SR-417-003-02 (2)
lA
F :\PCDShare\2006CouncilStaffReports\EmployeePermits.doc
Council Meeting: February 28, 2006
FFR 2 8 Z006
Santa Monica, CA
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 Certain Preferential Parking Zones
along the Pico Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard Commercial
Corridors, and the 200 Foot Expansion of Preferential Parking Zones,
including G, K, 0, DO, TT, YY and ZZ
Introduction
This report proposes that the City Council create a pilot for a limited and targeted on-
street permit parking program in the 10th Street and Pico Boulevard area for employees
on certain blocks in the City where parking is available after preferential parking
regulations have been implemented. It also gives the Council several other alternatives
regarding this program. This report also proposes a broad policy commitment to leave
most of Alta Avenue and the blocks north of Alta unregulated in order to maintain the
current, relatively balanced parking occupancies on the residential blocks north of the
Montana Avenue business corridor. This report also proposes other changes to the
permit parking program that would address concerns of some residents living in close
proximity to existing zones.
Backqround
This proposal represents one element of the City's response to community concerns
about parking conditions in commercial areas and adjacent neighborhoods. It resulted
from a Council/Planning Commission task force review of parking problems and
FFP 2 8 2006
1
+A
potential solutions along east-west commercial corridors in the City. The task force
considered a variety of options, such as changing development standards to make it
easier to build new parking facilities, reviewing curb marking practices, and
reconfiguring spaces along commercial streets to allow for more on-street parking
where possible, as well as the proposed program. In addition to considering policies
that allow enhanced access to on-street parking, the City also actively encourages
employees and employers to help employees get to work without cars, both through its
transportation management program and by providing an award-winning transit service.
At its June 14, 2005 meeting, the City Council directed staff to prepare a limited
employee permit parking pilot program for its consideration, including details about
which blocks would be recommended for participation in this program, how many
permits would be recommended for each specific block, and other details about how
the program would work. In response to the City Council's request, staff released an
Information Item on December 21, 2005 (See Attachment A). Staff sent notification of
this report to 15,755 addresses, and encouraged comment on the proposal. Three
community meetings were held to provide additional opportunities for people to ask
questions about the program and provide feedback in advance of the Council meeting.
A proposed Ordinance and map are included as Attachments Band C of this staff
report. Summaries of the comments and the meetings, as well as written comments
from all who submitted them to staff, are also incorporated into this staff report.
2
Initial Staff Proposal
In the December 21st Information Item, staff identified specific blocks which could
accommodate a total of 156 block-specific daytime permits. All of the identified,
currently regulated blocks that have available spaces are on streets surrounding the
Pico and Ocean Park Boulevard business corridors. Staff reviewed blocks near the
Montana Avenue business corridor, but found that regulated streets in this area have
parking occupancies that are generally close to or above 50%, and that the parking
occupancies on the residential streets in these neighborhoods have become much
more consistent since 2003, when modifications were implemented.
The proposed program is intended to reflect Council direction from the June 14, 2005
meeting, including:
. the program should apply to blocks with relatively low parking occupancies in order
to still leave ample parking spaces for residents,
. it should be a daytime permit, for weekdays only,
. it should be a pilot program of no more than one year,
. permits should be issued to specific employees/businesses with accountability,
. there should be extensive public notice, and
. there should be consideration of a fee for the permits.
Staff conducted spot occupancy counts in the fall of 2005 on sunny, non-street-
sweeping weekdays. Staff specifically chose blocks where, after the addition of
daytime permits, occupancies along the public right-of-way would generally be below
50%. The majority of the streets identified in the Information Item are in R 1 single-
3
family neighborhoods around Santa Monica College and near the east city limits
surrounding Pico Boulevard. Though the Montana Avenue business corridor was the
impetus for the daytime permit program, staff found that the permit parking blocks in
this area were generally at 50 percent occupancy or higher. Therefore, the Information
Item does not recommend an employee permit parking program around the Montana
business corridor. Rather, the Information Item identifies three areas for a daytime
permit program around Pico Boulevard and one around Ocean Park Boulevard in
Sunset Park where specific streets are generally about one-third occupied. The
Information Item also proposes additional amendments to the preferential parking
program to better serve residents and employees, as explained below.
Neighbors Near a Zone: One aspect of staff's proposal is to allow staff to issue permits
to residents who reside in very close proximity to a zone. The intent of preferential
parking is to help residents find parking near their homes when non-residential parkers
substantially interfere; it is not to displace other residents. Historically, many residents
have parked on streets or blocks other than their own, but very close by. Often, the
street with the recently implemented preferential parking is actually closer to the
resident's home, but the resident can no longer park there because they are not
technically in the zone and cannot obtain a permit. These residents now have an even
harder time securing parking. In some cases, residents who live just one or two parcels
away from a zone may be motivated to initiate a petition for their unregulated block, just
so that they can be eligible to park on the nearer regulated block where they used to
park before permit parking. If residents who live very near a zone were able to get
4
permits for that zone, they would be less likely to petition for a new zone. Staff
proposes to expand by 200 feet the area of certain preferential parking zones to
achieve this goal. This will be especially useful south of Montana Avenue, where some
residents who live just one parcel away from Idaho Avenue (and who used to park on
Idaho) can no longer park there. See Attachment D for the amending resolution.
Side Yard Changes: Staff is proposing that side yard frontage adjacent to single family
residences be considered differently from front yard street frontage in certain cases.
This does not require an ordinance change, as the current ordinance grants staff "the
authority to administer policies designed to implement this program [preferential
parking]". (SMMC 3.08.100a) However, staff is seeking Council concurrence with this
approach. In the past, staff implemented regulations along both the front and side of
any residential property with preferential parking. In a single family neighborhood, there
are often four homes which make up a short "side" block, with the fronts of these homes
on the longer primary street. These residents can petition for preferential parking on
both the primary street and the "side street". In these cases, four residents often
control approximately 20 parking spaces, all located along the sides of their homes.
In certain areas, such as Alta Avenue and the north side of Nebraska Avenue adjacent
to Franklin Street, there are benefits to leaving these side streets unregulated. For
example, in the mixed-use neighborhood near Nebraska Avenue, the "side" yards of the
residences are on Nebraska Avenue. The parking spaces there would be almost
always occupied if they were unregulated, whereas they are not as well used when they
5
are residential permit only. North of Montana Avenue, as preferential regulations have
covered more of the blocks closest to Montana Avenue, employees and long-term
parkers have shifted to Alta Avenue. Most of the Alta Avenue frontage represents side
yards of residences, and occupancies along Alta today are slightly greater than on other
regulated and unregulated blocks north of Montana Avenue.
If preferential regulations were implemented, up to 100 long-term parkers would be
displaced to blocks north of Alta and blocks south of Montana Avenue, spreading the
need for preferential parking to blocks that are currently unregulated, and, ultimately,
displacing people who may have few alternatives. A study of the neighborhoods along
both sides of the Montana corridor found that the overall occupancy in the area was
59%, indicating that it is possible to accommodate everyone who is parking, and still
leave spaces available on each block, as long as all of the blocks accept a comparable
share of the parkers. Staff proposes that the side yards on Alta Avenue remain
unregulated, in order to accommodate a share of employee parking. In other areas,
such as near Ocean Park Boulevard, streets with abutting side yards were identified as
blocks that could handle daytime employee permits, while permit regulations would
remain in place and continue to prohibit student parking.
Public Feedback To Date
Colleqe Area
Wrtten Comments Received: There were 40 written comments received as of January
23rd, mostly from residents. All (except two residents from the 1800 block of 10th
6
Street between Pico and Michigan) opposed the program. Three businesses supported
the program. Some residents misunderstood the program, thinking the college
students were going to receive permits. Some residents disagree with any type of
permit parking on public streets (either residential or employee in nature). Most
residents, however, vehemently opposed any employee permits on residential streets.
Residents complained that there would be increased trash, noise, traffic, accidents to
children and pets, and crime. They expressed concern that employees would abuse
their permit privileges, and that enforcement would be lax and ineffective. Residents
wondered which businesses had "gone out of business" due to lack of on-street
employee parking. They were concerned that employees would only park at the
"business" end of the street instead of spreading out along the street. Residents
complained that staff had not conducted counts on street cleaning days or after 5pm.
They thought that employees should park in "City" spaces such as those provided for
the newly re-opened Virginia Park, rather than "resident'" spaces on the streets
adjacent to their homes. One resident complained that the permits in Ocean Park
Boulevard area were not spread out thinly enough, and should have been spread
beyond the nine blocks initially proposed. (See Attachment F for comments).
January 11 Community Meeting: The community meeting for this area was attended by
38 people. Most were residents, but some business representatives did attend. In
general, residents were vehemently opposed to the proposal. They expressed concerns
similar to those described above. In addition, some were concerned about increased
potential for blocked driveways. Representatives from four businesses did speak in
7
favor of the program, stressing that they too pay taxes, have trouble parking and
support the neighborhood. (See Attachment G for comments).
East Pico
Written Comments Received: There were 25 written comments received as of January
23rd, all from residents. Ten of these comments were from residents on 33rd Street,
who were concerned that their street suffered from extraordinary congestion due to its
proximity to Trader Joe's, the signal at 33rd and Pico, and associated traffic conditions.
Staff has since removed 33rd Street from the proposed plan due to these concerns. Of
the remaining 15 letters, 6 were from residents on either 28th or 34th Streets. These
streets do not have permit parking today, and they do not want any "spillover" from the
nearby blocks which they feel could result from this program. The remaining 9 letters
all opposed the program. Residents on the numbered streets said that parking was
already tough at the Pico end of the block. As in the College Zone above, they were
concerned about increased traffic, noise, air pollution, and litter. They also worried
about enforcement, which several people considered to be less effective currently than
they would like. They were also very concerned about parking availability on street
cleaning days, and about parking availability after 5pm. (See Attachment H for
comments).
January 18 Community Meeting: The community meeting for this area was attended by
32 people. Again, most were residents, but representatives from some businesses did
attend. This meeting was structured to allow for more attendees to express their
8
opinions and listen to the opinions of others. The larger group was divided into four
smaller discussion groups. Each participant was asked to complete an individual
response sheet listing "three likes and three dislikes" about the program. Each smaller
group reported back to the larger group, expressing their opinions about the program.
Overall, 80% of the attendees disliked the program. They felt that a real "need" for this
program had not been demonstrated and that enforcement would be difficult and
perhaps useless. They felt that a program for Pico employees should extend from
Ocean Park Boulevard on the south to Exposition Boulevard on the north side of the
Santa Monica Freeway, even'if that required employees to park on the other side of the
freeway and walk under the pedestrian freeway tunnel to access this parking. They
also stated that the long-term meters underneath the Santa Monica Freeway were not
utilized. They felt that the program should not be allowed on street cleaning days.
They disagreed with the idea that there are broad public benefits when on-street
parking utilization is maximzed. (See Attachment I for comments).
Montana Area
After reviewing this area, staff observed that with current regulations in place, parking
occupancy is fairly evenly spread across the blocks north of Montana Avenue, and is
concerned that changes, including implementing two-hour preferential parking
restrictions on Alta Avenue and north of Alta, would shift parking among those blocks,
resulting in some more highly occupied blocks as additional blocks are allowed to lower
their occupancies through permit restrictions. Today customers park on the first block
north of Montana, and employees park both on Alta Avenue (predominantly side yards
9
of single family residences) and on the second block north of Montana. As proposed in
the Information Item, allowing two regulated spaces in front of homes on Alta where the
predominant entrance to the home is on Alta Avenue, could reduce parking on Alta
somewhat and help the eight properties that are in this category. Today, the parking
occupancies north of Montana are:
Area
600/700 blocks btwn Montana and Alta
Alta Ave btwn Lincoln and 1 ih
500 blocks btwn Alta and Marguerita
Total
Parkinq
Spaces
557
187
506
1250
Averaqe
Occupancy
50%
56%
37%
46%
Ranqe of
Occupancies
26% - 69%
38% - 77%
24% - 50%
(Data collected on a non-street sweepingTuesday, hourly counts 9am-9pm)
In summary, more regulations are not necessary to spread parkers more evenly
throughout this neighborhood.
Written Comments Received: There were 13 written comments received as of January
23rd. Most of the people who commented appear to have not read the Information
Item, and were unaware that staff was not proposing any employee permits in the area.
Eight comments were from residents south of Montana who generally spoke about how
difficult it is to find street parking. One business owner wrote requesting employee
permits. Two residents north of Montana expressed their opinions that employees
should be able to park on public streets. One resident north of Montana was opposed
to employee permits in the area, and another resident was "indifferent". (See
Attachment J for comments).
10
January 19 Community Meeting: The community meeting for this area was attended by
46 people. Most were residents, but representatives from some businesses did attend.
Most had not read the Information Item and were unaware of the nature of staff's
proposal in this area. When staff explained the proposal, reactions were mixed.
People who live south of Montana feel that it is difficult to find street parking (though
they were relieved to find that staff is not proposing employee permits in their
neighborhood). The first block south of Montana is pre-approved for preferential
parking, but residents find it challenging to complete the petition process as many
neighbors do not want to sign petitions because they live in newer buildings and have
adequate off-street parking. Residents on the first block north of Montana were
generally relieved to find that staff is not proposing employee permits in their
neighborhood.
Residents who live on Alta Avenue were troubled by staff's proposal. Some felt that
side yards should not be treated differently than front yards. Others felt that preferential
parking should be granted to all who petition, and then employees should be placed
"back" on these blocks. Some residents north of Alta liked the staff proposal, because
it would avoid changes that could lead their blocks to get regulations. Some were
concerned that Council would fully pre-approve Alta Avenue, but not pre-approve the
500 blocks north of Alta. This could lead to additional spillover of employees onto
streets north of Alta. They were concerned that residents north of Alta were not aware
that a "policy" concerning preferential parking north of Alta was being proposed by staff.
Unrelated to staff's proposal, many attendees expressed frustration at the level of
11
enforcement of two-hour preferential parking restrictions. Finally, attendees agreed
with staff's proposal to allow residents who live very near a preferential parking zone
(and who used to park in that zone) to have permits to continue parking there, to help
provide fairness in neighborhoods and to help stem the spread of preferential parking.
(See Attachment K for comments).
Analvsis
In response to residents' complaints that staff did not count cars on street sweeping
days, nor after 5pm, staff has now collected data at these times, which is included in
Attachment E. The street cleaning data shows that, on a few blocks, parking will be
very tight for two hours, twice a week. The street cleaning program, by its nature,
reduces the availability of on-street parking. It is a policy decision whether or not this
pilot employee parking program should be pursued in spite of the challenges to on-
street parking during street cleaning times.
The "after 5pm" occupancy data is essentially the same as the initial data collected by
staff, and again shows availability on the street. Although residents do not desire any
employee parking on their residential streets, staff has identified blocks where space is
available on the public street. Occupancies on all blocks are projected to be less than
50% after daytime permits are granted, even if all of the permits are used at any given
time; there should be spaces available on each block, but not necessarily in front of
each house. As part of the employee permit parking program, staff will be requesting
that employees with permits vary where they park on each block, so as not to impact
12
the same resident every day. Staff will also request that employees not always park in
the closest spot, do not litter on the streets, and avoid playing loud music on their car
radios. Businesses will be required to agree formally to these terms in order to receive
permits. Parking enforcement must be vigilant and check that permits are being used
as intended, and that employees are gone by 6pm.
Alternatives
There are several alternatives that could be considered with respect to a limited and
targeted, on-street employee parking program, as discussed below:
1. Implement full pilot program as identified in Information Item: This approach
provides the broadest platform upon which to test the effectiveness of the pilot program.
However, as discussed above, additional research and community input have identified
several potential challenges with this approach.
2. Implement a moderately reduced pilot program: Based on community feedback and
additional analysis, staff believes that the expected number of employee permits that
could be accommodated on certain blocks should be reduced. Under this approach, no
single block (with the exception of 10th Street between Pico and Michigan) would be
allocated more than 5 employee permits proposed. Based on its unique conditions,
33rd Street would be eliminated from the program.
Under such an approach, a total of 105 employee permits would be provided on the
following 26 blocks:
13
"H. # cars % # permits % occupancy
Block spaces observed occupancy proposed w/permits
1400/1500 Oak St. 42 11 27% 5 39%
1600 Oak St. 43 14 33% 5 45%
1700 Oak St. 44 15 33% 5 44%
16th b/w Oak and Hill 21 4 19% 3 33%
17th b/w Pine and Maple (east) 6 0 0% 2 33%
17th b/w Oak and Hill 22 2 9% 3 23%
17th b/w Hill and Ashland 16 1 6% 5 38%
18th b/w Hill and Ashland 21 ~ 16% ~ 30%
215 50 23% 31 38%
"H. # cars % # permits % occupancy
Block spaces observed occupancy proposed w/permits
21 st St. b/w Pico and Pearl 71 29 41% 5 48%
22nd St. b/w Pico and Pearl 72 22 31% 5 38%
23rd St. b/w Pico and Pearl 60 10 17% 5 25%
Cloverfield b/w Pico and Pearl 69 29 41% 9. 49%
272 90 33% 20 40%
"H. # cars % # permits % occupancy
Block spaces observed occupancy proposed w/permits
10th St. b/w Pico and Michigan 97 54 56% 8 64%
10th St. b/w Pico and Bay 12 5 42% 2 58%
11 th St. b/w Pico and Bay 10 2 20% 2 40%
11th St. b/w Bay and Grant 14 5 32% 2 46%
1 000 Bay Street 38 17 45% 3 53%
1100 Bay Street 43 ~ 48% ~ 55%
214 103 48% 20 57%
"H. # cars % # permits % occupancy
Block spaces observed occupancy proposed w/permits
29th St. b/w Pico and Pearl 75 31 42% 5 48%
30th St. b/w Pico and Pearl 84 27 32% 5 38%
31 st St. b/w Pico and Pearl 77 33 42% 5 49%
32nd St. b/w Pico and Pearl 71 18 25% 5 32%
Urban b/w Pico and Dorchester 81 21 26% 5 32%
Dorchester b/w Urban and End 11 2 21% 2 39%
Yorkshire b/w Urban and Kansas 22 7 30% 2 40%
Kansas b/w Yorkshire and End II ~ 10% 9. 26%
452 142 31% 34 39%
TOTALS 1153 385 33% 105 42%
14
3. Narrow pilot program: Many of the concerns raised by residents included fears
about whether such a program could be effectively monitored and enforced. In order to
test the potential effectiveness of the program on a smaller scale, this approach would
remove most of the proposed blocks from the proposed ordinance and implement this
program in one area only. As a limited pilot area, staff recommends the 10th Street and
Pico Boulevard area because this area has persistent community advocates who feel
they could benefit from it, it did not receive significant opposition from residents, and
two residents on 10th Street between Pico and Michigan wrote to support the program.
If the program is successful and can be effectively monitored and enforced here, it
could be expanded to other areas after the trial period.
4. Reject pilot program: Under this approach, an employee parking program would not
be pursued and the City would rely on other tools that seek to address employee
parking needs.
Recommended Alternative
Staff recommends that the Council adopt an ordinance implementing the narrow pilot
program (Alternative 3) discussed above. Such an approach provides an opportunity to
assess the benefits and impacts of the program, while reducing the potential negative
impacts, if the program does prove to cause such impacts. Under this approach, at the
conclusion of the one-year period, staff proposed to analyze parking occupancies,
solicit community input, and return to Council for further direction.
15
Budqet/Financiallmpact
The City Council requested staff to consider higher fees for employee permits than for
resident permits. However, the City Attorney has advised that there is a legal problem
with charging different fees for street parking based on the user of the parking.
However, the process of issuing employee permits will be more complex and therefore
more expensive, and a full cost recovery for employee permits would dictate a higher
fee.
It is estimated that a total of 105 business employee permits would initially be sold at
$120 per permit per year, if the program were implemented on all of the proposed
blocks listed under Alternative 2. However, if the Council decides to enact a smaller
pilot program in the Pico Boulevard and 10th Street area, only 20 permits would be
sold. The pilot program would generate approximately $2,400 in revenue in account
01415.400290.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Introduce on first reading an Ordinance to create a pilot on-street business
employee permit parking on a limited and targeted basis in certain areas of the City,
choosing the blocks upon which they wish to implement this trial program.
2. Approve the attached resolution expanding certain zones by 200 feet.
3. Affirm that, because implementing preferential parking regulations on additional
blocks north of the Montana Avenue business district will likely create unreasonable
16
displacement of non-resident vehicles onto surrounding residential areas, no
additional preferential parking should be implemented on the blocks north of Alta
between Lincoln Boulevard and 17th Street, with the exception of up to two spaces
on Alta Avenue in front of each residence with a front yard on Alta Avenue.
4. Affirm that the Preferential Parking Ordinance authorizes staff to establish
appropriate parking restrictions for each zone, and that authority allows staff to leave
street frontage abutting side yards without posted regulations in certain cases, in
order to reduce potential displacement of non-resident vehicles to other residential
areas.
5. Direct staff to hold a neighborhood meeting with neighbors along (and north of) Alta
Avenue to consider the petition from residents of the 1100 block of Alta Avenue and
to allow preferential parking for two spaces only in front of homes whose primary
entrance is on Alta Avenue.
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 from December 21,2005
B) Employee Permit Parking Ordinance
C) Maps of Proposed Employee Permit Parking Areas
D) Resolution Amendment Expanding Certain Zones by 200 Feet
E) Street Sweeping Days/After 5pm Street Occupancy Data
F) College Zone-Written Comments Received
G) College Zone-January 11 Neighborhood Meeting Comments
H) East Pico-Written Comments Received
I) East Pico-January 18 Neighborhood Meeting Comments
J) Montana Area-Written Comments Received
K) Montana Area-January 19 Neighborhood Meeting Comments
L) General Comments/Comments Received after January 23, 2006
17
ATTACHMENT A
F:\PCDShare\lnfo Items\2005Infoltems\Employee Permits 2.doc
December 20, 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 Certain Preferential Parking Zones
and Other Changes to the Preferential Parking Ordinance
Introduction
The City Council approved in concept the idea of a limited employee permit parking
program at the June 14, 2005 meeting, and asked staff to provide details about which
blocks would be recommended for participation in this program, how many permits
would be recommended for each specific block, and other details about how the
program would work. In response to the City Council's request, this report proposes
specific parameters for a program to provide a limited number of on-street parking
permits to employees of businesses adjacent to certain preferential parking zones. This
report also proposes other changes to the permit parking program that would minimize
the tendency of parking problems and regulations to spread from block to block.
To encourage public consideration and comment, this report is being provided well in
advance of the February 28, 2006 Council meeting at which the Council is scheduled to
consider the proposal. Written comments from the public are welcome, and three area-
specific meetings have been scheduled to provide additional opportunities for interested
people to ask questions and provide feedback in advance of the Council meeting.
BackQround
1
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. Residents of adjacent blocks
also express concerns that regulating nearby blocks just shifts, and does not solve, the
underlying problem. The Santa Monica Municipal 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 inquiries
regarding preferential parking areas that could accommodate some employee parking
during the day when many residents are at work.
Proposed Emplovee Permit Proqram
Program Goals
The purpose 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
. not inconvenience residents
. address deficiencies that arise from increasing auto use and activity
. not encourage new uses or intensification of existing uses that would require
additional parking pursuant to today's Municipal Code standards.
Possible Locations and Number of Permits
2
The following blocks are under discussion for employee permits. Maps and other
details regarding these blocks are included in Attachments A and B.
Vicinity of Ocean Park Boulevard
. Oak St. between 14th and 18th Sts. (5 permits/block x 3 blocks = 15 permits)
. 16th St. between Oak and Hill Sts. (5 permits)
. 1 ih St. between Pine and Maple Sts. (east side only-2 permits)
. 1ih St. between Oak and Ashland Sts. (5 permits/block x 2 blocks = 10 permits)
. 18th St. between Oak and Ashland Sts. (3 permits/block x 2 blocks = 6 permits)
Vicinity of 22nd and Pico
. 21st Street between Pico Boulevard and Pearl Street (5 permits)
. 22nd Street between Pico Boulevard and Pearl Street (12 permits)
. 23rd Street between Pico Boulevard and Pearl Street (12 permits)
. Cloverfield between Pico Boulevard and Pearl Street (5 permits)
Vicinity of 10th and Pica
. 10th Street between Pica and Michigan (8 permits)
. 10th Street between Pico and Bay (2 permits)
. 11th Street between Pico and Grant (3 permits/block x 2 blocks = 6 permits)
. Bay Street between 10th and Euclid Sts. (4 permits/block x 2 blocks = 8 permits)
Vicinity of 30th and Pico
. 29th, 30th, 31s" 32nd, and 33rd Streets between Pico and Pearl (5 permits/block x 5
blocks = 25 permits)
. Urban between Pico and Dorchester (15 permits)
. Dorchester between Urban and dead end (5 permits)
. Yorkshire between Urban and Kansas (5 permits)
. Kansas between Yorkshire and dead end (10 permits)
The Montana Avenue business corridor was the impetus for the current employee
permit program. However, after recent evaluation of the area, rather than initiate an
employee permit program in this area, Council could consider a commitment to leave
Alta Avenue and the blocks north of Alta unregulated. For more information about the
Montana Avenue area, see Attachment C.
Eligibility for Permits
3
As proposed, businesses with legal, non-conforming parking situations could apply for
up to five permits if blocks proposed within this program are within three blocks of their
business. They must agree to offer transit incentives to all of their employees and
agree to participate in any shared parking program that is established in their area, if
they have access to any off-street parking. If the City receives qualifying applications
for more permits than it has authority to issue, they will be allocated to businesses by
lottery. Businesses whose employees violate program guidelines may have their
permits revoked and may be excluded from obtaining future permits. The business
would pay the cost of the permit, which would be renewed quarterly. Typical application
details are included in Attachment D.
Rights and Duties of Permittees
An employee with a permit would be able to park weekdays from 9am to 6pm on a
specific block. Employees with permits will be required to park and behave courteously,
e.g. parking to maximize space available for other cars to park on the block, especially
close to the commercial area of the street, removing trash and being quiet. Businesses
to which the permits are issued must be able to track the permits to particular
employees and ensure that employees comply with the regulations and guidelines.
Program Review
Any employee permit program would begin as a pilot program of no longer than one
year. Occupancy levels on the streets would be evaluated towards the end of this year.
Other Chanqes to Reduce the Need to Expand Preferential Parkinq Zones
4
Allow staff limited discretion to issue permits to residents who do not reside in a zone
but may have parked there before the zone was created: The intent of preferential
parking is to help residents find parking near their homes when non-residential parkers
substantially interfere; it is not to displace other residents. In some cases, residents
who live very near a zone may be motivated to initiate a petition for their unregulated
block, so that they can be eligible to park on the nearby regulated block where they
used to park before their neighbors petitioned for permit parking. If staff can have
limited authority to allow residents who live "near" a zone to get permits for that zone,
some of these residents will prefer not to keep extending the zones. For example, a few
blocks of Idaho Avenue have chosen to implement preferential parking, and staff
occasionally receives requests to purchase permits from residents who live very near
Idaho Avenue. Currently these requests are denied. Some of the requests are from
residents on the 900 blocks of the numbered streets between Idaho and Washington
Avenues. The 900 blocks are not pre-approved for preferential parking by the Council.
At some point, some residents who used to park on Idaho may feel frustrated enough to
complete petitions, and in two years, preferential parking may have spread to the 900
blocks. If staff had the authority to sell a few permits to residents who used to park on
Idaho Avenue, preferential parking may not be needed on the 900 blocks.
Consider side yard street frontage differently from front yard street frontage: Many
residents are more tolerant of visitor and employee parking that is not directly in front of
their homes. Currently, both the front and side of any residential property can be
regulated by preferential parking. In a single family neighborhood, there are often four
5
homes which make up a short "side" block, with the fronts of these homes on the longer
primary street. These residents can petition for preferential parking on both the primary
street and the "side street". In these cases, four residents often control approximately
20 parking spaces, all located along the sides of their homes.
In certain areas, such as the north side of Nebraska Avenue adjacent to the 1700 block
of Franklin, and Alta Avenue, it may make sense to leave these side streets
unregulated. In the mixed-use neighborhood near Nebraska Avenue, the "side" yards of
the residences are on Nebraska Avenue. The parking spaces there would be almost
always occupied if they were unregulated, whereas they are not as well used when they
are residential permit only. North of Montana Avenue, as preferential regulations have
covered more of the blocks closest to Montana Avenue, employees and long-term
parkers have shifted to Alta Avenue. If the significant majority of spaces on Alta Avenue
can remain unregulated (See Attachment C), neighbors north of Alta Avenue may not
have to petition for permits. In other areas, such as near Ocean Park Boulevard, streets
with abutting side yards are excellent candidates for employee parking permits, as
proposed above.
Attachment A: Maps of proposed areas
Attachment B: Justification for Proposed Permit Blocks and Permit Numbers
Attachment C: Montana Avenue Business Corridor
Attachment D: Application Requirements
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
Community Meetings
6
College Preferential Parking Zone/Sunset Park Meeting
Wednesday, January 11, 2006 6:30-8:00pm
Thelma Terry Building, Virginia Park
2200 Virginia Avenue
East Pico Area Meeting
Wednesday, January 18, 2006 6:30-8:00pm
Thelma Terry Building, Virginia Park
2200 Virginia Avenue
Montana Business Corridor Area Meeting
Thursday, January 19, 2006 6:30-8:00pm
Montana Branch Library
1704 Montana Avenue
City Council Meetinq: You will have an opportunity to speak directly to the Council on
this issue as part of the regularly scheduled meeting.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006 (tentative)
City Hall Council Chambers
1685 Main Street
Written Comments
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
7
<(
--...~~ PUe/lJS'V/ ~::' .........
~ g ~.
..... ..... .....
'" '"'''' '" '"
I ;€ ..... I ~.
~~
en
......
.~
a>
0-
o
L-
a>
..c
E
:J
Z
..........
--
.......
c
Q)
E
..c
o
ro
~
Q)
c:
o
N
Q)
Q) 0>
Q) ~
~ 0
o ()
a..
E
w
<{
+-'
C
Q)
E
.c
o
CO
~
en
~
"E
'- 0
Q) 0
0.0-
Q) .......
~ C/)
o ~
0.
E
w
. JS /Jead
-4-.1
CI)
E
('V)
('V)
.:-,
~
(91) s"\t lJeqJn ~
,;{11~ I ,~I
:;t~ ,8 ~"
iJ4V'(i)~av "''''JI j!
~~
C/)
+-'
"E
'-
Q)
c..
Attachment B: Justification for Proposed Permit Blocks and Permit Numbers
The following is background and analysis for locations where a limited and targeted on-
street employee permit parking program could be considered for possible
implementation. All occupancy data was gathered In Fall 2005 on sunny non-street
sweeping weekdays.
"Colleqe" Parkinq 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
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: Staff has surveyed the streets around the Ocean Park
Boulevard shopping district; 38 employee permits could be issued on the following nine
blocks:
. Oak Street between 14th and 18th Streets (5 permits/block)
. 16th Street between Oak and Hill Streets (5 permits)
. 1ih Street between Pine and Maple Streets (east side only-2 permits)
. 1 ih Street between Oak and Ashland Streets (5 permits/block)
. 18th Street between Oak and Ashland Streets (3 permits/block)
The table below details the number of parking spaces available, the occupancy level
observed, and the occupancy level that is predicted with employee permits.
1600 Oak St.
43
14
33%
5
45%
16th b/w Oak and Hill
21
4
19%
5
43%
17th b/w Oak and Hill
22
2
9%
5
32%
18th b/w Oak and Hill
19
8
41%
3
56%
234
58
25%
38
41%
Pico Boulevard: Parking for employees of Pico Boulevard businesses is limited.
Small businesses just east of the college have very limited parking opportunities. Staff
has surveyed the streets around Pico Boulevard; 34 employee permits could be issued
on the following four blocks:
. 21st Street and Cloverfield between Pica Boulevard and Pearl Street (5
permits/block)
. 22nd and 23rd Streets between Pico Blvd. and Pearl Street (12 permits/block)
2
Occupancy data for these streets is shown in the following table:
Another opportunity exists on the blocks between 10th and Euclid Streets west of Santa
Monica College surrounding Pico Boulevard. Staff has surveyed these streets; 24
employee permits could be issued on the following six blocks:
. 10th Street between Pico and Michigan (8 permits)
. 10th Street between Pico and Bay (2 permits)
. 11 th Street between Pica and Grant (3 permits/block)
. Bay Street between 10th and Euclid Streets (4 permits/block)
Occupancy data for these streets is shown in the following table:
Pica Boulevard near East City 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. The majority of these residences are in the R1 district
3
where street parking demands are not generally intense. Staff has surveyed these
streets;60 employee permits could be issued on the following nine blocks:
. 29th, 30th, 31S\ 32nd, and 33rd Streets between PicD and Pearl (5 permits/block)
. Urban between Pico and Dorchester (15 permits)
. Dorchester between Urban and dead end (5 permits)
. Yorkshire between Urban and Kansas (5 permits)
. Kansas between Yorkshire and dead end (10 permits)
Occupancy data for these streets is shown in the following table:
30th St. b/w Pica and Pearl
84
27 32%
5
38%
32nd St. b/w Pica and Pearl
71
18 25%
5
32%
Urban b/w Pica and Dorchester
81
21 26%
15
45%
Yorkshire b/w Urban and Kansas
22
7 30%
5
53%
525
170 32%
60
44%
4
Attachment C: Montana Avenue Business Corridor
Staff has surveyed the Montana Avenue area several times. The initial study in late
2001 showed that, overall, parking occupancies averaged 57% over the entire area,
including the first blocks north and south of Montana, plus Alta and Idaho Avenues.
Therefore, there is adequate parking in the area taken as a whole for residents,
employees and customers.
North of Montana: As residents of the blocks north of Montana have petitioned for and
received preferential parking, occupancies on those blocks have decreased, and
occupancies on other blocks have increased. Currently, all of the first blocks north of
Montana (from 10th through 1 ih Streets) have two-hour preferential parking. This type
of preferential parking allows customer parking, but not employee parking. A fall 2005
parking occupancy count indicated that these blocks are between 37 and 67 percent
occupied; overall, they are 50 percent full. Alta Avenue (which does not have
preferential parking) between 10th and 1 ih Streets is 54 percent full. The second blocks
north also do not have preferential parking, and are between 25 and 56 percent full; on
average, they are 39 percent occupied. Employees are parking on Alta Avenue and just
north. This situation works today without employee permits. If preferential parking were
ever to be implemented on Alta Avenue or north of Alta, these streets would need to
accommodate employees, or else enough of the employees will shift to the third block
north of Montana Avenue so that these residents will want permit parking, too. If Alta
Avenue and the second blocks north of Montana remain unregulated, this domino effect
can be avoided. One exception follows: All of the homes on Alta are corner lot homes,
with the main entrance usually on the numbered street. About one-quarter of the time,
however, these corner homes do have the predominant entrance on Alta Avenue. One
of these homes is located on the 1100 block of Alta at the southwest corner of Alta and
1ih Street, and Alta Avenue between 11th and 1ih Streets has petitioned for
preferential parking. Though the petitioner has parking permits for 1 ih Street, there is
difficulty parking on Alta in a space nearest to the front door of the home. In cases
where the predominant home entrance is on Alta, the Council could decide to pre-
approve preferential parking for approximately two spaces only closest to the front
entrances of these homes. If all the homes which have a primary entrance on Alta were
granted two parking spaces each to be reserved by preferential parking, this would only
remove about eight percent of the on-street parking spaces from the pool of available
Alta parking. A petition would still be required in order to implement preferential
parking. Though the signs would be posted on Alta only in front of the home where the
primary entrance is on Alta Avenue, all residents of the block would be entitled to
purchase permits.
