March 22, 2017

Council Meeting & McKinnon Road Amendment

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments 

A few preliminary comments on last night’s council meeting.

There was a huge turnout of residents – well over 120 people crowded into the chamber that probably seats only 35 and overflowed into the corridor outside the chamber and down the stairs. And the number of agendas that were printed? Certainly no more than ten! Residents have often asked that some form of overhead displaying motions, amendments etc, be available so that people could follow what is going on. A water cooler/dispenser, which once upon a time was provided, has not made an appearance for years now. We don’t believe that it is too much to ask that given overcrowding and the length of some meetings, plus the heat, that all stops are pulled out to ensure that residents are at least provided with the ability to get a drink or to see (and hear) what is going on.

Item 9.1 – McKinnon Road Amendment

Hyams moved motion to refer to a panel but that the zoning be General Residential Zone 2(GRZ2) . Seconded by Magee.

HYAMS: started by saying that he thought that ‘we all agree’ that the land ‘could be better used’ than the industrial zone that ‘is there at the moment’. The application was for a Mixed Use zone, but ‘my belief is that a Mixed Use zone is not the appropriate zone’. Even though the site ‘is near a shopping strip I don’t agree it is part of the shopping strip’ and is alongside GRZ and also Neighbourhood Residential Zone. Therefore since it’s not part of the shopping strip and the context is residential ‘I don’t think it is appropriate’ for this to be rezoned to MUZ and ‘four storey building and for shops’. Quoted the planning scheme and council policies that ‘encourage the conversion of isolated pockets’ of industrial land to ‘residential’. Said that many objectors asked that the amendment be abandoned and they still have that ‘option’ but thought that the GRZ2 ‘was an option that we can move forward with’. Even if they wanted the zoning to be NRZ they would still have to go through a panel. Continued that he also ‘shared concerns’ with residents ‘about the traffic’ so having a MUZ ‘with shops’ and the increased traffic ‘isn’t quite appropriate’.  Spoke about Wynne’s recent proposed changes where across Melbourne the GRZ was going to be 11 metres but ‘that doesn’t apply to Glen Eira’ because this municipality has ‘mandatory 10.5’ and ‘it is my understanding that this will stay’. Explained the difference between GRZ1 and GRZ2, where the latter has ‘greater setbacks to the rear’ and if it’s GRZ then ‘there is no need for a Design and Development Overlay’. Said he chaired the planning conference and it was long and ’emotional’. ‘It was unfortunate that the police needed to be there’ and ‘contrary to rumours’ put out by some ‘irresponsible people’ council didn’t pay the police – they ‘came of their own volition’ because there had been some ‘very unsavoury behaviour towards the applicant’ which was the reason for their presence. Said that the Glen Eira Resident’s Association were present at the planning conference and they made some good points and for those people interested in Item 9.2, they ‘might wonder why they weren’t accorded the same help’. Explained the process – ie going to panel, back to council etc. ‘So this isn’t the final step’ and objectors still get opportunity to put their view.

MAGEE: ‘There’s an awful, awful long way to go’ and the panel will consider the ‘merits’ of everyone’s submission. Council can then accept, amend or reject the panel’s decision. Said that ‘clearly a mixed use zone is not something I would be favouring’. With a GRZ zoning this is then ‘limited to 3 storeys’. Councillors would probably say that ideally they would ‘love to see Californian bungalows’ on the site but ‘that’s not ever going to happen’. Opposite is Neighbourhood Residential so this site becomes ‘what you would call the transition’. Said councillors had ‘heard a lot of concern from residents’. They probably get 1 or 2 such applications a year which ‘generates a lot of debate and that debate is welcome’. But this has ‘to be taken into consideration for what is the big picture for Glen Eira’. Thought that the MUZ would ‘be a step backwards’ but the GRZ he thought ‘is appropriate’. Repeated that there’s ‘still a long way’ to go and this is only the first step in the process by ‘sending it to that independent panel’.

