SR-417-003
~
INFORMATION ONLY
.
~~~3
-
/
~
.
Santa Monica, California September 4, lS79
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council
City Staff
On-Street Parking Permits
Introduction
This report presents information concerning on-street parking penmits near
Santa Monica College and the Civic Auditorium as requested by Councilmember
Ruth Yannatta Goldway.
Background
Attached is correspondence relating to the subject matter that was compiled
by staff last year. It concerned several requests, but in particular from
residents near Santa Monica College.
Upon receipt of another request for controlled parking (see attached), staff
has re-evaluated the problems and has obtained copies of the Los Angeles
ordinance establishing preferential parking program districts and the pro-
cedures that would be followed. The basic ingredients of the procedures are
that a petition be initiated to determine whether the majority of residents
within an area actually desire such a district be formed. Upon receipt and
verification of a petition signed by residents living in two thirds of the
dwellings comprising not less than 50 percent of the developed frontage of the
area proposed for designation, the City staff would then recommend and Council
would determine ~m2ther the area should be designated as a preferential
parking district.
If more than 75 percent of the legal on-street parking spaces are occupied by
reside~t or non-resident vehicles and more than 25 percent of the legal on-
street parking spaces are occupied by non-residents' motor vehicles, this
.
-.
To: Mayor and Council
-2-
September 4, 1979
criteria would warrant the establishment of a parking district.
A maximum of three permits for residents or businesses would be issued. Visitor
permits will also be available, and both the regular and/or the visitor permit
will be transferable and be placed on the driver1s side of the dashboard.
This is the gist of the Los Angeles ordinance and rules and procedures. After
further study by staff, these may be amended to meet Santa Monica's own require-
ments.
The Police Department has now indicated that in lieu of $91,428 projected cos~,
as shown on Mr. Dolter1s letter, that they \'/ould only require the
services of one checker and one scooter for a project cost figure of $16,896.
.
Therefore, using this new figure, supplied by the Police Department, and
dividing the 3,300 potential permit sales of a Santa Monica College parking
district would reflect a cost of approximately $10 per permit. This is what
the City of Los Angeles intends to charge for their permit fee. Each permit
shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance. The Police
Department indicates further that they would be willing to proceed with a
preferential district aroung the College on an experimental basis only for a
period of one year to determine if such a plan would be workable in Santa Monica.
In response to the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Wawrzeniak~ it would appear that
thelr suggestion of issuing a permit only to residents or tenants not having garage
spaces !flight be discriminatory, since they also state that residents having
off-street parking would not be allowed to obtain such a permlt at any price.
This issue has been referred~ however, to the City Attorney's Office for final
determinatlon.
L
.
~
~
To:
Mayor and Council
-3-
September 4, 1979
Conclusion
The General Services Department \till determine, after school is in operation
for the fall term, if the College parking area meets the minimum criteria
that are listed in tne Los Angeles ordinance, and if it does, staff will
present tnls information together witn a recommendation to authorize the
City Attorney to prepare the Ordinance.
Prepared by: Stan Scholl
Attachments: 6
~W~
~
SANTA MONICA /'
~
--
CITY Or
CALIFORNIA
,
OFFICE OF THE CITI MANAGER 393-9975, ext. 267
. .
1685 Mam Sheet, Sointa. MODIca, Cahtornia 90401
October 26, 1978
~r. Charles A. Baird
1702 Cedar Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Dear Mr. Baird:
Thank you very much for your concern regarding the restriction of curb side
parking near Santa Monica College.
The General Services Department has broken down the costs of inaugurating
a permit parking for residents program for the area affected by the Santa
Monica College. This includes the property located between Euclid Street
on the West, 23rd Street on the East, Ocean Park Boulevard on the South,
and Delaware Avenue on the North. This area was determined after conference
with the Police Department based upon their. experience in enforcement of the
college parking area. Total estimated costs for restriction of curb side
parking in this area would be $99,391 or approximately $100,000.
A cost breakdown follows:
Po li ce Cos ts
4 additional Parking Checkers
Position of Assistant to Parking
Supervisor
1 additional Stenographer (increased
clerical duties and citizen contacts
~ould necessitate the addition of
this position)
4 additional parking vehicles
Total Annual Projected Costs
Annual Cost
$48,384
$15~OOO
$11 ,244
$16,800
$9l~428
General Services Department Costs
485 npermit Parking Arean signs @ $8.00/each
labor necessary to remove existing signs
and install new signs (153 hours x $11.00/hour
for 2-man crew)
$ 3 ~880
$ 1 .683
:-
--
-3-
..
October 26~ 1978
, Mr. Charles Baird
-~
of forming a restricted curb side parking district because of additional
costs to the City and the fact that the formation of one district would most
likely lead to restrictions on parking throughout the~ity.
Ver~'lY yours~ 7- f#
g~~/? /If4$(
DAVID P. DOL TER
Acting City Manager
DPD:MCP:dar
cc: Members of the City Council
!J~'
>-y~
LJ~
!f""'!'\ 'i"" ~ r.- ~r ';\ 11 ~ ~
ty r ~ ' {.' - j:.J tl \,\ ~ '_:: ':....J
a. \.. l....~.f'l '- _...~ 'L_~-a u - i ...~___'G... _ III'\;. A
. "'[ -1i~ r'?r--:'\"~"- ~~4"''''.
F~.'-." '"\ ;--..-~ ..... " \,. ~ --,. .' . ~:.,
~~ L ~ L - ~ ~ .. ~ t -.. ~ iI r _ .. ~ -;: · :I \ ~; '1 u
j"'. ,J1' .,;~ i'.j~.I,iJ _.......~.'-~
r-~: ~.~-:_~ ~~~n_1 0 _ 3 (j_ 7 i l.. 1.
W ~"'\\. ti ~ _ 1,..L.J-lU
-.i
~
.
--
October 24~ 1978
Director of General Services
Parking & Traffic Engineer
Petition for Restricting Curbside
Parking Near Santa Monica College
In answer to Dave Colter's letter of October 18~ 1978, to you regarding
the subject rnatter~ he had two questions which we will attempt to answer.
1. A conservative estimate of $30 per permit would be necessary to defr~
the projected cost of instituting a preferential permit parking pro-
gram in the Santa r~nica College area. We arrive at this figure by
the following method.
Using Land Use Survey Maps, we determined that there were 2,096 resi-
dential units within the College area and 112 commercial enterprises. The
total residential and commercial aMOunts to 2~208 units. If you
assume an average of two permits per unit~ this would result 1n
issuing a potential 4,416 peTQits. However, there are 558 R-l units
in the area~ and it is highly unlikely that they would pay for permits
when they have driveways and garages for their own vebfcles. We
believe it realistic to deduct the 558 R-l units, or a total of 15116
permits, since it is unrealistic to assume that all residential and
commerical occupants will buy permits. Therefore, subtracting 1,116
R-l permits from the 4,416 total penmit potential leaves us with
3~300 possible permit sales in the College area. We used this figure
as a basis to determine cost.
Of the estimated $100~COO~ $86,000 is a non-deferrable expense. 1.e.~
labor costs for Police Department and administrative expenses.
Dividing the possible 3,300 permit sales into a recurring expense
of $86,OOO~ we arrive at a figure of $26.06 per permit fo~ this cost
item alone. The Police Department informs us of their estimated
$16,800 for Cushmans that would be replaceable every tv/o years.
The signing of the area a~unts to $5,600 which we estir.ate will
need replacement every four years. Amortizing these two costs on
a t~~ and four year basis, we have an annual cost of $9,800. Divid-
ing the 3~300 potential permit sales into this $9~800 reflects an
equi~ment cost per permit of $2.97. Therefore~ if you add the
$26.06 per permit labor fee to this $2.97 for equipment and signing
fee, we arrive at a figure of $29.03 per penmit. Since there are
many variables unforeseen~ we have expanded this $29.03 figure to
a round $30.00 per permit cost for instituting the preferential
perMit parking program in the Santa Monica College area. For pur-
poses of reference. the College area includes the property located
/---- .-
---
-2-
be~leen Euclid St. on the west, 23rd St. on the east, Ocean Park
Blvd. on the south, and Delaware Ave. on the north.
