A proposal to cut the number of parking permits sold to downtown employees as part a new parking-permit program is facing opposition from Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, which on Friday issued a statement strongly urging the City Council to reverse course.
The proposal, which the City Council tentatively approved earlier this month and plans to formally adopt on Feb. 23, calls for limiting the number of permits sold to downtown employees. Two thousand worker permits would be sold this year, and about 200 fewer would be sold every year thereafter. At that pace, the city would stop selling permits to employees altogether by 2026.
The change would take effect in April, when the second phase of what’s known as the Residential Preferential Parking Program officially launches. The program launched in September, requiring permits for all-day parking in downtown’s residential neighborhoods and establishing two-hour limits for cars that don’t have permits. Only residents and downtown employees are able to purchase permits.
The decision to limit permit sales to employees was triggered by concerns from Crescent Park and other neighborhoods just beyond downtown’s periphery. At the Feb. 1 council meeting, several residents called for the council to establish in Crescent Park a parking program that would allow permits to be sold only to residents. Though the council did not adopt this suggestion, members agreed to gradually phase out employee permits.
By a 5-0, with Marc Berman, Pat Burt, Karen Holman and Greg Scharff recusing themselves, the council also agreed not to sell any employee permits at this time for parking in sections of Crescent Park and Professorville that will be annexed as part of the second phase of the parking program.
Now, these changes are facing a backlash from the city’s largest business group. In a letter approved by the Chamber of Commerce board of directors and signed by Chamber CEO Judy Kleinberg, the group is asking the council to reconsider these changes, which it claims are premature.
The letter notes that the Chamber had supported the first phase of the Residential Preferential Parking Program with the understanding that the program would produce important data that would show how well the program is working and that would be used to design later phases. The new changes, the Chamber argues, are not based on such data.
City officials are hoping that many employees who currently drive will ultimately find other means of getting downtown. The city recently jump-started a downtown Transportation Management Association, a nonprofit charged with providing incentives for employees to carpool, take Caltrain and rely on other modes of transit to get to work. Palo Alto is also looking to expand the city’s tiny shuttle program by adding more routes and buses, though these changes won’t be in place until the city completes a strategic plan for the shuttle program.
The Chamber’s letter argues that until these measures are in place and employees have other options to get to work, phasing out permits is premature.
“Alternatives such as trip reduction and new garage construction will take years to come to fruition,” the letter states. “In the meantime, we will be reducing an already inadequate supply by 200 spaces per year. Without the alternatives in place, it is premature to do away with the only program that attempts to meet both the needs of downtown residents and the still unmet parking needs of downtown employees.
The Chamber’s letter requests that the council not make any changes to the parking program at this time, “until the alternatives to downtown street parking are more than a commitment but actually implemented. Only then will we be able to analyze how these solutions work together to mitigate the parking congestion in our downtown neighborhoods while supporting the workforce that drives downtown prosperity.”
The statement from the Chamber pits the business community against downtown residents clamoring for relief from commuters’ vehicles. At the Feb. 1 meeting, Norm Beamer, president of the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association, asked the council for a “resident only” permit program in Crescent Park.
And Neilson Buchanan, a Downtown North resident who was part of a stakeholder group that designed the first phase of the program, told the council that the “galloping annexation” of new neighborhoods into the parking program, without restricting employee permits, is the wrong way to go.
“Absolutely reduce the amount of spaces allocated to non-residents,” Buchanan said. “Slowly reduce the neighborhoods from parking lots to neighborhoods.”
The council will consider changes to the parking program at a special 3 p.m. meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 23, at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Ave.
This sounds like a pretty reasonable position. Cap permits at 2000, then phase them out _after_ alternatives are provided, not before.
Is the city’s alternative to kick the service workers out of the neighborhood parking _before_ they have alternatives? That doesn’t make a lot of sense.
All the real alternatives are hard: carpooling, more use of transit (which is slower and less convenient than driving for most people), alternate work schedules etc. If the city waits for “easy†solutions, it will wait forever.
The hard solutions will only happen once they’re forced to happen. The Chamber knows this of course, but – here’s a shock – they like things the way they are. For years the city let its royalty developers get away with putting up big buildings without enough parking, and now there’s a big mess. Oh, and guess who the Chamber represents?
The gall of the Chamber! Putting in a planned reduction over ten (10!) years is the only way to put some teeth behind the TMA and get businesses motivated. Parking unfortunately is a zero sum game – the city needs to decide what is reasonable for neighborhoods. Excessive demand isn’t the number one concern here – the supply should be set by what is safe and appropriate in residential zones.
Property owners downtown have been unwilling to rent private parking spots (lots of private parking downtown – a topic strangely missing from the discussion). Having turned our downtown into an oversized, illegal office park its time for the businesses to start paying their fair share. Let’s give them motivation to put some solutions in place other than using our neighborhoods as parking lots.
Residents – come to the meeting at 3PM next Tuesday, Feb 23rd!
How many of the Chamber people reside in PA?
“How many of the Chamber people reside in PA?”
Chamber CEO Judy Kleinberg was a pro-development councilmember from 2001-2009 who voted for many of the developments that caused our current parking problem. She now lives in Woodside, safely out of reach of her legacy.
Frankly, PA city council should decide matters solely in view of residents — which includes voters and non-voters; home owners and renters — and PA land owners that may reside elsewhere. That’s what constitutes Palo Alto.
How can we move forward so aggressively without having a huge impact on the prosperity of downtown? How can the council act so abruptly without even giving the TMA and other initiatives to get started? The residents want their cake eat it too! The council conflicts have reduced to decision making members to a dangerous level that will allow the “resident bullies” to threaten their way to a downtown appealing slide for the downtown core. Residents will have all the parking they want when business decide to more to more balanced communities nearby. Where is the collaboration here? Appalling!
“How many of the Chamber people reside in PA?”
Its CEO Judy Kleinberg lives in Woodside.
@Anonymous business owner
The City of Palo Alto’s powers are expressly for “…the general welfare of its inhabitants…” and no other party. See Article II of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.
The people you refer to as “resident bullies” are Palo Alto’s inhabitants. All City powers are for their welfare, not the welfare of others.
They also happen to be voters. If you reside in PA and are a voter, speak your piece and vote your business interest. But it appears there are many voices and votes against your opinion.
How about the chamber agree to have its members provide parking for the low wage staff its member businesses rely on. And pass the cost on to their customers who apparently are wealthy enough not to think twice since they are rolling in the dough. The rest of us will go elsewhere.