of development built downtown 4/7/2009 Page 2 ot. recently without any new public parking being added to the system. If developments are being allowed without adequate parking, then whose fault is that? Why is Council approving projects that create a strain on the public parking system instead of requiring developers to either build it themselves, or at least contribute to the city-wide system? Again, building something with no clue as to what will go on top is wasteful. If you are building this for a 25 story building to go on top, don't you think there will have been wasted design time, concrete, steel and labor, if a 10 story building is what ultimately gets built? To claim that one has nothing to do with the other is not just ridiculous, it is insanity. I've been in construction for 16 years-only the government would build something like this on "spec." There is no confusion—at least on this end. Tom Whitaker On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Tom Whitaker ^^^^^^^^^B wrote: On Tue, Feb 17,2009 at 5:53 PM, Greden, Leigh wrote: ; Mr. Whitaker- Although I am not your Councilmember, please allow me to respond. I think there's some confusion here: the parking garage has nothing to do with what goes on top. We can -and should - build the garage now when construction costs are cheaper and the parking is needed. We can decide later - in one year or ten years - what goes on top. Simply put, there is no connection between the two. -Leigh Greden, Member of City Council From: Tom Whitaker [mailtoj Sent: Tuesday, February 17, To: Smith, Sandi Cc: Greden, Leigh; Anglin, Mike; Higgins, Marcia; Teall, Margie; Rapundalo, Stephen; Derezinski, Tony; Briere, Sabra; Hohnke, Carsten; Chris Taylor; Hieftje, John Subject: Re: Underground Parking Structure - Library Lot «By the time we are finishing the structure, we may very well have a coromunity vision and a developer selected to complete the process.» Councilmember Smith: I appreciate your response, but whatever happened to having a community vision BEFORE we build something (or rezone something, or fund something, or approve something...). 4/7/2009 Page 3 of 6 Clearly City Council is once again going to go full tilt into another crazy, expensive scheme whether it is the right time to do so or not, and regardless of what the citizens ; who pay for it think. \ I remember Tally Hall. Do you? i Tom Whitaker On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Smith, Sandi wrote: Dear Mr. Whitaker, Thank you for talcing the time to write to us and express your thoughts on the proposed underground parking structure. I agree with you on many of the points expressed. Ann Arbor is known for its i walkability and pedestrian friendliness. Any future development should enhance the vibrancy of the urban ¦ experience with multi use buildings. 1. This block needs walkable urban development that excites the street, including street-level retail, ; : not more vehicle storage for businesses that don't yet exist on this block. II agree that we need to be proactive in defining the development that will go on top of the new structure, j The structure is an addition to the parking system as a whole, which is needed and which will i ' accommodate short term and long term parkers. It will also increase the value of any future development i j ! in the corridor. | | | ; I | ; i ! • ! ! ¦ 2- Convention centers are dead zones in and of themselves. Look at the Lansing Center as a case ! study. Whatever ends up on this block of Fifth Ave., please don't allow it to be a convention i center. If you think you must have a convention center, please issue an RFP and ask developers to package it with a hotel and put the convention uses on the second floor, leaving the first floor for ACTIVE uses. (I assume that any stand-alone convention center would be municipally owned. This will not accrue TIF money to help pay for this structure and other DDA projects in the future.) I agree. The "what goes on top" question should be part of larger community discussion that should begin soon. 3. An underground structure is preferable to an above-ground structure (if one is truly needed-personally, I don't think so), but it is folly to build one, anticipating a new building on top, 4/7/2009 Page 4 01 without knowing what that building will be and without a design in place to base the foundations on. i Building a "universal" underground structure that will accommodate most above-ground options is foolishly expensive, since this will surely involve an over-design of the undergound piece. If the engineers had the design for the above-ground building, the underground piece could be designed for maximum efficiency and minimal cost. I'm all for public-private partnerships, but ; let's wait for a partner to dance with, OK? The structure is designed for a flexible footprint of a building on top. There was very little engineering costs associated with designing the structure in this manner. The estimated increase in value of this parcel is approximately $2,500,000. 4. Lastly, I'm concerned about the effect of this project on the Fifth Avenue and Division streetscape improvements project. Between this parking structure and the City Hall addition, I would hate to see these much-needed street improvements delayed. They will provide an immediate and relatively inexpensive boost to Downtown businesses by improving multi-modal mobility and pedestrian amenities—especially connectivity to the Germantown Neighborhood. To me, that project should be a much higher priority for attracting businesses and development into ; the Downtown core than a parking structure that is only being built as "bait" to attract some | development fish. They ain't bitin' right now anyway. I I, too, am concerned that the improvements to Fifth and Division will get delayed or discarded. I will be | offering an amendment tonight that will ensure funding for these much needed projects. This parcel has i and continues to attract attention from developers. It is my hope that we begin construction and the | community dialogue about what goes on top this spring or early summer. By the time we are finishing the | structure, we may very well have a community vision and a developer selected to complete the process. Sandi Smith I Ann Arbor City Council j First Ward ! 734-302-3011 From: Tom Whitaker [mailtoj Sent: Monday, February 16, 200911 To: Greden, Leigh; Anglin, Mike; Higgins, Marcia; Teall, Margie; Rapundalo, Stephen; Smith, Sandi; Derezinski, Tony; Briere, Sabra; Hohnke, Carsten; Chris Taylor; Hieftje, John Subject: Underground Parking Structure - Library Lot Mayor and Council: Page 5 of6 The 300 block of South Fifth Avenue has largely been a pedestrian and business "dead zone" (except for the Library, Jerusalem Garden and Earthen Jar) for some time now, nearly entirely focused on the automobile or bus. In addition to being a multi-lane one way expressway, it has no pedestrian interest-only pedestrian hazards. The library parking lot has two large driveway aprons, the post office has a drive-through/short term lot with another large lot out back, and the transit center has bus traffic. The former Y site is yet another parking lot. All of these uses are understandable and maybe even somewhat desirable taken on their own, but put all of them together on the same block, and Downtown Ann Arbor is left with a huge void, unwelcoming to pedestrians, instead of a vibrant commercial corridor connecting the liveliness of Liberty Street (and beyond) with the Germantown neighborhood to the south (Note: CUSTOMERS). The 300 block of Fourth Ave. is even worse, leaving the residents with the only options of either facing the hazards and unpleasantness of Fourth or Fifth, or taking long detours to Main or Division. As you consider your vote on a new, and very expensive underground parking structure at the current library parking lot, I ask you to please consider the following: 1. This block needs walkable urban development that excites the street, including street-level retail, not more vehicle storage for businesses that don't yet exist on this block. 2. Convention centers are dead zones in and of themselves. Look at the Lansing Center as a case study. Whatever ends up on this block of Fifth Ave., please don't allow it to be a convention center. If you think you must have a convention center, please issue an RFP and ask developers to package it with a hotel and put the convention uses on the second floor, leaving the first floor for ACTIVE uses. (I assume that any stand-alone convention center would be municipally owned. This will not accrue TIF money to help pay for this structure and other DDA projects in the future.) 3. An underground structure is preferable to an above-ground structure (if one is truly needed-personally, I don't think so), but it is folly to build one, anticipating a new building on top, without knowing what that building will be and without a design in place to base the foundations on. Building a "universal" underground structure that will accommodate most above-ground options is foolishly expensive, since this will surely involve an over-design of the undergound piece. If the engineers had the design for the above-ground building, the underground piece could be designed for maximum efficiency and minimal cost. I'm all for public-private partnerships, but let's wait for a partner to dance with, OK? 4. Lastly, I'm concerned about the effect of this project on the Fifth Avenue and Division streetscape improvements project. Between this parking structure and the City Hall addition, I would hate to see these much-needed street improvements delayed. They will provide an immediate and relatively inexpensive boost to Downtown businesses by improving multi-modal mobility and pedestrian amenities—especially connectivity to the Germantown Neighborhood. To me, that project should be a much higher priority for attracting businesses and development into the Downtown core than a parking structure that is only being built as "bait" to attract some development fish. They ain't bitin'right now anyway. My neighbors and I look forward to well-thought out developments on the library lot and former YMCA sites, but they must include interesting, street-level uses, with windows, businesses and general activity. You'll find the neighbors will support attractive, mixed use developments that improve the pedestrian friendliness of the streets and add businesses that we can frequent. A Page 6 of 6 parking structure at this time is putting the cart before the horse and will cause more harm than good to downtown business. Thanks for your consideration. Tom Whitaker 444 South Fifth Avenue 4/7/2009 Bartha, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Teall, Margie Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:27 PM Schopieray, Christine FW: Hold Your Decision on Library Lot Construction, Pending Complete Conversation with the Community -----Original Message----- From: Rita Mitchell [mailtoJ^PHHH^HIHH Sent: Tuesday, February 17, T009 12:00 PM To: Briere, Sabra; Smith, Sandi; Higgins, Marcia; Rapundalo, Stephen; Derezinski, Tony; Teall, Margie; Hieftje, John; Anglin, Mike; Taylor, Christopher (Council); Hohnke, Carsten; Greden, Leigh Subject: Hold Your Decision on Library Lot Construction, Pending Complete Conversation with the Community seventh Whereas, second Resolved WHEREAS #1: I question the "immediate need" for additional parking downtown cited in the 5th Avenue Parking staff report under consideration. I believe that the DDA's automated documentation of parking data should be studied further to understand the needs for parking and to confirm strategies, and that such study should include information on the number and contract length of parking spots held by monthly permits to businesses and individuals. The long-term hold on parking spots has a significant effect on calculations of need for additional spaces, and is the frequent silent component of parking calculations. WHEREAS #6: Inclusion of long term parking in the plan for the underground parking structure is deceptive to the public, in terms of the number of parking spaces that will be made available to the public for short term parking. I recommend that Council determine a way to clarify the language on long term parking that provides a transparent way for residents and taxpayers of the city, as well as visitors, to know the proportion of spaces that will actually be open to them. If the incremental parking spaces are inadequate, by community standards, then building the structure should be placed on hold, to determine whether the structure is in the best interest of the community. WHEREAS #7: I find this most objectionable, as the DDA and Council have determined, without public input, that the surface of a parking structure, if built, will be prepared for use for additional above- ground development. I believe, as do many residents and taxpaying citizens, that the surface of the parking structure, if built, should be prepared to support public open space, with green areas, and perhaps performance/gathering spaces, that will complement the public library. I further strongly object to the construction of a driving area called "Library Lane", which will draw in more traffic and disrupt the pedestrian experience along Fifth Avenue and Division Streets. I call upon Council, the DDA and planners to design another approach to the library that will allow easy drop off/pick up of passengers and materials, and avoid the further degradation of the site by encouraging more parking and traffic, regardless of how it is "slowed". If constructed, "Library Lane" will become an eyesore and a place of additional exhaust fume exposure. I predict that it will be a detriment to the library as well. WHEREAS #8: I believe that the DDA contacted its "stakeholders", who represent the interest of developers and businesses, rather than members of the community at large, in terms of understanding what the community wants for the public land that is represented by the library lot. It is time to pay attention to the citizens and taxpayers, with respect to what is built on the property that we collectively own, not those with a more narrow interest. I urge you to postpone voting on the construction decision for the Ann Arbor Library Lot at Fifth Avenue, pending a full conversation with the community about what should be placed in that location. 