Bartha, Stephen Sent: To: Cc: Subject: From: Hieftje, John Saturday, April 04, 2009 11:53 AM Schopieray, Christine Bartha, Stephen FW: DDA's Parking Plans - Not the way to go -----Original Message----- From: Hieftje, John Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 6:56 PM To: 'S Batterman' Subject: RE: DDA's Parking Plans - Not the way to go Dear Mr. Batterman: You make several good points here. I would be happy to talk to you about this sometime. One issue I could mention here is something I have had to learn. As one of the foremost advocates for all forms of alternative transportation in the state of Michigan, I have come to realize that no matter how many bike paths and bus routes we have only some of the people who work and shop downtown will use them. If downtown is going to survive, and looking around the state, that is not a given, it will need to compete with the malls, just as it has had to since the 1970's. Unlimited parking is a huge draw. Ask any downtown retailer what their three major challenges are and they will surely mention parking. I hear this from merchants, restaurant owners and business owners. The only way we got Google in Ann Arbor was to offer them all the parking they needed. By far the number one complaint registered about downtown by our residents is the lack of parking. Parking can surely be built cheaper above ground but then you lose the real estate value and the city is burdened with a surface lot for 50 years. The Europeans stopped building above ground structures 20 years ago. Thank you again for writing and for your interest in our city and again, I would like to discuss this with you. John Hieftje -----Original Hcss^^HM|^^^^^_ Batterman BBV^^MHIHliiliHiHIv Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 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 what this means. Given that the parking 1 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 DM). 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 ^097 T.py^nntnTi 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 MichioariRoom 6075 SPH2 1420Wash^igton Heights Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029 USA tel: ^^^^^^^H^V fax: ^^^^Hfl^^HF url-gen^^r^^^^^^sph. umicn^^cffr^^^KHRib url-research: http://research.sph.umich.edu/index.php?g=l&s=home 2 Bartha, Stephen Sent: To: Cc: Subject: From: Hieftje, John Saturday, April 04, 2009 11:34 AM Schopieray, Christine Bartha, Stephen FW: Fifth Avenue Parking Structure -----Original Message----- From: Andy Wozniak [mailtoi Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 12:13 PM To: Hieftje, John Subject: RE: Fifth Avenue Parking Structure Mayor Hieftje, 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? 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 Councilman Hohnke 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 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 1 Quoting "Hieftje, John" : > Hello: > > > > I have always envisioned an attractive green space on > this site along with complementary development. A couple of years ago > I suggested, along with Council Member Teall, that we consider an ice > rink as well. Preliminary research has shown that A2 does not have > the "critical mass" of skaters to support such a facility and make it > a justifiable investment. The city already supports two large ice > rinks and there are commercial rinks in the area as well as at the UM. > > > > Ann Arbor does have some wonderful shops downtown but > almost all of them are struggling because not enough people choose to > shop downtown. The only thing that has worked in other cities is to > have more people living downtown. > > > > I am very much in favor of a fountain or perhaps a > waterfall as suggested by a leading German architect who recently > visited A2. We will be looking into this. > > > > So far as I know no one has a good idea of what else > might go on the site but it is in the core of the city so a tallish > building cannot be ruled out. Fifteen stories seems a little > excessive however. > > > > Thank you for writing with this information. I will > check out the web site you recommend. > > > > John Hieftje > > > > _ > > From: Andy Wozniak > Sent: Sunday, November 30, > To: Hieftje, John > Subject: Fifth Avenue Parking Structure > > > > Dear Mayor Hieftje, > > > > 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 2 Bartha, Stephen From: Hieftje, John Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 11:52 AM To: Schopieray, Christine Cc: Bartha, Stephen Subject: FW: DDA's Parking Plans - Not the way to go -----Original Message----- From: Hieftje, John Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 6:58 PM To: Pollay, Susan Subject: FW: DDA's Parking Plans - Not the way to go -----Original Message----- From: Hieftje, John Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 6:41 PM To: Pollay, Susan Subject: FW: DDA's Parking Plans - Not the way to go Hi Susan: I recall you having a financing plan prepared that shows how the structure will be paid for. I have one somewhere but not at hand. Please send it along with any other points you have on this. Thanks, John -----Original Messj From: S Batterman Sent: Sunday, December 14,. 2008 T: 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 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 1 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 Stuart Batterman, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Professor, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering University of Michigan Room 6075 SPH2 1420 Washington Heights Ann ArJjar^MT4^L0 9-202 9 USA^^^^^^ tel: ^^^^^^^^^^m fax: ^^^^^^^^^^K url-gene^^T^www^sph. umiffeQu^stuartb url-research: http://research.sph.umich.edu/index.php?g School of Public Health = l&s=home 2 Page 1 of3 Bartha, Stephen Sent: To: Cc: From: Hieftje, John Saturday, April 04, 2009 11:54 AM Schopieray, Christine Bartha, Stephen Subject: FW: Library Lot Comments From: Hieftje, John Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 7:18 PM To: 'Rita Mitchell' Subject: RE: Library Lot Comments Hello Rita: Thank you very much for sending along these thoughtful comments. Nearly all of the issues you address have come up for discussion at the DDA. I certainly agree with you on many of the points you make and I believe there is room for improvement in the plan. The DDA and City Council recently voted to fund a large new streetscape effort to make our downtown even more walk-able and cycle friendly than it already is and I believe we can incorporate more of this sprit in the new structure. I will certainly keep your comments in mind as this proposal moves along. Thank you again for writing, Mitchell^mH^m^|IHv 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 John Hieftje 4/6/2009 Page 2 of3 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 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 4/6/2009 Page 3 of 3 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 4/6/2009 Page 1 of 3 Bartha, Stephen To: Sent: Subject: From: Greden, Leigh Saturday, April 04, 2009 11:05 AM Schopieray, Christine FW: Fifth Avenue Parking Structure Attachments: AERIAL VIEW.PDF From: Roger Hewitt [mailto:rfhewitt@redhawkannarbor.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 7:49 AM To: Greden, Leigh Subject: FW: Fifth Avenue Parking Structure From: Susan Pollay [mailto:SPollay@a2dda.org] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 10:02 AM To: Roger Hewitt; John Splitt Subject: FW: Fifth Avenue Parking Structure Hi. FYI - info from Mike Ortlieb about possibly shortening the S. Fifth Avenue extension From: Michael C. Ortlieb [mailto:MOrtlieb@carlwalker.com] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 9:09 AM To: Susan Pollay; Joseph Morehouse Cc: ai@wengco.com; Gary A. Cole; Fabio J. Serrato Subject: RE: Fifth Avenue Parking Structure Good Morning Susan - The following should answer your questions: 1. If the structure extends across 5th but does not continue to William - would the 5th Ave speed ramp into the structure still function as intended or would this need to be eliminated? The 5th Avenue speed ramp will still function as intended. This change would not impact the speed ramp. 2. What if we only went !4 way down 5th toward William, what would we lose in cost & number of spaces? He wants to see if we can extend the structure so it abuts the Y lot on the north boundary of that property but doesn't go all the way to William. What would that option give us in terms of lost spaces and cost savings? We reviewed three options for reducing the Fifth Avenue extension toward William: a. Eliminate the Extension: Structure stops at the south property line of the Fifth Avenue Parking Lot • Loss of approximately 100 parking spaces. • Reduction in project cost by approximately $6,000,000. • Can still accommodate Fifth Avenue speed ramp. • Can plan for future expansion to the south. 4/6/2009 Page 2 of 3 b. Reduce the Extension: Structure stops at the "Y" Site north property line (see attached plan) • Loss of approximately 70 to 80 parking spaces, depending on the final orientation of the storm water detention tanks. • Reduction in project cost by approximately $4,000,000. • Can still accommodate Fifth Avenue speed ramp. • With the structure stopping at the "Y" Site north property line, this may provide more flexibility for the future "Y" Site development from the Library to Fourth Avenue. c. Reduce the Extension, but connect to the east side of the "Y" Site: Structure stops 27 ft south of the "Y" Site north property line (see attached plan) • Loss of approximately 50 to 60 parking spaces, depending on the final orientation of the storm water detention tanks. • Reduction in project cost by approximately $3,150,000. • Can still accommodate Fifth Avenue speed ramp. • This option provides a 27 ft long north/south boundary with the "Y" Site along Fifth Avenue. Please let me know if this is the information that you need. Mike Michael C. Ortlieb, P.E. Executive Vice-President mortlieb@carlwalker.com Car/ Walker, Inc. 5136 Lovers Lane, Suite 200, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49002 P 269.381.2222 F 269.349.0782 www.carlwalker.com From: Susan Pollay [mailto:SPollay@a2dda.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 10:17 AM To: Michael C. Ortlieb; Joseph Morehouse Cc: ai@wengco.com; Gary A. Cole; Fabio J. Serrato Subject: RE: Fifth Avenue Parking Structure Hi Mike. I have a question, and one more analysis to ask of you: 1. Question. If the structure extends across 5th but does not continue to William (option below) - would the 5th Ave speed ramp into the structure still function as intended or would this need to be eliminated? 2. Assessment. The City Administrator has asked me to ask you - what if we only went % way down 5th toward William, what would we lose in cost & number of spaces? He wants to see if we can extend the structure so it abuts the Y lot on the north boundary of that property but doesn't go all the way to William. What would that option give us in terms of lost spaces and cost savings? Many thanks for responding so quickly and so well to all these last minute questions. You can tell we're getting close to the finish line because now City Council is fully engaged and asking lots of questions. Best wishes. Susan From: Michael C. Ortlieb [mailto:MOrtlieb@carlwalker.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:16 AM To: Joseph Morehouse Cc: Susan Pollay; ai@wengco.com; Gary A. Cole; Fabio J. Serrato 4/6/2009 Page 3 of 3 Subject: Fifth Avenue Parking Structure Good Morning Joe - You requested that we review the potential project cost reduction if the parking structure leg down to William Street is eliminated (beneath Fifth Avenue, between William and the south property line). 1. The parking structure would still extend beneath Fifth Avenue; only the extension to William would be eliminated. 2. This would result in a reduction of approximately 100 parking spaces. 3. Using the Christman Schematic Design cost estimate, the estimated project estimate is $55,500,000, consistent with our earlier projections. This includes the 25% increase for soft costs. 4. We anticipate that eliminating the William Street extension will reduce the project cost by approximately $6,000,000. For this estimate we used the base construction cost, and eliminated items such as glass, elevators, and parking equipment. Please let me know if this answers you question. If you need additional information, please let me know. Mike Michael C. Ortlieb, P.E. Executive Vice-President mortlieb@carlwalker.com Car/ Walker, Inc. 5136 Lovers Lane, Suite 200, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49002 P 269.381.2222 F 269.349.0782 www.carlwalker.com 4/6/2009 AERIAL VIEW SOUTH 5th AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE & STREET IMPROVEMENT ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 05-FEB.-2009 Page 1 of 5 Bartha, Stephen 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: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:28 AM To: Steve Bean Subject: RE: Request for postponement of action on proposed parking structure Hi Steve-- All fair points. Here's a quick response: 1. Delay: A delay accomplishes only one thing: higher costs and more lost businesses. (See #3, below, for more detail about lost businesses). It's also not necessary. With all due respect, everything you suggested has been explored extensively by the DDA and the City for years. (Sort of like the PD/Courts Building). 2. Demand: The system's capacity is at roughly 85%, which by definition it at capacity. Many facilities are frequently. Drive by 4th/Washington any weeknight... drive by Ann-Ashley any weekday... drive into Forest garage any weekday. Even if demand for parking decreased, we still lack sufficient parking to meet future needs. Ann-Ashley, Maynard, Forest, 4thAA/ashington, and Tally Hall are all full during the day. Brown Block and Kline's lot are usually full too, and are almost always full on weeknights and weekend nights. But, demand will not decrease. In fact, we anticipate significant increases in demand for Tally Hall and the Library Garage after the Washington/Division lofts open, and after the new dorm opens on Huron/Washington. Google also has an option on many parking spaces that don't currently exist. Fortunately, they've slowed their hiring and we haven't had to produce these non-existence parking spaces. Good government requires planning for future economic growth, and that's what we're doing. 3. Business development. Businesses often approach me personally to negotiate parking deals and tax abatements. This is not speculation or second-hand gossip on my part. Here's one example: a business that employs 40-50 highly-paid scientists just outside the downtown wanted to move into new space in the State Street area, and expand their operations. But it needed more parking, which doesn't exist. I tried to negotiate more permits in Maynard... I offered bus passes... I told them about the new library garage being built... I sent them info about the Link. Wasn't good enough. They're moving to the Township, where their employees will surely spew far more greenhouse emissions just by driving to lunch. Here's another example: DTE has approached me several times about expanding their downtown operations, but their number one concern is parking, and whether they can secure 4/6/2009 Page 2 of 5 spaces for their employees in nearby garages. I show them data, but their expansion plans are significant... if we can convince them we have sufficient parking to meet their needs. Here's another example: Google. The company that prides itself on alternative ways of doing business is, understandably, just like every other business in one important aspect: they need parking. We didn't offer them free parking. They asked for it. We offered a tax abatement. They didn't want it. They wanted parking. These are just three examples that demonstrate the important difference between speculative goals to "reduce greenhouse emissions" vs. real-life everyday impacts on our local economy and housing market. We need more employers downtown, and they *all* want parking. 