Candidates' positions are categorized as Pro (Yes), Con (No), Not Clearly Pro or Con, or None Found. Candidates who have changed their positions are listed as Now their most recent position.
"At this point in time I do not think that we need to encourage more non-residents to drive to Santa Monica when you consider existing traffic concerns. Instead we should employ a multimodal model that encourages individuals to use a combination of public transit, biking and walking as our current infrastructure simply cannot support an additional influx of personal vehicles. Upon completion of the Expo Line we might want to gauge its usage and the impact that it has upon these conditions. For now, I think that increased parking space increases automobile usage due to ease of using a car instead of alternative transit." Oct. 1, 2014 Nick Boles
"We must provide adequate parking for the Expo line. It was a mistake not to build park-and-ride lots. We must correct that mistake. While building future structures we must be mindful that they may have different uses decades from now. It is important that they can be converted into different adaptations. While we hope the Expo line will decrease the future need for parking and will mitigate traffic, we are not certain of the future effects of the Expo.
One way to secure more parking is to make sure both residential and commercial developments provide the amount of parking in our zoning ordinances. We cannot allow Traffic Demand Management plans that aren't effective. Let's make sure we don't duplicate the mistakes of St John's Hospital, Agensys or the ill-fated Hines development." Oct. 1, 2014 Phil Brock
"In some areas we may want to create more parking – such as to provide parking for future arts/cultural uses at the Civic Center Auditorium/Barnum Hall/Greek Theatre/Bergamot Station.
In other places, we might want to move existing parking, such as taking down parking structure #1 south of Wilshire along 4th St. (which needs to be replaced because its not up to current earthquake standards) and replace some of it underneath the City’s project at 4th/5th/Arizona instead.
There is also the innovative idea of realigning the 4th St. off-ramp to flow directly to Olympic Bl. in the Civic Center, and use the regained land south of the 4th/Colorado Expo light rail stop for new parking, so people would get off the I-10 freeway, park and walk into downtown (and/or use the light rail stop), rather than clogging up 4th St. driving to other parking.
For new housing near our light rail stops, I support lower parking ratios so that we attract tenants who are more likely to use public transit. But in our existing residential neighborhoods that are not near light rail – neighborhoods that suffer from an off-street parking deficit, I don't support this change." Oct. 1, 2014 Michael Feinstein
"Depends where. It's been shown convincingly by both studies and by practical experience that the City does not need to increase the number of parking spaces downtown (because of the availability of privately-owned spaces and the effectiveness of better pricing strategies), but there are other places in the city where it might make sense to build parking that would be shared and used more efficiently." Oct. 1, 2014 Frank Gruber
"There are places where more parking is needed, such as our downtown, but few if any others. We should work instead to create systems and incentives that encourage residents, our work force and our visitors to use non-automobile forms of mobility. We are such a nice city in which to walk.
We also could explore the creation of satellite parking lots near freeway exits. These satellite parking lots could relieve the traffic pressure on our downtown but would require express Big Blue Bus shuttles to transport visitors and workers to their destinations expeditiously.
Until we provide other methods of travelling around our city, we should not reduce parking. I continue to find it ironic that a car parked at the top of one of our downtown parking structures has better daylong views than most of our residents." Oct. 1, 2014 Sue Himmelrich
"Parking availability in our City is extremely low most times of every day and traffic congestion caused by commuter traffic in and out of our City is debilitating. Very careful management of parking supply is one of my top priorities. Residents and employees who cannot walk, bike or take transit require appropriate parking facilities. It is very important to right-size the amount of parking in a project using thorough studies. Overbuilding parking will help to incentivize single-rider auto trips so to adhere to the goals of the LUCE and achieve no new net PM peak period trips now and in the future, we must continue to enhance the transportation demand management ordinances for projects of all sizes and uses. The amount of parking in a mixed-use project should be reduced if proposed along the transit-rich light rail corridor." Oct. 1, 2014 Jennifer Kennedy
"Parking is at an extreme deficit in our community. There should be no development and no buildings allowed without proper parking provided. This includes either on-site parking or some in the near vicinity." Oct. 1, 2014 Terence Later
"What we are learning to do is create more parking where needed. No one doubts the urgent shortage of available street parking in many of our residential neighborhoods, for instance.
New residential projects must include adequate parking, and new commercial development along boulevards adjacent to impacted neighborhoods must provide for themselves the parking needed by employees and customers. We can no longer let neighborhood streets be overrun to the point where residents cannot find parking near their own homes.
In some more commercial parts of the city, the perceived shortage of parking may be alleviated through smarter signage and distribution of parking, encouraging visitors to park once and explore on foot. Near established mass transit, parking needs may be lower, and requirements appropriately reduced.
Climate change and greenhouse gas emissions make automobile traffic congestion not just an annoyance but an environmental threat. Parking doesn't create traffic, but it does, to some extent, encourage automobile use. We must plan for a community with lowered need for cars, and therefore fewer cars on the street. When transit availability makes this possible, we can reduce parking construction, freeing the space and money for more human-serving uses." Oct. 1, 2014 Kevin McKeown
"Where parking is placed and what we charge is the key. Park once and walk in downtown Santa Monica is a powerful device to control traffic and cars. It works well and has created a walking City. Too much cheap parking everywhere creates traffic by inducing marginal traffic to drive. Reduced residential neighborhood parking doesn't work unless good public transport is in place. The train stations need some parking for Metro to work as the Southern California culture adjusts to a public transport focus. Otherwise city streets will be clogged by circling drivers. Where and why we put parking, matters." Oct. 1, 2014 Richard McKinnon
"The issue is to keep the cars out of downtown as much as possible so as not to make the congestion problem worse. We are also faced with the punitive perception to residents who are experiencing numerous violations to the increased cost of living in Santa Monica." Oct. 1, 2014 Zoë Muntaner
"The City is making critical improvements to parking facilities and optimizing options to help drivers get to their destinations without roaming. In downtown Santa Monica a new parking structure with greater capacity replaces an older facility. Projects like the proposed 4/5th Street would provide additional parking. As important as supply is the management of parking. The 'Park Once' program as well as the 'Go with the Flow' program to manage summer weekend traffic, keep cars moving and into parking spots. Such efforts along with technology and new mobile apps all provide better information and access to parking." Oct. 1, 2014 Pam O'Connor