Meeting Time: November 14, 2023 at 5:00pm PST

Agenda Item

9. 2023-01432 Residential Permit Parking in Elmhurst Neighborhood

   Oppose     Neutral     Support    
10000 of 10000 characters remaining
  • Default_avatar
    Concerned Resident 3 months ago

    I live on the south side of 2nd Avenue. I do not understand why the south side of 2nd avenue is not included in the new proposed permitted parking map for Elmhurst.

    Currently, as you are aware, Elmhurst is very busy because of the parking associated with workers from the hospital. The cross streets closest to me, 52nd-54th streets are crowded with parked cars during the day. If the proposed permitted parking plan excludes the south side of 2nd ave then all the cars will simply park here. I am also wondering if this means that the south side of 2nd ave is not considered to be part of Elmhurst which would be odd!

  • Default_avatar
    D Chaney 3 months ago

    Yeah, well, this little drama demostrates that happy is not the opposite of unhappy. Having to resort to this. There were agreements with UCD and Elmhurst witnessed by the City and they have all been broken and forgotten. Oh, well. UCD even thinks that Elmhurst's fence, graced to us by the men cleaning up the old fairgrounds, belongs to them. It is the city that installed that cul-de-sac at the end of 2nd Ave, against our wishes, and it is UCD employees that cut through it while parking in Elmhurst. And I think it cannot be denied, but it should be easily fixed, THE SOUTH SIDE OF 2nd AVENUE, FROM THE CUL-DE-SAC TO 57th STREET, ARE ELMHURST RESIDENTS, OBVIOUSLY. Anyway, I'll discuss the Elmhurst boundaries with the staff as the city might have moved them again. Thanks.

  • Default_avatar
    Scott Kelley 3 months ago

    As a resident of Elmhurst, on 52nd st, i fully support the parking restriction for non-residents. Having our neighborhood turn into a parking lot for UCDH employees is dangerous, frustrating, and unnecessary.
    It is dangerous for residents due to lack of necessary space in the street as there are cars parked on both sides, blocking views and creating essentially one-way streets when they are intended to be two-way. The lack of visibility is dangerous for children who play in the neighborhood, and for drivers, as intersection lines-of-site of oncoming traffic are blocked by parked cars. Some of the people parking in our neighborhood bring scooters, skateboards, bicycles, and other modes of personal transport and then slowly make their way down the middle, or wrong way, of the streets, creating further hazards.
    It is frustrating to have to navigate blocked driveways, deal with lack of parking for residents and their guests, and the trash left behind by people parking in our neighborhood who do not respect it as much as we do.
    It is unnecessary as UCDH has built a number of parking garages for their employees... if those employees choose to not make use of the designated parking areas, other arrangements need to be made by them or their employers. Junking up our quiet neighborhood with traffic, trash, and road hazards is unacceptable.

  • Default_avatar
    M Coulter 3 months ago

    The city mailed neighbors and said they would solicit input but this has not occured. In the past this has been done on a block by block basis with affected neighbors being able to decide if they want permitted parking or not. This is the most democratic way to handle this issue and should continue to be the policy. Where a very specific group is affected, as in this situation, it only makes sense to let those who are directly affected decide.

  • Default_avatar
    Elmhurst Neighborhood Association 3 months ago

    The Elmhurst Neighborhood Association appreciates this item being pulled to allow for more neighborhood input.

  • Default_avatar
    Concerned Resident 3 months ago

    We on 52nd St submitted a petition regarding this matter to the city last September. We have received the direct overflow impact from 51st St where a two-hour parking permit is in place.

    I wanted to add to the proposal that it is not only the turnover of vehicles but public services. The UCDMC workers park on our street during business hours five days a week. That time frame is also when city services come to our street to collect garbage, leaves, and to clean the street. The UCDMC workers/parkers move our garbage bins to the sidewalks so that they can park on the street; they park on top of piles of leaves; they run over piles of leaves; and they also block city trucks from doing a decent street cleaning job. These are more concerning to us. We pay public services charges every month yet we cannot receive the services due to parked vehicles from UCDMC workers on our street.

    I have a valid information source that a UCDMC supervisor even encouraged their workers to park on nearby streets. Shifting their parking problem to our street.

    I see someone's comment about orange cones and wanted to share my experience. The orange cones I put out at times kept disappearing. One day it turned out someone reported me via 311 for blocking street parking and creating safety issue. I called 311 to find out. Whoever answered my phone call (I won't disclose her name here) refused to listen to me and responded that I could be sued; then hung up on me. In case there is a lawsuit against me, should I also sue UCDMC?

  • Default_avatar
    Bill Motmans 3 months ago

    While I generally support the proposal, I urge the city to make UC Davis more of a contributor to the solution for the inconvenience their employees cause for homeowners, motorists, bicycle riders, and pedestrians. For too long UC Davis has been allowed and encouraged to undertake projects which inconvenience and directly impact traffic and traffic safety in the neighborhoods surrounding UC Davis. Though they are exempted from many restrictions which other developers are subject to, the city needs to exercise their considerable clout to make UCD part of the solution, instead of the main creator of the problem.

  • Default_avatar
    Francesca Reitano 3 months ago

    I am in support of this proposal but I am concerned about the process. A letter went out to homeowners in Elmhurst about the proposal, dated October 4. It did not give the date that this report was going to council, nor did it solicit input from all the affected neighbors as to whether they support or oppose this proposal. It merely asked the recipients to contact the Parking Customer Service Team "should you have any questions." I ask that the council pull this item until proper outreach is done and affected residents are informed as to how to give input.
    As far as the issue is concerned, I am in favor of the proposal. Where parking is unregulated in Elmhurst, it has become a de-facto UC Davis employee parking lot. Some employees that are park farther than they'd like to walk keep bikes and scooters in their vehicles so they can get back and forth to work. Several streets, such as 52nd and 53rd, are packed with cars on weekdays, often bumper-to-bumper. They are now starting to park on my street, 54th near V, and neighbors are telling me that it is hard to make the turn on to our street because cars parked close to the corner are obstructing the view. These are narrow streets, so visibility for safe driving is also a concern.
    This problem will continue to grow. When the same day surgery center is opened (2025) and Aggie Square (2025) there will be even more staff, patients, and visitors to the UC Davis Health Campus. We have lived in Elmhurst since 1988. UCD employees started parking on our street about 2 years ago, as our street has finally become part of the UCD unofficial parking lot.

  • Default_avatar
    Luan Nham 3 months ago

    In early October, we had a neighborhood association meeting where a representative from the city was on to clarify any concerns from the original letter about permitted parking. During that meeting he stated there should be another mailer sent out for residents to vote. This vote was to determine if it would move onto the next phase for city council to review. I have never received a letter and only to find out that it has already gone to city council to vote. This process went from 0 - 100 without a majority of the residents in Elmhurst to decide. Not everyone can attend this meeting to voice their concerns. Where is that letter?

  • Default_avatar
    Sheri Pemberton 3 months ago

    I am an Elmhurst homeowner and strongly support annexing the designated streets into the Residential Permit Parking Area. It is difficult, if not impossible, to park in front of our homes because of the extended non-resident long term parking. Residents resort to putting out orange cones or leaving garbage bins out to retain parking in from of our homes. Our residential neighborhood has become a parking lot. The bike lanes are blocked, two cars coming in opposite directions lack space to pass, and we often can't see if oncoming cars are coming when we turn corners because cars are parked to the edges on all sides of the street. It is bumper to bumper cars. Families, children, and the elderly enjoy walking in the neighborhood, but it's hard to cross streets safety because people can't see if cars are coming because of the bumper to bumper cars lining the streets. Our air quality is worsening because of the emissions from the glut of cars that saturate the air. The parking restrictions elsewhere in Elmhurst and Sacramento exist because of the principle that residential neighborhoods shouldn't be parking lots. That same principle should apply to our area. The original parking restriction region, while previously sufficient, isn't anymore. The extended non-resident parking erodes the residential nature of our neighborhood, decreases air quality, is detrimental to public safety, and has the potential to decrease our property values. Please approve this item and restore residential character of our neighborhood. Thank you.