South of Montana: No change is proposed south of Montana given the small number of
regulated blocks. Preferential parking is pre-approved for the first blocks south of
Montana from Lincoln Boulevard to 1 ih Street, and for Idaho Avenue. However, only
five of these 19 blocks have chosen to petition for preferential parking. This is
consistent with a survey of area residents which also indicated that, on the whole,
residents in this multi-family R2 zone prefer to have unregulated streets. Though some
Montana Avenue employees and customers also park on these streets, the majority of
the parkers are residents and their guests.
2
Attachment D: Employee Permit Application Details
Application Requirements
. Business name and location
. Type of business
. Number of employees
. Number of on-site parking spaces available for that business
. Square footage
. Year building was constructed or other proof that current parking does not meet
today's development standards
. Number of permits requested (5 maximum)
Fees and Renewals
. commensurate with the cost to administer the program (estimated at $120/year)
. permits renewed quarterly
ATTACHMENT B
f:\atty\muni\laws\barry\parkingpermits-1.doc
City Council Meeting 2-28-06
Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER _ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA ADDING CHAPTER 3.10 TO THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO
AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF PREFERENTIAL PARKING PERMITS FOR
CERTAIN SPECIFIED BUSINESSES
WHEREAS, Vehicle Code Section 22507 authorizes local government to
designate certain streets upon which preferential parking privileges are given to
residents and/or merchants adjacent to the streets for their use and the use of their
guests; and
WHEREAS, this statutory provision gives the power to local authorities to prohibit or
restrict parking and to adopt provisions in their preferential parking program that are
reasonable and necessary to ensure that the programs are effective in addressing local
parking problems; and
WHEREAS, the City has established preferential parking zones for residents
pursuant to Chapter 3.08 of the City's Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on-street parking can support the vitality of neighborhood commercial
districts and the businesses therein by providing places for employees to park; and
WHEREAS, various factors, including the City's age and diversity, regional growth,
and increased automobile ownership and usage have increased demand for on-street
1
parking in much of the City so that the City Council has found it necessary to regulate on-
street parking by means of charging fees for the use of spaces, establishing parking time-
limits and restricting non-residents' use of on-street parking spaces; and
WHEREAS, once preferential parking zones have been implemented to prevent
non-resident parkers from substantially interfering with the ability of residents to park in
their neighborhoods, there remain some blocks within these zones that have residual
parking resources not required by residents; and
WHEREAS, a limited number of permits could be sold for each block within an
established preferential parking zone where there is a residual resource after regulations
have be implemented, so that businesses can continue to benefit from employee parking
on the public streets,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
2
SECTION 1. Chapter 3.1 0 is hereby added to the Santa Monica Municipal Code to
read as follows:
Chapter 3.10
PREFERENTIAL PARKING FOR EMPLOYEES OF BUSINESSES
3.10.010. Preferential Parkina for Businesses.
Subiect to the eliqibility requirements established in Section 3.10.020 and any
administrative quidelines established thereto. a business with leqal non-conforminq on-site
parkinq located within a fifteen hundred (1500) foot radius of one of the blocks specified in
this Section below may be issued preferential parking permits by the Transportation
Manaqement Division.
I
l
\\
'(C"/
0'",""""/"/'
(Y
Total # of
Block permits
1400/1500 Oak St. b/w 14m and 16m 5
1600 Oak St. b/w 16th and 17'h 5
1700 Oak St. b/w 17m and 18m 5
16th b/w Oak and Hill 3
17th b/w Pine and Maple (east side) 2
17th b/w Oak and Hill 3
17th b/w Hill and Ashland 5
18th b/w Hill and Ashland 3
21 st St. b/w Pico and Pearl 5
22nd St. b/w Pico and Pear' 5
23rd St. b/w Pico and Pearl 5
3
TOTAL
----5
8
2-
2
2
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
5
\L- /
{J I c. 0
to v;w G \t:.--J
105 ~
ctJ~")LJL
3.10.020. Requirements for Permits.
After the receipt of a complete application, the Transportation Manaqement Division
may issue preferential parkinq permits to a Qualified business located in a preferential
parkinq district subiect to: the availability of spaces; the City's approval of a worksite trip
reduction plan pursuant to Section 9.16.080 of this Code, the business' aqreement to share
its off-street parkinq with other businesses in the area to the extent feasible consistent with
local law; and the payment of the requisite permit fee. No business shall be eliqible to
possess more than five permits at any time. A lottery system may be implemented to
allocate preferential parkinq permits to ensure that all Qualifyinq businesses have a fair
opportunity to obtain a permit. Administrative quidelines may be established to provide
additional requirements consistent with this Chapter, includinq the conduct and timinq of
4
the lottery, the application submittal date. the number of permits that will be issued to
individual Qualifyinq businesses. and quidelines for the use of the permits. Permit holders
who violate this Chapter or program quidelines may have their permit revoked and may be
excluded from obtaininq future permits.
3.10.030. Riahts and Duties of Permittees.
Preferential parkinq permits shall allow the permit holderto park one car associated
with that permit on the specific block for which the permit is issued from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
weekdays. The permit holder must be an employee of the business that is issued the
preferential parkinq permit.
3.10.040. Fees.
The fee for preferential parkinq permits issued pursuant to this Chapter shall be set
by resolution of the City Council.
3.10.050. Term.
Subiect to Section 3.10.060 of this Chapter. permits shall be valid for three months
and reissued Quarterly to permittees in good standing.
3.10.060. Sunset.
No preferential parkinq permit shall be issued or renewed after May 2007 unless this
Ordinance is amended to authorize the issuance or renewal of preferential parking permits
5
after this date. Prior to that date, City staff shall provide a report to the City Council
reviewinq the performance of the proqram, includinq some observations of occupancy on
each block with on-street parkinq permits, information on proqram revenue and cost. and a
summary of complaints and comments from residents, employees and businesses.
SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices
thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to
effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court
of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this
Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not
declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance
would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4 The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of
this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official
6
newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30
days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
7
81N311\1H8VllV
()
, '~l
^ ~~
., r ta
~.':2
~
~
.~
~
~
. . l?
',. Q
+-'
C
<1>
E
..c
()
Ctl
~
u
......
c
Q)
E
..c
u
et:l
......
......
<(
~
:~
~
~
.~.
i'i
CJ)
.....
.-
0.0
. o.
0::'
...... ......'
o 0 "
.c-C
t:+-'
o ::::J
C g
$cn
'.- +-'
E'-
L... E
Q) . L... '.
'Q) ,
0..'0..
"li;f'O
"'""('\I
I
E
L-
a>
a..
a>
a>
~
o
a.
E
w
o
.~
~
.....
CJ)
~
ATTACHMENT 0
f:\atty\muni\laws\barry\prefpark zone amend reso D
City Council Meeting: February 28, 2006
RESOLUTION NUMBER
Santa Monica, California
(CCS)
City Council Series
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
AMENDING PREFERENTIAL PARKING ZONES G, K, 0, DD, TT, YY AND ZZ
AND AMENDING RESOLUTION 9344 CCS
"PREFERENTIAL PARKING ZONES" BY REPLACING EXHIBIT A
WHEREAS, the Planning and Community Development Department has
received petitions requesting the establishment of a preferential parking zone; and
WHEREAS, those petitions to be signed by residents living in two-thirds of the
dwelling units comprising not less than fifty percent (50%) of the developed frontage of
the proposed preferential parking zone have been verified; and
WHEREAS, additional blocks in the vicinity will meet the criteria for establishing
a preferential parking zone once the appropriate number of signatures have been
submitted and verified; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Community Development Department has
undertaken such studies and surveys deemed necessary to determine whether a
preferential parking zone should be designated in the above area; and
WHEREAS, historically, many residents have parked on streets or blocks other
than their own, but very close by; and
WHEREAS, some of these residents are no longer able to park on these streets
after preferential parking is implemented because they live just outside the preferential
parking zone; and
WHEREAS, expanding existing zones to enable these residents to obtain
preferential parking permits will make it less likely that these residents will initiate a
petition for a currently unregulated block; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed area meets the
designation criteria set forth in Municipal Code Section 3.08.040
NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Preferential Parking Zones G, K, 0, DD, TT, YY and ZZ are hereby
amended. These preferential parking zones are amended to include residential
properties within 200 feet of the named and described streets in each of their respective
Zones.
Section 2. Exhibit A to Resolution Number 9344 (CCS) is deleted in its entirety and
replaced by Exhibit A attached to this Resolution.
Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and
thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
2
Exhibit A
Preferential Parking Zones
Zone A
(a) The following named and described street within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone A:
Vicente Terrace between Ocean Avenue and Appian Way
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone A
between hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily, except by permit.
Zone 8
(a) The following named and described streets within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone B:
1. Bicknell Avenue, Pacific Street, and Strand Street between Neilson Way and
Ocean Avenue
2. Hollister Avenue between Neilson Way and Ocean Avenue/Barnard Way
3. Fraser, Hart, and Wadsworth Avenues between Neilson Way and Barnard
Way
4. Ocean Park Boulevard (north side only) between Neilson Way and Barnard
Way
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone B,
except by permit
3
Zone C
(a) The following named and described streets within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone C:
1. Second and Third Streets between Ocean Park Boulevard and the south City
limits
2. Beach Street between Second and Third Streets
3. Ashland Avenue, and Marine Street between Main and Third Streets
4. Hill Street between Main and Fourth Streets
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone C
between hours of 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. daily, except by permit.
Zone D
(a) The following named and described street within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone D:
Stanford Street between Wilshire Boulevard and Lipton Avenue
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone D
during the following hours, except by permit:
(1) 12:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. on Monday through Friday.
(2) All day on Saturday and Sunday.
(3) For more than two hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday
through Friday.
4
Zone E
(a) The following named and described streets within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone E:
a. 21st Place, 22nd Street, 23rd Street, 24th Street, and 25th Street
between San Vicente Boulevard and Carlyle Avenue,
b. 26th Street between Georgina Avenue/Brentwood Terrace and
Marguerita Avenue/Baltic Street, and
c. Georgina Avenue and Carlyle Avenue between 21st Place and
25th Street
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Zone E for more than two hours
between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, except by
permit.
(c) Preferential parking restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block within the
zone upon receipt and verification of a qualifiying petition representing two-thirds of the
dwelling units and at least 50% of the abutting frontage.
Zone F
(a) The following named and described street within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone F:
Hill and Raymond Streets between Lincoln Boulevard and Seventh Street
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone F for
more than two hours between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. daily, except by
permit.
5
Zone G
(a) The following named and described area within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone G:
1. Lincoln Boulevard, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, Euclid, 14th, 15th, 16th, and 17th
Streets between Idaho and Alta Avenues,
2. Idaho Avenue between Lincoln Boulevard and 17th Street, and
3. residential properties within 200 feet of these streets.
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone G
for more than two hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Monday-
Saturday, except by permit.
i. Vehicles displaying residential parking permits shall be exempt from posted
preferential parking regulations.
Zone H
(a) The following named and described streets within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone H:
1. 30th Street, 31 st Street, 32nd Street, 33rd Street and 34th Street
between Pearl Street and Ocean Park Boulevard,
2. Pearl Street between 26th Street and 27th Street, and
3. Pearl Street between 29th Street and Centinela Avenue
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Zone H for more than two hours
between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. daily, except on 30th Street between
Pearl Street and Ocean Park Boulevard. No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to 30th
Street between Pearl Street and Ocean Park Boulevard for more than two hours
between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
i. Vehicles displaying residential parking permits shall be exempt from posted
preferential parking regulations.
(c) Preferential parking restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block within the
zone upon receipt and verification of a qualifiying petition representing two-thirds of the
dwelling units and at least 50% of the abutting frontage.
6
Zone I
(a) The following named and described streets within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone I:
1. Second and Third Streets between Ocean Park Boulevard and Strand Street
2. Strand Street, Hollister Avenue, and Ocean Park Boulevard between Main
Street and Third Street
3. Norman Place between Main Street and Second Street
4. Mills Street between Second Street and Third Street
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone I
between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. or for more than two hours between the
hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. daily, except by permit.
Zone J
(a) The following named and described street within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone J:
24th Street between Santa Monica Boulevard and Broadway
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone J
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. daily, except by permit.
Zone K
(a) The following named and described area within the City shall constitute Preferential
Parking Zone K:
1. 14th and 15th Streets between Wilshire Boulevard and California Avenue,
2. 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th Streets between Wilshire Boulevard and Washington
Avenue,
3. California Avenue between 14th and 20th Streets,
4. Washington Avenue between 17th and 20th Streets, and
5. residential properties within 200 feet of these streets.
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone K for
more than two hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Monday through
Saturday, except by permit.
7
Zone L
(a) The following named and described area within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone L:
The area bounded by Ashland Avenue between 23rd Street and 11th Street on the
south; 11th Street between Ashland Avenue and Ocean Park Boulevard, Ocean
Park Boulevard between 11th Street and 10th Street, 10th Street between Ocean
Park Boulevard and the Santa Monica Freeway on the west; the Santa Monica
Freeway between 10th Street and Cloverfield Boulevard on the north; Cloverfield
Boulevard between the Santa Monica Freeway and Ocean Park Boulevard, Ocean
Park Boulevard between Cloverfield Boulevard and 23rd Street, 23rd Street
between Ocean Park Boulevard and Ashland Avenue on the east.
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone L
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Monday through Thursday, and 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Friday, except by permit.
(c) These regulations shall become effective on each street within the named and
described Zone following receipt and verification of petitions pursuant to Santa Monica
Municipal Code Section 3.08.050 and posting of signage to that effect by the Traffic
Operations Division.
Zone M
(a) The following named and described streets within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone M:
1. Third Street between Pico Boulevard and Strand Street
2. Bay and Pacific Streets between Neilson Way and Third Street
3. Bicknell Avenue between Neilson Way and Fourth Street
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone M
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m., or for more than two hours between the
hours of 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. daily, except by permit.
8
Zone N
(a) The following named and described streets within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone N:
1. 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th Streets between Wilshire Boulevard and
Santa Monica Boulevard
2. Arizona Avenue between 14th and 20th Streets.
(b) No vehicle sh~II be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone N for
more than two hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Monday through
Friday, and 3:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday, except by permit.
Zone 0
(a) The following named and described area within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone 0:
1. Lincoln Boulevard, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, and Euclid Streets between
Wilshire Boulevard and California Avenue,
2. California Avenue between Lincoln Boulevard and 14th Streets, and
3. residential properties within 200 feet of these streets.
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone 0
for more than two hours from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. Monday-Saturday, and no
vehicle shall be parked for any time from 6:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. Daily, except by
permit on:
1) Lincoln Boulevard, 9th, 12th, and Euclid Streets between Wilshire
Boulevard and California Avenue, and
2) California Avenue between Lincoln Boulevard and 14th Streets.
i. Vehicles displaying residential parking permits shall be exempt from
posted preferential parking regulations.
(c) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone 0
for more than two hours from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. Monday-Saturday, and for more
than two hours from 1 :00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. Sunday, and no vehicle shall be parked
for any time from 6:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. Daily, except by permit on:
1) 10th and 11th Streets between Wilshire Boulevard and California Avenue
i. Vehicles displaying residential parking permits shall be exempt from
posted preferential parking regulations.
9
Zone P
(a) The following named and described street within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone P:
Barnard Way frontage road
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone P,
except by permit.
(c) The annual fee for each permit issued for Preferential Parking Zone P shall be
fifteen dollars for the first permit and one hundred dollars for each additional permit, or
such other fee as may be established from time to time by resolution of the City
Council.
Zone Q
(a) The following named and described street within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone Q:
25th Street between Santa Monica Boulevard and Broadway
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone Q,
except by permit.
Zone R
(a) The following named and described area within the City shall constitute Preferential
Parking Zone R:
The area bounded by 20th Street, Wilshire Boulevard, 26th Street and
Broadway, excluding 24th Street and 25th Street between Santa Monica
Boulevard and Broadway, and excluding 26th Street
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone R
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight daily, except by permit.
10
Zone S
(a) The following named and described streets within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone S:
1) Franklin Street between Colorado and Nebraska Avenues
2) Berkeley Street between Colorado and Pennsylvania Avenues
3) Pennsylvania Avenue between Stanford Court and Centinela Avenue
4) Nebraska Avenue between Berkeley Court and Centinela Avenue (north
side only)
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone S
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday-Friday
(i) Vehicles displaying residential parking permits shall be exempt from
posted preferential parking regulations.
(c) Preferential parking restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block within the
zone upon receipt and verification of a qualifiying petition representing two-thirds
of the dwelling units and at least 50% of the abutting frontage.
Zone T
a. The following named and described streets within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone T:
1. Delaware Avenue, Exposition Boulevard and Virginia Avenue between
Stewart Street and Centinela Avenue, and
2. Stewart Street, Yorkshire Avenue, Dorchester Avenue and Warwick
Avenue between Exposition Boulevard and Virginia Avenue, and
3. 34th Street between Exposition Boulevard and Delaware Avenue
b. No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb for more than two hours between
the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday-Friday, except by permit on:
1. Delaware Avenue, Exposition Boulevard and Virginia Avenue between
Yorkshire Avenue and Centinela Avenue, and
2. Yorkshire Avenue, Dorchester Avenue and Warwick Avenue between
Exgosition Boulevard and Virginia Avenue, and
3. 34 h Street between Exposition Boulevard and Delaware Avenue
i. Vehicles displaying residential parking permits shall be exempt from posted
preferential parking regulations.
c. No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 8:00 p.m. Monday-Friday, except by permit on:
1. Delaware Avenue, Exposition Boulevard and Virginia Avenue between
Stewart Street and Yorkshire Avenue, and
2. Stewart Street between Exposition Boulevard and Virginia Avenue
i. Vehicles displaying residential parking permits shall be exempt from posted
preferential parking regulations.
d. Preferential parking restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block within the
zone upon receipt and verification of a qualifiying petition representing two-thirds of
the dwelling units and at least 50% of the abutting frontage.
11
Zone V
(a) The following named and described streets within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone V:
Pine and Maple Streets between Lincoln Boulevard and 10th Street
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone V
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. daily, except by permit.
Zone W
(a) The following named and described streets within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone W:
1. 28th Street between Pear' Street and Ocean Park Boulevard,
2. 29th Street between Pearl Street and Ocean Park Boulevard,
3. Pearl Street between 2ih Street and 29th Street.
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb for more than two hours on 29th
Street and Pearl Street in Preferential Parking Zone W between the hours of 9:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except by permit.
(c) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb on 28th Street in Preferential
Parking Zone W between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except by permit.
Zone X
(a) The following named and described street within the City shall constitute Preferential
Parking Zone X:
Franklin Street between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone X for
more than two hours between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday through
Friday, except by permit.
12
Zone Z
(a) The following named and described street within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone Z:
Cedar Street between Lincoln Boulevard and 10th Street
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone Z
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. daily, except by permit.
Zone AA
(a) The following named and described area within the City shall constitute Preferential
Parking Zone AA:
The area bounded by Kensington Road, 7th Street, Pine Street, and Lincoln
Boulevard, excluding Lincoln Boulevard.
(b) No vehicle shall be parked 'adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone AA
between the hours of 800 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. daily, except by permit.
Zone BB
(a) The following named and described street within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone BB:
Yale Street between Wilshire Boulevard and Washington Avenue
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone BB for
more than one hour between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday through
Friday, except by permit.
13
Zone DD
(a) The following named and described streets within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone DD:
1. 24th, 25th and 26th Streets between Pico Boulevard and Pearl Street
2. Pearl Street between Cloverfield Boulevard and 26th Street
3. 24th Street north of Ocean Park Boulevard to Grant School, and
4. residential properties within 200 feet of these streets.
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone DD,
except by permit, as follows:
(1) On 24th, 25th, and 26th Streets between Pico Boulevard and Pearl Street, for more
than two hours between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. daily, except that on 24th
Street between Pico Boulevard and Pearl Street north of the midpoint, as determined
by the City Parking and Traffic Engineer, between the alley south of Pico Boulevard and
the alley north of Pearl Street, no parking shall be permitted between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m. daily.
(2) On Pearl Street between Cloverfield Boulevard and 26th Street, and 24th Street
north of Ocean Park Boulevard to Grant School, for more than two hours between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Zone EE
(a) The following named and described streets within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone EE:
1. Navy and Ozone Streets between Lincoln Boulevard and 7th Street
2. Longfellow Street between Ozone and Marine Streets
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone EE
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. daily, except by permit.
Zone FF
(a) The following named and described street within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone FF:
Strand Street between Lincoln Boulevard and 7th Street
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone FF
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. daily, except by permit.
14
Zone GG
(a) The following named and described street within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone GG:
7th Street between Michigan Avenue and Pico Boulevard
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone GG on
Monday through Friday, except by permit.
Zone HH
(a) The following named and described area within the City shall constitute Preferential
Parking Zone HH:
The area bounded by Adelaide Drive, 7th Street, San Vicente Boulevard
and Ocean Avenue
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone HH
between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. daily, except by permit.
Zone II
(a) The following named and described area within the City shall constitute Preferential
Parking Zone II:
The area bounded by 26th Street, Santa Monica Boulevard, Yale Street
and Colorado Avenue
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone "
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight daily, except by permit.
15
Zone KK
(a) The following named and described streets within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone KK:
14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th Streets between Santa Monica Boulevard
and Colorado Avenue
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone KK
between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Monday through Saturday, except by
permit.
Zone LL
(a) The following named and described streets within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone LL:
Centinela Avenue, Franklin Street, and Berkeley Street between Wilshire
Boulevard and Lipton Avenue
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone LL for
more than two hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday
through Saturday, except by permit.
(c) Vehicles displaying residential parking permits shall be exempt from posted
preferential parking regulations.
(d) Preferential parking restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block within the
zone that currently has preferential parking regulations or in an elligible block upon
receipt and verification of a qualifiying petition representing two-thirds of the
dwelling units and at least 50% of the abutting frontage.
16
Zone MM
The following named and described streets within the City shall constitute Preferential
Parking Zone MM:
1. 9th Street between Pico Boulevard and the Santa Monica Freeway, and
2. Michigan Avenue, Bay Street, Grant Street and Pacific Street between
Lincoln Boulevard and 10th Street
a. No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb for more than two hours from
7:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. Monday-Friday, and from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.
Saturday, except by permit on:
1. Bay Street, Grant Street and Pacific Street between Lincoln Boulevard
and 10th Street (north side of street only)
i. Vehicles displaying residential parking permits shall be exempt from posted
preferential parking regulations.
b. No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb for more than two hours
between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Daily and no vehicle shall be parked adjacent
to any curb from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. Daily, except by permit on:
1. Michigan Avenue between Lincoln Boulevard and 10th Street, and
2. 9th Street between Pico Boulevard and the Santa Monica Freeway
i. Vehicles displaying residential parking permits shall be exempt from posted
preferential parking regulations.
c. Preferential parking restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block within the
zone upon receipt and verification of a qualifiying petition representing two-thirds of
the dwelling units and at least 50% of the abutting frontage.
Zone 00
(a) The following named and described street within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone 00:
12th Street between Santa Monica Boulevard and Arizona Avenue
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone 00
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, except by
permit.
17
Zone PP
(a) The following named and described street within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone PP:
Stewart Street between Pico Boulevard and Kansas Avenue
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone PP
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. daily, except by permit.
Zone QQ
(a) The following named and described street within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone QQ:
Harvard Street between Wilshire Boulevard and Washington Avenue
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone QQ for
more than two hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except by permit.
18
Zone TT
a) The following named and described area within the City shall constitute Preferential
Parking Zone TT:
1. 20th Street, 21 st Street, 22nd Street, 23rd Street, 24th Street, Chelsea
Avenue, and 25th Street between Wilshire Boulevard and Washington
Avenue,
2. California and Washington Avenues between 20th Street and 26th Street,
and
3. residential properties within 200 feet of these streets.
b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Zone TT for more than two hours
between the hours of 9:00 am and 10:00 pm daily, except by permit on:
1. 20th Street, 21st Street, 22nd Street, 23rd Street and Chelsea Avenue
between Wilshire Boulevard and Washington Avenue, and
2. California Avenue and Washington Avenue between 20th Street and 26th
Street
c) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Zone TT for more than two hours
between the hours of 9:00 am and 9:00 pm daily, except by permit on:
1. 24th Street between California and Washington Avenues
d) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Zone TT for more than two hours
between the hours of 9:00 am and 6:00 pm daily, except by permit on:
1. 25th Street between California and Washington Avenues
e) Vehicles displaying residential parking permits shall be exempt from posted
preferential parking regulations.
f) Preferential parking restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block within the zone
that currently has preferential parking regulations or in an elligible block upon receipt
and verification of a qualifiying petition representing two-thirds of the dwelling units
and at least 50% of the abutting frontage.
19
Zone UU
(d) The following named and described streets within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone UU:
1. Ocean Avenue, 2nd Street, 3rd Street, and 4th Street between Wilshire
Boulevard and Montana Avenue, and
2. Montana Avenue, Idaho Avenue, Washington Avenue and California
Avenue between Ocean Avenue and 4th Street. .
(e) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone UU
between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. daily
(i) Vehicles displaying residential parking permits shall be exempt from
posted preferential parking regulations.
(f) Preferential parking restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block within the
zone upon receipt and verification of a qualifiying petition representing two-thirds
of the dwelling units and at least 50% of the abutting frontage.
Zone VV
(a) The following named and described streets within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone W:
The area bounded by Santa Monica Boulevard, Centinela Avenue,
Colorado Avenue and Yale Street (excluding Yale Street)
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb on Franklin Street, on Broadway
between Centinela Avenue and Berkeley Street, or on Colorado between Centinela
Avenue and Berkeley Street between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight, except
by permit, with the exception of the space in front of the Nessah Center.
(c) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any other curb in Preferential Parking Zone
W for more than two hours between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and no vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb between the hours
of 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, or anytime, Saturday and Sunday,
except by permit.
(d) These regulations shall become effective on each street within the named and
described Zone following receipt and verification of petitions pursuant to Santa Monica
Municipal Code Section 3.08.050 and posting of signage to that effect by the Traffic
Operations Division.
20
Zone WW
(a) The following named and described area within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone WW:
. 1. Kansas Avenue, east of Stewart Street,
1. Urban Avenue between Yorkshire Avenue and Pico Boulevard,
2. Yorkshire Avenue and Dorchester Avenue between the Santa Monica
Freeway and Pico Boulevard, and
3. 2ih Street, 28th Street, 29th Street, 30th Street, 31 st Street, 32nd Street, 33rd
Street and 34th Street between Pico Boulevard and Pearl Street.
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb for more than two hours from
8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. Monday-Saturday, except by permit, and no vehicle shall be
parked adjacent to any curb from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 a.m. Daily, except by permit on:
1. 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st, 32nd, 33rd, and 34th Streets between Pico Boulevard
and Pearl Street, and
2. Dorchester and Yorkshire Avenues between Pico Boulevard and the Santa
Monica Freeway, and
3. Urban Avenue between Pico Boulevard and Yorkshire Avenue, and
4. Kansas Avenue between Stewart Street to end.
i. Vehicles displaying residential parking permits shall be exempt from posted
preferential parking regulations.
(c) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb for more than two hours from
8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. Monday-Saturday, except by permit on:
1. 27th Street between Pico Boulevard and Pearl Street
I. Vehicles displaying residential parking permits shall be exempt from posted
preferential parking regulations.
(d) Preferential parking restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block within the
zone upon receipt and verification of a qualifiying petition representing two-thirds of the
dwelling units and at least 50% of the abutting frontage.
21
Zone XX
(a) The following named and described streets within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parking Zone XX:
1. 9th Street, 10th Street, 11 th Street, 1 ih Street and Euclid Street between
Wilshire Boulevard and Colorado Avenue, and
2. Arizona Avenue between Lincoln Boulevard and 14th Street.
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Zone XX between the hours of
7am and 2am daily.
(i) Vehicles displaying residential parking permits shall be exempt from posted
preferential parking regulations.
(ii) Vehicles displaying commercial parking permits shall be exempt from posted
regulations from 9am to 6pm daily.
(c) Preferential parking restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block within the
zone upon receipt and verification of a qualifiying petition representing two-thirds of the
dwelling units and at least 50% of the abutting frontage.
22
Zone YV
(a) The following named and described area within the City shall constitute Preferential
Parking Zone YV:
1. 26th Street and Princeton Street between Santa Monica Boulevard and
Washington Avenue,
2. Harvard Street and Yale Street between Santa Monica Boulevard and
Wilshire Boulevard,
4. Arizona Avenue between 26th Street and Yale Street,
5. Washington Avenue between 26th Street and Stanford Street, and
6. residential properties within 200 feet of these streets.
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb for more than two hours
between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., daily, except by permit on:
1. 26th Street and Princeton Street between Arizona Avenue and Washington
Avenue,
2. Harvard Street and Yale Street between Arizona Avenue and Wilshire
Boulevard, and
3. Washington Avenue between 26th Street and Stanford Street
(e) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb between the hours of 9:00 a.m.
and 10:00 p.m., daily, except by permit on:
1. 26th Street, Princeton Street, Harvard Street and Yale Street between Santa
Monica Boulevard and Arizona Avenue,
2. Arizona Avenue between 26th Street and Yale Street
(d) Preferential parking restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block within the
zone upon receipt and verification of a qualifiying petition representing two-thirds of the
dwelling units and at least 50% of the abutting frontage.
23
Zone ZZ
(a) The following named and described area within the City shall constitute
Preferential Parkin~ Zone ZZ:
1. 5th Street, 6 Street, and ih Street between Wilshire Boulevard and
Montana Avenue, and
2. California and Montana Avenues between 4th and ih Streets,
3. Idaho and Washington Avenues between 4th Street and Lincoln
Boulevard, and
4. residential properties within 200 feet of these streets.
(b) No vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb in Preferential Parking Zone ZZ
for more than two hours between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. daily,
and no vehicle shall be parked adjacent to any curb between the hours of 6:00
p.m. and 8:00 a.m. daily
(i) Vehicles displaying residential parking permits shall be exempt from
posted preferential parking regulations.
(c) Preferential parking restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block within the
zone upon receipt and verification of a qualifiying petition representing two-thirds
of the dwelling units and at least 50% of the abutting frontage.
24
ATTACHMENT E
ATTACHMENT E
Street Sweepinq Checks
Cleaninq # spaces # vehicles % %occ.
Block Time Date/time Checked available observed occupancy w/permits
29th 51. b/w Pica and
Pearl Fr 11a-1p Fr. Jan 20, 12:15pm 39 19 49% 62%
30th 51. b/w Pica and
Pearl Fr11a-1p Fr. Jan 20, 12:15pm 41 21 51% 63%
31st 51. b/w Pica and Pearl Fr11a-1p Fr. Jan 20, 12:15pm 40 21 53% 65%
32nd 51. b/w Pica and
Pearl Fr11a-1p Fr. Jan 20, 12:15pm 36 22 61% 75%
1400/1500 Oak b/w 14th
and 16th T 2p-4p Tu. Jan 24, 2:00pm 24 16 67% 88%
1600 Oak b/w 16th and
17th T 2p-4p Tu. Jan 24, 2:00pm 25 16 64% 84%
1700 Oak b/w 17th and
18th T 2p-4p Tu. Jan 24, 2:00pm 23 14 61% 83%
18th b/w Hill and Ashland T 2p-4p Tu. Jan 24, 2:00pm 10 4 40% 70%
Cloverfield b/w Pica and
Pearl T 2p-4p Tu. Jan 24, 2:05pm 35 19 54% 69%
16th b/w Oak and Hill W 9a-11a We. Jan 25, 9:25am 9 4 44% 78%
Kansas b/w Yorkshire and
End W 1 p-3p We. Jan 25, 2:45pm 14 2 14% 50%
22nd 51. b/w Pica and
Pearl W 2p-4p We. Jan 25, 2:50pm 36 18 50% 64%
21 st 51. b/w Pica and Pearl W 2p-4p We. Jan 25, 2:50pm 36 25 69% 83%
23rd 51. b/w Pica and
Pearl W 3p-5p We. Jan 25, 3:00pm 30 7 23% 40%
17th b/w Oak and Hill W 30-50 We. Jan 25, 3:05pm 10 5 50% 80%
17th b/w Hill and Ashland W 3p-5p We. Jan 25, 3:05pm 9 0 0% 56%
10th b/w Pica and
Michiqan Th 3p-5p Th. Jan 26, 4:50pm 62 46 74% 87%
Urban b/w Pica and
Dorchester Fr 9a-11a Fr. Jan 27, 9:20am 38 21 55% 68%
Dorchester b/w Urban and
End Fr9a-11a Fr. Jan 27, 9:20am 5 1 20% 60%
Yorkshire b/w Urban and
Kansas Fr 9a-11a Fr. Jan 27, 9:20am 10 9 90% 110%
10th b/w Pica and
Michigan Fr 9a-11a Fr. Jan 27, 9:35am 35 29 83% 106%
ATTACHMENT E
After 5pm Checks
# spaces # vehicles % % occ.
Block Date/time Checked available observed occunancv w/oermits
1400/1500 Oak b/w 14th and 16th Fr. Jan 6, 5:00pm 46 17 37% 48%
1600 Oak b/w 16th and 17th Fr. Jan 6, 5:00pm 47 14 30% 40%
1700 Oak b/w 17th and 18th Fr. Jan 6, 5:00om 48 18 38% 48%
18th b/w Hill and Ashland Fr. Jan 6, 5:00pm 21 4 19% 33%
17th b/w Oak and Hill Fr. Jan 6, 5:00pm 22 3 14% 27%
17th b/w Hill and Ashland Fr. Jan 6, 5:00pm 16 1 6% 38%
21 st St. b/w Pica and Pearl Fr. Jan 20, 5:20pm 71 20 28% 35%
22nd St. b/w Pica and Pearl Fr. Jan 20, 5:20pm 72 19 26% 33%
23rd St. b/w Pica and Pearl Fr. Jan 20, 5:20pm 60 14 23% 32%
Cloverfield b/w Pica and Pearl Fr. Jan 20, 5:20om 69 28 41% 48%
29th St. b/w Pica and Pearl Fr. Jan 20, 5: 1 Opm 75 26 35% 41%
30th St. b/w Pica and Pearl Fr. Jan 20, 5: 1 Opm 88 30 34% 40%
31 st St. b/w Pica and Pearl Fr. Jan 20, 5:10pm 77 24 31% 38%
32nd St. b/w Pica and Pearl Fr. Jan 20, 5:10pm 71 27 38% 45%
Urban b/w Pica and Dorchester Fr. Jan 20, 5: 15pm 81 28 35% 41%
Dorchester b/w Urban and End Fr. Jan 20, 5: 15pm 11 2 18% 36%
Yorkshire b/w Urban and Kansas Fr. Jan 20, 5: 15pm 22 6 27% 36%
Kansas b/w Yorkshire and End Fr. Jan 20, 5: 15pm 31 5 16% 32%
1700 Oak b/w 17th and 18th Fr. Jan 20, 5:30pm 48 15 31% 42%
ATTACHMENT F
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
maria sirotti [mariasirotti@webtv.net]
Wednesday, December 28, 2005 2:43 PM
Ruth Harper
mariasirotti@webtv.net
How Much Is Our City Worth?
"SOLD TO THE ONE WHO
CAN PAY!"
Ms Ruth Harper
I just finished reading the letter you sent to us about the Preferential Parking, and let
me tell you that I can attend the meeting(s) as much as I like and it is all for nothing,
this is the way our city is governed, the decision is already signed!
Nevertheless, let me spend my time in futility, I live in a small street, few homes few
parking space and we do have Pref. Parking because the poor students took not only our
parking spaces but our driveways as well; we have people running businesses from their
homes and so parking in my little street is at a premium, and our red marking on the
sidewalks have been shorten, and are you ready? We have two (2) more parking spaces, no
idea how much the city spent to achieve this monumental deal, but good work right?
I went on line to learn more on the subject for I am sure you like for me to be a smart
complainer and I was told the the information is not available, but boy, the address sure
has more than sixty letters and then be told that the information is not available yet
made me angry.
There is the other aspect, you want for me, a 71 years old, and my husband, and 80 years
old to go to the Virginia Park between 6:30 and 8:00 p.m.? Have you heard about the
shooting in that side of town which is also my side of town? Who will protect me? Will I
return home?
But the big question is: DO TELL, HOW MUCH MONEY WILL THE CITY MAKE FOR SELLING THE EXTRA
PERMITS AND WILL THE CITY FORM A COMMITTEE TO SEE HOW TO SPEND THE MONEY?
A very angry citizen who wants to be left alone and not tormented by the city elite.
Maria Sirotti
Page 1 of2
Ruth Harper
From: TRENT THIXTON [tthixton@yahoo.com)
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 3:53 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: Proposed Preferential Parking Ordinance for Employees
To: Ruth Harper, Transportation Planning
I have just received the letter which explains the proposed use of residential streets for
employee parking. I live in the "College Preferential Parking Zone/Sunset Park" area. I
must express to you and your colleagues that my family and I are completely against this
proposal! As a 10 year resident of SMC/Sunset Park area, I feel that the parking situation
around SMC is already a total mess and your proposal to increase the number of cars on the
streets in the area will only make it worse. I believe that before you add cars to the already
difficult to find parking situation, your department should come up with new ideas to fix the
existing problems. The problems are as follows:
1. The illegal use of resident visitor passes by college students.
This is a consistent and ongoing problem that I see every single day during the week!
Students drive up, place a visitors pass on their mirror and run off to school. I have called
parking enforcement many, many times over the years and their attitude, for the most part,
has been that they cannot sit in front of my house all day to enforce the rules just for me! Of
course I have never suggested that this is what I wanted or asked for. After one of my phone
calls I tried to follow up with the Lt. in charge, I left a phone message and he never made
any attempt to call me back!
2. The illegal use of Handicap placards by college students.
Again, almost every single day I see a young student pull up in a sports car or very large
SUV, quickly put a Handicap placard on their mirror and RUN off to school. I do not
believe that all of these people are improperly using the placards, but a very large percentage
are. I live on the comer of 20th and Pearl S1. which is a significant distance from the heart
of SMC. If these people were truly handicapped, why would they park so far away from the
school?!
3. Lack of parking enforcement.
The Preferential Parking hours in my area are from 8am - 8pm. For the most part, I rarely
see any parking enforcement officers in the area after 5 or 6pm. There are usually 5 or 6
cars in my area at that time without any visitor passes or residential parking passes of any
kind! Why aren't the rules being enforced?
Solutions:
1. Have a dedicated team of 2 personnel consistently roaming the area around the college
01/19/2006
Page 2 of2
for the above mentioned problems. There have been a number of parking "Stings" in the
area to catch the offenders, but they are not frequent enough and only help the problem for a
very short period of time. If you had a small team on foot or riding bikes, they could be
incognito and catch a lot more of the offenders.
2. Have the traffic enforcement officers be more of a presence in the "High" offense areas
like the SMC area. This will help discourage the fraudulent use of visitor passes and
Handicap placards.
With the amount of fines that the above mentioned team would generate, you could easily
pay for their salaries. More to the point, it would open up street parking for the rightful
users. The people like myself and my neighbors who PAY lots of property taxes AND
significant yearly renewal fees for our parking permits! There have been many times when
I've wondered why am I paying for these parking permits when I can't even park close to my
own house!
In conclusion, my purpose here is not to rant and rave about the situation, but to make you
A WARE of the situation. So, with the situation being what it is, I cannot express to you
enough that I believe your proposed idea is a bad one and will only negatively affect the
already bad parking situation in our area.
Sincerely,
Trent Thixton
Y~hQQLI2SL Something to write home about. Just $ 16.99/mo. or less
01/19/2006
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: NEEDLES22@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 28,20056:08 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: College Parking Zone preferential
Dear Ms. Harper,
I have been a resident at 2212 Pearl St for twenty years, in this time I have seen the ambitions of the college
run roughshod over the quality of life of the residents. No other business would be allowed to expand
unchecked for so long with less and less concern for the impossible amount traffic that frequently make Pearl
S1. into a parking lot. So now that you want to tak~ the locals residential parking spaces away I feel I must
protest. 75% of the people using the college are from out of town, I fail to see what Santa Monica COllege does
for Santa Monica.
Sincerely,
Mike Waterhouse
01119/2006
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: Chris Lai [potion11@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 6:45 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: Employee Permit Parking Program
To Whom It May Concern,
The proposed plan is outrageously unfair to residents of Santa Monica. Why should residents of Santa
Monica compete for parking space with business/corporate employees (as if we don't have enough
trouble finding parking space when we get home from work --- this is the last thing we want to worry
about after a hard day at work).
Is other cities providing such plan as well?!
It is the business/corporate's responsibility to provide its employees proper facility to park/or promote
car pooling. Proposed plan is encouraging people NOT to car pool, and in terms it will generate more
traffic and cause congestion (as if we do not have enough traffic problems during rush hour - especially
on Cloverfield and Pico Blvd).
As a resident and a registered voter of Santa Monica, I strongly oppose such program.
Sincerely,
Christopher Lai
01/19/2006
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Johnny S. Beyers Uohnnybeyers@hotmail.com]
Wednesday, December 28,20057:16 PM
Ruth Harper
NO PARKING
I , for one, do NOT recommend that the City Of SM allow employees to use preferential
parki~g permits
NO
John Beyers
22nd Street
SM 90405
(It is my experience and impression... and every resident that I know..
that when the CITY OF SM "Recommends" ((or decides)) something, it is allowed... a Done-
Deal. Send all the flyers and questioners you want...
allow people of SM (TAX-PAYERS) to blah-blah-blah at a City Mtng...
but.. .
I imagine that this issue is decided. My 'voice' in the City Gov. will go
unheard. . . )
I appose this adjustment to the Parking Code/Ordinances...
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.rnsn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/ctirect/Ol/
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: Bret Prichard [prichardbret@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 20059:17 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: Non-Resident parking in Santa Monica
J am opposed to the city proposal to move even more cars into our residential areas. Please do not allow non
residents to park in our residential areas. These employers should be providing parking for their employees as
part of their "business footprint". They should be facilitating the use of parking garages, parking lots or remote
parking at existing structures/locations (beach parking, 3rd street Promenade parking, city lots etc). Residents
already have to compete for parking with rouge college or high school students, business parking (employees and
customers), guests of residents, etc, please do not clutter this area any more by bringing in more "permitted"
parking.
I Jive in the Pica and 10th area,,,, and that area is specifically stressed already with high school students, live work
areas and numerous Drug Treatment facilities (Clare has halfway houses, treatment centers, counseling centers
(brings in hundreds of people every week), thrift stores, the list goes on. They have facilities that range from 11th
St to 9th St) This area can NOT handle any more influx of non resident vehicles.
Bret Prichard
Yalw...Q! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less
01/19/2006
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: Lauren de la Fuente [laurendlf@earthlink.netJ
Sent: Wednesday, December 28.20059:19 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: praf. parking ordinance
Importance: High
Ruth:
I believe that it is a huge mistake to allow more on-street parking at the College Preferential
Parking Zone/Sunset Park.
At the present time, there are already many students who gain access to permits and park in
our neighborhood. Additionally, there are many days when I can't park on my street (Pearl
between 21/22) because all of the on street parking is taken up by "day trippers".
Furthermore, increased parking creates enhanced noise as the people who park socialize
near their cars, or play loud music, or simply do not realize this is a residential neighborhood
not an extension of the college setting.
Finally more people who have access to our residential neighborhood parking will create
potentially unsafe conditions for the children who play in our yards.
This is a very, very bad idea for the City of Santa Monica. You must keep residential
neighborhoods residential and keep parking to parking structures and lots.
I can not attend the meeting on January 11 th because I am out of town on business. But
hope you take my point of view into your decision making process. Feel free to call me with
any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Lauren de la Fuente
Homeowner and Registered Voter
2110 Pearl Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310-450-4433
01/19/2006
Page 1 of2
Ruth Harper
From: Tdelias@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 28,20059:30 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Cc: ZinaJosephs@aoLcom; Council Mailbox
Subject: Problems with treatment of Oak Street in your employee parking plan...
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Ms. Harper --
I read with great disappointment the portion of your proposed employee parking pennit
program affecting the Vicinity of Ocean Park Boulevard.
While you were instructed by the City Council -- and while Councilmen McKeown and
Genser specifically promised residents of Oak Street that this would occur -- to spread the
employee permits thinly around the parking district, you have opted to assign them principally
to four blocks of Oak Street. What's more, since the businesses involved all are between 16th
and 18th streets, the 1600 and 1700 blocks of Oak and the 17th Street block between Oak and
Hill will be the ones primarily affected.
If you had acted according to the promises and assurances given to residents, you would
have included permits on both Hill and AsWand south of Ocean Park, and on Maple, Pine,
Cedar, 21 st, 22nd and 16th streets north of Ocean Park. But based on the attachments to your
proposal, you did not even bother to survey typical occupancy of parking spaces on these other
streets, also very convenient to the affected business district.
Your plan offers no justification for this unequal treatment of residents in the 1600 and 1700
blocks of Oak and along 17th Street.
This is blatantly unfair, reflects staff prejudgements about where employees should park and
about which residents should be affected, and runs counter to the spirit of sharing the burden
with which the original proposal to the council and the neighborhood was greeted. Please note
that the residents of Oak Street have expressed no opposition to helping out local businesses,
so long as the burdens of congestions are shared among the entire neighborhood and not
foisted almost entirely on us.
If you want to change the parking district in a spirit of fairness and to see it accepted easily
by the community, you will revise your draft plan before the January public meetings and spread
the burden, rather than imposing it all upon a very few blocks.
Sincerely,
Thomas Elias
01/19/2006
Page 2 of2
1720 Oak Street
Santa Monica 90405
310-452-3918
01119/2006
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mike Blum [mrobertblum@hotmail.com]
Thursday, December 29, 2005 11 :34 AM
Ruth Harper
residential parking-keep it up
I live on oak street in Santa Monica. We are 2 blocks from the college. I am very
greatful for the permits around the neighborhood. As the college grows, so does the
demand for free parking.
As such, the curbside parking 1 block away is always full from the students.
Thanks for continuing to speak out for the residents Of the south side.
Sincerely,
Michael Blum
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/Ol/
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: Sawdustview@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 12:56 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: College Preferential Parking
Ms. Harper;
As a 35 year resident of Santa Monica I have seen our rights as city taxpayers eroded year by year to
accomodate "the Homeless" The IlIegals" and now I see we are about to include the 85% of 8M College students
who reside outside the city.
I am totally against any change in the status quo regarding "Preferential Parking".
E. Lee
2011 Ocean Park 81
STa Monica
01/19/2006
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Edi Stocker [estocker99@runbox.comJ
Thursday, December 29, 2005 1: 18 PM
Ruth Harper
Parking Employee Permits Bay St/11th
Hello Ruth Harper,
I live in a Triplex at 1118 Bay St and park on the street. Just our triplex uses three
street parking spaces. I just wondered why Bay St? South of Pico, Bay Street is the only
street with apartments. The streets south of Bay St. Grant, Pacific etc are all lined
with single family homes.
Because of the apartments parking on Bay st between 11th and Euclid is crowded. Many
times I park on 11th and sometimes on Grant. I work outside of town so the employee
permits may not affect me. But on two days of the week there is street cleaning and the
few times I was home the available street side was packed.
The single family home streets Grant (2 short blocks from Pica) and Pacific are never
crowded. I think they would be a better choice or at least some permits could be moved
from 11th and Bay to Grant. Wouldn't that make sense?
Regards,
Edi
1
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
david woo [pearlstreet@earthlink.net)
Thursday. December 29, 20052:04 PM
Ruth Harper
employee parking in Sunset Park
Ruth: please allow me to add my voice to this issue: I live in Sunset Park on Pearl Street
at 25th.
While I am some distance from the cOllege, students still park in front of my house all
day and into the night. I have called parking enforcement a number of times, and they
still come back.
The evening students park and eat dinner and then throw their trash onto the street when
they get out to walk to school. Countless times I have picked up their fast food wrappers
and stuffed them into their door handles and wind shield wipers, and it does no good.
Calling the campus police has no effect: I spoke with the chief and she said she would
send officers to patrol the area but none ever showed up.
And now with the opec homeless shelter nearing completion, already there is an increase in
the number of homeless wandering thru the alleys.
So do I want more non-resident vehicles on the streets?
I intend to send this message to the council members as
talking about leaving Santa Monica.
This city is turning into a dump.
David Woo
NO!
well.
No wonder my wife is
1
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Nelson Willis [nelson.c.willis@verizon.net]
Thursday, December 29, 2005 5:02 PM
Ruth Harper
Jose Carvajal
Ocean Park BI. Blvd.
Dear Ruth,
I can't believe this finely being accomplished. Thank you for all your help.
I feel it is important to include business owners and property owners in this permit
process. They, as do employees, do not have any legal places to park during the day. The
numbers of these individuals are not large and should not create a significant burden to
the neighborhood. Many of the property owners are absentee and will only use the parking
occasionally when they need to maintain their properties. All these individuals service
and befit the community at large and deserve the same consideration as residents and
employees.
I will see you at the meeting at Virginia Park, Jan. 11th, 6:30 pm.
Thank you,
Nelson Willis
1
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
sam spade [agave8@yahoo.com]
Friday, December 30,200512:49 PM
Ruth Harper
No to Any College Parking.
Dear Ruth-
I'm sick of the 8M College pushing everyone around in the name of Higher Education?
Ever since the Earthquake they have had a new parking structure, pool etc. etc.
They do nothing for the neighborhood.
How about controlling them from the Airport satellite problem.
No more traffic.
No more college BS.
Say NO to that College.
Sam
Yahoo! DSL - Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
1
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Marty Marty [surfermarty@hotmail.com]
Saturday, December 31, 2005 2:43 PM
Ruth Harper
Preferential Parking Permits
Dear Ms. Harper,
My wife and I live on 22nd St. and Ocean Park Blvd. Our neighbors fought hard to
implement permit parking on our block some years ago because the goliath car population
from SMC was so overwhelming. Prior to the permits, we had to scramble to find a parking
spot every single weekday.
Although it appears only a small number of permits per block will be issued to
businesses in the area, We are very concerned as to how you can regulate the new permitees
from concentrating into a small neighborhood. For
example- the closer one lives to Santa Monica College the more pressure will be applied to
those particular blocks. Are you planning to continue to issue more permits in the future
as the City is allowed to overbuild more commercial structures ? Maybe residents could be
issued permits at no cost to themselves for compensation of this invasion.
Thank you, Marty &
Nancy Hamaluk
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/Ol/
1
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Anne Verrier Scatolini [avscatolini@verizon.net]
Sunday, January 01, 2006 12:04 AM
Ruth Harper
Anne Verrier Scatolini
NO on Selling Preferential Parking Permits to Non-Residents!
Dear Ruth,
Although I pay to park on my street every year, I am unable to park on my street because
of the excess traffic and parking of Santa Monica College. I can never find a parking
spot anywhere near my apartment at 2121 20th Street. I am a High School Teacher working
in
the inner city of Los Angeles and need to be able to park near my
abode because I leave at five in the morning and don't return until very late at night
after a grueling day in the classroom. I have already had my purse lost/stolen due to the
fact that I had to park far away late at night after a long day and my purse dropped out
of my bag onto the street and I could not find it in the dark of the night. Which brings
up another issue...Please install street lights on 20th Street! It is pitch black at
night and in the morning before the sun rises. Please hear my plea to VOTE NO on this
money - grabbing, resident - harrassing measure to sell my already scarce parking spot to
yet another non-resident. Thank you kindly.
Sincerely,
Anne Verrier Scatolini
2121 20th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
avscatolini@verizon.net
1
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Patrick McClure [patrick@bytesupply.com]
Sunday. January 01, 20064:54 PM
Ruth Harper
Re: Employee Permit Parking on Residential Streets in Sunset Park
Follow up
Completed
Dear Ms. Harper:
I have reviewed the information item regarding potential business parking permits that
applies to my neighborhood and would like to know if you can make some clarifications and
provide responses to a few questions and comments.
By way of introduction, I have lived for twenty years with my family at 2270 - 23rd St.,
between Pica & Pearl; I am a widowed single father of two children, one of driving age in
the house, and I live and work each day on this street. We were swamped by the college,
and had to resort to permitted parking for residents on our block; I have needed close to
the maximum number of resident and visitor permits ever since, amounting to a LOT of
money; since permits were introduced, parking has seemingly been about what the block can
tolerate in my opinion, particularly at the Pico end.
The following table in the council information item is presented for our block:
Occupancy data for these streets is shown in the following table:
Block # spaces # cars % ace # permits %
w/permits
21st st. b/w Pica and Pearl 71 29 41% 5 48%
22nd st. b/w Pica and Pearl 72 22 31% 12 47%
23rd St. b/w Pica and Pearl 60 10 17% 12 37%
Cloverfield b/w Pico and Pearl 69 29 41% 5 49%
272 90 33% 34 45%
I would question how the "# cars" and therefore "% ace" columns were determined. Later in
the report a fall 2005 "count" is mentioned, but does not state that it specifically
applies to our area, nor if this was a one-time survey, based on an average, or what
methodology was used to determined if the counts were indeed representative over time.
[If I understand it correctly, the "fIo permits" column is not actually an occupancy number
(as implied above), but the proposed number of business permits as shown on the maps and
as stated in the initial summary.]
Regarding the "I spaces" column: there are no particulars on how available spaces were
counted, such as whether it includes reserved handicapped spaces (of which there are
multiple on our block) or how tightly cars were to be parked (for instance, feet allowed
per vehicle).
Regarding the "% w/permits" column: the table does not state whether this figure
represents a percentage of "permits issued vs spaces,"
"permits issued vs potential permits," whether visitor permits were considered, and so on.
In any case I would argue that it is probably statistically invalid to use "% w/permits"
on a segregated, block-by-block basis: the sample is simply too small; the total number of
resident and visitor permits can vary at any time (up to the legal maximums) due to
changes in property ownership, familial demographic changes, home businesses and other
reasons; and it does not take into account the types of businesses present or future on
1
pico Blvd (e.g. whether additional employee parking could actually increase patron
vehicular traffic and demand for parking). Next year the percentages on these blocks could
be completely different. In any event a single survey could not take into account year-by-
year trends or the unknown future affect on parking of the re-opening of Virginia Avenue
Park. Finally, I doubt that a mechanism has been considered whereby business permits would
be rescinded based on these sorts of changes when they actually occur.
Thanks for any help you can offer in understanding the report and resolving the questions
and issues that I have raised.
Sincerely,
Patrick McClure
2
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: Jonathan Gordon [locmgr1@mac.com]
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 9:02 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: Fwd: Employee Permit Parking
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jonathan Gordon <lopmgr1@mac.com>
Date: January 2, 2006 8:57;04 PM PST
To: Ruth.Harper.smgov.nel
Subject: Employee Permit Parking
Ms. Harper-
1) Does Santa Monica College or any of its subsidiaries, agents, or other related institutions
qualify to buy permits from the City?
2) Can City of Santa Monica or P .A.L. employees (or any other people working at Virginia
Park) buy permits?
3) Can the City of Santa Monica sell permits to park at Virginia Park?
Thank you for answering these questions.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Gordon
2263 21st Street
locmgrl@rn~c.com
01/19/2006
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: Stevenson, Dave [Dave.Stevenson@cnb.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 7:48 AM
To: Ruth Harper
Cc: Council Mailbox; 'Becky Harshberger'
Subject: Employee Permit Parking on Residential Streets in Sunset Park
Dear Ms. Harper,
I would like to convey my opposition to an "employee permit parking program" that would allow Santa Monica City
College employees to park on Sunset Park residential streets.
As a resident of Santa Monica since 1984 and a homeowner in Sunset Park since 1999 I have continuously
supported the College's programs and voted for bond measures benefiting the College. However, the College
continues to outgrow its facilities and has no plan to remediate the resulting problems. The daily traffic gridlock
around the school is a constant reminder of this fact.
Years ago the City of Santa Monica acted to protect Sunset Park residents with the existing parking program.
The new proposed "employee permit" program reneges on that protection and is effectively an effort to act in bad
faith.
Please convey the unhappiness of my neighbors and myself to the City Council.
Regards,
Dave Stevenson, PMP
2524 22nd Street
Santa Monica CA 90405
Mobile: 310.890.5412
lj~y~_,~_t~venson@Q[!IH:.Qm
01/1912006
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: Becky Harshberger [BHarshberger@EntertainmentPartners.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 03,200610:09 AM
To: Ruth Harper
Cc: ZinaJosephs@aol.com
Subject: FW: Employee Permit Parking on Residential Streets in Sunset Park
Dear Ms. Harper,
I am strongly opposed to "employee permit parking program" that would allow Santa Monica City College
employees to park on Sunset Park residential streets.
As a homeowner in Sunset Park since 1999 I have continuously supported the College's programs and voted for
bond measures benefiting the College. However, the College continues to outgrow its facilities and has no plan to
remediate the resulting problems. The daily traffic gridlock around the school is a constant reminder of this fact.
Years ago the City of Santa Monica acted to protect Sunset Park residents with the existing parking
program. There were very good reasons for our current permit parking restrictions: trash, noise, lack of
respect for people who ownllive in the area. I live in a RESIDENTIAL street, not a commercial street. My home is
near Ocean Park, due to the permits issued to apartment dwellers on Ocean Park, I NEVER get to park in front of
my home, nor do my guests. Just because there is street parking available mid block does not mean the block
has the capacity to accommodate SM City College's lack of planning for parking for employees. The new
proposed "employee permit" program reneges on the protection we now have and is effectively an effort to act in
bad faith.
Please convey the unhappiness of my neighbors and myself to the City Council.
Regards,
Becky Harshberger
2524 22nd Street
Santa Monica CA 90405
01/19/2006
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Eddy Sill [bifferOO@sprintmail.com]
Thursday, January 05,20061:12 AM
Ruth Harper
Santa Monica Parking Ordinance
Follow up
Completed
To: Ruth Harper
Let me say first that I was "shocked & stunned" when I received the letter from you in the
mail regarding possible limited employee parking permits in the area I live in.
As we speak....With a permit that I paid for....My car is parked a block and a half away
from my home.
Every day & night I struggle to find a parking place AND I pay for a parking permit.
It is a combination that is "anything but conducive" to allowing more parking in this
area.
I URGE you to re-think this proposal. It absolutely would cause a bad situation to become
unbearable.
It is a slap in the face to Santa Monica residents to pay for their parking AND not have a
place to park.
I certainly will not take it silently.
Again....I urge you to forget this crazy idea.
Feel free to call me.
I will try to attend the meeting (if work permits) and also would like the names, numbers
or email addresses of others that I should contact to fight this ludicrous idea.
Sincerely,
Eddy Sill
1810 Oak St. #1
Santa Monica, CA. 90405
310 392 9617
1
Page 1 of2
Ruth Harper
From: Community Counts [cjobapplications@yahoo.com}
Sent: Monday, January 09,20066:11 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: Response to parking. Please provide feedback
Importance: High
Dear Ruth:
I happen to know a Ruth Harper that I grew up with in Santa Barbara.
Is that you?
I understand that parking is an issue all over this town. I understand
that the that business owners and staff need a place to park. I am a
strong supporter of our local business community. If it means that I pay
more to buy a product to help support a business I will.
Key Issue on _a p~rsonal level
Personal
1. I am disabled. I can not walk more than a block without difficult.
2. I have lived in the neighborhood for about 20 years. When I first
became disabled and needed a parking place .1 was told that I was
unable to obtain a blue parking spot because my neighbor already
had one. At the time it was just me and my neighbor who are
disabled.
3. We have seven apartments in our building. Out of the seven
buildings we now have four tenant that are disabled. It has
increased over the last few year.
7 units with 2 cars on an average each already puts a space down a
block away from our apartment. It is already difficult to carry our
packages to our apartment.
Unfortunately, there are problems for the tenants that are closer to
Ocean Park.
1. It took me a great deal of time to obtain parking permits for our
neighborhood. We were only able to obtain them for our block. As
a result students still park down the next block.
2. As rent has increased so has the occupancies per unit.
01/19/2006
Page 20f2
Perhaps in the past there was a few occupants a
Unit. It now seems to double.
It seems the solution is obvious to me. Create solutions that currently
exist.
Allow them to park in the following areas.
Public
. Santa Monica College
. John Adams Elementary School
Private
Perhaps, the Elks Club
And related service clubs on Ocean Park
I want to support our local business, but not at the cost of being able to
find a place to park near my home. I just don1t want to be stuck and
not be able to leave my home. I have enough challenges with my
disabilities. I don't need more.
Thanks for your support
Karen Campbell
Karen Campbell. M.A,CCC-SP
CEO/Founder of Community Counts Inc.
~ 310-399-1958
ttnI
~ 1802 Oak ST. '* 4
Santa Monica, CA. 90405
S K_ Campb~lI@communltycounfs.org
All information contained in this emait is confidential and the property of Community
Counts. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the
contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this transmission in error, please contact the sender by reply e-
mail and destroy all copies of the original.
01/19/2006
Page 1 of2
Ruth Harper
From: Robert Villasenor III [rvillains1@mac.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:47 AM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: Re: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
ruth.harper
On Jan 6,2006, at 9:51 AM, postmaster@SMGOV.NETwrote:
This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.
Delivery to the following recipients failed.
ruthharper@smgov.net
Reporting-MT A: dns;csmex01.SMGOV.NET
Received-From-MTA: dns;mailer.smgov.net
Arrival-Date: Fri, 6 Jan 200609:51 :40 -0800
Final-Recipient: rfc822;ruthharper@smgov.net
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
From: Robert Villasenor III <rvillainsl@mac.com>
Date: January 6, 2006 9:51:37 AM PST
To: ruthharper@smgov.net
Subject: Limited employee permit parking
Dear Ms. Harper:
Concerning your letter of December 27,2005 in regard to limited employee parking I found
it necessary to respond to the subject with alarm and thus this e-mail.
I, as a resident of Bay Street, the street immediately south of Pi co Boulevard where the
main businesses are the Clare Foundation and Santa Monica College - which have in the
past made residential parking impossible - initiated the petition to get residential parking
started on our street because we have found through bitter experience that the term It limited
employee parking'! is an oxymoronic concept.
A typical day before residential permit parking began with the neighborhood being flooded
with cars from Santa Monica College to students/teachers without the means to pay for on-
site parking, coupled with the parking of the Clare (oundation's employees on our street
made it virtually impossible to find parking in our own neighborhood. The Clare foundation
hours of operation extend well into the evening due to their DUI programs, again, making
parking in our own neighborhood a hit-or-miss proposition. We've had to search for parking
in other neighborhoods, thus exacerbating the problem in the area in general.
01/19/2006
Page 2 of2
Before residential permit parking we experienced two car-repair businesses dumping their
cars in our neighborhood to make room for more business, leaving them their for days until
picked up by their customers or leaving their own cars .on our street all day.
I initiated the neighborhood petition because women in our neighborhood had to walk
several blocks in the dark to get back home. This neighborhood has a lot of transient traffic
and residents do not feel safe in the evening hours. This is easily confirmed with crime
reports on Bay Street and surrounding streets that are on record with the SMPD.
Ms. Harper, there is simply no room to expand the "limited parking" concept to include
employees of surrounding businesses. The word "limited" belies the fact that people that
have no roots in the neighborhood other than working around here will care that people who
actually live here will have no parking because they have taken up all the limited spaces.
The Clare Foundation is a constantly expanding enterprise on Pico Boulevard and as they
grow, they will need space, I understand that, but I feel they must have accountability for
their growth and not make it the burden of their neighbors to bear the brunt of it.
In conclusion, Ms. Harper, if there wasn't a problem with employee parking in the past we
wouldn't have petitioned for permit parking. Our neighborhood is at capacity now. The
street is utilized fully with residential parking during the day and at night. To expand the
concept to employee parking will return the neighborhood to the problem we faced before.
It just doesn't make sense.
I anxiously await any response from your office and I thank you for the forum to air our
concerns.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Villasenor III
1019 Bay Street
Santa Monica, Ca. 90405
01/19/2006
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Writermoos@aol.com
Tuesday. January 10. 200611:44 AM
Ruth Harper
College Preferential Parking Zone
Dear Ms. Parker:
Am sending this comment because will be unable to attend Jan. 11 meeting.
I live in the 1400 block of Oak Street and have serious concerns about how the impact
of employee permits on the neighborhood will be analyzed.
The city's analysis should focus on space availability during the most critical
periods, which include street sweeping hours and between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. Those are the
times that will create maximum inconvenience to residents and visitors. Any analysis that
averages out occupancy over the entire 9-6 period and ignores the impact of street
sweeping would be off the mark as far as impact goes.
Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ed Moosbrugger
1418 Oak St.
1
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: Jean Phillips
Sent: Wednesday. January 11. 2006 8:04 AM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: Permit parking meeting
Ruth.
Hi I am a city employee and also a resident of the Sunset Park areawhere these permits are to be issued. I was
originally told the meeting for our area was on January 18th but I was informed today that the meeting is tonight-
January 11th. I have a son and daughter at John Adams Middle School and there is a mandatory parent meeting
tonight from 6-8 therefore I cannot attend the permit meeting but I do have some real concerns that I would like to
address.
I live on the corner of 17th & Maple - my curbcut is on 17th so I have NO driveway presently I rarely get to park by
my house and have to park 1 to 2 blocks away because the residents from the apt bldg on Ocean Park all get
permits and they and their "guests' all park by my house to be closer to the college even though it is 2 blocks
away from the their bldg. If these permits go through I won't even be able to park within the 2 block legal distance
for my permit.
I would like very much to discuss this with you. If these permits go through the city needs to make some changes
in the parking situation for the residents who have NO driveways and are forced to use street parking.
Please call me at # 5573
Thank you, Jean Phillips
01/19/2006
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Wendy Walwyn [wwalwyn@ucla.edu]
Wednesday, January 11.200612:05 PM
Ruth Harper
Employee parking
Dear Ruth
We live on a densely populated street (Bay between Lincoln and 10th). We recently got a
very modified version of residential parking (2h parking allowed on the north side and
open on the south) after intense lobbying (we got 50 signatures out of a potential 86).
This is not good enough for our needs. If you add employee parking into this mix there is
no point having any sort of residential parking permit. Can you take into consideration
the residential density of the area as well as the type of parking regulations in force?
Thanks
Wendy
Wendy Walwyn, Ph.D,
Assistant Researcher
Dept of Pscyhiatry and Biobehavioral Neuroscience
UCLA-NPI
Box 77, 760 Westwood Plaza
Los Angeles
CA, 90024
Tel (310) 206-3231
Fax (310) 825-7067
1
Page lof2
Ruth Harper
From: Tdelias@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, January 12.200610:11 AM
To: Ruth Harper
Cc: ZinaJosephs@aol.com; Council Mailbox
Subject: Questions remaining after the January 11 parking meeting...
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
Dear Ruth --
As you observed last night, emotions are running pretty high in Sunset Park over the staffs
proposed changes to the existing parking district. One reason is that city staffers have
consistently refused or been unable to answer certain key questions. After the meeting, it is
possible to boil those questions and concerns down to five. I and my neighbors would greatly
appreciate it your answering these questions in an expeditious manner. You mayemail
responses to me and I will see that they are distributed widely throughout Sunset Park.
1. If additional parking for employees is needed (and that has not been solidly demonstrated
by city staff), why can it not be spread widely throughout the college-area parking district, rather
than concentrating it principally on a few streets? You would encounter far less resentment and
would eliminate -claims of discrimination if you spread the burden of new parking permits rather
than inflicting it on only a few blocks.
2. As you heard, it is now commonplace for business owners to buy parking permits from
area residents in a sort of black market exchange. How can you assure residents that businesses
will not sell their new permits to the highest bidder, rather than giving them to employees? How
can you assure residents that this expected illicit trade in permits will not introduce new crime
problems to an area already plagued by daytime burglaries?
3. Since the current regulation limiting permit parking to a two-block radius of the permit-
holder's home is rarely enforced, why should residents believe police will ensure that permits
issued for anyone block will be used only on that block? Without such enforcement, parking
will surely concentrate on the very few blocks closest to the business areas.
4. What about eliminating the entire problem by letting businesses make use of the 1 DO-plus
new parking spaces at Virginia Park, now occupied principally by Santa Monica College
students not residing in the city? Those spaces could easily accommodate the Pico Boulevard
businesses, while the city could provide incentives to use the mostly empty parking lots behind
businesses on the 1600 block of Ocean Park Boulevard to assist the businesses in the 1700
block of Ocean Park. Using these two obvious and readily available remedies would eliminate
all need for any employee parking in the neighborhoods.
01/19/2006
Page 2 of2
5. You have said you might make changes to the existing plan before it goes to the City
. Council on Feb. 28. What are your intentions about showing any revised plan to the residents
and allowing responses to it?
Ruth, I think if staff adequately answers all of these questions, you will go far toward
assuaging the hostility to this plan that was so obvious at last night's meeting.
Yours,
Thomas Elias
1720 Oak Street
Santa Monica 90405
310-452-3918
01119/2006
On-Street Parking Permits for Employees of Businesses Adjacent to Certain Preferential... Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: Roger White [roger.white@cancom.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:25 AM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: On-Street Parking Permits for Employees of Businesses Adjacentto Certain Preferential Parking
Zones I Comments
Dear Ms. Harper:
Thanks to the Transportation Management Division and the City Council for their December 27 mailing advising of
hearings related to the above subject.
I was unable to attend last night's College Preferential Parkil19ZQfle/Sunset Park meeting, but did download the
Information Item from the city's website and reviewed that yesterday evening. I was impressed by the
thoroughness of the TMD's report, and the amount of work that obviously went into the analysis of available
parking.
However, this report was read by me on a day that I went home for lunch, only to find not a single space on my
block (20th Street between Pica and Pearl). I attempted to park in my garage; however, due to the dearth of
parking on my street, my neighbor was blocking the garage of Apts. A & B. Therefore, J did the same - blocking
the garage of Apts. C & D.
Luckily. we're all friendly neighbors - so this solution worked for the short time I and my neighbor were home. But
the point is that 20th Street is currently overwhelmed.
I can not comment on behalf of the residents of 21st/22nd/23rd/Cloverfield Streets, but my initial inclination would
be that - as stated in your report - this program would need to be monitored extremely closely to ensure residents
of those streets are not inconvenienced, and that employers are following the rules, and adhering to the intent, of
this program.
Thank you for allowing me to express my views.
Sincerely,
Roger D. White
2211 20th Street, Apt. B
Santa Monica
01/19/2006
Page 1 of2
Ruth Harper
From: Curt Alexander [Calexander@pacbell.netj
Sent: Thursday, January 12. 2006 10:29 AM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: Comments on permit parking proposal
Attachments: IMG_7583.jpg; IMG_7584.jpg; IMG_7585.jpg
Mrs. Ruth Harper,
I am in receipt of the 12-27-2005 Santa Monica document pertaining to a proposed increase of permitted parking
on Bay Street (as well as others). In addition, my wife attended the Virginia park meeting of last night. In my
absence of the meeting, I would like to add the following comments, some with photographic backup.
Today, Thursday, is one of two street cleaning days on our street. I have attached 3 photographs of actual
conditions, one facing east, one west and one of the traffic sign that stipulates the permit parking requirements on
the North side. These conditions are typical.
Please note in both the east and west photos that the north side of the street is completely full, with no available
space, excepting two handicap spaces? (that I have never seen in use). A similar condition occurs on the other
street cleaning day. The south side fills up. I will take and forward photos of such to your office.
Also note, in the east face photo the truck and the sedan in the two driveways. In both cases the vehicle owners
do not live where the vehicles are parked. It is because of the good nature of each homeowner that they allow
certain residential overflow to park on their off street approaches.
As an 8 year resident at 1030 Bay, I know that the vast majority of cars in the photos are owned by residents of
this street. Where exactly does the Transportation Management Division think the additional 8 cars will park on
our street?
Has anyone in that department ever done a comprehensive traffic study/survey of all streets in question? If a
traffic study was performed consider this a formal request for that study.
I am aware that each property, be it residential or commercial. requires a certain amount of off street parking. Are
the required off street parking conditions being used to their fullest? Why do the businesses impacted think they
are entitled to park in residential zone? Does the planning and zoning codes allow such business use in a
residential zone?
Before permits were in place, both automotive repair shops (on 10th and 11th and Pico) and the Clair foundation
would routinely use Bay Street for overtime work, meetings, etc. Will the residential overflow be allowed to park at
the business when they close for the night?
I, along with others, who live on Bay Street were pleased when the current permit program was put in place. What
it meant for most is that when they came home they actually could park within a reasonable walking distance of
their home. If this new program is put in force, I will wager one dollar that the street will return to pre permit
condition. And if that happens I will be left to wonder why do J have to pay for such conditions? What assurances
has the Transportation Management Division made that the parking conditions on any given street will not get
worse for the people who live there?
It is not reasonable to implement a law (or tax) require compliance (money), impose conditions or benefits, then
revoke the benefits of the law but still charge the money. I am thinking that the parking ticket revenue has
increased dramatically, a result of the permit parking. And I say fine, I can handle that. I do not mind a "pay to
park" program. However, I (and other residents), will be disappointed if we what we are now paying for is taken
away and we are still asked to pay.
Please consider this issue carefully prior to making it law. Think about those of us who Jive here.
01119/2006
Page 2 of2
Respectfully submitted,
Curt Alexander
01/19/2006
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: DONALD LENSCH [lenschcasa@verizon.netJ
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:34 AM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: Council@smgov.net
Dear Ms. Harper,
We live on the southwest corner of 17th and Hill St, (1654 Hill St.). We have three cars so consequently
we purchase three permits and two additional guest permits every year. This totals $75.00 per year and
we have done this for several years. Although this may seem like a minimal expense, we have resented
the fact that we must pay to park in front of, or on the side of our own home! When a family member or
friend visits, we scramble to give them a guest pass and then must remember to get it back from them
when they leave. To be honest this is, pardon the expression, a BIG PAIN IN THE NECK! I realize
half of Santa Monica is now doing the same thing. Currently our son if fighting a parking ticket he
received because he was parked on the apron of our driveway to the garage that exits onto 17th Street.
Two of his wheels were on the grass between the street and the sidewalk. Our two guest passes were in
use at the time. Now we are told that although we have purchased permits to park by our house we will
be in competition for spaces with the local businesses.
With all due respect to the issues you face, WE VOTE NO!!!
Sincerely,
Donald and Joyce Lensch
01/19/2006
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: Randy Banks [randy@barberblade.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 200611:43 AM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: Preferential Parking Zone/Sunset Park
Dear Ms. Harper,
I would like to respond to the Council's concept of limited employee permit parking on 17th Street and Oak St in
Sunset Park. I am quite familiar with the area. I was raised at 1623 Oak St and my mother still resides there. I live
at 1719 Maple St and my business is located at 1628 Ocean Park Blvd across from John Adams which I attended
in the 1950's. As a business owner and resident, I am against providing additional permit parking on the east side
of 17th St north of Ocean Park Blvd and on either Oak or Maple Streets. When we requested and were approved
for preferential parking, we hoped to prevent students at SMC from parking on our blocks and, most importantly,
to reduce the flow of traffic in our residential areas. Of course, the students just keep parking further away from
campus and the residents of these areas just keep applying for Preferential Parking. Until something is done
about SMC's critical parking problems, traffic congestion, and resulting infringement on the community, the
parking and traffic problems in the area will continue.
Now with regard to additional employee parking, first, this is each individual business owner's problem, not the
City's, nor the local residents. If each business does not have enough parking, the owner can choose not to lease
the space and/or take their business elsewhere. When the current business owners moved to the 16th to 18th
Street, Ocean Park "strip", they knew exactly what the parking situation was. Little has changed in this "strip"
since I moved here in 1950. The only new addition is the First Federal Bank Building on the corner of Ocean Park
and 18th. When that building was built, the city could have required underground parking to help alleviate the
parking situation. Nevertheless, the tenants move in knowing the parking situation. As a business owner on this
strip, I am aware of the parking problems but must deal with them or move. As a resident on Maple and as a voice
for my mother on Oak, we don't want any more people parking on our blocks. The parking on these blocks is for
us and our guests not for students or for employees. There are other parking issues which compound the problem
on these streets which I would be happy to discuss with you separately if you would like to hear about them.
I do have some recommended alternatives. First, I believe that the Moose Lodge is willing to lease day parking
spaces to businesses. They are currently doing so for the Yoga Studio and I believe some of Bob's Market
employees. The owners of the recording studios south of the Moose, if approached. may also be willing to lease
parking spaces. Next, the city could designate special parking areas North of Ocean Park on the West side of 17th
Street and the East side of 16th Street. These areas are currently utilized by students attending SMC. Let the
College deal with the students. Next, spaces could be designated on the North side of Ocean Park Blvd between
16th and 17th Street. Again, these spaces are used primarily by students. Lastly, but more costly, the city in
cooperation with SM School District, could move the John Adams tennis courts from 16th and Ocean Park to 16th
and Pearl and use the vacated space for parking. Or, a parking lot could be built on the south athletic field of John
Adams, maybe extending in 40 or so feet from Ocean Park Blvd. In any case, there are easy to complex alternate
solutions to the parking situation that does not infringe upon local residents or change the existing Preferential
Parking as established.
Thank you for listening to me and I hope you will consider some of my comments.
Randolph C. Banks
1719 Maple Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310-450-7994
Fax: 310-399-7248
Cell: 310-570-3672
Barber Razor Blade Co Inc
1628 Ocean Park Blvd
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310-452-1034
Fax: 310-452-1034
01/19/2006
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: Isastor@aOl.com
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 20069:46 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: Proposed changes to Preferential Parking Ordinance
TO: Ruth Harper
FROM: Isabel and Bayard Storey
2227 22nd Street
RE: Proposed changes to Preferential Parking Ordinance
Dear Ruth,
We read and reviewed the proposed changes to the parking ordinance, specifically the "Creation of a Limited and
Target On-Street Permit Parking Program for Employees..."
We are not in a agreement with this program and with the proposed changes in our area. On 22nd Street
between Pico and Pearl, the proposal suggests 12 employee permits. We believe that these permits would be
used primarily on the section of 22nd near Pico - they would not be spread out throughout the block. With 12
additional cars clustered near Pico, people like us may well find ourselves with no parking in front of our homes,
for ourselves or our guests.
We believe it is misleading to use a vehicle "occupancy" rate for our entire long block when considering whether
and how many additional permits will be issued. People going to Pico businesses will not park in the middle of
our block or closer to Pearl Street.
We would prefer tl1at no employee permits be issued. If that is not possible, then we recommend that the
number be far fewer.
We would like to keep the residential quality of our street and not make it into a commercial zone. We have
many small children on the street. They ride bikes and skateboards on the sidewalk and in the street. Many
times J've seen them crossing the street to go from one home to another.
Also, with the recent reopening of Virginia Park, children will be walking along our block to go to the park.
Perhaps the Pica businesses could be given a few permits to park in the Virginia Avenue Park parking lot, rather
than on residential streets, if there are spaces available there during the day.
We believe that our residential streets should not be used for business parking. Additional parking, and the
accompanying traffic as people park their cars, will detract from our residential neighborhood and create a safety
hazard, especially for young children on the block. .
Please reconsider this ill-advised plan and keep commercial parking in commercial areas.
Thank you.
Isabel and Bayard Storey
Parents of Elliot and Natalie Storey
01/19/2006
Page] of3
Ruth Harper
From: Jonathan Gordon [locmgr1@mac.com]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 20063:10 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: Re: Employee Permit Parking
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
Ms. Harper,
Just a few follow up questions:
1 )How many businesses in the Virginia Park area qualify to buy employee parking permits? I assume
that only businesses on Pi co qualify and that, [or instance, the day care business being run out of a
private residence on 21 st Street would not be eligible.
2) It seems that a parking survey was made in our neighborhood because each street has a distinct
number of permits proposed for it. Are the surveys available to the public and do they outline how they
were conducted? Were the results that specified how many permits were to be sold on which blocks
determined by the apparent supply of parking spaces or by the demand from the nearby commercial
enterprises?
3) Would a business that is established after this permit parking plan is in force be able to take
advantage ofthe program? Ifso, wouldn't the permit parking plan be a way to encourage higher density
commercial activity than is currently allowable due to the dearth of parking?
4) Going back to the parking at Virginia Park. It seems that the parking is being currently used (during
business hours) predominantly by students at SMC. Has there been any discussion about how to keep
students (who have several other parking options--aIthough perhaps none are free like Virginia Park)
out of that lot? The space that it is being used illegally might be sufficient for the current
neighborhood merchants.
Thank you for responding to these questions.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Gordon
2263 21st St
lPcmgd @ma~~m1)
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Judith [umbrella@ix.netcom.com]
Tuesday, January 17, 20065:11 PM
Ruth Harper
access to preferential parking streets
On 10th St. between Pico and Michigan, there is cleaning on Mondays and Thursday, and
therefore, the spaces are pretty much filled up by the people who live here on those
afternoons. There are a few spaces available during the day--but I wonder why you want to
use our short block, since it does have the architects on the corner, who probably need
the permits more than anyone else--and cannot have them and our workers who do maintenance
here, like gardeners, contractors, Verizon, Gas Co, etc.
I would feel that our block really doesn't help you at all.
Judith A. Hoffberg
1843 10 th St. #1
Santa Monica, CA 90404
1
December 29, 2005
Ms. Ruth Harper
Transportation Planning Associate
1685 Main Street, Room 115
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2200
Dear Ms. Harper,
After reviewing your letter sent December 27, 2005 regarding limited employee parking
permits I am totally opposed to it.
We have lived in the Sunset Park area for over 43 years and, I was born in Santa Monica
and am seeing traffic around our immediate area that is unbearable.
I live near the College and, before we had parking by permit only friends and relatives
were unable to find a parking space.
With the pennit parking only, it has eliminated this problem.
Good thing this has only been approved in concept only because I DO NOT WANT
TmS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. I HOPE AS A RESIDENT
OF SUNSET PARK THE COUNCIL WILL LISTEN TO US OR IS IT GOING TO
BE LIKE THE OLD SAYING "WHISTLING IN THE WIND" AND OUR VOICE
DOES NOT COUNT.
Sincerely yours,)
.~#~
Marguerita Dominguez- Michailidis
01109/2006 11; 05 FAX:310 450._1403
MRY 93:} Pico
@001/003
moore ruble yudell
parrnfr.
JOH>J RUII1.B. PAIA
l'ltrU YODELL. 'ArA
prindp~11
ItltI&TA IBCXEIt. AlA
Jl!AIUfl! ClIBH. AlA
I41l:BA:BL 8. .M1\"TlN. AlA
JlBAL KAT8UMO, AlA
J"/oA'U MAlty O'CDl'l"JCOIl. AlA
MABlO VloL1<;B, I'lL'"
inluiora
BTAI'l)'.lIY AlIIJ>1l1t80,.,. ilIA HDA
color IT l"lt<lII;"P~
TINA 1l1!:B1l:B
architects ~ plClnnerJ
933 PICO 210UU;VARD
BANTA M,o)llCA., CALU'OIlNIA
90405
TJiL 310 450 1400
rAX 310450 14'"
www.moo.erllb leyud ell. tom
Jam)ary 9. 2006
SarLta Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, ROOJJl209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Pal:: (310) 458-1621
Re: Creation of Limited and Targeted On-.sueel: Per.mit Parking Program. for Employee&
of BU.&ineSles Adjacent to Certain Preferential Puking Zones
To 'iII'hom it may concern:
We: have been notified by the city's Transportation Management Division that the city is
comidering issuing a limited number of employee parldng permits to businesses in certain
aress in which street parking is currently resident-only_ We are writing to express OUt'
support for this proposal. OUT business is on 10t'a street, between Pico and Michigan which is
a 1'eilident preferential parking zone. We have legal, non-confofming parking on-site, but the
mclj,)rity of our employees must park ofC--site due to the limited number of spaces available.
The blacks around us have over the years petitioned for residential preferential parking in
ordf~r to deal with student parking from Santa Monica High School. Ifthis pattern
continues, We are concerned that there will be no legal street parking for our employees.
We .)wu our building, pay property taxes and significantly contribute to the overall quality of
our neighborhood. We think that that the employee-permit proposal recognizes that, similar
to the adjacent residents. we are an integral part of the neighborhood. We should have
pat"1:ing rights which 0\11' similar to those of our neighbors.
Wl~ have asked a few residents on our block about the proposal. The ones we.ve asked
su'pport the proposal and have signed statements to this effect, Please find their statements
attached. Please feel free to call me if there is more information we can provide.
Sinr:erely,.
111JS:--
Ass()date
1;<: Ruth Harper, Transportation Management Division. Fax: (310) 576-9I70
End.: Sta.tements regarding employee parking
01/09/2006 11:06 FAX 310 450 1403
AIRY 933 Pi co
IgJ003/003
January 6, 2006
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
'Santa Monica, CA 90401
Fa,c.: (310) 458-1621
Cc; Ruth Harper
Transportation Manage,lllent Division
1685 Main Street - ROOID 115, PO Box 2200
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2200
Fax: (310) 576-9170
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a Santa Monica resident, living on 10th street between Pico and Michigan. Our street is currently restricted
to pennit parking for residents l)nly. I understand that the city is now considering allowing a total of 8 parking
pennits to be used on my streel[ by employees of businesses in the area. On a typical day, our street has many
unused parking spaces. Because the number of employee permits would be small, I believe that it is reasonable
to grant the employee permits.
Name:.. c;:s:.-
<~ -. ~~
'., ~~( ~ - ~ .
Address: li'6,Y 10"'" S, J. tf
SA-ioWA- M'{.1If), Lit- / 64- ~ bfo i
1I6/200ti
,',
./,.
___~1/09/2006 11:06 FAX 310 450 1403
January 6. 2006
MRY 933 Pico
tal 002/003
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Fax~ (310) 458-1621
Cc: Ruth Harper
Transportatiop Management Division
1685 Main Street - Room 115, PO Box 2200
Santa Monica. CA 90407-2200
Fax.: (310) 576-9170
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a Santa Monica resident, living on 10th street between Pico and Michigan. Our street is currently restricted
to permit parking for residents only. I understand that the city is now considering allowing a total of 8 parking
permits to be used on my street by employees of businesses in the area. On a typical day, our street has many
unused parking spaces. Becamje the number of employee pennits would be small, I believe that it is reasonable
to grant the employee permits.
~: 'l/,.'+-
l/~~,???~cU~ 1-'-cJ~
Address: ; ~G.8' ( 0 '77-+ ST":) M:" c.f
54NrA- /IAoNlCI"t/ Ct1 9o.'fotf
1/6/2006
..
~,
ATTACHMENT G
Comments from Colleqe Zone Neiqhborhood Meetinq: January 11. 2006
. 22nd Street: MF buildings near Pico get many permits; SF homes only have 1 car
garages; many work non-traditional work schedules and are home during the day.
. Virginia Ave. park-seems to be the defacto parking for SMC students, might as well
be for businesses.
. This program negates neighborhood watch.
. The program is an insult to residents, and it is insulting that our questions aren't being
adequately answered.
. Who regulates Virginia Ave. park? Students abuse the parking.
. There is currently abuse with the existing preferential parking system by businesses,
so there will be more abuse with this proposed program.
. This program does inconvenience the residents; this is opposite of the goal.
. Residents will have to park even further from their homes.
. City should look at resources already available: VA Park parking, red curbs.
. Businesses are small and don't need more parking.
. Residents do not work typical hours.
. The program won't work: there won't be accountability from employees who use
permits.
. Near Oak St. there is a lot of demand from multiple sources.
. There is a lot of traffic and parking in the alley behind the Ocean Park businesses.
. Resident can't find parking in front of house at 5pm today.
. Vehicles abandoned on Oak St.
. Property owners are liable and pay property taxes but then anyone can use resources.
. Concerned about drift of commercial activity into residential areas.
. Daycare at 18th and Oak: new traffic will negatively impact this.
. Quality of life issue: home values are high and residents should have a reasonable
expectation to park on the street near their homes.
. Business: They own their building, pay taxes, are part of the community, but are
impacted by preferential parking. This program would provide some assurance that at
least some spaces would be available near their business.
. Office building owner: believes the neighborhood is both residential and has some
business. They've made investment to their property by there is no parking.
. 12 permits on a street is too much and is all that's available on the street; 3 passes
may be more reasonable.
. Street cleaning is an issue.
. There is a disparity in the distribution of the number of permits.
. Residents pay taxes and already pay to park on the street (with preferential parking).
Difficult to understand why this is being taken away.
. We need a plan for parking throughout the City; this plan is piecemeal and makes it
easy to abuse.
. There is no lighting on residential streets and it's difficult to ask residents to walk
further to their homes.
. If this program is even needed, why not distribute the burden over a larger area?
. Ensure that the businesses won't resell permits.
. 2 block radius rule not enforced now; how can City ensure that new rules will be
enforced?
. Should centralize parking for commercial uses and have a jitney system.
. Permits should be distributed north, south, east and west.
. Construction impacts the availability of parking.
. Pearl St. meters weren't successful and this program won't be either.
. Concerned about the use of the public right-of-way.
. Resident question to other residents: Has parking in SF garages gone out of fashion?
. 23rd St.: on Friday at 5pm the parking fills us. There's Daily Pint parking, then Lazy
Daisy parking and the Farmer's market on Sat. During the week is the only time that
the street is not full.
. Where are employees parking now?
. Employer: There is no place for employees to park: it's hard to retain employees;
employees are also part of the community.
. Westside Family Health Center: has 45 part-time and full-time employees; they also
support the other businesses and are part of the neighborhood. They are also
concerned about safety and lighting. They are not going to trash the residential
neighborhood.
. In San Francisco, if teachers and students need medical assistance, they are given
permits; should use San Francisco as a model.
. This is really a problem between the City and Santa Monica College.
. Residents should have a choice of regulations.
. Employee parking should be restricted to the end of the block away from the
businesses.
. 18th Street business: There is a need to look at each particular area differently; the
biggest problem is SMC and its growth. This has made it difficult for everyone. The
businesses need a little relief; there will be a mix of employees who use these permits.
. Sides of houses mayor should be relinquished for shared parking.
. Will alternatives be considered such as building new parking structures? What about
better utilizing the existing parking for businesses (such as Moose Lodge property)?
. Find some other options, then work together and get people to participate in the
process.
Goals/Notes 2 ~ ncl 3fr e et
Objectifs/Notes. Ziele/Notizen. ObiettiviJNote. Objetivos/Notas
.
_______C(1te:'.ltt~'l'LPall K-DkV,~,:eo.__,~fi____,_____________,
=ou~_liiif:{D{il~\llib:ti~wiiK11ags.=...~.
"C~h--,-,-mT--------' --.-.'-'VRTn----=.-~b----.' a-B---"-o-f~----
-(f-ly-mCOl.-~e---fLl----.--~---.------J..Q------,-tl----m,--- - .,,-'.
-~:~L1:~~_a~~_~SO.v-~.tvLClt_~,I_-~_SitE-fi[iJ-~~-U5-:e~~~~
_hmo_h' -~-'-to:e -'CO)!' __~----u-~--------- .-,.- 'v.t{r----.--.-.--.--.--.--..
:tki2- n_-J'-_1LU~Jr.l~nrQ_n~ _.u ...... -..
=we.:JiaJle,...nrn;;f:tLpl~J3mJ]~1iUJinTI1~. .
CLf_~tIii-~.~op:~-.?5':(ii{&h'.iiE_=hwli.~_6E__-ea(iJ2~-:-
u1i~~.~lli~pllli'lJ~~~g;t.iiiI:~JW1s
w' hi'~ri~_-me,an8~-._Q.iiiL~~gJcrv.iS6-__.{iO_uI"J~:-.--.-..-.~-~~-
-fW.v_i:h,h..up:~tQ-~iW_jerm.lJSh-:~-VtJYliem-~._-
_wi~i=~(ill~Lt ~i..~__t.v.C.(:.:7[Q..'~-~ii1'lUlli_~~-Cit.h~_===
-4;1:-..::--,;'-- "'-,'-"- - __m__........ _h__ n"___.__._.________.____ ..--...-- 'h_hh_ __h_________.
_.~llit&---J;ur~nth-sin31:e----~-r-8aJ!.a8es--W-er-e.h- --
--x~.-Vi6v-Wi1-:-w-e---Cr---'~-.h'~:r---~----- e- ------Ot{- -- ___h_
.....__ ,_ ,_____._ _________.____ ___n___, _.______O"_jO_Q________afl_____..en___r.g__b .,
~E.re1f__.F!i.iKLr1.. "~Ji2i--,QU~~-~7i~:0-=-50m=~-~~.~,=.:
.~11;;;iXr3~-1iS:~~..ILfej~r.E!iv~.5u.wl~
tf rI ~ rr t ~ r r ~
~~fJ:\~
\ ~ ~ ~ }:. r ~
~ t- Jl '1\ vJ ~ f""o
} ").x- '>.>e ~
. f ~ ) r O-.;:~ _
(0 ~ *.- tAl "'.
t> ~ .:' ~ ,-r -\ "f
'5'". 0 ~ ~ {;; ~ t
~.tf.J {' f-t ~ C>~ -t-: ~
.r ~1 ~ ~ t Q k, p-
~ ~ .~~ 1> ~ ~ ~ ~
k- ~- ~:.- ~
~ :\b ~~, \-t rt ~ u-
~.V?-~+ ~~~
t::.. , ~ <\. ,. .. C).- "
II ,r-- I ~
--- ..., 0..: r:., ~ t ,:y. . r
- . :r- .. -f'"7 -1) <:....-}
~~ ~. ~ 1-i ~ f ~.~
{l l>'---. ~ r- """-C f U'I ~ p
<Jr;- ~-- G;
q 'j. Ql 1; .1-1-' r t -6
v, r ~ ~(+.}:.
Via ~ ~r-~ ~ J-~_
'\-~ ss::' ~. ,.t~ J 6 ~ 'W
, . OJooo -\-.. ~
I -'. J t-- ('L ~ 1
l' F ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ .~
'" v..... 0'--. ~ ~ ~ ..
V <i' l.N f
^ .J\~..r
":'.t- ~ () ~L ~
~ Y"~~,
c- -- ~
~ r
"2...-_
~v
~ ~
~ 1
~ \....
.
Jf ~-J ~..
~ . ~ ~ ~ { ~~
. ~~ ~ .~.
~~ ~ ~~~
~ ~ ~ ~ 1~
~.{} ~~.cr
'" ~~~~
\/,: '< ~ r- ~ T:::
2.. ~ *~~
~~ J ~
-V~~ ~~~
2.:1~~'t;~
.
)
1.
~
~. r~~i~ 0
u
~Q
-J)
~~ {" ~o
I ~ QJ' ~ ~
-\1\ .J.
t :::t rJ ~~.~
<... ~. ' , -... ~ <;>... ~
J- ~ ~ 'J'- --\-
~ -i ~. r N ~
C0~.J" --
~~ <l
~JJ. ~
I. "-0 J:
:J
_ r
lue. -14M ?ai/I{ OffJ heo is bel rJ usee!
duY/(7J the wee!( da!jSJ;rCott~re?f'ldry;
~I;- was not cUleM.clecl c.foJ/ cl:oJl: (Jl)5feclifJ
((Se- ttuslotr.f(:Y bUSGII1e5S jX;/hJ0', /
W€ have m{Jf?lecf;m~/tf d;;;;;'(j3
cut & topotOU/l (5ttei1-tUh~aI?etioIJ
Ut1.1.f q.d8 . d! pOffl/ J:lr jJe~Plt~.(Jt/e5f .
po.J-sf:!s wluifLcan ~sltlf \t/111j ?:m~
iforOheaddrass.wt' #~)JJes W~/t btl,l-!t 11/
1:M 2f)::J wi!fz onR.- C'O't/{dI'~ k.Je do rxJ-
have etJoL~h a/ree I ft/ltfir}C/(yr re5ifJeJ;CES
/ tcc:our~hborhoo.cI brlc:1oh frgjrr;1171
Wl[f MC WOj-J/f Wttltc{fferel7~~12
1(5 ;:a * //1- on oar cI r'tel- ~
.
- I
~
C)
'0
a
,
--
,~
~ G'
lJ~
~
\~ {
~<0
~ \-~ (
~ ~ ~
\> d "-
~v &1 ~
--==-
d -; ~ \:J
~ -:; '\J
\.... - \r- It;
~ ,.. tJ
"'~ <
~ s:~ .t-
=s-+~J
~ t ~ f'
~ v
/~ ~ ~
(
Q)
j,.
d
.1
cY
~
~ ~
-3~
tV
~ .l
t-
'1
"
111
.
~
v .t
~ 6
() +-
>
IV
V
11
~
.J ~
.... ~
~ Of-
).
[.-f:-
, -
I'
j,.
cy
~
cy
-L
+
~
~ . (
..... .~
st....~
tA ;L
+ ~
~ n
~ 'l.}
~ Qj
.~
~
~ Q
::5'--",
. -<
+
v-K
..x~
sz:
o
;::r-
r
\-\-
"
s:..
--\>
/.".)
>0
~
I
- ..;:.
~
:b
o
1;)"':'
'-~
'- ~
Q..C1'
--:e ...
!?~
, .
~I
........t...o
t;:-
ci2
C)
o
o
---...
. ..a'
~.... "'"
~ ~ ~n
-. ~ ~ ~
· t". -.. ~. ~
~ - j l ~ oe-...-=:.
<"- ~ s ~ .~
~ - U"\ &.. ~ ~ ...s
~8 t~"'t"
:1,=- lqi Q..
I -.. V" d :r...... "-
~v S)... +-
CI: rr~()."
0:\ i V'I d U <"'l4 \.I'
T" ,,11 ,
g_;8~cf5
~ 3 " ~f"'!' 2.
~ ~ Q~r
~ ~~ ?~ ~
~w __ ~~~~~
~~",~~-~~~t:.2
3~~~i~{~~~~~~
d.. ~ ~ __2 ~ crr:-~'
~ 21.\.. '-" t.;'~~~< .r-t~~
f};~~~~?i~~ ~~
~..)\1""- ?.... \ ~.l€
{)<ii.;::'t.~~ ~u.,.c_~A-
~ 1.:""i--h~ ~ ~~:::
~ t ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ t(.f
u.; !:;;:: ~~ ~~altJ~
!~~~~~~ I~~~z
"
CPfi1 A uJ G;
'f~ .J 1; 111 jrJA-1C
1''0 f S , ' I
Comments on the Proposed Creation of a Limited and Targetd On-
Streem Permit Parking Program for Employees of Businesses Adjacent
to Preferential Parking Zones
We are the residents of the Oak Street between 14th and 16th and
we want our comments on this proposed change to the permit
parking ordinance to be considered:
1. Notice - We object to the fact that notice of the public meeting
was sent during the week between Christmas and New Years (Dee
27th) about a meeting scheduled for Jan. 11th. This short time
frame during a holiday period has made it hard to respond in a
complete and as considered way as we might have wanted.
2. Needs Assessment - The information item of December 20,
2005 does not indicate how it was determined to have 38 permits
made available to businesses in the Ocean Park corridor. Without
information of the number of permits actually needed, it is
impossible to tell whether the proposed zone meets the need, does
not meet the need or provides more permits than are necessary.
Ocean Park businesses differ from others included within this
information item because many have some parking for employees.
We therefore request that City do a needs a~sessment, inquiring of
the area business owners how ma~y employees would need permits
to determine the total need.
3. Block Choices - The Information Item also does not indicate
how the determination to include our block of Oak, between 14th
and 16th. The Information Item shows distinct preference for south
of Ocean Park rather than including streets north of Ocean Park in
its survey. It does not appear that Maple Street, Pine Street or 18th
Street between Ocean Park and Cedar were included. These three
streets are either closer to or the same distance from the
commerical area as our block of Oak.
With one exception, the nursery, our block does not even back onto
any Ocean Park properties with small businesses. Instead, our block
which is located at the south and west end of the permit parking
zone, already experiences use from residents who live in the 1300
and 1400-1600 blocks of Ocean Park where the properties are
included within our zone and who have limited or no parking in
front of their homes. Thus, our block already handles overflow
parking caused by the lack of parking on Ocean Park Blvd.
Furthermore, many residents on the 1300 block of Oak, which is not
a permit parking block, park on our block toward the end of the
permit time restrictions (after 6 p.m.) because there is virtually
never any permit parking enforcement at that time of the day.
Additional permits wiII make this worse without added enforcement.
It seems to us that (1) our block already has additional pressures on
the permit parking and (2) other blocks located closer to the actual
business district, such as Maple Street, Pine Street or 18th between
Ocean Park and Cedar should be considered being added to the mix
and (3) this block of Oak Street (14th - 16th) should be removed
from consideration as a block where employee permits are allowed
or the number of permits allowed should be reduced.
4. Imnact on Street Cleanin~ Days - The Information Item does
not mention the effect of additional permits on the residents on
street cleanine days. No survey was done on our block of Oak
Street on those days and times. If it had, it would have noted that
there is virtually no place to park on those days. If 5 more cars are
added to the street on those days, residents will be forced onto
other streets. And when there is street cleaning on 14th and 16th
street, Oak handles the cars that park on those streets as well.
Oak's street cleaning is Mondays and Tuesdays and 14th is Thursday
and Friday. 16th is ?????(anyone know?). Prior to this item coming
before the City Council. a more complete survey is required and the
report to the council should detail not only the results. but the
methodology of the survey including dates. times. etc.
5. Pronosed Hours of Emplovee Permits - We ask that the
hours of the permit be reduced from 9.6 to 9-5. No survey
was done to view the parking on Oak Street starting at 5 p.m. From
that time on, the street becomes increasingly crowded. If employees
were allowed to park until 6 p.m., then working residents would
have no place to park upon ,their return home. Although ideally we
might like any employee permit parking to end at 4:30 p.m. we
understand that this may not be realistic; thus we would ask the
reduction in hours only to 5 p.m. (with a comittment to
enforcement between 5 and 6 p.m).
6. Administration and Compliance with Ordinance - We have a
number of other logistical and administrative issues as well:
* Ensure that no commercial vehicles or large trucks are allowed to
park on our street with these employee tags
* Identify the business name on parkin!! ta!!s so that if there are
violations, residents will be able to provide pointed information
* Provide a resident only response/complaint process and track
issues raised by street residents (trash left in street, excessively
large vehicles, parking outside of authorized time frame, etc.)
7. Evaulation of Pilot Proeram - We ask that the evaluation of
the pilot program include a survey of residents in addition to just
another counting of cars. How the residents experienced the change
and were affected is an important factor to consider when
determining whether the program should become permanent.
8. Staff Discretion - We don't know whether this staff requires
this authority, however, we do not see the rationale set forth for
providing the discretion as applying to our neighborhood and block.
Therefore we oppose giving staff discretion to allow parking to
those who might have parked in a zone prior to its creation. If that
discretion is required in other neighborhoods, we would ask that the
discretion be limited to that part of the City. This permit parking
zone is the second created and we do not believe that at this point
any person would fall within the discretion sought by staff.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we would ask that staff seriously consider excluding
the 1400-1500 Oak Street block from this employee permit parking
pilot program as a block already handling Ocean Park Blvd. overflow
from the residences on that street in the 1300 and 1400-1500
blocks. Alternatively, we would suggest enlarging the number of
blocks that can have employee permits and reducing the number of
permits per block. And finally we ask that these comments be
forwarded to the City Council when the matter comes before them.
I J I (~/h: 1 "'o"l1:Jc
5' oh 0 l? )1)/ ' ' v - ./
--5IJ},(}G '-+~ ~\?O 11151 ~9 ~
..5 tJ!dJ6 -Pn-tS J/1?O or.s} ~ ~
-= -/, . ~" 11 --1IJ 1 ~ \j
~$"'::I/~fV ..5~(l6 -J-7VfS' PO jJ7..91 2?.Pyf.~
_C;a/:;Ob '.is 7/J./O bt5! ~f{ ~4'
50hOf::; +5 /11:10 _>151 b~} ~
5c>!JQ b '~~bO baSI CrS~b~~fd:=
50,106 ....?:.:3-zLJ-S ~\l9 0C)S I ~ ~ C'/4.j
V\ \1 ~l )1 \l \A~~
.so}r;?b WS ~ 0!(3 L.9-/r/ ~ ~~
op)) (>6 <5 ~t"O L 1/71 - ("'Jlf]65vnfl>Qj;;
----. '--'..
--J-S' ~() -<3 '(' hi -- 5 d) tJ.)' ~
. /J /) ~k/fl/vl. ...(,7(7 >{(iJf
~~,/;/jf-1/P.J f#t?k9 o/1~.y -;f,'-?/. /?(lJ
~~)I?P/Ftf1j~{? /7//71 fzphf7 I 04Ut/~y
-;i5/j1:[}J~1Ir/ I ~
j<; jCQ &o}JI r~
.~~~O-PI ~~
~ \ 4 \I Cij~ ~~ltt
y~ ~ )'-11/ ()1J1C Sf
ATTACHMENT H
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
MWMaverick@aol.com
Thursday, December 29. 2005 4:52 PM
Ruth Harper
Parking
Hello Ruth - I am in receipt of your neighborhood letter dated Dec. 27, 2005.
My family is currently residing in a single family home on the East side of 28th Street
between Pico and Pearl. I do not believe that we currently have permit parking in effect
here and it does not look like the proposal you mention intends to introduce permit
parking here. It is therefore my understanding that the employee permit parking being
considered would not affect parking on our street between Pearl and Pico. If I am
misinformed, please let me know since it is already often very tricky finding a place to
park on this block. I would suspect that this is, in part, due to the number of apartment
buildings and condos on this block - I do not know the city parking space regulations for
landlords and/or developers here.
I might suggest that on streets in our area with only single family homes, I typically
find it much easier to locate a place to park on the street.
Let me also mention that we frequent Trader Joe's and parking there is always challenging.
We are beginning to make a habit of going to one of the other Trader Joe's locations to
avoid the headache of parking at Pico store and I am sure we are not alone.
In addition, let me mention that in the 1.5 years we've lived here, I have had to call the
Santa Monica Police five times at night to report vehicles parked in front of our
driveway. Said vehicles have blocked us in and on one morning, prevented us from getting
to work on time!
Thanks for soliciting opinions.
Regards and Happy New Year!
Bill Ring
Real Estate Consultant, Foreclosure & Workout Specialist Commercial Investment Team Keller
Williams Realty Brentwood
11812 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 100
Los Angeles, Ca. 90049
310 826 8200 x701
Fax: 310 826 8221
Cell: 310 600 2015
Your Westside Real Estate Resource
1
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: Ann Murphy [artisann@earthlink.net)
Sent: Monday, January 02, 20064:05 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: 31st Street Preferential Parking
Dear Ms. Harper.
This week, we received the letter that states you are reviewing the current Preferential Parking
Ordinance situation in our neighborhood.
I will be traveling on business and I will not be able to attend the planning meeting on January 18th but I
would still like to have my vote heard:
Please do not make changes the current residential parking preferences on 31st Street.
We live between Pico and Pearl on 31st Street and currently experience daily difficulties find space to
park or even to put my trash cans in front of my home. We are already frustrated with the parking
situations and frequently we find cars parking so close to my driveway that I can barely back out. Our
neighborhood is not filled solely single family residences. At the Pica end of 31st Street, we have at
least six apartment dwellings, the Travel Lodge in addition to the basic single family homes. Most of the
apartments do not have enough parking for their tenants and I regularly see the tenants parking in front
of my home and walking up the street to their home.
31 st Street is where we make our homes and should not have to fight to have a place where we and our
guests can park. Please consider the idea that 31st Street has six apartments that have 5-20 units each. If
there are one or two cars per unit, there is already an imbalance in the cars per space ratio on our street.
Most business around this neighbor have employee pools are transient and impermanent. With an
addition to the existing problem, our street would have difficulty tolerating and competing for parking
with employees of McDonalds, Weinersnitzel, Lares, McCabes, the Travel Lodge, Valentinos, Trader
Joes, and a variety of car repair services. Life in our neighborhood will become most unbearable.
Best regards,
Ann Murphy
Homeowner and resident
2419 31st Street
Santa Monica, Ca 90405
01/19/2006
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
James Holloway [mudder_1999@yahoo.com]
Monday, January 02, 2006 10:30 PM
Ruth Harper
ckisker@ucla.edu; gggrebler@verizon.net; Crystal Silva
Preferential Parking Ordinance
Dear Ms. Harper,
I am a resident of 28th Street and strongly oppose the idea of a limited employee permit
parking program on residential streets.
There is barely enough parking on our street as it is.
The last thing we want is more traffic and as a result, congestion in our neighborhood.
Is there a petition that I can sign to oppose any action on this?
Thanks,
James Holloway
2507 28th street #2
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310-936-2839
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/
1
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: LINDA [Iinanm@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 20066:28 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: 31 st Street Preferential Parking
RE: Allowing employee parking permits on 31st street
I have lived on 31 st street between Pico and Pearl for 35 years. With the increase in
businesses on Pico and Ocean Park came the loss of parking on our street. We finally had to
resort to parking permits and paid to have the privilege of parking in front of our own houses
for us and our guests.
We have several apartment buildings at the Pico end of the block with a lack of onsite parking
for the tenants. Therefore, they park as far up the block as Pearl. On street cleaning days
when we have only one side of the street to park on, it is still impossible to find a space. I can't
imagine how it will be with additional permits being issued.
Please respect our neighborhood. We do not need more cars to take what parking we have,
nor do we need more noise or litter.
I would hope that you work on solving the traffic problems first before allowing even more cars
into the area.
Thank you in advance for taking this request into consideration.
0]/19/2006
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: Taylor, Norbert (LAN-ME) [Norbert.Taylor@mccann.com}
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 3:23 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: Employee parking program
Hello Ms. Harper, I am an owner/resident of a home on 30th Street between Pico and Pearl and am writing to
express my objections over this program. Currently my street is crowded with cars belonging to residents of
apartment buildings at 30th and Pico. I understand the need for these residents to have parking, although there
are several owners who leave their cars parked for days at a time in the same spot, often in front of my house (In
particular, a red Honda Prelude with a permit that reads "2902 Pica") only to move them to the other side the day
before street cleaning. Often I cannot find parking within a reasonable distance of my own house when I get home
from work at 5:30 PM. Add the proposed Employee Parking cars along this stretch of 30th and who knows how
much farther I will need to park away from home.
Additionally, let me add another concern. A couple of years ago there was a business at Pico and 30th called Pico
Cabinets. (This was before we went to restricted parking). Their employees regularly parked along 30th Street-
sometimes filling all available spots on one side on street cleaning days. They would often eat breakfast in their
cars before work and sometimes lunch during the day, leaving cups and trash at the curb regularly. I do not want
to see a repeat of that. We already get the occasional curb dump from people who stop along the street and eat in
their cars after visiting the drive-thru's at the fast food restaurants at Pica and 29th & 30 tho This plan has the
potential to add to that.
I will not be able to attend the area meeting at Virginia Park on 1/18 but wanted to get my opinion in. Thanks for
your time.
Norbert Taylor
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the
intended recipient (or authorized to receive this message for the intended recipient), you may not use,
copy, disseminate or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If
you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete the
message. Thank you very much.
01/19/2006
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Tatsunoken@aol.com
Thursday, January 05, 2006 9:14 PM
kevnin@mckeown.net; Robert Holbrook; Bobby Shriver; Richard Bloom; city@genser.org;
Herb Katz Fwd; Pam OConnor; Ruth Harper
employee permit parking at Urban Avenue neighborhood
Subject:
To whom it may concern, I am totally against having pico business neighborhood to use our
street for proposal 45 permit parking along the Urban Avenue neighborhood. It's hard
enough to provide visitors to our home to park in front of our house, needing to have
permit or else get tickets. So 2911 Urban Avenue is against this proposal.
thank you for your attention on this matter.
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
steve kandell [skandell@mac.com]
Thursday, January 05,200610:55 PM
Ruth Harper
proposed employee parking permits in the east pica area
Ruth:
I am very opposed to the proposal to issue parking permits to employees of Pico
businesses. The original problem that caused the need for the current permit parking
program was because of the employees of the pico businesses, not because of the customers.
Customers also use our streets for parking, but should only be here for a maximum of 2
hours (although in practice, the streets are rarely patrolled by parking enforcement, and
most days non-permitted cars are parked here much longer than 2 hours). In most cases,
employees would be parked here for the entire day, and would use up the limited parking
that the residents are currently paying for. Pico businesses are doing fine under the
current system, and allowing them to park on our street would be a great inconvenience to
the residents.
Urban Avenue residents do not have driveways. Use of our garages is limited because
trucks and other commercial vehicles park in front of our garages in the alleys while
making deliveries to the Pico businesses. Calling parking enforcement is of no use
because it takes too long for them to respond, and when they do respond, they sometimes
ticket the trucks, and sometimes just talk to the drivers. In the meantime, we can not
get into our garages, so we are forced to park on the street so that we can access our
cars when we need them.
Homes closer to the corners already have difficulty parking during the day as Pico
business 'customers park on Urban near Yorkshire and Dorchester. A similar problem occurs
in the evening as Pico Blvd apartment renters park down Yorkshire and Dorchester and
around onto Urban. Allowing the employees to park here will make a difficult situation
even worse.
As it is, some apartment renters on Pico and Yorkshire have purchased visitor permits that
they have sold to employees from Pico businesses.
When we have told parking enforcement about this activity, we are told they must catch the
employees parking and then walking into the business or there is nothing they can do.
Issueing/selling parking permits to Pico or any other businesses is a bad idea.
Elena Estrin
2910 Urban Ave.
16 January 2006
Ruth Harper
Transportation Management Division
PO Box 2200
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2200
RE: ON STREET EMPLOYEE PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM
To Ruth Harper
We are writing to lodge our protest against this proposal. We do not want employee
permit parking in our neighborhood and are strongly opposed to this proposal
Adding parking on our neighborhood street will increase traffic, add noise, air
pollution and litter. This is a neighborhood where children are safe because the street
is quiet and we do not have strangers entering our street to park. Also the addition of
45 employee parking permits to our neighborhood will make it very difficult to find
parking near our own homes and greatly inconvenience home owners in our area.
Sincerely
Mand ow & Robert Helean
2926 Urban Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
shane saywell (ssaywell@lycos.com}
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 7:21 PM
Ruth Harper
parking
Dear Ms Harper,
I am writing as a resident and home owner in the East Pica area to strongly protest
against any extension of parking permits in my neighbourhood.
I will not be attending the public meeting hence I feel I should voice my opinion in
writing.
Yours Truly,
Shane Saywell
Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.1ycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycoslO
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
mg ross1950@aol.com
Tuesday, January 17, 200610:58 PM
Ruth Harper
The city could help in this parking problem: while issuing 5 permits for 32nd street block
from Pico to Pearl, they should also remove metered parking on the same block. As it is,
it is difficult to find street parking for any visitors to residents of this block, as
well as for residents themselves without enough parking in their own garges/ driveways.
1
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: Ruthshari@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 18,20069:47 AM
To: Ruth Harper
Cc: rachel@waughs.com
Subject: preferential street parking permits
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
Dear Ruth and others:
As a long term resident of 34th Street, I resent having to pay $15 for a parking permit. When people visit me at
night, I don't want to run out and give them a permit nor do I want to feel obligated to pay for their tickets if they
are cited.
'We clearly need more parking in the area, where congestion---a euphemism for the actual pandemonium---
seems to prevail during the day everyday due to Trader Joe's. However, complaints provide no solution.
As a possible solution, couldn't the City and Trader Joe work out something where the bank parking on 33rd
and the other lot just south of Pico closer to 34th could be made available? The permit revenues could be paid
to the owners of those lots for parking either during the day or at night in designated spaces marked permit
parking only. That could free up some spots.
Additionally, could all minds collaborate to identify other parking lots in the numbered streets closest to T J's so
that employees would be able to park. They are another group who shouldn't be cited due to the cost of a
ticket vs. their hourly wages. 33rd street should not be the only street affected by the spill over. Concerned
people should be identifying all surrounding streets that could be designated preferential parking to handle the
need. My vote is for nonresidents and their employees to pay for preferential parking. Let me know your
thoughts about these suggestions and the results of the meeting tonight.
Respectfully I
Ruth Shari
Distinctive Properties
Previews International
Coldwell Banker Brentwood East
(Hm.) 310-450-4929
(Of.) 310-442-1646
(fax) 310-820-1457
www.camoves.com/ruth.shari
01/19/2006
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: Miryan Nogueira [MNogueira@celsinc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18,200610:05 AM
To: Ruth Harper
Cc: laurendsf@adelphia.net
Subject: Preferential parking - on-street employee parking program
Sensitivity: Confidential
Dear Ms. Harper,
I'm a resident at 2405 34th. Street #26 and will not be able to attend the meeting today at
6:30pm in the Thelma Terry room at the new Virginia Avenue Park to discuss the above
referenced program.
This new program infringes on the rights of residents who already have been forced to acquire
parking permits. It is a great inconvenience to residents as it restricts the hours they may use
their streets for deliveries and guests and does not guarantee them a space at any time and
spills the problem into my street.
Even though the program does not call for the creation of a parking zone on 34th. Street yet, it
is my opinion that this program will create problems, precluding real estate property taxes
payers to park cars in front of our own properties, as residents/employees from the adjacent
parking zoned streets fail to purchase permits and decide to park on 34th. Street.
The city has excellent bus Jines and even requires business to pay employees who
carpool, bike or ride the bus - please have the businesses use these programs and reduce a
little congestion as well as parking problems - instead of spending money to create a
bigger inconvenience for the residents!
Thank you for your time and attention.
Miryan Nogueira, MBA
VP, Strategic Planning
eELS Enterprises, Inc.
www.chineselaundry.~om
********************************************************************************************
This message and any attached documents contain information that may be confidential and/or
privileged !fyou are not the intended recipient. you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this
information. !fyou have received this transmission in error, please notifY the sender immediately
by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Thank You.
*******************************************************************************************~
01/19/2006
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: Claudia Villar [cvillar21@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday. January 18, 20066:03 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: Employee Permits
Hi Ruth,
I am a resident of Santa Monica living at 2417 34th Street. I am opposed to the new Employee Parking
Permit Plan. It is contradictory to one fa the main goals of not inconviencing residents.
This would create a problem for residents where there is none. One of the main reasons we chose to live
where we do is for ease of parking due to a lack of restrictions, it allows us and our guests to freely park
at any time, with the exception of street cleaning. This new permit plan would create extra congestion in
the surround area around the selected zornes and would add a financial expense for residents that they
did not have before for the rights they already have.
This opinion is shared by the majority of our neighbors in our 45 Unit Owner Occupied complex.
Thank you.
-Claudia
01/19/2006
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kuyoomjian, Diane [diane_kuyoomjian@deutschinc.com}
Thursday. January 19, 2006 7:10 PM
Ruth Harper
Proposed parking permits in Santa Monica
Dear Ms. Harper,
I am a resident on 34th Street in Santa Monica. I was just advised of the pending proposal
to sell parking permits to employees of local businesses on nearby streets (28th-33rd
between Pico and Pearl, as I understand it). I am writing to express my concern about this
plan.
Though this proposal does not explicitly affect our street, surely anyone who can't find
parking (or doesn't pay for the permit) on the other streets will surely overflow onto
34th. It seems to me that the most likely reason for the current congestion is the lack
of sufficient parking at the Trader Joe's. I appreciate your office's attempts to reduce
the congestion, but am concerned that this solution merely spreads the problem around the
neighborhood. I further fear that the next step will be to require resident parking
permits on 34th Street, something I also object to.
Please add my voice to others who share my concerns. I hope you are able to find a
different solution.
Thank you for your consideration.
Diane Kuyoomjian
Diane Kuyoomjian
SVP, Group Account Director
Deutsch
5454 Beethoven Street
Los Angeles, CA 90066
310-B62-3616
diane_kuyoomjian@deutschinc.com
1
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Linda Kent {Ihkent@verizon.net)
Saturday, January 21,200610:32 AM
Ruth Harper
East Pico parking
Dear Ms. Harper,
Charles Whiteman and I live at 3125 Pearl St. I took the initiative to bring permit
parking to our block as the students from the Culinary Institute were parking all day on
our block.
We oppose allowing employees to park on our block.
Right now, cars park along 33rd St. almost up to Pearl St. because Trader Joe's lot
cannot accommodate them. Twice my car has been hit inside the lot due to the congestion.
However, if employee parking were to be allowed on our block we would go back to the
situation we had before the permit plan went into effect--no space for our own cars by our
home.
Each block from Pico to Pearl on the numbered streets is more than twice as long as each
block on Pearl. I have no objection to employees parking on the numbered streets, but not
on Pearl.
Sincerely,
Linda H. Kent
Page 1 of2
Ruth Harper
From: Ross Levinson [iear@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 28,20052:39 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Cc: Kevin McKeown Fwd
Subject: SM Preferential Parking Ordinance
33'^' s+.
Dear Ruth,
I have come to meetings, emailed the Santa Monica City Council and made phone calls. It seems like
you have decided to turn a deaf ear to my protests about this parking situation. Here is a letter that was
sent to the city council on June 12,2005.
To whom it may concern:
I am adamantly opposed to additional permit parking on my street. I live on the east side of
33rd street right near the northern comer and so I bear the brunt of Trader Joes parking.
When we got permit parking here, I was told that we had to get the same rules that were
extended to all our neighbors. Consequently, we got 2 hour restricted permit parking on our
block. This allows Trader Joes customers plenty of time and opportunity to park and shop
comfortably. It also creates havoc on the block with near-accidents happening daily, people
making V-turns into my driveway, all the time, speeding up and down the block, and a
veritable mess of a situation. Now in addition to all the above you want to add employee
parking. My neighbor and I were the ones who personally went up and down our block to
get the petitions signed to get the permit parking instituted. Before the permit parking, TJ's
employees would arrive and park in front of my house at anywhere between 8 and 9 AM
and remain there till 6 or 7PM. There were never any spots available. If I ever left and
moved my car it was immediately replaced with a n employee or a shopper. This is an
absolutely unfair and untenable situation. I have no problem with some limited employee
parking but to ask me to bear more of the burden then I already bear is extremely unfair.
Some suggestion:
1- Do a more thorough investigation of the parking situation as it specifically pertains to
Trader Joes and 33rd Street. Barring that, have some coded parking restrictions for the
employees which allows them to park on Pearl or on the less-used portions of blocks,
where customers are not willing to park.
2- Give us fully restricted parking zone so no TJ's customers can park on our block. Then I
would not mind at all a percentage of employees parking here, as long as they were not
allowed to consistently park in the same spot each day. Human nature would lead them to
park as close to work as possible: in front of my home. .
3- If you plan to go ahead with this, then eliminate my parking permit fees. You will be
collecting twice for the same spot. $120 from Trader Joes and my fees. If you get money
from TJ's to have employees park in front of my home, then I should not have to pay to
park in front of someone else's home.
Thanks for the prompt attention to this matter.
Ross Levinson
01/19/2006
Page 2 of2
2325 33rd Street
I got a nice response from Kevin McKeown who seemed to agree with at least part of my concerns.
1 won't support any plan that takes first claim on neighborhood parking away
from residents, but it's important wefind an equitable .way to share the
empty spaces on some blocks so other nearby blocks don't become
overburdened. I'm thinking employees should get spots only on ~1)ectfic
blocks that are still half empty even after residents park, and the employee
permits should be priced to cover all costs on those blocks so that
residents who share get their own permits free.
Still thinking about it; ideas welcome.
Kevin
When I came to the meeting at the Montana Library, I felt like once again my concerns were not being
addressed. And now I find this proposal which is exactly what I have been concerned about for at least
the past year. Is there no one available to truly listen and take into account my issues? Is there no
creative way to get more parking for TJts but not unfairly overburden the northern part ofthe block?
Why was 33rd between Pearl and Ocean Park not considered?
Why is Pearl not being considered?
Why can't you just allow employees to park exclusively on the southern half of my block? Those
residents don't complain as much BECAUSE they are not affected nearly as much as I am.
What about my idea for coded restricted parking for the employees?
Change the restricted parking to only I hour so customers truly must move their cars as soon as they are
finished shopping at TJ's.
Build another parking structure in the empty lot on Pico (like that will ever be considered...)
I have offered these proposals and many others many times before. I have spoken with Lucy Dyke, Beth
Rolandson and you. It truly seems like no one has heard a word I and many of my neighbors have said.
What else do you suggest I do to get my concerns voiced? Who else should I contact? I of course will
try to get to the meeting on Jan. 18 but in case [ cannot attend, I want to make my requests as stated in
the email above a part of the formal record. How can I go about doing that?
Ross Levinson
2325 33rd Street
iear@earthlink.net
01/19/2006
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Grace Phillips [gracesadye@gmail.com]
Wednesday, December 28, 2005 2:54 PM
Ruth Harper
Ross Levinson; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Council Mailbox; "33rd Streef'; Santa Monica City
Manager's Office; Zina Josephs
33rd Street parking
Subject:
Dear Ruth:
I second Ross Levinson's thoughts to you. We have worked SO HARD as a street to try to get
some sort of a solution worked out for the numerous traffic and parking problems on our
block, and now I get flyers in the mail announcing that you want to make our problem
WORSE. Do the city departments communicate at all??? Lucy Dyke and Beth Rolandson have
at least responded to our concerns, and out of the City Council only Kevin McKeown has
returned any ideas.
What do we have to do to get the city to help us? How on earth is it possible that you
haven't paid any attention to all our letters, petitions, and phone calls and that you now
propose to compound the problem? Can you please explain? We are unfairly burdened -
everyone already knows that. You will have a big mess on your hands if you try to add any
employee permit parking to this block. We are FED UP. I have lived here 7 years and have
been working on this issue the entire time, as have many of my neighbors, and after all
that time and effort we have absolutely nothing to show for it.
Sincerely, and hoping you respond,
Grace Phillips
2335 33rd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.8/215 - Release Date: 12/27/2005
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Debbie Millar [debbie_millar@yahoo.com]
Thursday, December 29, 2005 11 :35 AM
Ruth Harper
Kevin McKeown Fwd; Council Mailbox; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Zina Josephs;
Amanda Tung; Doug Tung; Klara Vogel; Victoria Whelan; Wi' and Suzanne; Maury Pearl;
Nan; Nancy Pearl; Grace Phillips; Rob and Kay; Ross; Gretchen & Carlos; Ted Hutman;
Ingrid; Jack and Francoise; Joe Koetters; Joe Perches
Re: 33rd Street permit parking changes
Subject:
Ruth-
I also am upset to hear that the city is still including 33rd.street (block south of Pico-
next to Trader Joe's) in its plan for employee permit parking.
Beth Rolandson has told me that her department will meet with us in February to discuss
our block's traffic problems. Their department is also planning to do another traffic
study in January.
It makes no sense to open our block to additional traffic before this study and meeting
occur.
Debbie Millar
2401 33rd Street
310-399-9251
> Dear Ruth:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I second Ross Levinson's thoughts to you. We have worked SO HARD as a
street to try to get some sort of a solution worked out for the
numerous traffic and parking problems on our block, and now I get
flyers in the mail announcing that you want to make our problem WORSE.
Do the city
departments communicate at all??? Lucy Dyke and Beth Rolandson have
at least responded to our concerns, and out of the City Council only
Kevin McKeown has returned any ideas.
What do we have to do to get the city to help us?
How on earth is it
possible that you haven't paid any attention to all our letters,
petitions, and phone calls and that you now propose to compound the
problem? Can you please explain? We are unfairly burdened - everyone
already knows that. You will have a big mess on your hands if you try
to add any employee permit parking to this block. We are FED UP. I
have lived here 7 years and have been working on this issue the entire
time, as have many of my neighbors, and after all that time and effort
we have absolutely nothing to show for it.
Sincerely, and hoping you respond,
Grace Phillips
2335 33rd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.8/215
12/27/2005
- Release Date:
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Bhardwaj, Vikram [GBKG] [vikram.bhardwaj@citigroup.com]
Thursday, December 29, 2005 11 :56 AM
Grace Phillips; Ruth Harper
Ross Levinson; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Council Mailbox; 33rd Street; Santa Monica City
Manager's Office; Zina Josephs
RE: 33rd Street parking
Subject:
Dear Ruth et al
I am self-admittedly a little late to this party but I feel the same way as do my
neighbors. It is inconceivable to me that anyone who takes the time to spend more than a
fleeting minute on our block would view this as a viable plan. This can not, should not,
and will not be allowed to happen!
Thanks
VB
-----Original Message-----
From: Grace Phillips [mailto:gracesadye@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 2:54 PM
To: ruth.harper@smgov.net
Cc: Ross Levinson; Kevin McKeown; council@smgov.net; u33rd StreetU; manager@smgov.net;
Zina Josephs
Subject: 33rd Street parking
Dear Ruth:
I second Ross Levinson's thoughts to you. We have worked SO HARD as a street to try to get
some sort of a solution worked out for the numerous traffic and parking problems on our
block, and now I get flyers in the mail announcing that you want to make our problem
WORSE. Do the city departments communicate at all??? Lucy Dyke and Beth Rolandson have
at least responded to our concerns, and out of the City Council only Kevin McKeown has
returned any ideas.
What do we have to do to get the city to help us? How on earth is it possible that you
haven't paid any attention to all our letters, petitions, and phone calls and that you now
propose to compound the problem? Can you please explain? Weare unfairly burdened -
everyone already knows that. You will have a big mess on your hands if you try to add any
employee permit parking to this block. We are FED UP. I have lived here 7 years and have
been working on this issue the entire time, as have many of my neighbors, and after all
that time and effort we have absolutely nothing to show for it.
Sincerely, and hoping you respond,
Grace Phillips
2335 33rd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.8/215 - Release Date: 12/27/2005
1
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Joe Koetters IJoe.Koetters@marlboroughschool.org}
Thursday, December 29, 20053:44 PM
Ruth Harper
33rd St parking
Dear Ruth:
I am another resident of 33rd St. We live a bit farther down the block (2410) than some
of the more vocal residents in our neighborhood, and to be honest, we have not been really
active in voicing our concerns. At times I've even felt some of our neighbors need to get
over it and realize they live in a city near a commercial district. However, some serious
and dangerous incidents on our block in the last few months have changed my feelings.
Something needs to be done about the traffic which cuts through our block to get in and
out of Trader Joe's, the increasingly competitive and occassionally violent battles over
parking spots up and down our street, and the danger to children and pets that comes with
people making quick U-turns to cut off other people before they speed to parking spaces.
My children have been witness to two screaming and cussing fights in front of our house
this year. My wife has been verbally abused for parking her car in our driveway (and
apparently making it impossible for a gentleman to speed past her into an open parking
space that was taken by someone else). Almost every day there are shopping carts on the
lawn in front of our house, and often people with apparently no other place to go sit on
the curb in front of our house and drink liquor out of their paper bags. These things
were not happening here three and four years ago to the degree they are now.
Every time I have heard another story about the city council giving our concerns the run-
around from my neighbors, I have tended to assume the city was thinking constructively
about things, seeing the big picture, and doing what they thought best. However, as our
situation deteriorates it becomes less and less easy to do the easy thing and turn a blind
eye to the city's lack of concern:
I would be happy to discuss this with anyone who felt they could help. I would urge you
strongly to consider the larger situation on our block, and the slowly awakening mass of
citizens like myself who have been silent heretofore, but are now ready to wake up and
demand that our concerns be addressed.
Thanks, Joe Koetters
399-9063
1
Re: 33rd Street permit parking changes
Page 1 of2
Ruth Harper
From: Pearl, Nancy [NPear/@unex.ucla.edu]
Friday, December 30, 2005 5:49 PM
Debbie Millar; Ruth Harper
Kevin McKeown Fwd; Council Mailbox; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Zina Josephs;
AmandaTung; Doug Tung; Klara Vogel; Victoria Whelan; Wiland Suzanne; Maury Pearl; Nan;
Grace Phillips; Kafka,Rob; Ross; Gretchen & Carlos; Ted Hutman; Ingrid; Jack and Francoise; Joe
Koetters; Joe Perches
Subject: RE: 33rd Street permit parking changes
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Ruth,
I want you to know I am also upset about this information. I have lived on 33rd Street for about 9 years and the
traffic and parking is just getting worse.
Nancy Pearl
2428 33rd St.
(310) 396-8810
From: Debbie Millar [mailto:debbie_millar@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thu 12/29/2005 11 :35 AM
To: ruth.harper@smgov.net
Cc: Kevin McKeown; council@smgov.net; manager@smgov.net; Zina Josephs; Amanda Tung; Doug Tung; Klara
Vogel; Victoria Whelan; Wi! and Suzanne; Maury Pearl; Nan; Pearl, Nancy; Grace Phillips; Kafka, Rob; Ross;
Gretchen & Carlos; Ted Hutman; Ingrid; Jack and Francoise; Joe Koetters; Joe Perches
Subject: Re: 33rd Street permit parking changes
Ruth-
I also am upset to hear that the city is still
including 33rd street (block south of Pica-next to
Trader Joe's) in its plan for employee permit parking.
Beth Rolandson has told me that her department will
meet with us in February to discuss our block's
traffic problems. Their department is also planning
to do another traffic study in January.
It makes no sense to open our block to additional
traffic before this study and meeting occur.
Debbie Millar
2401 33rd Street
310-399-9251
> Dear Ruth:
>
> I second Ross Levinson's thoughts to you. We have
> worked SO HARD as a
> street to try to get some sort of a solution worked
> out for the numerous
> traffic and parking problems on our block, and now I
> get flyers in the mail
> announcing that you want to make our problem WORSE.
> Do the city
01/19/2006
Re: 33rd Street permit parking changes
Page 1 of3
Ruth Harper
From: Amanda Tung [amanda@isg.la]
Friday, December 30. 2005 9:48 PM
Ruth Harper
Kevin McKeown Fwd; Council Mailbox; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Zina Josephs;
DougTung; Klara Vogel; Victoria Whelan; Wil and Suzanne; Maury Pearl; Nan; Grace Phillips;
Katka,Rob; Ross; Gretchen & Carlos; Ted Hutman; Ingrid; Jack and Francoise; Joe Koetters;Joe
Perches; Pearl, Nancy; Debbie Millar
Subject: RE: 33rd Street permit parking changes
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Ruth,
Thank you for your request for feedback. I am very concerned about the proposed changes to the preferential
parking ordinance.
The idea of a limited employee permit parking seems to be an end-run around the reasons for which this
ordinance was established in the first place. Why do we have preferential parking? The reason is to shield
residential property from the economic impact and congestion of nearby businesses. In many cases, those
businesses relied on neighborhood support in order to be granted access to these neighborhoods in the first
place. The preferential parking ordinance was a way of addressing the concerns of families as part of a plan to
accommodate those businesses.
Even so, the ordinance creates significant costs and hassle for the very homeowners it is intended to protect.
Extending the permits to employees completely negates the positive intent of the ordinance while leaving the
homeowners with all the negative burdens.
I am against extending the ordinance to include empfoyees of neighborhood businesses. These businesses and
the associated business districts need to be accountable for planning for their economic growth in a manner that
does not burden the rest of the community. Already these businesses create economic impact for their neighbors
that they are not paying for and are difficult to appropriate cost including traffic, crime, noise and child safety
problems. For example, the Trader Joes business provides substantially inadequate parking for its customer
base; has created significant traffic problems that impact local traffic as well as the east/west flow of Pico
Boulevard; and generated high speed and aggravated auto traffic on nearby residential streets.
33rd Street homeowners have already made numerous concessions to development that has encroached on our
safety and quality of life. The City has yet to take any action to address our safety concerns including acting on a
speed abatement program that was submitted several years ago and signed for by a majority of residents.
If any employee parking is made available it needs to be made available first and foremost for domestic help and
workers needed to service the residential properties, as follows:
1. The preferential parking period be reduced from 2 hours to 30 minutes
2. Each homeowner is granted annual permits at no cost
3. Each homeowner is designated 1-2 additional permits for domestic help and workers needed to service the
residential properties.
4. Businesses and the business district can collaborate with each other to provision and develop real estate
for the purpose of accommodating their employees and customers using property and parking in the
business district.
Sincerely,
Doug Tung
Resident
~'1;)'1 33~..( Sr,
01/19/2006
Re: 33rd Street permit parking changes
Page 1 of 4
Ruth Harper
From: Pearl, Nancy [NPearl@unex.ucla.edu]
Sent: Saturday, December 31,20059:08 PM
To: Amanda Tung; Ruth Harper
Cc: Kevin McKeown Fwd; Council Mailbox; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Zina Josephs;
DougTung; Klara Vogel; Victoria Whelan; Wil and Suzanne; Maury Pearl; Nan; Grace Phillips;
Kafka,Rob; Ross; Gretchen & Carlos; Ted Hutman; Ingrid; Jack and Francoise; Joe Koetters; Joe
Perches; Debbie Millar
Subject: RE: 33rd Street permit parking changes
Doug,
I agree completely with your analysis. It is clear that businesses (mainly Trader Joe's) have not fully internalized
the costs associated with operation in this area. Furthermore, the city of Santa Monica is now asking residents to
bear more of these costs. The city, it appears, has done much to try to appease local businesses, but very little to
help local residents maintain and enhance the quality of our neighborhood.
Maury
From: Amanda Tung [mailto:amanda@isg.la]
Sent: Fri 12/30/2005 9:48 PM
To: ruth.harper@smgov.net
Cc: Kevin McKeownj council@smgov.netj manager@smgov.netj Zina Josephs; Doug Tung; Klara Vogelj Victoria
Whelanj Wi! and Suzanne; Maury Pearl; Nan; Grace Phillipsj Kafkal Rob; Ross; Gretchen & Carlos; Ted Hutman;
Ingridj Jack and Francoisej Joe Koetters; Joe Perches; Pearl, Nancy; Debbie Millar
Subject: RE: 33rd Street permit parking changes
Ruth,
Thank you for your request for feedback. I am very concerned about the proposed changes to the preferential
parking ordinance.
The idea of a limited employee permit parking seems to be an end-run around the reasons for which this
ordinance was established in the first place. Why do we have preferential parking? The reason is to shield
residential property from the economic impact and congestion of nearby businesses. In many cases, those
businesses relied on neighborhood support in order to be granted access to these neighborhoods in the first
place. The preferential parking ordinance was a way of addressing the concerns of families as part of a plan to
accommodate those businesses.
Even so, the ordinance creates significant costs and hassle for the very homeowners it is intended to protect.
Extending the permits to employees completely negates the positive intent of the ordinance while leaving the
homeowners with all the negative burdens.
I am against extending the ordinance to include employees of neighborhood businesses. These businesses and
the associated business districts need to be accountable for planning for their economic growth in a manner that
does not burden the rest of the community. Already these businesses create economic impact for their neighbors
that they are not paying for and are difficult to appropriate cost including traffic, crime. noise and child safety
problems. For example, the Trader Joes business provides substantially inadequate parking for its customer
base; has created significant traffic problems that impact local traffic as well as the east/west flow of Pico
Boulevard; and generated high speed and aggravated auto traffic on nearby residential streets.
01/19/2006
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Kafka, Rob [RKafka@unex.ucla.edu]
Monday, January 02, 2006 5:05 PM
Ruth Harper
Council Mailbox
FW: FOSP: Employee Permit Parking on Residential Streets in Sunset Park
Sorry, I neglected to address you on this.
Rob Kafka
-----Original Message-----
From: Kafka, Rob
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 4:21 PM
To: 'Debbie Millar'; Anthony Tsugano; Monica and Vie Bhardwaj; David and Elaine; Dick
Anderson; Earl Dorsey; Ted Rutman; Ingrid; Jack and Francoise; Joe Koetters; Joe Perches;
Maury Pearl; Nan; Pearl, Nancy; Grace Phillips; Amanda Tung; Doug Tung; Klara Vogel;
Victoria Whelan; Wil and Suzanne
Subject: RE: FOSP: Employee Permit Parking on Residential Streets in Sunset Park
Debbie,
My wife and I will not be able to attend on January 18. But I would add this. Inadequate
parking is part of the business plan for Trader Joe's.
