Loading...
SR-417-003-02 tA F :\PCDShare\2005CounciIStaffReports\EmployeePermits.doc Council Meeting: June 14, 2005 JUN 14 2005 Santa Monica, CA TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Staff SUBJECT: Consideration of a Limited and Targeted On-street Permit Parking Program for Employees of Businesses Adjacent to Preferential Parking Zones along Montana Avenue, Pico Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard Commercial Corridors Introduction This report recommends that the City Council direct staff to prepare an implementation ordinance for a limited and targeted on-street permit parking program for employees. Backqround The City Council asked staff to develop a proposal for a limited and targeted employee parking program. An Information Item describing such a program was released to the Council on May 11, 2005. (See Attachment A.) A map showing the proposed areas is included as Attachment B. Interested parties were notified of the item, and written comments were encouraged. Two open-house meeting were scheduled to provide additional opportunities for interested people to ask questions and provide feedback in advance of the Council meeting. Notification StrateQY Staff notified interested persons that the Information Item was available, that comments were welcome, that both a daytime and an evening open house meeting would be held, ~A 1 JUN 14 2005 and that Council would consider the issue on June 14. Staff notified the following individuals and groups: . individuals who had previously made inquiries about an employee permit program, . those that had made inquiries as part of the East-West Parking Corridor Task Force, . neighborhood groups, business improvement districts, and the Chamber of Commerce. These groups maintain large distribution lists of their own. If Council decides to proceed with an implementation ordinance, all residents, businesses and owners in the proposed affected areas will be notified individually. A large community meeting will be scheduled prior to any public hearing regarding a specific ordinance. Public Feedback to date Wrtten Comments Received: There were 21 written comments received as of June 6th, mostly from residents. Eight were in favor of employee parking (including two businesses) while 13 were against. Three residents were opposed to all types of permitted preferential parking, both residential and employee in nature. Generally, residents north of Montana were opposed to the idea, while those in Sunset Park were amenable as long as the employee permits were distributed equally across residential blocks, so that a small group of residences closest to the businesses did not receive the brunt of the employee parking. The Wilshire-Montana Neighborhood Coalition submitted comments opposing extending preferential parking for businesses. The Pico 2 Improvement Organization's Board Chair (also a resident near Pico Boulevard) supports the idea. (See Attachment C.) May 25 Daytime Open House: Ten persons attended this meeting, half of whom are also Santa Monica residents. Most represented businesses, or business improvement districts (BIDs). There was one business representative from Montana Avenue, and several from Pica Boulevard. One resident representative from the Pico BID was present. One resident from Sunset Park was present. Two businesses were present from areas of the City not currently under consideration for this program. Businesses were generally in favor of the program, even though they felt the proposed program was too small. Businesses suggested specific additional streets that should be included. The resident was opposed to any program which concentrated too many employees on anyone specific block, and felt that general notification of this program to potentially affected parties was too limited at this point. Specific comments received are included with Attachment D. Results of the evening open house meeting of June 9 and comments received after June 1 will be provided in a supplemental report prior to the June 14 meeting. BudoeUFinanciallmpact It is estimated that a total of 155 business employee permits would initially be sold in the three areas at $120 per permit per year. This would generate approximately $18,600 in revenue in account 01415.400290. 3 Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council consider the input from residential and business neighbors and direct staff to prepare an implementation ordinance to allow an on-street business employee permit parking program on a limited and targeted basis in appropriate areas of the City. Prepared by: Andy Agle, Interim Director, Planning and Community Development Lucy Dyke, Transportation Planning Manager Beth Rolandson, Senior Transportation Planner Ruth Harper, Transportation Planning Associate ATTACHMENTS: A) Information Item B) Map of Proposed Areas C) Written Comments Received as of June 6, 2005 (available in hard copy only) D) May 25 Open House Comments Received 4 Summary of June 9. 2005 Open House There were approximately 40 attendees at this meeting. s l,(fr\tz \'(,w\:~ -:Lv1~~ of/l LD: 'S-A JUN 14 2.0OS Montana Ave.: The majority of the attendees were residents who live on the first block north of Montana Ave. The majority of these residents were opposed to having employee permits for even a limited number of employees on their blocks. One of their largest concerns was about enforcement. Even today, residents state that enforcement is "spotty" and there is a lot of abuse, and extra cars/permits would just make the situation worse. Residents feel that employees can park north of Alta today, and that walking two blocks should be acceptable. Several businesses from Montana were present; they agree that many employees can walk these blocks, but some employees are not able to do so. The businesses also agree that if employees keep parking on Alta and just north, sooner or later the residents will petition and preferential parking will just continue to spread. Having some sort of limited employee parking may help stop the contin~al spread of preferential parking. It is also essential that if there is an employee permit program, the employees must spread out throughout the neighborhood, park further from Montana, not in front of the same houses every day, etc. Sunset Park: The chair of Friends of Sunset Park (FOSP) was most concerned with notification, and felt that all residents should have been notified at this point. FOSP and residents on 33rd Street are concerned because the street is already heavily impacted by Trader Joe's parking. FOSP and Sunset Park neighbors also indicated that not enough had been done to ensure that all the commercial spaces just south of the businesses on Ocean Park Boulevard between 16th and 18th Streets are used. Specific Comments Recieved . Employees can park on blocks north of Alta Ave. . 33rd Street: Can employees park near Pearl St.? . The City of Santa Monica will be sued for allowing non-residents to have these permits, and this will cause the entire preferential parking system to be abolished. . Employees need to be courteous . There should be different employee parking rules for 2 hour preferential parking zones vs. "no parking" zones . Notification: how does it work? All impacted parties should have been notified of this potential program . 600/700 blocks of 14th and 15th Streets: want Sunday restrictions back again . How about 1 hour restrictions instead of 2 hr restrictions? . Businesses seem to care more about employees parking that their customers parking? . Apartment areas are very dense . Shuttles should be used to bring the employees from a lot, with buses running every 10 minutes like the Tide Shuttle . Can business owners pay a stipend to provide parking for their employees? . Residents need preferential parking-that's why they petitioned in the first place . Employees should have designated parking areas for all residential blocks north of Montana. (This would require permitting the entire area all the way to San Vicente.) . Resident: approves of plan: 10% of parking spaces for employees is a good number June 14, 2005 . Permit parking can be a hassle . 10th Street: residents often can't park in front of or near their homes . Lots of enforcement problems with parking enforcement . Homes don't always have driveways . Resident: Wild Oats and Yoga Works create most of the problems; employee permit idea would be okay if only 5% of spaces given out, and if Sunday restrictions are included agam . Street cleaning days are always even more crowded . Residents want curb cuts/driveways . Employees should only be allowed to park on the "second" half of the block . Employees should only be allowed to park on the "first" half of the block . 2 hr zones don't work, they really operate as "4" hour zones . More customers for Montana businesses! . FOSP: want a trial program for 6-12 months only-feedback requested after that . Extend the preferential parking zone up to San Vicente with 5-10% of spaces for employee permits . Give employee permits out only to specific blocks with under 50% usage . Reduce the employee permits on the "through" streets: 11th, 14th, 17th . Wild Oats creates a trash and noise problem . Employee permits should be tied to a vehicle, not just a hang tag given to a business . Why aren't Wild Oats and other big companies mandated to park on their own property? or at least have a percentage of their employees park on their private property? . Give free bus passes to employees . Permits should operate during daytime business hours only (9am-6pm) . Everyone stated: NO on one-side-of-the-street idea . When will staff notify people that the 50% requirement does not really exist? . There is available parking behind the businesses on Ocean Park between 16th and 1 ih Streets . Businesses should be expected to share their parking if residents are expected to share their parking . Shuttle every 10 min. up and back to some parking structure, or the new library- businesses should pay for the shuttle . Perhaps we should have new parking structures instead of more parks . Find some incentive to have employees park all through the area . Parking does exist now-it's north of Alta; employees can walk more than 2 blocks June 14, 2005 ATTACHMENT A F:\PCDShare\lnfo Items\2005Infoltems\Employee Permits.doc May 11, 2005 Santa Monica, CA INFORMATION ITEM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Staff SUBJECT: Creation of a Limited and Targeted On-street Permit Parking Program for Employees of Businesses Adjacent to Preferential Parking Zones along Montana Avenue, Pico Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard Commercial Corridors Introduction This report proposes characteristics of a program to provide a limited number of on- street parking permits to employees of businesses adjacent to certain preferential parking zones and identifies areas where the City Council might consider a trial implementation. To encourage public consideration and comment, it is being provided in advance of the June 14 Council meeting at which the Council will have the opportunity to consider the issue and may wish to direct staff to prepare an implementation ordinance. Written comments from the public are welcome, and two open-house meeting times have been scheduled to provide additional opportunities for interested people to ask questions and provide feedback in advance of the Council meeting. Backqround When new preferential parking zones are approved, businesses adjacent to the zones that lack sufficient on-site parking for employees have frequently asked the Council to find a way to accommodate parking for their employees. The Santa Monica Municipal 1 ATTACHMENT A Code currently allows the sale of on-street preferential parking permits only to residents. Although many permit zones continue to be heavily parked when restricted to residents only, some do have available space once the restrictions are in place. Staff and the Council have received complaints of preferential parking areas that, during the day when many residents are at work, could accommodate some employee parking. In June 2003, the City Council approved the expanded and amended Preferential Parking Zone G that encompasses the first blocks both north and south of Montana Avenue along the business corridor as well as Idaho Avenue. Many businesses in this corridor are located in older structures and planning policies discourage redevelopment that would provide additional off-street parking. To accommodate employee needs, staff had proposed leaving one side of the street unregulated, but the Council decided to regulate both sides of the residential streets, and consider creating an on-street employee permit parking program within preferential parking districts. Purpose Goals of an employee permit parking program would be to: . allow for the continuing vitality of neighborhood commercial districts . reduce the tendency toward parking "spillover" within neighborhoods by making on-street space available to employees . do so without unduly inconveniencing residents . address deficiencies that arise from increasing auto use and activity 2 ATTACHMENT A . not encourage new uses or intensification of existing uses that would require additional parking pursuant to today's Municipal Code standards . be simple both to administer and enforce. Such a program would work in the following ways: 1) A specific number of permits would be made available for any particular qualifying block 2) Permits would be issued for residential blocks in an area that, taken as a whole, was found to have low parking occupancies (approximately 50% of spaces occupied with other regulations in place) 3) Number of permits issued would be related to a percentage of the number of spaces on a block 4) Only businesses with legal, non-conforming parking situations would be eligible 5) A limited number of permits would be available to a business 6) A lottery system would be used to distribute permits to businesses 7) Permits would be issued quarterly, and directly to. businesses, not individual employees, and 8) Fees would be commensurate with the cost