> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Parking scheme lacks structure - URL: https://www.smdp.com/parking-scheme-lacks-structure/ - Published: 2006-03-07T16:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T17:19:53.000Z - Author: Kevin Herrera - Tags: Government & Politics, Downtown, #archive-import *Council puts brakes on grand parking plan* DOWNTOWN — The lack of parking here has long been a thorn in the side of City Hall, with residents, business owners and weekend shoppers all voicing complaints about traffic-jammed streets loaded with desperate drivers hunting for a place to park. The problem has become so detrimental to commerce, not to mention the collective psyche, that City Hall has embarked on an ambitious 10-year, $92 million program to significantly increase the number of parking spaces available in downtown structures. Or has it? After a lengthy discussion last week, the City Council voted to postpone approval after it was suggested that 1,000 spaces be eliminated from the plan. Rather than the recommended 1,712 spaces, a majority of which would result from the construction of two new parking structures downtown, some councilmembers are leaning toward 712 — the number recommended under a reduced, “more environmentally superior” program whereby old structures are enhanced instead of constructing new ones. The latest delay in what already has been a six-year planning process further frustrated those who for nearly two years studied the issue, held meetings and devised a plan for the future of downtown. “We thought it was a done deal. We need all the parking we can get in downtown,” said John Warfel, a member of a City Hall-sanctioned parking task force, which studied for two years the appropriate number of spaces. “There was quite a bit of community input and consultant input, research was done, and that was the number we arrived at based on our research. “I don’t think the situation has changed dramatically to warrant a change.” The task force’s recommendation was based on a model that would encourage visitors to drive as little as possible. To realize that concept, the task force recommended upgrading or replacing current parking structures, which are located in prime locations, as well as building a tram or shuttle system. Parking garage Nos. 2, 4 and 5 would be upgraded, while 1, 3, 6 — considered to be “short” structures because of their size and number of spaces — would be demolished and rebuilt, adding opportunities for retail, as well as 712 new parking spots. Another 1,000 spaces would be added with the construction of two new structures in the vicinity of Fifth Street and the Civic Center. Councilmember Kevin McKeown said the task force’s program does not mesh with the desires of residents, who are calling for less development citywide. Less development means fewer parking spaces, McKeown said. “Parking needs estimated in the recommendation for new structures were predicated on anticipated development of an additional half million square feet of commercial space downtown, which is radically out of step with emerging community sentiment and land use policy,” he said. “Existing downtown merchants need parking relief, which we can provide by retrofitting and expanding the existing structures,” McKeown added. “Extra levels where we already have downtown parking could yield 712 spaces. We don’t need the further 1,000 spaces if we don’t overdevelop downtown, and our streets can’t handle the traffic.” On the other side of the philosophical dais sits Councilman Herb Katz, one of the council’s representatives on the parking task force. Katz was visibly annoyed by McKeown’s insistence on reducing the number of spaces because he felt that approving fewer of them could lead to a roadblock if more parking is needed in the future. He was further upset with McKeown’s view that adding parking would bring in more cars. “That’s just silly. People are going to come here regardless,” Katz said. “The reason the task force made this program reviewable every two years is so that we can be flexible. It is so much easier to limit spaces than to add on after the fact.” However, McKeown is not alone is his concern. Councilman Richard Bloom also is cautious about the task force’s recommendation. “I need to understand better the necessity of the recommendation,” Bloom said. “The fundamental issue is that we don’t do something that is going to exacerbate traffic, but at the same time, balance the need for economic vitality … It’s clear that people aren’t leaving Santa Monica. They want to be here, so if we can accommodate those vehicles without increased vehicle trips overall, we will be doing good for both businesses and residents … I’m keeping an open mind right now.” Mayor Bob Holbrook is in favor of approving the task force’s recommendation, but would like to hear from Councilman Ken Genser before making his final decision. Genser, who is recovering after receiving a kidney transplant and did not attend the last meeting when the parking program was discussed, served on the task force with Katz. The council will discuss the issue in the coming weeks when all of its members are present. From his hospital bed, Genser urged his colleagues to approve the program so that city staff could move forward with retro-fitting improvements and the purchasing of land in case two structures are built. To fail to do so will only cost the city more money, he said. “The plan is not a commitment to provide these spaces,” Genser said. “It is a long-term plan by its own design, subject to reevaluation every two years. But if we don’t start planning for those spaces now, specifically buying the land, it may become financially unfeasible to do so.” *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 7, 2006.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/030706.pdf?ref=smdp.com)