Editorial
A worthless permit parking test Without changing downtown garage policy, employees will simply relocate to and impact other streets
I
f the city is truly committed to giving Professorville and other residents living in homes adjacent to downtown some protection from the daily invasion of workers seeking a free parking space, it will take much more than the trial run that was unveiled last week. For years residents of the Professorville neighborhood just south of downtown have been calling for a residential permit parking program that would convert their streets to permit parking only, with the majority of the permits given to residents. But instead of developing a plan for the entire neighborhood, the city staff’s proposed six-month experiment covers only a few blocks, an approach that accomplishes almost nothing and just kicks the can down the road. The affected area is roughly bounded by Emerson Street on the west, Waverley Street to the east and Addison and Lincoln avenues to the north and south. It also includes the Bryant Street block between Addison and Channing avenues, according to a map sent to residents. Under the plan, each household would receive one free permit and the right to purchase another for $50. But with all-day parkers needing only to relocate outside the trial area, it is hard to imagine any useful information coming out of this test other than the obvious: permit parking shifts the problem to other streets. Professorville resident Ken Alsman, who has tried to stop the invasive parking for years, worked on a committee of residents, downtown property owners and city officials to come up with the pilot plan, which he grudgingly supports. “We’ve got to go forward with it. I am a strong advocate of the pilot parking plan because it is the best we can get with the people involved,â€? he said this week. In order for the trial to take effect, at least 60 percent of the residents in the affected area must support the six-month test by responding to a city survey sent out last week. At this stage, the city apparently has no intention of addressing the actual crux of the problem: the fact that there is available parking in downtown garages but workers aren’t choosing to buy permits to use them. A key part of this problem is encouraging and assisting the employers of low-wage workers (retail, restaurants and hotels) to defray the cost of parking permits for their employees and to be able to hold the permits as a business. Currently, the city only issues permits to individual workers, a strategy that all but forces low-paid, high turnover employees to park in the neighborhoods. A far more interesting, and less punitive, approach to testing possible solutions to the downtown parking mess would be to establish a trial program of selling greatly reduced-price permits to retailers, restaurants and hotels so they could then provide them to their employees. Doing so would enable us to see how much the current permitting system is responsible for the neighborhood parking problems. If parking is unilaterally taken away on some neighborhood streets without addressing the parking garage permit problems, employees will simply relocate to and impact other streets. And, with more under-parked development coming downtown, the city needs to being doing much more than trying to appease a small group of Professorville residents. One example: remaking Casa Olga into an 85-unit luxury hotel will have a significant impact on parking but is only required to have 28 parking spaces, hardly enough to serve the parking needs of employees and guests. Last year, a city study showed that of the more than 3,000 parking spaces downtown, including 1,200 that are open to the public at any time, there are hundreds of permit spaces that sit empty in all the city’s parking garages. The survey showed there is a huge surplus of space at the 688-space Bryant Street garage, with only 16 percent of spaces occupied from 8 to 10 a.m. And only 53 percent occupied during the lunch hour, from noon to 2 p.m. During this period, the survey showed, there are more than 300 empty spaces in the Bryant Street garage alone. If the city wants to truly find answers to its parking problem it will take much more than a tiny trial in the Professorville neighborhood. Downtown businesses must acknowledge that they are at least in part responsible for many of their employees clogging residential neighborhoods adjacent to downtown. And the city needs to be actively experimenting with permit pricing and creating improvements in the permitting system. Alsman and others have said for years that it is extremely unfair for his neighborhood to bear the burdens of downtown’s employment growth. We agree. But a successful solution will take a better effort among all the stakeholders, not a small piece-meal approach from which we will learn nothing. Page 14ĂŠUĂŠ Ă•Â˜iĂŠĂ“Ă“]ÊÓä£ÓÊUĂŠ*>Â?ÂœĂŠ Â?ĂŒÂœĂŠ7iiÂŽÂ?ÞÊUĂŠĂœĂœĂœÂ°*>Â?Âœ Â?ĂŒÂœ"˜Â?ˆ˜i°Vœ“
Spectrum Editorials, letters and opinions