2. The answer to Davels question as to the mandatory aspect of permit
sales would be basically yes; if those people who have no off-street
parking are compelled to park on the street, then they would be
required to obtain penmits. However, it is extremely doubtful that
we could w~ke the sale of these permits mandatory to all residents
within the area. It was based upon this assumption that we assumed
a sale of only 3,300 pemits instead of 4,416, which reflects a ratio
of two permits per unit. One point that Must be kept in mind is
that in arriving at costs or number of permits sold, there must be
some form of limitation on the number of permi ts, because it is very
likely that if there 1s no limit, some of the more ingenious COllege
students will arrive at the simple fact of having one of their class- ~
mates who lives in the area purchase permits for a ~u'titude of the
students, thus defeating the entire purpose of the preferential park-
ing program. Even at $30 per permit per year~ which is the maximum
time that we recommend for any penmit, it would be cheap parking
for the College students since it would remove them from all 'r1sk
of parking citations. ~
J. J. Wrenn
cJJ~: 9'd
~c: City Manager
-
-
-2-
of personnel just to handle complaints.
The petitioners recommended procedure for administration is naive.
Their suggested fee would amount to only $15 a year for a parking
penmit~ which might very well prove insufficient to pay for such a
program.
Their suggestion that visitor spaces be always available is com-
pletely unworkable. Who would glve the visitors the permit? How
would we restrict spaces ,in each zone so that at least two out of
every ten were available for visitors?
Their suggestion number five is contradictory to the Vehicle Code~
which stipulates residents or merchants can be issued a penmit.
The Vehicle Code does not stipulate that a merchant be employed at
least 20 hours a week.
Their suggestion for waiving would in effect mean the Cityts general
fund would subsidize nearly the entire program.
Their suggestion that the City split the revenue fifty-fifty with
the College is not consistent with past experience. The CQllege
does not share their revenues with the City at present.
Unfortunately, these people think that the only problem that exists is
at their particular street. But as we indicated above~ this is the
fourth such request this year from other 'areas of the City. Also~ the
Police Departnent has received a similar request through SMAC for all
R-I areas of the City. When you look at a zoning map of the City of
Santa Monica, common sense will dictate that if permits are sold in one
area, they will be sold throughout the City. The estimated cost of
$425,OOO~ as we indicated in our June 26th letter~ would possibly prove
too low. We made no estimate of meter revenue loss from the use of
permit parking. We must reco~mend against Council adopting the necessary
resolution to permit parking by permits in restricted parking areas.
JJW: g',4
AtL
cc: Director of General Services
/
'7
~
~
June 26" 1973
.-
Director of General Services
Parking & Traffic Engineer
Vicente Terrace Petition Meeting
Per Mr. Wil1iar~J instructions to you~ we arranged a ffieeting with the
spokespersons representing the Vicente Terrace residents. This meeting
was held in my office this mcrning from 10 to 11 M1. ~ith the following
in attendance: ~lr. Alan Caso~ 41 B Vicente Terrace; Mrs. Dorothy McLean~
41 A Vicente Terrace; Sergeant ~ohncola and Parking Supervisor Petersen
of the Police Departr.ent; ny assistant~ Dave Alvarezs and myself.
Mr. Caso and Mrs. McLean explained their reasons for the petition basi-
cally being that they wish to have parking in front of their house \'/hen-
ever possible. Hr. Caso asked and received permission to tape record
the meeting.
\Ie explained the problems Hith perr~it parkin9 in that:
1. Permit parking, per ses ~ould not guarantee them a space in front
of their residence.
2. It would n2cessitate a City-wide program since we ~ave had several
previous requests for a similar treatment.
3. The cost of such a prograM conservatively is estimated at $425~OOO.
This is a setup cost and could possibly be greater. The Police
Oeoar~~ent esti~~tes $260,000 for ~inimal setup for parking enforce-
ment personnel. The cost of our fi~ld crews replacing 8,000 existing
signs and installing approximately 2,000 new signs would require
$125,000. Kinimal office cost of one additional person in this
office and Treasurer's office plus cost of permitss etc. is $40s000.
Thus the estimated $425,000 cost of a permit program would possibly
prove too low.
4~ We explained that th~se costs would have to be~ in view of Proposition
1315 passage, passed on to the penuit holder.
ije explained this to the two residents, and they understood the problems
that would arise both logistically and ad<<inistratively froill such a
program. We further explained that the Vehicle Code did pe~it such a
program, but that \Jes meaning the Police Departrr:~nt and ourselves collec-
tively would reconmend to Council against i~plementation of such a pro-
gram due to the probleFlS that would be inherent. After an amiable dis-
cussion, they both agreed that they understood the problems such a pro-
gral"l \.aul d entail and agreed to di scuss with the; r neighbors t~"IO other
options hhich lie presented to thei'n: A. Rerroval of the eyisting b:o-
hour s1 9ns; n. Installation of five-hour parking n:eters. He agreed
"
0.
. .
--
~
-2-
to do either of these two alternatives on a trial basis if they so
desire: and did point out that any permit parking procedure must be
implemented by act of the City Council through an ordinance or reso-
lution per California Vehicle Code.
J. J. Urenn
JJW:gw
cc: City Manager
t
!
~-
.
~
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
IMTER-DEPARTMENT MEMO
DATE:
August 29) 1978
.-
TO: Stan Scholl) Director of General Services
FROM: David P. DaHer) Acting City Manager
StT.BJECT; Petition for Restricting Curbside Parking Near Santa Monica College
Please review the attached petition regarding the restriction of curb-
side parking on the east s1de of 17th Street between Cedar and Pine.
Please submit a memo to this office regarding the seven recommendations
set forth by the Santa Monica College Citizens Committee on Parking:
A. ~hat would be the estimated costs if their reco~mendation was
enacted;
B. What are your recommendations regarding this matter.
Please submit this memo to us by Friday) September 15) 1978.
~~ If you
please give Mark a call.
i
too":.
Attachment
r"' ~. ~.--...... .. --.. .--,
~ - 1 I 'J 1: ._ "'lII :
.!.. . '""4 1. ~__"11 to
4 I
, ,
,j : . 0; ~.. J .... ~~ !ro it: _-.J
... "~-~ .. ~ ...-:.~
...- ~r't'" '-"-7'\1'''\;n
'10.. ... . ...". .. I ~.:
;..... \r. .......-.::11:......._...0
'-.
_' X- -- 0/- 7/ /~I.J
;.-.-1________ _ . (
Ie
. .
.
--
.'i
"
-r/'
We are willing to pay additional taxes for this very
necessary service.
!~~~-~--
We also endorse the Santa Monica Police Department
,
in their petition for higher wages. Bullet-stoppers
deserve more money than paper-pushers, dontt you think?
Finally, congratulations on your significant
victory. We are all hoping the best for you, and all
-
the other tnew-school" activists trying to straighten
out the mess left by the previous, less honest office-
holders. Some day, we hope we can do something more
helpful than complaining.
Thanks Alot,
Sincerely.
~
j~ tJ~
Timothy and Leslie Wawrzeniak
2019 Third Street
Santa Monica, Calif. 90405
'-
J~
..
..... CITY OF LOS ANGELES.
....-DEPARTMENT AL CORRESPOND
uI~~ ~'-7-
o'-^..+ 7-24
,
Date July 13, 1979
To: Transportation and Traffic Cor.r.:ittee, ~5()A City l~all
Attention: Chauncey ti. Pruner
From Departrr:ent of Transportation
Sub}ect PR~FEREinIAl PARKWG PR()G~P.~,t - RULES A'm PROCEDURES
As directed by the Transportation and Traffic Co~nittee, the attached
rules and procedures have been developed to supple,'12nt Section 80.58,
L.A.ft. C. The topi cs COV2rea by the rul es and procedures incl uce those
identified in your report to Council, dated June 26, 1979, and three
additional topics. The three additional topics covered are: Regular
and Visitor Pe~its; Identification of Vehicles Owned or Operated Under
Contract to a Utility Cor.ipany; and Identification of Vehicles O\'lned
or Operated Under Contract to a Gov2rn~cntal Agency.
Additional rules and regulations are being prepared by the City Clerk
and will ~e trans~itted under separate cover.
~\' -
'1 ~ -p
., ..:) c. It'......, crc::----~
u.:nALL> R: ; 10' JERY
General . lana2'er
...
J,~.K:eg
Attachr:ent
,s
.
.
,
DEPARTr1EflT OF TRANSPORTATIDrf
RULES MID PROCEDURES FOR PREFERENTIAL PARKIllG DISTRICTS
~\
<I
Zl
As directed by the Transportation and Traffic Committee, the following rules
and procedures have been developed to supplement Section 80.58, l.A.M.C.
RULES
~
R:?
\.:::
~
uJl
- Pt.' 1
l~^;~
C1.
.
1. Petition
Persons circulating petitions requesting the Depart~ent of Transportation
to initiate proceedings to determine the eligibility of a residential
area for designation as a Preferential Parkin9 District will only use
blank petitions furnished by the Department of Transportation.
2. Petitioner
To be eligible to sign the petition, a person must reside within the
proposed preferential parking district at the address indicated on
the petition.
3. Substantial Reduction or Impairmen~ in Parkin9
Parking will be considered substantially reduced or impaired by cOMmu~er
vehicles in a residential area if:
a. riore than 75 per cent of the legal on-street parking spaces are
occupied by resident and non-resident vehicles, and
b. More than 25 per cent of the legal on-street parking spaces are
occupied by non-resident motor vehicles.
Streets on which these criteria are currently satisfied will be identified
based on a parking usage study. Establish~ent of parking restrictions
on these streets will likely cause the displacement of vehicles to adjacent
streets in the area under study. The criteria will then be reapplied to
these adjacent streets taking into consideration commuter vehicles which
would likely relocate to these adjacent streets. Thus, a proposed prefe-
rential parking district may include streets that under current parking
conditions would not appear to satisfy the criteria, but could reasonably
be expected to do so when vehicle displacement is taken into consideration.
4. Exception to Limit of Three Permits Per Residence or Business
Requests for more than three parking permits for vehicles at a single resi-
dence or business will be referred to the Department of Transportation.
Except in special cases with t;nusual circur:stances~ additional per~its
will not be issued. In considering t~e requests. Departrent of Transport-
atlcn staff will take into account the followlng factors:
Ib
~
.
-2-
,
.
.
a. The extent to \/hich the number of registered motor vehicles garaged
at the household or business establishment exceeds available off-
street parking space~ and
b. The number of licensed drivers in the household or business establish-
ment~ and
c. The impact of additional vehicles on available on-street parking
spaces.
5. Re~ular and Visitor Permits
a. Regular Permit:
Each regular residential parking permit will identify the applicable
preferential parking district, expiration date, license number(s)
and per~it number. The permit will be portable and shall be placed
on the driver1s side of the dashboard.
b. Visitor Permit:
Each visitor permit will identify the applicable preferential parking
district, expiration date~ address and permit number. The permit t,ill
be portable and shall be placed on the driver's side of the dashboard.
6. Identification of Vehicles Owned by or Operated Under Contract to a
~~ility Company
Vehicles satisfying the requirements of Section 80.58(h)3(a) L.A.r1.C.~ are
exempt from parking restrictions established for a preferential parking
district. One of the following methods of identification must be used
to qualify for the exemption:
a. The na~e or logo of the utility must be permanently displayed on the
exterior of the vehicle, or
b. The vehicle has commercial license plates~ or
c. A portable identification plate approved by the City of Los Angeles
Department of Transportation is displayed on the driver's side of
the dashboard.
7. Identification of Vehicles ~'Ined by or Operated Under Contract to
a Govern~ental Age~cy
Vehicles satisfying the require~ents of Section 80.58(h)3(b) L.A.M.C. are
exempt from parking restrictions established for a preferential parking
district. One of the follo\ling methods of identification must be used
to qualify for the exemption:
lq
.
.
~
.
,
-3-
7. Contld.
a. The name, City seal, or logo of the governmental agency must be
permanently displayed on the exterior of the vehicle, or
b. The vehicle has exempt, "EU license plates, or
c. A portable identification plate approved by the City of Los Angeles
DepartQent of Transportation is displayed on the driver's side of
the dashboard.
PROCEDURES
1. Furnishin~ Preferential Parking Dis~!i~t InforM~tion to Citizens
All citizen(s) inquiries concerning the establish~ent of preferential parking
districts wil' be referred to the Department of Transportation's Bureau
of Traffic and Parking Management or other designated bureau. Personnel
assigned to that Bureau, together with the citizen(s) and representative of
the appropriate Council districty will identify the source and extent of
the parking problem and potential remedies. The program's advantages
and disadvantages, permit feest district size and contiguity requirements,
and petition circulation and siQnature requirements will be discussed vrith
the citizen(s). The Departr~nt ~il1 furnish blank petitions and 1nformation
sheets to the citizen(s) for circulation. (A sa~ple blank petition and
information sheet is attached.) .
2. Petition Verification
Signed petitions will be verified by Department of Transportation personnel.