4. Near-term economics vs. long-term sustainability. I do not believe we must choose between the two. We're doing more for long-term sustainability than *any* community in Michigan. But, if we must choose between these two, I know which I choose: near-term economics. I'll choose it everyday, and twice on Sunday. Michigan has the highest unemployment rate in the nation. Families in Ann Arbor are losing their homes. Housing values are plummeting. Downtown businesses are begging for more customers. The economy trumps all else right now. I enjoy these debates! -Leigh From: Steve Bean [mailtoj Sent: Mon 2/16/2009 11:33 PM To: Greden, Leigh Subject: Re: Request for postponement of action on proposed parking structure Thanks for the reply, Leigh. I saw you walking down Huron earlier and hoped you weren't on autopilot, heading to a non-existent council meeting. :-) On Feb 16, 2009, at 9:06 PM, Greden, Leigh wrote: Hi Steve- Thanks for writing. I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. My intention wasn't to get anyone to agree with my conclusion, but rather to ask you all to take some time to consider (primarily) how this proposed investment would play out in the event of decreased parking demand in the near future, and how it will affect our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as a community. You haven't addressed either of those, so I really failed in your case. :-) I'll just ask—did you get the impression that I was asking for the project to be cancelled? I asked for a delay, that's all. My opinion is that we would be better off not building it, but I could be wrong. What I've done is to pose questions that haven't been asked, let alone answered—and there are more that I didn't even get to. After some creative, objective thinking about alternatives and longer-term impacts are given their due, council can act without my objection. Right now I'm not objecting, just making a 4/6/2009 Page 3 of 5 reasonable request: a delay in a project that would have an expected lifetime of at least several decades, in the midst of a deepening recession when disposable incomes are dropping, and when hundreds more parking spaces will be added to the system within a year or so. 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. Beyond adding parking, what do you have in mind? And here's something I'm really curious about: has our local economy ever been strong enough in the past? If so, why would we need more parking than we had at that point in time? If circumstances are now somehow different, what's our basis for our current plans being the best alternative to address them? We have lost too many businesses downtown — and in some cases that means they left the City completely - because of lack of parking. If that's true, we ought to be able to substantiate it. I'm not aware of any way that we can know that insufficient parking was the cause. I don't recall the owners of Afterwords arguing that their business went under for that reason, just to pick one example. For even more clear evidence that a lack of parking isn't causing business closings, we only have to observe the vast majority that are still in business, not to mention the new ones that are opening. No doubt you could cite examples (Wilkinson's, maybe) that attributed their closure or moving to insufficient parking. (By the way, 140 spaces have been added to the 4th & William structure since Wilkinson's left, and it typically has hundreds of spaces available during the day.) Other possibilities for business closings include the generally bad economy, non-adaptive business plans (which I think would apply to Afterwords), poor management, increased online sales (Afterwords again), and "low price" tactics by bad players like Walmart. I'm sure there are others. As I noted, parking is just one factor among many. Assertions about parking problems from business owners who've closed their doors are understandable, but just accepting them as truth would be irresponsible. If you want to argue that more parking can overcome the recession, I would ask for something more substantial than assertions. In response to this argument, you write the following: ...other [employer]s 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. And they all have it. It's not managed as well as it could be. Ignoring the recommendations of the parking study that we paid for is a waste of the staff time and money that were invested in it, as well as those that were invested in the existing parking system. 