Commuter parking does not belong in residential neighborhoods.

Having commuters park on residential streets discourages office developers from building in adequate parking. Why bother, when employees can park on residential streets all day for far less than commercial parking rates?

Having commuters park on residential streets discourages employers from establishing and subsidizing new transit options, such as van pools and commuter buses.

And having commuters park on residential streets violates California state law. The law says such residential parking programs are reserved for residents and merchants inside the controlled area -- and other groups may be allowed to park only if they cause no impact. But of course, they have an enormous impact on the residential streets.

So why does the Council continue a practice that helps office developers, helps big employers, harms residents, and breaks the law?

This needs to be fixed.

I believe the poster above "No commuters in residential neighborhoods " sums it up well!!!

What kind of weird hypocrisy for City Council to, on one hand, claim to care about sustainability and the environment,
and on the other hand to increase the parking supply for commuters, encouraging single occupancy vehicle commuting, and degrading neighborhood quality?

Why not make big tech and developers either provide the parking onsite, pay to support existing transit systems or pay for their own private transit ?

Instead our city councils for years have favored big tech and developers and have allowed them to over densify the workplace and under park the buildings.
Thus resulting in the jobs housing imbalances that have driven housing prices up to nearly the most expensive in the country!
Now legislators in Sacramento want to punish us for this jobs housing imbalance by imposing even more growth and densification, traffic and pollution on residents, degrading our quality of life even more, and driving housing prices even higher, displacing residents , busting up community and straining our public resources.

Bills like SB50 and others are a continuation of a mindset in politics that continues to shift the financial burden and negative impacts to regular residents, benefiting developers, large real estate owners and the politicians who take money from t finance their campaigns.

Is it OK to rent out parking spaces in residential areas?

I have room for four cars in my driveway + two on the front lawn.

Since they are on private property, I assume it will not impact the streets.

I figured $25.00 would be reasonable to ask & based on 160 weekdays, I can probably net around $24K per month as 6 cars X $25 X 160 days (4 work weeks) comes to about that figure.

And tax free to boot!

I was thinking about letting my teen-aged son have this job as it sure beats a piddly allowance or working in fast food.

*LOL* My son just corrected my math. He reminded me that I was thinking of 160 'work hours' rather than 20 working days.

So now the revised figure comes to $3000.00 per month. Still nor bad for an allowance.

He's in!

There are many apps that enable someone to rent out their driveway, just google them. They just need to be advertised and passed on, by work of mouth or phone, and matching up driveways with those who want to park during the day should be dead easy.

On another note, the CC have to understand that these RPPs only move parking from one place to another. As soon as a new area is included, the cars move out beyond the RPP area. The drives are using bikes, skate boards, scooters, etc. to get to their downtown jobs.

Moving parking from one place to another is not eliminating parking problems. It is just shifting them. Solving parking problems is not going to happen unless real alternatives are offered. Parking lots at highway offramps with dedicated shuttles to downtown and other business areas are alternatives. It is about time to try something better than playing musical chairs.

Posted by A Residential Valet, a resident of Old Palo Alto

>> Is it OK to rent out parking spaces in residential areas?

OK with me, as long as -you- don't park your cars in the street. There are so many cars, your idea will be a niche solution at best.

>> I have room for four cars in my driveway + two on the front lawn.

Driveway, OK. Lawn-- no thanks. Do we need an ordinance? We don't need -more cars everywhere-.

>> Since they are on private property, I assume it will not impact the streets.

Unless you park in the street yourself.

>> And tax free to boot!

I will call the IRS for you and ask about this. What's your address, BTW? ;-)

OBTW-- actually back on topic -- too many cars in many/most neighborhoods already. Why don't we have an mandatory overnight-parking-permit system for residents in all neighborhoods?

Around here, an apartment complex with residential parking but also parking that seems to be regulated by the city on streets running through the complex, some cars are left in spots for months and months. One car seems to have remained in the same parking spot for nearly a year. Some cars have so much dust on them, because they have not moved, it's obvious they've been left there by their owners for a long time. There's security patrolling the complex, so the owners probably planned to leave their cars here due to the relative safety. Is leaving vehicles for such long stretches of time legal? There is an issue with parking in this complex, and these almost permanently parked cars are only adding to the problem.

The street I have lived on since 2003 -- the year I purchased my home -- has seen an unfortunate increase in the number of non-resident cars parked during the day and overnight. When the city of Palo Alto implemented resident-only zones some years ago to staunch the influx of out-of-town cars in Crescent Park, the off-limits status on those streets made for a bumper-to-bumper free-for-all on mine. I can't find parking anywhere, which is beyond frustrating when carrying groceries or anything else from the street to my front door. I recently contacted the city to inquire about resident-only parking on and around my street. "Sure," the city replied. "You can certainly opt in, but you'll need to pay $50 per car for each resident permit. And you're only permitted two permits." When I asked why I and my neighbors should be burdened with the cost to solve a problem we did not create, the city responded, "Because you are the ones who want resident-only parking." In other words, tax-paying residents are the problem, not out-of-towners who park on our streets. Thanks, Palo Alto. Gah.

> ...increase in the number of non-resident cars parked during the day and overnight.

Those cars are from EPA residents who have maxed-out on their parking availability.

This is one of the primary reasons my neighbors and I are against the redesign of the Newell Bridge. It should be eliminated.

Crescent Park residents don't park their cars in East Palo Alto and East Palo Alto should not be parking their cars in Palo Alto.

Period.

> Crescent Park residents don't park their cars in East Palo Alto and East Palo Alto should not be parking their cars in Palo Alto.

In all fairness, it should be reciprocal since the two neighborhoods are so closely situated.

East Palo Altans should be able to park theirs cars in or near Crescent Park and Crescent Park residents should feel totally at ease parking their cars along the streets in East Palo Alto.

Posted by Tired of looking for parking in front of my home, a resident of Crescent Park

>> You can certainly opt in, but you'll need to pay $50 per car for each resident permit. And you're only permitted two permits."

Web Link

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you already in the NOP program area? Also, since every house should have two spaces on their own property, two more cars at only $50/year each seems pretty affordable?