From: Keith Ferrell
To: Council, City
Cc: Baird, Nathan; Kamhi, Philip; City Mgr
Subject: El Camino Repaving/RPP
Date: Friday, August 9, 2024 10:13:43 AM
Attachments: Meetings409Action Minutes_2022120810301918 (1).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
All,
I'd like to first point out some discrepancies in the work done by Nathan Baird and city staff with regards to the El Camino repaving project and the suggestion to move parking into the Evergreen Park/Mayfield and Southgate neighborhoods.
1) In the June 17/18 meeting discussing the permits Baird states that there have only been 2 permits in the SG1 zone on ECR.
https://www.youtube.com/live/eGFWM8qjqB8?si=MxLLsiE9GIYnQNBG&t=5376 In the staff report, also attached, it states that there have been 5 permits sold. 2) The staff report suggests moving 20 permits into the narrow streets of Southgate. However, the total allotment of permits for SG1 is 15.
3) The staff report states that the city is engaging with business to determine the impact. What about the residents?
The first two items are basic careless errors that should never occur. If my numbers are incorrect, please let me know the real numbers. However, if staff is providing misleading and incorrect information on simple facts, how can the rest of the report be taken seriously? It shows a disregard for the residents and the businesses to provide shoddy work to council and expect them to make an informed decision.
Going back to the permits for Southgate. There are 15 permits available in SG1 on ECR. In addition to this there are 10 allotted for the neighborhood. Baird states that only 2 of the ECR permits have been sold. Why then does staff suggest moving 20 permits (more than the amount of permits allotted in the original RPP resolution) into the neighborhood? The residents worked hard to keep parking out of the narrow streets of Southgate. Adding more cars makes it more difficult for delivery trucks, sanitation trucks, emergency vehicles, etc... to get through the streets.
I would also like to note that the original RPP for Southgate did not include the 15 permits on ECR. The original resolution was approved for only 10 permits inside Southgate. My request is that we return to the original resolution.
Given that only 2 permits were sold for ECR, is it not reasonable to expect the businesses to absorb those two cars onto their lots? This is a Residential PREFERENTIAL Permit program, however, it appears that the city is bending over backward for the businesses at the expense of the residents.
Staff is suggesting increasing the number of permits in the Southgate neighborhood by 200%, even though the demand is 10%. (10% using Baird's inflated 20 permits on ECR. Using the actual number of 15%, the demand is 13.3%) Why is staff recommending increasing by 200%?
This is not needed and only increases work on the part of the city staff. Given the mistakes made in this report, it would seem that staff might already be overworked, so maybe council can decrease its workload by rejecting any movement of SG1 permits and return the RPP to its original status with 10 permits in the SG zone.
Thank you.
Keith Ferrell
Meetings409Packet_2022120807424802 (1).pdf
From: Lisa Tayeri
To: Transportation; Council, City
Subject: El Camino Real RPP
Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 7:44:56 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Nathan,
As both a home owner/resident and an employer with a business on El Camino Real, I would hope that the city would allow as many employee permit spaces as are being taken away from El Camino Real. This should include both sides of the street. I have three employees who park on the west side of El Camino Real (where permits are not necessary) and cross the street to come to work. They do not buy permits because they only come to work in this office one or two days a week (they work in our San Jose office the rest of the week). This model of working at different sites on different days of the week is common in medicine.
The employee permit process has never had an allowance for employees who only need to park in the area part time, though we have asked for one before. A hanging tag, rather than a sticker, would allow part time employees to share a permit. We also have two employees who carpool (and trade which car they use every week). They park on the 'free' side of ECR so that they did not have to pay for two permits.
I am sure that there are far more than 70 parking spaces that will be turned into bike lanes. The neighborhoods are nowhere close to overparked on the northern end of El Camino where we work. Please also remember that we are almost all medical services on the northern end of El Camino. We are providing necessary medical care and most of our patients are Palo Altans. We are some of the few private practices still operating in Palo Alto that have not been gobbled up by Sutter/PAMF or Stanford. We are small, locally-owned and family-owned businesses, the kind that Palo Alto should be supporting.
Yes, we have a parking lot but at our busiest times there are not enough spaces for both staff and patients. We reserve the spaces for our patients as some have procedures that require over two hours in office (they would be ticketed if they parked in the RRP zones).
Please advise the council to allow more than 70 additional employee parking spots in the ECR RRP zones. With out them, Palo Alto may lose even more independent businesses and medical resources.
Thank you,
Lisa Tayeri
Palo Alto Eye Group
1805 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306
p: 650-324-9200
f: 650-326-5793
paloaltoeye.com
fiatlux.org
From: Keith Ferrell
To: Council, City
Cc: Kamhi, Philip; Baird, Nathan
Subject: Re: Evergreen Park and Southgate RPP
Date: Monday, August 5, 2024 3:41:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Following up on this. According to the March 5, 2018 city council meeting, the number of permits in the S1 zone is 15 and not the 20 mentioned in the staff report for the Aug 12, 2024 meeting.
Given that only 5 are purchased, even 15 would be far too many to move into the neighborhood. Our stance remains that zero move into the neighborhood for the same reasons that were given back in 2018. I am happy to furnish you with several of the emails that were sent to council back in 2018.
Keith Ferrell
On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 11:43 AM Keith Ferrell <[email protected] > wrote:
We recently received a notice about possible changes to the Evergreen Park-Mayfield and Southgate Residential Preferential Parking Programs. I strongly disagree with the staff's recommendations. This should not be a surprise as even the staff report states that the feedback from both businesses and residents "are not in alignment" with the recommendations. We request that no employee permits be moved into the Southgate neighborhood as was the plan when it was initially approved. The employee permit are was established on ECR specifically to limit the amount of cars parking and driving in the neighborhood. To now move those cars into the neighborhood cancels the previous work that was done and the agreement the council made with its residents.
There are currently 20 employee permits allocated to zone S1 for Southgate. These spots are located on the eastern side of El Camino Real south of Churchill. The report states that of the 20 available, only five have been sold. This would imply that the demand for employee permits is five. Yet, the staff recommends reallocating all 20 permits into the neighborhood. When the Southgate RPP was approved, the employee permit zone (S1) was established specifically to prevent that number of cars from parking in the neighborhood.
Now, staff is trying to go back on that plan and move that parking into the neighborhood.
I would like to remind you all that the streets of Southgate are extremely narrow. In addition to this, the two businesses that are eligible for these permits are located at the outer corners of the neighborhood. The likely place for these people to park would then be concentrated in a very small area on the corners of the streets. Parking in these areas makes it even more dangerous to drive, walk and bike in those areas.
The goal of the ECR project is to make it safer to bike and walk along ECR. By moving parking into Southgate, the result will be to make it less safe to bike and walk in our neighborhood.
The businesses should be able to absorb the current demand of the five employees currently parking on ECR. There is not a need to move 20 cars into Southgate.
I have a few clarifying questions:
1) The report states that there was stakeholder engagement in May and July. Can you tell me who, in Southgate, that you contacted?
2) The report states that 130 parking spots are being removed. How was that number established? The report only mentions losing 50 in EPM and 20 in SG 3) The column labels in Attachement A are not complete. Several of the labels are "X"d out so it is impossible to analyze the data given there is no way to determine what the data represents.
4) Between Galvez/Embarcadero and Park/Serra, is parking being eliminated on both sides of the street? Is there a published plan that can be viewed? Thanks
Keith Ferrell
From: Wolfgang Dueregger
To: Transportation; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Baird, Nathan; Kamhi, Philip Subject: council agenda: Item #6 August 12, 2024 Meeting - Evergreen Park RPP Date: Monday, August 12, 2024 10:10:31 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi everyone,
as one of the neighbors of Evergreen Park, I ask you to NOT implement the increase of business parking permits in Evergreen Park. We already have the highest load of business permits sold to businesses. See attached pictures on Ash Street, Leland Ave and Stanford Ave taken last week. this is what it currently looks like.
Now, add another 50 permits....
Instead, direct businesses to buy permits at the Cambridge parking lots or the new big garage on Cal Ave. This is why this expensive new garage was built.
Adding again more business permits to the RPP makes the RPP less and less an RPP - it loses its purpose and we are back in square one before the RPP was implemented.
Wolfgang Dueregger
From: Natalie Geise
To: Council, City
Subject: Aug 12 Item 6: Support for RPP changes
Date: Monday, August 12, 2024 7:48:36 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
City Council Members,
Thank you for working with Caltrans to advance the re-paving proposal for El Camino with bike lanes.
I live a half block from El Camino in the Mayfield neighborhood. I was supportive of the proposal and recognize the need to accommodate employee parking in the near term. I am supportive of expanding the RPP program, as we have sufficient public parking in the neighborhood.
Thanks,
Natalie
Palo Alto resident
From: Carol Scott
To: Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Baird, Nathan; Kamhi, Philip; Neilson Buchanan; Mike Eager; Wolfgang Dueregger; Paul Machado
Subject: Item #6 for August 12, 2024 Meeting -- Evergreen Park RP) Date: Sunday, August 11, 2024 1:22:19 PM
Attachments: MAP OF ZONES EDITED.pptx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council members, City Manager and City Staff,
I write regarding Item #6 on the agenda for the City Council meeting for August 12, 2024. This item asks the Council to approve an plan developed by the City Staff in consultation with the business community (but not with Evergreen Park residents) for 50 employee permits to be added to the Evergreen Park (EVP) RPP and for a plan to allocate those permits to various zones in the RPP.
I urge you NOT to approve this resolution, but instead to direct the staff to work with residents -- as well as business owners -- to develop a plan that will minimize the damage done to our residential areas by the addition of a significant number of employee permits -- in line with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Regardless of whatever number of permits the City decides is appropriate for our neighborhood (and we strongly dispute any 65% capacity target), the plan to allocating the permits is flawed and will exacerbate the effects of the inability to apportion customer parking which results in overloading certain streets in the RPP.
Instead, immediately allow ECR employees to purchase permits in the lots and garages on Cambridges Ave which currently are under-utilized. Direct the Staff to work with residents AND businesses to develop a workable plan that serves both the neighborhood as well as the businesses by January 1, 2025. Parking in the garages and lots (which, unlike EVP, are commercial parking lots) for four months should not cause a hardship for businesses.
Remember that customers already may park anywhere in the RPP for two hours. We are talking here only about all day employee permits.
Here are is my rationale:
1. When the City wanted to add 40 permits to the EVP RPP in 2018, it was the residents who came up with the idea to ask the State to make ECR part of the RPP to accommodate the businesses along ECR.
Resident of EVP have a long history of supporting local businesses and working to help solve their problems (caused in large part by building large office buildings with insufficient parking) while minimizing the intrusion into the residential areas.
Yet, the City did not engage the residents prior to developing the current plan. We deserve to be included in discussions about plans that will affect us, and we deserve to negotiate in good faith with the City -- at least on par with businesses. The City should allow us to participate in any plan now so that we can help design a solution that works for everyone. We have done it before and we can do it again. We know our neighborhood and the traffic patterns in it better than anyone.
2. The current plan for permits is flawed and will not work as the City suggests. The businesses along ECR do need to have parking for their employees. Customers can already park anywhere in the neighborhood for two hours, and we expect to see more of this as all
parking is eliminated on ECR. BUT, adding permits to the neighborhood should be the last resort, not the first option. Other options are available and should be explored. Parking garages and lots on Cambridge Ave, just a couple of blocks away from most ECR businesses have capacity and can absorb the employees permits while a better plan is developed.
PLEASE
SEE THE ATTACHED MAP OF THE EVP RPP.
3. Even if one accepted the need for 50 permits, the current plan will not fairly distribute the employee permits throughout the EVP area. The Staff report already notes that some streets have over 65% parking load. Yet the City splan provides no protection for those blocks which are precisely the ones likely to be most affected by additional customer parking. The current zones were designed to distribute parking from south to north because it was designed with parking from Cal Ave in mind, and not ECR. It is not suited to distributing parking from west to east. Just looking at the map, you can see this.
4. The proposed plan is based on data that is almost a year and a half old, i.e., a survey done in March 2023. The day or the week and the time of day measurements were taken is not disclosed in the staff report.
5. There is considerable uncertainty as to what will happen to the volume of customer parking in the neighborhood, and this should be observed prior to instituting employee parking permits in a residential neighborhood. Presumably, businesses would prefer to preserve the most convenient parking for their customers.
5. In addition, there will be a question of where construction workers creating the new bike lane will park. Presumably, this may also be in the neighborhood.
6. Recommendation: The Council should direct the Parking office to : immediately allow ECR businesses to buy permits in the Cambridge Ave garages and flat street lots, and (2) engage with the residents as well as with the ECR businesses to develop a better plan that will promote business activity, but not at the expense of quality of life in the neighborhoods
in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.*
Thank you.
Carol Scott
Evergreen Park
*Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (p. 4)"....... It [Comp Plan] encourages a thriving business communitythat provides services to local residents and revenue to the Citywhile also working to protect neighborhoods and theenvironment. It encourages commercial enterprise, but not atthe expense of the city's residential neighborhoods."
5. Carol Scott
Sent from my iPad
Carol Scott
Evergreen
Park/Mayfield
RPP Zones
ECR
Cambridge
Ave.
Parking
garages
and lots
From: Paul Machado
To: Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Stone, Greer; [email protected]; Kou, Lydia; Burt, Patrick; Tanaka, Greg; Veenker, Vicki
Subject: 8/12 item 6
Date: Saturday, August 10, 2024 8:52:58 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
If you read the packet before from staff it should be clear how LONG and hard Evergreen Park worked to get an RPP that has worked for both businesses and residents for years.
Please note, before the RPP the 3 by 4 block area of Evergreen Park was often a parking lot. Residents struggled to put out their garbage cans due to lack of street space. Our streets, which unlike other parts of the city, are only swept once every 2 weeks most of the year, but if the street is mostly parked, the sweeper happily just drives down the middle of the street picking up nothing. Further, often disabled residents, visitors, care givers, gardeners etc. could not find parking during the week. This was entirely opposed to the City's comp plan that promotes local businesses but not at the expense of residents.
This small neighborhood actually contains 3 bike routes. The new one on El Camino, plus Park Blvd. and also Stanford Avenue which is a direct route to schools. It is noted some touted the added safety taking parking off El Camino will do for bikes but they did not mention if adding this same parking on to other routes would negatively affect them.
In the past, because of our RPP zone design, almost all the business permits were parked next to El Camino and Cal Ave. Residents in those areas received no help from the RPP. Hopefully this can be redesigned. so parking is spread out through the neighborhood giving every block relief.
If you check the city records you may be surprised to find the number of ADUs that have been, or will be built soon in my neighborhood. Overparking this neighborhood is not pro housing and in fact it may discourage it.
Lastly, if the state's ill conceived plan to encourage children and other bicyclists to ride on El Camino amidst the huge VTA buses and construction vehicles turns deadly and further businesses are forced to close, would you work to restore the Evergreen Park RPP to its originally approved design with the earlier distribution of permits between residents and businesses. CalTrans is on record as being sensitive to your input, as that is why they asked for your vote on this matter.
Thank you
Paul Machado