1 Carsten Hohnke Ann Arbor City Counc Fifth Ward chohnke@a2gov.org (734) 369-4464 sincerely, Rita L. Mitchell 621 Fifth St. Ann Arbor, MI 4 81 Page 1 ofi Bartha, Stephen From: Teall, Margie Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:29 PM To: Schopieray, Christine Subject: FW: Library Lot Comments From: Rita Mitchell [mailto|^^^^J^^Jf Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 3:59 PM To: Planning Cc: Briere, Sabra; Anglin, Mike; Greden, Leigh; Lowenstein, Joan; Suarez, Ron; Rapundalo, Stephen; Kunselman, Stephen; Higgins, Marcia; Teall, Margie; Easthope, Christopher; Hieftje, John Subject: Library Lot Comments To: Ann Arbor Planning Commissioners and Ann Arbor City Council Members Re: Public Hearing and Action on South Fifth Avenue Underground Parking Garage and Street Improvements Public Project Review, 0.80 acre, 319 South Fifth Avenue. A proposal to construct a 785-space parking structure extending four levels below grade and 38 surface parking spaces with stairs and elevators serving the underground garage and a new public street extending east from Fifth Avenue to Division Street I attended the DDA-sponsored meeting at which the plans for the above-described parking structure were presented. My concerns are the following: 1. Members of the public who attended the design presentation spontaneously and consistently requested that the surface of the structure be reserved as a public amenity, for gatherings, concerts, relaxation, and entertainment. Their comments indicated that they consider the location to be a commons, in the center of the city, and worthy of more public use than the design that shows sole use for parking. I concur with my fellow citizens. If there is to be such a parking structure building effort, the top of the space must remain available for the public to use. This would be the, 'highest and best,' use of the public property. It was amazing to see how the public concurred on the idea, which has the potential to attract people to the area much more than a concrete surface filled with automobiles. I ask that the plans be revised from the start to include planning for public green space, with revision of the structure entry points to maximize use of the surface for greenspace opportunities. 2. I question plans for use of the parking spaces for permit parking. If the goal is to entice people to use the downtown resources and to shop, participate in entertainment and public activities, restricting use to permit parking will limit public use for hourly activities. My questions are: Has the city addressed efforts to reduce use of automobiles in general, to support less need for both permit parking? Is our current parking used to the maximum? Are hourly users given a priority? Why are so many permits sold that take up spaces that would otherwise be available to hourly users who will spend money in the center of the city. Will the city focus on park/ride to the center of-town, to avoid the need for parking in the core of the downtown? Has the city maximized efforts to reduce use of automobiles in town? One way to do that is to give more incentives for the Get Downtown program, to support those who will 4/16/2009 J Page 2 of2 then not need to use an auto during the day. 3. I question the adequacy of support for bicycle parking in the structure, as currently designed, and near the library, as well. The city should do much more to encourage use of bicycle transportation, again, to support limiting use of automobiles in the center of the city. The result of fewer cars in the center of the city will be a greater walkability, bicycling safety, and air quality in our city. Chicago now has a central bicycling station, complete with bicycle lockers and showers for bicycling commuters. Ann Arbor could do the same. 4. The 'Library Lane' design is not a positive feature, in my assessment. The DDA presentation of the design indicated that the distance along Fifth Ave between Liberty and William is a long block and that the Library Lane would provide a break for... whom? I fear that it will provide yet another cross street, dangerous for pedestrians, and that even with the 'giant speed bump' near the library, that drivers will speed in the area. In actuality, it appears to me to be designed to provide yet another opportunity for surface parking, a design approach that did not include a bike lane, so will be yet another unsafe area for bicycling. The 'long' block is of the same distance as Main St. between Liberty and William, by the way. The length of neither of these blocks has been a problem for me. I believe that if the library needs a drop off spot for visitors, that the designers should revisit the design, and determine a different, safe way for those approaching the structure by motorized methods can least break up the flow for pedestrians and bicyclists. There has to be a different, creative way to approach the building. Consider an approach from William, a street on which speeds are much slower. Overall, I am skeptical of the plan, but underground parking is preferred, if it must be considered. My goal is for parking availability to be managed in different ways to support demand, and to support a goal of a cleaner, more car-free downtown. If, as is likely, construction proceeds, I would like the city to decide that this will be the last parking structure of any kind to be built using public funds. One additional thought, with respect to use of park/ride options: Consider that the city hosts multiple football games and the Art Fair year yearly, and that park/ride and WALKING are actually encouraged for each of these events. If our resources can be mobilized to managed hundreds of thousands of visitors on an intermittent basis, I believe that the city could use some of those methods for daily transportation. Thank you for reviewing my message. I am unable to attend the Commission meeting tonight, and ask that my comments be included in the record of public comments. Rita Mitchell 621 Fifth St. Ann Arbor, Ml 48103 4/16/2009 Page 1 of Bartha, Stephen From: Teall, Margie Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:27 PM To: Schopieray, Christine Subject: FW: library parking lot From: Janice Thorup [mailto||^HH||m| Sent: Tuesday, February 17, Z0TJ9l^35PM^^^^ To: Hieftje, John; Briere, Sabra; Smith, Sandi; Rapundalo, Stephen; Derezinski, Tony; Greden, Leigh; Taylor, Christopher (Council); Higgins, Marcia; Teall, Margie; Anglin, Mike; Hohnke, Carsten Subject: library parking lot I am unable to attend the meeting tonight, but wanted to share with you my feelings on the proposed parking structure and the potential for a 15 to 25 story building atop it some day. We are danger of losing our souls here. We need to look beyond revenue for our city and look to quality of life issues. More cars or a bit of green space? More people who come into the city, park in a garage, and leave again in the evening, or an invitation for people to linger downtown? The current library parking lot is an excellent site for a community park—a place for residents and visitors alike to slow down and stay awhile. The most beautiful and functional cities in the world have paid attention to our human need for nature, for the soothing sounds of fountains, for a connection with the earth, especially when our towns are otherwise covered over with concrete and asphalt. We need flowers and grass and places to sit that don't require spending money. We need places to congregate that are beautiful and centrally located. I hope you will consider carefully the needs of Ann Arbor residents. We can look at this from a monetary standpoint only or we can look at how we live and what makes our lives worthwhile. Do we truly need more people in cars coming into Ann Arbor? Does the convenience of drivers outweigh the delight people find in a well kept park? Should we be spending such a large sum of money now, given the current economy and the likelihood that our world will be looking quite different in the future? Would it be better to focus on beauty and save the enormous cost of this construction perhaps to be spent on public transportation? I have yet to meet an Ann Arbor resident who supports this parking structure. I have met scores who believe that a park of some sort would provide much greater benefit to our town. Please slow down and listen to the citizens of Ann Arbor. Please be honest and transparent in your plans. Please give us a chance to be part of this town, to build it in a way that will make us proud. Thank you. Janice Thorup Ward 5 4/16/2009 Page 1 of 6 Bartha, Stephen From: Teall, Margie Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:27 PM To: Schopieray, Christine Subject: FW: LIBRARY PARKING LOT PROPOSAL (again!) From: C. Robert Snyder [mailtoj Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 20< To: Hieftje, John; Anglin, Mike; Smith, Sandi; Greden, Leigh; Rapundalo, Stephen; Higgins, Marcia; Derezinski, Tony; Briere, Sabra; Taylor, Christopher (Council); Teall, Margie; Hohnke, Carsten Cc: sbean@berginc.com; Ann Arbor Neighborhoods Subject: LIBRARY PARKING LOT PROPOSAL (again!) Please note: this is a re-send of a message sent this morning which "bounced back". Apologies to those who did already receive it! For what it's worth, a little more verbiage has been added!) Dear Mayor Hieftje and City Council Members, I presume all of you have seen the message, below, from Karen Sidney. It has been circulating widely (some of you might say "wildly") among the members of the various neighborhood groups. I can neither refute it nor defend the logic and economics of the proposed underground parking structure (item PH-6 on tonight's agenda). I would welcome any point by point rebuttals from Council members to Karen Sidney's communique. I have also read the request for delaying Council's vote on PH-6 sent to all of you by Steve Bean (a copy of which is pasted below Karen Sidney's message). I'm neither in favor of nor against the proposal that's on tonight's Council agenda. I know too little about it (that's both my problem and also the City's/Council's "problem") to say definitively it's good/it's bad. But I do know it's another hot potato that's going to be tossed around , esp. in these very tough economic times. To date, no one either in the City administration, the Council, or DDA has connected all the dots regarding Ann Arbor's downtown development, D1-D2, A2D2 and revenues, assessments, taxes locally or nationally. I do know that we're in the midst of one horrendous economic meltdown and that Ann Arbor, despite it's top-of-the-food-chain reputation, is and will not be immune. Let's at least let this highly expensive and volatile project sit on Council's table for the next several monthly iterations while and until we see how we - the city, state, and nation - are doing. I strongly support Mr. Bean's request and ask that a vote for approval/disapproval not occur at tonight's meeting. Thank you! Bob Snyder South University Neighborhood Association 525 Elm Street LIBRARY LOT PARKING STRUCTURE ECONOMICS - Karen Sidney On February 17, 2009, Ann Arbor city council is expected to take the first step to authorize up to $55 million in debt for a new $56.4 million underground parking structure next to the downtown library. GET INFORMED AND :14 PM 4/16/2009 Page 2 of6 LET COUNCIL KNOW WHAT YOU THINK. About 25% of the cost of the structure is for things that encourage future development, such as a new service alley, a new water main and supporting columns sufficient to hold a 25 story building. Taking on this expensive new parking structure will mean the DDA cannot do much else. DDA projections show less money for things like alleys and sidewalks, grants for things like Get Downtown, the Neutral Zone and merchant's associations, and replacing and maintaining downtown trees. According to DDA projections, the new structure will generate about $2 million in annual revenue and the annual bond payments will range from $2.6 to $3.7 million. If you consider operating costs and the lost revenue from the present surface lot, the new structure will require an additional $2-$3 million per year in revenue. That revenue comes from two sources. The first is additional tax revenue from new downtown projects. DDA projections assume that by fiscal year 2012, 28% of the total taxes captured by the DDA will come from 4 projects: Liberty Lofts, Ashley Terrace, 411 Lofts and Zaragon Place. If any of these projects experience financial difficulty because of the slump in the commercial real estate market, the actual taxes from these projects will be less than projected. The other source of revenue is parking rate increases. The DDA wants to raise street meters to $1.40 per hour and permits to $145 per month. Those increases do not include anything for Council's request to have the DDA parking system continue to pay $2 million per year. Continuing the $2 million payment would require an additional 12% increase in revenue over current levels. Predicting future revenue is difficult and the answer varies with the assumptions. For example, the latest DDA projections show about $2 million in revenue from an 845 space structure on the Library lot. Projections done about 6 months earlier, using higher parking rates, showed only $1.6 million in revenue from a 900 space structure. The latest plan is that the structure will have 777 spaces. DDA projections assume that demand will not drop. However, if higher rates cause businesses to flee to office space with free parking, or if higher parking rates deter shoppers, those assumptions will not hold up. If businesses did not consider the cost of parking, the city would not have had to promise Google 600 free spaces to locate downtown. It would also be unnecessary to build a $56.4 million parking structure to attract development, such as a new convention center. Because campus area structures are the most heavily used, the DDA assumes it can maintain parking revenue by renting to students. But if student parkers don't fill the revenue hole, the shortfall will have to be made up by the city's general fund. That means service cuts or a tax increase. MESSAGE FROM STEVE BEAN FOLLOWS: Dear council members, I'm writing to ask that you - postpone action on the proposed underground parking structure at the "library lot", - request a comprehensive presentation by the DDA on its parking availability data for the structures as well as on its parking demand management efforts, and - perform a more extensive analysis of the presumed need for the structure and possible alternatives before approving its construction. I believe that a delay is fully justified given the state of the economy, the upcoming addition of several hundred new parking spaces elsewhere downtown, the incomplete implementation of alternatives for managing peak parking demand, the lack of consideration of environmental impacts (such as greenhouse gas emissions) from increasing parking supply, and the likelihood of a permanent decrease in parking demand early in the lifetime of the proposed structure. (The last two might seem contradictory, but any increase in emissions, no matter how short-lived, would be very detrimental.) 4/16/2009 Page 3 of 6 The Executive Summary of the City's Draft Transportation Plan Update report states that "The City's vision is to become more transit-oriented, bike-friendly, and pedestrian-friendly, and less reliant on fuel consumptive forms of motorized travel." The proposed underground parking structure would be entirely counterproductive to that vision as well as to other of our environmental goals. More than 100 new on-street parking spaces are about to be added to 5th and Division streets, through the heart of downtown, and close to 200 new public spaces will become available when the parking structure for the City Apartments development at 1st & Washington is completed. The need for more capacity beyond that has questionable basis. The 2007 Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study report by Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates ( http://www.a2dda.org/downloads/Phase_ll Part_6.pdf) recommended the formalization of processes for both funding new parking and determining when new supply is needed. It also recommended that "parking demand management options be exhausted" before undertaking new construction or instituting higher rates. The City has not followed these recommendations, nor have more than a few of the eighteen "Immediate Actions" listed in the report been implemented. Those that have been pursued, such as the DDA's experiment with valet parking at the Maynard structure, are just getting underway and have insufficient results to evaluate at this point. Meanwhile, both new construction and rate increases are proposed to be undertaken simultaneously. The technology and data available to the DDA on the parking system have opened opportunities for improved service as well as better load management. However, to my knowledge, load balancing has yet to be explored. Likewise, other resources, such as the surplus spaces in underutilized private surface lots, have not been considered for near-term peak demand management. Meanwhile, the getDowntown program has compiled an impressive record of success with its initiatives. For example, the number of golpass trips has increased each of the last four years, by an overall increase above the base year (2003-2004) of more than 35%. Unfortunately, AATA is now considering a rate increase for bus riders. The most likely outcome with regard to ridership of such a change would be for some users to find alternatives (perhaps even going back to commuting by car and parking in the structures.) The 2007 Annual Report of AATA (http://www.theride.org/pdf/AnnualReport2007.pdf) noted that "over 80% of evening downtown workers reported that they park at on-street meters." Clearly, the lack of coordination between our parking and transit systems threatens our efforts to achieve our community goals and has much room for improvement before we resort to adding expensive capacity to handle peak demand. One alternative would be for a portion of the funds that would otherwise be used to build and maintain the parking structure to be redirected so that the bus system can be improved without raising fares. While U-M president Mary Sue Coleman has stated that the university does not "do" payment in lieu of taxes, they do contribute to AATA's operating budget. The City and AATA could make a very strong case to the university that similarly increasing its funding to the transit system would be in their interest as well. It also might enable a greater integration of the AATA and university bus systems. Below I've provided responses (including some components of possible alternative approaches) to comments I've heard or read regarding this issue. Thank you for your consideration and your valuable service to our community. I'll gladly respond to any questions. (I had hoped to attend the caucus meeting on Sunday in order to discuss this, but learned on Saturday that it had been cancelled.) Steve Bean 4/16/2009 Page 4 of 6 - People will continue to drive cars. Yes, but less than in the past. Oil supply is expected to decline 2-4%/year minimum (and as high as 7%/year), beginning as early as 2010. That translates to an expected price increase of between 8%/year and 40%/year. Assuming a fairly conservative cost increase of 20% per year, in order to maintain zero net increase in fuel cost for driving, the owner of a car that currently gets 20 mpg would have to somehow get at least 24 mpg next year and almost 50 mpg five years from now. Five years later, they'd need to be getting almost 124 mpg. The historical turnover of the US vehicle fleet is about 15 years. On top of the higher cost for driving, most other expenses will go up, making the purchase of new vehicles even less affordable. The 2006 parking study data are already out of date with regard to these changes and trends. (While demand in the US decreased in June 2008 by 388,000 barrels/day, it increased by 475,000 barrels/day in China, more than offsetting the demand reduction [http.7/www.gulfnews.com/business/Oil and_Gas/10230996.html.] The number of cars in China in 1993 was less than 750,000. By 2004 the number had reached 6 million. By 2005, 8 million; by 2007, 20 million. Due to that increased global demand, coupled with the coming decline in supply, gas prices will continue to rise unless drivers respond with drastic cuts in driving.) When cars in use eventually do become smaller on average, more on-street spaces could be created, possibly by 10% or more. When people begin driving less, more existing traffic lanes could be converted to parking in order to compensate for any loss of spaces if surface lots are lost to development. Q: How many such potential spaces are there? - The parking structure would pay for itself over its lifetime through parking fees received. While the current system pays for itself, the individual structures don't pay for themselves. They're essentially subsidized by the surface lots and on-street spaces. Furthermore, if parking demand declines soon, the structures will become even greater financial sinks. In any case, this assertion doesn't take into account the opportunity cost compared to the alternatives. One alternative is to leave the existing surface lot. Another would be to sell the land to a private developer and receive both the sale price and the subsequent tax payments. In economic terms, the proposed structure may be the worst of those three scenarios, especially if insufficient resources remain for the necessary development of a sustainable infrastructure. - If parking demand decreases, the DDA can close surface lots and remove older structures from service, which would free up those sites for more productive uses. A distinction needs to be made between short-term and long-term parking needs. Most of the long-term parking is in the structures. Eliminating surface lots may not be appropriate if most of the demand decrease is for long-term parking, which seems likely (or at least more desirable.) Eliminating parking structures before the end of their useful life would be wasteful if it could possibly be avoided. Eliminating them at all will require skillful management of the system (much like the situation we now face), primarily because the reduction in spaces would need to occur in large blocks. Furthermore, the surface lots have the highest demand throughout the day and charge the highest rates. The impact of eliminating such spaces in favor of keeping structure spaces (including underground ones) hasn't been fully considered. The new surface lot at the old Y site plus the new on-street spaces to be added on 5th and Division will provide about 200 spaces for short-term use. More permit spaces could be made available in the existing structures by using the improved parking system data and technologies to manage the capacity at 90% or higher rather than the recommended 85%, at least until new rates are implemented and future demand trends become clearer. The DDA could provide coordination services to match commuters with private lot owners to take advantage of their large surplus of (widely distributed) unused spaces. The parking study contains a recommendation to that effect. This would also provide an economic benefit to existing downtown businesses. 4/16/9.009 Page 5 of 6 - We need more parking to attract new businesses to downtown. While some potential employers would prefer to have publicly provided parking for their employees, others might prefer their employees to use a reliable transit system with adequate backup services, such as guaranteed ride home. Smaller businesses and those with a commitment to community sustainability may not have the expectation of subsidized parking. Our challenge isn't to beat the malls and the townships at the parking game, it's to envision and create a downtown that's better and more attractive to potential residents, businesses, and visitors than the current one. The parking study report duly notes the need for things like keeping sidewalks clear of snow, for example. Parking will continue to play a role, but a declining one and only one among many. In terms of value to downtown businesses, the best opportunity may very well lie in attracting more visitors on days and times when the parking system is underutilized. - The DDA has a 1000+ person waiting list for parking permits which the new structure could address. We don't know enough about those people's current situations to assess the value to them of a structure at this site (as far as I'm aware.) Are they even still looking for a permit since getting on the list? Would they like to park at this site? What are they doing now to meet their parking/commuting needs? Do they want a permit because it's cheaper than where they're currently parking? How much are they willing to pay? Even if that demand does currently exist, a new parking structure would be a 50-year-lifetime fix to a problem that might only exist for 5 years or less. More information is needed on the status of the waiting list before making a large long-term investment. - Of course we need to support all the alternatives—and we do, but we need more parking too. The two are at cross purposes, with the alternatives moving us toward sustainability and the construction of more parking spaces moving us away from it. If demand for more parking truly exists at this time, it's a demonstration that the investments in alternatives haven't been sufficient to offset the past and current subsidies for parking and single-occupant-vehicle use, and that the price of parking is too low. If we ultimately need a sustainable transit system (and we do), investing in the current unsustainable system is a waste of valuable resources, especially if it doesn't end up paying for itself. - Providing parking downtown for potential employers will result in jobs to help Ann Arborites who are suffering through home foreclosures and other economic difficulties. Building an underground parking structure isn't a quick fix. Construction will take time and result in a temporary decrease in parking supply in the short term. If parking really is that important and a crisis exists, there are other means of addressing it more quickly and directly. In the longer term, it's very difficult to estimate the value of downtown parking to specific individuals. (Also, it's debatable how much can be done locally to address problems that result from economic issues rooted more at the state and national levels.) From the perspective of an employer/commuter, a $5/year golPass is far more affordable than a $1500/year parking permit. Improving the affordability of downtown employment for the currently employed is far more within the DDA's influence than providing a solution to the others. - Parking belongs underground. Yes, for new, private developments for overnight storage, putting the parking spaces underground makes good sense. Also perhaps for new public developments (e.g., government facilities) where long-term parking is necessary. However, constructing underground parking to replace aboveground structures before their end of life would be a waste of existing resources (assuming that existing parking supply distribution is adequate, and even lacking that it would be questionable.) Likewise, existing resources (i.e., private surface lots, driveways, and public streets) should be maximized to meet parking needs before building a new structure. - An underground parking structure at this site will be good for the library. 4/16/2009 Page 6 of 6 The 2008 library users survey results ( http://vvww.aadl.org/buildings/dowritown/surveyresults ) indicate that the addition of an underground structure would result in more people parking at the site than currently use the surface lot (see questions 10 and 16.) However, it's not clear to what extent those people would increase use of the library, nor to what extent they would increase their number of trips downtown. Parking supply was identified as a problem by only about 10 of the more than 6000 survey participants. (Question 1 asked about the importance of adequate parking, not about the need for more.) Without more information we can't adequately assess the value of the proposed structure to library users (or to downtown in general, for that matter, at least not from the survey results.) Library Lane seems to be desired by the library board and staff, but its creation doesn't necessarily rely on the underground structure. Alternatively, if (as I've suggested we could explore) the transit center were moved to the library lot (possibly incorporating the Greyhound station) and a new library building were constructed on the current transit center site, the 4th & William structure (which typically has hundreds of available spaces during the day) could be used for library patron parking and 4th Avenue or a mid-block cut-through could be use for drop-off at the library. - The proposed structure would result in 600+ new spaces for a cost of approximately $50,000 per (constructed) space. If the structure is planned to be managed at 85% capacity, the projected cost per used space would need to be increased by 15% to get a cost/benefit value as opposed to a number used for comparison purposes. If parking demand declines during the lifetime of the structure, the cost per used space would increase (either for this structure or for others.) - This structure could enable the development of a convention center. Convention centers are historically financial losers (or so I've heard.) With the current economy and peak oil near if not already behind us, a convention center could be a very poor choice for downtown's future. 4/16/2009 Page 1 of 1 Bartha, Stephen From: Philip Salembier| Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:27 PM To: Hieftje, John; Briere, Sabra; Smith, Sandi; Rapundalo, Stephen; Derezinski, Tony; Greden, Leigh; Taylor, Christopher (Council); Higgins, Marcia; Teall, Margie; Anglin, Mike; Hohnke, Carsten Subject: Underground parking garage Hi: I am a resident of downtown Ann Arbor. I am appalled that the city is thinking of spending a huge sum on an underground parking garage. There is much better uses for this kind of money. These are very hard economic times and no time to be going into debt for this absurd project. At the end of this economic crises the world will be a different place. It will not be a place for a 5-story underground parking garage. Sincerely, Philip Salembier 322 E. Liberty Street, #18 Ann Arbor 4/17/2009 Page 4 of 4 improvements project. Between this parking structure and the City Hall addition, I would hate to see these much-needed street improvements delayed. They will provide an immediate and relatively inexpensive boost to Downtown businesses by improving multi-modal mobility and pedestrian amenities—especially connectivity to the Germantown Neighborhood. To me, that project should be a much higher priority for attracting businesses and development into the Downtown core than a parking structure that is only being built as "bait" to attract some development fish. They ain't bitin' right now anyway. My neighbors and I look forward to well-thought out developments on the library lot and former YMCA sites, but they must include interesting, street-level uses, with windows, businesses and general activity. You'll find the neighbors will support attractive, mixed use developments that improve the pedestrian friendliness of the streets and add businesses that we can frequent. A parking structure at this time is putting the cart before the horse and will cause more harm than good to downtown business. Thanks for your consideration. Tom Whitaker 444 South Fifth Avenue 4/17/2009 Bartha, Stephen From: Carsten Hohnke [carsten@westpole.com] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 11:36 PM To: Bartha, Stephen Subject: [Fwd: Re: Fifth Avenue Parking Structure] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Fifth Avenue Parking Structure Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:00:51 -0500 Andy, Thanks for the follow-up. 1. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with engineering details here. Susan Pollay at the DDA (SPollay@a2dda.org) should be able to point you to those who are. You can also review the site plan at the Planning office at City Hall. 2. Same as 1 3. Any site plan in the city ultimately requires Council approval. Dl zoning is no exception. There is one difference here in that the parcel is city-owned. Nonetheless, I expect that Council will insist on a public dialogue about any use of that space. I certainly will. 4. Absolutely. Thanks again for writing. -- Carsten Andy Wozniak wrote: > Councilman Hohnke, > > I wrote you previously regarding the 5th Avenue Parking Structure and > future' surface structure. First of all, I would like to thank you for > replying so quickly and addressing my concerns/questions. > > I would like to bring up a few items in hopes that you can answer my > questions. I have gone through the DDA, Zoning, and A2D2 websites and > tried to pull all the information off from there, but zoning codes and > proposed code changes are not the easiest items to interpret. It would > seem that the direction that A2D2, the Planning Commission, and DDA is > that the location is going to be used for a building. With that I have > some questions/comments: > > 1) I have noticed that there is a company taking soil cores from the > parking lot. Has a determination been made as to where the footings > for the future expansion will be located? Based on schematics, it > appears that a ramp is going to be built directly behind my building > (in the back corner) of the lot. Is the intention to put a building > directly over the ramp? Has there been any discussion as to the > location of the building within the site? 1 > > 2) Based on those same schematics, it appears that the elevators from > the underground levels are located about halfway back in the lot. Will > those elevators be incorporated into a future building lobby? > > 3) I know there is an effort by A2D2 and the Planning Commission to > rezone that parcel from parking to a new "Dl" Zoning. Going through > all the documents, as it stands it would appear there is no spelled > out height requirement. I have spoken with Mayor Hieftje and yourself, > and both of you have expressed reservations about a "hi-rise" > building. Would this building have to be approved by City Council even > if the lot is rezoned? > > 4) If a building is deemed to be the ultimate choice of the City, I > believe that it can be a benefit to all those around it, if it is done > with regards to set backs and massing. That may seem a little > hypocritical considering my building (322 E Liberty) basically has no > setbacks, but cities such as New York and Chicago are able to place > many hi-rise buildings near each other without ruining people's views > by using good setback and massing guidelines. I hope that when the > Proposed Zoning and Code Changes are brought before City Council that > you all will consider the setbacks and massing. > > I understand that some of these items may seem very detailed for a > project that is only in the. initial stages, but the location of the > footings is very important in determining where a building will > ultimately be put. If it is a deemed that a building is the best > solution for all involved, I would like to protect as much of my > outdoor exposure as possible. I would like to thank you again for > being so responsive, and hope that whatever is ultimately chosen for > this location will be a benefit to the city and all those who will be > directly effected by it. > > Sincerely, > Andy Wozniak > > > Quoting "Hohnke, Carsten" : > » Andy, » » » » Thank you for writing and sharing your thoughts on the future of the >> library lot. » » » » I, too, would like to see more urban greenspace in Ann Arbor. At the >> same time we'll have to balance that against the environmental and >> economic benefits of increasing density in our downtown core. I'm >> confident we can put the puzzle pieces together to achieve both. » » » >> In any case, I can assure you that no determination has been made as » to what will ultimately be on top of the library lot. It's true that » the plan for the garage includes the infrastructure necessary to » support development above, but what ultimately happens will be the » result of significant community conversation-I'11 insist on it. I » hope those conversations will give us a chance to cross paths and >> have a chance to meet. » » >> >> Thanks again for writing, and for the pointers to the Savannah >> planning items. 2 >> >> » >> -- Carsten Hohnke » » » »_______ » » From: Andy Wozniak [mailto >> Sent: Sunday, November 30, » To: Hohnke, Carsten » Subject: Fifth Avenue Parking Structure » » >> >> Dear Councilman Hohnke, » » » >> I am writing you today to express my thoughts on the plan for the >> South Fifth Avenue Underground Parking Structure. I am a resident of >> the 322 E Liberty St Bldg that sits adjacent to the property. As a >> civil engineering/construction major, I respect the need for the city » to add additional parking to the downtown area. I also commend the » city and planning commission for choosing to do an underground deck, » which is much less obtrusive than an above ground parking deck, >> however I am concerned with what is being planned for the surface. In >> the area between State and Main Streets, the only public >> park/gathering spot is Liberty Plaza which is quite small and only >> has a few benches. The South Avenue Parking Lot area is a perfect >> location for a city plaza. This could include a large number of » items, including small shops and cafes/restaurants, green areas, a » fountain, or even an ice skating rink for winter. Ann Arbor is a city » that has many signature mom-and-pop style stores and restaurants, and >> this area would be perfect for further developments in that style. » » As an example of effective public space planning, the city of » Savannah Georgia demolished a 1954 hideous parking garage and >> replaced it with an underground parking garage and rebuilt and >> restored a park and fountain similar to the other 3 dozen that >> currently dot the city. Please refer to the website of Lominack >> Kolman Smith Architects for a description and photos of the Ellis » Square project. From their website: » » "The final design of the new Ellis Square at City Market has recently >> been approved by City Council. Using input collected from several » charettes involving local stakeholders and citizens, two designs were » originally created and one was chosen for final development — the » "Open Space" plan. >> >> The Open Space plan will feature a large plaza and green space, » allowing the flexibility for larger gatherings that many of the other >> squares cannot provide. A depressed elliptical lawn will create a » safe place for children to play while providing seating at its >> perimeter. An angled fountain will be centrally located for children » to run through and passers-by to enjoy, and a single structure on the >> northwest corner will feature a hospitality and information center. >> The adjacent plaza can act as lunch seating by day and performance » stage by night." » >> Furthermore, I'm a little disappointed with the way our building >> residents learned of a possible fifteen-story building. Throughout >> the planning stages of this project, I have been supportive of the >> underground parking deck. It is a good way to deal with a necessary >> evil, parking. Up until recently, I was under the opinion that the 3 » >> >> » » » » » >> >> >> » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » > > planning commission was looking for citizen input on what to do with the surface. At the planning commission meeting in October, our building had representatives there, and I feel we were blind-sided by the news that the ultimate plan is for a fifteen-story building. The DDA website speaks of foundations for future development, but not of a hi-rise building. I live on the backside of the building (facing the parking lot), and if a hi-rise building were to be constructed all I would see is a wall of glass or whatever the perimeter wall of the building is. I appreciate your willingness to hear my thoughts, and any response you would have would be appreciated. Sincerely, Andy Wozniak University of Michigan Construction Intern - University of Michigan Department of Construction Management BSE Civil Engineering - Construction Engineering and Management Class of 2009 Michigan Marching Band - Tuba Ilona Wozniak, R.Ph. Chief Operating Officer North Fulton Regional Hospital 3000 Hospital Boulevard Roswell, Georgia 30076 Phone: E-Mail: