Olive Street permit parking

A salon owner said paid parking is hurting her business and staff, and asked to be included in the permit area or get employee permits.

Spoke on behalf of the salon, asking the council to consider permits for opening and closing staff.

An Olive Street resident strongly supported permit parking, describing blocked driveways, trash can battles, and residents parking blocks away.

An Olive Street resident was neutral, asking whether the program just shifts parking problems and how permits would be allocated.

Supported employee-only parking for the salon and suggested opening the senior center lot after 4 p.m.

Strongly supported permit parking, describing blocked driveways and residents parking blocks away since paid meters went in; noted the 13-1 neighborhood vote.

Supported the Olive Street permits but owns a 12-unit building on Lemon and asked the commission to survey owners and residents on Lemon between Almond and Palmyra too.

Supported the permits on behalf of Ricca Donna Salon but asked that employees who open and close the shop be able to get a limited number of permits.

Lives on the 300 block of South Olive in a dense multi-unit block; supports permits for her neighbors but fears traffic will push onto her block and wants the survey expanded.

Supports the permits but opposes permits for the salon, alleging its workers park poorly and hit vehicles; also raised concerns about multi-unit and commercial permit allocations.

Renter in the only apartment complex on South Lemon without dedicated parking; asked that permit parking be extended to renters like him who have no option but street parking.

Lives at 122 West Almond, which is excluded from the permit area; asked why her units were left out while neighboring 124 Almond is included.

Clarified that 203 South Olive is a connected duplex — he lives in front and Stephanie Crowder lives in the back — resolving an address question.

Lives in a four-unit complex at Palmyra and Olive; asked how the one-permit-per-bedroom rule applies to multi-unit buildings and questioned the $30 fee and replacement limits.