HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/11/2022 Item PC, Schmidt
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Richard Schmidt <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Agenda Correspondence Public Comment
Attachments:Council ramona parking jan 22.pdf
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Please see the attached letter. Thanks.
1
January 10, 2022
Re: Impacts on your constituents of poorly designed Anholm bikeway
Dear Council Members,
First off, happy new year to you and staff. May this be a good year.
I’m continuing with my letters regarding avoidable problems caused by current plans for the
Anholm bikeway. It is my view that the time to fix such things is before the city spends $3
million causing them, not after spending that $3 million and having to spend even more
undoing them. Frankly, with only one member of the present council having voted to move
ahead with this neighborhood-inappropriate project design, it is disappointing that the other 4
members aren’t more interested in preventing the neighborhood problems it will create. It’s
not too late.
Today’s discussion issue: Parking removal on Ramona and its far-reaching impacts.
As on Chorro, and on Broad, staff drastically understates the number of much-used and much-
needed residential parking spots to be removed on Ramona. On Broad the actual count of spots
to be removed is about double what staff claims. (I have repeatedly corrected their undercount,
they ignore the truth and stick to their story.)
Here is Ramona between Palomar and Broad:
Almost all, perhaps all, of the parking on the left side will be removed for the dangerous 2-way
cycle track shamefully branded a “safe route to school.” I counted cars parked there one
morning, and we’re talking about at least 23 spaces to be removed, considerably more than
staff says.
Those cars aren’t going to magically disappear. Where will they go?
Not gracefully to the adjacent block of Broad, which is already parked up by its own residents
(all parking on left side will be removed for a one-way cycle track that’s not needed and serves
little purpose; outbound bikes will remain mixed with traffic, which city says is safe, so if mixing
with traffic is safe why do inbound bikes need a cycle track that displaces essential parking?):
Nor will the Ramona cars be able to move uphill. Palomar is already parked solid (and the
Village now proposes to move its entry from Ramona to Palomar, resulting in loss of another
half dozen fully-used parking spaces, further exacerbating the situation). Further west there is a
parking district on uphill streets.
And the cars can’t simply move further out Ramona, since it’s parked up by its residents
practically solid nearly to La Entrada:
Ramona looking east from near Tassajara.
Ramona looking east from near La Entrada.
So, where will the cars go?
There will be a mad shuffle for parking in already parked-up streets over a broad portion of the
city.
The car owners are your constituents. They vote. Most have no clue what’s coming. They will be
angry. They will be angry at “the city council.” So will residents affected by the inevitable
parking shuffle this sets into motion that could affect neighborhoods on both sides of Foothill.
“The city council” will be blamed, and that means those in office now, not those now out of
office who are actually responsible.
Redesign prior to building is the right thing to do. It’s also the politically-smart thing to do.
The time is now to fix the worst neighborhood impacts of this design which totally shut out
neighborhood concerns from its conception.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt