Do you support an expanded Residential Parking Permit Program? Please address:
- How should it be structured to protect neighborhoods?
- Should neighborhoods get determine which type of program is appropriate for them?
- What alternatives or additional mitigations do you support?
- Will you keep in place the commitment to phase out non-resident parking in the Downtown RPP district in10 years?
RPPs! They create all kinds of problems, mostly transferring the problem to another area. But sometimes they are necessary to deal with even bigger problems. They became necessary because City Hall allowed over-development, with a combination of allowing buildings to be under-parked and of not adjusting the rules in response to change in number of employees in a given space (in the 1990s, the expectation was one employee per 250-350 sq.ft.; now it is often less than 100 sq.ft.) It is also another way out for the City to put aside funding to build parking garages.
The current RPP for Downtown Palo Alto is failing to achieve its goals because of inadequate data. There is minimal tracking of the permits given out, and City staff no longer includes resident stakeholders in the meetings, if any, thereby not getting assessments of what is actually happening on the streets.
We need to eliminate the attitude that it is OK to build now, hope for the very best, and mitigate later. It is inefficient and tends to transfer costs from the private property owner to the public.
I support phasing out non-resident parking in Downtown neighborhoods in 10 years. However, I want the option to also support the lower income workers who may work 2 or 3 jobs and have no viable alternative to their cars to get between jobs.
For other neighborhoods, I support offering the College Terrace RPPP. It has proven success and it returns the burden of providing parking to the employers and to the City. I would also support that a certain number of parking permits are granted to property owners at no charge.
Back to top
Was this helpful?