Dear city council,
Tonight you will be discussing the possible re-location of the Evelyn Street loading zone that is used extensively by Draeger's
(and to a lesser extent by other downtown businesses, e.g. Pharmaca). There is no easy or obvious choice–only a series of
competing trade-offs.
On the one hand, you have a family seeking to develop their land–ultimately to live there–which is surely their right to do. The
Planning Commission had lots of positive feedback on the design of the building.
On the other hand, you have a beloved community retailer, operating a low-margin business with abundant nearby chain competition.
Each side will bring impressive lawyers/consultants/architects to testify on their behalf. Both sides will make compelling cases.
(We've heard the arguments in the Complete Streets commission, twice.)
As a commission, we spent considerable time discussing the various options–all of them, frankly, mediocre–and ultimately voted to
recommend option 4, which would relocate the Evelyn loading zone to the opposite side of the street from the proposed development.
We also recommended extending the hours during which Draeger's could use the parking plaza for receiving, noting that Draeger's
has a private parking lot with plenty of extra capacity, even during peak daytime hours.
The Draeger family has expressed reluctance to depend on their private lot, averring that customers find it inconvenient and don't
feel safe crossing the street to get to the store. But what does this say about the conditions in our downtown?
I think we are trying to solve the wrong problem here.
In fact, given the abundant pedestrian and bike safety issues along Menlo Avenue (see map from TMP:
https://menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/18635/Menlo-Park-Central-Area-Map-Boards-090518_FINAL
[https://menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/18635/Menlo-Park-Central-Area-Map-Boards-090518_FINAL]), I hope that you will also
discuss the question of whether loading zones should be on these streets at all.
Why? Fundamentally, streets and sidewalks are, or should be, for moving people places–not for storing vehicles. On-street parking
may be convenient for the individual driver (depending on their parallel parking skills) but it makes the streets inherently less
safe for other drivers, for cyclists, and for pedestrians.
On Menlo Avenue, the parallel parking reduces visibility for drivers exiting side streets and driveways. As a result, drivers
seeking to exit parking lots must pull farther out into traffic, impeding pedestrian passage on sidewalks. The notorious "door
zone" threatens cyclists who are trying to thread the needle between parked and passing cars. Cars trying to pass slower cyclists
will often veer into the opposite lane, threatening oncoming traffic. Almost NO ONE is looking for pedestrians trying to cross the
street.
Despite these challenges, any talk about removing on-street parking in our downtown is highly contentious (as we saw from the Oak
Grove bike lane pilot). Merchants worry that any additional removal of on-street parking will hurt their business. Many shoppers,
especially those trying to run quick errands, or those with mobility issues, worry about losing the chance of parking right next
to their chosen destination.
Concerns about parking scarcity are currently taking on an outsized role in land-use and transportation policy decisions in the
downtown area. Some hope we can solve this problem by building a garage. But right now we aren’t taking the most basic step to
address the problem: charging for parking. We currently offer up to three free hours of customer parking in lots and on our
streets across town. Those who do pay for parking, because they need to stay longer than 3 hours, are the disproportionately
hourly wage employees who travel from far away to serve us in boutique shops, nail salons, and restaurants.
Let me be blunt: we are off-loading the cost of parking on those who can least afford it. And we still have parked cars clogging
our streets and endangering our residents.
Imagine, for a moment, what would happen if we started charging a modest amount for hourly parking as they do in Redwood City. We
could even vary the charge based on time of day and proximity to downtown. Those who are price sensitive might choose to walk or
bike instead of drive, or park farther away.
In the case of Draeger's, I imagine their free private lot, conveniently located right across the street from their store, would
see a lot more action if people had to pay $2/hour to park in lot 4. And if Menlo Avenue had bike lanes instead of parked cars, we
might see a lot more shopping at Draeger's by bike–especially if Draeger’s took a cue from Trader Joe’s and added more bike racks
outside their store.
Regardless, we should not be in the position of encouraging large delivery trucks to occupy valuable downtown street space for
hours every day–especially not on a street like Menlo Avenue, which already has significant safety issues. Adding trucks to this
already overloaded system will make our streets less safe, which means that fewer people will want to bike or walk downtown, which
will in turn exacerbate our parking shortages.
If you must maintain a loading zone near Draeger’s, please listen to the recommendation of the Complete Streets Commission and
stick with the lower-traffic side street. But also, please, consider this episode yet another symptom of a greater disease. Until
we manage our existing parking better and stop letting the threat of parking shortages drive our policy decisions, we will
continue to have these frustrating debates wherein we somehow wind up pitting the viability of local businesses against the safety
of citizens, as if we weren’t all somehow on the same team.
It’s a false choice.
We can do better.
Thank you.
Katie
--
Katie Behroozi
650.804.1812 (cell)