Hohbach stubbornness Editor, Your editorial June 8 on stubborn Harold Hohbach and his project is accurate. The letter from Hohbach’s handyman Marcus Wood is full of errors. My lawsuit wasn’t baseless, the court agreed to void the project and required Palo Alto to demonstrate by August 2008 that any future project complies with CEQA. Never happened. The monstrosity currently before the Council, which the Planning Commission rejected, is almost identical to the 2006 proposal that was approved 5-4 by a very different City Council. The need for identified substantial changes has been stated by the public, ARB, Planning Commissioners and councilmembers. Hohbach was unresponsive and uncooperative to these requests, insisting on minimal changes and evasive responses. Delays in resolving problems with the project are entirely due to Hohbach’s repeated refusals to comply with requests for project clarifications and modifications. He proposed converting the rentals to condos, claiming that was always his preference, but the letter supporting his claim that supposedly was sent to the ARB actually wasn’t sent until years later, as verified by Commissioner Wasserman. When councilmembers who voted for the project because all housing was rentals expressed dismay at the switch to condos, the request was withdrawn. The latest delays were due to Hohbach himself asking the City Council three times to postpone hearings on the project. Council requested four specific modifications to the project. If all of them aren’t provided the Council must vote to deny approval or their authority and valid development requirements will be successfully flaunted. Bob Moss Orme Street Palo Alto
Courage for HSR Editor, I think it is sad that Larry Klein accuses legislators of a lack of courage in not opposing HSR (Weekly, June 8). I see the exact opposite. Those unwilling to embrace a better vision for the future of California are the ones lacking in courage. Changing the status quo sometimes takes courage. Should we just continue the status quo with the auto and airplane? We desperately need alternatives to the auto and airplane. Route 101 is now up to 10 lanes. I used to think the Bay Area had a better vision for the future than car-clogged Los Angeles. Carbon dioxide is now up to 393 parts per million in our atmosphere. This is leading to atmospheric catastrophe unless we change the trajectory. With 10 million people in the
north and 20 million in the south, California needs a good north-south rail connection. All you legislators who believe in this vision please hang tough and maintain courage, for our grandchildren. Steve Eittreim Ivy Lane Palo Alto
Inflexible commission Editor, I should state my bias first: I work in venture capital and make my living by saying “Why not?� Many people have jobs making new products that benefit other people because of those two words. I was recently an adviser for a dermatology office project on Oak Grove Avenue that was submitted to the Menlo Park Planning Commission. I have no financial connection with any of the principals. The transaction would have yielded almost a million dollars to the building owner and brought 950 new patients to downtown Menlo Park. Although both parties wanted to close, the commission rejected the project because of a 2006 agreement that the space would be used
for “Personal Service.� It has been empty for years because it is below grade, has no street visibility, and an uninviting entrance for retail. These conditions were demonstrated to the commission. Although the owner wants to alter his prior position, the commission refused the plan because of the paper restriction. This inflexible decision is part of a larger problem. The Planning Commission controls land and building use in Menlo Park. The results of its work can be seen from Valparaiso Avenue to the Stanford Mall on El Camino, and from the Caltrain tracks to University Drive on Santa Cruz Avenue. No airy future plans can offset its inability to deal with the present. Based on incontrovertible evidence, the current Planning Commission is incompetent, inflexible and dilatory. The members should be thanked for their efforts, dismissed with their equally inflexible staff, and replaced with an open-minded group that can adapt Menlo Park to the economic and social realities of the present. Morton Grosser Lemon Street Menlo Park
WHAT DO YOU THINK? The Palo Alto Weekly encourages comments on our coverage or on issues of local interest.
?
What do you think of the residential parking-permit plan for Professorville?
Submit letters to the editor of up to 250 words to letters@paweekly.com. Include your name, address and daytime phone number so we can reach you. We reserve the right to edit contributions for length, objectionable content, libel and factual errors known to us. Anonymous letters will generally not be accepted. Submitting a letter to the editor or guest opinion constitutes a granting of permission to the Palo Alto Weekly and Embarcadero Media to also publish it online, including in our online archives and as a post on Town Square. For more information contact Editor Jocelyn Dong or Online Editor Tyler Hanley at editor@paweekly.com or 650-326-8210.