The TJs on National finally had to expand its parking - and it's still inadequate. The
TJs in Pasadena has parking for about 20 cars, as I recall. Utterly inadequate. The only
TJs I know of that has adequate parking is on Sepulveda, in Westchester -- and that's
because it's in a strip mall with a huge parking lot in the rear. TJs depends on
residential parking for its profitability, and Santa Monica ought not to allow them to
expand that plan here. It has already had a significant negative impact.
I enjoy taking the TJ shopping carts left in front of our house to the dump, but I'd much
rather not have to. These leavings make our street look trashy. And if employees of TJs
or other businesses are allowed parking privileges, the impact will be felt by even more
horne-owners.
Why not simply require businesses to provide adequate parking for their clientele and
employees? What is the problem with that? Underground lots would seem to be the answer.
Yes, that would mean a larger investment -- but Santa Monica is so over-developed, why not
winnow the pack?
Why are the businesses and the City coming at us now with this proposal?
They were both supposed to have figured all of this out when the TJ project was approved.
Should we start a recall?
Regards,
Rob Kafka
2420 33rd St
Santa Monica
-----Original Message-----
From: Debbie Millar [mailto:debbie millar@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 2:13 PM
To: Anthony Tsuganoi Monica and Vic Bhardwaj; David and Elaine; Dick Anderson; Earl
Dorsey; Ted Hutman; Ingrid; Jack and Francoise; Joe Koetters; Joe Perches; Maury Pearl;
Nan; Pearl, Nancy; Grace Phillips; Kafka, Rob; Amanda Tung; Doug Tung; Klara Vogel;
Victoria Whelan; Wil and Suzanne
Subject: Fwd: FOSP: Employee Permit Parking on Residential Streets in Sunset Park
A summary from Friends of Sunset Park...please email the city and/or attend this meeting
on the 18th.
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: Victoria Whelan [vswhelan@earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 07,20065:48 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Cc: Council Mailbox
Subject: Employee Permit Parking
Dear Ms. Harper,
I was very disturbed to return from my vacation to learn that the city is seriously considering allowing
employee parking on 33rd Street between Pica and Pearl. Since I have lived on this block, many of the
residents, myself included, have attempted to get the attention of the city to look at the many problems
on our street. It is not safe. There is already tremendous congestion and my fellow neighbors and our
visitors already must fight to find parking.
Please listen to our pleas. Three pets have been hit, one killed, one neighbor was knocked off his bike
by a car speeding down our hill and another dented his brand new car when another car hit him as he
was trying to park. After I drop off my children at school, I sometimes cannot find parking and my
sitter frequently has that problem. .
I often have grocery carts left out front of my house and I am at the Pearl end of the street. Trader Joes
needs to work out another solution to their parking shortage. Although I am sympathetic to the
neighborhood employees' problem, we don't have the space for any more overflow from Trader Joes and
I am frankly affronted that the city is more concerned with the commercial needs than helping their
residents feel safe on their own streets!
Sincerely,
Victoria Whelan
2436 33rd Street
Santa Monica, 90405
01/19/2006
ATTACHMENT I
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Group Response
~.~l
1. Does this group think the City should try employee permit parking in any area(s)? ~\
Number of people (if any) who disagree with group position 2- \ 7LC~.1..~-\-
Note any majority opinions. Note any minority opinions.
'TJv..r-L ~ ~ ~~,-t- -\-<., ~~~~~s ~~d
~~ ~\ ~-\-L ~ +0 c.O~WC~Q~.
~ ~ . '\)M~,,% ~ IA.\ (i o..d ~ OJ\- \ <;;''SIAe. 0 II-.. ,,+reJlJ- c.-\ etl~
----rYe.r'o...-L ~u.It~ u.)QAJ c\ o~{~d~e~c.l -\-0 "So ~~ -s+-~ts
~ \.,~~(\~~~~ -\-0 CI)~tJ - +~("e. tS Q ~od rE'-Sid~~loJf
(~)' ry\.(lIe r t i as. bo..loJ\ CL +~~ +- I-0.e. de) t,- I.\- \0QV\S -t- 0 VV'JL 'S,s ~ + u.;p .
_ L~y-~(L '( th. \ C-\.t:S \ ~ (l\ e.-r ?f-R-'C.-Qr6O-<l..ce..ss CL. <La ~ (\ . .
-'E.~o~~~d ~~k~l. c\o~ duc-\-o~~t(jl~e.alH,--
2. Why shoul<l or shouldn t the City try a program like this? Q.o~e.JL{'~'
o b..... Cl.. 'r,- '-. o....5L ~',\r., \ J... _:9. \,-",,,\ t.,- Q....
l+'8 ~ ~ +0 .JU.."D\~'5 o-v--:oJreQo~
j:J\)..~ -V(tfLt'.;,to ~D..'(€- +0 ?'^--\ 'v\\=l ,u...H.~
0- ~'\ol \lfO~ffi. 'V.~SJLI/\.\- --\k \cUd..~-\-
<l S\>o..C-~ \'\teciS ~ ~ P'^-('CQ{kcC ollliJ o.~
Go. \.olllf7 ) Cl~ (L H -\-- \ W\.LS .
3.'-ifthe C&Uncil goes forward with a trial program like this, what would you most like
to see changed from the staff proposal?
\~ ~ ~\I,O (.O~S'\d..e.(.s -t-k .~':-~IY\. -+kCl
0~O~ oJso CDt\'1ldif7..\.~l'~ ~tr+~ en.....
C \ e.o..V':; ~ ') Q~ clo1:~; S~ ~; rl'i\ -be 1\.c1vM. f ~
-F 'i;-\A.t tes; OL .\' Q ~ \ u. If€.
\Cd~R... off I~ l\Sas t Ur bRA .
\J~e- C-It(j O--'ftos {~)aJ6, de. ~ -fu JlYY\{)\O~.Q. pa.(li~
~
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Group Response
1. Does this group think the City should try employee permit parking in any area(s)?
Number of people (if any) who disagree with group position 1- I\J () ( (CPS(;>rrA., )
Note any majority opinions. Note any minority opinions. ~. '{ 8:::; (3L>(f\llJryt
( UNO
2. Why should or shouldn't the City try a program like this?
3. If the Council goes forward with a trial program like this, what would you most like
to see changed from the staff proposal?
--:)
-5>
W ~"'-\- W ~t>P
e f (VA_A So iD e tv C19 L1 A}L
!J. U ~ II fC.:L to! fJ
9A~ k/ti
~p SI'7~ ~ \jtAkShl'4.'€-
{/h {J ~ ~R. +
-7>w0jJl~ f~A-~ $ec.
E rv' P (o~ C' 'P.s -to \J ~(J
f'JI[)N'~ fCe>u{~ ~
~
l. II
No L--\ k:.e5 ~ /..( 'S~.
Employee Permit Parking Me t" ~
.5 f\J 0 . e .ng 1/18/06: Group Response
1. Does this group think the City sj Id '1FS
ou try employee permit k' .
Number of people (if any) who d" par 109 In any area(s)? ,!P
tsagree with group position I
Note any majority opinions Note ..
.~ . any mlnonty opinions.
. ... _ -t...,kkL,1""'/ v-J, t /. i-~ ,#I ""lJ b ~l2. - "( "'" ,~" (\",; i if <-
}II><' tal'" Nl'st., e'k-. NO" ..... . .<<, l .....l +- 1,; ~ U<. .
[J....l- \J1{f.<I..J.j- Iv '110'"<-"- - ,J,+ a. ue.<- i~ 5o/vi.<r"-. [.l.M"l-rt. ']" J
tf\ (LJ't7 QJ' -Rbv Y .......-.. ,,>. ve.- -\....' l,> . /.P2-- ~ NJ<<J cv< N1.':1 It ~ 0/ 1u.o,L
ct;5 _ ~CL<"~' rW+l~i.;k..(.y ~ 1t.J\-~. i?LSI~^;:k I
(1C<~V(v.-V ~~,J..,..~1. 1-
9-/4- _ (~.{ "t--1ftLol,uJI Sif)c.Ld-fo ~ bl~c 9. C~?4,""^-.
Jt1-t" S4..te.. !J- r=--..... -\-.-~ ~ 'c.,. ~~,,~l of>. re >~~l ~ f\1c
~l"- _ ~1.U"",,"~~~b--cr'S A ~~. .
2. Whyshouldorshouldn'lth. ~~- L~ J I
No. ~,_ Jert..lLft-. bk e City try a program like thi\~~C0<--~l)~\J SL'1V~~'
--1' p . '-"c"'-'"'~ vV S' .......-'l
~ l~ I\.crI-- t<JeJt kv..,,:~ . + ~~..1
5fru. -+ ~~ '5,-? <? 1-;1 t Cc.cS - " /Jop.A: /:; j-.- ...A.-
t> ~ () rJO'+- ~1 V- {l-.rD4It.
ahk~~~c./l::o-lof,~c,+; t:JWY1S aAr~J.'1 ?
[vk~~~4s. I
~~L ~ <L/-k-rvv-\'lII~ro~oSeJ.s -
3. If the Council goes forward' .
~:::;'m the staff ;~;o~~~J program like this, what would you mosllike
= : for~. ~r"-"<JS+ \,,, 4: b~ 0""1-
?O..\-- f\~ ~ btJS'( ~ o-r-~ \ +s. 9.~k-1o
\. ..0 ~. / ~~
('!WS~k::>-v tc ...v~ -Iv ~<AfL- C-(k~<>-..A
SuC[b~S. <-J
0w C~0 .
'5~ \V'roy~ ^-~ .1~~1 hcuJ~-6
~r7'- )~CL-b., ~ ecw1A- (F''-<'' .
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Group Response
1. Does this group think the City should try employee permit parking in any area(s)? N D
Number of people (if any) who disagree with group position ~
Note any majority opinions. Note any minority opinions.
2. Why should or shouldn't the City try a program like this?
/. 1/# ENrCl;fCaJlJLE -
2. kEEP J}2../Iff:/c tJN
3. gMAP~~ At'?17~
C(//)1P1~~CI4L SPZG'ET,j
3. If the Council goes forward with a trial program like this, what would you most like
to see changed from the staff proposal?
~ X PA (If() tH r; Ih'lldl-. 7'D
~
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1.
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1.
S&\. .[ f ~l
l~
/A.... () -\
,-/--'\.A. ~ i""" ~
2.
L ~ <,..s
,
'rc--.{ ',:? \ ""'"'J
() '"'
<;. + or -<..... -cJ\- c \ <.. c"" ~ \ -...... ~ d 0<...."-( S.
3.
i ,\ (C V ~V\ \ ~ ( -e
.~r
"1S.,~-b-r '::::.
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
~_") 0'-- ~ ~ < '- ~
.-\-0 us.
\ <:;,
0... -..J ,L."'-I " '^"' ?c) r ~ C'~ ....... +
<;: r....... """ .-\. ......... fA () '^ " c c..,.
,-C ~ L. -i c'> r
p ~~ ',)--e. '"'- -4 -5
~~,
~V(
CJV\.
k:.o..\I' S ~ S
-J< '(" L\
V\.. t\. 'I .. ~ v-..J
.4"f
"'2.~ I b I-I ~I \) bJ:<..
--;:;--
-r-=- \~ ~ .-\.- ~..,j ..... \c::, ~ '( 6.. "4. '- ~
-\-.",,-. c ~ <'-"- ~ ---r- 'v\ r C1..-0 J k .
C~<''''C0.1(.v\'C'\., Vel c~ \~,$,
Do you live in Santa Monica? 'i.e:. ":,
Do you work here?
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? 'IJ c
Name & Address (optional):
,~
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposal for em loyee permit parking:
2.
//
//
//
/
./
1.
3.
.//
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1.
L ~ ~). ? e-..-\<"II\)
2.
\j t\ C, L \L ( \'l ~ f-\-J .\." I ~ '1
3. Y\\~l'\. t(;.~ Cle...
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
Do you live in Santa Monica? '"
Do you work here?
Do you own a business in Santa Monica?
Name & Address (optional):
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1. \ Y-~h ~yt,\tO ~.~ bu~~~
2. \. ~ \. \~ lL i+ ~ w I ~ C-O~S, ):x-.rc/(j
u.J\ \\ kL.O~ ~\Lh ?- ~S~ 4lod- ~O \ \ ~ck
~~ ~\~ cru ~"-U.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1. \ clo if@\ w(Uv-\ r (R.S.e_RILQh.k;a...Q. p-a-.d:l.~ C'l ~'---' Ge4th-~
Ov~ We.. do Ir-..Ot-. h-Q\{-e 0.. ?Y-obQ.e~ ~ 0 LL~ Atrek.j+.
2. \+ ~W\.V ~""'~ lA..-~\(' +c-+k v.e-S\clS-~
W~ he>-.\{t (}.\(~lLcl(s ?W~~.~
3. \ olo~\-\- SlA.~~(' \- OJI"J,.O ..hJ-0a...t:-;~ of ~V-tl.,r
-r^-'t..( v't .
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
Do you live in Santa Monica? ~'S
Do you work here? ~
Do you own a business in Santa Monica?
Name & Address (optional):
~~ l0~
''20 ~q 3--1tk- ~+. ~ z. Cf0-4 05
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1.
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1.
\\\Q..!'L '10 M /Qvu-0+ in ~s/~ tJ. It- is
Qc ~ \(j ~ ~:t:2 c~~s. 0.11\. \I\c rQOt~. J I/7COt1VIiuvl.c-Q.
/b-{ re J r-~ +0 e1 S()...e.. ~.f'J.
~C>wQ['3> {iXbM VC{ lVQ ~
2.
3. rLt >\ bM-\-~ .s~\ cl V'--U-\- ~VL 6/e.cM ;.\ \ -4Ac~
.. '.\,^,-J~ o.\{QCA&~ p~fct ~(Y( (QJl.{ce d .
q. I+ \~ (\at ell I'~P- ~ ~f~ ~ Fv1'\'~$. ~k>.""r-
Other Comments for staff 0 ity Council: QV\(o('U'~.-",t.+ <"\.
f1 ~~~ WON Of\. ~ ZJ6~ r~v~ v"," ~ rlo~W\
f\.l.s\- kx. ce\ SUA. .\-u. \M.<;)y\ ~ "-c-.. '-/'00 ~ .
" ~~ ~':> ~ ~(::>'-^-~ (pu.Io\,'<-.. ~O~-4..~ /Y\u...\sO""v'\.c.~
~ oSv\.L c. r~ ~ ~ '3\Q \~ ({);(..O ~ lllJ )
j 'f'{~kt b..~V\... I d - t7... c<.........
S(\/U~ .5()..v1..0~ J
Do you live in Santa Monica? 'r}-lJ ~ J
Do you work here? "^" IcY-> NT p..NI/~ (}Q- ~
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? l'to
Name & Address (optional): ~~ 1-=+ 3 L-{-Vk 5 tc-'.u..:r- ()",: t- /7-
C_~~~ \J~\\w
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1. U~ O~ Vf\liY'd. ~ - \eO'\J\~ ('(\O\e ol<?~\rC\ bl<::
S'('ct ~ (' s. Je:> 0'''Q ) ~ W In.,, ~ q \ ro", ( C e ()-,"",I 1'9 ~ ". <? "l
2. L~{-hmrCe GJ()C{?I~ w\xJ m~"-\ tQ.. OO\~ \~
\~ \~().\\j.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1. /tc)ad1olt,d re~lq~<,\ @ ~(~ ~0.rln~
cwlJ QIA.U~ fe"'lctor\."rts. \ ~('<?.od ~ ~E'( iY'\ + eql~
2. ~oJef)d-~ Q\. \ 6'bc- Qbu~
3. ~ Lv, \ \ 3>\~-t. ~\<t\\)(l<\ \ r?e. (lee... :s
. b ~t-\9~ lJ\-\~~v1' Ot0V\ C?('r(Y\{t-~" -cr(?o..~
( ~e.vJ ~rob(f'VV\~ W~re ~ fC;? Ch\'e::' ('ort
Other ca~ments for staff or City Council: ~G'(1)bl <? IN\ C::, (\ cl W .
q, O(JfI +- 'S~~ ~ c C\ IY'\,'< \ \ I: ~ (lee> OJ .
Do you live in Santa Monica? Y ('3
Do you work here? Y\J(y
t00
Do you own a business in Santa Monica?
Name & Address (optional): 31th ~ed
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1.
-+- ~~ ~ 4 1-\ .-J.---~"\.". ~ ~0
J ~~;\ ~v~c~ ~r\'
~~-UA~ ~~k~~\~
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
.J ~ Il ~ -xL.:1\ ~ -k~ ~ ~..n:.L\,).. ~ i:^
~ C/~ I ~ ~ cA.-e~1\ ~~)- j~~ ^,ouC-
1.
2.
3.
-.ll ~ 1-) ~.l~ ~ C8A- '~~\r.-O-"r\ .
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
Do you live in Santa Monica? Y\-cr-
Do you work here? r-
Oo you own a business in Santa Monica?
Name & Address (optional): -::; \ 2-C\
t'\/~.
(
\~~ . \.::;.;.?......l) )-.~l
1 ./o....!l...~ '\ aO \..,."" o.
~~~
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
, I _
IlJ c.-cu( 10 ~l~SS Z '1-
5'D lMe lAJ~ .Iv ~ he-I p
1. I Ii 'u k-tLV V~'J
hb f e., +huYe- is
t' h.-~ lIVv .
2.
t,1f Dc;.- l v 1-e.-
k a. J,c.. $ tL'5 d lit r 17 0... /A.
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1. lh.e,6-~ i? ~ Se-rt-bL?~, prD!t>Ie.W\ ptLr~/~
t I A. da.. 7 S
b lit 7; + r t:,.e.- -I:- ~ ~ a-- {/\ J, LC1_
2. M CllI\.u ~ -r v. e.- u-- d. dA'" $ f CO-III: +-0.. /Ad e.... +
{ r f U \I" 0..-(/ JO LJ.-G-I W-
f tl-- r ~ c VC-j V\ e.. t:JL. r' C> V (f
3. 13'/,Li"14t:.~5 ~ )tJ"hY CoVV'-~I! r- l?u r'e,(J...lli
!tV ~:rbt- C.u.A'd-e- lI\. + lIu-l e. S f'vt e.,; v::
t2-Yf,e.u -r -t,,? '^
/.? ..L/ C).-
Co 0\
T{.-'J" v jM,lL<; + +ry tiNt s . hD-ue... <1-..'~ '5LA.AV'; e.-t
c1#L s e- ~ f rp ve-.. " t t s a /I\. , I ~..A-&::> V €- V\.A-C; ~
Do you live in Santa Monica?
Do you work here?
y 1:,7
Do you own a business in Santa Monica?
Name & Address (optional):
~ (C;+ Vl-?a..1 p '-' t-~
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1. IT lr'1'/I he I p p,' (0 fa u ~i J-.jt") ~ r ':> W' {,/c \
ove i'nr? '( t"v.+' io 1'-1(. JVt 1'5 L. ~D'" Ltc:>o;Y
2. I~() r ~ (- U{{7 ;"t. w,i( l..t (y? r v 5, \. ho v \{ C(.))-)~.> i('c u
(}>-- fr'c 0 I
3. J. + h I't I f,.;( I JI? E /-""' -r 1(/)-;. p.-I- 51^ ",j I h,,);, J--C' > l ~ )
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1. P~'rk,'I-') CONS('':;.-f,'o..J ~+ Ifrco 't 3o-f4J
C h 't c;+< e.c+ )
2. t00 r c{' k/,Iv) oy y? '(" ~ ((,1--1) y? rr Ie / J-~
Of'J y1(({'-f- cfeo-'/p) "(' -tv,,> ~ ),.,/ S.
3. ~T' ~J,'(I r;vi 1"-~vC re~f)f '4. --fVrrtcj( C:V
it-.c s.f'((. e+
Other Comments for staff or City Council: . /) ,-1 1..
J 0 -+ t, S -t- v (-( + / ~ c Iud r > c;t. J 0<. t> + ?- f"" Y /..... <. <
0)...- \' +- (/ i d.-11 2 'f /C 0 .-- t~( Cl...!:~_/ r \I? (r (-<-
fvv .-je.....( re.ly'l ((' t-u ~"\( lc.. i 5 C.JJ 36 ft.! T~ (
bv-ur.-+ ~~ +4-( ccJJ,'f/'ClPr( pc-v)LI'I--) l-v,)1 (;~
bO'l'''- h7 V(}IJ,~-I, I,Uf~) cr,.,(~+ 10 'fiCO.
Do you live in Santa Monica? ye ')
Do you work here? '/ e ")
Do you own a business in Santa Monica?
Name & Address (optional): ~
'1('J
j. L.,.,-If V! Ce- '(if.- II
,J.)1l ?Jof/,
51"1" t c- (r7p.J(c) C. A '16 r p .)-
Employee Permit P k
ar ing Meeting 1/18/06" ..
Th . . IndIvIdual Response
ree thmgs I like (if any) about th
1 J I 1_ e proposal for employee permit parking:
. Noml N LY
2.
3.
2.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the ro
1 -r " p posal for employee permit parking"
. I !.lfrprC /tv 6LOCK. .
!J1J/(.Jf'I 7lJ fk~ IV/J/II' ~. tR"4-J"rJ TO Yvv.-t.
j!tJifSP'
3.
f IlU I'~ ",If L /:> I} a-5 y IV /I"j OJ! fr/1.- 7JfF ON
l/iV t"'#fi;d6lh1U-
---
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
C /11/ tOI'7 f', GIl.-Ct 4 c. flLJl-FAC .s f/J V t () % G
KEff #r1 Cd IV! r'7./-Il.-I/4- L ~pt i;tJ ^
Do you live in Santa Monica? ye-.>
Do you work here? ;va
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? f'^J
Name & Address (optional): .
J hIM!; ,AI' ,..4V41t.ft 0
.31f/~ (j fL fJ4f.I ;rI (/f::
C'ft? L'.:4
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposEd for employee permit parking:
1.
a:7 ~.-:;P ~ ~ ~~'C?7.~
2.
&J-~c;~~~~
.~ ~~--&~44 tJ7 ~ ~ ~
~.~
3.
'<-,#I' !,;~..;;. ~ ~ .~
.~ ~ ~~ ~~/~~.
Three thinks I disli~jf any) about the proposal for employee permit parkinF
1.
/~ ?;
~/k-a ~~~
~.~ ~ ~~
2. r--
3.
j{)-77~
~
c
~~7-
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
a)~ ~~
~~
4~
~~
d~_~
~ -P~-"~'---.t1'",,'
.~~~
-zJ~~ /2~ ~ C'No.er" S/pO drP'CO)
-d~ ~ ~~~
D I" S t M . L?' _-no AYm/~ ~~ 4-..- s: fi.
o you Jve In an a onlca. c:::::>' C/ <-vr- ~ t/' ./
Do you work here?
Do you own a business in Santa ~. _ ')
Name & Address (optional): Co~ 'Z.L/ #C-~~
ds?J7 ~ ~
/31' A/ ~~ _ c:::.; - ;9 /d/ /'
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1. Wod::-s cv( local 0t.lSf'AR5,).eS I kt1"e-h _bn~ ;If) r~ ve ,10
C~ al\J pruLAtk- s.vvrCO i +0 rre Jvck1./j
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
~ \ e~l1abt'/'Jj
~1. Doe<; CJo-t. d,3>+nbu-k bcV'ck/'l~ Ij 0M..01\;J NAjhbor-hoocl-
flAb Ii- Cl/\ CY'\+r,.st -blocks AJcr~ /.5JtJth o-P Aeo
2. f crKJ"wo,t - 110 OJ'U'cd I pI Q/) j0r G!j ,If) lo'1j-- -kf'1'1 j
~as~ WCi~ 00+
3. .No real ~-h.?r~4- HC~cvu~J.-( 1hr pro~,-1
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
0{ ~ s~d-s. cAun'fIj
I v.rc V~i.uv~.. ,::;k Cu.r(V\~\ ~
/O:30G01 Cv\J ~f 30pl-1 ,
8J'MJL ~ Our -S.-M ffi-tt:J
S uJ'LAll.j W O,S cLo ^-L Cl-l-
-* Md fer Jj c1t'nw- Qf :s: JS : 3c:r>M ,
Do you live in Santa Monica? ~e 5
Do you work here?
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? 1"10
Name & Address (optional):
employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1.
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1.
'---T ~ ~\ ~ Cu.ff'~
MaJl q~", 3~ +~ 1:5 /lJ1./.H' J.M,..+s-
~t~ ...-(~0\i~ ~<- c:n..
~~U S~-
~c..-vv-V'- <A~ ~CO~.d
~. ~'OAA Qv\ ~q-t~
S~.
2.
3.
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
Do you live in Santa Monica? 'f~
Do you work here? ~ ~
Do you own a business in Santa Monica?
Name & Address (optional): J ~
J.-b Lb
DA;V.~1'Ef- \
~Q~ ~.
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Individual Response
~hreC;~~r~ d~sa':itt~ermb&;~
2.
-~--'-'
\ 1 ~~ e thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
- 1". ll.i tU1 ~ oJ p ~ tee d.w.f- fe;r ~ t alt\ 1M
u;J F~~ t __.
2.~~_ ~~Qu~ldv ~ct"fJ CS
cl(w~ ~.udk .
3 Wwi~\L to V-t.L<f![ ~ ~ a.r- ~
~ ~~i4t & ~ C91Je, ~ltt4ffed
i1) .
Other Comments for s aft or City Council:
~lJU ~6# ~.ft% penf l~ l.JL@
ll;\J~ (}Ue- Q \W~t
1> 0--1- (?, ~ 'Qlt\ -b ds~~ ?
Do you live in Santa Monica? Ye8
Do you work here? 't ~
Do you own a business in Santa Monica?
Name & AddreG.ti
'-::L0 :2
<f€:d
fv+
~C~ 2~
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1.
{\/dN(;.
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1. No Q=>D.,',l9k ~"1 -to ~",.j;" rc.e. qd'1v~Tly.
2.
C1JW
1-u-~~(C
3.
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
Do you live in Santa Monica?, yes .
Do you work here? S~.....tL ~'--€..~
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? WO
Name & Address (optional):
~ "V \ ~'<-
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
'I..J. 41\ J ~~.r.f('f , "u.J ~ ~:.f.., ""..., '" tft6nJ.
1.
3.
2. -r;"fh., .11I1 A t.de ,f f'..",lO-J M-1--kc:i ,h{./'I...M r,.
I'll. -fi II"\A~~,'lt 4.A,.. $.,f 0 f q bU.l"J/IO.~iJ ~J"'fnrl
~.. .t<,- ""t'JJt..t.~ -rt...,,,~.., tJ tt.. t ~ ,..... :"'''''& 1.1 J. .4
:c-+ ~A' \n~ tdf(,. t-.f.~.f. If t.vt.,. e.'" -.., .rfyrc~.
Ci;...t., WI-"~ &.,.41, ... '.......-c- ,,-,-, ".. ~ I~~
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1. -:r J;JI,'14 -tl.,c ~ rc)~t,",1 .;w't', ",-l"'-..
pre {.~...t.1 r..A" 1"1:.,".1.
2.
3.
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
Do you live in Santa Monica? YE;
Do you work here? 't DII)1"oA ~1"'fft(U
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? tJo
Name & Address (optional): C ~./~/(6)oo4IJtJlo
Z3()f '3ofl,. Si.
t ,4N'IIt,.."..,.
( /tl, JKt . """..,)
~Y1J''o lIft'r
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1. 9.(;. Ivt s d ~&LS+-1k a5S(2.{\(JL ~ A I r~ } ^"- l-t .-
.11. 1.1 '(" \Aj it L ~.J('9\.e.s~~ . ~ hO+ ~o ~~,.- ~
.- (v\'tJl.t.1 ~ r..;:> .(<,r TO -'P'
rtZsl~ .
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1. /Jo hrn 0:> {.c-.a- te d M.L~
2. No Co IIfik lex- j11/cr >UIu-t~ 5UCLe <;; S
3. U'1f'-- -Iv -/11PY-- tVI,'(dosdh ? GO
..\ Jj ...110., k.~~ ~e'4.
~. g y\'l.A-l-~ '-rnv{ r c /'" ~ I ~ I
Other Comments for st~ff or City Council: + f / . .~e./l
Vlt..ML CCM-5(C~ fl.e.. f,J~, 1- I""-/-,,G V'7 n<" D.-j..
tV- ~.~~ .
&J0 S"~'? ~~\O/'~ ~.:;t,t ,J1 ~ ~ -
~k-~C~!,,<5~d it uV '"'-(f-,,-I
tf.t5l rU ·
Do you live in Santa Monica? ~
Do you work here? ~
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? /Vb
Name & Address (optional): C 6ttyc...e..- .' .
I fj /3 jtj 1101.- f+' ft~
~ M~, c~ 9oL(or
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposal for employee per
. parking@ 5'1 p.fJ;r-~~
@ f3(/5/~tS
//P/iIL,lwu)J oN
f UX)
1.
2.
N~
CM!l1ltPrJ ~ "5f{uyJ R:r fllp-/(
soW1!3-- {,c)r -EmPTy
c.~
(jlmf1&J-~ (j,J1)f;Y1-
f3!<J PG'ES tJ71 p-/11
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
3.
1. //VC~~St)O rfJ-(t FF/ c..- ~ (}f:(flJ?J;Sb/fvdr;J)~1t;.
I mpflGI orV tpiJ/lL/ 1Y of L-Jf:r;,
2.
UNf-tJfO(J-.,C~ IV IJ) LIlY
..-~
-::::::--
J I J J
No ,0 }sCJJ$s} t ^-J Dj, . f) 1J,fEP---- PffI9L L}ft-:
~oqlll/-t; alcor:; fp/vsJI/ CNIl7L~ J30rrsj
------ -..____..___.._. ___~ (It.oC)(50 b'AtlJ.E;uJt9v..VNc))(6}t:r-
Other Comments for staff or City Counclt:
3.
-----
JI
Wf2-J T j fV6
j)VI3U c
);
/2EljJu J R6fYJ t:; IV( /J/
OI:;{Y)~1l dVj tV6
) C-OUI',/f6 1<-- r~ptJ v7)L15
9vt> 11!JNs
fYJts1 )~
DotU IV
(jI /f) ~
Do you live in Santa Monica? yt::5
Do you work here? YeS
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? P</O
Name & Address (optional): .-};tJAI.t trJl[.tP...,
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06- Ind."v-.d I R
. - ua esponse
Three things I like (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1.
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
-1. tU 0 H'i? pfGc:;. L rl'1f<::. ~ <;+- EML S"T12-~-S -- sn.JS::E~ .kb ~ k< E- ~
To r Ie. 0 /'rrL~ ~~ I JJ b ~}.) fr"t-J 2. 'E15 lr' I 'T"1+cO u r-
C. &7'oJS 1 "D~( ~
_ 2~~~ ~16l..JG IS -r-9-0 L&c-~I z.~
3.. ~ 7=$ ,"L T 'V7~ ~ 4-/E . J-1<-/rl1 = <c r <>1>- ":?A12-lc,6J <,
to r L-G-5.;;.. ,4B uSED (Cj - ~ I>ti)
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
(J:R'};k7J \s M~i V S. e-j> ~ A ,-rtt'4W"l~VRI,.)0
~'J~ rl J4v.v'7<
__ ~IJJCo IS /M-~FM:)'7 ~t;..-L-N<r11JV-7 V/U~~cD
_ <\7'J-.1E~~fS. ~ )rvAIL ~K1LKltJ/.;:> ME ~~ /jJi:)/c.A-:r'IUE
fYF -RE ~L- ?~~, ~ G L:.. cnJ &:l E S. I' o-rJ
~ ~tJ.~t;YR.L];:H~ IS /rL KE~'II&o iJEA-K.
__ Cu.,.--rr\'f: jJOf-{1YE-{L<;' rP7H 1$ IS,O ltE F.-4/,e ;t-1~
Do you live in Santa Monica? 'y c~
Do you work here? ,J 0
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? ,J 0
Name & Address (optional): VlZ.lS,Ar.:)
-
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1. b v..~1 N. sh:> ~b~ wi~'11"\ w ~l ki "-) J.. { ;;t ~
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1. c"t.-('\Xl>~ (r.::)VtA''^:'~ c;t....~5 (.sp~~~ I \"W '/l~lb;li+fld('.)
2.
(/l-b v..~'~ o~ s-\-t- ~ \0 "{ ~ \..~ -tJL~ ('-\-rdt. ~h \ d <- .)
3.
\.A..,,~l\ 01\1 ii~ o~ bv..':;.\l-.il~5~> +0 ~Y\d ~ +h.~s'CJv-e.:>,
~ ~\ o\~+ 50 w" '\ h ~v Q.. t-u ~V\f'.rr c.5L b ~ ~ tfl 0. i,,-'. ~ .
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
:f:)d-t.y-J cu-<L4'-. b-~'i"r--J. P~l st. --t tA.r b <t~ II( tv' 54.1
Do you live in Santa Monica? \.(...u
Do you work here? ~
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? ~
Name & Address (optional):
SOf\\Ck
() \ I) ';' \A- Y' 6 ~(\ Ai~,
50ill-tlA. 0\01'>\("'1 '1oL\~i
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1. ~~
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1. t.vtU-
(Ill.! ~ M.blz.~ -r/l.A-p~{ c
2. {r4C(c OF-
f Aft f:-, Io.{6
f/~cc:-
Fo-z- Ilc- f{ I; t ^ r f
3.
Other Comments for st,aft or City Council:
Do you live in Santa Monica? Y rJ
Do you work here? f..-t c '
Do you own a business in Santa Monica?
Name & Address (optional): G-I!rut
2 :r- 2--J'
....
S.. h~
N O'
.r t. l Sr.
C' tt1 tf, 'r''' r-
-
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Individual Response
Three things J like (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1.
2. No NE-
~_.
3. ~
Three thinks J dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1. LO::)I DF- 1AAKin~ ~12~e5 Wt<(
1Je~:tJJIl A- L. :/eVlJ/ttS C qAvdevevs)
2. LO:J( Or ?/4k:.Kinx ?pItLe~
-7fk?- my TerlQf1T~ WMo Yl~-eo{.s /
3. u-rF ~lJle-e-T ?ft-PeR.ihv---1 h/4;1'7
)!VI i VtA5r fl-C:?5 U
.
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
'10[( Nea{ 0(. tIJIloKe-~ ~1 ft
t~DuJlwV(;;rh (e.- ~!) l' ~
--1 hi:5 (}jf1(!ep 7
Do you live in Santa Monica? 2 S "'I Cf4 V5
Do you work here? NO
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? N 0
Name & Address (optional):
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1.h ofh I'~
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1. U~ ",f Ifd,JrU~ 4"'1 i.-rlv d~ ~I j~ IJ
2. tJ,' II u" [tt.,',.. / 'I 11"11 P "-t 7 ~ /dt' It 7J t:t 7 7"'4-
~ tt tlJ t>("1~ 10(, c/cJ - 11 (. a or (' It trr -I'y;"; fJd I ';r 75.
3. ~ e J1 ~ t' ~ 4 b " II'-/? I.J, - If h t: d . i/1 C 11 (1 11 7
h"t'rl " "d 1--(.. It e-s t. p(/')'o. ~ ,~cI~, 73 --t;; aI" -r~ "11/ k
v( i1 .
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
f1<4. ; do-( I( 75 C;,.. ~ c; I nt err( fA itA Yl tl?f ~ 14.4 ('( (/ (Jl'n~ cI
-16 1'4v.-r. (~f-( h e::f (-r;,~ n 4-r{~ f &1T fe, ~ a (/1( i 11(6/~
.-rl....? H ~ ~~ nO. ~... "71, u..s l' c-I .
Do you live in Santa Monica? C/.Lf.
Do you work here?
Do you own a business in Santa Monica?
Name & Address (optional): Df' n w K D /;(11 6 (/Joy-
d-q 10 1<'''' #W' ~ .A-v-r.
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1.
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1.
~u A ~I/(IJP 0;: lJ€/~P./71/NjW6 RIJ/ i?L-c,ocu./j8(E
NO/III3M c.t: ~?#C€S - ON VCJAkS$/-26 - Jr jf1/s/lN;:
NI16AJ "1?19e-s' rJ);1V'~~ L/piibs; f;:<eS-yvMIlJt"
;9NiKJ 7)tb 99;z: -S-7d~".4/26 ~E~
1/.;&/26 ~/-2(:;; No S ;:J/fU5;. uP To~ 0' ~/3S .
~vll. S 7t.AO Y )5' //IIV?jL--J--C; (
2.
3.
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
Do you live in Santa Monica? y~s
Do you work here? Ye
Do you own a business in Santa Monica?
Name & Address (optional): ~
yt:f'/2:Jt;
tA1;
4ku
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1. ~
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
~ ~ ..~ ~ ~ - ~ II ~ J /YJ'trt{ ce;1lt 'aLbI
1. '" --I/:~ ~ ~vvv ~Z I
A/JU:~~~~~~
~~~~idJ;104~
~
3.~~~'~~~~
~~~~~~~.
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
~~~~~ ~~u...
~~~jdJ- ~ N~17
~U--o f/ ,
Do you live in Santa Monica? ~
Do you work here? 'jtX)
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? ?W
Name & Address (optional): CeSar Z.e r fa t<.d
2.9 ~() U 1-6 ClI1 /}v-a
s: -Jr ~ 'Ct..! (/t-II () 1fJ Cf
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1. V>f'() ~~~~ Yo~",~~re1~A
2.
3.
Three thin~s I dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1. ~ cc'1(J1ilJJ- ,Jut - ~ rfr' ~ ~~c; I~
Q :J. ~
2. ~1\~,,~~C-c~t~
\,uA\0~~~f<?~1f'Gl---~ '
3. C\.\ ~oCQ.y ~ IY'-k, ~ ~~M': .;.,
~*,1JWc~~ F~
,'t~~
?/lLce
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
~~1~4. ~f~rL
IJ.<LQ ~CA.~ ~ '1lfD JJ!Jeu-( ~p3
". ~ ~ctJ- ~
~~~~ J ".
~ ~C... r:f~ &r' tJ I r~
Do you live in Santa Monica? ~
Do you work here? rv
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? r
Name & Address (optional):
~f-Sf-r-I~
d-OllD lA~ .
Employee Permit Parking Me~ting 1/18/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1.
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1. (jJ ~ ~.~~/YU9--VV'~ Ji !if ~ ~
:;L;;;L ~ ~/~~ ~p
.~~.~'~./Q
;j-u fl..
3.*~.~.Md~'~/~~.
~'~~~
Olher Commenls for slaff or City Council: ~ ~ ~~ ~
~~ ~rfr UJ~.(f~)
fit- ;;i ~.. ~~ ~ ~
~~~~h~ffi~_
Do you live in Santa Monica? /l!~~ /
Do you work here? '}uJ ,j ......-..-/
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? /1..-t:;
'I'
2.
Name & Address (optional):
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/18/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1.
2.
3.
Three thinls I dislike (if any) about the proposal for employee permit parking:
1.
2.
3.
Other Comments for staff or City Council: p{J
I3U1L-LJ /I /Yf;flf/P?- voT 6") 3(';fucTVIfI?, t.J~e
f;1I?JI yj#cC (CLovM / LJ/,f!fIP/,4, t;Ak'o,v 5TcwMT)
Do you live in Santa Monica? l(
Do you work here? Y
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? (
Name & Address (optional):
91'(-v?- ;(f);1/ JJ pu-
11/0 u1/!;/);u ,4uf?
~ft1 q CJVjolj
"1 dO .:1 fC"T ...,. " It (( , "" "1 Cu....,,)JG F ~,,~
~ ...,.. ~ ",,, "tW/'f"" '$ _It & -r" , tJ """,,
~.,~'V.( tJIttMtJlA. O"''''''f Two "fI'Jo"'f-',r
J.. I "f "" "TIt. e-AAc1II1t "*;(",,,. 01'''' fJC.c fit'tJ'qp
l~ c",c.~ JJ. h~~" "Tc) TIf.~ ~
...,.., r~I.'" t1."f ........,C",,, ;k-1 \t "".... ,,,.."" I.~ J
, OY'$
.j
, ...~
_ C-,",,-cA,'c OO~ I JJ'.."
._~,
.
~!a
~~
~~
~ ~
~
~. -+- Q ~~
. r Ed & \\
_0~~\;
~ t: lt~
~U'1 ~~
~-f~~~
..I::. ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~.
~ ~
--! j
~ '-i-
'-J
-J" >-
.;-) --'l -r-
1. \..0
. --- ~
J. 'V;; ~
2- y
~ ~
'"
\ ~
..--.. oJ) -.J .
~ ")
~ '"
,~
.-....
..F') J) ,+ --..
')
1.. /--..... '2. ~
~
.......
--S /(J ~ ~
-y-- '\J j-
~
~\' ,) ~ 0<::)
\J
Y -0
~ .- ~
'-..l Q....,
~ L .1
J) ~ ---
5 ~ -So)
'2 J) <. ~
"
~ CJ""\ <:)
V < (YJ
--- r
~ ------ ') <-
'-..:. .-
J'._
S- ~
..J."
':J. -t
-...) "" .~~.
J ~ '''-J
..... ~
""' -..) ,
-[':) .J'.
4- '. '-' ......
y -v S- ~
\:::) 'U .:l
>- . -....
--\-- -----
..J _'0
-.j 'i)
~ .l
'"" '" >-
~ \ '-:;
.--." .1 0-
LL... '-.') '-
Additional Comments from East Pico Neiohborhood Meetina: January 18. 2006
. Yorkshire: 99 cent store customers, Rae's Diner customers and other businesses,
when open, render Yorkshire full. Your study is flawed.
. Kansas: With vehicles on both sides, traffic flow will be impeded on street sweeping
day, parking will be impossible. Emergency vehicles will be impeded. Very difficult to
maneuver into driveway with vehicles on both sides. Your study does not accurately
represent the amount of vehicles that presently park in the cui de sac.
. Kansas: Employees will tend to park at the entry, near Yorkshire. This will unfairly
impact the first three homes on the block.
. Urban: Obscures vision of drivers-small children and pets at greater risk...Most
pedestrian/vehicle incidents occur when people dart between parked cars... young
children at particular risk.
ATTACHMENT J
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lila Fink [liIafink@mac.com]
Wednesday, December 28, 2005 6:35 PM
Ruth Harper
preferential parking ordinance
Replying to your letter of December 27, 2005, I find this plan to give employees access
to on-street parking spaces in these zones makes no sense. The original idea was to
protect the residents who live on these streets, and allow them to have a parking space
near where they live. This ordinance prevented the stores employees from parking all day
long on these streets and hogging the parking spaces; this was very desirable on 16th
Street by Montana as the restaurant employees took up a great many spaces. Now there are
available spaces for customers for these Montana stores. The merchants should be happy as
more customers can park closer to their stores. This plan sounds like another way for the
city to make more money on these yearly fees. If employees are able to get these
preferential permits, everyone will be back where we started from, except the City of
Santa Monica collects money from all these permits. Whoever thought this new plan up
doesn't care for the
residents on these streets, only about lining the city coffers.
Thank you,
Fred Fink
828 16th Street
451-2093
1
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: mitchellbug [mitchellbug@netzero.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 9:05 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: Re: 17th St and Montana area parking
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Hello Ms. Harper,
I live on 17th Stjust south of Montana. I received your notice about business parking permits. I do not understand
why residential parking issues are not being addressed as well as business parking issues. I have lived here for 2
years now and I can't park near my apartment on a regular basis. Sometimes I have groceries in my car or
several loads of laundry and I have to drive around for 45 or so minutes trying to find a parking spot or sit out on
my block in the red waiting for someone to pull their car out. I have sat out there for as much as an hour and 15
minutes, seriously! Other times ( get a spot pretty quickly, but in all honesty that's pretty rare around here.
There's restrictive parking on several of the blocks around us, a library, a bank and multiple shops/restaurants.
People park on our street and stay all day much of the time. According to your website, there does not seem to
be a problem along the Montana business area, I beg to differ. So would my neighnbors who have been here
longer than I but as we have multiple buildings on our block that have their own parking and won't care enough to
sign up for permit parking, we seem fresh out of luck. Both my time and gas goes to waist while I wait for
someone to leave. I have sat out there and had someone else pull in right in front of me, grabbing the space
I have been waiting so patiently for. I wish ( were lucky enough to be able to afford a house with a driveway and a
dryer but as a single parent, that is just not possible for me. I live here because (love Santa Monica, though I
know there are other options, why should I leave the place I love because of unfare parking? I don't want to
cause any trouble for the businesses but in all fairness, why does the north side of Montana deseNe parking
permits and not the south side? Simply because they can organize their numbers to get enough signatures?
That will never happen here with the condo's all around. I seriously think you shoud consider putting permit
parking on both sides of Montana so that the number of cars parking on either side of Montana is more evenly
distributed and those of us that live here can actually park their car once in a while without having to circle around
the block repeatedly or sitting in the red. Have you ever considered having one side of the street permit parking
(say the west side of 17th) and the other side open parking (say the east side of 17th)? That would ensure
parking for both the public/shoppers and the businesses/residents. The permit parking could be permit only and
the open parking could be anyone with unlimited hours. You should do that all over the city. That would make it
fair for everyone I Well, it's just a thought. I hope that you consider doing something to help us here on the south
side of Montana, it really is a problem!
Thank you for your time,
Diana Mitchell
01/19/2006
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: Catherine_Lord@capgroup.com
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 200510:51 AM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: Montana Business Corridor Meeting
Hi
I am indifferent to whether or not there is a parking ordinance in this area
But
I would like to know the outcome
Will you be sending out any final resolutions
THANKS!
Catherine Lord I The Capital Group Companies I Location: LAOW I Extension: 96129
Outside: 310/996-61291 E-mail: catherine_lord@capgroup.com
[ Mailing: 11100 Santa MOJ:!i~aJ!lvd Los Angeles. CA 90025 USA]
01/19/2006
Page 1 of2
Ruth Harper
From: DELLCALL@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, December 29,200512:19 PM
To: ruth.harper@smgov.net.
Subject: parking south of montana
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Ruth:
We own the front unit in a Townhouse Complex called Chateau 17th. Our address is 844 17th. We are the
President and Secretary of our Homeowners Association and have lived here since April of 2000 when the homes
were first purchased.
We have just read the Parking Report section involving our neighborhood, South of Montana. We are, at best,
irritated and, at worst, absolutely angry. The report has false information. The majority of parkers are not, we
repeat not, residents and their guests. If you are going to put information in writing, please mpke sure that it is
correct information. We are here most of the time and can easily see the parking situation. The majority of
parkers are shoppers and employees with some service workers. No one has ever asked us about our parking
and we have never filled out a survey and since this information was just printed on the 20th of December, we
would certainly remember giving information.
Where do we begin with examples of what are not residents and guests???
- The man who parked his R.V. right in front of out complex and pulled out a lawnchair, opened a drink and read
a book for 4 hours and, basically, told us it was his right to do so.
- All the shoppers, diners, yoga students with their mats etc. tromping across our lawn that we have to have
reseeded (and pay for) on a regular basis.
- The diapers we've found, on more than one occasion, that shoppers have decided they didn't want to ripen in
their cars so just leave on our lawn.
- The numerous beverage cups that no one wants to trash up their car with so just leave on our lawn.
- The shoppers who let their dogs relieve themselves, and don't clean up after, so that they can do the Montana
crawl with a smile on their faces knowing that their dogs "business" has been taken care of.
- Employees who get to park all day, except for Tuesdays, when (and they complain about it because we have
heard them) they have to move their cars for street cleaning.
- The "close calls" we have witnessed with people fighting for spaces and double parking while they waited. We
have, also, heard someone bash into another car, but were not able to get the license plate of the blue Volvo
station wagon as it fled the scene.
- The car alarms going off, with irritating frequency, with no one to. turn them off, since they are not residents and
cannot hear them from a store on Montana.
We could go on Ad Nauseum, but won't. We are, simply asking that you do not represent our street as parking
available for residents and guests, since this is not true. We have to climb 16 stairs to unload our car from our
parking area because we can never find a space for unloading that is close by. We were ignorant in thinking that
we would be able to park in front when we bought our home. Forget about our family and friends parking close by
either. It is the biggest complaint when anyone visits.
Lastly, would you please e-mail the information on how to start the process for parking permits on our side of the
street, the West side, and what the rules are governing the permits.
01/19/2006
Page 2 of2
We will be at the meeting on the 19th of January regarding the Montana Business Corridor.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our concerns.
James and Lonie Dell
01/19/2006
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Michael Cieply [cieply@nytimes.com]
Thursday, December 29, 2005 12:50 PM
Ruth Harper
Preferential parking
Hello, Ruth. I recently received a letter inviting comment on plans to expand preferential
parking program to employees of local businesses. For the record, I'm a home owner in the
Montana Ave. area. Thanks for taking into account these thoughts:
--Where preferential parking already exists, I strongly favor extending parking rights to
business employees. We need maximum access for customers and employees alike, if
commercial enterprise is to thrive in Santa Monica.
--In all cases, I strongly oppose preferential parking restrictions. They expand
bureaucracy, handicap businesses, add cost, complicate visits by guests and home workers,
and generally lead to an inefficient use of street spaces by holding a lot of spots open
for the convenience of one group of stakeholders--the residents of a given neighborhood.
Thanks and best,
Michael Cieply
1221 Marguerita Ave.
Santa Monica
1
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: RJROSS54@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 6:22 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: Preferential Parking
Dear Ms. Harper,
I live 1/2 block north of Montana on 17th Street. I do not have a business on Montana but I
have lived in and observed the neighborhood for several years.
It is my opinion that the city has done a great disservice to the businesses in Santa Monica.
There should be a parking structure on Montana. Absent that, the city should allow employees
to have permits to park on the public streets that surround Montana Ave.
I purchased my home knowing full well that I was in an area that would get overflow parking
from Montana Ave. On very busy days, if I decide not to park in my garage, I might have to
walk a block when I park. I don't own the parking directly in front of my home and I think it is
elitist to try to control that public land for the benefit of homeowners.
If Santa Monica does not work with local businesses, they will leave, and we will all loose an
important part of the community. By allowing employees to park in the neighborhood you will
also open up parking on Montana. Patrons will be more likely to do business with Montana
merchants. Traffic would be reduced because patrons would not have to drive around and
around in order to find one of the rare parking places on Montana Ave.
We should respect the workers who are trying to make a living, no make there job more
difficult.
Thank you,
Rob Ross
01119/2006
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: Andrew Springer [andyspringer@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, December 30,20054:39 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: Preferential Parking Ordinance - Montana Business Corridor
Ruth,
In response to your letter dated December 27, 2005, please accept this email in lieu of my appearing at the
meeting January 19th.
I live at 831A 12th Street, Santa Monica. It is always a challenge to park on 12th Street and adjacent streets,
although, I'm always delighted to get lucky and find an open parking spot near my apartment. Happily, my
girlfriend and I have garage parking for one car, so we only need to park one vehicle on the street. Although 12th
Street offers open parking, other streets nearby including Idaho and Euclid require a permit for parking in excess
of two hours, which is also very inconvenient.
J can only imagine where associates park during their work hours at businesses on Montana. I truly believe the
best long-term plan Involves the use of a natural gas bus or van to shuttle associates to and from Montana, but
that still requires quite a bit of planning. J support the businesses on Montana as much as possible and also
support providing business owners and their staff a convenient and effective place to park. If that means offering
preferential parking permits to businesses on Montana, I am 100% in support of your program. It is crucial that
businesses provide their staff with suitable parking access. While I believe people will not abuse such permits, I
encourage you to maintain control of the permit retrieval process to ensure that permits are returned by inactive
associates and business owners.
Best regards,
Andy
Andrew Springer, CFA
B31A 12th Street .
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Cell: 818.326.5998
andYJ1prillger@earthlink.net
This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Information that Is privileged, confidential or otherwise
protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail or \he information herein or attached by anyone other than the intended
recipient Is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please remove this e-mail from your system and notify us immediately by replying to
andyspringer@earthlink,ne\.
01119/2006
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Diane Kuntz Design [d.kuntz@verizon.net]
Thursday, January 05, 2006 1 :25 PM
Ruth Harper
800 block of Euclid
Dear Ruth:
I will try to be at the meeting 1/19 but I would like to bring something to your attention
regarding the multi-use building at the corner of Euclid and Montana Avenue.
When the building was built, it was supposed to be businesses/shops downstairs and
residential living spaces on the top.
What has happened is that one man in particular runs a business from the top level that
seems to employ at least 10 gentleman (none of whom were permitted to park in the
building's own lot), so they would all park on the 800 block of Euclid in the am.
Literally about 8 or cars every morning.
The lives of the residents in this neighborhood have been vastly improved by this new
permit parking and I am sure shoppers and lunch patrons visiting Montana Avenue have also
benefited as you can now find a parking spot at most times of the day, even if only for 2
hours.
Parking truly was never an issue on Euclid until that southwest corner building arrived a
few years ago. Along with a nail place on 1400 Montana that also has at least 10
employees.
Thank you.
Diane
1
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
jet Uet@tutor-me.com]
Thursday, January 05, 2006 3:00 PM
Ruth Harper
800 Block, Euclid St.
Ruth Harper
Dear Ruth--
I am a neighbor of Diane Kuntz and wish to reinforce her recent e-mailing to you
concerning a misuse of one of the rental or leased spaces on the property at 1230 Montana
Avenue. Ms. Kuntz cc'd her e-mailing to you to me.
I've lived on Euclid St. (817) for the better part of thirty-five years. I have worked
happily as an educator in Santa Monica and consider myself well-woven into the fabric of
my local culture.
During this time I've known cordially various employees along Montana Avenue who have used
our street to park their vehicles. The shops were small, the employee count was small,
the employees would not usually park for more than half a day.
Contrarily, the individual who has rented or leased one of the upper floor suites of the
"Mixed Use"
building at 1230 Montana Avenue clearly operates in a cynical and exploitative manner a
business not in keeping with the traditional atmosphere and unspoken expectations of
Euclid neighbors. His employees, seeming to number quite more than two, had, until
recently because of the advent of permit parking, parked their vehicles all day and
sometimes into the evening on the 800 block of Euclid, apparently not being able to put
their vehicles in spots in their own working premises. Before permit parking, those who
live on Euclid and who'd themselves returned from a full working day, often couldn't find
spaces near their homes. Many would have often shopped beforehand. Some where older
folks, a few infirm.
The choice or non choice made by the business owner put a strain on a lot of folks.
Once more, I firmly support Ms. Kuntz' statement confirming a cynical use of "Mixed
Use" and wished my own exerience to be noted. Employees and neighbors alike have been
exploited by a cynical use of the the "Mixed Use" space. Who, precisely is living in the
"living" part of the mixed use spaces?
However, the 800 block of Euclid Street appears to be returning to its neighborhood
form, notwithstanding specific disruptive misbehaviors.
John Tipre
1
Montana Business Area...Parking
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: Maurya Coleman [mcoleman@lundstrachan.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 19,' 2006 11 :43 AM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: Montana Business Area...Parking
Dear Ms. Harper:
I've just realized that the meeting regarding Montana business corridor parking is tonight, so I apologize for
sending this email so late. I don't know that I can make the meeting tonight, but of course "parking" is a very
pressing concern for residents and businesses alike, I'm sure. As a resident for over 20 years (725 Idaho
Ave, which is bounded by Lincoln, 7th and Montana), I have watched and experienced the ever expanding
tightening of parking access.... As we go round and round and round the blocks searching for a parking
spot.... Weekends, both daytime and evenings are particularly bad, but weekday daytime and evenings are
also very very challenging.
If we go grocery shopping on weekends, we have to double-park in front of our building, hoping that the bad
drivers who whirl around from Lincoln, 7th, AND from the alleyway that cuts through the block (from Montana
to Washington) don't rear-end our double-parked car or hit us as we unload the groceries ....
My next door neighbor (across our front door landing) at 723 Idaho (Lily Houston-Helbig) has contacted you
before about collecting signatures to get permit parking on our block - the problem for us was getting access
to the three condo buildings that have security access only.... And I believe you told her we could get
signatures from Lincoln Blvd. tenants... But life, work, elderly parents, etc. have Intervened on my "free" time,
and I have not had the time to work on this project, and I don't believe Lily Houston-Helbig has either. In the
meantime, the problem has worsened, and with more and more condos going up, parking gets more and more
horrible.
This does not even take into account all the students from St. Monica's who park all day in front of our
building/on our block, the workers from Montana Avenue stores (Pavilion's, Marmalade, Blockbuster,
Starbucks, etc) who also must use our parking..... To say nothing of customers..... The condo directly across
the street from us has also begun renting to people, so there is more demand for parking because there are
more people living in those units, and I assume they only have two assigned indoor parking spots available to
them, because I see them parking in front of our building.
The noose is tightening, adversely affecting our quality of life. My boyfriend's from New York, and he
definitely is now comparing our parking "challenges" to New York's, which is pretty darn bad... Please
consider the tough, tough parking situation our streets that are not zoned for permit parking are facing as well
as the tough, tough parking situation permit parking zoned areas still face....
Thank you for whatever you can do to help us.
Maurya Coleman
Resident, 725 Idaho Avenue, Apt. A, S.M. 90403
Home: 310-451-0029
Work: 310-392-6163
Email: mcoleman@lundstrachan.com
01/19/2006
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: Adrienne [adrienne@cloutieragency.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 3:26 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: parking permits
Dear Ruth,
Our company would be very interested in procurring parking permits for street parking near our business. We are
allotted only a few parking spaces at the business location, which leaves most of the employees looking for street
parking. Much of the time, and especially on certain days of the week parking is difficult to find. The parking
time restrictions on certain days also create a situation whefe OUf employees need to leave our office in the
middle of a busy day to move cars. This is sometimes disruptive to our work environment. We would appreciate
your consideration of our circumstances when implimenting your policies.
Thank you.
Cloutier, Inc.
1026 Montana Ave.
01/19/2006
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
j.davidmorton U.davidmorton@verizon.net]
Thursday, January 19,20064:39 PM
Ruth Harper
Montana Permits and other stuffl
Follow up
Red
Okay Ruth, thank you for giving me the opportunity to throw these ideas out.
I live on 10th St. between Montana and Idaho. That report I read stated that a number of
years ago our street had about 57% of the street full of parked cars in the daytime. That
is now out of date, we probably have around 85 to 95 percent full and of course on Tues
and Wed there is street cleaning and that creates another problem for tenants and the
employees on Montana. At night from around Spm we have virtually zero parking available
because of the people frequenting the Montana restaurants. I understand that is not going
to change because of the revenues for the city etc.
Suggestion: Why not allow these employees to park north of Montana with a special permit,
if needed they could park a block north of Montana and walk. They could be assigned
special streets directly north of the store they work in.... .this would disperse the
parking between all streets between 7th to 17th, it would also make it easier for the
employees to be closer to the stores they work in. The permit would only be good between
certain hours.
Being as most of the dwellings above Montana are single family homes the impact on parking
should be minimal as they don't park on the streets.
I'm sure they'll complain, but below Montana it creates many headaches for many more
people.
Suggestion: On lOth Street people tend to be oblivious of the shortage of parking spaces
and will park their vehicles taking up two spaces by overlapping both spaces. It appears
to be the restaurant crowd doing this.....because their vehicles are gone around 9 to 10
pm when most of the restaurants close. Unfortunately large SUV owners seem to be guilty of
this behavior more than others. (I hope you don't have an SUV....if so, don't take it
personally. )
If the city painted on our block parking markings similar to the parking meter space
markings we could probably eliminate this problem as people would now have guidelines,
this in turn would give the rest of us somewhere to park on those crowded evenings.
Suggestion: If the city is allowing these employees to access permit parking this easily
and they don't live here, why do we still have this cumbersome and difficult system for
tenants to get permit parking? It is extremely tricky on this street because of all the
apartment and condo buildings that have security systems to be able to gain access for
signing petitions. And those same tenants don't care about the whole process because they
all have parking under their buildings. Why not just let anybody apply for the permits and
then the rest of the tenants have three months to lodge a complaint?
I am only talking between Montana and Idaho.
This is just an aside. Some permit parking areas allow 2 hours parking without a permit,
but I notice in some areas of the city like 19th St.
below Broadway have permit parking only all the time. Funnily enough that street is
probably at 40 percent capacity whenever every time I drive there. How do they manage a
trick permit like that?
Thank you for your time.
Regards
David
On Thursday, January 19, 2006, at 03:17 PM, Ruth Harper wrote:
1
Albert & Hilda Ganjian
632 16th Street
Santa Monica, CA, 90402
Tel: (818)765 4800 Fax: (818)7658200
December 29, 2005
A TTN: Ruth Harper
I have reviewed the information sent to me in this letter, and I strongly disagree with the
Proposal for Employee Permit Parking for the Montana Business Corridor. Already it is
extremely difficult for myself and my family to find parking in front of our own home,
and instead must park in front of the other properties along the street. Many of the
families living in this area own multiple cars, and find it frustrating when we must park in
front of our neighbor's homes. As a homeowner, I strongly urge you to not allow this
residential street to become congested with employee's cars that will be parked eight
hours at a time every day.
Sincerely,
tl(tV \~~,~
Albert Ganjian
Homeowner and Business Owner
ATTACHMENT K
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Group Response
1. Does this group think the City should do more to redistribute parking in the
MOln na area? Which block should have more parking than today? Which less?
e..s. lJ. crf A-~ S h.i>J.) A.c~ Y\lV,^-,
Num er of people (if any) who dispgree with group position
Note any majority opinions. Note any minority opinions.
."
\ 2.
'-"-- '
Should the City tolerate more parking next to side yards on Alta, in order to keep
more people from parking on north/south street~ J /l () rr:-v\'~ :.-r
Number of people (if any) who disagree with group position
Note any majority opinions. Note any minority opinions.
('3) Should people with front yards on Alta be allowed preferential parking regulations
. .-' on some or all of their Alta Avenue frontage? f, ~ br/o l'j
Number of people (if any) who disagree with group position
Note any majority opinions. Note any minority opinions.
@ Should people who live very near a regulated street, and who likely used that
street as their street parking before permit regulations were implemented, qualify
as "Residents" who could purchase permits for that street?
Number of people (if any) who disagree with group position~
Note any majority opinions. Note any minority opinions.
Please add any additional group comments to the other side of this sheet.
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Group Response
1. Does this group think the City should do more to redistribute parking in the
Montana area? Which block should have more parking than today? Which less?
Number of people (if any) who disagree with group position
Note any majority opinions. Note any minority opinions.
· s~ V\~:- CO"\s.,~ ~~sV\~~. ~ M\ ~
o..uo...uo..~=*=-~~~.pa~
s"'culd ~ \J~ ~'ta.s..po ~ vf c> \vt\ 04
2. Should the City tolerate more parking next to side yards on Alta, in order to keep
,...,. Ul:! more people from parking on north/south streets?
"vu-m<:U..l-+ -to P1V~ slo ~ o.lV<OCl'l@ ~
Number Of people ~if 6ny) who disagree with gr&up positi~. .
.~ ~ DV\t re~ty .0 ~t "ty"
NOte any ~ri1 0 OIons. Note any mlnon opinions.
w s\l\oJJ-d. ~ ~ t/'VO~ p~ F\e.- V"~u.l.o:tlOl\ So ... 'C:JIv)~
<:..aY\ cOJth\A.\ASL '40 ~o.l K. -\-0 tvrt--A~~
,. \Ja'l ~c\u-\- +0 POi\e.. <Y'\ *~ c:.\~~
I 3. Should people with fronf yards on Alta be allowed preferential parki~regulcttfons
on some or all of their Alta Avenue frontage?
,. sV\o.Ud.\t\ 4- ~ VU~<; o..tP\X:t .<:\,\1\\\'1 CR.crlsL. ~ ~ lA'M..~
Number of people (if any) who dlsa~e w.i!!:!JJ~up ptisitTo" -
den 1+ U ~ d\V-ed\.\J eM... --\"\.'\<... bloc.lc::...
Note any majority opirAons. Note any minority opinions.
.. c:U\R~ -rO ~ ~j-L 'S~~ Of\ ~ode.~ % M1
D ~ S5~~~ \:)~ <=fo tvtr VY\a>i V'O\- SO\"4e,.
~ \SSVJL:&+- .p:l1~ Yc:.. ~ ~~ ~ \i'J-e,.. OC\~b.
4. Should peoJ>le who I~ery near a regulated sfreet, 'and who likely used that
street as their street parking before permit regulations were implemented, qualify
as "Residents" who could purchase permits for that street?
Number of people (if any) who disagree with group position
Note any majority opinions. Note any minority opinions.
.6 ro~ '\$MQS ~ ~~ cd.~~b1~.prdp3~
Please add any additional group comments to the other side of this sheet.
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Group Response
\VO
1. Does this group think the City should do more to redistribute parking in the
Montana area? Which block should have more parking than today? Which less?
Number of people (if any) who disagree with group Position~
Note any majority opinions. Note any minority opinions.
tJO 2.
Should the City tolerate more parking next to side yards on Alta, in order to keep
more people from parking on north/south streets?
Number of people (if any) who disagree with group Position~
Note any majority opinions. Note any minority opinions.
~as 3. Should people with front yards on Alta be allowed preferential parking regulations
on some or all of their Alta Avenue frontage?
f5
Number of people (if any) who disagree with group position.
Note any majority opinions. Note any minority opinions.
~ 4.
Should people who live very near a regulated street, and who likely used that
street as their street parking before permit regulations were implemented, qualify
as "Residents" who could purchase permits for that street?
Number of people (if any) who disagree with group Position~
Note any majority opinions. Note any minority opinions.
nVbP-
Please add any additional group comments to the other side of this sheet.
') [trlmlf\fJ +-tv- . (>>vf0\l>\ of W(l,l \,A\- QJdreE0dlq ~ ~
\:-\ tvJD DF t-h<'- 1 @ ~ ~A,ble t I,~ SOJth ClFVV\orrlvnt\ (\f\d t I
'VJ rl"rJ 1\(>1- ~iH:1 r-v..wl lDVvlJ fo.1/[1 atJdfo, ~~ L-yJ JAR-D 'lCltv+"tl{ ~ ^ ~
--1; 'kJl fY~l;v(
~ ~"J IJ~ t1l1lJ9d
/ YiLO (YO t1~ rACi)1'Mr Lft 1 Nl
I
t 'f rlli~ f"YJ (5 '{~ ().I
~ [rrrrorw ')J UJT'1,lf;)
. ~.~
J '1lfJ'r~ ~ '\,( tYFL( ~ v'fCJ
.
11
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Group Response
f]~ Does this group think the City should do more to redistribute parking in the
I 11\\ Montana area? Which block should have more parking than today? Which less?
. Number of people (if any) who disagree with ~oup position
4<':-fY1 /Y1~a6 ~~ 1/l<!E:S:J:=.OCJv'75 f~) Ji e ~5 f4:::.--G '^- ,-AT;+..:;:;:z:v,...J
Note any majority opinions. Note any minority opinions. 0' f,/ c-<<--/fl--'- G )
2. Should the City tolerate !!J9re.parking next to side yards on A/ta, in order to keep
'l._._J ...,;;_ more people from parking on north/south streets? .
-' r 1 \ I Number of people (if any) who disagree with group position
Note any majority opinions. Note any minority opinions.
Number of people (if any) who disagree with
preferential parking regulatio.fls
Yc: S - ~.~--I ~/'-J ~ )
--
---
- . ion--'--
3. Should people with front yards on Alta be allo
on some or all of their Alta Avenue frontage
Note any majority opinions. Note any minority opinions.
4. Should people who live very near a regulated street, and who likely used that
street as their street parking before permit regulations were im .emented,qualify,
as "Residents" who could purchase permits for that street? y 65 - {YL.~ ~
--
Number of people (if any) who disagree with group position
Note any majority opinions. Note any minority opinions.
Please add any additional group comments to the other side of this sheet.
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1. !Ltl3p V11H[fl C-<J +l1GJ ~.- rio prGF pM/LI~
A-II~ M A-L/14- c~.fV\. ~<; -F~dj
2. ftCT"t4-.- if= JfiA wt-J r;:&-er re14-5C11 'fk
co~ WCh1 ~ CW-5c c0-t A-ILWlrl5 fE{.r'hfYl 5
3. FO\- f 16 r r\f( LI ~S A-L,,-v1S ~ 1J t'tL'H4 / ~
(lec?1 M s rI ~~ L6 It L 114. 6 ~vieJ k ~/U:J
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
~~Ir Lrl~S, ~ (otrWf/ ffVCU-j .
~ - I rllitk-JJ d. ut r'] ~ ~ r4It i
A-lilA I~(~ (~ ~ ~of0
~ ff3J/AJ-, d(SC~5~ 'f{;d ~~!r1.ef~
ts 0E1r-5 5!1IM ~ A-IL~}rlj ~ t?uyJJ~
p~L\..l) fJ\1 ry -iM. tv,t~IJ des,~
Other Comments for staff or City Council: p t -tfJ ~ MILl ~ 5 ~-eA-J"
A---L /14 15 rlo+ VL
LunwA ~f-1J ff/..rlLfrJj
~.
1.
2.
3.
Do you live in Santa Monica?
Do you work here?
Do you own a business in Santa Monica?
Name & Address (optional):
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1. r /1' 14-. c:- \ \ --I...tv~.-+ ~(1,,- >
~ ~C<...1'~,
3.
p~J01~
2. r *~\i~ ~a.+ b~ M&A,,~ p.&} '/ <re~r"Jc.N YlfV
Wov\ct jJ 5t l~ PVSlA,} pVD ~.AA...s .~~ oJ-t.J)t) --r C:~M heart':t
-tv ~ ~ ~vv~&\> (w "'0>4 ~yYV5,,0S?)
-r ti~~ (rJ-o'-. o~ '~j~~*'( rM~~- {~Y-ij?~~"^d "(efl~<t" lev...>)
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1.
2.
3.
Other Comments for staff or City Council: , r " .
Or~ +0 ~. ---VJ '5fJne.e-fJ II:) -t'G-.; ,-,-"" O(~
2J J- I ~UlA~'~O $,,~ oJ- ^"''''''-~'''- ["1 Cv<Ad [,'0 po.>-~''cJ
Do you live in Santa Monica? 'rf4-
Do you work here? ~
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? ~ (C^---vVi"e S~ Q~
Name & Address (optional): I-{ ~', '1 Z- t" I 0 ~ S.}- S-k
O()1r'V2- '. 'l-))O /vhcMj~ AYe.. S-^"-
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1. L-" VI\. \ \' () \JUN- ~ \ "'VI'- ~ i\ 0 n-v-. ",.1r- VY\O '^ ~ VI "
2. C<J ST f'~eo-~ - ~\ \'\00'1- \A~" I--
V'v'\u~~-('A. n -e (J-.. s ~ ~
~-+- ~ ~)0-(~vJ\-
3. Lov-e.. ~ \ck.(I\.. ~h.--\- ~~()-G'~ .
% f:ryv..~\ f'Cr)l,^'" 0If6'6clv~peNY"~
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1. ~ \ S V'\O &yVY\rd\\(A Jvr-- tP~W',"\- rw~
<, e. ~- ~ S u) ~\ o.\- ~ s>rrc ~-\ \, <t\ \ ~rl 8 ~ o~ h~ v-a
_~... ~(9 >~ ~ e'^~ :st~g-e/",",.,}? ~
O~-e~-\ Sv\-.Je.. ~ J,Sh'h\~U k ~~L
---~..
3.
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
W()'^~ \C)v~ GV\€ l/VCCs. ~eeJe. ~'\- ~\~~
-'Mo-re- f~ ~ G-j" '""^" IPG~ 0- )
Do you live in Santa Monica? "" t ':>
s l
Do you work here? '1 -t.
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? V'\.()
. ~ _ I'L A ~,lA- ~l;j\.\.u j
Name & Address (optional): We) ---'Ie -=t ~!c VY\ClV'-\\V\""h. rrv<:-
~~'^-V S ~d- C~\ \~-rl "'- ~ q~\{o ~ ~r'Yh'1PiV~J
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
-:e' vy\ "" OCP f t +hod- ~fi1'J. ) ~ Qy L Yt 6 t--
~^'r16 ~~ ~'t>~J pQ,rYu~f1~
2. MJ blbc~ {5J~ ~~~
l^-' (~-~ {; S~~~.s
(~ bLo~
~(r)
1.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1.
hohk;nd-
2.
3.
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
I) .
K,-e. : ()v..,t. 1Il,...<1~ o:;;~~/'" ~ o/." .rY1O...7JIIY'JI~" A-LJ(;" k/'OSIh:-J
CE; No ,q~Jt-,.,,:;;-- /'~~<i -v04-nt' o,c: /h-T/I.
@"../1, e-",I'L..OY.,-til It'71-t, '3" ,.... ,...... _ k'
. ~.... ~<./I-<;"""l'l-'" 1<'.... ht,;-.nrv ,4,4 ,,-.If-...
Alua~'?ot or ~U....~~.
(J) ~o..... eJ?h-v) O~.5c........c.c) ,.....,"'At: n",/ ;:'cz,t"c.(;' <-( a."~NL--'Yl.- e.Q;;3 ,yJ #",rn..
Do you live in Santa Monica?
Do you work here? n 0
Do you own a business in Santa Monica?
~
Name & Address (optional):
jJO
-ftvt ~ ~t~
g.. I '-f Fi~~ ST.
s ~ fVl~\ eeL.....-
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1. ,LecVfYltrlUtclctfUlY\ "JDt" to 'lllcl:.w!L ~~~L (W'vW-f. PWMj l-h ~ a('('fL
f/
. .L to M1Aw y JIP/\NV 1) pA/lhftl.V ~{J/':~. (jIl qtt~
I't.l LV ;tv'(Yhd)-LtAj"N r~ "I 'vv. .- ., v.O
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1.
rv(JWG
2.
3.
Other Comments for staff or City Council: r:/ , /III. AA r?
]) td'1 ~{)/Yl/iJ I ~~~f~ IJ
.. A- S I- (Vt-fV f"C.-. ~It
lIJM(.;~ . .J.i'~ +- {'51h
r~.~ Il.-f'
J ~ ~ 'Y4v-t-J ~ ~
fJ~/ {y~ -If ~
Do you live in Santa Monica? ~
Do you work here? [VO
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? N ()
Name & Address (optional):
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1.Lf-.t~!!P~~ .
\ '". ". . .J' ~ u./aq ~ a,;f-u;L
2. <C~" P lit.- -&cU~.) ~u--- ~ I
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1.
2.
3.
Other Comments for staff or City Council: _ _.J. ~-VC-~J'-./.~ "'?"r..-,_
~edf.~~CW.~~ I' ~
~ cYo/#d ~pr"
Do you live in Santa Monica? ~"
Do you work here? (kJ' - f~ J)
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? ~
Name & Address (optional): 8~k1j aPItLu/
;riio J 7 !fr4~
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1. Vc:::'12- ,-( D ( pFl LV L T -10 0Y\])6YZ-~Tc4-N j)
If-l~ f~~~\04-nOtJ - M~( Pc=-ofc~
-tF-!G-VG-HT (T wv+-5S A-(]~'( eVV{.fLOY~
p ftJL t< (PJ c- fE?R-M r--rS - t(t-{.A-r ~ {...{6-oJ
I T '\AI14-S f utc=:S0"YT6:0 --- (t-{ c:-Y'\J 0J G Lu c-ye<:::-
--rQ-<.-p \ ~ lA1~NIT LIH?~~I P~(TS'~
. S <9 lA.n-( cA I lVW-5 f T M ~h..:r( 7
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposals for the Montana ~rea:
1.
2.
3.
WHOM 0/~--{L ~tb THe StJlLvl::;'-( Tt-f/(T
!3,ELbcD M~'TvtAlA l-(~ ~L'-( toOtJ(o
~.. t9ccu.pr/tfJ~'-( ~ ,pc4JlK(~G- MuST
H~ D~ lH~ $u,[L\JGY ~ At1J
~\ Q ~ lOW~ i-LoccDc.4--Y.-- l T (S
VVlafLb Uk~ 0ob(o Dee <..J feAwe. Y ON Tf-(e
~LOC K S.00q-(~ of vVle.N-rcA-rJ1l.
Other Comments for staff or City Council: ( / \'
G\ \I ~ ! N]) \ Vt) J~ pc::~wt tiS f-(~G 11\/ cA ~
-(to 'If--(e:;- EJ1.{PLOY~ -- f~K -n-(c-W\.
f'le-{Z TH 0 (- vvt(0,...J-rv4;\! Ii 9Q'J -r7-t c;- TVJ() ~ lJ/Cc-cTS
-rH. cA -r KcJ.;J (J ()/2:IH 61+cH <; IDe:;- 0 /~ fI-r ~
q$LOC{< THEY t;VrNL\< O,J,
2.
3.
Do you live in Santa Monica? Y 6
Do you work here? NO
Do you own a business in Santa Monica?
Name & Address (optional):
~44-
Yc:::-~. \ O~ ST
t/VtuyJ Tv7"J,A- ~
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1.
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1.
2.
3.
, ;-l s l). Yl e .x:-a...-4 (e.-: ( .... /,) l -' \
Other com~ents for staff or City councly,o~("..~ u.L k 00.'- .\d' S "sY'~e IS 5'1 I ,1-'1
I J l~ H '\ I,' ~t: fe";." ~eAA/\-~ S \. \ <2.-~.eX'~-\ \. c....-\ ~ oA'"\L, VL1
be..CC&W7e- ; t 10l-<- ~'tl~~. 0-. t-JCL-Vv'-t' ~ ~ ~('!~ W~l-e Y\
VL-5 I'..h ~'J cx... po c...fo (lS 0 rtl ~ e J # C2-V',e... ()...-v'e.vt. "r ~ cd" JL lkJ .'3<< o-C .e S
LV"- l e;s ':J d ~ <?C.J K . -+0 '-'-'G..~ k '~l . \.", 0<- ~ ::r:.d.-L-." ~ \.I "-$ " e V<k ~I,.
~ l-\:15 ~L.'t~,e. ftv~--%tr'?s.:~(e ~ ~c>-rkCol{ s.-{qr-t-..L-r-c {B"t.u I ,....'{
d-~ s / r \.to.--\- e.- o..-YL'1 ; ~.eA. e (' 0 /It € .-- ~J ~ -t. y ~i-> r
) '1'}'Ct-1 e . 1\
Do you live in Santa Monica? U e ':> p".rt }61t1') k f- ~ i~ -t, - - 0 V1 I 1 Sf'
~ \ J .. . -'( 0., '( IL I ""j
Do you work here? \V 0 -rt e,.'( e '5 f I () ~ 0- P'" I ~c-.-. )
\ ~ . r \ fi.- y \L-- t "'1
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? (\J 0 a..,,~c\. :::[. ti 5tLlr-' '7 \ - j
N w . . ~ I ~-l--e.I\.-c
ame & Address (optional): SrO<t>-t: ')e..-~ev.t lcH I Y-\ I" .
\~ IV r Ii In, I
~ wI>- ':) ()./2,t I" c--\ ~ 1 ,"'-
e.r e '\ -, -.b
i . -,4-- --rt. l5 1""--- J. /.
w ~ .....\ Jr\ l' \J "- 0" . J.. Ie... -to ~J-( <-.
-r j; ^ iI< 1 0- 'J
c.l "- e. +0 11 v '"
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1.
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) apout t~e proposals for th~ Montana Area:
A l V\{{~ Vi~\ ~1 ~t:f? J .
1. \\OlMv'lI\ VlOVl-")1Y.eet (R'SltUvth to l&~ fU',!,,1
ra v/L-( W) fN 7Jy4e-B tu( r 1'1<< 111M PC//{L-t flj
2.
3.
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
Do you live in Santa Monica? 'If)
Do you work here? pJ 0 ~ \
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? 1\10
Name & Address (optional):
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1.
2.
3.
Three thinks r dislike (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1.
J.--\ u~~r\'j ~:)\r\'~v\e.s ~ 61....lf'dv-. d- .e..MO~~,
OOJ'U'I\~ ),.0 Mo~~ o~ S-\r~ C.A\~\ _ :x:+ ,':::, '-4 . (.)~(l::..
I..J\ --\\A VI 0 co M. ~ r~j^e':j,..'s, l.ve".. .p\ oJ\ .
\\r--W~ \~ (\0 ~~~ l\~~ ~. .petM\+~ t::r .-\i~ \1\,t.-\\'tS.
2.
3. C(~ \~ d"~c..oura.3t~ P-V-M\--\-- rorG.l{\..5 -tor (P...sr~~ I bJ-t--
\'f- r(()\~-\-s wOJ\\-' ,-\ '\Lof~ ~\dr\.\. ~ q" p(t)~~.
--\'wL ~'~""'oor"'\Ooo \~ bS 0\ouq,^ ~ ck~p.w-~ eApl ~
\:fJMr+ ~ C\\\ o~ v.J1"'\\A k\-\'\Q. "t"-\Po.c.k, 1'f\S..\.eo.d- o-t' ~rGt\^3
Other Comments for staff or City Council: ~ cJ..c~;)-t- V^ (lUM\'~d ~-\J€Jd---s
w~~ 0& ~0\~ ~ L w ~or 0\\ ~ b.Jr~.
~w'q~ S\-\0~'Or'\. <;:~
~\o.J-.()... \-0 ".s€Q ,-{:- --\<.ve l-~ o.d.eCljJC\k-
.?~<i~ --G:>) ~\,o~~: J:- ,,^OW ~e of€- U}'UQ,~~
oXwa~ S s~ace5 Cl.\j~\lC\SJQ. 0;:\- ~ d001r-s ttQ.. ~"
---.:.....
Do you live in Santa Monica? cy, s
Do you work here?
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? {\oNName & Address (optional):
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Individual Response
Three things lUke (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
~ >J~~~~
1.
J~ /)M/f
--th ~~-
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1.
2.
3.
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
RcslJe~fs
shot/It! hav~
5. 01' M0117 a~~
pe r WlI f J I.
~-,."
~ tiSt
Do you live in Santa Monica? le..s
Do you work here? ~
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? ~
Name & Address (optional):
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1.5- t/#..G' THffT '/O{)'Rp lrJoT f!2-of~~
E IYl (JLo >' ee pe I!-/h IIS-
2. ::J- L./Kt3 i+HfT 'tD tJ 'P ~;h(11f:;.vJ1;;;:r
f;lJ3/T'i /Y1~ THe ~'71TIUS &.\)0 ~ UffT
,-rtfG em PL:D 'fee fA-~ rf1)& C--t//,fJ/7 Alue to
3. SOL-vt& 1-rs:?L:F frs. /;T(..s do'AJC:;;; A-joU)
J
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1.
2.
3.
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
Do you live in Santa Monica?
Do you work here?
Do you own a business in Santa Monica?
Name & Address (optional):
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area: 7.2.
1. :Cw. ~ 7-dlY1lTS ~ ~DT 1XJlJb P-.DUeP) ulr6/L.
{ l
2.
3.
\ /
Three thi1jS I dislike (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1. 1\..1 0\') l.-\ ~ ~-w ~ .J1ll.c0\5
2. r 1)\S\,.\ ~c- 1hft1 T~\M liThO ?/tP-~ vJc:, I S AJI? J'-
(2 Xt nJ M TO 5v.NIJ/rtj> It) lJ~L.[
3.
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
r:J
rtf4Lt [TS fkPv..v.fJ 'Yr !<tpu. Ittr iJ
4lV9 ~ 10
1 M't5!WfiE'l, '% -ip
iff t.fl/J$tf,7blil-t f)JFtJ/i.tqJ.. 1I(tttJjI ltJl1r
Do you live in Santa Monica? ~O
Do you work here?
Do you own a business in Santa Monica?
Name & Address (OPtional):~~\C ~~
(P31-\ ,,~5 ~ SrR.eF"\
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area: //)0 ~
1. /}to /HltVU- ~ ~ ~~ ~ A-
~
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1.
P~f~~ 0-<<. ~ ~.1f
~~.
(41/A tIu~f~M~~)
~ JOH~~~k.tfM- >
AA~ 6-f. 4--V r ~
/-_.~.I~~~'
3.
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
/1UdJc~ad~~
. _ . . 0 ~~cfJ
.t2~ /fJ~ /V?~ .
I If / "or <J,. . ~au"./;7'1r
hJA ~.~~~
~-? ~ U~ /ZR;r~-
Do you live in Santa Monica? ~
Doyouworkhere? ~-~~
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? ~ ~ ~.H.. ~
Name & Address (optional): ~~ ~
;}2 /7f,t, 51. q'o10'?
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1.
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1.
2.
3.
Other Comments for staff or City Council: ..
f zfbJNG0 kC{)H/vlaJJ;l;~ PETl!/t>N ?~ ~J;;i6f..Jf-sJ
pc.72 utf$ r;t kEjtbC4cJ> . INGlE 2802-
Do you live in Santa Monica? Y 6.5
Do you work here?
.. r:- ~()' P' i"ie/YAPiS
~ ~o.l.} own a busmess In Santa Monica? Aj. b\..AfV'l ()..., -..+- '4J. rMJ I \/ J'lOJr-::
vw fH) GA 1-./ fJe~ :spt){]) Ii Cd)1J Ck -Iv tOM t: J'N ~J;..I / f/I',f: ~r Ufl '-t
Name & Address (optional): -, . V .
Ro~ ~t2"~J)Ict:
<gIg; ~/J ftjfP ~
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1. 1T~;f c? - /Yo pel? ml T P!9 Ie /~ /N6. /~t:lt" L- /11 ~J.o~..s
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1:/I)I\/01>lt IS .N(}T ff.N Fr/ec..GD
1.
,
--
2.
3.
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
/I~' .P'^~ P7 -k.J / nl ~ v t'/ J3 it! ,() IZ /-/ u ~T.4.
Do you live in Santa Monica? '11.7 7
Do you work here? i e -:;
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? f.{ ~
Name & Address (optional):
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1. .~,,~ ~ ~\tt(t-C0 ~ fR~f~s,kt---
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1.
/
2.
/
3.
/
Other Commentsfor staff or City Council:
Do you live in Santa Monica? 'I E-<s
Do you work here? ~
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? ~
Name & Address (optional):
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1.
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1. !2u;(~ ,,""'- A{~ C0r~ pac;'a~
~ If' \ c...<L-,
2. /f~.,f, r~ ~" +0 ~ ~.tt'LJlAl.-
3.
Other Comments f,?r staff or CiJy qoundl:, 0 f /_
r= +R-e..\ ~. ~ r ('Cl 'O(~ t ~ ~
4-0 eo cr '. P l", "....l ""'X ~ ~ ~ &...e ~
~~~~C)CVL-L~ ~~ D:: .
'LS ~VJ~(\~ ~ ~~S
Pr -k ~ u. - ~. ~
~~d,-{i ~ ~ p - ()
Do you live in Santa Monica? \ \ e.g
Do you work here? (,^-.U
Do you own a business in Santa MonLca?~ ~
Name & Address (optional): ~ vu2..- {<'- t ~
{2-l2- 14-{~ 4v-<-
~ ~S'LLc-~ V~<-<- I)~~&-J~"
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Individual Response
Three things I like (if any) abc;mt the proposals for the Montana Area:
1. /L/OTrf-T-/UG _ 'TtlGa G ~ /L/C' p~ ~o::srr<-
G-y:..06P-r yc ~lJ ~ A-z-:7'ri ".,.-s,4- J
e:;-/Y} Pc 0 y cE f7/PrZ-/C- r::r-r~ L---o-r-
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1. 31 t/.-A-? +-A.3:=;e.,--~ fJ ct4 c o'S /tIE:; f? 19~6\
~UtL-O fSr...J Or- -5 ~r2-0C::O~ -r::ro,A./ /tieL.- / 0 A.0 A
QJ/,t06L5 STtlZ-C56T I A-c-r-A, -
2':I1"' .006.5 AlO', P::c-,L-- 'TIt-€ ~u~7~
f1;LJ 5 ,~~/~'-f C> ~fC-..6D
3 S:J--,OE YA-~5 (-{Ave /Vlu0 ~rnff~~ S6~
. m!8 - - ..J
So ';: Atf1--e /"Vlotf'Z.--G ~ P .IlC1 60 6'f N o-:x 3& )
CO(I.J(9 ~~~ j;~~-e ~ - (.,.L/':I/GO'I-...) TI(&~
::T'.5 E; l'<.cESS :l~U 6- <;,.~.j-,'-;'}~-'~ c:5 pArf2-/C-<~-OC ON
Other Comments for staff or City Council: jfJ 6 <2;:.J-vG,
S PJ::c--<-- OL--'6CZ- 6- rvJ p(--C) Y6e fJ ft(L-Jc.~ H'?f\-'-~
[) I2--A rY'lA- T:T e-A-'l-G-f AO J 6<<.-9 \!5L-'-j -:r:::-r7\.. ,v'(T-c...T ~
7 il G- CP CL- "q--L:j:-r---/. CY -;::-- (. L.' ~E::- ?J; 0 ,.,....:J ~
;0 ~- <S... f-/ 60 (2.. NO aD C.I-+ ~.4-c.::::t~ 0 r ;tL.::7 11- .
Do you live in Santa Monica?
Do you work here?
Do you own a business in Santa Monica?
Name & Address (optional):
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Individual Response
Three things (like (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1. ~~~N(~ c;~Cb(tZ).D
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area: '\
1. ~~.-fJ. E-.'~\2xa '00. O{:,'. \\l\()0Th~ ,\iJ.\lSL
~. -~ \f'f\.~. ~ . O~ ~()0\A~)A 0.N1.~tl~ .
~ ~~S \0 . ~~D \~ <;,~~'--\O~
2. 6YVl(t:A. YOJl}vf\ \~~\4 . "~bo '~f'\~
!AD \\N\\?c>sS\.~LQ5?e~b. ~.~_~~~~~ ~
3.-"'. ~~- ~.~--~ .O~iJ \.X:. ~) ()~ WD~~-1i-\f::>~
J5Z~'N\.\JS\~'~:-- :; P<7(^ ~',~~(5'Z~:"\~\F___ '- S ~WC-~
~~ O\?-i\t\00\AL~ ~~O'"-
Other Comments for staff or City Council: -' L:[')C _
6~;CSrs ~i;)~~d\'X'~
(..-
Do you live in Santa Monica~S
Do you work here? t ~ ~
Do you own a business in Santa Monica? ~
Name & Address (optional): ~
Employee Permit Parking Meeting 1/19/06: Individual Response
Three things J like (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1.
2.
3.
Three thinks I dislike (if any) about the proposals for the Montana Area:
1.
2.
3.
Other Comments for staff or City Council:
jW-h~/6&r&JLv(~' ~i ~
~ ~//U7 '"" ~U ,
() ~J h z:;- ~~~-
.;C, t~tt/lt-
/J,t,ft ~k ~S ~ ~~...
/" .
Do you live in Santa Monica?
Do you work here?
Do you own a business in Santa Monica?
Name & Address (optional):
ATTACHMENT L
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
lisette toppel [Iisettepisces@verizon.net]
Wednesday, December 28,20057:41 PM
Ruth Harper
Preferential Parking Ordinance
Dear Ruth Harper:
We strongly object to the idea of employee permit parking in our
neighborhood. It is already difficult enough to find parking in front
of our homes with the constant construction, gardeners, public vehicles and guests. Give
us a break! We all paid a TON to live in this neighborhood, we pay a ton in taxes and we
generally abide by all the laws and restrictions. Build a parking lot and charge to park,
thats a much more efficient way for the City to raise revenue and solve the problem.
Lisette Toppel
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: BENJAMIN SHAHMARAN [support@aaawebcarparts.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 29,2005 12:15 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: permit parking
In order to help existing businesses maintain their employee level and therefore their service it is important that
employees of local businesses have access to parking. I hope preferential parking which probably will mean
purchasing parking permits is not another way to tax local businesses.
Benjamin Shahmaram
aaawebcarparts. com
828 Pica Blvd. #5
Santa monica, Ca 90405
(888)314-4454
01/19/2006
Page 1 0[1
Ruth Harper
From: CRDonaldsn@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, December 29,200512:41 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: Re: Employee Permit Parking Program
Dear Ruth,
Thanks for the e-mail copy of the letter to residents. As a resident I already received mine, but your e-mail gives
me something to forward to PIO directors who have e-mail.
We are reorganizing our parking committee. I will get back to you on that.
But in the interim, please let me know of anything the PIO can do to expedite matters. I hope your proposal has
an evaluation clause. Our board favors that as does the Friends of Sunset Park (which I serve as secretary).
Sincerely,
Charles Donaldson
Pico Improvement Organization chair
and one of its two resident-directors
310-392-8166
o III 9/2006
Message
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: Risk, Laurie (Crime Prevention) [LRisk@elsegundo.org)
Sent: Friday, January 13, 20062:14 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: Preferential Parking
Absolutely not! You allow new construction, after new construction with no consideration for
the taxpayers and homeowners. Then we pay for it by having to pay to park in front of our
own homes I Old Santa Monica is vanishing before our eyes. We're already cramped.
Businesses should provide parking for their employees or perhaps they should rent in this
town.
01119/2006
Glen Woodmansee
P.O. Box 3073, Santa Monica, CA 90408
(310) 828-4527
January 1, 2006
Santa Monica City Council
Attn; Transportation Management Div.
Ruth Harper
PO Box 2200
Santa Monica, CA 90407
Dear Ms. Harper:
I own a house in a preferential parking neighborhood at 2832 Arizona Ave., Santa
Monica 90404, in a block that voted AGAINST preferential parking.
I oppose the City's use of the public streets to raise revenue, from either
employees or residents.
Admittedly the community college neighborhood is a special case because of the
extreme parking pressure.
But in general, the trend to SELL parking permits for the public streets should be
opposed.
The public streets are for everyone. People who buy near commercial streets
should expect greater use of the streets in the neighborhood, and property values reflect
that.
Santa Monica residents shop in Santa Monica and sometimes park on Santa
Monica streets while shopping. They should be able to park on the public streets
throughout the city.
Santa Monica taxpayers should not have to pay the city for permits to park on
their own public streets.
Sincerely,
~~
Glen Woodmansee
0ucf,r era 1 W-t;t~ ~
Glen Woodmansee
P.O. Box 3073
Santa Monica, CA 90408
(310) 828-4527
. Transportation Management Division
1685 Main Street, Rm 115
PO Box 2200
Santa Monica 90407
Comment re: Preferential Parking Proposals
The public streets should be for public parking, as they are maintained by the public. It is
inconvenient for guests to park, run in for a temporary placard, run back out to the car, go back
in for a visit, return to the car, take the placard back to the homeowner, and return to the car, for
every visit. For this inconvenience, the homeowner must pay an annual fee to the city for the
placards or stickers. Surely the City can do without this revenue source and the attendant
parking tickets that are generated.
Local homeowners have the obligation to provide on-site parking spaces for their own
vehicles under the zoning laws ofthe City. They should have no claim on the public streets.
Let the public streets remain for the public use as they have been used for the past
century.
Sincerely,
Glen Woodmansee
Santa Monica Homeowner
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Alyssa Ganezer [aganezer@BasiclSP.net]
Wednesday, January 25,20069:19 AM
Ruth Harper
Employee Permit Parking
Dear Ms. Harper,
I am a resident of Santa Monica, living at 933 9th Street.
I would like it on record that I OPPOSE permit parking of ANY sort.
Selling permits for people to park on streets paid for with public money, and thus
restricting who, of that paying public, gets to use those street is inequitable.
Selling permits for parking is also a band-aid attempting to solve a bigger problem, which
is the fact the City of Santa Monica allowed too much growth, both in the residential and
commercial zones of the city.
REDUCING DENSITY IS THE PROPER WAY TO SOLVE TRAFFIC AND PARKING PROBLEMS
Furthermore, selling parking permits to businesses for their employees encourages further
density and worse parking problems. It does this by encouraging and allowing businesses to
use their on-site parking for customers instead of employees, building up their businesses
and throwing more need for parking out on the street.
Finally, for the city to sell permits to both residents and employees for the same places
on the street is a species of FRAUD. The city would be selling the same thing to two
different people.
I OPPOSE allowing the sale of permits to residents OR non-residents.
Sincerely,
Alyssa Ganezer
1
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: Carlamay1@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:29 AM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: Re: my e-mail address..
Hi Ruth, thank you for your call. We are fine with our parking here at 17th st. Santa Monica we have lived on
this street for 26 years and we do not yet have a problem that would warrent parking permits. Thank You,
Carla Ferrigno
(0;;../ /7-e/.. ~+. (n(){~ f).{J It {+~
0]/26/2006
Ruth Harper
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pam Bishop [pmpromotions@usinter.net]
Tuesday, January 31,20062:15 PM
Ruth Harper
PREFERENTIAL PARKING on Urban
Dear Ms. Harper,
I do not want employee permit parking on Urban Ave. The businesses on Pica that would use
it are Lares Restaurant which we know has a 'way' on getting want it wants from the city
and the four garages in the 2900 and 3000 blocks of Pica who used to park their cars on
Urban.
The whole point of preferential parking was to allow residents to have a place to park.
Why take this away from us now. This whole brilliant idea has once again caused a rift
between the businesses and the residents in this area. And guess who always wins.
Sincerely,
Pamela Bishop
1
Page I of 1
Ruth Harper
From: sidonie smith [nehemiah336@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 20066:32 AM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: college preferential parking zone
Dear Ruth:
Unfortunately I was unable to attend the area meeting addressing this important matter, but I should like
to express my views.
In my opinion, there are few things worse than feeling you are relegated to remaining indoors for fear
that you will"lose" your parking space on the street, or to be forced to return to the nest before 5:00 to
secure one. Since the growth ofthe student population at SMC those of us who reside on 20th street
between Pearl and Ocean Park suffer this reality on a daily basis. If for some reason I am able to be in
the vicinity of my home during the day....I have the luxury of experiencing the freedom of parking
without fear.
To permit SMC personnel access to parking on the already limited parking on 20th street will exacerbate
an already untenable parking situation. I don't not support further inconveniencing the residents in these
impacted city streets by authorizing SMC personnel to park on the streets for any reason
Thank you
Dr. Sidonie Smith
2416 20th street
Santa Monica,
Please feel free to contact me for further comment 310 617-5656
resident of 20th street for over 30 years
Brings words and photos together (easily) with
Ph.QJoMaiL- it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
02/06/2006
February 10, 2006
Ms. Ruth Harper
Transportation Planning Associate
Transportation Management Division
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street - Room 115, PO Box 2200
Santa Monica, CA 90407-9170
_10-05-91923-ARNV
Dear Ms. Harper,
We are contacting you as residents of909 and 911 Montana Avenue with our concern regarding
the concept of the limited employee parking program, which would allow employees access to
on-street parking spaces in certain areas with preferential parking regulations.
As we discussed on the phone in December and January, I live at 909 Montana Avenue, an eight
(8) unit apartment complex, in Santa Monica. Both buildings (909 and 911 Montana Avenue)
have eight (8) units with an additional store-front unit at 909 Montana Avenue, for a total of 17
(seventeen) units. Between the two (2) addresses (909 & 911) there exist only two (2) parking
spaces. Furthermore, the management company has just notified a1117 (seventeen) units that one
(1) parking space has been "assigned" to the store front business at 909 Montana Avenue and
that the remaining one (1) parking space will also be assigned for $75 (seventy-five dollars) per
month, whereas historically the two (2) parking spaces have been shared by all units.
This arrangement appears to be a preemptive action initiated by the store-front business with the
management company against the possible rejection ofthe limited employee parking program.
While only a handful (ten) of the residence in our complexes of909-911 Montana Avenue drive
automobiles and perhaps two (2) or three (3) others of senior status wishing guest parking for
occasional pick-ups and visitors, we are unfortunately limited to a Y2 (one-half) city block on
which to park legally.
We make no issue with the employee parking program, however, it would be appreciated if the
City of Santa Monica would consider the residents in the area not currently qualified for
preferential parking with priority.
As your records will show, the area between Montana Avenue and Alta (one block north of
Montana) on 91h Street has apartment complexes lining the block. The west side ofthe street has
an elementary school with very restricted parking. The east side ofthe street which is lined with
the apartment complexes has subterranean and/or garage parking in the alley for each building.
However, many of these residents have multiple vehicles per unit. Therefore, their overflow is
Ms. Ruth Harper
February 10, 2006
Page 2 of2
the east side of the street. Added to this congestion is the perpetual street parking by patrons and
window shoppers in the Montana Avenue business district between 9th Street and 17th Street.
Your records will also show that this particular area is surrounded by posted preferential parking
or metered parking (on Montana Avenue). This status has limited the remaining 16 (sixteen)
units at 909-911 Montana Avenue to search endlessly at times for a valid parking space while
entire blocks (9th Street south of Montana Avenue and 10th Street north and south of Montana
Avenue) have ample vacant capacity of street parking access in the posted preferential parking
regions.
Most of the driving residents (current and past) at 909-911 Montana Avenue have been cited for
some type of parking violation on these limited access, vehicle impacted streets. All would
gladly tender payment to the City of Santa Monica for a valid parking permit to alleviate the
stress of parking around their own residence.
Wel, the undersigned, respectfully request that the Santa Monica City Council consider allowing
selected residents with no resident parking spaces (such as those at 909-911 Montana Ave.) the
opportunity to purchase a preferential parking decal from the City of Santa Monica for the
adjacent and surrounding block(s) around our residence.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
~.1~
Dora Stein
I&:.~
~ yd da Silva
f~L-: ~~
Robin Shean
fJ~~~'
I Bertha Tarantini
C??
Charlie Rotenberger
I While additional residents may desire representation, those residents were not available at time of signing.
Ms. Ruth Harper
February 10, 2006
Addendum to City Council Letter on Preferential Parking
Signing Residents:
Dora Stein, 909 Montana Avenue, #1
Lenny Lloyd da Silva, 909 Montana Avenue, #3
Scott Carroll, 909 Montana Avenue, #4
Robin Shean, 909 Montana Avenue, #6
Gayle Fox, 909 Montana Avenue, #7
Bertha Tarantini, 911 Montana Avenue, #D
Carlo Petrini, 911 Montana Avenue, #F
Charlie Rotenberger, 911 Montana Avenue, #G
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Harper
From: Neil B. Morley [morley@fusion.ucla.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 4:26 PM
To: Ruth Harper
Subject: Modification of Preferential Parking Ordinance
Dear Ms. Harper,
I received a letter concerning the possible modification of the Preferential Parking Ordinance to allow
employees access to on-street parking in our neighborhood. I was unable to find more information about
the proposed implementation at the provided website (httM12en.ci.santa-
Il1Qnica,.Ga,.uslcitYGl~Ik!GQlln(;il/infQrll1a,tiQn=itell1s.htm), I would appreciate it if you could tell me
where such information can currently be found.
In general, however, let me indicate to you that as a resident at 1709 Pine Street, immediately adjacent
to both John Adams Middle School and the Santa Monica College, I am against allowing additional
street parking by employees from either school. As Santa Monica residents in this otherwise lovely little
neighborhood, we are already dealing with our fair share of congestion and parking problems due to the
schools. I think the current program where at least legal parking is reserved for residents (still at a cost to
us for some reason?) barely makes the situation tolerable. Allowing more people parking rights will only
make the congestion worse lead to abuses such as employees giving/selling their passes to friends,
neighbors, etc.
However, if such a change in parking policy is forced upon us. I would like to make the following
suggestions specific to my particular neighborhood that might make the situation more palatable.
. allow employee parking on 17th street only, and not the side streets (cedar, pine, maple, and 18th).
this might reduce the impact on the residents
. invest some of the revenue from the program in improving the 17th street landscaping and
maintenance. 17th street between Ocean Park and Pearl is a thoroughfare for both motorists and
pedestrians from JAMS and the College, and the street and parkway area is not attractively
landscaped and usually covered with garbage.
Thank you for hearing (reading) my concerns, I appreciate your efforts to consider the opinions of the
residents.
Best regards, --Neil Morley
Neil B. Morley and Rachel S. Bennahum
1709 Pine Street, Santa Monica, CA 90405
310/450-1134
02II 6/2006
1649 Oak St
SM, CA 90405
Letter of Record for Public Comment Regarding Employee Permits in Sunset Park Area
Being a relatively new homeowner to the Sunset Park neighborhood, I have come to
realize the complexities to issues surrounding parking in the area and have just become
aware of the new proposal and was not able to attend any of the public hearings.
While many of the points made in this proposal seem adequate, I believe that we will be
negatively affected.
No one wants more cars in front of their house, myself included. Being two houses from
a comer, the propensity for people to park here is high. Houses in the middle of the street
are less likely to be affected. We have a driveway in the alley that is frequently blocked
by large delivery trucks at Bob's Market, so we choose to park in front of our house,
paying a premium for this privilege. Having small children makes parking in front of our
house an easier endeavor.
We pay the same amount for a parking permit as any other SM resident, and now will be
impacted for parking availability with no adjustments in fees or compensation for the
. .
mconvemence.
We are already affected by light and noise pollution from businesses, speeding traffic in
our neighborhoods, noise pollution from city trucks at 6:30 in the morning collecting
commercial refuse, and now will be affected again, shouldering another burden stemming
from the proximity to commercial districts.
The way I see it -- there is no positive incentive for any homeowner of the affected areas.
The city needs to take into consideration the values of the homeowners as well and not
just commercial interests. Why must we as residents further allow the commercial
interests in our community to impact our quality of life?
These are complex issues you are dealing with and I offer no real solutions, only an
opinion as to how the program will affect me. I hope you take some of my thoughts into
consideration when devising a plan.
Respectfull y,
David Bruce