Parking concerns citywide will be addressed at a broader discussion on how state laws are hamstringing local control.
Council Member Kevin Park had put the three items on a previous council agenda for consideration at a later date, but the Santa Clara City Council deferred the items twice. The council finally addressed Park’s requests at its Oct. 20 meeting.
The items were to explore options that would prevent residents in below-market-rate housing complexes from getting towed or ticketed, to examine the requirements for such developments and consider reimbursing those who had been ticketed or towed.
The city has gone too far in its “zeal” to remove parking, Park said, and it’s disenfranchising residents, many of whom rely on their car for their livelihood, be it driving for rideshare companies or delivering food.
“Every time they get ticketed or towed, that is a couple hundred dollars; that’s a monthly fee of a couple hundred dollars. They are already in affordable housing,” he said. “These people are coming home late at night. Some people don’t leave their houses on the weekends, because if they have a good spot, they don’t want to lose it … We are affecting their lives in ways that we never considered.”
City Manager Jovan Grogan said the city is already taking measures, both in the near-term and long-term, to address parking issues in the Clara District, also known as Tasman East.
Those solutions, Grogan said, include a transportation and parking analysis, working with construction companies and below-market-rate housing operators and reviewing parking enforcement with the police department. On Sept. 28, the city held a community meeting, and the next steps are to incorporate that feedback into its decision making.
But Park wanted more urgency and worried a broader discussion about state laws would muddy the waters and cause the council to lose sight of the issue. He said he wanted to see more “solution-oriented thinking” instead of handwringing and a laundry list of what the city can’t do.
Council Member Karen Hardy said she worried about the legality of reimbursing those ticketed or towed with public money. She also worried that Park’s request specified that the city explore options that would allow residents to park “without fear” of being ticketed or towed. The city is incapable of governing how people feel, she said.
Many below-market-rate housing complexes are near transit, and while people may take the train to work, nobody is taking it to buy groceries or clothes, Park said.
Mayor Lisa Gillmor agreed with Park in spirit, but wanted the topic to piggyback on the work city employees are already doing.
“We all acknowledge there is a problem with the new building laws. You know, many developers don’t have to build as many parking spaces as they actually need,” she said. “You know, they are all hoping everybody is going to hop on transit and nobody is going to have cars, but the reality is people with jobs have cars, and they need to get there.”
Council Member Suds Jain said the proposal was “overly broad” and that it would lead city employees to “run down rabbit holes.”
The council opted to drop the request to explore reimbursing those ticketed or towed and rolled the other two items into one motion that deferred it to a study session on state laws.
That study session will take place in the first quarter of 2027, Grogan said.
The motion passed 6-1, with Park dissenting.
Contact David Alexander at d.todd.alexander@gmail.com
Previous Santa Clara City Council Meetings:
Santa Clara Continues to Examine How It Handles Data Centers
Data Centers Take Center Stage at Santa Clara City Council
New Housing Complex Set to Come to Santa Clara — Despite Lack of Retail
Stadium Finances Spark Discussion About Future of Levi’s Stadium