Carol.Schwab@CulverCity.org
Ms. Carol A. Schwab
City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
9770 Culver Boulevard
P.O. Box 507
Culver City, CA 90232-0507

Re: Council’s Thinly-Veiled Preparations to Strip Grandfathered-Permit-Only- Parking Protections From Residents of 10700 Block of Farragut Drive

Dear Ms. Schwab,

Having not received any response to my Sept. 29, 2014, letter, I assume that the issues are joined. This letter is written in the hope of causing the City Council to obtain an independent, thorough and unambiguously written legal opinion before it proceeds to “strike the existing parking restrictions” on the 10700 block of Farragut Drive.

Review of Parts of Transcript of 9/8/14 Council Meeting

Ilbert Phillips, Esquire, representing the Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church, spoke at the meeting. He described the basis of the Church’s “petition” as the church has “ministerial needs” and “the problem.” (Transcript [T], 2:21:45.) He stated no fact as to any need for change on Farragut’s permit-only parking restrictions.

The Council’s intentions are clear—to remove Farragut’s 32-year old permit-only-parking restrictions, without the presentation of any fact justifying that action. The Council states that it wants to conduct a “study.” That is an excuse. At that point, it would have annulled the Farragut Parking Restrictions. Various Councilpersons described their intentions, e.g., asking about to what restrictions Farragut would be entitled if it currently filed a petition (T, 1:59:30); start from scratch (T, 2:06:36); eliminate current restrictions and do an impact study (T, 3:33:06); need a clean slate to start from scratch (T, 3:50:42); need to process information if start from scratch (T, 4:03:24).

The Councilpersons recognize the existence of the 1982 resolutions, e.g., CS-8248, and that no “study” requirement existed in Culver City before 1989. (T, 1:56:00.) The Council ignored the topic of Farragut’s grandfathered rights.

Councilperson Andrew Weissman publically asked you for legal advice as to whether the City Council has “jurisdiction,” i.e., authority, to revoke the permit-only parking restrictions on the 10700 block of Farragut Drive (Farragut Parking Restrictions). He envisions a procedure by which the City Council arbitrarily revokes Farragut Parking Restrictions and the Farragut residents submit a petition to determine, under 2014 standards, whether they qualify for parking restrictions. A transcript of the video recording reflects the following:

Mr. Weissman: I have one final question for the City Attorney. There was a suggestion in some of the correspondence that we received in connection with this matter that suggestions that, I think that it suggests that the City Council has, in effect, doesn’t have jurisdiction to change parking restrictions. That may not be the absolute correct paraphrase, but that was sort of my takeaway. Do we, in fact, have that authority?

City Attorney: Well, we believe that you established that parking district, and not you, but another Council established that in the ‘80s, and that therefore you do have jurisdiction over it. There are procedures and guidelines. Most of it is talking about going forward, establishing new districts. That is the question that was raised in a letter, one of the correspondents.

Mr. Weissman: But if we were to determine, going forward, that this particular block’s — that we need to start from scratch and we need to conduct a parking study to determine what the –I’m assuming that the 10700 block wants to retain the same no-parking-other-than-residents – 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. — on a go-forward basis, we could, could we strike the existing parking restrictions, initiate a process by a petition from the neighbors on 10700 Farragut to conduct a traffic study for purposes of determining what ultimately the parking restrictions ought to be? Is there anything that says we can’t do that?

City Attorney: You know, there isn’t anything that says you can’t because you did establish that. You do have some preferential parking district regulations that were put in place in 2013 that have a little bit of ambiguity. I’m going to just say it doesn’t mean that the Council can’t. That’s your decision. It’s a policy. It’s not an ordinance. It was adopted by resolution, and it doesn’t directly address your taking jurisdiction over that. That’s the bottom line answer. It doesn’t directly say that. But, I see…

Mr. Weissman: But if a majority of the Council said to you…

City Attorney: Yes, we want to do that.

Mr. Weissman: You could give it to us …

City Attorney: Yes.

Mr. Weissman: … by way of resolution?

City Attorney: Yes.

Mr. Wessman: Okay, thank you.

(T, 2:05:16-2:08:25; emphasis added)

Mistaken Legal Advice

The Nov. 12, 2013, Procedures and Regulations for Residential Permit Parking Districts clearly deals with the sole means to modify the Farragut Parking Restrictions. They contain no ambiguity. Your office reviewed them to avoid any ambiguity.

Procedures, Section 7.1.G, states:

All streets that have preferential parking restrictions predating the adoption of the Preferential Parking Districts Boundary Map shall maintain those restrictions unless changed in the future by a separate process outlined in these regulations.1 (Emphasis added.)

1 See, e.g., Culver City Municipal Code—“§1.01.010 Definitions; Rules of Construction … SHALL and MAY. SHALL is mandatory and MAY is permissive.” (65 Code, §1-2.) (Ord. No. 2006-009 §§ 2, 3.)

“The Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Section staff may periodically review preferential parking … restrictions….” (Procedures, § 11.A.) “The City Engineer may initiate, at his discretion, based on staff’s recommendation a process to adjust … parking restrictions.” (Procedures, § 11.B.) “[M]odification of parking restrictions that, in the [reasonable] judgment of the City Engineer, have the purpose of aiding in the administration of the preferential parking program and in the enforcement of parking restrictions shall be made administratively.” (Procedures, § 11.F., emphasis added.)
Nothing in the Procedures allows the City Council to “strike the existing parking restrictions.”

Nothing in the Procedures allows the City Council to order staff to review the Farragut Parking Restrictions. Neither the staff nor the City Engineer had initiated any action prior to Aug. 11, 2014. Staff made no review. The staff twice refused the church’s requests for reviews. Further, the staff supported sections of the Procedures when these same Councilpersons discussed and re-grandfathered the Farragut Parking Restrictions. The City Engineer may only act when staff has made a recommendation, which it has declined to do.

Further, there is no right to appeal a decision of the Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Section staff or the City Engineer to the City Council. The legislative process demonstrates the City Council’s intent on matters of modifying existing restrictions. A preliminary draft of the Procedures, § 11.C, stated, “Appeal of a decision or determination of the City Engineer to adjust or not adjust … as provided for in B hereof, shall be made to the City Council,” but that language was not in the final version.

Seek Independent Opinion

Again, it is respectfully suggested that the City Council obtain an independent legal opinion on whether it has authority to do what it is planning to do to the residents of Farragut.
Very truly yours,

Mr. Greenberg may be contacted at plgreen@att.net