No one theatrically threw his partially closed hand to his forehead and fell away in shock as the clock struck almost 1 on Tuesday morning at Monday evening’s City Council meeting.
Meghan Sahli-Wells, in a seven-way fight to retain her seat on the dais next month, was finishing her 15-minute solo pledge of parking allegiance to the residents of one block of Farragut Drive.
Her lonely, isolated, low-key, emotion-scarce minority dissent failed to pass the shock test because the homeowners of the 10800 block truly are her people.
Virtually every lawn sports a baby blue Re-elect Meghan sign.
Further, the spine of her operating philosophy through four years on the Council has been a two-word motto: Residents first.
The question of who should be allowed to park on the 10700 block at certain times of the day and night arises because the residents are bracketed by three schools on the west and the venerable Grace Lutheran Church on the east. For at least historic purposes, both the schools and church were in place before any of the current homeowners moved into the neighborhood.
The heart of Ms. Sahli-Wells’s complaint sounded reasonable enough – that residents should be able to determine the parking restrictions on their block.
But this ignores two crucial factors:
- The block’s precise location and
- The decades-long tradition of Grace Lutheran parishioners parking there.
Ms. Sahli-Wells’s Council colleagues did not remotely agree with her reasoning.
The Council voted 4-1 to authorize a 90-day study of parking patterns in the 10700 block of Farragut — since a study never has been done. A presumably final ruling is expected in July.
Earlier this week, Ilbert Phillips, attorney for the church, clearly summarized the sizzling debate between residents and everyone who disagrees:
“The Council, instead of taking down the current no parking signs (8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Friday) and leaving the street with unrestricted parking 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, they are simply replacing them with the new “standard” residential permit parking signs. These allow non-residents of Farragut Drive to park for two hours, between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday.”
Noonan’s lack of knowledge is surprising.
There is no “decades-long tradition of Grace Lutheran parishioners parking there.” It occurs only on Saturday and Sunday and for those with special-exemption permits. The Farragut Parking Restrictions (Monday-Friday) have prevented the church from using Farragut as the on-site parking area it never provided for itself.
Noonan has absolutely no fact to substantiate “a study never has been done.”On September 8, 2014, the City Engineer emailed Weissman stating, “I’m not comfortable saying that as it is possible that a parking impact analysis of some sort was conducted when the original restrictions were put in place. Unfortunately, unless we find more information, it is really hard to say for sure one way or the other.” On September 23, 2013, the Traffic Engineer stated, “Farragut, west of Overland. We would not propose to change that. … These are all locations that have very specific impacts, that have been quantified in the past, and we would not seek uniformity in these locations.” (Video Transcript [VT] at 53:10 – 55:20; emphasis added.)
Noonan states, “[B]oth the schools and church were in place before any of the current homeowners moved into the neighborhood.” But, when some purchased and all improved our properties, we relied upon the protections the City provided by way the Farragut Parking Restrictions.
Noonan, you ought to stick to writing about subjects on which you have real background knowledge. Obviously, this is not one of them.
As usual Les Greenberg has misstated the facts and made assumptions about things that are inaccurate. Let the study be done, stop the ridiculous lawsuits and let the parking chips fall where they may.
Ken, you have to learn (assuming a fact not in evidence) that you should not generally claim that someone “misstated the facts,” without offering specifics.
The City has no legal right to conduct a “study.” This is not a banana republic.
By the way, did I inform you what the trail judge said in the first Brown-Act lawsuit? He said, “I recognize that Mr. Greenberg is a skilled lawyer, and he certainly appears to be familiar with many of the arcane provisions of the Brown Act, and he parsed the (cease and desist) letter in a very careful way….”
It is nice to be appreciated. We would appreciate you if you would call off your political allies on the City Council. You have beaucoup influence.
If you have a moment or the interest, please review this look at the Farragut Drive Permit-Parking concern from the viewpoint of a resident. There may be new information from a different perspective. And, if you’re a Culver City resident who currently benefits from permit-parking, you may find this tiny movie valuable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkDuCJbCsp0
Posted to: https://www.facebook.com/lovelivinginculvercity/
Clearly, the majority of the current Culver City Council does not consider the residents of the city to be their most important constituents. With their decision to end the existing parking restrictions on the 10700 block of Farragut Dr.. over the near unanimous objections of the residents of that block, they sent a message that business interests will trump Culver City residents need for safe and sane streets. Other neighborhoods with parking restrictions, from downtown to the Hayden tract, take heed… you could be next. Remember who put non-resident needs ahead of residents next election.
James, I’m pretty sure you were at the same meeting I was. To my recollection, the City Council did not change any parking regulations on your street, or any other street. The vote was 4 to 1 to initiate a parking study on the 10700 block of Farragut Dr. When the parking study is completed, the staff will come back to the council with a recommendation based on the results of the study. You may well end up with the same restrictions that you new enjoy. Under no circumstances will your block be left with no parking restrictions of any kind. The absolute least you will end up with is the new standard restrictions of allowing 2 hr non-resident parking from 8:00 AM until 6:00 PM, Monday through Saturday with the exception of street cleaning restrictions.
“To my recollection, the City Council did not change any parking regulations on your street….” Did you not hear that the Resolution includes modifying the current restrictions in order to conduct the study (that is designed to fail)? You must have been asleep or failed to read the inadequate notice or read proposed resolution.
Les, did you not know their other option was to take down your overly restrictive signs and not put up any signs in their place? I doubt you would have liked that very much, but maybe so.
The council did you a favor by giving you the the same protection as the rest of the streets in the city that have the standard parking restrictions.
Once the study is completed, you and your neighbors, and the church and the City Council and the Public Works department as well as the rest of the residents in the city will all have the facts with which to make an informed decision on the type of permit needed for your block.
The purported “study” is a sham and designed to fail.
Is that a factual statement, or your opinion. Why would anyone design something to fail?
If, by some chance the study shows that the 10700 block of Farragut Dr. should not have any non-resident parking 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, would it still be a sham and a failure?
It seems that it’s not the study you seem to be worried about, it’s what the study may show that’s the problem, right?
Ken,
It was designed to fail to support the Church’s baseless request. As to details, you will find out at the appropriate time.
Mr. Smith, this “Chamber of Commerce centric” Council did the residents of Culver City no favors by dismissing us, then throwing us a bone of unenforceable 2 hour parking.
Say what you will, the current council has given preference to non-residents over residents. This sets a precedent that will affect many other folks across the city in weeks/months to come. I hope you enjoy the pandora’s box you’ve opened.
The church has been there a long time. If Culver City prevents parishioners of this church from parking near the church — a right the parishioners have had since the church was opened — the City will have prevented the free exercise of religion, and opens itself to a lawsuit. It doesn’t matter that the parishioners aren’t residents — for their church is resident and they deserve the same access they’ve always had. Any other argument is vaporous.
I detest permit parking in my neighborhood, but such is the result of the progressive development policies performed by our City Council which have resulted in the loss of hardware stores, markets, and small shops — things actually usable by the local residents — by eminent domain, followed by the creation of an entire neighborhood of sit down restaurants surrounding the existing theaters. If I want to buy groceries, I now must walk over a mile to the nearest market — or take my car to the Costco on the southern edge of Culver City. Such is the result of Culver City’s ill-begotten “entertainment district”.
As to any “bone of unenforcable parking”, such is done in my neighborhood by the Police Department, and they are as religious as any Christian at enforcing the restrictions.
I have no dog in this race, as I am a parishioner of St. Augustine Catholic Church.
Mr. Province, the parking study that is being done on Farragut Dr., and the surrounding area, will only be valid for that area. It does not open a Pandora’s Box, nor put all residential parking in Culver City on a “Slippery Slope” as Meghan stated in the council meeting where the study was approved. You and Les Greenberg seem to be trying to make this a much bigger deal than it is. It has nothing to do with the Chamber of Commerce, the alleged bribing of elected officials or global warming….. It’s about 30 parking spaces, which I believe were granted an unreasonable restriction that affects all members of this community.
To date, Les Greenberg has sued the city for a violation of the Brown Act. He lost both the suit and the appeal. If you’re keeping a box score, it is City of Culver City 2 – Les Greenberg 0. The city has spent over $ 350,000 of YOUR tax money defending these lawsuits, and I expect there is more to come. We’re talking 30 parking spaces here that are located on city owned streets…
In addition Les is in the process of suing Grace Lutheran Church, one of it’s church council members and Ilbert Phillips, an attorney who represented GLC at 2 City Council meetings.
Ken,
You stated in a prior post that it would be your last. The more you post, the more you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of both fact and law. And you continually repeat yourself. Consider your comments denied or a response deferred to the appropriate forum.
You are the only one who claims that there were allegations of “bribery of elected officials.” What are you spouting-off about? Who made the allegation? When was it done? How was it done?
The Brown-Act lawsuit is still pending on appeal.
This will all come out in the wash after the city gets the report from the company doing the parking study, and the City Council deals with it as they see fit.
Arguing with you in this paper gets us nowhere. You don’t particularly like me, and I don’t particularly like you, so it is what it is….