|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
With Palo Alto’s new six-story garage near California Avenue preparing to open later this month, city officials, residents and businesses remain at odds over a key question: Who exactly will be allowed to park there?
The question came up repeatedly during the City Council’s discussion that stretched from Monday night into early Tuesday morning and that concluded without clear resolution. Council members were prepared to consider a staff proposal that would have dramatically slashed the number of employee permits in the two neighborhoods around California Avenue, forcing workers who currently park on residential streets to use the garage. Instead, a confused and exhausted council found itself facing conflicting accounts about the garage from business leaders and area residents before voting to defer its decision to a later date.
Among the points of contention: Should office workers be allowed to park in the garage, even those whose companies should be encouraging them to take public transportation? Should the garage designate some spots for low-income retail and restaurant workers, who need to come and go during the day? Will there be enough space in the garage for businesses’ customers, as the district’s retailers said they were led to believe? Can residents in adjacent neighborhoods get employees’ cars off of their streets for good, now that the garage is opening?
The stalled debate means that the city still has no plan in place for how to fill the 636-space garage, which is nearing completion at 350 Sherman Ave. Because the garage occupies a former parking lot, the net gain in parking spaces for the California Avenue business district is about 300 spaces.
Under a proposal presented by Office of Transportation, most of these spaces would be filled by area employees, many of whom currently participate in the Residential Preferential Parking program and park on residential streets. Transportation staff is planning to slash the number of employee permits from the current level of 250 to about 130 in the next round of sales, which is scheduled for March (the city sells an additional 40 permits to employees who park on El Camino Real) and redirect the employees away from the neighborhood and toward the new garage.
The number would then be further reduced, potentially to zero, in the following year, creating a system in which only residents are allowed to park all day in the neighborhoods.
Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi said the new garage would also include room for the roughly 228 employees who are currently on the waitlist to acquire permits for California Avenue garages and parking lots. His plan would designate the two upper levels of the garage for employees on weekday mornings but then allow visitors to park there after 11 a.m.
“Staff considers the transition of 120 RPP employee permits as a first step in a phased approach to reducing employee permits in the RPP district,” Kamhi told the council Monday.
The plan, however, has left both residents and business owners unsatisfied. Some residents believe the city should move faster and eliminate all employee permits as soon as the new garage is open, following the model established in the College Terrace neighborhood, where the residential parking program is limited to residents.
Business leaders counter that filling the new garage with employees who currently park in neighborhoods means that there would be fewer spaces available for visitors and customers. Judy Kleinberg, president of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, suggested that this proposal runs counter to the city’s original goal, which was supported by the business community, of making it easier for people to dine and shop on California Avenue.
“This proposal would move all 290 employee street parking permits to the new garage by 2022, but it was always presented to California Avenue businesses that that garage would add an additional 300 parking spaces to address parking problems for their customers, that the new garage would add to parking that would benefit local businesses — not eliminate street parking,” Kleinberg said. “This was going to be additive and supplemental.”
Michael Ekwall, co-owner of the restaurant La Bodeguita del Medio, called the plan “a sneak attack” and chided city staff for failing to reach out to area businesses before finalizing the details. He told the council that there was “zero outreach” and “zero transparency” to the business community.
“This proposal basically erases any benefits that the new garage creates by accommodating all the waitlist for permit parking and the RPP permits,” Ekwall said.
Residents countered that the city should move faster with moving employees — specifically, the higher-wage office workers — out of their neighborhoods. They also criticized the staff proposal for failing to include low-income service employees in their plans for new garage. Under the proposal, the city would still offer a limited number of discounted permits for workers who meet the income thresholds. These employees would continue to park on neighborhood streets, however, and not in the new parking structure, under the staff plan.