4/6/2009 Page 4 of 5 The system's demand exceeds its supply. When? For how long? By how much? What will future demand be? On what assumptions are those predictions based? What happens to the excess demand? What's the economic impact? What's the level of excess supply at other times? What's the economic impact of that? What other factors impact demand? What other investments would improve downtown business? Clearly we can't know the answers to all such questions with certainty, but we can ask them and explore them. So far we haven't. The extent of the exploration seems to have been, "Where are we going to put the parking that we know we need?" 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. I have never argued for elimination of existing parking. In fact, you can ask Susan Pollay about my suggestion to add on-street spaces in front of Ashley Mews on Main Street about ten years ago when we met to discuss how to improve downtown parking. I was happy to see that it was done. I've also suggested adding similar spaces on the west side of First Street between William and Jefferson, on Catherine, and on William. I want us to make the best use of past investments and existing resources. We're not there. 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. Yes, every business owner (like my wife) would argue that. Of course they would. (And, again, they have downtown parking.) But it's not their responsibility to weigh all the information and make sound decisions for the community. That's the role of council, and I'm trying to help you do it. If you want to only represent the wishes of business, you could work for the chamber. :-) (Joke! Not a cheap shot.) How do you see our community becoming sustainable as we become more dependent on people from outside Ann Arbor? I'm truly concerned that a focus on near-term economics will get in the way of seeing the long-term big picture. 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 4/6/2009 Page 5 of 5 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. Thanks for the clarification. Do you mean among the structures or the whole system, including surface lots? Just curious. When parking demand decreases in the near future (which is my contention, and which you haven't contested), how do you see the system paying for itself, in particular the new structure? Sustainability will be lost if our economy suffers. I'd say we're well into suffering, and "lost" might be an overstatement, but yes—as it will if our environment suffers further or social equity isn't given adequate attention. They're all interconnected. Parking isn't a silver bullet for any of them, not even the economy, and it makes the others worse. Do you acknowledge that? We need downtown economic development, and parking is a prerequisite. Duly noted. It exists and is already being increased. Let's be smart about the next step. That's why I wholeheartedly support this garage. -Leigh I invited questions. Did you have any? :-) I hope you'll give some more consideration to what I've presented. I don't have some ulterior motive here. I'm just trying to improve the downtown that I love and live in (well, right next to, but I go there every day) and ensure that we do so in a way that doesn't threaten our future as a species. (Have you seen An Inconvenient Truth, by the way?) Thanks again for your time and response. I've really unloaded here. If you've read this far you've earned even greater respect! Feel free to share all or parts of this with your colleagues. Actually, would you mind if I forwarded it to Carsten and Mike? It would be much easier than piecing together all the 'new' thoughts. Steve 4/6/2009 Message Page 1 of2 Bartha, Stephen From: Greden, Leigh Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 11:07 AM To: Schopieray, Christine Subject: FW: parking structure construction -----Original Message----- From: Susan Pollay [mailto:SPollay@a2dda.org] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 8:49 PM To: Greden, Leigh R. Subject: FW: parking structure construction Parking structure - estimated workers.... The court/police building will have many more because there is so much interior work that a concrete structure doesn't have. From: adrian iraola [mailto:ai@wengco.com] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 11:23 AM To: Susan Pollay; mortlieb@carlwalker.com Cc: Fran@AlexanderResources.net Subject: RE: parking structure construction Hello, Making some assumptions, estimate the project will necessitate the following number of workers. Plus about 10 professionals, for a grand total of approximately 202 people. Geotecnical 3 Earth retention 10 Utility Relocations 25 Trucking 12 Excavation 6 Forming 12 Carpenters 6 Rod-busters 12 Concrete placement 30 Electrical 8 Mechanical 8 Specialties 12 Elevators 6 Glazing 8 Telecommunications 5 Operations 5 Painting 8 General maintenance 4 Landscaping 6 Testing 6 Estimated Total 192 workers. Adrian 4/6/2009 Message Page 2 of 2 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.8.1/1728 - Release Date: 10/16/2008 7:38 AM NOTICE TO PERSONS SUBJECT TO UNITED STATES TAXATION (MCPS) DISCLOSURE UNDER TREASURY CIRCULAR 230: The United States Federal tax advice, if any, contained in this document and its attachments may not be used or referred to in the promoting, marketing or recommending of any entity, investment plan or arrangement, nor is such advice intended or written to be used, and may not be used, by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding Federal tax penalties. 4/6/2009