It's shocking Montana Avenue merchants and residents: Santa Monica's quainter, upscale shopping destination is classified a "transit oriented district" in a new draft plan to manage parking across the city.
The plan calls for a big reduction in the amount of parking future developers would have to build, and in "transit oriented districts," such as on Montana Avenue and Santa Monica and Wilshre boulevards, the requirements would be scaled back the most.
A consultant hired by the city to prepare the plan, part of a much broader update to the city's zoning code, said the goal is to drive people out of their cars and onto their feet, public transit and bikes.
The solution to Santa Monica's parking problems is not to build more parking, consultant Jeffrey Tumlin said, but to make better use of the spaces that already exist.
"The more parking we supply, the more traffic that is created," said Tumlin, who works for the transportation planning firm Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates. "It's important that we do not provide too much parking."
But based on reactions from some community leaders present at Wednesday night's Planning Commission meeting, that could be a hard sale. Not only are some residents skeptical the tack would actually work, they also believe it's a boon to the developers. (Parking is expensive to build; estimates have ranged between $18,000 and $75,000 per space).
"We are not poised to sell our cars and rely on transit in Santa Monica, and we won’t be for some time," said Tricia Crane, chairwoman of one of the local neighborhood groups, Northeast Neighbors.
That Montana is designated "transit oriented" is "ridiculous," Crane said.
The classification would apply to the boutique-lined avenue between Sixth and 17th streets. The plan gives the same designation to most other major streets, including: Wilshire, Santa Monica, Olympic, Ocean Park and Pico boulevards—each from the 10 freeway east to Centinela Avenue. (The map to the right of this article shows all of the designations, with transit oriented districts marked in brown.)
See also: Nebraska Would Bustle Under Updated Bergamot Plan
In the transit districts, markets, for example would be required to build 1 space per 1,000 square feet of floor area, while everywhere else, they would be required to build 1 space per 250 square feet. The current mandate is 1 space per 225-300 square feet, depending on the size of the store.
In transit districts, and everywhere else in the city, new apartment and condo buildings, wouldn't have to provide any visitor parking. The current requirement is one parking space per five units.
"These concepts are not new and scary to us. But they are to other people," said Planning Commission chairwoman Gerda Paumgarten Newbold. "They’re counter intuitive."
Parking counts conducted by Gibson Transportation Consultants, Inc. during peak hours in August 2012 on five commercial corridors (Main Street, Montana, Wilshire, Ocean Park and Santa Monica) and one block in each direction on cross streets found "limited on-street parking is often in high demand, while off-street parking is considerably less utilized."
"On some days in some neighborhoods, it's hard to find [on-street] parking," said Tumlin. "But overall there's a great abundance for parking."
On average, the on-street parking occupancy rate was 83 percent—industry standard is 85 percent—while the off-street parking occupancy rate was 60 percent—the industry standard is about 90 percent, according to the Gibson study.
"So where's all the parking?" asks any one who's ever tried to park on Montana during lunchtime.
"It's in every [business] parking lot where the signs say, 'if you’re not shopping here, I’m gonna tow you,'" said Pat Gibson.
The plan calls for making those spaces available.
"Nelson/Nygarrd is saying we need to find a way to open those spaces, we need to find a way to share [them]," said commissioner Richard McKinnon.
Going forward, commissioners said they will need to focus on educating the community about the plan.
"We really need to convince people this is going to work," said Paumgarten Newbold.
The plan isn't set in stone. It was presented for the first time to the Planning Commission this week and will require City Council approve before it's on the books.
"This is the first conversation we’re having about this," said Jory Phillips, the city's deputy director of special projects.
Stay connected with Santa Monica Patch throughout the day on Facebook and Twitter. Subscribe to our free daily newsletter for email updates.
Montanna is unlike SM.Bl,it is not the same mixture of residential & business.. Montana is commercial from 20th to Lincoln, the rest of the street is residenial. SM Bl. is primarily commercial, minus the low income housing on 26th and Berkeley. Unless you provide a parking structure mid-Montana, what paking there is what you have. You can not require parking on private property. A structure would not fit well into the neighborhood. Business needs to look into alley access parking any new construction must include parking. Infiltration into nighborhoods is inevitable, just look at the areas surrounding both hospitals or the City College. Even with Zone Permits required, parking is tight on the streets. Decisions need to be made: you can provide cheap parking in attractive, low impact structures(like Beverly Hills) or continue to have the streets stuffed by commuters who are low paid but get gouged by their employers for parking & patients who can't pay high structure prices and seek street parking. Before they can fix the problem, they have to figure out what it is, not what you want it to be.
Of course there could be free shuttles to take people back and forth from that parking lot to WF, but really, is that a solution? Four blocks of driving a multiperson shuttle back and forth compared to one person driving a Prius in and walking right out? This idea sounds like a solution looking for a problem, and definitely cries out for a Plan B. I'm reminded of the New Math my son was supposed to learn. 10 years later it was debunked. Thank goodness he had an "Old Math" teacher for a father, or he might have turned out to be as clueless as young Jeffrey Tumlin and as condescending as young Gerda Newbold. Nothing wrong with either of their reasoning capabilities. Just a matter of 10 years to show what is imagined does not always--and in fact in SM almost never does--work.
Some of them are dishonest--in that group I class Tumlin profiting from selling the idea, with his best-selling books on the subject and now THREE consulting fees just from SM to try to sell it to us. I also class as dishonest all City planners involved in the Bergamot Area Specific Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan. These dishonest ones require huge overamounts of parking for developments in some parts of the City--under buildings where they think no one will notice. That is where the "parking lots" for their alleged "transit-oriented development" actually are. They give huge incentives to developers putting in the extra parking for transit stations, so SM doesn't have to have an enormous parking lot like Culver City, since there is no room on grade for one in SM. Others use numbers but don't think how that will translate in actual facts, to make the kind of GRADUAL changes that we all know need to be made to use less space for cars--with specific planning for consequences, and putting those plans into effect to be sure they work before they expect the public to take it on faith just because these "experts" tell us we should. These are, after all, the same ones who didn't know where the dripline of a landmarked fig tree was, and who wasted hundreds of thousands on the Downtown Transit Center, and then got promoted for it. .
The hospital is only going to grow because it is a teaching hospital and the impact on surrounding neighborhoods will become worse. We have been policing our own block and keeping track of the hospital employee vehicles. There are NO carpools that park on our block...all one person.
Just keep a log of what you find, in a notebook without pages torn out, or on your computer honestly. Record facts at the very time. Then you can declare on personal knowledge under penalty of perjury that these are facts. Not as developers' apologists clothed in planning jargon-spouting suits say, "We had people count on a peak day," which turns out to be when Carmageddon happened or another unusual day. And where exactly were the spaces then? And how exactly would we be able to use them free as we do lots now? Evidence will defeat theories with bogus general "counts." On the other hand, we all favor reducing the part of the City used for cars.. If mitigation plans are put into effect and developers' mouthpieces like Tumlin and Martin show us they work BEFORE they give developers windfalls, we'll talk about reducing parking requirements for new development. The day there is an app that shows 800 FREE parking spaces not being used within a quarter of a mile of that brown line they want to call a transit corridor, and FREE shuttle buses take us every two minutes on demand, we'll talk. We have technology for this today, and it is being done in places that truly planned for transit.
So when is the expo line due to open?.. I don't know how it happened but I received the version written in Spanish ' Linea de Tren Ligero Expo". One thing we can look forward to is all of SM city workers being stripped of their parking rights, which at the Fairview library is over half of the parking spaces. Next would be to make it illegal for anyone under forty to drive a car in mass transit Santa Monica. Just got back from a Saturday trip on O.P.B. not one person riding a bike.
If people cannot park near their destination, many will no longer come and others will use up all the residential street parking of which there is little available. Traffic nuisance and associated wear and tear on residential property caused by Montana Ave. visitors and workers parking nearby, will negatively affect property values. Reducing parking in commercial zone will force cars into residential zones and will likely result in more accidents, some killing children. Most streets north of Montana Ave. are too narrow for cars to be parked at the curbs on both sides and for two automobiles in motion to pass each other. Reducing parking requirements in commercial areas for commercial development harms business' ability to not only hire competent workers and its ability to produce substantial gross receipts, but also reduces the commercial and residential property value; all of which result in tax revenue for the City of Santa Monica.
I think we should get one goal in mind, which is to make a self-sustaining City without developer dollars. Then we can regroup and gradually move toward safe streets. When traffic is getting worse every month because the Council (and the Planning Department administratively under LUCE) are allowing more development every month, there is no chance to make the streets safe. With the first-we'll-calm-traffic and then-we'll remove parking and then-we'll-approve-development so we need more streets approach, of course nothing ever works. We don't have a goal we would recognize if we reached it.
Parking is not a basic right. Despite what some may believe, the founders of our Republic did not say that state mandated or public funded carriage parking is to be provided for all citizens with a private carriage. I really wish we could drop the hyperbolic language around parking, as though to build more and more parking is somehow more important to the public interest than affordable healthcare or housing. If we are going to have socialist programs, I'd rather it be for the benefit of basic welfare and health of citizens, than for the storage of private property for motorists as we have now.
In my experience, the city has been quite responsive to parking violations, over grown plants, garbage issues in alley, what ever the issue may be on streets on which I have lived. But it requires actually communicating with city government instead of accusing the staff of malfeasance before even raising the issue to their attention directly. The Santa Monica GoRequest online form and phone app has been really helpful for me reporting issues, and I've generally got satisfactory and timely responses. Santa Monica is more responsive to concerns than any other place I've lived or spent much time in. http://www.smgov.net/sm_go.aspx
It is NOT the concepts we object to. They are NOT new and scary to us, either. We ALSO can read all the new and trendy planning jargon as it comes along. No, Ms. Newbold, sweety-pie, it is the DISHONESTY and TRENDY JARGON and LACK OF DETAIL ON EXECUTION that we object to. And NOTHING you do scares us. We know the courts will stop whatever the City of SM does because all of this is illegal in at least 100 ways. So get off yourself with the condescension already.
I had to return an internet item to Sears, because of street closures I had to park in a structure and walk through the Mall. On my journey through the sorry mall I stopped to pay five dollars for what looked like a delicious hot chocolate served in an italian cup floating with whipped cream. What I got was a sorry cup of hot chocolate served in a plastic travel cup. Please remember Westwood Village.
Notice the bottom line is in both instances a giveaway to developers. Follow the money.
BTW, now there's a cookie ice cream sandwich store in WV that if you have someone to drop you off at, is really good.
We all know what will happen because this has been tried before. Can anyone help me remember when?
Yesterday a friend and I were in Beverly Hills and Century City. In Beverly Hiils you had to pay up front, you had to guess how long you would be in the city. I call that padding the parking. I think I am going to be here one hour but I better pay for two which is so much cheaper than a parking ticket. Then off to Century City where their new rates are " NO FREE TIME" except if you go to the movies. The problem is you spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about your car and parking fees. DId it move up to 15 minute charges as we were chomping down on french fries and onion rings?. One thing I did observe about Beverly Hills and Century City is they have become like Santa Monica Place a vast wasteland.
As one person stated that when they leave in the early morning, UCLA Staff are hovering around like vultures waiting for someone to pull out. We have asked that all this area be permitted because of the hospital. There was no representative from UCLA at the meeting.
Someone at the St. Johns meeting--about their alternative parking being canceled in this coming March, after they were allowed not to build the $25 M parking garage their expansion was permitted on the basis of--said we have a new verb in SM, St. Johns, as in "Just St. Johns it," meaning get approval with promises and then go back on the promises. Far more than enough, already. Recall everyone who votes for all these obscenities and for LUCE, which dictates at least 5 and maybe 50 times as much density--O'Connor, O'Day, Holbrook, and Davis.