Costa Mesa City Council
May 3, 2022

356
File #: 22-667 Meeting Date: 5/3/2022
activities must address the needs outlined in the City’sConsolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan is a five-year planning document required by HUD for all communities receiving federal community development grant funds. The current Consolidated Plan was approved by the City Council on May 19, 2020 and covers Fiscal Year (FY) 2020-2021 through FY 2024-2025. The Consolidated Plan can be found on the City’s website.

Based on an analysis of housing/community needs, market analysis, and input from the community, the following five-year goals and priorities have been identified for implementation in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan:

Goal 1: Housing Preservation - To provide decent and affordable housing through a variety of activities, including owner-occupied housing rehabilitation, code enforcement, and rental housing acquisition/rehabilitation
Goal 2: Infrastructure and Facility Improvements - To enhance the suitability of the living environment through improvements to public infrastructure and facilities Goal 3: Homeless Continuum of Care - To provide supportive services and housing assistance for homeless persons and homelessness prevention
Goal 4: Public Social Service - To provide services for low- and moderate-income persons, and those with special needs, including fair housing services
Goal 5: Program Administration - To provide administration of the CDBG and HOME programs, ensuring effective and efficient delivery of programs and services and complying with all HUD program requirements
The Consolidated Plan is a five-year strategic plan that identifies priority housing and community needs, strategies to address needs, and programs/resources to address needs. Its five-year cycle will end on June 30, 2025. The Annual Action Plan is the one-year expenditure plan for the use of HUD’sannual allocation of funds. The City must submit the Annual Action Plan to HUD in May of each year to comply with HUD requirements and continue to receive these federal funds.

HUD funding for FY 2022-2023 has yet to be announced. However, for planning purposes, the City anticipates it will receive $1,137,737 in CDBG funds and $501,749 in HOME funds for FY 2022-2023.

This grant amount is based on the allocation awarded for the previous fiscal year, FY 2021-2022.

Consistent with HUD guidelines, once HUD announces CDBG and HOME awards for FY 2022-2023, the City will adjust the funding for the activities listed above proportionally in order to equal the final grant awards, or as otherwise directed by the City Council.

The City is required to provide a 30-day public comment period and to hold a public hearing before approving and submitting the Annual Action Plan to HUD.

ANALYSIS:
2022-2023 Annual Action Plan
Fiscal Year 2022-2023 is the third year of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan cycle. The Action Plan serves as the link between the objectives and goals listed in the Consolidated Plan with activities to

357
File #: 22-667 Meeting Date: 5/3/2022
serves as the link between the objectives and goals listed in the Consolidated Plan with activities to be carried out during a 12-month period that address priority needs. The period covered by the 2022- 2023 Action Plan begins July 1, 2022, and ends June 30, 2023.

Both CDBG and HOME funds have specific program requirements. For example, CDBG funds must be utilized to achieve one of three national objectives: 1) elimination of run down areas, 2) meet an urgent need (e.g., declared disaster), or 3) benefit low- and moderate-income persons. HOME funds must be used to preserve or increase housing opportunities for low-income residents in Costa Mesa.

Lower income persons are defined by HUD as an individual with a household income equal to or less than 80 percent of the County median income. Income limits are based on family size and are adjusted annually by HUD. HUD 2022 Orange County income limits have not yet been released.

HUD 2021 Orange County income limits are shown below:

Table 1 - HUD 2021 Income Limits for Orange County
Household Size Household Income at 50%
of OC Median Income
Household Income at 80%
of OC Median Income
1-Person $47,100 $75,300
2-Person $53,800 $86,050
3-Person $60,550 $96,800
4-Person $67,250 $107,550
5-Person $72,650 $116,200
6-Person $78,050 $124,800
7-Person $83,400 $133,400
8-Person $88,800 $142,000
CDBG Funds
HUD funding for FY 2022-2023 has yet to be announced. However, for planning purposes, the City anticipates it will receive $1,137,737 in CDBG funds for FY 2022-2023 based on its allocation awarded for FY 2021-2022. Additionally, $867,011 in prior year uncommitted allocation will be available for CDBG-funded activities. Staff is recommending funding in five primary program areas:
1) capital improvements 2) public services grants, 3) housing rehabilitation program, 4) community improvement/code enforcement, and 5) program administration.

Capital Improvements
CDBG funds may be used to improve public facilities and infrastructure, provided the primary beneficiaries are low- and moderate-income Costa Mesa residents. City HCD staff solicited proposals for capital improvement projects from City departments. The Public Services Department requested $1,200,000 for the Citywide Street Improvement project, increasing the Wilson Street Pavement Rehabilitation Program funding by $600,000 to extend reconstruction to the end of Pacific Avenue ($565,777 in CDBG funds were awarded in FY 2021-2022 for Wilson Street from Newport Boulevard to Placentia Avenue) for a total CDBG funding amount of $1.17 million and allocating $619,733 to the Westside Street Improvements Project which will include improvements to American Avenue,

358
File #: 22-667 Meeting Date: 5/3/2022
American Place, Congress Street and Governor Street.

Staff recommends allocating the $1,200,000 in FY 2022-2023 CDBG funds for the proposed Street Improvement Projects. The projects entail reconstructing failed pavement, including grinding down and overlaying the existing pavement with rubberized asphalt and upgrading striping to include bike lanes. The project will also include repairing existing sidewalks, wheelchair ramps, driveways, and curb gutters to meet City and ADA standards. Public Services staff have identified Capital Improvement funds to supplement CDBG funding for these projects.

Public Service Grants
The City is allowed to earmark up to 15% of its annual CDBG allocation for public service grants.

Based on the City’sestimated FY 2022-2023 CDBG grant allocation, a maximum of $170,000 is available for public service grant funding. Consistent with HUD guidelines, once HUD announces CDBG and HOME awards for FY 2022-2023, the City will adjust the funding for the activities listed above proportionally in order to equal the final grant awards, or as otherwise directed by the City Council.

Public services are defined as social service programs that primarily benefit low- and moderate- income residents. Staff recommends allocating $30,000 toward staffing for the City’sSocial Services program at the Costa Mesa Senior Center, a program that improves the quality of life of seniors in Costa Mesa by providing support for physical, mental, emotional and social health. This leaves $140,000 available for community based public services grants (PSGs).

On February 3, 2022, the City released a request for PSG applications. On February 25, 2022 the City received eight PSG applications requesting a total of $185,000 and two fair housing applications requesting a total of $38,000 in public service grants. On March 23, 2022, the City’sHousing and Public Service Grant Committee (H&PSG Committee) convened to review grant applications and developed public service grant funding recommendations for the City Council’sconsideration. When developing funding recommendations, the H&PSG Committee utilized updated application rating criteria and funding limitations. Grant applications for award were set between a minimum of $15,000 and a maximum $30,000 grant award amount to ensure the grants are able to achieve favorable impacts, while serving diverse eligible populations. The H&PSG Committee recommends funding for seven of the eight PSG applications and one of the two fair housing applications as shown in Table 2, below.

The H&PSG Committee’s ratings, rankings, and grant recommendations are provided as an attachment to this report for the City Council’s consideration. The attachment also includes a summary of grant applications and a three-year funding history of CDBG public service grants. The H&PSG Committee’sgrant recommendations are listed in the proposed CDBG budget below. A complete copy of all PSG applications submitted are posted on the City’s website at:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city-departments/development-services/housing-and- community-development/cdbg-public-service-grant-applications.

Housing Rehabilitation Administration
Staff is proposing to allocate $41,688 in CDBG funding for staff and other direct costs associated with administering the City’shousing rehabilitation program. Examples of eligible costs include staff costs

359
File #: 22-667 Meeting Date: 5/3/2022
administering the City’shousing rehabilitation program. Examples of eligible costs include staff costs associated with the preparation of work specifications, property inspections, and loan/grant application processing. See the discussion under the HOME funds section for further details regarding the Housing Rehabilitation program.

Community Improvement/Code Enforcement
CDBG funds may be used for code enforcement activities, provided the program primarily benefits low-and moderate-income persons, and that such activities “together with public or private improvements, rehabilitation, or services to be provided, may be expected to arrest the decline of the area.” The crux of this regulation is that any CDBG-funded code enforcement activity must have a direct nexus to rehabilitation or improving housing in an eligible area. For FY 2022-2023, staff recommends an allocation of $335,810 in CDBG funds to support the work effort of two full-time and one part-time community improvement officers. Activity will be limited to eligible low and moderate- income Census Tract Block Groups identified by HUD. The goal of community improvement activities in these areas is to connect property owners, residents and other members of this community with resources and programs to resolve substandard housing conditions in an overall effort to improve the quality of life within these neighborhoods.

Administration
HUD allows the City to allocate up to 20 percent of its annual grant for planning and program administration. Based on the City’s estimated FY 2022-2023 grant amount and staff’s proposed allocations, a maximum of $227,547 can be for program administration. Eligible program administration expenditures include program staff salaries and benefits, contract services, legal services, direct program operating costs and fair housing costs if not funded through public services.

The City is required by HUD to fund a Fair Housing Program, which provides education, counseling and enforcement services for Costa Mesa households.

Staff recommends allocating $20,000 from administration to fund the Fair Housing Foundation to provide services and comply with federal regulations. In prior years, the City has funded fair housing services through PSG funds, but these services are an eligible administration expense, so staff is recommending that the required Fair Housing Program be funded out of Administration instead as a means of maximizing PSG dollars available to community organizations. This year, two fair housing organizations, Fair Housing Foundation and Orange County Fair Housing Council, applied for CDBG funds. The City has a 14-year history of providing fair housing services successfully through the Fair Housing Foundation, an organization that provides services for 24 cities throughout Orange County in addition to several cities in Los Angeles County. They have been responsive to our residents and City staff in matters relating to fair housing, and providing training and information.

360
File #: 22-667 Meeting Date: 5/3/2022
HOME Funds
HUD funding for FY 2022-2023 has yet to be announced. For planning purposes, the City anticipates it will receive a HOME grant allocation for $501,749, based on the current grant year. Additionally, $1,454,657 in program income and $763,401 in uncommitted prior year allocation will be available for HOME-funded activities. Consistent with HUD guidelines, once HUD announces CDBG and HOME awards for FY 2022-2023, the City will adjust the funding for the activities listed above proportionally in order to equal the final grant awards, or as otherwise directed by the City Council.

The City must reserve a minimum of 15 percent of annual HOME funds for a housing project to be undertaken by a qualified nonprofit housing developer known as a Community Housing Development

361
File #: 22-667 Meeting Date: 5/3/2022
undertaken by a qualified nonprofit housing developer known as a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). The City is also allowed to use a maximum of 10 percent of HOME funds for program administration. Staff is proposing to allocate FY 2022-2023 HOME funds for four activities:
1) Single-family housing rehabilitation loans and grants program, 2) Affordable Rental Housing Development 3) CHDO reservation (required), and 4) program administration.

Housing Rehabilitation Program
Staff is recommending allocating $275,000 in HOME funds for the City’sHousing Rehabilitation Loan and Grant Program. The loan program was originally adopted in the mid 1980’s and provides financial assistance to qualified single-family home properties including condominiums and townhomes. The grant program began in 1991 and was originally funded using CDBG funds. In 1997, the City Council approved the use of HOME funds as an additional funding source to expand the program.

Program funds must be used to correct nonconforming uses, remedy code violations, and repair and improve deteriorating properties, in order to provide decent and safe housing conditions.

Rehabilitated property value after rehabilitation cannot exceed 95 percent of the HUD median purchase price for the City. The subject property must be owner-occupied and serve as the principal residence of the eligible low to very low income household applying. The proposed allocation is estimated to fund approximately 10 grants and one loan annually.

Affordable Rental Housing
In an effort to preserve and create new affordable rental housing opportunities for lower income households in Costa Mesa, staff intends to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit applications for funding to support permanent affordable rental housing in the City using HOME Program funds. Funding for this effort will include HOME program income and prior year uncommitted HOME program funds. Staff recommends allocating $2,319,368 to this effort.

Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Funds HOME program regulations require that a minimum of 15 percent of the City’sannual grant allocation be reserved for a CHDO (a community-based nonprofit development entity). Based on the City’sFY 2022-2023 HOME grant, $75,262 is the minimum CHDO set-aside requirement. A CHDO-eligible project has not been identified at this time.

Administration
The City is allowed to use up to ten percent of its annual grant for HOME program administration.

Based on the City’sestimated allocation for the FY 2022-2023 grant, $50,174 is available for HOME program administration. Eligible administration expenditures include program staff salaries and benefits, contract services, and legal services which may be required to implement the funded activities.

362
File #: 22-667 Meeting Date: 5/3/2022
Noticing Requirements and Public Comment
As required by HUD, a notice was published in local newspapers on April 1, 2022, inviting the public to review and comment on the draft 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan. The comment period began April 2, 2022, and will conclude on May 2, 2022. The notice also announced the May 3, 2022 City Council public hearing. At the time of this report, no comments had been received.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council can choose not to fund the proposed activities recommended by staff and allocate CDBG or HOME funds to other eligible activities. The City Council can also direct staff to not submit the Action Plan; however, if the City does not submit the Action Plan, HOME funds will most likely be returned to the U.S. Treasury, and the City’sCDBG funds will be distributed proportionally among other Orange County jurisdictions that receive CDBG funds.

FISCAL REVIEW:

This action does not have a fiscal impact to the General Fund. For FY 2022-2023, the City receives an annual allocation of $1,137,737 in CDBG funds and $501,749 in HOME funds to fund the programs outlined above.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’sOffice has reviewed and approved this agenda report and the attached resolution

363
File #: 22-667 Meeting Date: 5/3/2022
The City Attorney’sOffice has reviewed and approved this agenda report and the attached resolution as to form.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item supports the following City Council goal:
· Diversify, stabilize and increase housing to reflect community needs.

CONCLUSION:

The draft 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan has been prepared according to HUD regulations and outlines how the City will utilize FY 2022-2023 CDBG and HOME funds to meet the objectives and goals of the federal CDBG and HOME programs and consistent with the City’sadopted five-year consolidated plan.

364
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-xx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF THE 2022 -2023

ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR THE APPLICATION AND EXPENDITURE OF

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AND HOME INVES TMENT

PARTNERSHIPS ACT FUNDS TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY FINDS AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa participates in the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (“HUD”) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and also participates in HUD’s Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME); and
WHEREAS, in order to receive annual allocations from these HUD programs, the City is required to prepare a five-year strategic plan outlining the use of the grants and strategic vision for affordable housing and community development in the City known as the Consolidated Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City’s current Consolidated Plan, was adopted on May 19, 2020, and will expire on June 30, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the federal regulations (Title 24 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91) delineate the required content of the Consolidated Plan, including an annual application and expenditure plan for CDBG and HOME funds, known as the Annual Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City is eligible to receive $1,137,737 in 2022-2023 CDBG funds, which can be used for social service grants, housing rehabilitation, public facilities and administration, and is also eligible to receive $501,749 in 2022-2023 HOME funds, which can be used for housing and administration as set forth in the 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan (Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, the City made the 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan available for the required 30-day public review period between April 2, 2022 and May 2, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City has published a notice of a public hearing for the 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan; and
365
Resolution No. 2022-xx Page 2 of 3

WHEREAS, in the 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan, the City has considered all public comments which have been received either in writing or at the public hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves the 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee, to submit the 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan to HUD and execute all certifications and assurances contained therein to approve minor changes and provide additional information as may be required.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby designates the City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee, as the City’s official representative to administer the programs and execute and submit all required agreements, certifications, and documents required by HUD. The City Council further authorizes the City Manager, or City Manager’s designee, to execute all subrecipient agreements with the nonprofit organizations receiving allocations of CDBG funds approved in the 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan.

366
Resolution No. 2022-xx Page 3 of 3

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of May 2022.

_____________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________ _____________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney

THIS PAGE IS RESERVED FOR THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss

CITY OF COSTA MESA )

I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2022-xx and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 3rd day of May 2022, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 3rd day of May 2022.

___________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk
367
ATTACHMENT 2

2022-2023 PUBLIC SERVICE GRANT APPLICATION SUMMARIES

HOMELESS SERVICES
Families Forward – Housing Program
Proposed Service: The program will provide housing and support services for homeless Costa Mesa families with children
Amount Requested: $25,000 for program staff
CM Residents to be Assisted: 24
Committee Recommendation: $25,000 (Avg rating 81.4 out of 100 pts/4th out of 8 applications) Mercy House – Costa Mesa Bridge Shelter
Proposed Service: Costa Mesa Bridge Shelter provides short-term shelter, supportive and housing navigation services for homeless individuals
Amount Requested: $25,000 for security services
CM Residents to be Assisted: 166
Committee Recommendation: $15,000 (Avg rating 97.4 out of 100 pts/1st out of 8 applications)

SENIOR SERVICES
Community SeniorServ – Meals on Wheels
Proposed Service: This senior meal program will provide home-delivered meals and quick assessment for homebound seniors to ensure health and safety Amount Requested: $15,000 for raw food costs
CM Residents to be Assisted: 35
Committee Recommendation: $15,000 (Avg rating 73.6 out of 100/5th out of 8 applications) Community SeniorServ – Lunch Café
Proposed Service: The program provides seniors with hot lunch 5 days per week at the Costa Mesa Senior Center. Using a “grab-n-go” program model during COVID-19 required closure of the Senior Center.

Amount Requested: $15,000 for raw food costs
CM Residents to be Assisted: 150
Committee Recommendation: $15,000 (Avg rating 73.0 out of 100/6th out of 8 applications)

YOUTH SERVICES
Project Hope Alliance – In—Place Case Management for Homeless CM Students Proposed Service: Wrap-around services for NMUSD students experiencing homelessness.

Fuds will be used to provide one-on-one case management, mentoring, tutoring, college and FAFSA application assistance, job search assistance, basic needs support like food.

Amount Requested: $30,000 for program staff salaries
CM Residents to be Assisted: 110
Committee Recommendation: $30,000 (Avg rating 92.2 out of 100/2nd out of 8 applications)

368

2022-2023 PUBLIC SERVICE GRANT APPLICATION SUMMARIES

Youth Employment Services (YES) – Comprehensive Youth Job Readiness Program Proposed Service: Program provides pre-employment counseling, mock interview skills training, job counseling, and job referrals for youth.

Amount Requested: $25,000 for program staff salaries
CM Residents to be Assisted: 300
Committee Recommendation: $25,000 (Avg rating 85.8 out of 100/3rd out of 8 applications) Trellis International – Labors of Love
Proposed Service: Will collectively identify neighbors in need in order to help them with manual labor projects.

Amount Requested: $30,000
CM Residents to be Assisted: 62
Committee Recommendation: $15,000 (Avg rating 63.8 out of 100/7th out of 8 applications)

DISABILITY SERVICES
Easterseals – Autism Diagnostic Services
Proposed Service: The program will provide autism diagnostic services to families who are uninsured, moderate- to low-income, and/or experiencing challenges securing a diagnostic assessment.

Amount Requested: $20,000
CM Residents to be Assisted: 10
Committee Recommendation: $0 (Ave rating 59.0 out of 100/8th out of 8 applications)

LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME SERVICES
Fair Housing Foundation – Fair Housing
Program (HUD-Required – Paid out of
Admin)

Proposed Service: Program will provide fair housing education, counseling and enforcement services in compliance with federal program regulations Amount Requested: $20,000 for program staff salaries and related program and admin costs CM Residents to be Assisted: 186
Committee Recommendation: $20,000 (Avg rating of 83.75 out of 100 pts/current provider) Orange County Fair Housing Council
Proposed Service: Program will provide fair housing education, counseling and enforcement services in compliance with federal program regulations Amount Requested: $18,500 for program staff salaries and related program and admin costs CM Residents to be Assisted: 590
Committee Recommendation: $0 (Avg rating of 86.75 out of 100 pts/ duplicate service)

369

CDBG 3-Year Funding History

370
ATTACHMENT 3

Executive Summary
AP-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b)

1. Introduction
The City of Costa Mesa is a recipient of federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnerships Grant (HOME) funds; these funds are awarded to the City by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). As a recipient of CDBG and HOME funds, the City must prepare a five-year strategic plan known as the Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan identifies and prioritizes housing and community needs and establishes five-year goals and objectives to address identified needs. The City's current Consolidated Plan was approved by the City Council on May 19, 2020 and covers Fiscal Year 2020-2021 through Fiscal Year 2024-2025.

The Annual action Plan is the component of the Consolidated Plan that is revised annually. It links the goals and objectives identified in the City's 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and the planned annual expenditure of CDBG and HOME funds over twelve months. The period covered by the 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan begins July 1, 2022, and ends June 30, 2023. The City refers to this time frame as a Fiscal Year (FY).

HUD funding for FY 2022-2023 has yet to be announced, However, for planning purposes, the City anticipates it will receive an allocation of $1,137,737 in CDBG funds and $501,749 in HOME funds for FY 2022-2023 based on the allocation awarded for FY 2021-2022. Consistent with HUD guidelines, once HUD announces CDBG and HOME awards for FY 2022-2023, the City will adjust the funding to equal the final grant awards. Additionally, $867,011 in prior year uncommitted CDBG funds and $2,218,058 in prior year HOME funds (combined uncommitted and program income) are available for programming.

Program income is generated by the repayment of prior funded housing rehabilitation loans and is available to fund eligible activities. The City will use CDBG resources to fund capital improvements (e.g., street improvements), code enforcement, social services, and program administration. HOME funds will be used to undertake owner-occupied housing rehabilitation, affordable rental housing and program administration.

2. Summarize the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan Based on an analysis of housing and community needs, market analysis, and input from the community, the following five-year goals and priorities asve been identified for implementation in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan:
371

Annual Action Plan
2022
2 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
 Goal 1: Housing Preservation - To provide decent and affordable housing through a variety of activities, including owner-occupied housing rehabilitation, code enforcement, and rental housing acquisition/rehabilitation
 Goal 2: Infrastructure and Facility Improvements - To enhance the suitability of the living environment through improvements to public infrastructures and facilities  Goal 3: Homeless Continuum of Care - To provide supportive services and housing assistance for those experiencing homelessness and near homelessness
 Goal 4: Public Social Service - To provide services for low- and moderate-income persons, and those with special needs, including fair housing services  Goal 5: Program Administration - To provide administration of the CDBG and HOME programs, ensuring effective and delivery of programs and services and complying with all HUD program requirements
Activities funded with CDBG and HOME funds will address the goals and objectives identified in the City's Consolidated Plan.

3. Evaluation of past performance
FY 2021-2022 (the current fiscal year) is the second year of the City's 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan cycle; year-end program accomplishments are not available at this time; however, one-year accomplishment data for FY 2020-2021 is available. This information is provided in table format as Attachment 1.

4. Summary of Citizen Participation Process and consultation process For the preparation of the 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan, the following opportunities for public participation were taken:
 Ad-hoc Housing and Public Services Grant Committee public meeting to receive input regarding public service needs and to prioritize funding for FY 2022-2023 public service grants (March 23, 2022)
 Public Notice – 30-day comment period and public hearing  Public Hearing – City Council Public Hearing to receive additional public input and to approve the FY 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan (May 3, 2022).

5. Summary of public comments
See Attachment 2.

6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them See Attachment 2.
372

Annual Action Plan
2022
3 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

7. Summary
The Action Plan serves to implement the Consolidated Plan objectives developed to address priority housing and community needs using federal resources (i.e., CDBG and HOME). The Annual Action Plan provides specific information regarding the resources and activities the City will utilize to address priority needs and specific objectives identified in the Consolidated Plan during 12 months. The 2022- 2023 Action Plan begins July 1, 2022, and ends June 30, 2023. The Annual Plan will also serve as the City's application to HUD for $1,137,737 in CDBG and $501,749 in HOME funds for FY 2022-2023.

Consistent with HUD guidelines, once HUD announces CDBG and HOME awards for FY 2022-2023, the City will adjust the funding to equal the final grant awards.

The Action Plan is also the expenditure plan for HUD grant funds, prior year grant funds, and anticipated program income resources.
373

Annual Action Plan
2022
4 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies – 91.200(b)

1. Agency/entity responsible for preparing/administering the Consolidated Plan Describe the agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source.

Agency Role Name Department/Agency

CDBG Administrator COSTA MESA Housing & Community Dev/Development Services HOME Administrator COSTA MESA Housing & Community Dev/Development Services Table 1 – Responsible Agencies

Narrative (optional)
The City's Housing and Community Development (HCD) Division of the Development Services Department is primarily responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, and for the administration of CDBG and HOME funds.

Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information
Mikelle Daily, Grant Administrator: 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 (714) 754-5678 - [email protected] 374

Annual Action Plan
2022
5 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l)

1. Introduction
The Annual Action Plan preparation process requires jurisdictions to contact and consult with other public and private agencies and residents when developing respective plans. For the FY 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan, the City consulted with the public and private agencies listed below. Also listed below are the steps taken by the City to solicit the input of community residents.

Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(l))
The City of Costa Mesa does not own or manage public housing. Similarly, the City does not administer the Housing Choice Voucher or Section 8 Certificate rental assistance programs. The rental assistance voucher/certificate programs are administered in the City of Costa Mesa by the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA). The City is a member of the OCHA Cities Advisory Committee, which provides OCHA staff with direct input regarding program policies.

The City's Network for Homeless Solutions (NHS) is a task force comprised of representatives of various City departments, nonprofit service agencies, and representatives of faith-based service providers. The main focus of the NHS is to find workable solutions to address the needs of the homeless, especially those with close ties to Costa Mesa. Additionally, the City works closely with other Orange County HUD- grantee communities to develop regional plans and share program management data.

Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness.

Since 2014, the Network for Homeless Solutions (NHS) has directly addressed homeless issues in Costa Mesa. As outlined above, the NHS is a working group of City staff, representatives of service providers, and faith-based organizations. The NHS is focused on establishing direct links to services for the homeless, especially those with strong ties to Costa Mesa, facilitating access to services and housing options. The NHS also serves as a liaison to the business community and resident groups.

Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards for and evaluate outcomes of projects and activities assisted by ESG funds, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the operation and administration of HMIS 375

Annual Action Plan
2022
6 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
The City is not a recipient of Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds; therefore, it does not assist the OC CoC with determining ESG allocations, evaluating the outcomes, or developing policies and procedures for administering the regional Homeless Management Information System (HMIS).

2. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdiction’s consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities
376

Annual Action Plan
2022
7 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Table 2 – Agencies, groups, organizations who participated 1 Agency/Group/Organization Orange County Housing Authority Agency/Group/Organization Type PHA
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Public Housing Needs
Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was
consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Provided data regarding households receiving HUD rental assistance and regarding households on the waitlist for housing assistance 2 Agency/Group/Organization City of Costa Mesa
Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing
Services-homeless
Other government - Local
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homelessness Strategy
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Anti-poverty Strategy
Lead-based Paint Strategy
Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was
consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Various City departments, commissions, and City Council provided a variety of data and information. Also played a key role in identifying priorities and the allocation of HUD funds
3 Agency/Group/Organization 211 Orange County
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-homeless
377

Annual Action Plan
2022
8 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homelessness Needs - Veterans
Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth
Homelessness Strategy
Homeless Management Information System (HMIS)
Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was
consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Provided data regarding regional homeless, housing/service gaps for homeless, and HMIS management
4 Agency/Group/Organization Fair Housing Foundation
Agency/Group/Organization Type Service-Fair Housing
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Impediments to Fair Housing Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was
consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Provided data regarding fair housing issues in the community and input regarding impediments to fair housing, and assisted in developing action steps to address impediments to fair housing 5 Agency/Group/Organization Mercy House Transitional Living Centers Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-homeless
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homelessness Strategy
Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was
consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Agency assisted with the development of the City's homeless strategy and implementation of service/housing programs to assist those experiencing homelessness and those at risk of becoming homeless 6 Agency/Group/Organization Families Forward
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-homeless
378

Annual Action Plan
2022
9 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Homeless Needs - Families with children Homelessness Strategy
Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was
consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Agency helped identify needs and assisted with the implementation of the City's homeless service/housing strategy with a focus on families with children experiencing homelessness
7 Agency/Group/Organization Project Hope Alliance
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-Children
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Youth Services Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was
consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Agency helped identify the needs of school-age children 8 Agency/Group/Organization Youth Employment Services
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-Employment
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Economic Development Youth Services
Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was
consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Agency helped identify needs and provided input regarding the City's youth, specifically employment needs/opportunities for youth age 16 to 24
9 Agency/Group/Organization Community SeniorServ, Inc.

Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-Elderly Persons What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs Anti-poverty Strategy
379

Annual Action Plan
2022
10 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was
consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Agency helped identify needs and provided input regarding the City's special needs populations, specifically seniors and frail elderly

Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting The City made an effort to have an open consultation process. No agency/service type was knowingly excluded from the process.

Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Continuum of Care Orange County 211
Provides regional and local point in time homeless survey data, development of the regional 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness, and development of the regional Discharge Plan
City of Costa Mesa
Housing Element City of Costa Mesa Provides housing priorities and program goals City of Costa Mesa Capital
Improvement Plan City of Costa Mesa Identifies priority capital improvement projects which may be CDBG-eligible 5-Yr. & 1-Yr. PHA Plan Orange County Housing
Authority
Identifies OCHA resources to address the housing needs of lower-income renter householders in the County and City
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing
Orange County HUD Grantee
Cities and the County of Orange
Countywide document that identifies fair housing impediments within participating cities and outlines a plan to address fair housing issues Table 3 – Other local / regional / federal planning efforts

Narrative (optional)

380

Annual Action Plan
2022
11 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-12 Participation – 91.105, 91.200(c)

1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting

Citizen Participation Outreach
Sort Order Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of response/attendance
Summary of
comments received
Summary of comments
not accepted
and reasons
URL (If
applicable)
1 Public Meeting
Non-
targeted/broad
community
Housing and Public
Services Grant
Committee - 9
committee members
and 1 alternate,
discussed priority
public service needs
(3/23/22)
10 individuals
spoke in support of
grant applications
submitted for CDBG
funding
None NA
2 Newspaper Ad
Non-English
Speaking - Specify
other language:

Spanish

Non-
targeted/broad
community
30-day public
comment period
(4/2/22-5/2/22)
See Attachment 2 NA NA
381

Annual Action Plan
2022
12 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Sort Order Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of response/attendance
Summary of
comments received
Summary of comments
not accepted
and reasons
URL (If
applicable)
3 Public Hearing
Non-
targeted/broad
community
5/3/22 Regular City
Council Meeting See Attachment 2 NA NA
Table 4 – Citizen Participation Outreach
382

Annual Action Plan
2022
13 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Expected Resources
AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c)(1,2)
Introduction
HUD funding for FY 2022-2023 has yet to be announced, However, for planning purposes, the City anticipates it will receive an allocation of $1,137,737 in CDBG funds and $501,749 in HOME funds for FY 2022-2023 based on the allocation awarded for FY 2021-2022. Consistent with HUD guidelines, once HUD announces CDBG and HOME awards for FY 2022-2023, the City will adjust the funding to equal the final grant awards.

Additionally, $867,011 in prior year uncommitted CDBG funds and $2,218,058 in prior year HOME uncommitted and program income funds are available for programming. The City's application for funds is in the federal Standard Form 424 (SF-424).

Fluctuations in CDBG and HOME funding make it difficult to estimate the amount available over the five years of the Consolidated Plan. With the loss of redevelopment funding, the only anticipated funds that may be available to implement the Consolidated Plan are the general fund and 383

Annual Action Plan
2022
14 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Housing Authority (former redevelopment successor agency) for homeless services and housing voucher/certificate resources via OCHA.

Anticipated Resources
Program Source of
Funds
Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount
Available
Remainder
of ConPlan
$
Narrative Description
Annual
Allocation:
$
Program
Income: $
Prior Year
Resources:
$
Total:
$
CDBG public -
federal
Acquisition
Admin and Planning
Economic
Development
Housing
Public
Improvements
Public Services 1,137,737 0 867,011 2,004,748 2,000,000 Annual CDBG allocation from
HUD and prior year funds
HOME public -
federal
Acquisition
Homebuyer
assistance
Homeowner rehab
Multifamily rental
new construction
Multifamily rental
rehab
New construction
for ownership
TBRA 501,749 1,454,658 763,400 2,719,807 1,000,000
Annual HOME allocation from
HUD, prior year funds and
prior year program income
Table 5 - Expected Resources – Priority Table

384

Annual Action Plan
2022
15 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied
For the foreseeable future, the City will continue to allocate General Fund and the local Housing Authority (as the City's Successor Agency) resources for homeless services. Additionally, the City has a partnership with Newport Beach to support the ongoing operations of the Bridge Shelter that was previously vacant warehouse in 2019. Primarily CDBG funding was used for the rehabilitation of the warehouse in 2019.

The City also has a small CalHome owner-occupied housing rehabilitation loan program. CalHome-funded rehab loans are leveraged with HOME funds, which provides a source of match for the City's HOME program. If available, the City will use CalHome to fund rehab loans during FY 2022- 2023. The CDBG program does not have a match requirement. 385

Annual Action Plan
2022
16 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
If appropriate, describe publically owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan Costa Mesa is considered a built-out community with little vacant land available for new development.

The City has begun to recycle land to accommodate growth. The City's Housing Element identifies City- owned properties and considers various options for the sites. Development opportunities are identified in the Housing element and are mirrored in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan.

In 2019, the City utilized over $6,000,000 in non-HUD funds to purchase a property that has been rehabilitated to provide 70 emergency shelter beds for adult men and women experiencing homelessness. The addition of these shelter beds help address priority needs identified in the City's Consolidated Plan.

Discussion
Funding resources to implement the City's 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan are limited. For FY 2022-2023, the City will receive $1,137,737 in CDBG funding and $501,749 in HOME funding. Prior year funds for CDBG and HOME are also available. HOME housing rehabilitation loan repayments have provided the City with additional funding; however, this source of revenue is susceptible to the fluctuations of the economy and is unpredictable.

The City will also continue to support OCHA's efforts to secure new rental assistance resources. For the foreseeable future the City will continue to support homeless service programs serving individuals with strong ties to Costa Mesa with local funds. City, State and funds from Newport Beach have been used to repurpose a commercial warehouse into a 1200-bed bridge shelter. Local and Newport Beach funds will be used to operate the shelter.
386

Annual Action Plan
2022
17 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

387

Annual Action Plan
2022
18 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Annual Goals and Objectives

AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives
Goals Summary Information
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
1 Housing
Preservation
2020 2024 Affordable
Housing
Citywide Housing
Preservation
HOME:
$2,669,630
CDBG:
$377,498
Rental units rehabilitated: 1
Household Housing Unit
Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated:
11 Household Affordable Rental
Housing: 1 Housing Unit
Housing Code
Enforcement/Foreclosed Property
Care: 200 Household Housing Unit
2 Infrastructure and
Facility
Improvements
2020 2024 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Citywide
CDBG
Eligible
Areas
Public Facilities
and
Infrastructure
CDBG:
$1,229,703
Public Facility or Infrastructure
Activities other than Low/Moderate
Income Housing Benefit: 11,000
Persons Assisted
3 Homeless
Continuum of
Care
2020 2024 Homeless Citywide Homeless
Services and
Housing
CDBG:
$40,000
Rental Assistance: 4 Household
Homeless service activities as Public
Services: 190 Persons Assisted
4 Public Social
Services
2020 2024 Non-Homeless
Special Needs
Citywide Public Services CDBG:
$130,000
Public service activities other than
Low/Moderate Income Housing
Benefit: 1100 Persons Assisted
388

Annual Action Plan
2022
19 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
5 Program
Administration
2020 2024 Program
Administration
Citywide Program
Administration
CDBG:
$227,547
HOME:
$50,174
N/A
Table 6 – Goals Summary

Goal Descriptions

1 Goal Name Housing Preservation
Goal
Description
To provide decent and affordable housing through a variety of activities, including owner-occupied housing rehabilitation, code enforcement, and rental housing acquisition/rehabilitation 2 Goal Name Infrastructure and Facility Improvements
Goal
Description
To enhance the suitability of the living environment through improvements to public infrastructures and facilities 3 Goal Name Homeless Continuum of Care
Goal
Description
To provide supportive services and housing assistance for the homeless and near homeless 4 Goal Name Public Social Services
Goal
Description
To provide services for low- and moderate-income persons and those with special needs, including fair housing services 389

Annual Action Plan
2022
20 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
5 Goal Name Program Administration
Goal
Description
To provide administration of the CDBG and HOME programs, ensuring effective and efficient delivery of programs and services and complying with all HUD program requirements

390

Annual Action Plan
2022
21 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Projects
AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d)
Introduction
FY 2022-2023 CDBG and HOME funding are allocated for the 16 activities listed below.

Projects
# Project Name
1 Housing Rehabilitation
2 Home Administration
3 CHDO Housing
4 Housing Rehabilitation Administration
5 Special Housing Code Enforcement
6 City of Costa Mesa Senior Social Services
7 Community SeniorServ Meal Programs
8 Fair Housing
9 Families Forward
10 Project Hope Alliance
11 Mercy House Bridge Shelter
12 Youth Employment Services
13 Trellis International
14 Westside Street Improvements Project
15 Wilson Street Rehab Project (phase 2)
16 CDBG Administration
Table 7 - Project Information

Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs
The City recognizes that special needs populations (i.e., seniors, disabled, and households with extremely low-income) are more likely at risk to become homeless because they have limited incomes and have other issues that require housing and supportive services; therefore, the City considers services for those already homeless is considered a high need to merit funding. 391

Annual Action Plan
2022
22 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-38 Project Summary
Project Summary Information
392

Annual Action Plan
2022
23 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
1 Project Name Housing Rehabilitation
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Housing Preservation
Needs Addressed Housing Preservation
Funding HOME: $275,000
Description HOME funds for owner-occupied housing rehabilitation loans and grants.

Target Date 6/30/23
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the
proposed activities
11 low- and moderate- income homeowners (1 loan and 10 grants) Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities Housing rehabilitation loans and grants to address deferred property improvements and building code deficiencies
2 Project Name Home Administration
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Program Administration
Needs Addressed Planning and Administration
Funding HOME: $50,174
Description HOME funds for program oversight and coordination Target Date 6/30/23
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the
proposed activities
N/A
Location Description 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA
Planned Activities HOME Program oversight and coordination 3 Project Name CHDO Housing
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Housing Preservation
Needs Addressed Housing Preservation
Funding HOME: $75,262
Description HOME-CHDO funds reserved for eligible housing project (to be determined)
Target Date 6/30/23
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the
proposed activities
1 housing unit – Goal entered for data input purposes only Location Description TBD
Planned Activities TBD
4 Project Name Housing Rehabilitation Administration
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Housing Preservation
Needs Addressed Housing Preservation
393

Annual Action Plan
2022
24 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Funding CDBG: $41,688
Description CDBG funds staff costs associated with the direct delivery of owner- occupied housing rehabilitation loans and grants
Target Date 6/30/23
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the
proposed activities
N/A – The number of households to be assisted is accounted for under the HOME program – this activity is to pay for a portion of the administrative expenses associated with the HOME-funded Housing Rehabilitation Program
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities Staff costs associated with the delivery of housing rehabilitation loans and grants
5 Project Name Special Housing Code Enforcement
Target Area CDBG Eligible Areas
Goals Supported Housing Preservation
Needs Addressed Housing Preservation
Funding CDBG: $335,810
Description Enforcement of housing and building codes
Target Date 6/30/2023
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the
proposed activities
200 housing units
Location Description 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA – City Hall Planned Activities Inspection and enforcement of housing and building codes 6 Project Name City of Costa Mesa Senior Social Services Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Public Social Services
Needs Addressed Public Services
Funding CDBG: $30,000
Description Counseling and case management for seniors
Target Date 6/30/23
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the
proposed activities
250 Seniors
Location Description Program available citywide but based out of the Costa Mesa Senior Center located at 695 W. 19th Street, Costa Mesa, CA
Planned Activities Counseling and case management for seniors 7 Project Name Community SeniorServ Meal Programs
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Public Social Services
Needs Addressed Public Services
Funding $30,000
Description Funding for congregate meals and Costa Mesa senior Center and home-delivered meals
Target Date 6/30/23
394

Annual Action Plan
2022
25 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the
proposed activities
185 Seniors
Location Description 695 W. 19th Street, Costa Mesa, CA (Costa Mesa Senior Center) and Citywide
Planned Activities Weekday senior lunch Costa Mesa Senior Center or grab-n-go program and home delivered meals for homebound seniors
8 Project Name Fair Housing
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Public Social Services
Needs Addressed Public Services
Funding CDBG: $20,000
Description Fair housing outreach, education and enforcement services Target Date 6/30/23
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the
proposed activities
186 individuals
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities Community outreach, education, and enforcement of fair housing laws
9 Project Name Families Forward
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Homeless Continuum of Care
Needs Addressed Homeless Services and Housing
Funding CDBG: $25,000
Description Rapid rehousing and support services for families with minor-aged children that are experiencing financial instability or homelessness Target Date 6/30/23
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the
proposed activities
26 individuals
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities
Funds to support families with minor-aged children to transition from crisis to financial stability and self-sufficiency. Services include housing, counseling, career coaching, life-skills education, access to our food pantry, and assistance with childcare
10 Project Name Project Hope Alliance
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Public Social Services
Needs Addressed Public Services
Funding CDBG: $30,000
Description Case management for students (K to 12) experiencing homelessness
395

Annual Action Plan
2022
26 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Target Date 6/30/23
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the
proposed activities
200 youth
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities
One-on-one case management, mentoring, tutoring, college and FAFSA application assistance, job search assistance, and basic needs support (food, clothing and hygiene kits) for students from Kindergarten to age 24
11 Project Name Mercy House Bridge Shelter
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Homeless Continuum of Care
Needs Addressed Homeless Services and Housing
Funding CDBG: $15,000
Description
Mercy House operates the Costa Mesa Bridge Shelter, which provides shelter, supportive services, and housing navigation services to homeless men and women living on the streets of Costa Mesa
Target Date 6/30/23
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the
proposed activities
166 homeless individuals
Location Description 3175 Airway Ave., Costa Mesa, CA
Planned Activities Funds will be used to cover a portion of shelter operations 12 Project Name Youth Employment Services
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Public Social Services
Needs Addressed Public Services
Funding CDBG: $25,000
Description
Comprehensive employment training and support for low-income Costa Mesa youth – the Comprehensive Youth Job Readiness Program helps youth find and keep a job by providing job readiness training, employment search, and ongoing support services Target Date 6/30/23
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the
proposed activities
300 youth
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities
CDBG grants funds will be used to support the salaries of the Youth Job Readiness Program staff, which implement all components of the program and work directly with youth to help prepare them for successful employment
13 Project Name Trellis International
396

Annual Action Plan
2022
27 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Public Social Services
Needs Addressed Public Services
Funding CDBG: $15,000
Description
Target Date 6/30/23
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the
proposed activities

Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities
14 Project Name Westside Street Improvements Project
Target Area CDBG Target Area
Goals Supported Infrastructure and facility Improvements Needs Addressed Public Facilities and Infrastructure
Funding $600,000
Description Street pavement rehabilitation
Target Date 6/30/23
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the
proposed activities
5,000 individuals
Location Description Census Tract: 638.03 Block Groups: 3 & 4 Planned Activities
Rehabilitation of street pavement includes repairing existing sidewalks, wheelchair ramps, driveways, and curb gutter to meet City and ADA standards; reconstruction of failed pavement; grind and overlay pavement with rubberized asphalt; and upgraded striping that includes bike lanes
15 Project Name Wilson Street Improvements Project (Phase 2) Target Area CDBG Target Area
Goals Supported Infrastructure and facility Improvements Needs Addressed Public Facilities and Infrastructure
Funding $600,000
Description Street pavement rehabilitation
Target Date 6/30/23
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the
proposed activities
Per HUD data, 6,155 individuals live in project area Block Groups – 4,050 are reported as low- income (65.8% low-moderate service area)
Location Description Census Tract: 639.05 Block Groups: 2 & 3 Census Tract: 639.06 Block Groups: 1 & 2
397

Annual Action Plan
2022
28 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Planned Activities
Rehabilitation of street pavement includes repairing existing sidewalks, wheelchair ramps, driveways, and curb gutter to meet City and ADA standards; reconstruction of failed pavement; grind and overlay pavement with rubberized asphalt; and upgraded striping that includes bike lanes
16 Project Name CDBG Administration
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Program Administration
Needs Addressed Planning and Administration
Funding CDBG: $207,547
Description CDBG Program oversight
Target Date 6/30/23
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the
proposed activities
N/A
Location Description 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA
Planned Activities Program oversight and coordination
398

Annual Action Plan
2022
29 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f)
Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low-income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed Activities slated for CDBG-funding during FY 2022-2023 will be available on a citywide basis to income- eligible individuals (i.e., limited clientele) and in areas of the City with high percentages of lower-income residents. A map of the City's CDBG Eligible Areas provides a view of the areas where CDBG resources can be focused via "area-wide” activities (see Attachment 3). Table 10 indicates the majority of the City's CDBG funds will be focused on a citywide basis. All HOME funds will be available on a citywide basis (not included in Table 10).

Geographic Distribution
Target Area Percentage of Funds
Citywide 68
CDBG Eligible Areas 32
Table 8 - Geographic Distribution

Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically HUD funding will primarily be allocated on a citywide basis as the City's primary intent is to serve eligible Costa Mesa households in need of housing and services regardless of where they live. As the City's CDBG-eligible areas tend to be older sections of the City, area-wide activities will help to improve and sustain these neighborhoods and encourage property owners to also invest in their properties.

Discussion
As indicated above, CDBG and HOME funds will be focused on programs that serve eligible residents regardless of where they live. It is also expected that the City's investment in neighborhoods will create a synergy whereby other property owners will also invest in their homes and community.

399

Annual Action Plan
2022
30 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Affordable Housing
AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g)
Introduction
During FY 2022-2023, proposed activities to be funded with CDBG and HOME funds will meet the housing meeds of the following households.

One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported Homeless 4
Non-Homeless 11
Special-Needs 0
Total 15
Table 9 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement

One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through Rental Assistance 4
The Production of New Units 0
Rehab of Existing Units 11
Acquisition of Existing Units 0
Total 15
Table 10 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type

Discussion
The City will focus FY 2022-2023 HOME funds on the rehabilitation of existing owner-occupied housing units and affordable housing. While not the program's primary focus, some special-needs households (seniors and disabled) may be assisted during the year via the City's Housing Rehabilitation Program.

In an effort to preserve and increase affordable housing opportunities for lower income households, the City will be soliciting applications for funding and/or selecting developers, service providers, subrecipients and/or contractors by issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the development of permanent affordable rental housing in the City using HOME Program funds. The RFP will include program income and prior year uncommitted HOME program funds.

FY 2022-2023 HOME CHDO funds are included in the Annual Action Plan; however, no specific project has been identified at this time. It is anticipated that OCHA will continue to provide rental assistance to approximately 570 Costa Mesa renter households.

400

Annual Action Plan
2022
31 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h)
Introduction
Costa Mesa does not own or manage public housing.

Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing Not applicable.

Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership
Not applicable.

If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be provided or other assistance
Not applicable.

Discussion
Not applicable.
401

Annual Action Plan
2022
32 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i) Introduction
As outlined in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, the City's homeless strategy is to support programs that prevent homelessness by providing safety net services. These programs will help households, especially extremely low-income households, maximize the amount of income they have available for housing.

Additionally, both HUD and City resources will be allocated to provide access to a continuum of services and housing to assist those already homeless and with strong ties to the community.

Describe the jurisdictions one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including
Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs
Approximately $1,000,000 in General Fund and Housing Authority (former Redevelopment Agency) resources will be allocated to provide direct outreach services for chronic and situational homeless.

Services include engagement, assessment and linkages to appropriate services and housing. City-paid social workers and community volunteers will provide services. No FY 2022-2023 CDBG funds will be allocated to provide similar outreach services.

Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons There is a shortage of year-round emergency shelter beds in the County. In March, 2019 the City Council authorized the purchase of a property to create a 70-bed emergency shelter for single, adult men and women experiencing homelessness. Non-HUD resources were utilized for this purchase. The City has utilized CDBG funds to repurpose a warehouse into a shelter facility. Improvements include construction of dormitories, shower/bath facilities, food service, and dining areas, storage, and office space.

FY 2022-2023 CDBG funding is allocated to support operations at the City's bridge shelter; no FY 2022- 2023 CDBG funding is allocated for transitional housing.

Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again
FY 2022-2023 CDBG funding is allocated for rapid rehousing. This “housing first” program model places a household experiencing homelessness directly into an affordable housing unit and provides appropriate 402

Annual Action Plan
2022
33 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
supporting service to establish housing stability. For FY 22-23, $25,000 in CDBG funding will be allocated to Families Forward to rehouse 24 individuals rapidly.

Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs.

The City's homeless strategy is based on the proposition that it is less expensive and disruptive for a household to remain housed in their existing home than to be rehoused. To this end, the City will focus its resources on agencies that provide various safety-net services to prevent households from becoming homeless. The City will support programs that provide low-cost meals, counseling, and employment/job skills development services for lower-income individuals. Safety-net services allow households to save a portion of income previously spent on food, clothes, etc. and preserve their housing.

Discussion
The City has a well-developed strategy to address homelessness in the community. This strategy includes outreach and assessment services for homeless and chronic homeless individuals. Program staff will attempt to link individuals to appropriate housing, support services, and public assistance programs (e.g., VA benefits, SSI). To undertake this effort, the City partners with local nonprofit service providers and community-based volunteers. Based on assessments, individuals or households are referred to appropriate housing/service providers. City staff will coordinate the delivery of services and housing with providers to reduce the number of homeless individuals in the community. Both HUD and City funds will be used to carry out these activities, including emergency shelter and rapid rehousing.

403

Annual Action Plan
2022
34 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-75 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.220(j)
Introduction:

A strategy to address barriers to affordable housing and actions to overcome these barriers is provided in the City's Housing Element and Consolidated Plan. The City will continue efforts to address these barriers during the 2022-2023 Program Year.

Actions it planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment
According to the City's Housing Element, governmental agencies' actions or policies can impact the private sector's ability to provide adequate housing to meet consumer demands. Local governments exercise regulatory and approval powers that directly impact residential development within their respective jurisdiction. These powers establish the location, intensity, and type of units that may or may not be developed. The City's General Plan, zoning regulations, project review and approval procedures, development, and processing fees all play important roles in determining the cost and availability of housing opportunities in Costa Mesa.
 General Plan and Zoning: The Costa Mesa General Plan and Zoning Ordinance establish the location and amount of land allocated to residential development and the intensity of development (in terms of unit densities and the total number of units) that will be permitted.

Densities and other development standards can drive the cost of developing housing and thus the ultimate cost.
 Local Entitlement Processing and Fees: Two aspects of local government that have been criticized as placing undue burdens on building affordable housing are the fees or other exactions required of developers to obtain project approval and the time delays caused by the review and approval process. Critics contend that lengthy review periods increase financial and carrying costs and that fees and exactions increase expenses. These costs are typically passed onto the prospective homebuyer in the form of higher purchase prices or higher rents in the case of tenants.
 Processing Procedures: The time required to process a project varies tremendously from one project to another and is directly related to the size and complexity of the proposal and the number of actions or approvals needed to complete the process.  Planning and Development Fees: The developer is required to pay certain fees for only the net increase of residential units on site. Fees, land dedications, or improvements are also required in public improvements (streets, sewers, and storm drains) to support the new development. Fees are based on the significance of the necessary public works improvements, thus vary from project to project. While such costs are charged to the developer, most, if not all, additional costs are passed to the ultimate product consumer in the form of higher prices or rents. Various 404

Annual Action Plan
2022
35 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
governmental agencies also charge fees depending on the service and the location of the project  On/Off-Site Improvement Standards: Costs associated with site improvements are an important component of new residential development costs. Site improvement costs are applied to provide sanitary sewer and water service to a project, make necessary transportation improvements, and provide the infrastructure. The City may require the payment for various offsite improvements as part of project mitigation measures (e.g., payment toward an offsite traffic signal). The City's on- and off-site improvement requirements are typical for urban development in a highly developed community. While these improvements add to housing costs, they do not constrain housing development as these improvements are similarly required in all surrounding communities.

If available, subsidies may also be provided for qualified, affordable housing projects (e.g., HOME funds).

There is no local tax.

Discussion:

The City's Housing Element outlines the City's plan to address barriers to affordable housing. The Consolidated Plan mirrors the Housing Element, which provides incentives to developers willing to dedicate developed units for lower-income households.
405

Annual Action Plan
2022
36 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k)
Introduction:

As outlined in the City's Consolidated Plan, the City will implement the following actions during FY 2022- 2023 to address the "Other Actions" or sub-strategies identified in the Consolidated Plan.

Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs The City will allocate a portion of its CDBG and HOME funds for activities that address the housing and service needs of the elderly and lower-income households. Additionally, the City will encourage and support OCHA's efforts to obtain additional rental assistance funding, especially for senior and low- income households. OCHA reports that as of January 2022, 392 Costa Mesa households received rental housing assistance. (This total includes disabled households, elderly households, and families, among these populations are 11 homeless and 24 Veterans households). The City's housing rehabilitation program will also assist elderly homeowners in improving their residences to address specific household needs.

Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing The City of Costa Mesa has identified the actions it will undertake during FY 2022-2023 to foster and maintain affordable housing. The Annual Action Plan identified programs such as Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation assistance as the means to maintain and improve housing currently available to low- and moderate-income residents. By providing deferred payment loans and grants, lower-income households can rehabilitation their residence to meet basic housing quality standards and incur zero or minimal additional housing costs. An estimated 11 housing units will be assisted with HOME funds during FY 2022-2023 additionally, the City has allocated HOME CHDO funds to accommodate a potential housing project.

Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards
Based on past housing rehabilitation program statistics, only a small percentage of housing units rehabilitated with City resources contain lead-paint hazards. To ensure compliance with all current HUD lead-based paint regulations, all housing units constructed before 1978, which are rehabbed with City resources, will be tested for lead-paint hazards. If needed, additional grant funds may be allocated to a project to ensure all lead-based hazards are mitigated.

Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families The City will assist programs and services that combat poverty. During FY 2022-2023, the City will fund 406

Annual Action Plan
2022
37 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
the following activities to support the implementation of this strategy:
 Implement housing programs (including housing rehabilitation assistance) for lower-income senior and disabled homeowners
 Support rental assistance programs provided by the OCHA for very low-income renters  Support services for individuals presently housed but at risk of losing their residence. Also, assist those already homeless in need of shelter and continue coordinating services with nonprofit partners
 Support safety-net public services programs to improve the quality of life for seniors, youth, disabled, homeless, and other populations that may be severely impacted by the cost of living in the region
Actions planned to develop institutional structure
The City has made an effort to establish an institutional structure to help identify and access resources to improve the community. For example, the City will continue to work with nonprofit entities to deliver public services. As a member of the Orange County Continuum of Care Community Forum, The City will provide critical information to the County of Orange to prepare the County's Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance grant application to HUD. Costa Mesa will also continue to fund activities that help address gaps and needs in the regional system of care. Finally, the City will continue to assist the Orange County Housing Authority in implementing its Five-year PHA plan.

Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies
The City of Costa Mesa does not operate public housing. The Orange County Housing Authority provides rental assistance in the community. Federal legislation requires that the Housing Authority prepare a five-year and a one-year plan that highlights its mission, goals and objectives related to public and assisted housing programs. The City will review the Authority's plans and provide OCHA the opportunity to review and consult with the City regarding its Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plan. The goal of this cross-consultation is to provide consistent and coordinated housing services for City residents. Ongoing consultation with local nonprofits also assists the City in coordinating the efficient and effective use of limited federal resources.

Discussion:

HUD-funded grant recipients are required under various laws not to discriminate in housing or services directly or indirectly based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, familial status or disability.

Grant recipients such as Costa Mesa are required to: (1) examine and attempt to alleviate housing discrimination within their jurisdiction; (2) promote fair housing choices for all persons; (3) provide opportunities for all persons to reside in any given housing development, regardless of race, color, 407

Annual Action Plan
2022
38 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
religion, sex, disability, familial status, national origin, and other personal or familial attributes; (4) promote housing that is accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities; (5) and comply with the non-discrimination requirements of the Fair Housing Act. HUD encourages jurisdictions to consult with one another and initiate region-wide fair housing planning. The Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice is the primary document utilized for this purpose. In addition to identifying impediments, a strategy to overcome barriers much be developed and implemented - accomplishments are reported annually. The City participated in developing a county-wide AI, which the City Council adopted in May 2020. A summary of impediments to fair housing and the action steps the City will take during FY 2022-2023 are found in Attachment 4.
408

Annual Action Plan
2022
39 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Program Specific Requirements
AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1,2,4)
Introduction:

Each HUD program that is covered by the Consolidated Plan regulations must address certain program- specific requirements. Below are the program requirements for the CDBG and HOME programs.

Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(1)
Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in projects to be carried out.

1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed 0

2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan. 0

3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements 0

4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan 0

5. The amount of income from float-funded activities 0
Total Program Income: 0

Other CDBG Requirements

1. The amount of urgent need activities 0

2. The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate income. Overall Benefit - A consecutive period of one, two or three years may be used to determine that a minimum overall benefit of 70% of CDBG funds is used to benefit persons of low and moderate income. Specify the years covered that include this Annual Action Plan. 100.00%

HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(2)

1. A description of other forms of investment being used beyond those identified in Section 92.205 is 409

Annual Action Plan
2022
40 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
as follows:

The City is not proposing to utilize HOME funds in a form that is not delineated in Section 92.205.

2. A description of the guidelines that will be used for resale or recapture of HOME funds when used for homebuyer activities as required in 92.254, is as follows:

The City has not and does not plan to utilize HOME funds for homebuyer assistance; however, if funds are redirected to such a program, steps will be taken to ensure program guidelines comply with the applicable resale and recapture regulations.

3. A description of the guidelines for resale or recapture that ensures the affordability of units acquired with HOME funds? See 24 CFR 92.254(a)(4) are as follows:

If a CHDO project comes to fruition, the applicable loan agreement(s) will be prepared to comply with the resale/recapture requirements delineated in 24 CFR 92.254.

4. Plans for using HOME funds to refinance existing debt secured by multifamily housing that is rehabilitated with HOME funds along with a description of the refinancing guidelines required that will be used under 24 CFR 92.206(b), are as follows:

If a CHDO project comes to fruition, program staff will ensure that all applicable program policies are followed, including establishing refinancing guidelines.

Discussion
The City will meet the CDBG Program's overall 70% benefit for low- and moderate-income requirement over three program years: 2020-2021, 2021-2022, and 2022-2023.

With respect to HOME affordable homeownership limits for the area (i.e., 95 percent of the median area purchase price as set forth in 24 CFR 92.254(a)(2)(iii), the City will utilize HUD’s HOME affordable homeownership limits for its HOME-funded mobile home rehabilitation program. For single-family, owner-occupied housing rehabilitation, the City conducted a survey in order to establish a maximum property value that is reflective of the local market median home purchase prices, which exceed HUD’s published limit. This information is provided as Attachment 5. 410
ATTACHMENT 4
Grantee Name: City of Costa Mesa
Source of
Funds Year Performance
Indicators
Expected
Number
Actual
Number
Percent
Completed
2020 Housing Units 10 5 50.00%
50 5 10.00%
2020 Housing Units 1 0 0.00%
5 0 0.00%
2020 Housing Units 0 0 0.0%
0 0 0.00%
2020 Housing Units 250 233 93.20%
1,250 233 18.64%
Source of
Funds Year Performance
Indicators
Expected
Number
Actual
Number
Percent
Completed
2020 Individuals 430 580 134.88%
2,500 580 23.20%
2020 Individuals 350 236 67.43%
1,250 236 18.88%
2020 Individuals 192 173 90.10%
750 173 23.07%
2020 Individuals A 1,500 0 0.00%
7,500 0 0.00%
2020 Individuals C 500 0 0.00%
2,500 0 0.00%
Source of
Funds Year Performance
Indicators
Expected
Number
Actual
Number
Percent
Completed
2020 Individuals *
350 236 67.43%

NA NA NA
Source of
Funds Year Performance
Indicators
Expected
Number
Actual
Number
Percent
Completed
2020 Individuals 30 0 0.00%
150 0 0.00%
2020 Individuals 230 115 0.00%
250 115 46.00%
2020 Individuals 26 31 119.23%
100 31 31.00%
Source of
Funds Year Performance
Indicators
Expected
Number
Actual
Number
Percent
Completed
2020 Year of Admin 1 1 100.00%
5 1 20.00%
Services to assist lower income families with children by providing access to youth programs and services at reduced or no cost.

Services that assist low and moderate-income households and individuals with safety net services such as access to medical, food, case management, and employment services. Supported agencies should provide households with access to programs and services at reduced or no cost - including fair housing services
5-Yr Con Plan Goal
5-Yr Con Plan Goal
CDBG
5-Yr Con Plan Goal
Continuum of Care
Objective
Suitable Living Environment
Objective
5-Yr Con Plan Goal
Services will help seniors and the frail elderly maintain their independent living situation or ensure they are provided services that improve quality of life
CDBG
5-Yr Con Plan Goal
Other (O-1)
Objective
CDBG
5-Yr Con Plan Goal
Short-term emergency shelter and support services (up to 3 months) for individuals that are in immediate need of shelter and services Rapid Rehousing and case management services to stabilize homeless households in permanent housing (may encompass TBRA is a low priority)
CDBG program oversight, coordination and administration CDBG
Five-Year and One-Year Summary of Accomplishments
Decent Housing
HOME
5-Yr Con Plan Goal
Owner Occupied Housing Rehabilitation Loans and Grants to assist homeowners improve primary residence to correct code violations, address deferred property improvements and improve neighborhood aesthetics
Objective
Special Code Enforcement activity to inspect and enforce housing and building codes for residential properties located in the City's CDBG- eligible areas
CDBG
5-Yr Con Plan Goal
5-Yr Con Plan Goal
CDBG
5-Yr Con Plan Goal
CDBG
5-Yr Con Plan Goal
CDBG
CDBG
Improvements to public facilities that address a community priority including but not limited to repairs, replacement and/or upgrades (including ADA compliance) to neighborhood parks, centers and other public facilities
Improvements to public infrastructure that address a community priority including but not limited to repairs, replacement and/or upgrades (including ADA compliance) to streets, alleys, sidewalks, flood/storm water drains, and other public improvements * Accomplishments also reported separately as Youth accomplishments.

Rental Housing Acquisition/Rehabilitation to expand and/or improve the number of rental housing units for lower income renter households HOME 5-Yr Con Plan Goal
Rental Housing New Construction to expand the number of rental housing units for lower income renter households HOME
5-Yr Con Plan Goal
No 5-year goals for CDBG-funded Economic Opportunity were established in the Consolidated Plan; however, CDBG funds have been allocated for public service programs that expanded economic opportunities for low-income youths and disabled adults (i.e., Youth Employment Services)
Financial assistance to prevent homelessness such as a short-term financial subsidy to prevent eviction and/or utility termination, and for the provision of provide support services
CDBG
NA
Objective
Economic Opportunity
5-Yr Con Plan Goal

411
ATTACHMENT 5
Attachment 2

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS

March 23, 2022 Housing & Public Service grant Committee The H&PSG Committee held a virtual meeting to obtain additional public comments regarding CDBG public service grants, and to develop funding recommendations. No written comments were received.

30—Day Public Comment Period
TBD

May 3, 2022 Public Hearing
TBD
412
ATTACHMENT 6
Attachment 3

413

ORANGE COUNTY ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE August 6, 2020

REGIONAL PROPOSED AI GOALS AND STRATEGIES
To address the contributing factors described above, the AI plan proposes the following goals and actions:

Regional Goals and Strategies”
Goal 1: Increase the supply of affordable housing in high opportunity areas.1 Strategies:

1. Explore the creation of a new countywide source of affordable housing.

2. Using best practices from other jurisdictions, explore policies and programs that increase the supply affordable housing, such as linkage fees, housing bonds, inclusionary housing, public land set-aside, community land trusts, transit-oriented development, and expedited permitting and review.

3. Explore providing low-interest loans to single-family homeowners and grants to homeowners with household incomes of up to 80% of the Area Median Income to develop accessory dwelling units with affordability restriction on their property.

4. Review existing zoning policies and explore zoning changes to facilitate the development of affordable housing.

5. Align zoning codes to conform to recent California affordable housing legislation.

Goal 2: Prevent displacement of low- and moderate-income residents with protected characteristics, including Hispanic residents, Vietnamese residents, other seniors, and people with disabilities.

Strategies:

1. Explore piloting a Right to Counsel Program to ensure legal representation for tenants in landlord-tenant proceedings, including those involving the application of new laws like A.B. 1482.

Goal 3: Increase community integration for persons with disabilities.

Strategies:

1. Conduct targeted outreach and provide tenant application assistance and support to persons with disabilities, including individuals transitioning from institutional settings and individuals who are at risk of institutionalization. As part of that assistance, maintain a database of housing that is accessible to persons with disabilities.

2. Consider adopting the accessibility standards adopted by the City of Los Angeles, which require at least 15 percent of all new units in city-supported Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) projects to be ADA- accessible with at least 4 percent of total units to be accessible for persons with hearing and/or vision disabilities.
1 The term “high opportunity areas” generally means locations where there are economic and social factors and amenities that provide a positive impact on a person’s life outcome. This is described in more detail in Section iii, Disparities in Ac cess to Opportunity.

Attachment 4

ATTACHMENT 7
414
Goal 4: Ensure equal access to housing for persons with protected characteristics, who are disproportionately likely to be lower-income and to experience homelessness.

Strategies:

1. Reduce barriers to accessing rental housing by exploring eliminating application fees for voucher holders and encouraging landlords to follow HUD’s guidance on the use of criminal backgrounds in screening tenants.

2. Consider incorporating a fair housing equity analysis into the review of significant rezoning proposals and specific plans.

Goal 5: Expand access to opportunity for protected classes.

Strategies:

1. Explore the voluntary adoption of Small Area Fair Market Rents or exception payment standards in order to increase access to higher opportunity areas for Housing Choice Voucher holders.

2. Continue implementing a mobility counseling program that informs Housing Choice Voucher holders about their residential options in higher opportunity areas and provides holistic supports to voucher holders seeking to move to higher opportunity areas.

3. Study and make recommendations to improve and expand Orange County’s public transportation to ensure that members of protected classes can access jobs in employment centers in Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Irvine.

4. Increase support for fair housing enforcement, education, and outreach.

CITY OF COSTA MESA PROPOSED AI GOALS AND STRATEGIES

1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA):
a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues.
b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by providing five-year and annual PHA plan certifications.
c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting discrimination based on household income.

2. Through the City's fair housing contractor:
a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful. b. Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature.

Attachment 4

415
Building Division 714.754.5273 ∙ Code Enforcement & Community Improvement Division 714.754.5638 Housing & Community Development 714.754.4870 ∙ Planning Division 714.754.5245 Fax 714.754.4856 ∙ www.costamesaca.gov
May 3, 2022
Mr. Rufus Washington, Director
HUD Los Angeles Field Office
U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development
Office of Community Planning and Development
300 N. Los Angeles Street, Suite #4054
Los Angeles, CA 90012
SUBJECT: HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Program Request to Increase Median Area Purchase Price Limit
Dear Mr. Washington:

The City of Costa Mesa is submitting a request to increase Median Area Purchase Price Limit as part of its 2022-2023 Action Plan. In lieu, of the limit provided by the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) for FY 2022, the City is requesting permission to use an increased limit of $1,026,000.

The City conducted its local market survey using data supplied by Orange Coast Title Company; based on information from the database of the Orange County Recorder and Assessors offices. We have found this source to be accurate and reliable. The following are the steps used in the survey methodology:

1. Sales data on all single-family home sales, 1 July 2020 through June 30, 2021 in the City of Costa Mesa compiled in ascending order of sales price. Data included the address of the listed properties, sales value, parcel number and date of sale.

2. Pursuant to 92.254(2)(iii), the length of the reporting period is dependent upon the volume of existing home sales in the City. If sales were 250 or less per month in the most recent 12 months (July 2020 to June 2021), then a minimum of a 3-month survey is used. Based on the attached report, the median home price was $1,080,000 and 95% of this property value is $1,026,000.

3. Methodology for Costa Mesa adjusted home limit increase request:

Median Sales Price for 285 sales: N+1 = $1,080,000
2 Single Family Unit: $1,080,000 (95%) = $1,026,000

CITY OF COSTA MESA
P.O. BOX 1200  77 FAIR DRIVE  CALIFORNIA 92628-1200

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ATTACHMENT 8
416
Building Division 714.754.5273 ∙ Code Enforcement & Community Improvement Division 714.754.5638 Housing & Community Development 714.754.4870 ∙ Planning Division 714.754.5245 Fax 714.754.4856 ∙ www.costamesaca.gov
If you have any questions, please contact Mikelle Daily of the Housing and Community Development Office at 714-754-5678 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

JENNIFER LE
Director of Economic and Development Services
Attachment: Survey

417
Building Division 714.754.5273 ∙ Code Enforcement & Community Improvement Division 714.754.5638 Housing & Community Development 714.754.4870 ∙ Planning Division 714.754.5245 Fax 714.754.4856 ∙ www.costamesaca.gov

Sales Price Full Site Address Sale Date Parcel Number Description Bed rooms
Year
Built
1 $118,500.00 212 Del Mar Ave 3/12/2021 439-211-03 Single Family Res. 4 1998 2 $423,500.00 1668 New Hampshire Dr 5/7/2021 139-611-56 Single Family Res. 3 1971 3 $510,000.00 2150 San Michel Dr, Unit C 6/22/2021 422-183-28 Single Family Res. 2 1984 4 $570,000.00 2337 Minuteman Way 3/30/2021 419-163-80 Single Family Res. 1 1967 5 $575,000.00 2400 Elden Ave, #23 4/12/2021 439-292-23 Single Family Res. 1 1964 6 $615,000.00 132 Lexington Ln 3/15/2021 419-163-71 Single Family Res. 3 1964 7 $615,000.00 192 Brookline Ln 3/16/2021 419-164-71 Single Family Res. 3 1965 8 $615,000.00 115 Yorktown Ln 3/25/2021 419-162-44 Single Family Res. 3 1964 9 $637,500.00 190 Yorktown Ln 5/26/2021 419-165-47 Single Family Res. 3 1965 10 $650,000.00 843 Santiago Rd 4/15/2021 141-542-02 Single Family Res. 5 1962 11 $650,000.00 2884 El Rio Cir 6/25/2021 141-562-13 Single Family Res. 3 1964 12 $662,000.00 902 Lombard Ct 5/18/2021 418-082-31 Single Family Res. 2 1979 13 $672,500.00 2408 Minuteman Way 4/8/2021 419-162-25 Single Family Res. 4 1965 14 $675,000.00 2160 College Ave, Unit A 5/26/2021 419-043-07 Single Family Res. 2 1992 15 $680,000.00 2164 Canyon Dr, Unit H 3/19/2021 422-081-31 Single Family Res. 3 1992 16 $685,000.00 3294 California St 5/4/2021 139-052-16 Single Family Res. 3 1961 17 $694,000.00 2792 Longwood Ct 3/15/2021 139-526-21 Single Family Res. 2 1980 18 $715,000.00 2224 Saybrook Ln 4/12/2021 419-013-41 Single Family Res. 3 1980 19 $720,000.00 426 Emerson St 5/17/2021 426-244-27 Single Family Res. 2 1964 20 $720,000.00 914 Powell Ct 6/3/2021 418-083-15 Single Family Res. 3 1979 21 $725,000.00 939 W 19Th St 5/19/2021 424-323-14 Single Family Res. 3 1984 22 $728,000.00 939 W 19Th St 6/21/2021 424-323-01 Single Family Res. 3 1984 23 $730,000.00 2235 Miner St 3/9/2021 422-192-20 Single Family Res. 3 1957 24 $730,000.00 904 Lombard Ct 5/19/2021 418-082-33 Single Family Res. 3 1979 25 $750,000.00 3404 Santa Clara Cir 4/14/2021 412-061-44 Single Family Res. 4 1969 26 $757,000.00 2042 Meadow View Ln 4/29/2021 422-013-11 Single Family Res. 2 1978 27 $760,000.00 939 W 19Th St 4/15/2021 424-323-03 Single Family Res. 3 1984 28 $762,000.00 2524 Poplar Ln 3/1/2021 439-172-62 Single Family Res. 3 1979 29 $770,000.00 759 W 18Th St 3/12/2021 424-055-03 Single Family Res. 2 2018 30 $770,000.00 763 W 18Th St 3/12/2021 424-055-02 Single Family Res. 2 2018 31 $770,000.00 767 W 18Th St 3/12/2021 424-055-01 Single Family Res. 2 2018 32 $775,000.00 2051 Sea Cove Ln 4/9/2021 422-013-24 Single Family Res. 3 1978 33 $775,000.00 926 Van Ness Ct 5/26/2021 418-083-54 Single Family Res. 3 1979 34 $780,000.00 946 Junipero Dr 3/31/2021 141-322-25 Single Family Res. 3 1961 35 $795,000.00 3386 Corte Cassis 3/5/2021 414-281-24 Single Family Res. 3 2003 36 $800,000.00 352 Princeton Dr 5/5/2021 141-383-32 Single Family Res. 3 1957 37 $800,000.00 999 Post Rd 5/14/2021 141-231-17 Single Family Res. 3 1956 38 $800,000.00 124 Eucalyptus Ln 5/26/2021 439-172-58 Single Family Res. 2 1979 39 $810,000.00 1322 Watson Ave 3/5/2021 141-036-10 Single Family Res. 3 1955 40 $810,000.00 3105 Dublin St 4/30/2021 418-141-14 Single Family Res. 3 1956 41 $811,000.00 3137 Sharon Ln 3/17/2021 141-022-29 Single Family Res. 5 1963 42 $813,000.00 943 Joann St 4/15/2021 422-352-05 Single Family Res. 3 1956 418
Building Division 714.754.5273 ∙ Code Enforcement & Community Improvement Division 714.754.5638 Housing & Community Development 714.754.4870 ∙ Planning Division 714.754.5245 Fax 714.754.4856 ∙ www.costamesaca.gov
43 $820,000.00 2221 Maple St 3/16/2021 422-191-08 Single Family Res. 5 1956 44 $821,000.00 216 16Th Pl, Unit C 3/1/2021 425-205-10 Single Family Res. 3 1989 45 $822,000.00 3112 Monroe Way 5/13/2021 141-652-67 Single Family Res. 4 1964 46 $825,000.00 2154 Harmony Way 3/4/2021 419-043-26 Single Family Res. 2 2014 47 $830,000.00 185 Admiral Way 3/3/2021 439-293-06 Single Family Res. 2 1981 48 $832,000.00 906 Joann St 3/10/2021 422-351-05 Single Family Res. 3 1956 49 $835,000.00 2240 Raleigh Ave 3/5/2021 422-401-05 Single Family Res. 2 1957 50 $837,000.00 1169 Bismark Way 4/30/2021 141-601-13 Single Family Res. 4 1963 51 $840,000.00 2172 Harmony Way 4/2/2021 419-043-18 Single Family Res. 2 2013 52 $840,000.00 3137 Trinity Dr 4/9/2021 141-535-01 Single Family Res. 4 1961 53 $845,000.00 2128 Parsons St 5/13/2021 419-171-23 Single Family Res. 3 1957 54 $850,000.00 3459 Windsor Ct 4/8/2021 412-073-07 Single Family Res. 2 1979 55 $850,000.00 3290 Turlock Dr 5/10/2021 412-106-01 Single Family Res. 3 1972 56 $850,000.00 203 La Costa Ct 5/11/2021 426-202-65 Single Family Res. 4 1986 57 $850,000.00 2018 Pomona Ave 6/9/2021 422-234-35 Single Family Res. 1 1946 58 $855,000.00 1970 Church St 5/10/2021 426-264-34 Single Family Res. 3 1993 59 $860,000.00 3202 Minnesota Ave 3/8/2021 139-082-01 Single Family Res. 4 1960 60 $861,000.00 913 Tanana Pl 4/5/2021 418-052-17 Single Family Res. 4 1967 61 $863,000.00 3116 Promenade 4/23/2021 141-521-65 Single Family Res. 4 1996 62 $865,000.00 1686 Madagascar St 4/27/2021 139-134-29 Single Family Res. 3 1957 63 $875,000.00 1174 Augusta St 4/29/2021 141-601-17 Single Family Res. 3 1963 64 $875,000.00 767 Allegheny Ave 5/11/2021 141-524-02 Single Family Res. 4 1962 65 $880,000.00 2268 Columbia Dr 4/26/2021 419-085-07 Single Family Res. 3 1958 66 $882,500.00 809 Sonora Rd 3/25/2021 141-544-06 Single Family Res. 3 1962 67 $885,000.00 969 Dahlia Ave 4/19/2021 412-181-21 Single Family Res. 4 1973 68 $885,000.00 2135 Republic Ave 4/20/2021 422-441-11 Single Family Res. 3 1954 69 $885,000.00 1336 Watson Ave 6/21/2021 141-036-13 Single Family Res. 3 1955 70 $890,000.00 136 Magnolia St 5/5/2021 425-451-26 Single Family Res. 2 1937 71 $890,000.00 1024 Concord St 5/17/2021 141-651-39 Single Family Res. 4 1969 72 $895,000.00 3249 Oregon Ave 3/2/2021 139-054-02 Single Family Res. 3 1961 73 $895,000.00 766 Hudson Ave 4/14/2021 141-522-07 Single Family Res. 4 1962 74 $900,000.00 1222 Londonderry St 4/1/2021 141-631-16 Single Family Res. 4 1963 75 $900,000.00 191 Brandywyne Ter 6/29/2021 439-263-03 Single Family Res. 3 1979 76 $910,000.00 858 Towne St 3/19/2021 424-181-09 Single Family Res. 3 1955 77 $915,000.00 1606 Baker St 3/10/2021 139-192-28 Single Family Res. 3 1959 78 $920,000.00 2434 Creswell Ln 3/18/2021 439-132-08 Single Family Res. 3 1978 79 $922,000.00 987 Cheyenne St 3/22/2021 141-724-26 Single Family Res. 3 1967 80 $925,000.00 370 Genoa Ln 3/19/2021 439-142-42 Single Family Res. 3 1964 81 $925,000.00 968 Carnation Ave 3/26/2021 412-176-16 Single Family Res. 3 1973 82 $925,000.00 297 Bowling Green Dr 4/19/2021 141-383-12 Single Family Res. 4 1957 83 $925,000.00 905 Liard Pl 5/28/2021 418-063-01 Single Family Res. 3 1966 84 $926,000.00 2123 Parsons St 3/5/2021 419-171-34 Single Family Res. 4 1957 85 $926,000.00 294 Carefree Ln 6/9/2021 439-203-05 Single Family Res. 3 1989 86 $930,000.00 2728 Loreto Ave 3/5/2021 141-302-17 Single Family Res. 4 1960 87 $930,000.00 2432 Creswell Ln 3/26/2021 439-132-09 Single Family Res. 3 1978 419
Building Division 714.754.5273 ∙ Code Enforcement & Community Improvement Division 714.754.5638 Housing & Community Development 714.754.4870 ∙ Planning Division 714.754.5245 Fax 714.754.4856 ∙ www.costamesaca.gov
88 $930,000.00 956 Joann St 3/29/2021 422-351-16 Single Family Res. 3 1956 89 $930,000.00 344 Westbrook Pl 4/5/2021 141-384-09 Single Family Res. 3 1957 90 $930,000.00 3012 Harding Way 4/8/2021 141-133-33 Single Family Res. 3 1962 91 $930,000.00 945 W Wilson St 4/14/2021 422-381-03 Single Family Res. 3 1957 92 $930,000.00 3270 Washington Ave 5/3/2021 139-054-11 Single Family Res. 3 1961 93 $930,000.00 1832 Peninsula Pl 5/14/2021 424-511-09 Single Family Res. 2 1990 94 $930,000.00 1169 Dorset Ln 6/4/2021 141-141-15 Single Family Res. 4 1962 95 $930,000.00 3065 Hayes Ave 6/30/2021 141-724-05 Single Family Res. 5 1965 96 $935,000.00 2292 Elden Ave 3/5/2021 426-064-25 Single Family Res. 3 1990 97 $935,000.00 1741 Pitcairn Dr 4/22/2021 139-333-23 Single Family Res. 4 1962 98 $935,000.00 3120 Promenade 4/27/2021 141-521-64 Single Family Res. 3 1996 99 $935,000.00 3213 Idaho Pl 5/19/2021 139-083-16 Single Family Res. 3 1960 100 $939,000.00 3066 Hayes Ave 4/28/2021 141-721-07 Single Family Res. 4 1965 101 $940,000.00 3130 Barbados Pl 3/19/2021 139-152-05 Single Family Res. 3 1957 102 $940,000.00 890 Congress St 4/16/2021 422-431-02 Single Family Res. 3 1954 103 $940,000.00 360 Lourdes Ln 6/15/2021 439-141-20 Single Family Res. 4 1964 104 $945,000.00 3202 Michigan Ave 3/22/2021 139-073-07 Single Family Res. 3 1962 105 $945,000.00 1730 Minorca Pl 4/2/2021 139-331-07 Single Family Res. 3 1961 106 $945,000.00 265 Mesa Dr 4/15/2021 439-431-22 Single Family Res. 3 2000 107 $947,500.00 1811 Coastal Way 4/5/2021 424-332-12 Single Family Res. 3 2014 108 $950,000.00 3265 Washington Ave 4/22/2021 139-056-10 Single Family Res. 3 1961 109 $950,000.00 3476 Wimbledon Way 5/10/2021 412-043-13 Single Family Res. 3 1981 110 $951,000.00 1876 New Jersey St 3/22/2021 139-103-20 Single Family Res. 4 1960 111 $955,000.00 2158 Charle Dr 3/4/2021 422-203-34 Single Family Res. 112 $955,000.00 3445 Summerset Cir 4/27/2021 412-073-11 Single Family Res. 3 1979 113 $958,000.00 969 Oak St 4/19/2021 422-483-04 Single Family Res. 3 1954 114 $960,000.00 3230 Minnesota Ave 4/15/2021 139-082-08 Single Family Res. 3 1960 115 $970,000.00 1954 Federal Ave 5/21/2021 422-511-08 Single Family Res. 3 1954 116 $985,000.00 2989 Jacaranda Ave 4/7/2021 139-193-36 Single Family Res. 3 1959 117 $995,000.00 2253 Elden Ave 3/25/2021 426-053-10 Single Family Res. 3 1960 118 $1,000,000.00 3308 Florida Cir 4/8/2021 139-582-04 Single Family Res. 4 1969 119 $1,000,000.00 3044 Grant Ave 6/18/2021 141-133-13 Single Family Res. 5 1962 120 $1,005,000.00 1079 Cheyenne St 3/26/2021 141-595-23 Single Family Res. 5 1963 121 $1,005,000.00 300 Canoe Pond 5/20/2021 439-441-18 Single Family Res. 3 2006 122 $1,005,000.00 3265 Iowa St 6/25/2021 139-043-16 Single Family Res. 4 1960 123 $1,010,000.00 246 Cecil Pl 4/5/2021 426-073-16 Single Family Res. 1 1934 124 $1,010,000.00 2329 Purdue Dr 4/30/2021 419-132-05 Single Family Res. 3 1999 125 $1,015,000.00 3301 Alabama Cir 4/23/2021 139-581-31 Single Family Res. 4 1969 126 $1,020,000.00 3103 Samoa Pl 5/3/2021 139-153-18 Single Family Res. 3 1957 127 $1,025,000.00 1112 Corona Ln 3/3/2021 141-613-39 Single Family Res. 5 1964 128 $1,025,000.00 2463 Irvine Ave, Unit F2 4/5/2021 439-154-01 Single Family Res. 3 1983 129 $1,025,000.00 172 Terraza Ct 5/28/2021 439-295-06 Single Family Res. 3 1990 130 $1,030,000.00 1120 El Camino Dr 4/27/2021 141-612-15 Single Family Res. 4 1964 131 $1,030,000.00 224 E 16Th St, Unit A 5/7/2021 425-201-34 Single Family Res. 3 1995 132 $1,035,000.00 1053 Presidio Dr 3/11/2021 141-683-17 Single Family Res. 5 1964 420
Building Division 714.754.5273 ∙ Code Enforcement & Community Improvement Division 714.754.5638 Housing & Community Development 714.754.4870 ∙ Planning Division 714.754.5245 Fax 714.754.4856 ∙ www.costamesaca.gov
133 $1,035,000.00 1014 Begonia Ave 4/9/2021 412-371-72 Single Family Res. 3 1984 134 $1,045,000.00 328 Joann St 4/22/2021 419-052-04 Single Family Res. 3 1957 135 $1,050,000.00 878 Prospect Pl 3/12/2021 418-064-12 Single Family Res. 3 1979 136 $1,050,000.00 3075 Promenade 6/1/2021 141-513-08 Single Family Res. 4 1997 137 $1,050,000.00 2799 Francis Ln 6/7/2021 141-331-11 Single Family Res. 3 1961 138 $1,055,000.00 388 Bucknell Rd 6/16/2021 141-422-07 Single Family Res. 3 1956 139 $1,059,000.00 3036 Killybrooke Ln 5/17/2021 141-163-05 Single Family Res. 3 1955 140 $1,060,000.00 1859 Pitcairn Dr 4/1/2021 139-383-29 Single Family Res. 5 1963 141 $1,075,000.00 3239 Nebraska Pl 5/17/2021 139-082-11 Single Family Res. 2 1960 142 $1,080,000.00 2608 Willo Ln 4/29/2021 439-112-16 Single Family Res. 3 1954 143 $1,080,000.00 929 Junipero Dr 6/3/2021 141-323-07 Single Family Res. 3 1961 144 $1,085,000.00 1009 Somerton Dr 5/10/2021 424-393-30 Single Family Res. 3 2016 145 $1,085,000.00 2809 La Salle Ave 6/16/2021 141-672-09 Single Family Res. 4 1964 146 $1,090,000.00 1125 Dana Dr 5/7/2021 412-074-25 Single Family Res. 3 1978 147 $1,090,000.00 302 Cabrillo St 5/24/2021 425-013-01 Single Family Res. 4 1958 148 $1,095,000.00 671 Congress St 4/9/2021 422-173-02 Single Family Res. 3 1955 149 $1,100,000.00 884 Senate St 3/30/2021 422-392-12 Single Family Res. 3 1958 150 $1,100,000.00 1600 White Oak St 4/22/2021 139-213-09 Single Family Res. 3 1959 151 $1,100,000.00 837 Pine Pl 5/13/2021 422-454-02 Single Family Res. 5 1953 152 $1,100,000.00 2745 Drake Ave 5/21/2021 141-302-10 Single Family Res. 3 1960 153 $1,100,000.00 230 E Wilson St 5/25/2021 119-092-05 Single Family Res. 3 1956 154 $1,120,000.00 1811 Pitcairn Dr 3/4/2021 139-341-18 Single Family Res. 4 1962 155 $1,125,000.00 3338 Maryland Cir 4/16/2021 139-611-37 Single Family Res. 4 1971 156 $1,125,000.00 3120 Van Buren Ave 6/14/2021 141-693-04 Single Family Res. 3 1964 157 $1,139,000.00 226 Pauline Pl 4/30/2021 426-141-09 Single Family Res. 2 1962 158 $1,140,000.00 3081 Madeira Ave 3/1/2021 139-163-10 Single Family Res. 3 1959 159 $1,140,000.00 1038 Coronado Dr 3/31/2021 141-671-42 Single Family Res. 4 2009 160 $1,140,000.00 264 E 20Th St 5/12/2021 426-211-19 Single Family Res. 3 1951 161 $1,150,000.00 3068 Madeira Ave 4/28/2021 139-164-05 Single Family Res. 3 1959 162 $1,150,000.00 1561 Amberleaf 5/7/2021 420-081-11 Single Family Res. 5 2001 163 $1,150,000.00 1618 Corsica Pl 5/24/2021 139-191-06 Single Family Res. 4 1959 164 $1,150,000.00 2783 Mendoza Dr 6/28/2021 141-626-08 Single Family Res. 4 1964 165 $1,152,000.00 1063 Salinas Ave 4/6/2021 412-062-01 Single Family Res. 3 1969 166 $1,165,000.00 1589 Santa Ana Ave 3/22/2021 425-164-11 Single Family Res. 3 1956 167 $1,175,000.00 1609 Somerton Dr 3/10/2021 424-393-07 Single Family Res. 3 2017 168 $1,175,000.00 1086 San Pablo Cir 4/8/2021 412-061-08 Single Family Res. 4 1969 169 $1,177,500.00 1956 Rosemary Pl 3/24/2021 426-032-42 Single Family Res. 2 1954 170 $1,200,000.00 1022 Bridgewater Way 4/13/2021 424-392-27 Single Family Res. 4 2018 171 $1,200,000.00 3421 Summerset Cir 4/21/2021 412-073-17 Single Family Res. 3 1979 172 $1,200,000.00 2992 Andros St 4/27/2021 139-193-04 Single Family Res. 3 1959 173 $1,205,000.00 1641 Oahu Pl 4/12/2021 139-281-19 Single Family Res. 3 1959 174 $1,215,000.00 2273 Columbia Dr 6/17/2021 419-084-14 Single Family Res. 3 1958 175 $1,240,000.00 2042 Goldeneye Pl 4/29/2021 139-543-15 Single Family Res. 4 1968 176 $1,243,500.00 380 Mira Loma Pl 4/14/2021 439-112-28 Single Family Res. 5 1961 177 $1,246,500.00 209 Tulane Pl 5/3/2021 141-465-03 Single Family Res. 4 1959 421
Building Division 714.754.5273 ∙ Code Enforcement & Community Improvement Division 714.754.5638 Housing & Community Development 714.754.4870 ∙ Planning Division 714.754.5245 Fax 714.754.4856 ∙ www.costamesaca.gov
178 $1,250,000.00 1279 Westreef 4/9/2021 422-325-11 Single Family Res. 3 2015 179 $1,250,000.00 2797 Redwing Cir 4/12/2021 139-601-24 Single Family Res. 5 1969 180 $1,255,000.00 1573 Amberleaf 5/3/2021 420-081-17 Single Family Res. 5 2001 181 $1,260,000.00 2490 Monaco Ter 4/12/2021 439-151-70 Single Family Res. 4 2003 182 $1,260,000.00 1096 Tulare Dr 5/12/2021 412-104-12 Single Family Res. 4 1972 183 $1,260,000.00 1602 Myrtlewood St 5/14/2021 139-193-27 Single Family Res. 3 1959 184 $1,260,000.00 2035 N Capella Ct 6/17/2021 139-401-03 Single Family Res. 4 1963 185 $1,261,000.00 375 Monte Vista Ave, Unit B 5/26/2021 439-151-61 Single Family Res. 3 1995 186 $1,263,000.00 2920 Chestnut Ave 5/10/2021 139-294-02 Single Family Res. 5 1959 187 $1,265,000.00 269 Bowling Green Dr 4/5/2021 141-392-03 Single Family Res. 4 1957 188 $1,275,000.00 1945 Sanderling Cir 3/26/2021 139-481-24 Single Family Res. 4 1965 189 $1,280,000.00 1259 Westreef 5/25/2021 422-325-01 Single Family Res. 3 2014 190 $1,280,500.00 2511 Bowdoin Pl 5/25/2021 141-412-17 Single Family Res. 3 1959 191 $1,293,000.00 3144 Sicily Ave 4/19/2021 139-135-12 Single Family Res. 3 2008 192 $1,299,000.00 123 23Rd St 4/19/2021 426-054-22 Single Family Res. 4 2018 193 $1,300,000.00 2048 Orange Ave 3/30/2021 426-202-05 Single Family Res. 3 1923 194 $1,325,000.00 2366 Orange Ave 4/30/2021 119-094-04 Single Family Res. 3 2016 195 $1,325,000.00 257 Flower St 6/18/2021 117-213-26 Single Family Res. 2 1930 196 $1,330,000.00 3037 Samoa Pl 3/9/2021 139-181-20 Single Family Res. 3 1959 197 $1,330,000.00 308 Shadow Bay Dr 6/29/2021 439-193-36 Single Family Res. 3 2014 198 $1,335,000.00 1613 Somerton Dr 5/7/2021 424-393-05 Single Family Res. 3 2017 199 $1,340,000.00 2290 Pacific Ave 4/19/2021 422-054-04 Single Family Res. 3 2015 200 $1,350,000.00 549 Bernard St 3/1/2021 422-103-29 Single Family Res. 1 1946 201 $1,360,000.00 2614 Willo Ln 6/1/2021 439-112-13 Single Family Res. 3 1954 202 $1,375,000.00 380 Magnolia St 4/14/2021 117-292-08 Single Family Res. 5 1950 203 $1,378,000.00 1925 Lanai Dr 3/2/2021 139-514-04 Single Family Res. 5 1967 204 $1,386,000.00 2947 Ceylon Dr 3/3/2021 139-272-21 Single Family Res. 3 1960 205 $1,400,000.00 404 E 16Th St 3/1/2021 425-141-01 Single Family Res. 4 1968 206 $1,400,000.00 189 Merrill Pl 3/29/2021 426-131-28 Single Family Res. 3 2016 207 $1,405,000.00 2915 Pemba Dr 3/31/2021 139-263-07 Single Family Res. 3 1960 208 $1,405,000.00 2182 Santa Ana Ave 4/27/2021 426-161-13 Single Family Res. 3 1961 209 $1,405,000.00 215 E 20Th St 5/7/2021 426-273-07 Single Family Res. 3 1987 210 $1,420,000.00 2054 Aliso Ave 4/15/2021 426-251-07 Single Family Res. 4 1962 211 $1,435,000.00 1972 Fullerton Ave 4/23/2021 426-032-24 Single Family Res. 5 1954 212 $1,450,000.00 378 Catalina Shrs 3/12/2021 426-171-34 Single Family Res. 4 1997 213 $1,450,000.00 2710 Starbird Dr 3/19/2021 420-021-25 Single Family Res. 5 1975 214 $1,450,000.00 332 E 15Th St 4/6/2021 425-311-83 Single Family Res. 3 2007 215 $1,450,000.00 235 22Nd St 4/20/2021 426-144-09 Single Family Res. 3 1973 216 $1,450,000.00 2306 Half Moon Ln 6/29/2021 439-263-30 Single Family Res. 4 2005 217 $1,460,000.00 2650 Riverside Dr 6/17/2021 439-101-31 Single Family Res. 3 1950 218 $1,470,000.00 360 E 19Th St 5/7/2021 426-301-21 Single Family Res. 3 1956 219 $1,475,000.00 477 E 19Th St 3/5/2021 117-341-25 Single Family Res. 3 1947 220 $1,475,000.00 266 Brentwood Pl 5/4/2021 439-333-10 Single Family Res. 3 1963 221 $1,480,000.00 410 E 20Th St 5/6/2021 426-241-31 Single Family Res. 3 1949 222 $1,485,000.00 397 E 21St St 3/15/2021 426-232-48 Single Family Res. 3 1997 422
Building Division 714.754.5273 ∙ Code Enforcement & Community Improvement Division 714.754.5638 Housing & Community Development 714.754.4870 ∙ Planning Division 714.754.5245 Fax 714.754.4856 ∙ www.costamesaca.gov
223 $1,495,000.00 1617 Aliso Ave 3/17/2021 425-142-10 Single Family Res. 4 1968 224 $1,500,000.00 1589 Tustin Ave 3/15/2021 425-311-51 Single Family Res. 2 1948 225 $1,525,000.00 2983 Mindanao Dr 3/17/2021 139-231-09 Single Family Res. 3 1960 226 $1,530,000.00 181 Broadway 3/12/2021 425-232-11 Single Family Res. 2 1949 227 $1,550,000.00 325 Esther St 3/8/2021 426-293-05 Single Family Res. 4 1958 228 $1,550,500.00 388 Mira Loma Pl 4/22/2021 439-112-50 Single Family Res. 2 1955 229 $1,575,000.00 313 Esther St 6/24/2021 426-293-03 Single Family Res. 3 1958 230 $1,595,000.00 375 Catalina Shrs 5/18/2021 426-171-30 Single Family Res. 4 1997 231 $1,600,000.00 492 E 18Th St 3/8/2021 117-332-22 Single Family Res. 4 1946 232 $1,615,000.00 2890 Club House Rd 4/26/2021 139-392-03 Single Family Res. 4 1963 233 $1,625,000.00 2133 Orange Ave 5/20/2021 426-131-15 Single Family Res. 2 1951 234 $1,635,000.00 2065 Mandarin Dr 4/7/2021 139-531-29 Single Family Res. 5 1967 235 $1,635,000.00 259 Brentwood St 6/16/2021 439-332-27 Single Family Res. 4 1963 236 $1,653,000.00 2620 Riverside Dr 6/3/2021 439-101-26 Single Family Res. 3 1950 237 $1,665,000.00 340 Colleen Pl 5/20/2021 426-042-22 Single Family Res. 3 1952 238 $1,685,000.00 1847 Tahiti Dr 5/21/2021 139-253-05 Single Family Res. 5 1962 239 $1,695,000.00 426 16Th Pl 6/1/2021 425-142-06 Single Family Res. 4 1968 240 $1,700,000.00 2661 Club Mesa Pl 6/17/2021 439-213-33 Single Family Res. 5 1952 241 $1,710,000.00 2027 Phalarope Ct 5/7/2021 139-532-11 Single Family Res. 5 1966 242 $1,725,000.00 273 Palmer St 3/1/2021 425-161-17 Single Family Res. 1 1947 243 $1,725,000.00 2237 Jeanette Pl 3/16/2021 426-072-11 Single Family Res. 3 1957 244 $1,725,000.00 318 E 18Th St 6/11/2021 117-251-41 Single Family Res. 4 2016 245 $1,750,000.00 924 Evergreen Pl 5/28/2021 422-521-06 Single Family Res. 4 2016 246 $1,775,000.00 193 The Masters Cir 4/30/2021 119-391-26 Single Family Res. 4 2006 247 $1,775,000.00 233 22Nd St 5/5/2021 426-144-08 Single Family Res. 3 1948 248 $1,775,000.00 385 E 19Th St 6/11/2021 117-294-13 Single Family Res. 3 1946 249 $1,800,000.00 218 Princeton Dr 5/28/2021 141-395-37 Single Family Res. 6 2006 250 $1,847,500.00 237 Broadway 4/20/2021 425-402-14 Single Family Res. 3 1941 251 $1,895,000.00 3018 Country Club Dr 5/25/2021 139-172-07 Single Family Res. 2 2008 252 $1,900,000.00 437 Cabrillo St 3/19/2021 117-321-15 Single Family Res. 3 1955 253 $1,914,000.00 283 Lilac Ln 4/15/2021 426-151-11 Single Family Res. 3 1962 254 $1,925,000.00 1912 Kauai Dr 6/11/2021 139-511-02 Single Family Res. 4 1967 255 $1,945,000.00 359 Magnolia St 3/11/2021 117-291-27 Single Family Res. 4 1957 256 $1,965,000.00 2086 Marian Way 4/21/2021 426-202-22 Single Family Res. 4 1964 257 $1,998,000.00 2339 Westminster Ave 5/12/2021 119-131-10 Single Family Res. 4 2014 258 $2,000,000.00 490 E 19Th St 6/1/2021 426-321-12 Single Family Res. 4 1950 259 $2,025,000.00 305 E 19Th St 6/28/2021 117-254-22 Single Family Res. 5 2017 260 $2,170,000.00 436 Cambridge Cir 6/15/2021 425-143-31 Single Family Res. 3 1958 261 $2,185,000.00 480 Broadway 3/9/2021 117-342-24 Single Family Res. 4 2009 262 $2,185,000.00 277 Knox Pl 4/13/2021 425-163-14 Single Family Res. 3 2014 263 $2,200,000.00 1835 Wallace Ave 5/24/2021 424-171-10 Single Family Res. 2 1955 264 $2,230,000.00 483 Abbie Way 3/31/2021 117-372-27 Single Family Res. 3 2017 265 $2,252,500.00 237 E 20Th St 5/26/2021 426-273-11 Single Family Res. 3 1947 266 $2,289,000.00 3092 Bali Cir 4/12/2021 139-161-07 Single Family Res. 4 1964 267 $2,295,000.00 220 Flower St 5/6/2021 425-404-05 Single Family Res. 5 2006 423
Building Division 714.754.5273 ∙ Code Enforcement & Community Improvement Division 714.754.5638 Housing & Community Development 714.754.4870 ∙ Planning Division 714.754.5245 Fax 714.754.4856 ∙ www.costamesaca.gov
268 $2,300,000.00 220 E 21St St 4/15/2021 426-141-38 Single Family Res. 2 1951 269 $2,300,000.00 235 Lillian Pl 5/27/2021 439-211-08 Single Family Res. 3 1949 270 $2,325,000.00 2401 Tustin Ave 6/16/2021 439-153-09 Single Family Res. 4 1964 271 $2,340,000.00 438 Broadway 6/24/2021 117-342-33 Single Family Res. 3 2016 272 $2,400,000.00 416 Flower St 3/31/2021 117-341-47 Single Family Res. 5 1961 273 $2,440,000.00 433 Broadway 3/31/2021 117-331-07 Single Family Res. 4 1947 274 $2,500,000.00 384 E 16Th St 3/8/2021 425-191-22 Single Family Res. 275 $2,555,000.00 1592 Riverside Pl 6/28/2021 425-311-55 Single Family Res. 2 1948 276 $2,557,000.00 315 Colleen Pl 4/28/2021 426-042-14 Single Family Res. 5 2005 277 $2,560,000.00 1987 Irvine Ave 3/29/2021 426-324-11 Single Family Res. 4 2012 278 $2,699,000.00 1167 Aviemore Ter 5/3/2021 422-331-13 Single Family Res. 3 2006 279 $2,745,000.00 352 E 18Th St 6/7/2021 117-291-16 Single Family Res. 2 1946 280 $2,820,000.00 318 Ogle St 6/11/2021 425-213-14 Single Family Res. 2 1959 281 $2,910,000.00 456 Abbie Way 6/28/2021 117-372-01 Single Family Res. 2 1948 282 $2,975,000.00 381 Walnut St 5/27/2021 426-302-07 Single Family Res. 3 1953 283 $3,350,000.00 365 22Nd St 4/16/2021 426-171-16 Single Family Res. 4 1975 284 $14,325,000.00 266 E 20Th St 6/23/2021 426-211-18 Single Family Res. 2 1957 285 $14,325,000.00 270 E 20Th St 6/23/2021 426-211-17 Single Family Res. 2 1957 $1,080,000.00 Median Sales Price
$1,026,000.00 95% of Median

424
City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 22-668 Meeting Date: 5/3/2022
TITLE:

SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN

IDENTIFYING FUNDING PRIORITIES FOR THE HOME-AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN (ARP)

ALLOCATION PLAN
DEPARTMENT: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT/HOUSING AND

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PRESENTED BY: MIKELLE DAILY, GRANT ADMINISTRATOR
CONTACT INFORMATION: MIKELLE DAILY, GRANT ADMINISTRATOR, 714- 754-5678; [email protected]
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Hold a Public Hearing regarding the FY 2021-2022 Substantial Amendment to the Annual Action Plan.

2. Approve the recommended allocation of $1,816,742 for the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan, a Substantial Amendment to the FY 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan.

3. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-XX in order to:
a. Approve the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan, a Substantial Amendment to the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan.
b. Authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee, to submit the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan Substantial Amendment to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
c. Designate the City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee, as the official representative of the City to administer the programs and to execute and submit all required agreements, certifications, and documents required by HUD, and execute all agreements for the use of funds approved in the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan Substantial Amendment.

4. Authorize revenue and expense appropriations, respectively, each in the amount of $1,816,742, for the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan.

BACKGROUND:

American Rescue Plan (ARP) Funds
On March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP) was signed into law. To address the need for homelessness assistance and supportive services, $5 billion in federal ARP funds were appropriated to be administered through the federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME). On April 8, 2021, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocated

425
File #: 22-668 Meeting Date: 5/3/2022
(HOME). On April 8, 2021, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocated HOME-ARP funds to 651 grantees using the HOME formula established in 24 CFR 92.50 and 92.60.

As a recipient of HOME funds, the City of Costa Mesa is eligible to receive a HOME-ARP allocation in the amount of $1,816,742.

ARP funds can be used to fund four activities that must primarily benefit qualifying individuals and families who are homeless, at risk of homelessness or in other vulnerable populations. These activities are:
(1) development and support of affordable housing;
(2) tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA);
(3) provision of supportive services; and
(4) acquisition and development of non-congregate shelter units.

To receive its HOME-ARP funds, the City must engage in consultation and public participation processes, develop a HOME-ARP allocation plan that meets the HUD requirements, and submit it to HUD as a substantial amendment to the City’sFiscal Year 2021 annual action plan. The HOME-ARP allocation plan must describe how the City intends to distribute HOME-ARP funds, including how it will use these funds to address the needs of HOME-ARP qualifying populations.

HOME-ARP Outreach and Consultation
On March 21, 2022, staff hosted a HOME-ARP consultation meeting with nonprofit service providers and distributed surveys to gather feedback on existing gaps in services for vulnerable populations in Costa Mesa.

On March 31, 2022, staff participated with the Orange County Continuum of Care (CoC) in a consultation meeting to gather feedback on proposed activities for the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan.

On April 5, 2022, a HOME-ARP survey was posted on the City’s website to gather additional feedback from the community regarding potential funding priorities.

Finally, the City is required to provide a 15-day public comment period and must hold a public hearing before approving and submitting the FY 2021-2022 Substantial Amendment for the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan to HUD.

ANALYSIS:

Community Feedback
Staff received valuable feedback from non-profit service and affordable housing providers and organizations via in-person and virtual outreach meetings, online survey results, and phone and email correspondence. (A summary of the feedback is provided below and within the Allocation Plan itself). In general, feedback indicated a need to focus on:
· Increasing availability/affordability of housing units; · Mental health and substance abuse supportive services for youth, survivors of domestic

426
File #: 22-668 Meeting Date: 5/3/2022
violence and individuals experiencing homelessness;
· Supportive and wrap-around services such as transportation, legal services, credit repair and assistance with landlord/tenant relations;
· Case management services;
· Services for seniors, the disabled, and monolingual Spanish speakers; and · Support for existing programs to ensure continuity of current services.

FY 2021-2022 Substantial Amendment HOME-ARP Allocation Plan The City will receive $1,816,742 in HOME-ARP funds once the FY 2021-2022 Substantial Amendment for the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan is submitted and approved by HUD. Based on an analysis of housing/community needs, an assessment of current services available to the qualifying populations, and community feedback, staff is recommending funding for two HOME-ARP eligible activities:

1. Development and Support of Affordable Housing

2. Supportive Services including those defined at 24 CFR 578.53(e) · McKinney-Vento Supportive Services
· Homelessness Prevention Services; and
· Housing Counseling Services
The Allocation Plan (attached) provides a funding allocation for each of the above-listed activities.

Based on the community feedback, staff anticipates a substantial demand for funds for supportive services. However, there is also a clear need for funding to support affordable housing projects as well, which require greater capital investment to bring to fruition. As such, in the public review draft Allocation Plan, staff originally envisioned a split of $1,000,000 allocated to support affordable housing, with $544,231 allocated to supportive services.

However, given that affordable housing projects can also be funded with HOME dollars and supportive services cannot (the City’sproposed FY 22-23 Annual Action Plan shows $2.3 Million in HOME funds allocated for affordable housing projects), staff is recommending that the City Council approve a modified Allocation Plan that prioritizes HOME-ARP funds for supportive services in the amount of $1,000,000 and allocates $544,231 for affordable housing. Refer to Table 1 below for the staff recommended HOME-ARP Allocation Budget.

It should be noted that these allocations are estimates and no specific projects are known at this time. A Request for Proposals (RFP) will be issued for both categories of projects. Depending on the proposals received, HOME-ARP funds may be allocated to either Supportive Services and/or Development of Affordable Rental Housing based on proposals that the City receives in response to the RFP solicitation process. After the City has selected a proposal(s), the City will adjust the amount

427
File #: 22-668 Meeting Date: 5/3/2022
of funding allocated in either category, not to exceed the total HOME-ARP allocation.

TABLE 1 - HOME-ARP ALLOCATION PLAN

ADMINISTRATION
Administration and Planning (15% max)$272,511
Subtotal: $272,511

PROPOSED PROGRAMS/PROJECTS
Development and Support of Affordable Housing$544,231
Subtotal: $544,231
Supportive Services $1,000,000
Subtotal: $1,000,000
HOME-ARP ALLOCATION TOTAL: $1,816,742
Development and Support of Affordable Housing
HOME-ARP funds may be used to acquire, rehabilitate or construct affordable rental housing primarily for occupancy by households of individuals and families that meet the definition of one or more of the qualifying populations under HUD regulations. Eligible HOME-ARP rental housing includes manufactured housing, single room occupancy (SRO) units, and permanent supportive housing. HOME-ARP funds may be used to pay for up to 100% of the following eligible costs associated with the acquisition, development, and operation of HOME-ARP rental units: development hard costs, refinancing, acquisition, related soft costs, relocation costs, costs related to payment of loans, and operating cost assistance. There is a 15-year compliance period. Staff recommends allocating $544,231 in HOME-ARP funds for the Development and Support of Affordable Housing.

Supportive Services
HOME-ARP funds may be used to provide a broad range of supportive services to qualifying individuals or families as a separate activity or in combination with other HOME-ARP activities.

Supportive services include a) services listed in section 401(29) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (“McKinney-VentoSupport Services”)b) homeless prevention services and c) housing counseling services. Supportive services may be provided to individuals and families who meet the definition of a qualifying population who are not already receiving these services through another program. Staff recommends allocating $1,000,000 in HOME-ARP funds for Supportive Services.

