Leave it to the bike advocates to make it hard on those who CAN'T bike to use downtown. Everybody pays taxes. Why should some have to pay to park as well?

@p

Bike advocates aren't trying to make it hard on people trying to park downtown. Cyclists don't have a dog in this fight as they don't pay for parking or have to circle in traffic trying to find parking. Plus, they don't take parking spaces away from drivers.

It sounds like Janet Lafleur's suggestion was aimed at reducing congestion, based upon the idea that charging for parking would reduce demand. Not sure if that is true or if it just raises money for the city, but I'm sure there are studies out there with the answer.

If cars pay for parking bicycles should also pay for parking. It's only fair and it gives them a chance to pay for facilities also.

@Gardener,

Janet Lafleur hates drivers and wants to punish us for driving. She doesn't care that some of us cannot use bicycles.

I love the idea of moving the farmers market to Castro St. Brilliant!

As for low cost housing, simply convert older (40+ years) 4 to 8 unit apartment buildings into condominiums. The prices will be around $450 to $500K. There will be plenty of inventory so price equilibrium will be discoverable and predictable. The price target is easily affordable for this area. Anything cheaper would be charity.

The reporter only captured a small part of what I said. Here's the rest of what I said:

"I live about a mile from downtown so I usually walk or ride my bike there, but I do drive, so I understand the frustration of circling to find parking. On the way here tonight I checked out the parking. The surface lots were full, but two of the four floors of the parking garage above CVS were empty. I'm glad the city is already looking at real-time digital signage and other technology to help people find available spots easier.

I also noticed there are garages under office buildings that are probably largely empty after 6pm. Perhaps the city could work a deal so that parking could be used by the public after hours. And don't be afraid to charge small fees for parking. Redwood City has managed parking better by charging more for parking closer in and less for parking further out."

For reference, the parking rates for Redwood City are $1 per hour close in, 25¢ per hour further away, and validation is available. It's not a lot of money, but it's an incentive for people to carpool, walk or bike when possible. Web Link

The benefit for people who drive to downtown is that they'll be more likely to find parking, and with real-time digital signage and apps, be able to find it without circling.

The benefit to the city is not being pressured into building expensive parking garages (up to $55,000 per space!) that sit unused as people search for parking in full surface lots, or worse, not getting lease income from the city's limited downtown properties because people are convinced we need surface lots for parking.

The benefit to me is not getting stuck behind cars circling for parking when I ride my bike, and to not be at risk of being hit by an impatient driver frustrated while circling for parking whether I bike, walk, or drive downtown.

So no, I'm not trying to punish drivers. I'm recommending the city make the most of its public parking, a valuable and limited resource. Why? So people who arrive by car can easily find a spot with minimum frustration and the city doesn't waste money building or holding onto parking it doesn't need.

Redwood City has free parking too, in the evening. They only charge between 10am and 6pm. Check CVS's parking garage in the daytime. See Web Link

@Janet Lafleur - Yes, yes, and yes. I couldn't have said it better. The key thing is that managing our existing parking supply better, by providing real-time digital signage, and yes, charging a modest amount for parking, would help us avoid having to pay tons of money to construct expensive parking garages, which are a drain on our city's resources.

This argument is logical, relies on free-market principles, and just makes a ton of sense. That should help convince folks like "p" and Konrad M. Sosnow that it's worth considering. But I say "should" rather than "will" convince because, well, some people just aren't convinced by logic and prefer to demonize their opposition (e.g., by attacking someone identified as a "bike advocate" by a reporter).

As a cautionary note, the downtown development in Sunnyvale has ruined the quality of life. Residents endured years of filthy air, shaking ground, power outages, dirt, noise and traffic disruption and now there is insufficient parking and construction noise at all hours. The police refuse to enforce the noise and construction ordinances.
Even businesses must compete for the limited parking which is taken up by construction workers all day. Customers cannot find parking and go elsewhere. And this continues.
Be aware of these consequences.

Charge for surface parking, free parking in the multi-level lots.
Next!

@robin on Sunnyvale's downtown development -
First, you cannot compare the magnitude of development Mountain View is considering with what Sunnyvale approved. Sunnyvale essentially approved the demolition and reconstruction of just about the entire downtown area other than Murphy Avenue (which itself was reconstructed for a while). Compared to that, what the MV Council is considering is a "surgical strike".

Also, on your point "Customers cannot find parking and go elsewhere", I'd like to see your data or substantiation of this claim. I shop periodically in downtown Sunnyvale, at various times, and have NEVER had any difficulty finding parking. Usually I can find it in the lot between Murphy Ave and Frances, and if not there, easily in the lot next to Macy's. If those areas were both full (I've never seen it, even during the Farmer's Market) there's also the structure across from Target, the garage across from the train station, etc etc.

I hate parking meters. I avoid Redwood City because of them. Horrible suggestion.

About the proposal to build housing on city-owned downtown parking lots:

Please note that as soon a housing structure is built on top of a city lot, that lot will forever lose the possibility of holding a parking structure. Also note that housing units would require parking for occupants.

In very general terms, it seems to me that putting in housing with two levels of underground parking would result in at best a 50% increase in public parking spaces, over the present amount of surface parking. A four-story garage would provide closer to a 400% increase. I don’t have exact figures, but you get the idea. Looking to the future, it seems like a poor idea to do this.

And do we really need more housing density downtown, adding to the present traffic congestion? We need more affordable and ownership housing, but this may not be the best place.

This proposal looks like another giveaway of public property to developers. They’re the ones who would truly benefit. Whether luxury rentals or city-subsidized “affordable” housing is built, developers will turn a profit - that’s what they exist for.

This may not be such a great idea. Let’s not be so quick to give away public resources.

Downtown Sunnyvale was destroyed when that mall was built. OK at first was good but at the end plenty of parking.

I make sure only to go to downtown RWC after 6pm

Let not make it like the CVS parking lot.. There is a reason no one wants to use it even with the limited parking in the area. I can't be the only one burned with a line of cars forced to go 5 floors to the roof only make a 3 point turn a and back out.

@Ace The idea behind the real-time signage is you'd know when the garage is full and go elsewhere, like the garage under City Hall & Center of Performing Arts which is empty much of the time in the evenings.

@ Janet And when will they install it at the CVS parking lot? They must have been too busy putting up the Art wall. Thanks for the city Hall parking info do they lock it after 10 pm?

A lot of those empty parking are private lots as said before you can be towed. The City Hall/CPA parking is for visitors of those places only 8-5. You may be towed otherwise. Don't know if that means 6PM if free parking

Personally, I hate driving around in circles looking for parking, what a waste of time, and so stressful, especially when you are trying to meet someone for lunch or dinner.

I would much rather have a price on parking, with a cheaper price in the structures and higher on the street space, with the price set and tweaked to enable spaces to be available on every block and in every lot and structure. I would much rather pay, and be able to actually find a spot if I have to drive.

This would also be incentive for people who are nearby and physically able to walk or bike, and leave the car parking spaces for people who need them.

For the person who prefers not to go to Redwood City because of the paid parking, this does not seem to be harming Redwood City since the downtown seems to be quite lively.

@ACE & @Bob D The City Hall/CPA underground lot is open to the public after work hours and until 11 pm. That helps for the very busy dinner crowd.

ALL of the Palo Alto parking garages are open to the public after 5pm weekdays and on weekends and holidays.

Furthermore, nearly every parking garage has sections for 2 hour and 3 hour free parking during the 8am to 5pm weekday enforced period. People don't realize there are all these available spaces in all these garages. The worst thing is that during the enforced period, the permit-only spaces inside all the garages are typically more than half unused and idle. They charge a lot for these permits and people avoid paying for that parking, but also, they haven't mastered the concept of overselling the available spaces and they often will refuse to sell permits even when people want them.

They have some complicated rules about the time limit spaces. There are 4 different zones. Once you use a space in a given color for the free time limit, if you move your car, you need to be sure it is not in the same color zone that same day again. Very trying and complicated to those who are just shopping in the area.

Palo Alto is a study in how to have WASTED UNUSED parking garage capacity while filling every space on the street and overflowing into nearby residential neighborhoods. It really makes no sense at all.

Please, please, please don't let them start charging for parking in downtown. It might free up a few spots there, but only because more people will park in the surrounding neighborhoods. My block is already consistently crowded with commuters parking and walking to the Caltrain station. It mostly clears out in the evening, but that won't be true if there's metered surface parking two blocks over.

Yes we need more affordable housing, but the city shouldn't be so quick to give away its valuable land downtown. The parking lots aren't visually exciting, but they're good, practical things to have. A hotel seems like a silly use of space.

For those who hate parking meters, Redwood City allows you to avoid them completely with pay-by-phone.

You don't even have to stop whatever it is you're doing to buy more time, if you need it!

Pretty cool, eh?

Parking can be such a pain if it isn't priced right. It'd be like if pro sports games were free, first come, first serve. What a mess, right? Who would want to bother with the uncertainty and mob scene that would create. (Ok, well enough to make it no fun to go, right?) Pricing valuable things is a good thing, folks! Capitalism, not communism ... supply and demand, and all that good stuff we seemingly worship (or at least understand and accept) in so many other venues applies to parking too!