This proposal comes from city staff. I haven't seen it yet, but had heard it was due about now. (The unsigned opinion above gives no link to any document.)

But this is no recent or sudden development, at all, in the Old Mountain View neighborhood. (The issue of overloaded street parking in some downtown sections was active here already a quarter-century ago: Web Link )

The current city staff action reflects public input and activity that I've seen announced periodically for at least five or six years. I recall the initiative came from residents (in all types of housing) in locations such as near the train station, concerned about street parking disappearing completely all day, apparently due to commuters not wanting to use the paid lots. (I'm not involved in any of it, just reporting what has happened.)

Old Mountain View neighborhood residents all (by definition) belong to the Old M. V. Neighborhood Association. It has a volunteer steering committee (new volunteers constantly sought). By charter, the steering committee can't speak for other residents. It maintains communication tools, including a neighborhood Newsletter (distributed to all addresses), periodic meetings, and an email list server (invitation and instructions in each Newsletter issue). Those communication media have carried discussions about resident parking concerns, and calls for interested residents willing to discuss it with the city. A group of those interested formed (must have been 2-3 years ago), and periodically gathers, and reports out at the OMVNA steering committee meetings -- all announced in the Newsletter, open to all residents, agendas sent out to all subscribers to the list server.

I've seen mentions of this parking group and its activities for years; their progress in talking to the city has been extremely slow and incremental. But any resident, in any kind of housing, having concerns about parking, or the issue of local permits to deal with parking overloads on a particular street, has been actively invited to participate, literally for years; so it's strange to see a grousing anonymous (snarky) commentary posted here at this very late date. No reader can even be sure whether its writer is a local resident as implied (if so, then the writer has gotten the Newsletter regularly), or someone from outside with their own parking agenda.

Moreover, although I haven't seen the exact new MV city staff proposals, what I recall from past reports by that downtown residents' parking committee is that the city has been gearing up only for a process, by which a particular block or group of blocks could apply for resident permits. The process is fairly complex, requiring multiple rounds of explicit involvement by all affected residents: First, thorough notice, then clear ratification by most residents in the affected blocks (regardless of their type of housing). Read about it for yourself when the authoritative staff report appears on the city website in advance of the Council meeting.

So it's a purely localized permit capability, only for specific blocks that apply for it AND get the approval of most of their residents. Sounds pretty democratic to me, and hardly big news, since any local resident has had literally years, and many opportunities, to step up and participate in its planning, if they were interested.

Some assumed the RPP program recommendation came from the downtown parking committee to the city staff and not the other way around.

Don't be bamboozled. The majority of Mountain View residents that need to park occasionally near downtown are about to be hoodwinked.

City street parking for "other" residents of Mountain View is about to disappear.

Almost free city street parking permits from El Camino to Evelyn and Calderon to Castro are about to be created for a special type of Mountain View resident.

What single family detached home resident wouldn't vote for these permits given the opportunity afforded them by city council? The lucky few will be able to commute for free, park without restriction or fly to Europe for the weekend, all within their minimum 6 contiguous block area. Take in a 9'ers game while keeping other fans off "their" streets.

It's impossible to believe that apartment, condo, and PUD residents, "the other residents", participated and agreed they didn't need any street permits for themselves within the defined hypothetical parking area. The program offered assumes only single family detached homeowners don't have sufficient on-site premise parking available. Now, that's circumspect compared to needs of all "other residents".

An embarrassment of riches continues to be showered upon this small enclave of single family detached home residents.

There will be no shuttle buses or increased traffic in this mecca adjacent to the downtown parking district.

Speed humps and speed bumps have been installed in the hypothetical parking district.

Shuttle blockades costing $$hundreds of $$thousands of $$dollars have been installed.

These blockades required electricity, plumbing, landscaping and city employee care. The undeserved in our community could have benefited greatly with the money spent just to keep buses and increased out of this special area.

Flags have been installed atop stop signs. Signs that say “restricted parking” on game day were installed. Signs that direct visitors through confusing, circuitous routes that were designed to keep vehicular traffic away from the area adjacent to the downtown parking district.

We are all "Residents” of Mountain View and all share the same parking issues. Most of us manage to live within our footprint. The proposal is elitist at best and discriminatory at worst. Harmful exceptions can lead to discrimination based on "type' of resident.

Please park within your own footprint or be willing to compete for city street parking like the rest of us residents. Always be thankful for the gifts you have already received.

Link to October 4th RPP Council Report

Web Link

Too late for public input. Reminiscent of the Closing of Castro Street meeting. Two meetings and it's a done deal.

"Don't hate the player, hate the game"

A few well connected homeowners near the downtown parking district are no longer worried about high density apartments, commuter buses and parking issues. Well played.

Sheer willful misinformation, wishful supposition, and hyperbole. Who even knows if "Shenannigans" lives in MV at all, or is some disgruntled commuter with an agenda? The opportunity for a principled credible statement here was already rejected by posting anonymously. If "Shenannigans" IS a resident, it's equally impossible to know if he/she was already fully aware of all the information I'm pointing out here (yet deliberately misrepresents it), or has ignored all the signals and news about this proposal's gradual development (and after years of indifference, now plays indignant). It's one of those cases or the other. (Incredible.)

Reality: SIX years ago, the city commissioned consultants to study parking in the Old M. V. neighborhood near downtown. The study monitored usage, conducted surveys online and in-person on Castro Street, and held two public input meetings. TWO years ago, the neighborhood's volunteer parking committee got word out to all residents about the new stadium-event-day parking program, and reached out to all residents interested or concerned about parking.

"Some" might have "assumed" that the RPP program recommendation "came from the downtown parking committee to the city staff and not the other way around" (a predictable assertion, given that "Shenannigans's" posts above consist purely of undocumented assumptions and opinions). Reality: Residents INTERESTED ENOUGH TO GET INVOLVED gave what input they could, then waited for city staff's analysis and recommendation (now available in the report linked above). I heard from one of the parking-committee residents last week (who, despite a busy working life, does diverse volunteer work for the neighborhood, which many others aren't interested in doing) -- waiting and curious what would be in the City staff recommendation. So "some" may "assume" whatever misconceptions they want to; but if they actually wanted to know, they could have asked and learned.

Reality: The proposed ordinance Web Link makes no distinction between types of residences. The Staff analysis memo (linked earlier above) did take note that high-density apartments and PUDs by their nature contain many more residents per unit of street frontage than smaller residences, which could create potential pressure on street parking. That problem is inherent in their situation, not some matter of human judgment or preference. However, Staff then went on to recommend that any limitations on specific residence types be limited to only those particular recent high-density residences (occupied since 2006), generally near transit, that were "intentionally planned with a relatively low parking count, to encourage transit use." Those development projects were explicitly granted such zoning exceptions at the developer's request, so this staff recommendation recognizes those special circumstances. (Nothing to do with the envy-rousing rhetorical fantasy above about "well connected homeowners.")

Dear City Council,

OMV residents will be awarded street parking permits because they prefer not to park on their own property, sign me up! Tough decision and all that.

If you live in a single family detached home and have a driveway, you should not be allowed to participate in the RPP program.

There is no parking problem except for those "single family home detached residents" who do not park on their own property. OMV and/or city staff prefers, and requests city council approval to "park" on city streets restriction free. It's not game day parking, commuter parking or diners that are causing the problem. It's just folks that won't or choose not to park within their own footprint. Any present council members that live or has family in OMV or is related to city staff should recuse themselves from this ridiculous, expensive proposal.

Re-purposed garages, in-operable vehicles in driveways, mini mansions with only a single car garage, no space available to park out front for friends or family. Who wants to shuttle cars in and out of the driveway on a school day when you can request an almost free (<$100>) permit. Probably costs a thousand dollars per year to park at the Cal train lot.

Not looking forward to hundreds of more multi colored undecipherable signs.

City streets belong to all residents, period.