 |
 |
By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Santa Rosa’s downtown parking district has seen a surge in new permit revenue since the downtown mall announced plans to eliminate the last significant supply of free parking in the city center.
The 7th Street parking garage in Santa Rosa. (PD File)
Permits for the city lots and garages closest to the Santa Rosa Plaza have seen the sharpest increase, a sign that downtown employees who parked in the mall for free have begrudgingly gravitated to city parking facilities.
“We did a big push to let people know it’s affordable, it’s reasonable and it’s the best alternative,” said Raissa de la Rosa, the city’s economic development specialist.
Two weeks ago, the downtown mall started charging for parking in what it said was an effort to free up parking spaces that are often occupied all day by downtown workers instead of shoppers.
The mall estimated that about 400 of its 3,000 parking spaces were taken up by non-shoppers.
Under the new policy, the first 90 minutes of parking is free. Thereafter, rates rise: $2 for the first three hours; $4 for three to four hours; $8 for six to eight hours; and $9 for up to 24 hours.
Instead of paying those rates, people who parked at the mall daily because they work downtown appear to have turned to city-owned facilities.
Since May 1, when people started to realize the mall’s parking policy was changing, the city has sold 117 additional permits for parking garages, an 8 percent increase. The increase in permits, which range from $62 to $140 per month, equates to $8,146 in additional monthly revenue for the city.
Less expensive surface lot permits saw a far higher surge, with 175 additional permits, or a 196 percent increase. Those permits, which range from $30 to $140, result in a monthly revenue increase of $10,169.
If those permit levels are sustained, the city will pull in an additional $220,000in annual parking revenue for the district.
The garages closest to the mall, on 7th Street and 1st Street, had increases of 35 percent and 27 percent respectively. But the lots closest to the mall saw permits skyrocket.
“We saw the largest increase by far in Lot 2, which is the lot directly across from Macy’s,” de la Rosa said. There were only 4 permits for that lot on May 1, but by Aug. 1 there were 54, a 1,200-percent increase, she said.
The lot beneath Highway 101 also saw a huge boost, with 108 new permits, a 400 percent jump.
Most lots still have permits available, de la Rosa said.
(You can reach Staff Writer Kevin McCallum at 521-5207 or kevin.mccallum@pressdemocrat.com.)
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
And who gets the funds? Since redevelopment money built those garages (OUR tax money) I think the city should get it ALL.
I won’t be shopping at the downtown mall anymore. I wonder if the workers at the mall have to pay too? Many make little above minimum wage. They should be able to park for FREE since they work there. Anyone have an answer to this?
The propaganda piece defines success by parking revenue instead of small business revenue downtown.
Welcome to ICLEI-ville.
I would ride my bike downtown, but I am too afraid of the crazy, wild drivers and pedestrians who yell at me as I ride down the sidewalk.
The city should bar all cars from the downtown and make it like it is in Denmark, a bike friendly place where everybody gets along and no police are necessary to arrest people.
I keep all of my packs on my bike and like to park next to the bookstore, I don’t like people yelling at me because I ride a bike. So please stop letting cars drive downtown, mr. mayor.
Engineer:
I suggest you also contact CalTrans.
They intentionally used one of their employees to run tests on the new portion of the Bay Bridge. They knew that employee had a history of fraudulent recording of data, yet they used him anyway.
Now, after the bridge has been constructed and the tax money spent, they are running secondary tests.. which to nobodies surprise… has come back with red flags.
You see, Engineer, government really doesn’t care about citizen safety. At least, not until AFTER a death has happened.
Thats why the Society of Civil Engineers continues to point out that literally HALF of highway overpasses in America are structurally failing and government, bless their hearts, sits on the sidelines stuffing the public pensions yet claiming they “have not the funding.”
RE: Santa Rosa Plaza parking garages seismic safety.
In my opinion, these structures are susceptible to collapse during an earthquake. This opinion is based on their age, type of construction and especially the connection details.
What if the Plaza decided on a ‘permit’ that was a cheaper rate ? Especially the higher end ‘permits’. They could charge $50 a month and have areas reserved for local workers. Maybe $10,000 a month isn’t worth it.
I think that this is just the beginning of a vetting process. Like having validations to park over the 90 minute limit.
I can park for free at many, many shopping and dining areas other than downtown. Sometimes I choose to pay. Sometimes I park for free up 3rd east of the library, sometimes feed the meter.
( By the way, I HATE that word ‘permit’. Every time you turn around, it’s another permit, as if the Government shall only grant you permission for anything. Sure, some things need some scrutiny but the whole ‘permit’ thing disturbs me.)
The comment from ENGINEER is interesting, I know a bit about that and will have to swing by to see. If he could clarify his concerns, or name what style(s) the construction consists of, it may further his voice.
The following was sent to the City of Santa Rosa regarding the safety of Santa Rosa Plaza parking garages during an earthquake [ seismic ].
My considered professional opinion is, these structures are … likely to cause grievous bodily harm and even death. I have conducted post earthquake safety evaluations for Cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles … Newer and better built structures than these collapsed during recent earthquakes.
The city’s reply: Your opinion regarding how these structures will perform during an earthquake is noted and should be shared with responsible parties. In this case Simon Property Group is the property owner and responsible party
My reply: The city itself ought take action … Chapter Title 18 of the Santa Rosa Municipal Code … Review and abatement of existing buildings considered seismic hazards is included under Chapter 18-48.