to administer the program (estimated at $120/year). A program of this nature could also be implemented on a trial basis around the Ocean Park Boulevard/Sunset Park business corridor, and might be suitable for other areas of 3 ATTACHMENT A the City with low residential demand for on-street spaces and few off-street options for employee parking. Montana Avenue Strateav Since the issues of neighborhood spillover and employee parking demand were critical in the Montana corridor, staff collected and evaluated data to determine the implications of instituting employee parking on adjacent streets. Based on responses to a 2002 survey of businesses, it is estimated that approximately 400 employees rely on street parking in the Montana corridor each weekday during daytime hours. To accommodate most of the employees in the area, 25 percent of the spaces on each preferential parking block would have to be available for employee permits. This would result in high parking occupancies and would negate the benefits of preferential parking for residents. Businesses located on Montana would enter a lottery for permits specific to a preferential parking block either north or south of the business. The number of permits issued for a block would be based on the number of parking spaces on that block. Permits equal to 10 percent of spaces on each preferential parking block would be made available in the lottery. This would provide parking in the preferential zones for about one-quarter of the Montana employees, providing some relief to businesses and ensuring that the majority of spaces would continue to be available for residents, their guests and time-limited visitor parking. 4 ATTACHMENT A As noted in the following table, up to 106 employee on-street parking permits could be issued if the entire zone adjacent to the Montana business corridor became preferential parking. Block RanQe 6001700 Lincoln-9th 6001700 10th-15th 6001700 16th-17th 800 Lincoln-17th 800-1600 Idaho # Of Blocks 2 6 2 10 ~ 29 AVQ. # # Permits/ Spaces Block 33 3 61 6 30 3 41 4 22 ~ 37 4 Total Permits 6 36 6 40 ~ 106 There are a few businesses located immediately west of the preferential parking zone (west of Lincoln Boulevard). Employees of those businesses would presumably continue to park on streets west of Lincoln that currently do not have preferential parking restrictions. Employees elsewhere in the corridor would presumably continue to park where many are parking today, on Alta Avenue and the streets to the north. Currently, only 12 of 29 blocks in the zone have preferential parking restrictions. The following table shows how many business employee permits would be issued today. Block 600/700 10th 600/700 11 th 6001700 12th 600/700 Euclid 600/700 14th 600/700 15th 600/700 16th 600/700 17th 800 16th 900 Idaho 1200 Idaho 1300 Idaho Avq.# Soaces 61 61 61 61 61 61 30 30 41 22 22 22 5 Total Permits 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 4 2 ~ ~ 52 ATTACHMENT A Alternative to Business Permits An employee permit program is more costly than a program to allow employee parking on one side of each regulated block since it will require staff sale of permits and the monitoring of their use. A one-side-of-the-street option would not require staff to issue permits to businesses. However, with a one-side-of-the-street approach, approximately 50% of spaces would be available for employees, but they would compete with visitors to use them. In blocks where there is high employee demand, fewer spaces would be available for visitors of residents. "Colleae" Parkina District One of the oldest and most restrictive parking districts in the City was formed around Santa Monica College. College students have pursued opportunities to use free unregulated parking in the vicinity of the campus with such eagerness and persistence that they have driven residents on many neighboring blocks to petition for parking relief. A small but significant minority of students travel further to find "free" spaces than is typical of employees of most neighborhood commercial districts. Since the college students may only be in the area for a few hours to attend a particular class, time-limit restrictions do not discourage them from using the spaces. Residential density is not especially high in the area, so many regulated streets in this area have a considerable number of spaces available during the day. The regulations implemented to prevent college students from using all the parking also preclude long-term street parking opportunities for employees of commercial districts 6 ATTACHMENT A along Ocean Park and Pico Boulevards. Generally, spaces directly adjacent to the commercial establishments have time-limited parking to encourage use by customers. Ocean Park Boulevard: There are approximately 345 on-street parking spaces currently regulated by preferential parking surrounding the Ocean Park Boulevard shopping area on the following blocks: . Oak Street between 14th and 18th Streets, . Hill Street between 16th and 18th Streets, . 16th and 1 ih Streets between Ocean Park Boulevard and Hill Streets, . 18th Street between Maple Street and Hill Streets, and . Maple Street between 1 ih and 18th Streets. The vast majority of these spaces are in the R 1 district where street parking demands are not generally intense. If 10 percent of these spaces were eligible for business employee parking, 35 employees could be accommodated on these streets. Pico Boulevard: Parking for employees of Pico Boulevard businesses is limited. Small businesses just east of the college in the vicinity of 19th through 23rd Streets have very limited parking opportunities. There are approximately 250 on-street parking spaces currently regulated by preferential parking on 20th through 23rd Streets between Pico Boulevard and Pearl Street. Three-quarters of these spaces are in the R1 district where street parking demands are not generally intense. If 10 percent of these spaces were eligible for business employee parking, 25 employees could be accommodated on these streets. Another opportunity exists on the 1800/1900 block of 10th Street between Pico Boulevard and Michigan Avenue. Though this is a multi-family area, the spaces on the east side of the street are perpendicular, and there are a total of 93 7 ATTACHMENT A spaces on this block. A spot check on this block on a non-street sweeping day noted the block was 55 percent full. If 10 percent of these spaces were eligible for business employee parking, nine employees could be accommodated on this street, and the occupancy would be approximately 65 percent. Pico Boulevard near East Citv Limits Unlike the College area, there is more short-term parking for customers of the businesses on Pico Boulevard in this area. Parking for employees of Pico Boulevard businesses, however, is limited. There are approximately 340 on-street parking spaces currently regulated by preferential parking on 29th through 33rd Streets between Pico Boulevard and Pearl Street. The majority of these spaces are in the R1 district where street parking demands are not generally intense. If 10 percent of these spaces were eligible for business employee parking, 34 employees could be accommodated on these streets. Areas not under current consideration Most of the areas currently regulated by preferential parking in the City are significantly occupied during the day and would not be candidates for this program, including: . Mid-City locations surrounding Santa Monica and Wilshire Boulevards, . Ocean Park area west of 4th Street near the beach, and . Streets north of the 3rd Street Promenade. Prepared by: Andy Agle, Interim Director, Planning and Community Development Lucy Dyke, Transportation Planning Manager Beth Rolandson, Senior Transportation Planner Ruth Harper, Transportation Planning Associate 8 ATTACHMENT A Opportunities to discuss the issues and provide comments Open House Meetings Wednesday, May 25 9:30-11 :30 a.m. Ken Edwards Center 1527 4th Street Thursday, June 9 6:00-7:30 p.m. Montana Branch Library 1704 Montana Avenue City Council Meeting Tuesday, June 14 City Hall Council Chambers 1685 Main Street You will have a limited opportunity to speak directly to the Council on this issue as part of the regularly scheduled meeting. Written Comments Written comments (mail, fax or e-mail) received by June 3 will be provided to the City Council with the Staff Report in advance for the June 14 City Council Meeting. Comments received between June 3 and June 14 will be given to the Council the night of the meeting. You may submit written comments to: Ruth Harper Transportation Management Division 1685 Main Street, Room 115 P.O. Box 2200 Santa Monica, CA 90407-2200 Fax: (310) 576-9170 E-mail: ruth.harper@smQov.net Questions Ruth Harper Transportation Planning Associate 310-458-8292 9 1- 4 ):> --I ~ ):> () I s: m z --I CD ATTACHMENT C Ruth Harper _U_~"~,_^"~__,~~",~~,,~~,~,~,,,,,_~,,"__.~._h_"_'_~_"_ ,~.._._"",_,~.,_"___'_N'_""___'__'_'~"_'~'_"~~~'~'"_,___,,,~_,~,,,_,,,_,,"''''__'''_'_~__'_''''_'~'_''_~ _"_,,_,,,,~_.,,~,,~,'._'_"_"'_~""'~AN._.._"_N"~~"R...~,"_,^__,"'_~_'N ~~.-.__.~....~,,~. ~"........ From: MWBLOCK@aol.com Sent: Saturday, May 14,20055:46 PM To: Council Mailbox; ruth.harper@smgov.net. Cc: ZinaJosephs@aol.com Subject: Permit Parking for Business Workers at the Expense of the Neighborhood Dear Council Members: Allowing business users to purchase parking on preferential parking streets does the following: + provide the non-parking-conforming property owners with win fall profits on their properties + make it hard on residents who live near the main streets like pico to park near their homes. why would pica workers want to park on pearl? + in many cases these residents are renters. this seems unfair. + landlords can charge higher rents for commercial space. + renters AND residents who live near the main streets have to deal with harder day parking. + the city gets money for "selling residential streets for commercial uses. + the city should build parking structures with a tax based parking district or down zone the nonconforming businesses to push them into areas in the city that have parking. + this will encourages more business development and higher rents for commercial users in the "B" and "C" sites and the permits will be seen as an entitlement and will make it difficult for residents to reclaim their streets in the future. This is a short term "fix" for a serious problem that does not address the problem of the lack of parking for "grandfathered" commercials sites and the effect that the business workers and customers will have on residents who live near commercial streets like Pico that do not have proper buffers to protect the neighborhood. Finally, the neighborhoods north of Montana have been kept free of commercial parking by creating parking districts to protect the neighborhood. This "solution" is unfair to the residents of the Pica and Sunset Park neighborhoods. Mitchell Block PO Box 1 0003 Santa Monica, CA 90410 05/16/2005 Page 1 of 1 Ruth Harper .-_..~,~.____.._.~_._.._<_._.~~___~_,-,,-_...~~.~____,_,,_ ,__m~~__A_'_'_'''_'''~''''_''''_'__''__~_'''~' ._.....~.~._,____"'_._",'_~_,~__"~.._.~__,"_~..~.,..........,~~.. ~-"'-~,-- -,-"-"~,-,,,~.,.,._.~._..,.,..,,,~~...,"~"~' ~.",-",_._,"._", -,_,,_~~,,^,,'-~~'~,,-,',-",'-~-'_..-.'~-'~' From: Meryl Senatt [res1 ha24@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 7:01 PM To: Ruth Harper Subject: Proposed parking permits I think that in many cases, 10% is too Iowa number to give to business employees. Some of these streets are virtually empty during business hours. Let's use 'em! Thank you, -Meryl what's the point of EMPTY STREETS??? 05/16/2005 Page 1 of 1 "_~_"_____ ._.__~__,~._~_..,__._~.._w_~.._.~.,_.___,..~m_"_,'_'_"____,~__,_,,_....,,'_,,_,_"_._,._"_~~_N~.~'.....,.~'_.._,"_~.",_"_",~,.,~____""_,,,,,_'_"'_""'" ~,_",_~___,'_"'_"~~_NA~"_"..".~"'"''''Y''_''_'''''''~.-.-<.mm,~.._..~...~..".~.~.-.-.~,...'m.~."--""~-"--~"-'~-~-~.~.. no Ruth Harper From: Judy Gottesman [Zmomzies@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 3:36 PM To: Ruth Harper Subject: business parking on 23rd street Dear Ms. Harper and City Council Members: I live on 23rd Street, just south of Pico. Being so close to Pico, if businesses were allowed to park on our street, it would certainly impact the area directly in front of our house. While there may sometimes be spaces available, it is not unusual for me to have to park one or two houses down during the day. Since we have to pay for our parking permits, I do not think it is reasonable that I would have to park down the block, especially when I have things to carry. Have you considered what it would be like on street-cleaning days? Since there would only be half the parking spaces available during that time, there may not be enough room for us or our guests (using our paid guest permits) to park. Parking gets pretty crowded on those days. Traffic is also an issue on 23rd Street. Additional parking means additional traffic and additional cars trying to turn around. During rush hour in the morning and late afternoon, adding cars that are trying to park will only exacerbate an already bad situation. Where do the businesses park now? It seems that most of the businesses on Pico near us have parking in the rear, off the alley. Why can't they park there? On the corner of Pico and 23rd is a car repair shop. We certainly would not want to see their repaired cars sitting on our street; this could easily happen with permits. Please do not allow this to happen in our neighborhood. Thank you. Judy Gottesman 05/16/2005 Ruth Harper From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Debbie Millar [debbie_millar@yahoo.com] Sunday, May 15, 2005 10:46 PM Ruth Harper Grace Phillips; Victoria Whelan; Zina Josephs Preferential parking Ruth- I am writing to comment on the proposed changes to preferential parking on Pico. The residents of 33rd street have repeatedly complained about traffic problems that stem from the heavy Trader Joe's traffic at the end of our block. We have sent a petition to the city council, the city manager and the transportation dept. We are still awaiting an official response. I feel that any changes to preterential parking should not be made unlil our petition has been addressed. Any increases to traffic on our block would make a bad situation worse. If businesses need additional parking they can rent space from those businesses with extra parking -- for exanple, Trader Joe's rents space from the Travelodge. Thank you for listening to our concerns. Debbie Millar 2401 33rd Street 310-399-9251 Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html Page 1 01'2 . ___^'~V__~.,.,.y_."____,~,.,'A,,,_,,_,,,,,~,'~_.,'AO'_"'_'_.,'~"'_"~"__'''''~''''_N_''~__''''''~'_'''_''~~''_'_''_'''_,__"_'~"'_"'N"_._"_"'_'~_'Y'__''''_~'_''_'''~''''~'''_''_'_,.,.....,~."..~y.-~_..__...~_...,-".~~._-~., _'''.~..'_W.W~__ _..,._,..~..----~'-'.>_. ._.~__~,,,____,,,_~_,'____"'_'.._I_W'~"'~_~_"_<___W_---~~.'.._~,,_' Ruth Harper From: Grady Daugherty [SamoDad@msn.com) Sent: Monday, May 16,20055:37 PM To: Ruth Harper Subject: sunset park limited employee parking permits Dear Ms. Harper: FOSP (Zina Josephs) has forwarded me info on their proposal for some employee parking permits in sunset park and pica areas. may I offer another perspective on this. I live on 28th street, between pica bl. and pearl street, and have for almost twelve years. I personally have an off-street parking space, and my wife has a handicapped blue-curb space on 28th street, right in front of our building. my daughter has, fortunately, been loaned an off-street space by a neighbor. so, we are pretty well taken care of, at least for right now. I tell you this to let you know that I'm more concerned with the general welfare of citizens in our area, than in getting a better deal for myself and my family. now, regarding fosp's proposal. I believe it is the wrong solution to a completely artificial problem. in the first place, as you may know, we the residents of this block have rejected the big push in sunset park to have permit parking on our block. almost every other block in the area now has permit parking, but we got rid of it several years ago and have never regretted it. if you come to our block, day or night, you will see that both sides of the street are filled with cars. it is not that we like it that way, but that we feel we, and other citizens, have a right to park on the public streets. also, the basic truthis, we neecj that parking. we live here. why should we have to pay for the right to park on our block, when our taxes have already paid for the paving and maintenance, etc., of our street? for your information, during the day employees from up and down pico bl., and even some from ocean park businesses, come and park on our block. every morning, as our residents vacate their nightly street parking spaces and go to work, those spaces are taken by local employees, and business customers, needing a place to park. we, the residents of this block, do not go fuming to you and the city government, saying "get those people off our block," because those people are out fellow citizens, and they simply need a place to put their cars. fosp, which seems to be responsible for a lot of the traffic and parking nonsense that goes on in sunset park, would do much better by saying to local citizens "get rid of the permit parking on your blocks, and let's get back to our traditional, friendly santa monica." ms. harper, that is the solution to the problem of employees and customers needing parking. go against the we-want-to-be-Iike-beverly-hills mentality of sunset park residents. the only people who will park on residential streets are the people who need to park there, so, why be angry with them, why persecute them, and why exploit them with permits, tickets, and meter-maids? my personal feeling is that, whoever has brought this entire mentality of permit parking on us, ought to take a good look in the mirror and see the anti-social, destructive individual looking out 05/17/2005 Page 2 0[2 at them. thanks for your attention. yours truly, grady r. daugherty (310) 392-0251 05/1 712005 Page 1 of 1 '_A___~W._,~__,_,"_"~,,,'~.u'_"__-h___..~..,_,,~_"_._~'~_ ~m_'_".M,^~_",,_,_.,,"_"'~"_..M'''''~.'''_~'_~''_~'_'''_'"_""___,,,~___,,,~,,'____'._',"M"_"_~ ..".~",_,^_"._._",~"~.__,,_,_,_^_,,,,~.,,_.,___,_......,,_,"._"_"_"'.H",_.,_,_~.",,~,_.._,'_'~'.N,..'.',W'MW ,,_-'.-~~''',T..'' ~...__~_h"_W' .'~,>.~-~-'._---~.~-' Ruth Harper From: Victoria Whelan [vswhelan@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, May 16, 20058:05 PM To: Ruth Harper Cc: ZinaJosephs@aol.com; Debbie Millar; Grace Phillips Subject: parking Dear Ms. Harper, As a resident of the 33rd street block between Pico & Pearl, I was shocked to read of the proposed parking permit program for employees on Pica & OPE. I cannot begin to imagine how 33rd street might be able to accommodate any more vehicles! Additionally, it is already plenty hard to find spots when visiting friends in the neighhorhood. Our block recently came together to contact city hall regarding the already over congested and unsafe traffic on our block. Please do not make our overcrowded street any worse! Good luck finding a solution. I believe there are spots to rent from other merchants in the area but I do not think there is room for employee cars on 33rd street or in the surrounding area. Best, Victoria Vv'helan 05/17/2005 Page 1 of 1 Ruth Harper From: RRader@MGM.com Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 20054:02 PM To: Council Mailbox Cc: Ruth Harper Subject: Wilmont opposes extending preferential parking for businesses Dear Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and City Council Members, Last week, the Wilshire-Montana Neighborhood Coalition ("Wilmont") Board voted to oppose On-Street Preferential Parking for businesses. There were two (2) primary reasons for this: 1. General philosophical opposition. One of the emerging themes from the outreach regarding the General Plan is: "A City of strong neighborhoods, protected from commercial and industrial uses" This proposal runs completely counter to that theme. The Board strongly felt that, just as businesses reap the benefits of a built-in customer base that can walk to their establishment, businesses must bear the burden of finding parking for their employees. Thus, rather than requiring businesses to pay for the cost of parking (e.g., by agreeing to fund a parking garage via assessments, by renting spots from residents, by requiring carpooling or use of mass transit), the proposed solution allows businesses to shift the cost of operating to residents (i.e., externalizing rather than internalizing the cost). 2. Slippery slope. The Board felt that any encroachment on preferential parking inevitably leads to further encroachments. Reducing parking for residents is a "slippery slope" and once parking is given to businesses in protected residential areas, it will be difficult to remove, even such parking is part of an experimental "pilot" program. Although some preferential parking zones have excess parking, most do not. Given the incredible organizational barriers to obtaining preferential parking, it would be cruel to reduce residents' hard-fought parking privileges. I also must note some of the practical problems: a. Currently, the proposal seems to measure the 50% threshold on a per-zone basis, rather than on a block-by- block basis. Given the great differences even within zones, any reduction of parking privileges should only be on a block-by-block basis. In other words, even in a zone where only 50% of the spots are being used can have certain blocks that have 90% usage; such blocks with high usage should not have employees parking merely because neighboring blocks are less utilized. b. The experimental "pilot" nature of this program must be emphasized. Any reduction of parking should have a clear sunset date. The program should not automatically continue. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Rob Rader Chair, Wilshire-Montana Neighborhood Coalition ()"/?"n()()~ Page 1 of 1 Ruth Harper From: grantspeak@aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 8:44 AM To: Ruth Harper Dear Ruth, lam against the proposed trial "limited and targeted on-street permit parking program for employees of businesses adjacent to preferential parking zones along Montana Ave., Pica Blvd., and Ocean Park Blvd. commerical corridors." Please forward my comment to the council. Thank you, Susan Grant 1030 Cedar St 06/02/2005 Ruth Harper From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: CURREY_CAROLE [CURREY _CAROLE@smc.edu] Thursday, June 02, 2005 10:41 PM Ruth Harper RADER_ROB Montana residential preferential parking Ms. Harper, I regret that I am unable to attend the meeting June 9 at Montana Branch Library. I wish to voice my opposition to preferential parking in the 600/700 blocks for business employees. It is the employer's responsibility to provide parking for its employees. The parking problem should not be solved by requiring the residential neighborhoods to support commercial needs. Permitting special parking permits in blocks north of Montana does not face the parking problem, which will only increase. Santa Monica is known for its quality of life; the City needs to find a better resolution to the parking problem and not destroy the quality of life that it purports to protect. Carole Currey 1 Page 1 of2 Ruth Harper From: Mark Rothschild [biz8fkb1@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 3:07 PM To: Ruth Harper Subject: Re: On-street Permit Parking Program for Employees of Businesses Ruth, I am actually an opponent of the proposal. My suggestion to the council would be to not implement any more preferential parking, either for business employees or for residents. The "INFORMATION ITEM" sent to the council posted at hltQ)1~911t~: ITl9 n i~9 _ 0 rg ~GLty1:le rls!~9JJ n c i IIi n.fQIIJla tiQ'lJ1~JJ1S/2 ~Q5/~mg loye..e %___~.Qe.~I.rnits .pc;JJ states in part as follows: 2) Permits would be issued for residential blocks in an area that, taken as a whole, was found to have low parking occupancies (approximately 50% of spaces occupied with other regulations in place) I am puzzled why an area with less than 50 percent of the spaces utilized needs any kind of preferential parking at all. For what it is worth, I think that public space belongs to everyone and should not be privatized. Public space should not be subject to a political process that allocates it to a few while forbidding it to all others. If you are collecting statements for the council. that is my statement. With regards, Mark Rothschild ma rt_IQt!ischil~tgff~~@"-E:! ri:mO-,--n ~t Ruth Harper From: Sent: To: Subject: Writermoos@aol.com Friday, June 03, 2005 10:45 AM Ruth Harper Comment on employee permit parking I live in a preferential parking zone in the 1400 block of Oak Street and generally favor allowing limited employee parking on the street. However, I do have some concerns. It is important to allow only a limited number of employee parking permits for each block and to have employers urge their employees not to always park in front of the same hou:se each day. Otherwise, some homes will be impacted much more than others. There is also the question of the hours that the employee parking permits will be good. Preferential parking hours on our street go until 8 p.m. Monday-Thursday. If the employee parking also goes that late, there could be a shortage of spac-es as residents arrive home from work. The street fills up considerably in the evening. Since some of the businesses on Ocean Park Boulevard stay open after 5 p.m., this could be- a problem. These concerns need to be addressed before the employee permit parking is approved. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. -- Ed Moosbrugger 14 18 Oa k St. Opposition to extending preferential parking to Montana businesses Page 1 of 1 Ruth Harper From: Mark Armour [mark@armourmedia.net] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 1 :32 PM To: Ruth Harper Subject: Opposition to extending preferential parking to Montana businesses Ruth, I'm writing to express my opposition to the staff proposal to extend preferential permit parking to businesses on Montana A venue. Currently, there is ample parking North of Montana. AHa and all of the streets north of Alta are non-permitted. and relatively empty during the day. The 6001700 blocks already accommodate residents and the majority of shoppers. Why is it fair that the 6001700 blocks also support business employees, who will take the closest spots to Montana and displace residents and shoppers? For employees who don't need access to their cars during the day, it seems reasonable to me that they walk a few blocks. 1 believe that everyone North of Montana who benefits from the proximity of Montana Avenue should share in the burdens of traffic and parking generated from Montana Avenue. In my opinion, it is not fair to fill the parking spots on the 6001700 blocks while the 200-500 blocks remain empty. In addition to simply allowing employees to park in non-permitted zones, there are other solutions. Share existing business parking behind the buildings for employees. Shoppers have many options for parking, both metered and non-metered, without reserving behind the building spaces for them.. Many times, shoppers don't even know about the spaces. Finally, I would just like to ask a simple question: If there is such a parking crisis for businesses North of Montana, where are the employees parking now? Thanks and please pass along my comments to the Council, Mark Armour 06/03/2005 Ruth Harper From: Sent: To: Subject: David E. Moss [mosstel@earthlink.net) Friday, June 03, 2005 3: 13 PM Ruth Harper Montana Preferential Parking NOMA suggested that I direct a comment to you regarding permit parking in regards to the Montana business parking problem My comment is - If I am against all permit parking - whether for residents or businesses anywhere in the City. It is a bandaid to the mess created by our City of not using traditional zoning and parking standards for new development or changes of use, to deal with the overwhelming volume of folks coming to Santa Monica on a daily basis. Our population change of residents is less than 10 % over the past 20 years so the problem is the overdevelopment of the commercial sector." . Please send confirmation that my comment will be considered by staff and the Council. Thank you Ruth. d 1 Page 1 of 1 Ruth Harper From: CRDonaldsn@aol.com Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 3:39 PM To: Ruth Harper Subject: residential area parking proposal Mayor and City Council Santa Monica City Hall 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90407 June 3, 2005 Dear Mayor and Council Members, The creation of a limited on-street daytime parking permit program for Pico Boulevard business employees is a good proposal. . Such use of 68 spaces in three targeted residential areas off Pica Boulevard should have little effect on resident parking in those areas, but it would be a major help to the boulevard businesses. The spread preferential parking zones increased the parking problem Pico businesses shared with residents. The Pica Improvement Organization, the area's business improvement district, was formed more than six years ago because of parking needs. It is not an us-vs.-them situation. The residents are the PIO members'customers. We inhabit the same area and have the same problems. Santa Monica's Pico Boulevard business district is mostly one-lot deep on each side of its 34-block length. On- site owners operate nearly half of the businesses. Many of those owners are Santa Monica residents. Half of the PIO board of directors live in Santa Monica. City staff and the PIO have worked diligently to find added parking along the boulevard. Unneeded red zones at some storm drains were eliminated and 10 metered spaces were established under the freeway bridge near the city's eastern boundary. All small but welcome steps. The present proposal should be tried and evaluated. It would not appear to create a burden for residents, and an evaluation after a reasonable period could determine whether that is the case. I am a retired teacher and one of two resident-directors of the PIO. I live just south of Pica Boulevard on 30th Street, and both my wife, Phyllis, and I believe this proposal will not have a noticeable affect on parking along our block. Sincerely, Charles Donaldson PIO board chair 2308 30th S1. Santa Monica, CA 90405 06/03/2005 Page 10f2 Ruth Harper From: TONY STENGER [decochina@msn.com] Sent: Friday, June 03, 20056:43 PM To: Ruth Harper Subject: Employee Parking Near Montana Dear Council Member: I urge you NOT to allow employee parking permits for the 600/700 block of streets off Montana for the following reasons: Employee permit parking would displace parking for shoppers who are critical to Montana businesses. Employee permit parking would inconvenience residents in the area, especially those residents like us that are closest to Montana, where presumably employees would continue to park. In effect, the council would place employees first over shoppers, the mainstay of business, and residents if this measure is approved. By allowing the status quo, employee can continue to park in unrestricted areas north of the 600/700 block, where shoppers seldom park, (or unfettered in the restricted zone since parking enforcement is sporadic and "telegraphed" between employees). Please also consider the following two additional points. Whereas the other areas for consideration - "College District" and Pico Blvd. areas- have a majority of resident-only parking, the 600/700 block of streets off Montana allows employee and shopper parking throughout the day. Contrary to the Staff Report, the creation of Parking Zone G, did not further restrict visitor parking. On 15th St., for example, Zone G doubled the amount of time visitors and employees are allowed to park. The East/West Traffic Corridor Working Group, at a meeting at Lincoln Park, voted to exclude the Montana area from consideration for employee parking. This decision was endorsed by Council members Holbrook and Katz (Council member Genser was absent), two Planning Commissioners who are members of the Working Group, and the Urban Studio, consultants to the Working Group. Yet the Staff Report continues to consider employee parking for the Montana area. Why does the city spend money for consultants, expend council member and commissioner time, and the time of citizens, only to have their direction ignored by Staff? Thank you for your consideration Mary Jo and Tony Stenger 718 15th St 06/06/2005 Page 1 of 1 Ruth Harper From: Isim [Isim@earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, June 04,20052:03 PM To: Ruth Harper Subject: preferential parking ordinance Hello-I was unable to access the information item so I don't know if the employee preferential parking proposal even applies to my office at 1421 Santa Monica BI. What I do know however that it will be intolerable to have any more street parking restrictions in our area. We are in a small office building with no client parking and not even parking for all the tenants. There is restricted residential parking all around our building and plenty of spaces but all restricted. I had asked if the parking could be available on the numbered streets during regular business hours and received an utterly indecipherable letter essentially saying no. On Arizona Ave. there is street cleaning in the middle of the day in the middle of the week! There is NO effort made to accomodate business owners. Wait, I take that back. I have been told that the car dealers up the street no longer have valet parking spaces on SM 81. We all appreciate that, thank you. An answer is to allow two hour parking on the number streets during business hours, maybe not perfect for employees, but better than any more parking restrictions. My work schedule precludes attendance at meetings so I appreciate the opportunity to communicate with you by email. Thank you for your time and attention. Lynette Sim, MSW, BCD Isim@earthlink.net 06/06/2005 Page 1 of 1 Ruth Harper From: Julie Saywell [seventhmuse@adelphia.net] Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 11 :33 AM To: Ruth Harper Subject: employee parking Hello, I am a resident of Sunset Park & also a business owner (Seventh Muse on Ocean Park Blvd). I am in support of this proposal as both. Thank you, Julie Seventh Muse 06/06/2005 Page 1 of 1 Ruth Harper From: ChHewiU@aol.com Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 3:53 PM To: Ruth Harper Subject: Montana parking Dear Ruth Harper: Thanks for the info on Montana parking. I feel that the residents in the area have already had to put up with a growing parking problem as Montana has become more trendy. They should be able to have the space in front of their homes available as needed on a first come, first served basis. If they need space for guests later in the day, they can simply park their own car in front of their house at an early hour and then give the space to guests when they arrive. The space should not be reserved for Montana merchants or their customers. The merchants were aware of the situation when the built, bought or rented the properties. It appears that they are doing well under the present conditions. Thanks for the opportunity to express my idea. Sincerely, Chuck Hewitt 06/06/2005 Page 1 of 1 Ruth Harper From: Jeff Gottesman [ad839@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, June 05, 200510:24 PM To: Ruth Harper Subject: Permit Parking Program for Employees of Businesses Adjacent toPreferential Parking Zones I know I'm a little late with this, but please incorporate my comments. I object to this proposal for a number of reasons. We live on 23rd St. not too far from Pico. We have businesses that attract a lot of weekend activity such as the Lazy Daisy during the day, and the Daily Pint all evening. It's already hard to park here on weekends. Allowing people to park during the day would make parking on our street even more difficult. On this end of the block, I know the parking will pretty much be gone for the whole day. As it is there are already businesses that have paid residents (with addresses on Pico) for their permits. When I've contacted the city about that, it was extremely difficult to get these taken away. It took over a year before anyone would do anything at all except to tell me that a police officer has to witness them repeatedly parking on the street, and walking to where they work. I had to finally convince someone to call the person that the permit was registered to and ask them why they sold it to a business on Pica. If there's so little the city can do to manage this type of scamming, I hate to have even more permits given out. Thanks for the opportunity to express my opinion. Jeff Gottesman 06/06/2005 Ruth Harper From: Sent: To: Subject: OutRidingHorses@verizon.net Monday, June 06, 2005 9:05 AM Ruth Harper Employee Parking Permits Ruth Harper: Regarding the City's consideration of making some parking available for business owners and employees in the residential neighborhoods around particular business locations in Santa Monica I believe it lS a fair and measured idea. I can only speak directly to the mid-Ocean Park Business district between 16th and roughly 18lh slreets. I myself have often driven off due to a lack of parking after intending to stop for some small purchase. In driving away I've passed block and blocks of near-empty residential neighborhoods. T think it is a negligible impact on these particular neighborhoods, especially when these neighbors have the convenience of these nearby stores. Some may argue that it's unfair for neighbors to subsidize these businesses, but the business operators are mostly not the building owners. They're doing their best to provide neighborhood services and suffer greatly without enough parking for customers. Zoning change lS needed to allow future development of these businesses to include adequate parking. Thanks for allowing employees to park nearby. Best, Eric Gabster Sunset Park Resident 1 ATTACHMENT D Comments from Mav 25. 2005 Open House . Concern that only blocks currently described would be under consideration for this program. This program should also include: 1000 and 1100 blocks of Bay St., and 10th and 11th Streets between Pico and Bay. . This session should be taped. . Residents should be noticed individually. . South of Ocean Park Blvd. near Santa Monica College, residents didn't get preferential parking until 1993, even though the first district for SMC was created earlier. In 1993, the City created a larger district so that other blocks could "petition in" without returning for Council approval. . 1600 and 1700 blocks of Oak St. are not empty. . There is a great concentration of small businesses on Ocean Park Blvd. between 16th and 18th Streets. Many of these businesses opened after the enlargement of the preferential parking district in 1993, so they knew the situation before they opened. Also, businesses on the south side have some parking behind their businesses. . It could be acceptable to have an employee program where a few employees can park on each specific street near the Ocean Park businesses, as human nature tends toward all wanting to park as close as possible. . Spread the new permits around within the entire parking district. . Issue permits for a specific block and limit the number of permits. . 10th Street between Pico and Michigan: 10% seems a bit arbitrary...a better goal might be a target occupancy rate on the block of 75%. . 16th and Broadwa~: there are about 90 employees around. Some residences have on- site parking on 16 hand 1 ih Streets. There are a lot of vacant parking spaces in front of those larger buildings (such as Holiday Villa and some low income housing). . 29th through 33rd Streets between Pearl and Ocean Park Blvd. should also be considered because these blocks seem even more vacant than those north of Pearl St. . Would Pearl St. be included in this program? . Look at residential streets north of Pico, near Yorkshire and Urban. . This program is not much, but it is a step to help businesses and address their concerns. . 30th and 31st Streets between Pearl and Ocean Park, there's a school which impacts residents. . At the east end of Pica, there are a lot of restaurants and a coffee bar that are open later, so employee permits should be valid later in the evening. . Even if businesses get just a handful of permits, it frees up parking for customers. . In the Montana area, businesses estimate that 800 employees need street parking. Many boutiques close at 6pm, but yoga studios and restaurants area open later. The number of permits proposed to be available would not meet the need. . Having only a few permits available is a start, but this really doesn't address all of the employee parking concerns. . A conflict exists between the need for employee and customer parking. . There should be an assessment perhaps 6 months after implementation. We shouldn't wait 2 years to address any problems that could arise. . There needs to be stability in an employee permit program-lack of stability would make it unrealistic for leasing space in a building. . Will the area around 23rd and Wilshire ever be considered? ATTACHMENT 0 . Resident: 50% occupancy on a residential street seems a bit high, especially in an R1 district. There is a need to preserve the atmosphere of a residential neighborhood. . One participant was interested in obtaining the contact information for the primary petitioner who collected signatures for preferential parking on particular blocks, because they are probably the most interested about parking issues on their block. . Re-evaluating parking along Pico Blvd. really helped create more parking. This might be effective in other areas, as well. . Could the bus stop on the south side of Pico (between Lincoln and 11th) be moved to 11th Street as it has to stop there anyway? . The City really needs to think about individual impacts from street to street. . Many professional offices (especially architecture) have longer or more flexible hours than 8a-6p. 8a-8p may be more realistic hours.