February 17, 2009
Mr. Lantz Simpson
President, Santa Monica College Faculty Association
Liberal Arts Building, Room 140
1900 Pico Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90405

Dear Mr. Simpson,

This letter constitutes the District’s written response following the Level Two Grievance
Conference on February 6, 2009. At the conclusion, we agreed that my written response
would be timely if given on February 17, 2009.

The District is constructing a new underground parking garage on the main campus on
the site of an existing surface parking lot. This project will add about 370 new parking
spaces and restores main campus parking to the pre-1994 Northridge earthquake level.
Prior to the start of construction, the District has provided a new surface parking lot (Lot
6) at the main campus, has increased off-site parking capacity (at the satellite campuses
and at the shuttle lot), and is funding a free public transportation alternative.

Faculty Association (FA) leadership has indicated that Lot 6 is acceptable as a parking
site for college staff working on the main campus. As has been noted, Lot 6 has the same
characteristics as the surface parking lot south of Pearl Street (Lot 5), in use since 1967.
Both are surface parking lots, both are staffed full-time by a parking security officer, both
are patrolled, both provide parking that is closer to some main campus offices than other
available main campus parking, and neither serves as a shuttle lot.

Nonetheless, the FA continues to assert that Lot 6 is not part of the main campus and that
it cannot be used to satisfy the District’s requirement to provide 536 spaces of main
campus unrestricted staff parking as specified in the FA agreement.

The FA has provided the District with a parking option, which I have reviewed. The FA
option would result in disabled parking spaces being removed from Lot 6 and would
result in a loss of student parking in Lots 4 and 5. Additionally, this option introduces
general circulation parking into college service yards and violates the terms of a
development agreement between the District and the City of Santa Monica with regard to
staff parking for the Santa Monica Swim Complex.

For these reasons, I am not able to recommend the proposed FA parking option.
The plan proposed by the District is the preferred plan. It provides the legally required
number of disabled parking spaces in Lot 6. It directs general circulation student parking
principally to the two parking structures (Structures 3 and 4). It provides staff parking in
a variety of areas (Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). It reduces congestion by directing lower
turnover users (staff) to Lot 6.

In championing its grievance, the FA has centered its argument on the meaning of the
term “main campus.” The term is not defined in the agreement. The FA expresses its
belief that at the time the agreement was signed, the term was “clearly understood by all
parties” to mean the land bounded by Pico Boulevard, Pearl Street, 20th Street, and 16th
Street. However, this is clearly not the District’s understanding, particularly since main
campus staff parking was provided outside the boundary at the time of the agreement.
Nor is there any language in the agreement that curtails the power of the District to
expand the main campus, as it has done repeatedly over the years. Had the parties
intended to limit the area of the main campus in which staff parking would be provided, it
would have been a simple matter for the parties to add such language to the agreement.
Nothing in the language of the agreement limits the area of the main campus, and the fact
that Lot 5 has been historically used for staff parking and is outside the so-called
boundaries demonstrates that no such limitation is contained in the agreement.

The District has provided historical, written, and photographic evidence that the term
“main campus” does not require a fixed and static boundary to be a meaningful term.
There have been thirteen additions to the main campus since its original purchase,
including an addition in 2003 that has not been disputed. The District routinely changes
its maps to reflect these additions. The District purchased Lot 6 in 1998 and has routinely
included it in its aerial inventories of District campuses.

The District’s conclusion that Lot 6 is a component of the main campus is correct.
The FA has raised an additional point, objecting to the characterization of staff parking as
a “lower volume, lower turnover” process in comparison to student parking.

There are about four staff members employed by the District (full- and part-time) for
every one staff parking space provided on the main campus (3.8:1), but there are about 18
credit students enrolled (full- and part-time) for every student parking space on the main
campus (18.5:1). As the turnover and volume for student parking is between four to five
times that for staff parking (4.9:1), the District has appropriately characterized staff
parking as lower in volume and lower in turnover.

The District plan to reduce congestion on Pico Boulevard and in the neighborhood
surrounding Pico Boulevard and 14th Street is therefore best accomplished by utilizing
Lot 6 for staff parking only. The parking option proposed by the FA does not meet this
objective.

On a positive note, the District is now providing all staff with a free ID sticker to attach
to their staff ID card that permits free passage on the Big Blue Bus any line, any time.
This would increase the usefulness of the parking available at SMC’s satellite campuses
and potentially reduce staff parking demand on the main campus. The District
acknowledges the support of the Faculty Association in implementing this program.

The Faculty Association proposal to remove additional student parking from the main
campus and to replace it with additional faculty parking is burdensome to students and is
not required under the terms of the agreement. Prior to the start of construction on
January 20, 2009, the District has provided 538 unrestricted staff parking spaces on the
main campus, and now, at the start of construction, the District is providing 546
unrestricted staff parking places on the main campus, a betterment of 8 spaces.
In addition, the District effort to provide free and convenient bus passes to all District
staff will reduce parking demand and relieve parking congestion.

The District is willing to meet with you to discuss and resolve any impacts that arise as a
result of the construction of the new Student Services Building and underground parking
garage. In addition, to resolve your grievance, we are prepared to discuss with you
creating additional unrestricted staff parking spaces by converting certain restricted
parking spaces to unrestricted staff parking.

Based on the above record and available alternatives, on behalf of the District, I must
reject the Grievance submitted on December 15, 2008.

Sincerely,

Dr. Chui L. Tsang
Superintendent/President

Attachments: Exhibit 1 – SMC Parking Inventory
Exhibit 2 – Additions to Main Campus, 1940 to Present
Exhibit 3 – Aerial Photograph, SMC Main Campus, June 14, 2001
Exhibit 4 – Map, SMC Main Campus, January 2009

References: Letter to Mr. Simpson, January 16, 2009
FA Level II Parking Grievance Arguments, Rebuttal & Proposal
ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG)

cc: Kathy Sucher, Chair, Faculty Association Professional Rights and
Responsibilities Committee and FA Vice President
Howard Stahl, Faculty Association Chief Negotiator
Marcia M. Wade, Vice President, Human Resources
Don Girard, Senior Director, Governmental Relations