ATHANASOPOULOS: started by saying that the thing he has been ‘most passionate about’ is planning. He is also ‘proud’ of councillors for taking the approach ‘which is a long term strategy’ on planning. But ‘without that strategy’ he finds it ‘difficult to go through’ these sorts of applications. Said it’s difficult because ‘I am not guided by an actual strategy that I have endorsed’. Thought that ‘it is up to us’ to abandon the amendment. Said he isn’t anti-development – he owns a business in Carnegie and ‘I understand the benefits of development’. Agreed that the ‘city is going to have to’ change over the years. What council does need is the ‘ability to go to our people’ and asking them ‘how do you see this’ for an area and then ‘for us to come back here’ and for officers ‘to put together a strategy for every particular area’. ‘This will take time’ but in the ‘meantime’ he isn’t ‘comfortable’ in saying ‘I think this should go here’. So until they ‘go to our community’, speak with them and ‘actually develop that strategy’ and then ‘make the decision’ on applications. ‘Then I would be very comfortable’. Didn’t think that council should be going to a panel and that they should be ‘focusing all our effort’ on ‘what we want for our whole municipality’.

ESAKOFF: agreed with comments but wanted to emphasise that the ‘site is due to change’ but wasn’t sure if MUZ was right. Felt that a GRZ was more appropriate since it is in a neighbourhood centre but ‘at the edge’ so there is that ‘transition down. Perfect’. So the ‘GRZ absolutely fits’. Also is a ‘fair way away’ from the rest of the shops.

TAYLOR: asked that if the amendment was abandoned would it be coming back to council at any stage?

DELAHUNTY: said it ‘would be open to the applicant’ to resubmit another application.

TAYLOR: said it was a ‘difficult decision’ because she had got a lot of ‘feedback’ from residents and thought along with other councillors that GRZ was most appropriate because ‘we want to keep that village feel as much as possible’. It won’t stay industrial and ‘we have to make sure that we utilise the space appropriately’.

DELAHUNTY: said she has a ‘lot of sympathy’ for Athanasopolous’ views since he makes ‘a very strong argument for the need for a strategic plan’ and that she ‘wishes we had done our strategic plan’ long ago. Strategic plan ‘would help a lot’ with this. The community has also made their views known on the ‘item’. The community ‘around this site is obviously vocal but also very loving’ of their area and ‘that helps a lot’ with the decision.  Stated that she is ‘in two minds’ because going to a panel on something she mightn’t fully agree with, but she ‘wants to know more’ and realises that ‘I am placing costs on council’ and the developer. This mightn’t be necessary if they ‘intend to actually not listen to the panel’ and ‘do some strategic work’. On the other hand ‘this applicant shouldn’t be a victim’ because council hasn’t done the strategic work and he ‘has put in an application’ which ‘deserves to be considered on its merits’ – ‘regardless of whether council has been organised enough’. Strategic work is important and typifies the way ‘this council is working’ and it’s going to be a ‘great outcome in the end’. Council does need ‘to consider things outside the process’ at the moment. Said that ‘this is an uncomfortable decision’ but she is in favour of sending it to a panel because ‘it buys us some more time‘.  Not a good reason admittedly to send to a panel but overall ‘this is industrial land’ and ‘due for a change’. So ‘on balance’ she will vote for a panel.

HYAMS: moved the motion not because he wants to ‘buy more time’ but because getting this zoned to GRZ means to go to the panel. Otherwise it will stay industrial and he didn’t think ‘this does anyone any good’. Agreed with Delahunty about residents having a say and that’s ‘part of what we do’ in the structure planning process. Was also ‘sympathetic’ to Athanasopoulos’ views but having a strategy ‘is going to take a fair while’ and it’s not ‘fair’ or ‘right’ to tell applicants who ‘come along in the meantime’ that they are going to ‘have to wait’ until council does its strategic planning. Said that council ‘needs to apply the policies we have at the moment’ and ‘work on the strategies in the meantime’. Explained the process again – ie panel, minister, then back to council.

VOTE PUT: MOTION PASSED. ONLY ATHANASOPOLOUS VOTED AGAINST.

COMMENTS

For all the talk about not being ‘populist’ but doing what is ‘right’ that we’ve been hearing for years and years from the likes of Hyams, Magee, and Lipshutz in particular, this resolution provides clear proof to residents that if they organise, if they are vocal, and if they put pressure on council, then they will achieve some change of heart.

One needs to question why, when this amendment was first considered in September 2016, the likes of Hyams and Magee and all other sitting councillors of the previous council, saw absolutely nothing wrong with an MUZ zoning? The officer’s report hasn’t changed its recommendation – those councillors re-elected have changed their view! Where were they 6 months ago? Why put residents through this aggravation and angst?

As a reminder, here is part of what Hyams said at the September, 2016 Council meeting .  Please compare with what he has stated above! It speaks volumes about all notions of consistency and ‘integrity’! And of course, ‘populism’ has nothing to do with anything when over 100 objections are submitted!

Hyams moved motion to seek authorisation from the Minister. Seconded by Magee.

HYAMS: stated this was the ‘very first stage’ of an amendment process. Said ‘should we allow this to happen. Should we have consultation on this?’ Claimed that it ‘should be a mixed use zone rather than the industrial it is now’ because this will allow ‘more appropriate uses such as shops’ . There would be 4 storeys with ‘quite significant setbacks’.

LIPSHUTZ: said they will hear what the community has to say but there is ‘large approval here’ and they are sending a message to the community that ‘we do support this’ and for the future. This ‘is a message to the community – this is where we’re going’.

MOTION PUT – PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

 

 

March 21, 2017

Structure Planning ‘Consultation’ – #2

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[17] Comments 

The image above comes from Council’s summary of community responses to the Bentleigh ‘shopping strip’ online survey. According to the ‘facts’ presented here we are meant to believe that 65% of respondents are in favour of ‘private development’ (whatever that means!) – but with some constraints on height and ‘character’. Please note that of the valid 248 comments included in the document, the claim that 65% are ‘supportive’ does indeed represent an entire work of fiction. What is most disappointing about this report is:

  • The failure to acknowledge the countless comments that specifically referred to overdevelopment in the various side streets of Bentleigh – ie the damage done via the zones
  • The exclusive emphases on the ‘survey’ comments rather than the opinions expressed via the forum PLUS the apparent ‘editing’ of the forum comments themselves – ie not every comment made online is included in the resulting ‘summary’. Here is one example of what’s been omitted – The critical and major issue is the urgent implementation of height and appropriate building form controls. Interim measures are required immediately to ensure a planned future for the shopping precinct. The inappropriate and unplanned overdevelopment must be stopped now to ensure that structure planning results in long term plan
  • The total inconsistency in the reporting across all suburbs. Surely a report on community responses to one issue should include identical categories in the respective pie charts?
  • Could this possibly be another example of ‘community consultation’ designed to ‘endorse’ the decisions that have already been made behind closed doors?

Presented below are the pages that are council’s version of the online forum comments plus another graphic displaying what has been happening south of Centre Road Bentleigh since the introduction of the zones!

 

March 19, 2017

Structure Planning & ‘Consultation’ – #1

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[6] Comments 

Council’s recent release of documents related to its ‘structure planning’ must, in our view, be treated with a huge grain of salt. This is the first in a series of posts analysing what has been placed in front of residents and how valid, accurate, and transparent these documents really are. Are we again being taken for a ride via data that are highly questionable and manipulated to present already determined decisions?

The first document is called ‘Activity Centres Snapshot: February 2017’. It purports to be ‘based on similar studies carried out by Melbourne City Council’ in its Places for People and Local Liveability 2015 Study. (uploaded HERE). The aim is to ‘provide a more comprehensive understanding of how the city performs for everyday people’. Yet, when both of these documents are compared, the Glen Eira version is anything but ‘comprehensive’. For starters we are told that:

  • All data used in this document is current (February 2017) except for residential and employment population data, which is taken from the Census carried out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2011. How much credence should then be placed on this ‘snapshot’, especially given the rate of development since 2011?
  • The land uses were determined using Council’s internal database and does not include residential land within the study areas. How on earth any study can ignore ‘residential’ is simply mind boggling! Or is this simply more confirmation of the fact that council is focusing exclusively on the single street shopping strips themselves and not the zones that have blighted countless people’s lives?
  • Then of course, there is this wonderful ‘escape clause’ – Disclaimer: this document is provided for information purposes and does not claim to be complete. Although due diligence has been applied to ensure that all information contained in this document is accurate, it cannot be guaranteed that this document is without errors or omissions. Why publish anything if its accuracy and integrity cannot be assured?

We’ve drawn up a table below which illustrates just some of the differences between the Glen Eira version of good planning and what the Melbourne City Council included in their study. To therefore claim that this piece of paper represents a ‘snapshot’ of what is happening in Glen Eira, and is the basis upon which to plan for the future, is not only ludicrous, but deliberately misleading and invalid.

MELBOURNE CITY COUNCI1

Compounding all of the above, we then have neat little maps of the various areas under consideration – with no explanation, no criteria, and again, lines drawn on a map. The City of Melbourne’s study clearly defined how its various neighbourhood borders were selected –

To understand the Local Liveability 2015 Study area at a local level, 5-minute walking catchments were identified across the study area to effectively act as a sieve and allow for disparate urban geographies and their components to be compared ‘apples for apples’. For greater rigour and to reflect the true local urban conditions, real 5-minute walking catchments were determined rather than standard ‘as-the-crow-flies’ walking radii.
Local Movement as defined by Melbourne then includes ‘Car Spaces Per Employment’, ‘Car Spaces Per Resident’, and the numbers of bus stops, tram stops, etc.  All Glen Eira includes are the latter. As mentioned previously parking does not figure at all. Instead we are presented with nice little maps, that may look ‘professional’ and pretty, but which don’t reveal very much when terms, borders, and important categories are omitted!
The Bentleigh snapshot is typical. Depicted is a huge area that is overwhelmingly ‘residential’ – which we’re told has been excluded. Thus, what knowledge and what kind of basis for future planning can be drawn from this effort? Finally, Melbourne has no qualms in pinpointing areas that are ‘poor’ in terms of ‘liveability’ for its neighbourhood areas. In Glen Eira of course, the category ‘poor’ simply does not exist – everything is ‘great’ or ‘good’!!!!!!!!!
 

March 19, 2017

More On McKinnon Amendment

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[3] Comments 

We’ve received the following notice and handout –

 

March 17, 2017

McKinnon Road Amendment

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments 

The image seen above comes from page 20 (of 424 pages!) from the current agenda. The Item concerns the controversial rezoning of the corner of McKinnon and Wheatley Roads to a Mixed Use zone with a 4 storey height limit. It is currently zoned Industrial 3 and hence not available for residential development.

We urge readers to carefully note the highlighted sections since:

  1. This is the first time in living memory that council has finally admitted that the Mixed Use Zone is classified as ‘residential’ according to its planning scheme! Previously all references to ‘residential areas’ have been cited as Neighbourhood Residential Zone, General Residential Zone and Residential Growth Zone only.
  2. Residents have objected on the basis that the land should be rezoned to GRZ in keeping with its proximity to surrounding residential properties. Whilst council admits that a GRZ rezoning ‘could also comply’, there is not one single sentence in the officer’s report which seeks to explain, much less justify, why this alternative zoning solution is not mentioned again or even considered. Given the real possibility that the ensuing planning application could include merely one shop or office, and 50 or so units, then we do not see that this will have any real impact on residential profits for the developer!
  3. The quoted planning scheme policies, also emphasise either ‘residential’ exclusively (ie grz) or, ‘residential or mixed use activity where appropriate’. Whether or not the proposed site is ‘derelict’ is of course another issue entirely.

Thus we have a situation where council has completely ignored 186 objectors (and 6 supporters) and instead of considering even the possibility of rezoning to GRZ or abandoning the amendment entirely, have recommended going to a panel. Given the location of this site surely a decent discussion of the most appropriate zoning needed to occur. Instead we get a recommendation that lacks transparency in our view, as well as justifiable validity.

PS: for an interesting comparison, we remind readers of a recent Amendment for North Road Ormond (C121) where the site was rezoned from Commercial 2 to Mixed Use Zone with its own special MUZ Schedule of NO.3. The height limit for this particular amendment  was a mandatory maximum of 10.5 metres! In McKinnon Road the proposed height is not merely 10.5, but 14 metres – well and truly above even the Residential Growth Zone stipulated heights! Thus, where there’s a will, there’s definitely a way! Here’s the North Rd site –

 

March 15, 2017

Rowley’s View & The Shonk Associated With Council’s Introduction Of The Zones!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, Miscellaneous
[15] Comments 

CLICK TO ENLARGE

PS – FINALLY THE ‘SLAP ON THE WRIST’ TO COUNCIL FROM THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT

 

March 12, 2017

Politics & The Games We Play!

Posted by gleneira under Miscellaneous
[15] Comments 

Wynne’s announcement of his ‘vision’ for Plan Melbourne continues the Matthew Guy tradition of:

  • releasing major news late on the eve of a weekend or long weekend
  • misleading and deceptive spin aimed at the uninformed and ignorant
  • no documents that provide the full details – ie nothing on the department’s website as to the actual amendments
  • 8 months to ‘consider’ the advisory committee’s report that remains ‘secret’

Result? Developers and their cohorts continue to exert undue influence to the detriment of communities!

CLICK TO ENLARGE

 

March 8, 2017

Carnegie: The ‘Sacrificial Lamb’ To Atrocious Planning!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[16] Comments 

CLICK TO ENLARGE

For all the talk about ‘consultation’ the single thing that residents have been clamouring for over the past few years is being totally ignored – a review of the residential zones.

The image above provides clear, unassailable evidence of how disastrous the implementation and maintaining of the current zoning has been. Please note carefully:

  • The vast majority of development since the introduction of the new zones HAS NOT OCCURRED in those areas zoned as Commercial – which is what the planning scheme states should happen. Instead, street after street has been destroyed because it is zoned as suitable for 4 storey development.
  • Many of these streets are not within cooee of the railway station (circled in red) which is the reason for designating these areas as an ‘activity centre’. They might be 400-600 metres away from the station, but only as the crow flies. Walking distance (ie properties in Mimosa, Beena, etc) would make these sites at least one kilometre from any railway station.
  • Activity centres are also supposed to incorporate community facilities such as open space. The map reveals not a skerrick of nearby open space!
  • Other councils do their structure planning on the basis of recent Housing Strategies. Glen Eira’s fossilised strategy originates from 1998 data. Yet, we now have the spin about structure planning that will extend over the next 10 to 15 years, WITHOUT any new housing strategy!
  • Even Matthew Guy had enough sense in his July 2014 directive to mandate – A planning authority must use a housing strategy to inform the balanced application of the three residential zones. We assume that Guy’s order would presume recent analysis and data, since those councils who chose the option of going to a committee for the implementation of their zones were told that their proposed zoning couldn’t go ahead since their data is too old! Glen Eira as a result has no strategic justification for its implementation of the new zones according to what the committee told numerous other councils!
  • Guy even states – A planning authority must evaluate and monitor the implications of the application of any of the three residential zones within two years of their gazettal into a planning scheme. Planning authorities must specifically assess the affect of the residential zone(s) on housing supply, housing prices, infill development site land prices and the availability of land for infill development but are not limited to those matters. Three and a half years down the track and residents are yet to receive any decent ‘report’ as to the efficacy of all the zones – are they working? Where is development really going? What needs changing? How best to protect residential amenity?
  • Residents also should realise that when Amendment C25, which created the Housing Diversity/Minimal change areas in Glen Eira, the panel appointed to evaluate the amendment clearly saw this as an ‘interim’ measure. The word ‘interim’ was used over 20 times in their resulting panel report. Here is one example of what was stated – The boundaries of the neighbourhood centres identified in the amendment are considered by the panel as interim at best. Thus, we are stuck with ‘interim’ housing diversity borders and for the past 17 years no inclination by Council to do what it promised – ie review the areas and implement controls that will protect residents.

The take home message is that unless these councillors have the courage to admit that disastrous mistakes have been made, the rot will continue until the bottom falls out of the housing market. We simply ask:

  • Why can’t the borders of housing diversity areas be reduced given the fact that instead of the required 600 new dwellings per annum, Glen Eira is now accommodating over 2000 net new dwellings per annum?
  • Why should suburbs such as Ormond have over 40% of its area designated as suitable for 3 storey developments? – especially when large swathes are zoned as heritage?
  • Unless there is a comprehensive review of the zones, then residents have every right to label this council not only as incompetent, but negligent in its duty.
  • Creating structure plans only for the Commercial areas will not solve the problem of street after street being over-run with substandard dog boxes. This isn’t planning. It is cow-towing to the development industry and the refusal to admit that the Newton & Akehurst vision for Glen Eira is a total disaster, especially when residents have had no say in what happened!

As a reminder of the human cost involved, we re-publish an email we received a while back from an Elliott Street resident. It spells out everything that is wrong with planning in Glen Eira –

We live in the house next to the 51 units, 4 storeys, 3-9 Elliott Ave. It is on our north side! We will also be opposite 60 more units in Elliott Ave. Only 6 out of 20 houses left in our part of this small suburban street…… what can we say. We explored all avenues including going to VCAT, employing a Planner for quite a substantial fee. We achieved some minor concessions with shadowing and setbacks. It has been an exhausting process. I wonder if we are completely stupid to continue to stay here after 36 years, enjoying the peace and convenience of living in Carnegie. However, all has changed. The council has won. The peace and joy of living here is shattered. We will stay and see how things pan out. The world is changing at such a rapid pace around us and I’m afraid we’ve lost faith in the Council and its concern for the community. We will look back in a few years time at the implementation of these zones and wonder how it could happen. In a bizarre way it makes me empathise with the first people of our country and the bewilderment of colonisation! Rapid change can leave a community depleted.

 

March 6, 2017

More Anger & Frustration For Residents

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[12] Comments 

Another planning conference tonight on the 9 storey application for Centre Road, Bentleigh. Another round of listening to outraged residents. Another round of hearing complaint after complaint about council’s lack of adequate planning, council’s failure to inform residents, and council’s failure to provide sufficient notice of the meeting.

It is unacceptable that the planner tasked with presenting the application doesn’t even know where the site fits into the submitted draft interim height control guidelines. Initially the attendees were told it is in the requested mandatory 4 height limit. Residents had to correct him and state that ‘no’ – the site is in the ‘discretionary’ 5 storey height limit! Not good enough by a mile.

Nor is it good enough that a resident living 10 houses down from the site wasn’t notified by council. She found out via an anonymous letter placed in her letter box. Another example of residents doing council’s work! Nor is it good enough that several residents complained that they were only notified of the meeting this morning, and luckily they had decided to check their emails – otherwise they wouldn’t even have known the meeting was on.

Informing people should be the basic duty of council. A 9 storey application must surely qualify as a ‘major development’. This should appear on council’s website – preferably on the home page. The plans should be uploaded and dates and times for every planning conference, or delegated planning committee also published on council’s website – as plenty of other councils do.

In regard to ‘advertising’, surely something as significant as a 9 storey application deserves to be highlighted to all surrounding areas and not merely the legal guidelines of ‘adjoining’ properties. Clear and precise policy should be followed – especially since it is NOT COUNCIL who pays for the letters, but the developer.

All this simply boils down to either incompetence, or the desire to keep the public ignorant. Either way it is par for the course when it comes to the Glen Eira version of transparency and community involvement.

 

March 3, 2017

East Bentleigh Revisited!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments 

east-bentCLICK TO ENLARGE

Apologies for the jumbled mess – hard to get all the ‘signage’ in given the amount of development. We’ve undoubtedly also missed some, especially along Centre Road. Not all double storeys are included, whilst the handful rejected by VCAT are included given that the developer will undoubtedly have a second go. Needless to say the vast majority rejected by council will also eventually get their permits, albeit with a dwelling or two chopped off.

We would welcome feedback on the following:

  • Has anyone seen any recent drainage works in any of these streets?
  • Has anyone had any traffic management works in their streets?
  • Has anyone seen parking officers patrolling these areas?
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »