SR-12-A (60)~eoc~ 93~a
~ ~~
~aN i s ~ss
PCD SF KG RF f lplanlsharelcouncillstrptlprefoo Santa Monica, California
January 19, 1999
TO Mayor and City Counc~l
FROM City StafF
SUBJECT Adoption of an Initial StudylNegative DecEaration and Appro~al of a
Resolution Establishing Preferential Parking Zone 00
lNTRODUCTION
This report recammends that the City Council adopt an Initial StudylNegati~e Declaratian
and appro~e a resolut~on establishmg a preferential parkmg zone 00 for 12~h Street
between Santa Monica Boule~ard and Arizona Avenue As proposed, parking in Zone 00
will be prohibited between the hours of 7 00 a m and 9 00 p m, Mondaythrough Saturday,
except by permit All other provisians applicable to preferential parking zones would apply
The In~tial StudylNegati~e Declaration is contained in Attachment G The proposed
resolution as con#a~ned in Attachment A
BACKGROUND
On December 2, 1997, the City Council conceptually a~proved the establishment of
preferential parkmg on 12`h Street between Santa Monica Boule~ard and Ar~zona A~enue
Durmg Caunci~ dlsc~ss~on, representat~ves of Claude Short Dodge, located at the corr~er
af 12th Street and Santa Monica Baule~ard, opposed preferent~al parking and m response
the CouncEl asked staffto examine seWeral alternatives including allow~ng one artwa hour
parking, installing meters along the nan-residential partion of 12ih Sfreet, mstalling diagonal
1 ~~
~a~r ~ s ~
parking along the street, and establishing a larger preferential parKing zone around the
area af 12th Street between Arizona Avenue ar~d Santa Il/~ornca B~ulevard Staff was
directed to respond to these alternatives when the proposed zone returned for appro~a[
ANALYSIS
Env~ronmental Analysis
An Initial StudylMitigated Negati~e Declaration {IS/MND) was pre~iously prepared for the
proposed preferential parking zone on 12`h Street and circ~lated for public review and
comment The commEnt period ~or the document ended on Septemi~er 4, 1998
Four (4) written comments were received during the public review penod for the ISIMND
Those comments are conta~ned in Attachment B
The ISIMND analyzed the proposed zone for 12ih Street in additian to a ~ariety of options
ircluding
• One hour only parking except by permit
• Twa hour only parking except by permit
• Install parking meters along the non-residential portion of 12~h
Street between Anzona Avenue and Santa Monica Boule~ard
• Install diagor~al parkjng along 12'" Street between Arizona A~en~e
and SaRta Mon~ca Boulevard
• Es~ablish a larger preferential parking zane around 12`h Street
Among the proposed mit~gat~on measures, the ISlMND recommended a larger preferential
-2-
parking zone be authorized as a mitigation measure for approval of the 12'~ Street zone
One of the wrrtten commenfs ~acused in particular on thrs m~tigation measure, contendmg
that the ISIMND contained no analysis addressing whether any secondary en~ironmental
impacts would result ~rom the larger zane Based upon these concerns, City staff, along
with the cansultant team, reaxamined the data for the proposed 12th StrEet preferer~~iaf
parking zone and determined that a larger preferential parking zone was not a necessary
mitfgatian measure as the parkers that would be displaced as a result of the preferential
parking zone on 12~~ S#reet could be absorbed within #he surround~ng area Therefare, no
significant impacts would result from the preferential parking zone and no mit~gation
measures are necessary to appra~e the Preferential Parking Zone 00
Based upon the reexamination of the data, an Initial StudylNegative Decfaratian was
pre~ared and re-circulated far public review and commen# during October The 151ND
inc~uded a parking inventory for a study area which is bounded by Wilshire Boulevard on
the no~th, Broadway an the south, 9~" Street on the west and 14t" Street on the east This
inventory cietermmed that approxima#ely 38 parking spaces are a~ailable on 12th S~reet
betw~en Santa Monica Boule~ard and Arizona Avenue (1 fi ad~acant to commerc~al
businesses and 22 spaces ad~acent to residential properties) and approximately C50
parking spaces are a~ailable throughout the entire study area
A parking utilization survey was also conducted for the study area on Thursday, Apr~f 23,
1998 between 6 Da a m and 8 00 p m Parkmg utilizat~on between the hours of 6 0~ a m
and fi 00 p m m the block of 12~h' Street between Santa Monica Baulevard and Arizona
-3-
A~enUe ranged between 90% and 111% (indicating that ~ehicles were parked illegal~y}
After 6 00 p m the utilization ranged from 70% to 78% on this block Parking utifizat~on on
#he surrounding streets within the study area ranged between 0% {on Santa Monica
Boulevard during non-b~siness hours} and 141 %~on the east side of 12`h Street from
Broadway to Santa Monica Boulevard dur~ng the 1 00 p m to 2 ~0 p m hour) with the
foflowmg generai observations
6 a m- nearly all resident~al blocks experience relati~ely high parking
utilization, whde cammercial area parking demand is fow
10 a m- overall parkmg utilization is e~en higher than ~ a m on most
residential blacks and cammercial area parkmg had also increased
1-3 p m- parking utilEZation remains high on many residential blocks
and moderate to high on commer~ial blocks
7-S p.m - overafl parking utElization had declined significantly
Additionally, a parkmg cluratio~ sur~ey was comple#ed for the block of 12t" Street between
Santa Mon~ca Bo~levard and Anzona Avenue Th~s durat~on surv~~ found that the most
common length of stay on the west side of 12`h Street was more than eight hours and on
the east side of 12'" Street the mos~ common lengt~ of stay was four hours The utilization
and d~ration sur~eys clearly indicate that nan-resident parkers are impacting parkmg
a~ailability on the street and it is clear that if the Crty implements a preferential parking
district on 12`" Street there is likely to be spillover af non-resident parkers to ad~acent
streets To assess the magnitude of the shifted traff~c the IS1ND analyzed the potential
parking demand which would likely sh~ft ar~d determined that the net displacement wouEd
be approximately 13 ~ehicles However, asdiscussed, theseveh~cles could parkon streets
withm the surrounding study area, and consequently, the net d~splacement would not have
-4-
a s~gnificant effect an #he environment
The IS/ND analyzed the proposed zane for 12`h Street as welf as the following four
afternatives
AlterRative 1 One hour only parking except by perm~t
Alternative 2 Two hour only parking except by permit
Alternative 3 lnstall parking meters along the non-residential portGOn of 12`n
Street between Arizona Avenue and Santa MonECa Boulevard
Alternative 4 Install diagonal parking along 12th Street between Arizona Avenue
and Santa Manica Baulevard
The following provides a summary of tF~e analysis of these alternatives
Alternatives 1 and 2 One or Two hour only parkmq except by permit
A review of one or #wo hour parking except by permit found that there would likely be
spillo~er of approximately 9-11 non-res~dent parkers ta ad~acent streets The Mid-City
Neighbors d~d not favor this alternat~ve
Alternative 3 Parkinq Meters
Parking maters, which are generally installed to create parking turn-o~er, would therefore
pro~ide for more short ierm on-streEt spaces for customers and ~isitors to #he area, but
woulc~ also eltminate any long term parkkng which ~s currently occurring in front af the
commercial businesses and I~kely force approximately 11 parkers ta other areas as
indicated in the ISIND Mid-City Neighbors found this alternative acceptable as long as it
is coupled with preferential parking on the residential portion af 12`h Street
_~_
Alternative 4 Diaqonal Park~nq
The installation of diagonal parking along one side of 12th Street between Santa Monica
Boule~ard and Ar~zona A~enue would increase the total avai[able an-street parking supply
by approximately 10 to 13 spaces ~2 spaces ad~acent to commercial properties, 8-11
spaces ad~acent to residential properties} Whde the two additional commercial spaces
wauld d~rectly ~ffset sorne of the loss of 13 parking spaces for non-res~dents, it is likely that
there stil! will be approximately 11 parkers who would be forced to park in other areas The
Mid-City Neighbors were not in support of this alterna#ive as t~ey felt that the appearanc~
of the street would drastically change with the diagonal parking
Public Comments
Only one (1 } written camment was received during the public review period for the ISIN~
This letter was sent by the 12`h Street residents in support of the preferential parking zone
(see Responses ta Comments on the Draft IS/ND - Attachment D)
While the ISIND did determine that it would be li~Cely that 13 non-resadent parkers who
currently use 12`h Street would be displaced by the preferential parking zone, these
vehicles could park on streets within the surrounding study area and no# cause sign~ficant
impacts Therefore, approval of the IS/ND is recommended if the Council wishes to pursue
establ~shment of a lar~er preferential parkmg zane, addrtional detaifed envrronmental
analysis would be necessary
An additional letter dated January 5, '[999 was transmitted to the City Council on behalf
of the Santa Monica chamber af Commerce Autamobile Dealers Task Force (ADTF}
-6-
regarding this request This letter is attached as Attachment C This letter suggests that
an Env~ronmer~tal impact Report should ~e prepared forthis pro~ect Staff does nat be~ie~e
that an EIR is warranted The pro~ect entails the establishment of only one block of
preferential parking on 12`~ Street between 5anta Monica Boulevard and Arizona A~enue
and the parking that could be displaced as a result of this district can be absorbed within
t~e surrounding area as described above and therefore there is no significant ~mpact The
letter also requests that the city conduct a comprehensi~e community plann~ng process to
address the park~ng issues in the Santa Monica Boulevard corridor While staff believes
t~at this cauld be a worthwhile effort, it would be a ma~or undertakmg Prior to initiating
such a s#udy, the dealers need to identify problem areas and potential solutions Once this
is completed, Staffwill return to Council with an outline and schedule on howto accompEish
the community planning ~rocess
BUDGETIFISCAL IMPACT
It is estfmated that approximately 150 permits will initially be purchased by area residents
in the proposed zone This wilE ger~erate approximately S2,250 ann~ally in additional
re~enue m FY98I99 Budget revenue account 01-210-415-00000-0029-10000 should be
re~ised to reflect an increase of S2,250 Installation of s~gns will be done by City crEws
The De~artment's current budget should be sufFicient to finance necessary expenditures
€nvolved wrth posting these signs
RECOMMENDATI~N
It is recommended that the City CounciE
1 Adopt the Initial StudylNegative Declaration for the proposed zone based upon the
-~-
follow~ng findmgs
a) Based upon the wf~ole reeord befdre the City Counal, rnd~rd~ng the Init~al
Study and Negative Declaration, #here ~s no substantia! e~idence that the pro~ect will ha~e
a significant effect on the environment,
b} The Initial Study and Negative Declaration reflect the City Council's
independent ~udgment and analysis, and
c) The doc~ments which constitute the record of proceedings for appra~ing this
pro~ect, includmg the lnitial Study and Negative Declaration, are located in the Planning
and Community De~elopment Department, 168~ Main Street, Room 212, Santa Manica,
California The custodian of these documents is Associate Planner Paul Foley
2 Approve the attached resolut~on establishing Preferential Parking Zone 00, prohibiting
parking between the hours of 7 00 a m and 9 OQ p m, Monday through Saturday,
except by permit
PrEpared by Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning and Community Development
Karen Grnsberg, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Senior Planner
Paul Foley, Associa#e Plar~ner
Ron Fuchiwaki, City Parkmg and Traffic Engineer
Attachments A Resolution
B Wr~tten comments receE~ed during public re~iew period for the
prevrously circulated fSfMND
C January 5, 1999 Correspondence on behalf of Chamber of
Commerce A~tomotive Dealers Task Force (ADTF)
D Initial StudylNegat~~e Declaration
-~-
ATTACHMENT A
~:
_~
1
City Council Meet~ng- January 19, 1999 Santa Monica, Cal~forn~a
RE50LLTION ?~ g360 CC5
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI~ 4F THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA ESTABLi5H1NG PREFERENTiAL
PARKING ZONE QQ
WHEREAS, #he Parking and Traffic Engineer has received a petitron ~equesting
es~ablishment of a preferential parking zane on 12t~ Street between Santa Monica
Boulevard and Arizona A~enue, and
WHEREAS, the petitians have beer~ ver~fed to ba srgned by res~dents ii~ing ~n
two-th~rds o~ the dwelling ur~its compr~sing not less than fifty ~ercent (v0%} of the
devefaped frantage of the proposed preferential park~ng zone, and
WHEREAS, the Parking and Traffic Enginee~ has undertaken such studres and
surveys deemed necessary to determine whether a pre~erential parking zor~e should be
desEgnated in the abo~e area, ancf
WHEREAS, the PlannEng Division has prepared the required lnftial Study and
Negatfve Declaration, and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds tF~at the ~roposed area meets the
designativn critena set forth m Munic~pal Code Sectior~ 3 08 040,
NdW, THEREFQRE, THE CITY COUNCi~. OF THE CITY ~F SANTA M~NICA
QOES RESO~VE AS FQ~LOWS
Section 1 Preferential Parking Zor~e 00 is hereby estabirshed The regulations
ap~l~cable to PrefereRtial Parki~g Zo~e QQ are as foliows
(a} The foflowing named and descr~bed street within the City
shalf constitute Preferential Parkmg Zone O(~ 12th Street between Santa
Mor~ica Boule~ard and Anzona Avenue
(b} No ~ehicle shall be parked ar stopped ad~acent to any curb
~n Preferen#ial Parking Zone OQ between the hours of 7 a0 a m and 9 00
p m, Monday tF~rough Satu~day, without a permit issued and displayed m
accardance with the Mu~icipal Code
(c) Any vehicle parlced or stapped without a permit when
required by thES Section may be removed from the street by any palice
offrcer
~-~ -~.~~i~
~
(d) The anr~ua~ fee for each permit issued for Preferential
Park~ng Zone Qp shall be $15 OQ per perm~t. ar such other fee as may be
establ~shed from trme to time by resolut~on af the city Council
Section 2 The City C~erk shall certify to the adopt~on of this Resolut~on, and
thenceforth and thereafte~ the same shall be ~n full force and effect
APPR~VED AS TO FORM
~~~~
MARSHA JQ~~S MOUTRIE
City Att~rne~~-'
*~' -~.I~
Adopted and appro~ed th~s19th of ,lar~ua~. 1999
~
~~~~.'~ ~'~~~~ _
P~m O'Connor, Mayor
I, Mar~a M Stewart, City Ckerk of the City of Santa Monica, c4o hereby certifiy that
the foregoing Resolution 9360 (CCS) was duly adopted at a meeting of the 5anta
Monica City Counc~l held on the 19th of January, 1999 by the following ~ote
Ayes CauncEimembers Fe~nste~n, Genser, Holbrook, McKeown, O'Connor
Noes Councilmembers None
Abstain Councilmembe~s None
Absent Cauncifinembers Rosenstein
ATTEST
~_
--- ~
_-~~ -,..,_._.4 ~~ ~ '~.~~. r~
MarEa M 5tewar~, Ci#y Clerk
ATTACHMFNT B
~a ~ l~ ~ L
SUSAN SUNTREE
1223 11 th Street
Sar~ta Mor~rea CA ~4~~
310-4,58-9~23
10 August 1998
Dear Members of the Planrung Cammission,
Please provide permit parku~g for ~he area requested by Mid-Crty Neighbors I
have l~ved an 11th Street fo~ fifteen years. Parking an my street, which is my on~y
option since I don't have an off-street parking space, has become increasingly
diff~cult while the city has done notYung to rrut~gate its ixnpact. I am unable to
attend Tuesday's meet~ng because I will be in Texas attending a conference But I am
very ulterested in seeing the traffic and parking problems in this area attended to by
the c~ty.
It is a shame that the people who ~ive here have to pay for parking while the
bus~nesses who make a profit from publ~c parlang spaces pay nothulg for this
privilege. Something is backwards an the way the city t~unks about its cirizens. It
often seems to me that once you live here, especially in a multi-family
neighborhoad, the concern accorded to you is immediately lowexed when it is
campared to the services pro~ided tv the s~ngie fanuly areas and to the desirQS of
bus~nesses. I want the small businesses nearby to succeed, but I want them to do so
without making my daily life mare and more difficult. Please give this matter your
sincere attention
With best regards,
/ ~~"~ = %--~` ` z - °,~/`~Z-L-C ~`~
Susan Suntree
. ~- ^
L~ J
LAWAENGE & HARDING
CF1pIS7O?NER M HARpIHG
RICHARp A LAWq~~JCE
KEIVPiE7N 4 KUYCHER
KEVIN V KOZA~
A J JARASLINAS
A PRO~lS510NAL C6pPORATIpN
qTTORNEY3 AT LAW
1250 51XTH STREET
5U~7E 340
$AN7A MdN~GA C.4LiFOliN1A flDapl-i602
TELEPMQNC 13101 3Q3-lOb7
FAGSiMILE [3101 {66-i95~
Via M~ssenaer Defiverv
Paul Foley
Associate Plar~ner
City of Sanca Monica
Planning and Community De~elopment Department
City Planr~ing Divis~on
1685 Main St., Room #2~2
Santa Manica, CA 90401-3295
~9$ $E~ -3 P ~~~~ ~~~-2ss8
Re: lnitia( S#udy/Mitigafed Negative Dec~aration G~nceming Proposed
Preferentia! Parking Zone "00" on Twelfth Street Between Arizona A~enue
ar~d Santa Monica Bnulevard
Our File No. 53D.4
Qear Mr. Foley:
Th~s letter rs submrtted an behalf af Santa Manica Ford This letter eontams Santa
Monica Ford's comments conceming the Irntia! StudylMitigated Negative Decfaration
("Initial Study") for Proposed Preferent~al Parkmg Zone "DO" on Twelfth Street between
Anzona Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard
Santa Manica Focd believes the Initia! Study is legally ~awed. In the guise of
mi#igating the potential environmental impacts ~f t~e proposed pro~ect, the ir~itiai Study
radica,lly expands the geographic scope of the project from a or~e black area (Twelfth
Street between Arizona A~enue and Santa Monica Bo~le~arci) to an eighteen-block area
(encompassing the area bounded by Ninth Street, Fourteenth Street, Wilshire Baule~ard
and Broadway Aven~e). Thus, the pro~ect recommended for adoption is, in rea[ity, a new
project tha# has not been suble~ted to snvEronmental review in ac.~ordance w~th the
Califomia Environmental Quahty Act ("CEQA"}. The City cannot lawfully adopt and
~mplement #t~is new project w~thout f~st comply~ng with CEQA.
Moreover, use of a mitigated negative declaration Es not appropriate in this case
because th~ City Counc~l cannot make th~ ~inding #hat the project clearly wiil ha~e no
adverse en-~~ronmental effects. The lnitial Study concedes that the ariginal project (j~„ a
one blac~C preferent~al parking zone ("PPZ") on Twelft~ Street) has potential adverse
enWironmenta~ rmpacts that cannot be mit~gated without expanding rts geographic soope
eighteen-fold. Moreo~er, #he Initial Study fa~ls ta mitigate the ab~iousiy adverse effects of
September 3, 1998 CI~'Y GF S~~~~ M0~'~F
Cf f Y ~.'I4 1~{~,~~i~yppr}~.R~$ G/AEGT 01AL
fr ~C'~r.
~.~ _, ~ ~
LAWRENGE & HARDING
~ PROFESSIONA~ CORVOaArION
q7TORNErS AT LAW
Paul Foley
Septem~er 3, ~ 998
Page 2
displac3ng ali emp~oyee on-street parking from the eighteen-block area encompassed by
the PPZ propased as a mitigation measure.
Santa Monica Ford is located at 1234 Santa Monica Bou#evard. Santa Monica
Ford's main facilities front on Santa Monica Boule~ard a~d are Ioca#ed between Twelfth
Street and Euclid S#reet. Santa Monica Ford also owns two auto st~rage lots at the
southwest and sou#heast comers af Euc~id S#reet and Broadway A~enue. These Iots are
used to store inventory vehicles for sale.
Santa Monica Ford has conducted busmess at ~ts current location since 1946. As
with many automabii~ dealers, Santa Monic. ~ Ford has ne~er had sufficient on-s~te
par~cing #o accommodate all of its err~ployees. Consequer~#ly, some employees uti~ize on-
s#reet parking.
Santa Monica Ford does r~ot belie~e its employees' use of public on-street parking
has created a sign~cant paricing problem #or neigF~boring residents. Firs#, most
neighbor~ng residents ha~e off-street parking available to them and thus do not need to
use on-street parking Seeond, mast n~ighbonng residents are away at woric dunng the
hours that Santa Mor~ica Ford emplayees utdize on-street parking.
Establ~shment of a PPZ in the ~icinity of Santa Monica Ford will create a sign~cant
hardship for the employees of Sa~ta Monica Forci and other area businesses. A~though a
PPZ may stimulate a modest increase in ride shanng and publrc trans~t use, for the most
part a PPZ will simply require area ~mpioyees to park further away from the~r workplaces.
This wd! pose significant pe~sor~ai safety risks m addition to the vbvious inconvenience.
Cafifornfa Environmental Qualitv Act
The In~ial Stuc~ does not comply with CEQA in fundamental respects. Specifically:
1. Although the Initial Study begins by describing a project consist~~g of a PPZ
encompassing a single bloclc only, it co~cludes with a radicaEly expanded project
consisting of an e~ghteen-black area after find~ng that the potentiai ad~erse environmen#al
effects of the one block PPZ cannot othenrvise be mitigated. The City, howe~er, has not
sub~ected this new project to en~ironmer~tal re~iew. As a resutt, t~e City Council has not
been pro~ided witf~ sufficaent information to render an informed decision conceming this
new pro~ect.
Under CEQA, a fur~damental change in the project scope requires the new
pro~ect to be st~b~ected to ertvironmental review. See State CEQA Guidelir~es § 15a63.
CEQA requir~s #he City to conduct such environmental review before it may lawfuqy enact
the proposed PPZ.
J` r F 4' 1 t1
LAWRENCE & HAADiNG
A PROFESSIOr1AL CORPORATION
ATTOFiNEYS AT LAW
Paul Foley
September 3, 1998
Page 3
2. The initial Study`s attempt to camouflage the new, eighteen-block PPZ pro~ect
as a mitigat~on measure does not correct the In~bal Study's fundamental legal deficienc~
Even assuming the Initi~l Study's mischaracter~zatian of the new pro~ect as a mit~gation
rneasure were accepted, mitigat~on measures themselves are subject to environmental
re~iew when they may ha~e a significant ad~erse effect upon the enviro~ment. (See
State CEQA Guide~ine § 15126(c), wl~ich pro~ides ~n relevant part: "If a mifrgation
measure would cause one or more sigr~ifican# effects in addition to those t~a# would be
caused by the project as proposed, the eifects of t~e m~tigatiar~ measure shall be
discussed but in less detail than the s~gnificant effects of the project as proposed."). H~re,
the proposed "m~tigation measure" itself constitutes an eighteen-bfock PPZ which is
destined to have envir^ ~mental ef~ecis that t~ave not been studied m the Initial St~dy.
Whether charac#erized as a new project or a mEtigation measure, this eigh#een-block PPZ
must be s~bjected to en~ironmental rev+aw in accordance with CEG~A befvre it may
lawfully be enacted.
The kni#ial Study highfights both the legal and pract~cal importance o#
conduct~ng environmental rev~ew En addressing the complicated parking s~tuatio~ in the
vicini#y of Santa Monica auto dealerships. Last year, City Planning Staff recommended to
the C~ty Council enactment of a PPZ limited to a one block arEa only ~Twe~fth S#reet
between Anzona A~enue and Santa Monica Boulevard). As recommended by Staff, this
new PPZ wou#d prohibit parking Monday through Saturday from T:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
except by permit. Cit~+ Staif represer~ted to the City Council #hat ttie requisite findings for
enactmen# of a PPZ could be made, mc~uding #he findmg tl~at there would be no spill-o~er
parking beyo~d the boundanes of the proposed PPZ. See Santa Monica Municipal Code
§ 3 08.040(4). Qn December 2, 1997, the City Counci~ follawed Sta€Ps recommendation
and directed ~repara#ian of an ordinance incorporating the terms of that recommendation.
The init~at Study. howe~er, has genera#ed a very different conc'us~on
Specifically, the Initial Study conr~udes that creat~on of a PPZ limited to one block of
Tweffth Street would ha~e substant~al spill~ver parkmg effects on neEghbonng st~eets.
Gi~en these unexpected findings, the City should proceed more ca~t~ously. In
particutar, #he City s~ould not adopt the new proposed PPZ, encompassing a much wider
area and involving many more businesses and their employees, without conducting
thorough en~ironmental re~iew. St~ch re~iew is likeiy to show that during normal business
hours, t#~ere ~s sign~cant business-related demand and littie resident~al-related demand
for on-street parking w~thin the boundaries of the proposed PPZ. ~ Santa Monica
Municipal Code § 3.08.040{5} {ta ~nact a PPZ, the City Council must f€nd "~at a shortage
afi reasonably available and canver~ient resrder~tial related parwng spaces exists in the
area of the proposed zor~e."} Such review is also likeiy to find that the proposed PPZ wiil
cause spol-over parking in adjace~t areas, including south of Broadway A~er~ue and east
~' •» ~ i, l ~
LAWRENGE & HARDING
4 PWOFESSI~ItAL GORPORqTION
pTTORNEYS AT L4W
Paul Foley
September 3, i 998
Page 4
of Fourteenth S#reet, as area empioyees search for altemati~e places to park their cars.
~ Santa Mor~ica Municipa~ Cade § 3.08.~40(4) (to enac# a PPZ, the City Council mus#
also fnd, "#f~at no unreasonable d~s~lac~errier~# of non-resident vehides will resutt mto
surrounding residential areas ").
3. Affhoug~ the Ini#ial Study contains some data refa#i~e ta the seventeen blocks
added by the new project, m no way does the Initial Study cor~s#itute an er~vironmental
anaiysis af this new pro~ect. Missing is the type of focused analysis that was prepared
with respect to the ~ 300 black of Twelfth Street. Nor was any attempt made to assess
the potential sprll-over parking eifects of the new e~ghteen-block PPZ on streets
immediately beyond its boundanes.
For exampte, the Initia~ Study i~dicates tf~at Cfaude Short Dodge generates 5D
to EO employee ~ehicles per day and has no on-site em~loyee par{cing. lSee Meyer,
Mohaddes Assocrates ("MMA") study at page '~fi.). The Initial Study, howe~er. lacks
comparable data conceming the other businesses w~thin #he expanded eighteen-blvck
PPZ {tndudir~g San#a Mornca Ford, Kramer MazdalVolvolSuzuki, Ta~b Porsche Audr,
lnfiniti of Santa Monica and Santa Monica Linooln Mercury} or businesses ad~acent to the
proposed PPZ (~~cl~ding Ler~ Shendan Toyo#a). lt is fmperatiue that such data be
gathered, and its implications analyzed, before the City CouncEl makes a legisiative
decision with respect to establishment of a PPZ in this area. In no e~ent is the City in a
pasition to approve a negative declara#ion absent such ~ata and analysis.
4. The lr~it~al Study makes no effort to address where employees who are
dispfaced by the new PPZ wi~l parlc. The MMA study recommends a mitigation measure
that purprarts to address ti~is concem (See Mrtigation Measure No. 4: "1Nork w~th area
businesses to expand their existing pa~-king supply on-site, increase the use of artemati~e
transportat~on modes by employees or provide remote spill-a~er parking for employees
who will be displaced by the pErmit parkmg d~strict." MMA study at page 13). However,
this so-called m~tigation measure is so lacl~ng m aontent that it does not constitute a
m~tigat~on measure wi#hin #he mearnng of CEQA.
A mitigat~on measure is legal~y inadec~uate ff it is untested or so va~ue,
ir~complete or undefined tt~at its effecti~eness ca~not be e~aluated. ~ San Franciscans
for Reasonabie Growth tf~e Cfir & Countv of San Francisca, 151 Cal_ App. 3d fii, 79, 198
Cal. Rptr. fi34 (1984) ~Requirement that fee of undetermined amount be paid #or
unspecified transit funding mechan~sm is an inadequate mitigation measure}; and Kinas
Countv Farm Bureau the Cit~ of Ha~ford. 221 Cal. App. 3d fi92, 727, 270 Cal. Rptr. fi50
(1990} ~EIR was inadequate in part because it #ound groundwater impacts to be
insign~ficant on the basis of a mitigation agreement that calted for purc~ases of
replacement gro~rndwater supplies wi#hout specifying whether water was available). Such
is clearly the case with respect to MMA's proposed Mitigation Measure No. 4.
,~ ..~ _ ~ ~ "'
r
LA~+I~RENGE & HARD~NG
4 PROFESSIOMA~ CQRPORATION
ATTOANE'/5 AT LAW
Pau~ Foley
September 3, 1998
Page 5
CEQA also precludes use of ~ague m+tigation measures as a de~ice to avo~d
disclasing pro~ect impaets. 5ee Stanislaus Natural Heritaae Proiect ~. Countv of
Stanislaus. 48 Cal. A~p. 4~' 182, 195, 55 Cal. R~tr. 2d 625 (199fi) (EIR was inadequate
aecause it did ~ot evaluate ~mpact of supplying water to large new development project
and instead included mitigation measure statmg that projecf could ~ot praceed if
adequate water was not available). Here, the mitigation measure in MMA's report
purporting tQ address employes parismg is a classic example of a ~ague mitigation
measure crafted to a~oid disclosing an ad~erse project impact ('Lg:, substant~al
displacemer~t of area employees' use of o~-street pa~icing, with its attendant packing,
traffic, air quality and publ~c safety effects}.
Moreovsr, the Initial Study itsel# daes not e~s~ purport to acid~ess or mitigate
t~e adverse en~ironmental impact of d~splaced employee parking from the new eighteen-
bio~!: area encompassec~ by th~ propased PPZ. Where will the 50 to 60 Claude Short
Dodge employees park? W~rere will the ernployees of Santa Monica For~d, Santa Mon~ca
Lincoln Mercury, Kramer MazdaNo~volSuzuki, Taub Porsche Audi and Infir~iti of Santa
Mornca park~ What about the employees of bus~nesses located ad~acent to the proposed
PPZ, suc~r as Len Sheridan Toyota? What spitl-o~er impacts will tiie proposed PPZ ha~e
on streets near the proposed eighteen-block PPZ? The Initia~ Study fails to address any
of these cr'sticaf environmenta( questions.
Thus, the Initial Stud~'s conclusion that the re~ised pro~ect wkll not have any
significant ad~erse env~ronmentaf effects is no# supparted by any data or analysis
contained in the Initial Study. The Initial Study's ~atal flaw is its fai~ure #o address in a
serioUS fashion the adverse en~~ronmer~tal ~mpacts of precludrRg a~! area employees from
utdizing on-street parking in the proposed PPZ's eighteen-bloc~c area. At a minimum, the
City needs #o p~epare a new initial study that addresses this issue.
5. Gity Staff s rel~ance upon a mitigated negative declaration with respect to the
proposed PPZ does no# comply with CEQA. Pubfic Resources Code Section 21~fi4.5
allows for use of a mitigated negative dedarafion only where (1) mi#igation measures are
included that '~vould avoid the effects or mit~gate the effects #o a point where clearly no
significant effect on the en~ironment would occur, and (2) there is no substantiai evidence
in light of the whole recorr9 before the public agency that t~e project, as revised, may ha~e
a sign~fican# e#fect on the environment." Here, the mitigation measures proposed in the
fn~tial Study do noi clearly mitigate the poten#ial ad~erse effects of the proposecf PPZ in
dksplac~ng on-street parking for area emplayees, with its attendant potential ad~erse
impac#s on parking, traffic, air quali#y and public safety. The lnitial Study itset~ ~oes not
mclude a mit~gation measure eWen purporting to address thES concem, and the MMA
proposed mitigation measure ~s so vague and uncertain that it faits to qual~fy as a-
mi#igation measure within the meaning of CEG~A. ~ r~
~ .,~ ~ :~ -
~~
" -~~~.
LAWRENC~ & HAI~DING
A PpOtE5510NL~ COppOA,~.T~ON
AT~OANE~'S A7 LqW
Paui Foley
Septe~ber 3, 1998
Page 6
Nor car~ the City adopt a PPZ limi#ed sole~y to a single block an Twelfth Street,
as originally proposed. As the fnitial StUdy concedes, such a PPZ has adverse irnpacts
due to spill-over parking that canr~ot be mitigated except by radically expanding #he
pro~ect.
Under the circums#ances, CEQA requires preparation of an EIR for this
proposed project. Absent preparation of any E~R, the City cannot legaily proceed any
turther w~rn this proposed PP~.
fi. tn defemng considerat~on af the environmentat aspects of area employees' use
of on-street parking to a later dat~, the Initial Study is similar to tf~e initial studylnegative
declaration found ~nvalid in Sur~dstrom ~. Countv of Mendacino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 29fi,
248 Cal. Rptr. 352 ('! 988).
Ir Sundstrom. an mdi~idual citizen challenged the Mer~doci~o County Boarcf of
Supervisors' decision to appro~e oanstruction of a sewage treatment plant to serve an
existing de~elopment consisting of a small motel, restaurant and ~iling station, to which a
larger motel, restauran# and apartments would be added. The county had prepared an
irntial study supporting a negative declara#ion for the proposed project conditioned upon
certain vague m~tigation measures to be de~eloped and implemented at a tater date. Or~e
of #he reasons the initial studylnegat~ve declaration concl~rded the~ would be no poter~tial
tor s~gnificant e~#ects was because ~t required t~e appl~cartt #o pre~are a tut~te hydrofogic
study to evaluate the pro~ect's potential en~ironmental effects. This fut~are study was
required to recommer~d appropriate mitigat~on rneasures for the signiflcant impacts
reported.
The Court of Appeal held that the initial studylnegative dectarat~on violated
CEQA. Tt~e Co~~t sta#ed #hat, before approving the project, the oounty mcrst frrst resal~e
the uncertainties regarciing the pro~ect's potential significant en~~ronmental effects. The
Court concluded that the success of #he mitigation measures to be established by a later
study was uncertain; therefore, the county cou{d not F~a~e reasonably canc~uded that the
project would not ha~e the poten#~al ta ha~e signifcant ernironmental effects. The Court
stated that the county had "e~aded i#s responsibility to engage in comprehens~e
environmental reviev~" Sundstrom, ~ura, 202 Cal App. 3d at 309.
That is precisely what City 5taff is attempting here. The proposed prolsct
raises a complicated set of en~ironmental issues relative to displacement of on-street
park~ng for smployees that compels prepRration of an EIR. lJse of an EIR is especially
appropRate in this case, where ~CEQA req~ires evaluation of both #he proposed project
and a~tematives to the pro~ect An EIR wiil facil€ta#e careful re~iew of ~anous ways to
address the parking needs af area emplayees.
"w -~.~~~
LAWRENGE & HARDING
A PAOFESSkONnL C4RPORATiOF[
A7TORNEYS AT LAW
Paul Foley
September 3, 1998
Page 7
The on-street parking s~tuation in the ~icirnty of auto dealerships o~ Santa Monica
8oulevard is a complieated o~e that does nat lend itse(f to easy ar~d s~mplistic solutrons.
Before proce~ding further, the City should conduct a thorough study of parkrng conditians
m this area and explore all a~ailable optaons for addressir~g it. As a legal matter, CEQA
requires the City to proceed 3r~ this fashion. As a matter of policy, ~t would be
irrespo~sible #o proceed otherwise.
Santa Monica Ford and o#her Santa Monica auto dealers ar~ wdling tv woric
coaperat~vely with the City to address the tong-sfanding deficit of employee parlcmg at
Santa Monica auto dealers~ips. This will require a re~iew of potential sctes for additional
parking, zoning restrictions applicable to such sites, and ~anous mear~s for f~nar~cing
additional parking. Re~Eance upon preferential paricing, wi#haut showing that area
residents lack sufficFent off-street parking and without any information conceming the
~ractical consequences for area emp~oyees, is ur~warranted.
A~to dealers callectNefy constitute one of Santa Monica's top employers
(approx~mately 1,200 employees) and re~enue generators (approxima#ely $3 milliort in
annual City re~enue). See Hamiiton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler Report dated ,lune 2, 1997.
At least two o# the dealers potentia{ly ~mpac#ed by the proposed PPZ, incle~ding Santa
Monica Forcl, ha~e operated at their curren# locations for more than 50 years. Farmess
and common sense suggest that tMe City shoc~ld Eake a coopera#ive rather than an
ad~ersa~ial approach to the parking situat~on that ~nderlies the proposed pro~ect.
Compl~ance with CEQA wi#I const~tute a significant step ~n this direction After preparatior~
of an EiR analyzsng the proposed PPZ and vanous altema#Nes, the C€ty Council will then
be ~n a positio~ to make an mformed dectsion cor~cemir~g th~s issue.
Sincerely,
C-h~ ~~-~ 4~~,~~. ~.,
Chnstopher M. Harding _ ~
of LAWRENCE S HARDING
a Pro#essianal Carporation
CMH/AJ/~p~
~M -tlLv
LAWRENGE & HARDING
~ PROFESS~pNAL CORPORAT~ON
pTTORNEYS O.T ~qW
Paul Foley
September 3, 1998
Page 8
cc: 5anta Mon~ca City Counc~l
John Ja~~li
5usan McCarthy
5uzanne Fnck
Ror~ Fuchiwakr
Marsha Jo~es Moutn~
Barry Rosenbaum
L. Wayr~e Harding
Boh Karlin
Torrt Gau!
530/SMLTRPFI03
tivr _L~~J.
SPptem~~r i, 1998
Dear Mr. Foley:
Enclosed 15 a Par„ing H~Sto~y fr,~ th~ ~340 biock cf 12th Street and
the r~sponse to the Injt~al Study ~I5/MND) for the proposed estab~i5h-
ment of a Preferential Park~ng Zone tn the 1300 Block of 12th 5treet
in Santa Mon~ca.
For t~e Resldenzs:
~~y ~ ~ ~c~ c~z..~
Bet~.y . Hayden
a"1-[.~~ ~ ^~/~
Joyce Ur~de `'
-
~~~ j~.i 7~ `~`~~ ~~
1 -
8arne ~9cFa~der~ ~-
,
i~~~ -~~~
f~os~~e Grose~lcFadden
~/
d Y VG~
~li chae] ~Eanagan
CC: City Counc~l Members
John Jal~li
Suzanne ~rick
Ron Fuch~waki
M~d-C~ty Neighbors
~ - - ~. ~ ~.
Mr. Pau] FoTey, Associate P7anner
City o~ Santa ~onica
Plann~ng and Commu~~ty Qevelopme~t pepartment
C~ty Planning D1vis~an
1685 Main Street, Roam 212
Santa Mo~~ca, CA 9D401
Th~~ ~s ~n response to the In2t~a~ Study (ISl~•~ND} for the propvsed establishmenti
of a Preferential Parking Zone in the 13QU b]ock of 12th Street ~n Santa Mon~ca.
OVERVIEW QF THE ST~~Y
The study ~s inaccurate and/or flawed for the fol~awi~g reasons:
A. Parking Date Collection (17.3~
Parking ut~l~zation was studied for one day only and ~n no way
reflects a"typ~cal weekday on the bloek." A typZCa7 day wou]d
ref]ect t~e sem~s loading/unlaad~ng at the south end of the b]ock
(several times we~kly), the number of cars doutile-parked da~]y
tmost unattended) at frequent intervals a~l day, the number of
cars doutile-parked in t~e early morning a~d ~ntermittently dur~~g
the day while waiting far a parking s~ace and dealer cars parked
on Lhe s~dewa]k an the east si~e of the street. (P~cture5
submitted as Appendix #13 with "Parking H~story - 13U0 Black ~f
12th Street, 5anta Mo~ica 9040i)."
8. Park~ng Util~zation (i7.4)
Ut~]izat~on Pattern - F~gures 6, 7 and ID most accurately reflect
the percentage parking on the stre~t, wh~7e f~gures 8 and 9
{90%, 1-2 pm and 95~, 2-3 pm, east side of 12th) are lower than
the 3~U ar ~ore pe~cent tne resiaents have ~ote~ over a mare
extensive perio~ of t~~e.
C. C~ty af Santa Monlca Park~~g Ut~l~zat~on and Duration Study
(I7.4.1
Tne C~t~ of Santa Mon~ca staff park~ng and d~rat~on surveys for
one Yaeek or more, most accurately reflect the percent rate far
12th Street.
Q. Park~ng Duration ... (17.4.2)
Th~s states the "park~ng durat~on data ind~cates that the most
common ~ength of stay ~s aver 8 haurs (li vehicles7". The reszdents
d~sagree wtth the number of vehicles re~orted (11) a~d have noted
over time to be ~8 or more in the residentaT area aTone. Table 1
is inaccurate relat~ve to the res~dential area as most af the cars
park~d ~n this area park 8 hours ~r more. Uur perce~tage estimate,
a~ter observing the pattern, over T,any months, ~5 approx~nately
82 percent.
There is na ment~on of the length of time doub~~-parked ca~s spend
at various intervals during zhe day.
.. .. - ~ 2 ~
-z-
;~ focused study for one day,on~y obviously wou7d not accurately
partray real~st~c numbers ar~d percentages.
~. Ana~ySTS of Parking Demand ~i7.5j
Parking perm~t d~str~cts alway5 resu~t 1n a shift of the
non-res~dent parking to other streets. Tn th~s respect, I2th
Street ~s no different than other perm~t areas and should nat
be s~ng]ed out.
As noted ~n the study, "us ~n-person surveys were not conducted,
7~ is not icnown how many of the dayt~me parkers on tweifth SLreet
are due to the dealersh~p versus other cor~rriercial busi~ess or
res~dents." This ~5 a g]ar~ng omiss~on in the study and could
easily have bee~ determinea ~y abservation of the ~est~nation of
thosE parking. This may be perce~ved by the residents as a
reluctar~ce on the part of those ~aing the study to do~ument that
the er~ployees af the Claude Short agency indeed occupy most of
the resident~al parking spaces all day every day. WNY?
F. Aiternat~ve AnaTysis
* Alternative 1- Ur~e hour on~y park~ng except by permZt for
the resident~ai portion of the bZock o~ Twelfth Street between
~irizona kver~ue and Sartta Mon~ca Boulevard.
A11 the res~dents po7led were opp~sed to thTS as Lhe ageRCy
emp7oyees would cor~t~nue to park ~n the resident~al zone and
wauld move the~r cars when nec~ssary.
* !~]~ernative 2- Two hour only parking ........
Same response as to A7terna'cive I.
In addit~on, who wou~d enforce this restr~ction? Would ~he
G~Ly ~ss~gn a fui] t~me park~ng enforcement off3cer a]] day
each day to this one block. T~is zs obvio~sly r~ot reasonab7e
or pract~cal.
* F-~ternative 3- Instal~ paric~ng meters on the comr~erc~al port~on
of the Twe~fth Street b]ock.
This wou~d be acce~tab]e only if perm~t parking were pos4ed
~n the resident~a] area. ThiS ~s 5im~lar to the ar~ginaT
request and subsequent approyai of the City Council. The
res~dents have s~nce beer~ w7]l~ng to compramise the orig~nal
request and approvai and agree to park~ng meters now be~ng
~nstalled in tf~e commerc~a7 zone in comb~nat~on with perm~t
parkir~g in the res~dent~a7 zone.
~aric~ ng meters ai ane_ woul d onl y r~ean more staff ears ~ n
tt~e f~w reside~t~al spaces. Rgair~, a~~ streets w~th permit
paricir~~ Zmpact other streets in the Ctt~y and 12th Street 7s
no d~fferent in this respect.
w" 2~
-3-
* Alterna~~ve 4- instaTl diagona] park~ng
This was strangly re~ected by all resldents for the following
r~asons:
Hlthough the study s~ates t~at d~agonal park~~g wouTd not
signif~cantly affect the aest~et~cs a~ the ne~ghborhood, ~t.
obviousTy tirouid do so by giving the street the appearance af
a shopp~ng ~enter.
Glare from headi~ghts wo~ld intrude ihroug~ w~ndows of
dweiling5.
~lt~ough th~ study state~ that this wou~d increase the number
of space5 by $-I1 far the restd~nt~aT portion, we question the
possi~zT~ty of this number -r~thout undue erowding. And, most
im~ortant, th~s would only create more parking for the staff
of the auto agency, and wou]d in no way benefit the res~dents.
The study states t~at possible ~nterference with an emergency
response p~an or an emergency evacuat~on plan would not be
s~gniticant with angle ~ark~~g. 5ince it wou]d be significant,
were the C~ty response teams consu'ted including the f~re
department a~d what were their conclus~ans?
The study also dYd noz take inta account that the C~ty approved
]oading/unload~ng at the sauthern end of the street - a
s~tuat~on ihat already crea~es a hazardous and dangerous ~rob]em.
Again, the res~dents adamant]y oppose this suggestion
and totally re~ect th~s a]ter~ative.
~ ulternati~e 5- Con~ider a Larger Preferential Park~ng Zone
There was overwhelming 5upport for th~5 a7ternat7ve. Th~s
alternat~ve was s~ggested to ~he C~ty a~~ the Park~ng D~vision
~n 1993 by the residents and Mid-City Ne~ghbors. We strang~y
urge ap~rova~ af this ~lan ~f combined with the Tmmed~ate
~mp~ementatian of perm~t park~nq for the 130Q ~lo~k of 12th
Street.
NOjE. The study does nat defiRe commerc~a~ and resident~ai zones. For ~nstance,
the commerc~a7 zone on the west s~de of ihe street ~s 20~' from Santa Mon~ca
Bou]~vard and on the east s~de ~s 25U' We suggest that perm3t parking bE
i~p]~mented ~n the resTdential zone5 rat~er than making th~s decis~an by
"eyebali~ng" ~he propert~es as sometimes done in the past. Although t~is may
be just~f~ed for the west side of the street, the east side has a reszdence
on the rear of the property with a 12th Street address on what m~ght visual]y
appear to be cammerc~al property. 7h~s Zs zoned R-3 and would afford two
aad~t~o~al crit~caliy needed res~dent~a] Aark~ng 5p~ce5.
~R ~~•~~
-4-
CUNCLUSiU~S.
1. The Draft Study has a number of
A~so, we fee] the Stu~y reflects
the C]aude Short agency.
flaws as outlined previausly.
an obv~ous bias ~n favar of
2. 7~e ow~ers of Claude Short Agency vehe~ently op~ose any perm~t
parki~g or parking restrict~ons for the 12th Street res~dents
and have gane to extreme ]engths (inc)uding the 5u~~~5t7D~ af
a lawsuit} to prevent appraval and ~m~lement~on of perm~t
parki~g for those who reside on this street
The extreme ~ostzl~ty directed toward the res~dents by same of
the agency staff has been fr~ghten~ng and unacceptable. ~he
not~on that because the car aealer pays h~gher taxes to the
C~ty a~d has been ~n UU51R255 tor ma~y years, e~t~~7es t~em
to res~dent~ai parking is insulting and impl~es that money can buy
the Ctty Coune~T vate. It is even more ludicrous ~hen realizzng
that th~s ent~re act~on ~nvolved on~y 24 park3nq ~laces.
3. The 12th Street reszdents quest~on the "]egal~ty" pf be~ng s~ngled
o~t for a lengthy and costly study of a single block in the C~ty.
The residents foi~owed the identicaT poljcies as requ~red by the
C~ty a5 thQSe areas who have rece~ved permit park~ng.
4. Perm~t par~ing an tf~e reszdent~a] zo~e of the 1300 b~ock of 12th
Street and park~ng m~ters 1n the co~xnercia] zone shauld be
~m~iemented immed~ate]y as or~g~nally recarunended by the Directar
of P1ann~ng and the C~ty Park~ng and £ng~neer to the C~ty Councl]
on 0ecember 2, 1997. (Note the emphasi5 an zone rather
than visual determ~nat~on).
r " ~ +._ ~ b
PARKING ~IS70RY - 130Q BLdCK OF 12th STRE£T, SANTA MONICA 9040I
prior ta 1991, the 1300 b]ock of 12t~ Street had a~engthy history of problems
created by the C7aude Short Dodge dealership ~ocated d~rect]y ad~acent to the
resident~a] area. Althaugh indiv~dual res~dents ma~e n~merous attempts to
mediate the s~tuation, ~he owners of the bus~ness were unw~iT~ng to coa~erate.
January 1991 - Parking in t~e 1300 black of 12th Street had became virtua~Ty
imposs~ble, primari~y because of empioyee park~ng from the GZaude Short Dodge
d~alersh~p on the corners of 12th Stre~t and 5anta Mor~ica Bou~evard. Res~dents
were forced to parfc several blocks from 12tf~ Street or to sit doub7e-parked
in the~r autamob~~es tor long per~ods of time ~n order to paric near tt~eir pia~e
of residence. Compla~nts to the c~ty on numerous occas~ons over the years were
unpro~uctive and attempts to resolve this prob]em on an ~nforma~ bas~s with
the ow~ers (A2an, G~alter and Tony Parr} vf Ctaude Short were unsu~cessfu~.
April 1993 - Mid-c~ty lVeighbors formed the I~~nth ta Euclid Parking Cammittee
and scheduled a meeting for resldents of tf~3s general area (Appendices 1 and
2]. Rs a resu2t flf th~5 ~reet~ng, res~dents vo]urrteered to co~iect thre necessary
s~gnatures for preferential park~ng ~n tt~eir re5pectiv~ areas to be submitted
to the Park~ng and Traffic DlviSion, C~ty of Santa Monica. 8etty Hayden, with
the ass~stance af Susan Qldfield o~F 9th Street, collected the requ~red signatures
far tne I3D0 b]ock af I2th Street b~t subm~~s~on was de]ayed until a]] res~~ents
from the 9th to ~uc]~d areas campieted their s~gnature gat~erjng. By ~ate in
the year some streets were sti~l ~ncamp3ete, so it was decided to review the
or~gina~ cflncept af the plan. OldfielcE, Hayden and members of Mid-City Ne~ghbors
met 4~~th Ror~ Fuct~iu~ak~ of the Gity Parking D~vision and he agreed to present
the concept af Prefererttial Parking for thi5 expanded area without the nec~ss~ty
of collecting signatures io the Czty Planni~g Office for cons~deratian. No
respo~se was received from this meeting.
January I994 - Santa Monica earthquake.
Damage to the city delayed further act~on on the petitions ~or several manths.
January 1995 - By the end of December 1994, Betty Hayden had rev~sited and
u~dated the petitians for perr~it parfc~ng on 12th Street and subm~tted these
petitions to the Park~ng D~vzs~on at City Ha~l.
~ur~e ~995 - After 5 months Hayden checked the status of the petzt~ons at the
Park~ng Division at City HaiT and was informed t~ey were ~nable to Iocate them.
February i997 - Restaratzon and expansi~n of tF~e C~aude Short dealersh~p
exacerbated an already imposslble and dangerous parking situation. Add~tiona]
prob2ems were creat~d far thase living an t~e east and west sTdes af 12th Street
ad,~acent to CTaude 5hort Dadge; z.e., loud no~se fram the paint shop and roaf
exhaust stacics, semi-trucks load~ng/un~oading ~n front of apartment buil~ings
b]ock~ng dr~veways (motors ]eft runn~ng}, car alarms sound~ng at a1~ hours,
uRStghtly debr~s and pee7zr~g pa~nt on the shop root ar+ the ea~t stde of ~2th
SLreet and residents cou~d na Tor~ger park Tn the 1300 block of 12th 5treet.
A~though ~nd~vidual res~dents ~ga~n approac~ed the owners o~F the car dealersh~p
regarding these problems, tl~ey were st~l] uncoop~rat~ve ar~d, again, the City
rece~ved comp7a~n~s from the res~dents.
.,, .,• _ ~ ~ -~
r
-z-
May 1997 - Several residents called upon Sylv~a Shnzad (Mzd-C~ty Ne~ghbors 8oard)
for~ ass~star+ce wtth the ~ark~ng ~~^ob]ems zn a ~umber ot ~e~ghborhoods.
June 29, 1997 - Sy]via 5hn~ad schedu7ed a meeting with City Ga~ncilman Michael
Feinstein. Attending were Ke1~y 01ser-, Sylvia ar~~ Janina Kr~pa (Mid-C~~y
[~eighbors), S~san Oldfield (lOth Street), Susan Suntree (llth Street), Betty
Hayden, Joyce l~rode and ~lank B~cknel] (12th 5treet). It was agreed at this
meet~ng that signatures ~rauld aga~n be abtained far Pr~eferential Park~ng and
would be resubmitted to the City Parking Dyvis~on far analys~s and approval.
The residents of 12th Street a]so asked Sylvia to schedu]e a meetZng w~th Suzanr~e
Frick, D~rectar of P~ann~ng and Commun7ty Develapment, City of Santa Mon3ca
to vo~ce their concerns regarding the many ~ssues w~th C]aude Shori, Dadge.
Jul,y 1997 - Suzanne Fr~ck referred the matter to Oiane Varady (Buildtng and
5afety ZonTng Ins~ectar). Diane Varady sched~led a meeting with the owners
of Claude Short Dadge, Mid-City Neighbor representat~ves and 12th 5treet
ne~ghbors. (Appendix #3)
Ju]y 23, 1997 -~l meeti~g was held at Claude Short aodge off~ces and was attended
by Alan, Waiter and Tony Parr towners of the agency}, Ja m na Krupa, Susan
Henderson and Robert Wright {officers, Mid-C~ty Neigf~bors) and Betty Hayden
and ~ayce Urade (12th Str~et resident re~resentatives).
N~TF: Just pr~or to thTS meeting, D~ane Varady, Betty Hayden and
Jayce Etrode were stand~ng ~n front af 1327 -12th Street as
the city streetsweeper approached and watched as car agency
em~ioyees raced fram aT] dzrect~ons ta get parkrng p]aces
Tn th~s b]ock. Ms. Varady had the o~portun~ty ta observe
the chaos and danger ~nvolved ~n this "fight" far parking.
D~ane 1lara~y had met V11t}1 the Parrs prior to th~s meeting so the Parrs were
aware of ne~ghborhood cor~cerns. They d~str~buted a handout at th~s meet~ng
~n respor~se to these com~]a~r~ts, a)tho~gh port~orrs of th2s hando~at ~were nat
relevar~t to t~e issue5. (Appendix #4). Aithough the ParrS expressed their desire
ta caoperate w~th zhe stated issues, they were adamant]y o~pased to permit ~r
l~m7ted parking as they fe~t ti~eir 86 employees should be a]lowed to paric ~n
tt~e res~dent~a] area. They stated they were willing to lease or pu~^chase
property ~n the clty for employee parktng, and had already pursue~ th~s option.
They stated that the City af Santa Monica ~as not cooperat~ve in this respect
and had made it ~m~osszble to buy or lease. They a]so suggested that the C~ty
shauld be res~o~s~b]e far prov~ding employee ~ark~ng. At the conclusian of
the meet~ng, the Parrs asked that the res~dents cantact them if they exper~enced
further ~rob7ems. As a result of tt~~s meeting, D~ane Varady was instrumenta]
~n obtaini~g comp7iance from the agency regarding aIl ~ssues -Y~th the exce~tian
af car a]arms gaing off and, of course, parking.
Unfortunate]y, the rude behaviar of some empioyees cont~nued; ~ndeed, they were
of~en o~enly host~]e and the ParrS were unpleasant when ~nctdences were reparted
to them.
Ju7y 1997 - ~anina Krupa (Nfid-C~ty Neig~ ~arsj schedu~ed a meeting w~th Suzanne
Frick ar~d Ron Fuchiwaki to 'd~scuss various ~ssues in the City, incluaTng
~referer~t~al park~r-g. {Appendix #5)
~,
w.~ ~L ~..
-3-
July 28, 1997 - Ten members of M~d-City Ne~ghbors represented by Jan~na Krupa
and Sy]v~a Shn~ad met at C~ty Ha]1 w~th Suzanne frick of thQ Plann~ng Depar#~ent
and Ron Fuchiwaki. These people represented various sectzons of the Mid-City.
ATi sought re~~ef from ~arkzng and/or traffic problems.
Betty Hayden, Joyce Urod~ and Michae] Monahan represented r~sidents of the i300
block of ~2t~ Street. ~he pet~t~o~s for permit ~ark~~g on 12th Street were
subm~tted to Ro~ Fuchiwak~ and the need for immediate action and imp~ementation
was stressed.
The mee~ing terminated with a general Understanding that the various parkzng
and tra~f7c prob7ems wauld be rectif~ed.
August 3, 1997 - Ja~ina Krupa mailed a written request to Ron Fuch7waki for
infarmat~on regard~ng parki~g in the City. (App~nd~x #6) Th~s ~nforr~ation
was never recejved.
August 26, 1997 - 7~e fo3~owing inc~dent ~s typica~ of the numeraus
confrontaj~~^s i~st~gated b~• ~~me of the ca~ agency employees taward the i2th
Street residents.
Setty Hay~en ~1327 12th Street) a~d ~er gra~dso~, ~7exander ~ay~en,
who was v~siting from his home in Sausal~to, CA, was trying to
get a park~ng space ~n this block on street sweepzng day. E~~loyees
who temporar~ly parked in driveways and do~ble-parked on the
o~posite side of 12th, raced toward Hayde~'s car, coming within
inch~s, ~n order to frtght~rt and ~mtzmzdate and force haydeR to
stop. A7th~ugh they were unsuccessfui in t~is aspect, t~e
exper~ence was frightening and traumat~c. When Alexander re~urned
nome ~e composed and sent a~etter to Nayden and asked t~at it be
subm~tted ta Czty Counc~l members. (Appendlx ~7)
This zs not unusua] as residents are aften sub~ected to obscene lang~age and
gestures.
December 2, 1997 - City Counc~l Meetzng
Item 9R on the agenda was a recammendatlan to apprave preferentzaZ parktng ~n
three areas, one of which was 12th Street. A report prepared by Suzanne Frick,
Ron Fuch~waki and Doug B~agi, prev~ously fvrwarded to the Counc~l Members and
the Mayor, d~rected staff to prepare ordinances establish~ng three new parking
zanes (Appendices #8 and 9). A number of i2st Street res~dents spoke in favor
flf i~e approvai and pictures, taken on 12th street over a period of several
months, were subm~tted to the Caunc~3. These p~ct~re5 depicted th~ ~easures
taken by the auta dealer em~]oyees to o~tain street parking. {~hese plctures
were retained by the City CouncTl. In add~tion, the letter from Alexander
Hayden, age 12, (~etty Hayden's grandson), recounting his exp~r~ence with the
parkTng situat~an while visit~ng Sa~~a Mon~ca, was also submTtted.
Chris Harding, attorney for C7aude Short Dodge, in opposing any restrictions
for parking o~ ~2th Street, asked for a delay in arder that there be more
d~scussions with the auto aealer.
Although the other two areas were approved for preferent~al park~~g, 12th Street
was sl~gled aut for further stu~y
r« .~ -- I~ ~ ~
-4-
December 1998 - Betty Hayden's daug~ter and son-in-law, who reside ~n
Massachusetts, arrzved for a weeks vls~t a~d exper~enced the usua~ park~ng
difficult7es dur~ng that t~me. After return~ng home, ~ayden recelved a letter
from them address~ng the Santa Mon~ca parking s~tuaLion. (Appendix 10).
ApriT 1, 1998 - A]etter from Jan~na Krupa and Sylvia Shniad was sent ta Jahn
Jalilz, Czty Manager, wtth cop~es to Suzan~e Friek, Ron ~uch~wak~ and the C~ty
CounciT request~ng a status repor~ (Append~x #il).
Apr~l 27, 1998 - Janina Krupa and 5yl~~a Shn~ad rece3ved a letter from Ron
Fuchiwak~ stat~ng that the C~ty had h~red a consultant to study t~e 12t~ Street
zone. it ~s anticipa~ed th~s study w~]1 be avaiiable ~n May, with Counci7 review
an~ actioh in J~ly or Rug~st (AppendZx #12).
May 19, 1998 - C~ty Counc~~ Meeting
Although parking an 12th Street was not scheduled an the agenda, Tn response
to the d~scuss~on an a~ a~~~~a~c~ to des~g~ate p~efe~ent~a] oark~ng zones by
resalu+ion, Cou~cilman Ken Genser ~uest~oned Ron Fuch~wakl regarding the status
of 12th 5treet north of Santa Manica Boulevard. Mr. Fuchiwakz reported that
on aecember 2, 1997, at the Council meet~ng, there ~as a lat of d~scussion on
cr~tical ~ssues and a]ternatives a~d the Counc~l d~rected city staff to ]ook
at these aga~n. In light of this directivP, Mr. Fuch~wak~ said that a consu~tant
had been reta~ned to do an ~n~tia] study. A draft has been prepared and should
be availab]e wzthin two weeks. It w~ll come back ta the Counci] ~n July or
August. {Note. A~proval for preferentia~ parking was granted for t~e two ar~as
who a~so 5ubm~tted requests at the December 2, 1997 Cou~ci~ meet~ng).
June 9 and 13, July 14 and Juiy 29, 1998 - In response to inquiries regarding
the status of the study, it cont~nued to be delayed.
August 5, I998 - Study ready and avai3ahl~.
August 6, 1998 - Meet~ng schedu3ed for S.M. res~~e~ts and Mid-C~ty Neig~bar5
wiih Pa~1 Fo7ey (Assac~ate P]anner) and Rfln Fuch~waki for Tuesday, August 11,
1998 at 4:~G PM, Room 211, City Ha7T.
Au~ust I1, 199$ - Paul Foley and Ron Fuchiwak~ met with Betty Hayden, Joyce
Urode and Hank B~ckne7l of 12th Street, and Sylvla and David Shn~ad (~id-CZty
Neighbors}. Kevin McKeown (former Chairman of ~he Wilshire/Mon~ana Ne~g~borhood
Coalition} was invited and also attended There was a general d15CU5510~ of
t~e draft study ana those atte~ding presented their vi~ws and those of 12th
Streei wrth whom they had spaken. ~here was a unan~maus decision that
preferential parking be imp~emented ~n the resid~nt~a~ zone ~n the ~300 block
vf 12th Street and that parking meter5 be installed in the commerc~a~ zone.
{See ~2th Stree~ res~dents res~o~se to tne draft stuay to~ deta7]s).
The residents and M~d-City Neighbors wil~ subm~t the~r wr~tten res~onses to
the PIaRn~ng Of~7te.
August 1998 - Add~ttional pictures were *_,ken of the incre-s~ng traffic and
dangerous park~ng s~tuatian 1~-the 13fl0 block of 12th Street (Appendix 13).
w„ -U.i~l
-5-
SUMMARY:
It is obv7ous that the 130Q block of 12th Street, ~nl~ke any other str~et
requesting preferentia7 parking, has been singled out for further study. ~he
reasons for thzs action are questlonable s~nce the residents fol~awed the same
requirements far preferential parking ~n the Santa Monica Mun~c~pal Code as
dzd those who are alsa ad~acent to automabi~e ~usinesses. Permlt park~ng ~s
~n effect on many other streets shared by automobile dealers. These areas were
~ot sub~ected ta the same scrut~ny and discr~minat~on a5 on i2th Street.
5inee some Counc~~ member5, Chris Harding, and the Parrs, ai~ 5tress the amoun~
of taxes paid to the city of 5anta Monica, are we to canclude that money is
the mitigat~r~g factor in determining approva3 or d~sapprova] af perrn~t parking
an this street?
T,'~e C~ty and Santa Mon~ca res~dents sho~Td nat be held hostage by threats from
business owner5. This wonderful czty deserves better!
Preferent~a] park~ng for the 130fs btocic of I2tfi Street shouid be granted wit~rout
fUrther ~elay.
.~ .- - ~ ~ '
~
rr ~
Maybe it +sn't pu5t yo~ Maybe it ~ rea~ly true
' rn some resldentral and commercra! areas, older burld+ngs strll predominote These do not
generally provide parking adequate for tl~e uses they eontan '- C~t~ of Santa Mon~ca. Loca~
;Q~sta~ Pfoaram La~d l~se Plan and fineiemer~*at~on Pl~n, 10/91
But take hear* -- there is a so~ution to th~s problem:
• res~dents can park ~n tne~r garages - ~f they have them
• res~dents can park c~s close toge~her as reasor~ably poss~ble, thereby free~ng up space
tor more cars
And
• busanesses can ask cl~en~s/customer5/employees ta pork on ~r~e~~ lots or at
mete~s
• we can petition for preferent~a~ (permit) parking!'
lmagrr~e drivE~g baC~c from a hard day's w~ork and eas~ly f~nd~ng a park~ng space on your
biock No more cru~s~ng the 'hood fook~ng #or a ploce to park, no more maneuWering you~ car
~nto a space meant fo; a ro~sm, no rnore walking iw0 bkoCks wath groCerEeS under the hot sun
or two blocks w~th no grocer~es m tr~e dead of n~gh*
And a pe~rr~ft only costs S l~ a~ear -- less thon $ a a month or abaut 4 cent~ a day!
So -- w~odaya say~ Is ~arking a problem o~ a ereeze~
We af M~d-C~ty Ne~g~bors Cthe organ~zat~on of volunteer~ that
war-cs fo~ ~our ne~ghbornood) want to know
So please -- phone Amy Sa~sser at 450-5578 ard register your opmion by April 29th
PJease stare
]) Yo~r name, vour address (~o locate problems), your phone
(to convey progress reports)
2) The causes of present & f~,ture problems on your block
3) The hOurs yo~ wou~d I~ke preferent~al par~cmg
4) The way you would l,ke to help sur~e the ~roblems
AND THEN...
Do you feel as af you re in a game of mus~ca~ cars when look~ng for a place to park an your
street~ Da you feef #here are more and more Gars and fewer and Eewer spaces~
' Preferent~al Park~ng mformatEOn on back
.,, ~ _ l~ ~ ~
TT L
Agenda
1. ~tielcome and Introductions
2. Presentation of lnformation about Parking Problems in
the ^ie~ghborhood
a. AesUlts af neighborhood phone survey
b. Main point~ :rom several Santa Monica st~dies
3 Fresentation of infairnation obta~ned from Department of Parking and 'IYaffc
gineering
4. D~scussion Period (30 minutes)
5 Pfanning far the future
a. Making a choice
b Qbtaining that ct~o~ce
6. Adjourn
JOIN MID-CITY NEIGHBORS!
n~
n~ -+;~~?
~F .~
~~~~~~
Jul~ 1-~, ~ 99 i
~~~ ~ °~
S,~ ~10 ~ ~~-q
_ ~,__ ;
~J _ J ti\2 ~
~' ~ .~
J F~i~ ~
.{ ~~~~~ ~
+!~+r
\~~ F O~ `/
t~.'alter C~ alan Parr Business O~~ners
Cia~ade Shflrr podee
1 I~' ~- 1'01 5anta Vionrca Boule~~ard
~anta 1.~fomca. Ca 904d1
Re ~-leetin~ Re~ardir~g ~~~erall Operattons of Auto Fac~lin~
at 1 I~;-I?O1 Santa i~Son~ca $oule~•ard (C~aude Short Dad~ei
Dear 1~1r V4~ alter & Alan Parr
~I ~~ ~ I ~ .~
:~s ~~ot~ know the ogeranan of the tacilzn has been reported to Bwld~ng 8~ Sa#eri~ regard~ng
several issues and cancerns from ~~our ad~acent ne~g~tbors I be~ie~•e ihat the ~ssues can be
resolved in a friendl~• matter The eoncerns at this t~me appear ta focus mostt~ an the auto ~iod.
shap portion of the business Iocated at i?a ~ Santa Mon~ca Bouie~~ard Hov~-e~ er. since the ne«
bu~lding v~~as constructed a Performance Stan~ards Permit (9~-00~'~. and a Administrat~~~e
Appro~~al ~~~as gi~en b~- Piamm~g & Zonmg D2vision This bastcall~ co~~ers the o~•erall
operations of the entire facil~n-
The fo~low~ne are concerns regarding the fac~lin~ operatians
1 LoaainQ & Lnloadine of ~'eh~cles
" Parking and Bjockine the Cin AIie~•
~'~o~se from the Roof Equipment of the Bodt Shap
1 Ll~,tir~ nf n~er4r,nnc I
~ Emplovee's Fark~ng in the Residential ?.reas
6 '~oise from Car ~~arms
I have schedule a meeting w~th V~'alter Parr for 3u1~- ?~, 1997 at 10 30 A vi The me~t~ng w~~ll
be ~elc~ at the auto dealership located at 31 ~? Santa '~lomca Boulevard V~'e both aereed that it
«-ou1~ be best to meet at the s~te in c~uestion The netghbors w~ho have reported the~r concerns to
the C~t~~ are rec~uested to attend this meet~ng ~t ~s my concern ta ach~e~~e cflmQl~ance and
entorce an~~ code conditions for thss gro~ect or as a part of the C~tti• s Zomne and No~se
Ordinance esr~blished far the Cit~~ We have ~.._cussed some of the concerns alreadF~ and i feel
that same verv posrtive reso~unons w~li happen
~-~ -~3~
I foo~: for«ard ta meenn~ ~ ou at that ume and establishinQ some recommendauons and ;oiuuons
ror th~ ~ture operauons of Clau~e Shart Dodg~ I# ~ou st~ou~d ha~e an1 quest~ons p~ease cal~
me at -~~5-$~~~ ~'our co4peration «tll be ~r~atl~ agpreciatec!
S~ncereI~_
~~~ ~,
Dsane ~~ arad4'.Zonin Inspector
Build~n~ ~ Safetv
cc Bert~• Ha~°den
Jo~~ce lirode
cc autodea~er
~... _~.~-
.'J
~4
NEIGHB4RH00~ MEETING 7-23-97
Hl5T4RY
CLAUDE SHORT DODGE WAS ~OUNdED IN f 92z. SINCE THAT T~ME,
4WNERSHIP HAS REMAINED IN OUR FAMILY. THE PARR ~AMiLY IS YERY
COMMUNITY ORIENTATED; ,~OUR FATHER WAS PRES[DENT OF THE CHAMBER OF
CDMMERCE DURING TH~ ~[XT[ES, AND NOW ALAN SERVES ON THE SANTA MON~tA
COLLEG~ FOUNDATION BOARD, THE YMCA ADVlSORY BOARQ, SALVATION ARMY
ADVISORY BOARD, SALVATION ARMY EXECUTIYE COMMITTEE AND tS CURRENTLY
THE lI~NS CLUB PRESIDENT. tLAUDE SHORT DODGE SUPPORTS THES~ AND
MANY OTHER CHARITtES IN SANTA M4NICA ALONG WITH NUMEROUS CIY~C
EYENTS. (ie SANTA MONICA LITTLE L~AGUE, SANTA MONItA COLLEGE 4TH OF ~ULY
FIREW~RKS, ST. MONICA'S 4CTOBERFAIR~ROOS~L`VEt SCH44L SILENT AUCTION
JUST TO NAME A FEYI~. =~ ~~-
G~NERAL
WE ARE A SMAE.L =Q~MPANY, YET OUR ANNUAL SALES FROM DUR
OPERATIONS TOTALED 3~ MI~,LIDN DOLLARS IN 199~~:- WH~CH GENERATES LARGE
TAX DOLLARS FOR 4UR CITY. WE ALSO PAY A CITY BUSINESS TAX OF $2~,000.
EACH YEAR.
1NE REALIZE W~TH 86 EMPLOYEE5, SERV1CiNG 84 T~ 90 CARS PER DAY
CREATES A LOT OF TRAFFIC AND CONFUSION. VYE WANT TO BE A CONSIDERATE
NEIGH64R AND 1NE WANT~4 UNDERSTAND THE PROBlEMS YOU HAVE WITH US.
VYE WANT TO KE~P A OPEN LtNE DF C~MMUNICATION WITH YOU~OUR
NEIGHBORS}AND DO DUR~B~EST TO CORREtT THE ~NCONYIENCES WE CREATE
WITHOUT ANTAGONIZING YOU. ~ ~,
I. L4ADING AND UNLOADING OF VEHICLES.
WiTH BUNNIN RESALE LEAYING DURING jUNE, 3 T4 4 TRANSPORT TRUUCS
HAVE DISAPPEARED. W~,~
AL~TRANSPORTERS OF OUR NEW YEHICLES~HAYE BEEN;NOTI~IED EARLIER
TH[S YEAR~ WHEN, WHERE AND HOW TO PARK AN~ UNLOAD THEIR DELIV~RIES
(DURING BUSINE55 HOURS, NOT PAST OUR NEW CAR LOT, ENGINES TO BE TURNED
OF~.)
2. PARKING AND BLOCK~NG ALLEYS
~` EACH AND EVERY EMPLOYE~ ANQ MANAGEMENT MEETING WE
ASI( OUR EMPLOYEES TO KEEP NEIGHBOR PROBLEM SITUATIONS TO A MINIMUM.
(NOISE, DRIVING HABITS AND ~ARKING IN ALLEYS} W~ WARN AGAINST
CONFRONTATIONS WITH NEIGHBORS AND HAV~ GONE ON TO REPRIMAND SOME
w..> ~ti3~
z.
EMPLOYEES FOR TH~S TYPE DF BEHAVIOR. PARK~NG IN THE ALLEY HAS BECOME A
PROBLFM FOR US ALSO BECAUS~ WE tAN'T GET OUR 4WN TRUCKS DUT OF OUR
I ITH STREET LOT. T~ OUR KNOWLEDGE, NONE OF OUR EMPLOYEES PARK ON
THE I ZTH STREET ALLEY.
3. N41SE FR4M ROOF TOP EQUIPMENT OF BODY SH~P
AS OF JULY I,! 997 THE A.Q.M.D. CHANGED THE REQUlREMENTS OF
~QU~PMENT AND MATERIALS THAT CAN BE USED IN THE REPAINTING ~F
AUTOMOBlLES. W1TH THAT CHANGE THE QUAL~TY OF ALL OUR AtR WILL IMPROYE
GREATLY, BUT WITH THAT CHANGE COMES A COST - ALL NEW SPRAY EQUIPMENT
ANQ CURING BOOTHS. CHANGING FROM SOLYENT BASED MATERlALS TO WATER
BASED MATERIALS PROVIDES 4UR tNDUSTRY WITH A NEW PROBLE[+~t tUR1NG
TIME ~T TAKES FOR THE YEHICLES TO BE DRY ENOUGH TO CQME OUT OF BOOTH.
AFTER MEETING W1TH DIANE YARADY FROM THE CITY OF SANTA MON~CA, WE
HAYE CONC~.UDED THAT W~ ARE 1N COMPLIANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS FOR
NOlSE DEtIBEL R~QUIREMENTS. WE WANT T8 HELP AS A GOOD NEIGHBOR TO
REDUCE THE NOlSE FACTOR ~RESENT AT QUR PROPERTY LINE,SO WE HAVE TAKEN
~URTHER STEPS BY C~NTACTING PAUL S. YENEKLASEN & ASSOCIATES {NOISE
REDUCTION ENGiNE~RS),THEY CAME UP WITH S~ME INTERESTING ID~AS VIrE ARE
EKPl.OR1NG FOR YOUR BENEFiT, AND WE ARE CURRENTLY GETT~NG BI~S FROM
SOME REPUTABLE NOlSE REDUCTION QUTFITTERS.
4. HOUR5 OF OPERATION
SALES DEPARTMENT:
SERVICE DFPARTM~NT:
BODY SH~P:
PARTS:
8am - 9pm MQN - ~R!
I Oam - 5pm SAT & SUN
7am - 6pm MON - FRI
CLOSED SAT & SUN
Sam - bpm N10N - SAT
CLOSE~ SUN
7am - bpm MON - FRt
UOSED SAT - SUN
S.EMPLOYEE'S PARKING #N RESIDENTIAL AREAS
PARKING IS A PROBLEM F~R ALL OF US. WE HAYE LOOKED INTO MANY
ALTERNATIV~S (PURtHASING ADJACENT PROPERTIES, RENTlNG SPACE DN [ 1TH
STRE~T SCHD4L LOT, ETC.}, VYE ALINAYS END UP WETH THE SAME PROBLEMS:
_, 3~
~
/!
~
~
if 3.
RENT CONTROL ISSU~S ~R ZONING ORDINANC~S 4R IN THE CQSE OF TH~ SCHOOL
PARKING LOT, A FLAT TURN D4WN. WE HAVE OUR ~1ANAGERS PARK~NG ON OUR
PRC`~[5E5 AND ALLOW ~UR CUSTOMERS TO PARK WHEN THEY PULL ON TO ANY
OF 4UR LOTS OR SERYICE DEPARTMENT. WE WILL CONTINUE TO EXPLOR~ ANY
AND ALL IDEAS,
~. NOISE FROM CAR ALARMS
THEY ANNOY US ALSO.
I. WE DON'T LIKE TD SELI.OR INSTALL THEM.
Z. IF ASKED, WE RECtOMEND LOJQCK (NO NOISE).
3. TH~Y CAUS~ US NOTHtNG BUT PROBLEMS. WE ~fND OURSELYES IN THE
M~DDLE BETVYEEN tHRYSLER, OUR CUST~MERS AND THE ALARM C0.
4. ~F flNE IS ACCtDENTALLY SET QF~ WE DO OUR BEST TD SHUT !T OFF AS
SOQN AS PQSSIBLE.
THf SAME PRQBlEMS EXIST IN ALL PUBLlC AREAS - PQRKlNG STRUCTURES; ~
MINI MALLS, GROCERY STORES, E7C.
THANK YOU FOR THIS DPPORTUNiTY TO MEET. IF YOU ~ HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS QR CONCERNS IN THE ~UTURE, PL£ASE CONTACT US ANYTIME.
CLAUDE SH~RT DODGE ~310} 395-32 I I
R. ALAN PARR EXT#204
TONY PARR EXT#20~i
WAE.TER PARR EXT#3~$
'~R - t.3c
~~
Mid-Cm Neighbors Meet~n~
. ~. 4
Monda~-_ 3vi~ ?8_ 199?_ 2 p m
~a Santa Monica Citv Hall
W'3th Suzanne Fnck and Ron Fu~~vvaki
1 lntro~uct~on, Name
? Jamna-D~scuss reason for the meet~n~
3 Berkelev Crossw~alk-Adnan Simonean
~ Nessah Schoo~ and Cultural Center-Dou~las, Bruce
S Claude Short Dodge-and preferential parkiag 9-~?'~ Street, (1?QO bloc~:)-
Bett~~ Havden and Jovice Urode
6 Preferential Parkm~ 23`"' Street betu~een W'ilshire and Californ~a-J2m
Wilkersvn
7 El Cholo Restaurant-~ OZ~ V~illshire B~vd -Susan Suntree
~. ~. ~_ ~, 3 9
~ fj
August 3, i997
T0: Mr. Ronald Fuch~waki
Par~ing and Traffic Eng~neer
City af Santa Mon~ca
rRUM. ~anlna Krupa
hf~d-Ci~y Neighbors
15I7 Pr~nceton, #2
Santa Mon~ca, CA 90404
Th~s ~s a fal]aw-up to our meet~ng of July 28, 1997.
Wou]d you please fur~ls~ us with the followzng ~nformat~on as soon as
poss~ble.
1} ~he number of petztions for Perm~t Parking ~~ Santa Mon~ca that have
been subm7tted to you and the areas covered in these petitions.
2} T~e ~ro~ected date for comp]etion of these reqUe5t5.
3j. The date you expect to s~rvey and recommend approval of Permit ~ark~ng
for the I300 block of 12th 5treet.
Thank yau.
Jan7na Krupa
JK/004
~~ `I
~ V ~ ~
7T !
1 1- ] 9_4'
To V«om ~t mav concern,
dn Tuesdav the'_b~' of ~u~ust ! 997 I was down vtsitm~= m~ ~randmother, Bem- Ha~~den. u na Ir~ es
on i ~"' Stree[ ~n Sar~ta hlon~ca I was in L A t'or a verti shan nme {three daa•s to be e~act~ and wa~ not
eYpecttnu ta spend a hour and a half s~ttsng m mv Grandmnthers' V~i Bus ~ust bec.ause we cQUldn t hnd a
parlu~sg place ~n 1_`~ St
W na~ I eti~enenced ti~at late mom~n~ was aw~fvl fn my own words I erckaimed to Betrti tf~ts ~s
~athet~c '
~s tne streec sweeper was dn~~ng up 1~'~ street mv Grandmather and I pulled d~rectly belvnd the ~t
The emplovees from Clau~e Shott Dad~re, w~o were douhle parke~ on the opposite s~~e af the sveet_ came
sw~n~nR around to cut Betty of£ lau~}ung and trving to int~rruda~e us Thev were agpares~th wiliing to
crash into our car just for a measly pariang place Cars were corrsut¢ ~nches from tuttiRg us but in ihe end ue
got tht parl.~ng place
I Fee! thaz ihs ~~ and amazrngl~ stupid e~~ent and I hope n can be resolved m the future
~'hanfcs,
Alex d avden
Sausalica Gal~fonua
"~"' °{~~1
~~
AGENDA
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
REGULAR ADJOURNED CiTY COUNCIL MEETING AGEN~A
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1fi85 MAIN STREET
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1997 - 6 30 P M
CALL TO ORDER
P~EDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INSPlRATION
ROLL CALL
8 ORDINANCE~ (Publ~c disc~ssion permrtted on emergency ordmances and ordir~ances
for Entradvct~on and first ~eading No public discussion is permitted on ord~r~ances far
secanrf reading and adoption )
8-A Introduction and first readEng af vrdinance to specify existing automobile
deaier5h~ps as permitted uses m ihe Cfi Boufe~ard Commercial Distr~ct
9 STAFF ApMINISTRATIVE ITEMS (Publ~c d~scussion perm~tted )
9-A Recommendativn to direct City Attamey to prepare ordinance to establish
three preferentiai parking zones on (1) Pearf Stre~#, west of Eucl~d Street, (2}
~2th 5treet, north af Santa Mornca Boulevard, and ~3) Stewart S#reet, north of P~ca
Boc~fevard, recammendation to direct staff to conduct an er~~ironmer~tal evaluation
of the proposed zones, and, ~ecommendatio~ that upon adoption of ordinances
estabiishing the parking zones, revise appropriate budge4 revenue aocount to re~lect
$fi,375 in addit~onal revenue from the sale of new preferenttaf parkmg perm~ts
9-B Appro~al, in concept, of establishment of a Pilot Pedicab Program,
recommendatfon to d~rect Crty Attomey ta prepare an ordmance and hoid a p~blrc
hear~ng to amend ceRair~ sect~o~s of the Mun~cipai Gode to allow the Ccty Manager
to approve a pilot program for pedicabs as non-motorrzed ~ehicles for h~re, ta
incfude pedicabs under Tax Rate Group ill Business Class~ication, and,
recammendation to direct City Mar~ager ta prepare ruties ant~ regulations €or such
a priot prog~am
9-C Status repvrt on Council Chambers Emprovements; Presentation of mformation
regardmg ~mprovements ta the Councrl Chambers a~d request for Councrf direction
on poten#ral madrfications to ~mpro~e the usefulness of the space for members of
the pubiic, etected and appointed offic~als
December 2, 1997
+ 4~