Verification of petitioner's place of residence will be accomplished through
the use of appropriate telephone directories and field checks. Multiple
signatures for a single residence will be eliminated after one petitioner
has been identified as a representative for that residence.
If additional information is needed the following sources will be considered:
a. Identify lot number and obtain owner's name from City Clerk or County
Recorder.
b. Reverse telephone directory.
c. Customer listing from utility companies (DWP~etc.).
d. Election registration records.
\~
~
'.,
.
~
SaJTlple 1
..
..
PETITIO:I FOR PREFEREilTIJ;L
PAR}~1;1G PER~tIT PROGRMl
We the undersigned, who reside on
(S'treet iialiie and Limits)
within the area described below, petition the Depart~ent of Transportation
to initiate proceedings to deter~;ne the eligibility of our residential
area, generally bounded by
(Street tJames)
for establishGent as a preferential parking district.
furnished a copy of tile attached Preferential Parking
Infornation Sheet.
,
',Ie have read and been
Pernit Proaram
~lame (pr; nt) &
Signature
Address and
J.el~phone ilurrber
House or
Apartnent
li cense rlurnbers of
Vehicles at Addres~
.:,
_EFERErITIAl P/\P.:<I lG PERtHT P.Mf
WFORP,ll,TIOd SHEET
...
",
.
The City of Los .angeles Departr.'ent of Tran$portation (D3T) \'li11 initiate
proceedings to detenline the eligibility of a residential area for designation
as a preferential parkin~ district unon receipt and verification of a petition
requesting such action that is signed by residents livin3 in at least uta-thirds
of the d\'iellins units co~prisill~ not less thaI"'] fifty percent of the developed
frontage \'Jithin the area described in the petition. To be eligible to sign the
petition you must reside within the proposed district at the address indicated
by you on the petition. The purpose of the petition is to verify that residents
of the area desire and are \/illing to support a preferential parkina district.
The purpose of a preferential parking district is to discourage si~nificant
intrusion of co~~erical and institutional parking into residp.nti~l areas. The
area included \.tithin the proposed district includes not only those streets that
experience the greatest parking congestion, but also adjacent streets that do not
currently experience parking congestion but would likely experience congestion
due to the spillover or vehicles fron a s~aller district to i~r.ediately adjacent
streets. Establishment of a preferential parking district would affect parking
in your residential area in the following manner:
A. Parking restrictions would be established for the preferential parking
district based on specific parking problens and could vary from ::0
Parking P.ny Time to one-or t\t1O-hour til"iie li.lit restrictions. The
tire of day and days of the week that the restriction would be in
effect \'lould depend on \'1nen the parking problem occurs. The actual
parking restriction \'lOuld be determined by the City DOT based on data
collected and input fror~ affected residents. '
8. Special parking pernits (regular and visitor) will only be available
to residents and merchants located in the preferential parking district.
The parking permits \1111 exerpt resic!ents' ~ F.erchants' and visitors'
rootor vehicles frOM only the preferenti~l parking district's parking
res tri cti on. THE PER:1ITS ~!ILL 'lOT PROVIDE II;! EXG'PTIO'I FRO~1 JlJry OT:IER
PARKP1G R.E~TR,ICTIO::S SUCH AS :W STOPPI lG REST,RICTIfJ~:S, STREET SI1EEP,I'IG.
TH1ES, ~ED O-~. YELLO~,! CUR3S, PA?-KI'iG i:ETERS, ETC,
C. Purchasin; a permit ;HLL nOT in any \'lay guarantee or reserve to a
pe~it holder an on-street parking space.
An annual fee of ten dollars will be charged for each regular preferential
parking permit. r10re than one vehicle nay be identifiec on each pernit hO'.lever,
each regular permit will allow only one vehicle (identified on the pemit) to be
parked exe~pt fro~ the Preferential Parking District1s parklng restriction at
anyone time. Up to three permits may be issued per residence or business. All
regular permits issued for a preferential parking district \lill have a cornon
expiration date. P,ny resident or rrercl1ant eligible fer a regular permit nay
also purchase up to blo visitor pernits for the use of guest visitors to the
dlstrict. The fee for each visitor per~it shall be five dollars and the permit
will be valid for a period not to exceed 90 days.
For additional lnfor~ation about the Preferential Parking District Program,
contact the Clty of Los fln~eles Depart~ent of Transportation at 485-2265.