prefwexp

Council Meeting: February 28, 2006 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, O, DD, 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 10^th 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.

Background

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 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 B and 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.

Initial Staff Proposal

In the December 21^st 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 R1 single-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 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 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

College 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 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 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 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 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	Total Parking Spaces	Average Occupancy	Range of Occupancies
600/700 blocks btwn Montana and Alta	557	50%	26% - 69%
Alta Ave btwn Lincoln and 17^th	187	56%	38% - 77%
500 blocks btwn Alta and Marguerita	506	37%	24% - 50%
	1250	46%

(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).

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 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).

Analysis

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 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 10^th Street between Pico and Michigan) would be allocated more than 5 employee permits proposed. Based on its unique conditions, 33^rd 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:

Block	# spaces	# cars observed	% occupancy	# permits proposed	% occupancy 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	3	16%	3	30%
	215	50	23%	31	38%

Block	# spaces	# cars observed	% occupancy	# permits proposed	% occupancy w/permits
21st 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%	5	49%
	272	90	33%	20	40%

Block	# spaces	# cars observed	% occupancy	# permits proposed	% occupancy 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%
11th St. b/w Pico and Bay	10	2	20%	2	40%
11th St. b/w Bay and Grant	14	5	32%	2	46%
1000 Bay Street	38	17	45%	3	53%
1100 Bay Street	43	21	48%	3	55%
	214	103	48%	20	57%

Block	# spaces	# cars observed	% occupancy	# permits proposed	% occupancy 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%
31st 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	31	3	10%	5	26%
	452	142	31%	34	39%

TOTALS	1153	385	33%	105	42%

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.

Budget/Financial Impact

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 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.