“It is amazing that low-wage retail workers who come and go throughout the day and often cannot take public transportation are not given any spaces in the new garage and employee permits are not being moved out of the neighborhood, despite the large increase in parking available within the business core,” Evergreen Park resident Carol Scott told the council. “Instead, the recommendation de facto give almost the entire garage over to commercial office workers — the very ones who should be parking in their own parking lots or commuting by public transportation in this ‘transportation rich’ area.”
Scott also joined residents Wolfgang Dueregger, John Guislin, Paul Machado and Neilson Buchanan in penning a letter urging rejection of the staff proposal.
“Residents did not support the construction of the garage at taxpayer expense in order to provide additional parking to commercial office workers, many of whom work in under-parked office buildings that should have TDM agreements that promised to eliminate the need for workers to use public parking in the California Ave Business District (CABD) or residential areas,” the letter states.
Part of the conflict stems from the fact that conditions on California Avenue and in its surrounding neighborhoods have changed dramatically since 2014, when the council voted to place the California Avenue garage on its infrastructure plan. At that time, the Evergreen Park and Mayfield neighborhoods did not have a Residential Parking Permit program and residents were up in arms about the high number of employees parking on their streets all day during weekdays.
That changed in 2017, when the council approved the residential program, which provided instant relief for neighbors around California Avenue. While some blocks, particularly those closest to California Avenue’s commercial core, continued to see high parking rates, others became largely empty as a result of the new program. The city later refined the parking zones throughout Evergreen Park and Mayfield to better disperse employee parking in these neighborhoods.
While these moves have alleviated many anxieties over parking, they have not completely quashed the decadeslong tug-of-war over spots between businesses and residents. Some council members struggled to reconcile the conflicting accounts from residents and businesses about why the garage was built in the first place. Council member Alison Cormack posed the question in blunt terms on Monday night.
“I’m not clear we know the problem we’re trying to solve,” Cormack said.
Both she and Kniss recalled that when the council was moving ahead with plans for the new garage, a major reason was the severe shortage of parking on the commercial strip, particularly during lunch hours.
“This was more about lunch than anything else,” Kniss said. “Because it was so difficult to park in the California Avenue area that people would say, ‘I’ve been driving for half an hour and couldn’t find any place to leave the car so I can meet you for lunch.'”
While Council member Eric Filseth generally supported the staff approach, Vice Mayor Tom DuBois sided with the residents and suggested eliminating all the employee permits from the residential parking program.
“I’m not sure what a better time is to try to move those cars out of the neighborhoods,” DuBois said. “It seems with decreased parking during the pandemic, we can move it all out.”
Most of his colleagues didn’t feel comfortable making any decision on the divisive topic. With the discussion creeping past midnight, Council member Greg Tanaka suggested postponing the decision to a later date and, in the meantime, conducting more outreach. The council unanimously approved his recommendation.
“It seems like some people are blindsided,” Tanaka said. “It seems like there’s more conversations that should have happened.”
Why is the cost to park not mentioned once here? One of Council’s TOP-THREE goals is fighting climate change. Am I to understand that we’re giving away this parking for free, or nearly free? During a climate emergency?
That, in turn, is resulting in fighting over who gets the free parking? You could solve both problems at once by just charging the market rate for parking, and then whoever wants to park there can park there. They’ll just have to pay for it.
That’s what a city that wants to take a climate emergency seriously would do. But this is Palo Alto, where I know too well that we just pay lip service to our ideals, and don’t actually address them.
As I mentioned at the Council meeting last night, my husband and I were actively involved in supporting the local businesses in their desire to see the new garage built — and built as large as possible — in the face of criticism by some that it would soon be a vacant monstrosity because everyone would be sharing self-driving cars and taking Uber. The garage was always about providing some parity for local small retailers, medical and dental offices with the software companies who were better able to compete for the first come-first served online permit system. Some may remember the threats by dentists that if they didn’t get more parking, there would be no dentists left in Palo Alto. Wasn’t that long ago. It was never meant to provide more parking space for tenants of large office buildings who got permission to be under-parked in return for a Transportation Demand Management agreement.
If the City moved all all-day employee permits from the residential neighborhoods into the garage, using the City’s assumption of a 60% show rate, all low-wage workers would be accommodate as well as some office workers, and there would be 176 spots left for customers. That seems like a lot of new ones, even given that the retailers themselves closed off approximately 60 parking spaces in the closure of Cal Ave. In addition, the new Public Safety building will not be built for a while, leave that lot available. And, many people will continue to work from home, so demand could well be down. Seems like not a hard decision to contain business traffic and activity to the commercial district.
I should also mention that I have walked the Cal Ave business district several times. I have observed that several businesses have their own lots that they do not use for parking. One establishment had small lot with car lifts. I’m sure they got credit for the lift spaces when they applied for the building permit. But, the top level isn’t used for cars — it is used for storage boxes. Yet that same establishment purchases employee parking permits in the residential neighborhood. Why not, when there is no incentive to first use your own resources.
One thing is certain. The city council and city manager are going to be very embarrassed within 30 days with hundreds of empty parking spaces scattered in ten public parking garages and lots in the Calif Ave commercial core.
Let us be clear. Evergreen Park and Mayfield residential neighborhoods are currently among the largest commercial parking lots serving the Calif Ave commercial core.
The biggest embarrassment and inequity will be the forced march of lower wage workers to walk to and from jobs in the commercial core. This is outright class discrimination when there is profound surplus of public financed parking.
When will the Office of Transportation present hard facts of about peak parking demand within the two commercial cores? Pre-covid 19 hint: there was generally a short 2-hr peak parking demand midday usually on Wednesday or Thursday. There is usually surplus parking capacity somewhere, if you can find it, in both downtowns Monday thru Friday.
PS I think I know Evan who was the first poster. I have known him before he was born. He is so correct! The missing dialogue and reform is the end of free parking.
Let’s see if I got the math right. The new lot has 636 spaces, but because it was built over an existing lot, the net gain is only 300. By simple subtraction, the original lot must have had 336 spaces.
So you replace ground level parking with six levels and you can’t even double the existing spaces? I know that the ramps and stairs use some of the space, but six layers should have at least tripled the original parking.
Did some other parking get eliminated? Do the ramps and stairs really consume 2/3 of the space?
What am I missing here?
Last I looked, the garage cost exceeded $59 million. Is that still right? Imagine the affordable housing for humans we might have built with that money. When we add capacity to car infrastructure, we get more cars. Build it, and they always come. I’m not worried about filling the garage. I’m worried about increasing the number of cars that go to Cal Ave, a place I usually bike to. Cars create congestion, safety problems, and carbon emissions–even electric cars contribute to GHGS (just less so than gas-powered cars). Charge drivers for the full cost of it. In fact, set the price to cover the amortized cost of parking construction. Frankly, it upsets me that my tax dollars have been used for this. Every public parking space in town should have a price on it.
I’m a senior. I live on the Mountain View border. It takes me 17 minutes or less, without breaking a sweat, to get to Cal Ave. on a bike. And, yes ladies, my husband and I do that for date nights. I bike wearing a skirt and heels. I bring a comb to sort my hair and I look great when I arrive. No able bodied person who lives in Palo Alto needs to drive there. It’s an easy, pleasant bike ride from almost any location in town. Biking to Cal Ave. is half the fun for us on our date nights. The more I bike, the younger I feel.
If the problem really is a two-hour problem as Neilson Buchanan suggests — and I would agree — then try better signage and a valet before sending workers to the neighborhood and making them hike in to work. I believe Mr. Buchanan is correct — there will be a lot of surplus parking in the business district while the City insists that 150 parking permits must still be sold in a residential neighborhood. If the Public Safety building is not constructed right away, that lot — whose spaces were counted in the ones to be replaced by the garage — will also be available. And the businesses still can’t live within their parking means?
If the transportation needs of offices can’t be met by their own private parking, public transport in this “transit-rich” area, or TDM’s, then the offices need to be occupied by companies with fewer employees.
That’s a private matter between the owner of the building and the companies they lease to. Not a public one. The city is bending over backwards to solve a private problem, and residents are paying for it.
Carol Scott said:
“If the Public Safety building is not constructed right away, that lot — whose spaces were counted in the ones to be replaced by the garage… “
This helps answer my question about the questionable math. See the post two above yours.
It sounds like the 336 parking spaces that were eliminated by this structure include some in different locations, and that the space they occupy will be repurposed.
I’m puzzled by this stat that Carol cited: “the City’s assumption of a 60% show rate” for all-day employee parking. The city is assuming that for every 100 employees that have the right to park, 60 of them will show up on any given day? That might be true on average, but I doubt if the distribution is spread evenly. When I used to work on Cal Ave, I would bike on clear days and drive on rainy days (yeah, I’m a wuss that way). If those extra 40% of employees all decide to drive on the same day because it’s raining, where will their overflow go? I hope that’s part of the planning.
When the Sunrise Senior Living Center on Sheridan Ave and El Camino (in the Mayfield district) received permission to build some years ago they were required to include underground parking. Yet their employees can’t be bothered to park under their building and instead they park on the street. These “caregivers” couldn’t care less about the neighbors next door whom they disturb when they come and go as their shifts change. Their horns honk at 10-10:30 pm and then again at 6:30 am when they lock their cars, and they slam their car doors. All this when neighbors are trying to sleep. They have private parking but can’t be bothered to use it.
To Rose: Although the City is constantly monnitoring the neighborhood to see if we are using the parking on residential streets, as far as I know it has never monitored businesses use of their own private parking. I think that is very relevant. If a business has parking and isn’t using it for its own needs but insists on receiving all-day parking permits in the neighborhood, then we have a very unfair problem. And, I know it happens.
The problem I am seeing right now is that retailer stores don’t want their employees taking up parking that customers might use. Perhaps the senior center has told their employees to park elsewhere for a related reason. The result is the same — pushing their costs onto the residents. I think we should insist that all low-wage worker discounted permits be sold in the commercial area, e.g., in the new garage, and then dedicate the rest of the space in the new garage to 2-hour customer parking. That should solve the problem of the residents and the retailers and hopefully buildings such as the one in your neighborhood.
to Rose: Unfortunately for the past 10 years I have observed irrational parking policies and been unable to stimulate continuous improvement from city staff and Council. You described several problems. First, employees of Sunrise Senior Center should not be able to buy permits to park in your neighborhood during the day Monday through Friday. I assume that Sunrise underground parking is sufficient for “daytime” employees. Please let me know if this is accurate assumption.
If true, then write the city council [city.council@cityofpaloalto.org]and city manager [ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org] and ask them to change the permit issuance policy. This could easily improve the over-saturation of Mayfield neighborhood residential streets during the workday Monday thru Friday
Second, there are no parking restriction after 6pm or weekends. Sunrise employees can park wherever they choose. Perhaps the management and owners of Sunrise will voluntarily coach their employees to be more considerate and park in their employer provided, onsite parking.
I am certain Mr. Shikada will respond and delegate his staff to work with you. If you do not get a definitive response from the “City” in 3 months, call me on February 11, 2021 and we can meet and work out better plan of action. You have a legit issue to pursue for yourself and many other citizens who lives adjacent to our two downtowns. My email is cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com.
Good luck!
Wait for the ACLU. Everyone will get to park.
My family lives 5 blocks north of Cal Ave in evergreen park.
Over the years we may see some (very few) cars from el Camino shops, but @ fellow residents nobody on our blocks has seen this lunch hour traffic to warrant this unnecessary effort. Bottom line- PA should do improve urban planning and vetting of businesses moving in; garage will help in convenience and solve cal ave problem, look forward and not backwards people. We don’t want to live in the city that’s looking for a problem to fit their solution.