Administration
HUD allows the City to allocate up to 15 percent of its HOME-ARP allocation for payment of reasonable administrative and planning costs including program management, coordination, monitoring, and evaluation. Eligible program administration expenditures include program staff

428
File #: 22-668 Meeting Date: 5/3/2022
monitoring, and evaluation. Eligible program administration expenditures include program staff salaries and benefits, contract services, legal services, and other costs for good and services required for administering the HOME-ARP program. Based on the City’sHOME-ARP grant amount, a maximum of $272,511 is available for program administration.

Noticing Requirements and Public Comment
As required by HUD, a notice was published in local newspapers on April 17, 2022, inviting the public to review and comment on the draft HOME-ARP Allocation Plan, a Substantial Amendment to the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan. The comment period began April 18, 2022, and will conclude on May 3, 2022 at Noon. The notice also announced the May 3, 2022 City Council public hearing. At the time of this report, no comments have been received. If comments are received, they will be forwarded to the Council under separate cover prior to the hearing.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council can choose not to fund the proposed activities recommended by staff and allocate HOME-ARP funds to other eligible activities. The City Council can also direct staff to not submit the Allocation Plan; however, if the City does not submit the Allocation Plan, HOME-ARP funds will most likely be returned to the U.S. Treasury.

FISCAL REVIEW:

This action does not have a fiscal impact to the General Fund. Once the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan is approved by HUD, HUD will submit $1,816,742 in HOME-ARP funds to the programs outlined above and revenue and expense appropriations will be established, respectively in the amount of $1,816,742 for the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’sOffice has reviewed and approved this agenda report and the attached resolution as to form.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item supports the following City Council goal:
· Diversify, stabilize and increase housing to reflect community needs.

CONCLUSION:

The draft 2021-2022 Substantial Amendment to the Annual Action Plan is prepared according to HUD regulations and outlines how the City will utilize HOME-ARP funds to meet the objectives and goals of the federal HOME-ARP program. Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing to obtain public input and adopt the Resolution approving the draft 2021-2022 Substantial Amendment to the Annual Action Plan.

429
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-xx Page 1 of 3

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-xx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF THE HOME-ARP ALLOCATION PLAN, A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE FY 2021 -2022

ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR THE APPLICATION AND EXPENDITURE OF HOME

INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ACT AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN (HOME-ARP)

FUNDS TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY FINDS AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 authorized the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) to allocate HOME-ARP funds to units of general local government that qualified for an allocation of Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa participates in the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (“HUD”) Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME); and
WHEREAS, in order to receive a its HOME-ARP allocation, the City is required to engage in consultation and public participation processes and develop a HOME-ARP allocation plan that meets the requirements established in the HUD CPD Notice 21-10 and submit it to HUD as a substantial amendment to its Fiscal Year 2021 Annual Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City’s current Consolidated Plan was adopted on May 19, 2020, and will expire on June 30, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the federal regulations (Title 24 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91) delineate the required content of the Consolidated Plan, including an annual application and expenditure plan for CDBG and HOME funds, known as the Annual Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City is eligible to receive $1,816,742 in HOME-ARP funds, which can be used for development and support of affordable housing, tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA), supportive services and acquisition and development of non- congregate shelter units as set forth in the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan, a Substantial Amendment to the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan (Exhibit A); and 430

Resolution No. 2022-xx Page 2 of 3

WHEREAS, the City made the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan, a Substantial Amendment to the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan available for the required 15-day public review period between April 18, 2022 and May 3, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City has published a notice of a public hearing for the HOME- ARP Allocation Plan, a Substantial Amendment to the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, in the 2021-2022 Substantial Amendment to the Annual Action Plan, the City has considered all public comments which have been received either in writing or at the public hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan, a Substantial Amendment to the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee, to submit the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan, a Substantial Amendment to the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan to HUD and execute all certifications and assurances contained therein to approve minor changes and provide additional information as may be required.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby designates the City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee, as the City’s official representative to administer the programs and execute and submit all required agreements, certifications, and documents required by HUD. The City Council further authorizes the City Manager, or City Manager’s designee, to execute all agreements with the organizations receiving allocations of HOME-ARP funds approved in the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan.

431

Resolution No. 2022-xx Page 3 of 3

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of May 2022.

_____________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________ _____________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss

CITY OF COSTA MESA )

I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2022-xx and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa M esa at a regular meeting held on the 3rd day of May 2022, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 3rd day of May 2022.

___________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk
432
ATTACHMENT 2

City of Costa Mesa

FY2021-2022 Substantial Amendment
HOME-American Rescue Plan (ARP)
Allocation Plan
Draft 3/8/22

433

Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 3 CONSULTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Summary of the Consultation Process .................................................................................................. 4 Organizations Consulted by Organization Type and Method of Consultation ..................................... 4 Summary of Feedback Received from Consulted Organizations .......................................................... 6 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ............................................................................................................................. 8 Efforts to Broaden Public Participation & Summary of Comments Received ...................................... 8 NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND GAPS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 10 Size and Demographic Composition of HOME-ARP Qualifying Populations in Costa Mesa ............... 10 Homeless Population .......................................................................................................................... 10 At Risk of Homelessness ..................................................................................................................... 11 Fleeing, or Attempting to Flee, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Violence, Sexual assault, Stalking or Human Trafficking ............................................................................................................. 12 OTHER POPULATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 13 Unmet Housing and Service Needs of Qualifying Populations ........................................................... 13 Current Resources Available to Assist Qualifying Populations ........................................................... 14 Gaps within the Current Shelter and Housing Inventory and Service Delivery System ..................... 16 Characteristics of Housing Associated with Instability and an Increased Risk of Homelessness ....... 17 Priority Needs for Qualifying Populations .......................................................................................... 18 How the level of need and gaps in its shelter and housing inventory and service delivery systems were determined ................................................................................................................................ 18 Method for Soliciting Applications for Funding and/or Selecting Developers, Service Providers, Subrecipients and/or Contractors....................................................................................................... 19 Rationale for Uses of HOME-ARP Funding .......................................................................................... 20 HOME-ARP PRODUCTION HOUSING GOALS ........................................................................................... 21 Affordable Rental Housing Production Estimate and Goals ............................................................... 21 PREFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 21 HOME-ARP REFINANCING GUIDELINES .................................................................................................. 21 ATTACHMENTS ........................................................................................................................................ 21 Attachment 1: Public Hearing and Comment Period Public Notice.................................................... 21 HUD Certifications and SF-424 ............................................................................................................ 21 434

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Costa Mesa has been allocated $1,816,742 of HOME-American Recovery Plan Act (HOME-ARP) funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). To receive its HOME-ARP allocation, the City must develop a HOME-ARP Allocation Plan that will become part of the FY 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan by substantial amendment.

To ensure broad input into the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan from stakeholders and the public, the City of Costa Mesa engaged in virtual and in-person consultation with agencies and service providers whose clientele include the HOME-ARP qualifying populations. The City also had direct contact with HUD-required organizations that did not participate in a consultation meeting, solicited feedback from organizations and residents by directing them to a survey link on the City website, had a 15-day public comment period, and a public hearing.

The needs assessment and gap analysis identified the following needs and gaps that may be addressed using HOME-ARP funds:
 The January 2019 Point-In-Time (PIT) count revealed a total of 187 unsheltered and 6 sheltered homeless individuals in the City of Costa Mesa.  12,640 (50.5%) of renter households in Costa Mesa spend 30% or more on housing costs (cost burden) and 6,465 (25.9%) of those households spend 50% or more of their gross income on housing costs (severe cost burden).  96% of the households with severe cost burden have a household income of less than 80% of the Area Median Income.
 13% of Costa Mesa renter-occupied households meet the American Community Survey (ACS) definition for overcrowding and 4.7% meet the definition for severe overcrowding.
 A majority (57%) of persons included in the Central Service Planning Area (Central SPA) PIT count had mental health or substance use issues. 29% were identified as having a developmental or physical disability and 37% were identified as chronically homeless.
 Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA) provides vouchers to 591 Costa Mesa residents. 89 households are on the waitlist as of March 2022.

To address these needs and gaps, the City of Costa Mesa will utilize HOME-ARP funds for supportive services, development of affordable rental housing, and planning and administration.

Participating Jurisdiction: City of Costa Mesa Date: April 7, 2022 435

CONSULTATION
Summary of the Consultation Process

The City of Costa Mesa engaged in consultation and public participation processes to develop a HOME-ARP allocation plan that meets the requirements established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and provided in the City’s Citizen Participation Plan.

The process was a collaborative effort that included consultation with the local Orange County Continuum of Care, the Orange County Housing Authority, local Cities, and several nonprofit agencies that serve homeless, at risk of homelessness, seniors, victims of domestic violence, and other qualifying population groups. Consultation included a virtual consultation meeting with the Orange County Health Care Agency, Office of Care Coordination (CoC), an in-person meeting with nonprofit service providers, direct email and phone contact, and the distribution of surveys that collected information on service needs among the qualifying population groups.

Organizations Consulted by Organization Type and Method of Consultation

Agency/Group/Organization
Consulted
Type of Agency/Org Method of
Consultation
Orange County Healthcare
Agency, Office of Care
Coordination
Continuum of Care (CoC) Virtual Session
Orange County Housing Authority
(OCHA)
County Government Public Housing
Agency (PHA)
Virtual Session
Orange County Social Service
Agency
County Government
Social Services
Virtual Session
County of Orange County Government Virtual Session
City of Garden Grove City Government Virtual Session
City of Newport Beach City Government Virtual Session
City of Westminster City Government Virtual Session
Aesop’s Press Unknown Virtual Session
211 Orange County Nonprofit, addresses needs of
qualifying populations
Virtual Session
BrainHealth247.org Addresses Mental Health Needs Virtual Session CalOptima County Organized Health System Virtual Session 436

Agency/Group/Organization
Consulted
Type of Agency/Org Method of
Consultation
CAPOC Nonprofit, addresses needs of
qualifying populations
Virtual Session
Connecting the Dots Unknown Virtual Session
Colette’s Children’s Home Nonprofit, addresses needs of qualifying populations
Virtual Session
Covenant House California Nonprofit, addresses needs of qualifying populations
Virtual Session
Dayle MacIntosh Center Nonprofit, addresses needs of
qualifying populations, including
people with disabilities
Email, Phone
Contact
Goodwill of Orange County,
Tierney Center for Veteran
Services
Nonprofit, addresses needs of
qualifying populations, including
Veterans
Email, Phone
Contact
EAH Housing Nonprofit, addresses needs of
qualifying populations
Virtual Session
Fair Housing Foundation Fair Housing, Civil Rights,
Disabilities Service Provider
Email, Phone
Contact
Families Forward Nonprofit, addresses needs of
qualifying populations, including
homeless and at-risk, TBRA Provider
Virtual Session
In-Person Meeting
Completed Survey
HomeAid Orange County Nonprofit, addresses needs of
qualifying populations
Virtual Session
Human Options Nonprofit, addresses needs of
qualifying populations, including
domestic violence services
Virtual Session
In-Person Meeting
Completed Survey
Interval House Nonprofit, addresses needs of
qualifying populations, including
domestic violence services
Virtual Session
The Lighthouse Outreach Nonprofit, addresses needs of
qualifying populations
In-Person Meeting
Lived Experience Advisory
Committee
Individual Virtual Session
Mercy House Developer/Owner of Affordable
Housing, Supportive Services
Provider, & Emergency Shelter
In-Person Meeting
Completed Survey
Michael Baker International Private, Consultant Virtual Session OCAPICA Nonprofit, addresses needs of
qualifying populations
Virtual Session
Phone in Participant Unknown Virtual Session
437

Agency/Group/Organization
Consulted
Type of Agency/Org Method of
Consultation
Phone in Participant Unknown Virtual Session
Project Hope Alliance Nonprofit, addresses needs of
qualifying populations
In-Person Meeting
Completed Survey
Share Our Selves Nonprofit, addresses needs of
qualifying populations
Email
Completed Survey
StandUp for Kids, Inc. Nonprofit, addresses needs of
qualifying populations
Virtual Session
SquareOne Affordable Housing,
Inc.

Affordable Housing Virtual Session
Trellis Nonprofit, addresses needs of
qualifying populations
In-Person Meeting
Completed Survey
VOALA Nonprofit, addresses needs of
qualifying populations
Virtual Session
Working Wardrobes VetNet Veteran’s Group Email, Phone
Contact
Table 1 – Organizations Consulted
The City made an effort to have an open consultation process. No agency/service type was knowingly excluded from the process.

Summary of Feedback Received from Consulted Organizations

 There is a lack of mental health and substance abuse supportive services available for youth, survivors of domestic violence and individuals experiencing homelessness.
 Housing first cannot be housing only, supportive and wrap-around services are needed.
 The vacancy rate is very low in Costa Mesa and throughout Orange County.

Rental assistance and vouchers are an available resource but there is a lack of availability of housing units.
 Funding programs that are already in motion is a better way to ensure continuity of current services.
 Supportive services such as transportation, legal services, credit repair and assistance with landlord/tenant relations are needed.
 During COVID related school closures there was an increase in gang activity, drug use, and sex trafficking incidents. More case management services are needed to respond.
 Seniors, the disabled and monolingual Spanish speakers are subpopulations that face additional barriers to services.
438

Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan.

Name of Plan/Org/Committee Lead Organization Information consulted Continuum of Care Orange County 211 Provides regional and local point in time homeless
survey data, development of
the regional 10-Year Plan to
End Homelessness, and
development of the regional
Discharge Plan
City of Costa Mesa Housing
Element
City of Costa Mesa Provides housing priorities
and program goals
5-Yr. & 1 Yr. PHA Plan Orange County
Housing Authority
Identifies OCHA resources
to address the housing
needs of lower-income
renter householders in the
County and City
Analysis of Impediments to Fair
Housing
Orange County HUD
Grantee Cities and
the County of
Orange
Countywide document that
identifies fair housing
impediments within
participating cities and
outlines a plan to address fair
housing issues
2019 Point In Time Summary County of Orange Sheltered and Unsheltered Homelessness count
Network for Homeless Solutions (NHS) City of Costa Mesa The City's Network for Homeless Solutions (NHS) is a
task force comprised of
representatives of various City
departments, nonprofit
service agencies, and
representatives of faith-based
service providers. The main
focus of the NHS is to find
workable solutions to address
the needs of the homeless,
especially those with close ties
to Costa Mesa
Table 2 – Other local / regional / federal planning efforts

439

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City took several steps to obtain community residents' input to develop the HOME- ARP Allocation Plan. Consultation efforts included public meetings with nonprofit service providers and City Council, posted and emailed surveys, and notices.

Specifically, for the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan planning process, the City utilized its internet webpage, social media and newspaper notices to inform residents of the opportunities to provide input and review/comment on the draft Allocation Plan. All City Council meetings were noticed in local English and Spanish language newspapers of general circulation. Additionally, the draft HOME-ARP Allocation Plan was posted on the City's website for public review and comment for the 15-day public comment period held from April 17, 2022, to May 2, 2022 (see Attachment 1). Hard copies of the draft Allocation Plan were available for public review at the public counter at Costa Mesa City Hall 2nd Floor – 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA.

 Public comment period: April 17, 2022 – May 2, 2022
 Public hearing: 05/03/22

Efforts to Broaden Public Participation & Summary of Comments Received

Citizen Participation Outreach
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments
received
Summary
of
comments
not
accepted
and
reasons
In-Person
Meeting

Nonprofit
Service
Providers
8 staff members
from 6 Nonprofit
Service Providers,
discussed
homeless/housing
needs and HOME-
ARP Allocation
Plan (03/22/22)

Listed in
Summary of
Feedback
Received
from
Consulted
Organizations
None
Virtual
Meeting
CoC Partners 44 participants
listed previously in
table of
organizations
consulted
Listed in
Summary of
Feedback
Received
from
Consulted
Organizations
None
440

Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments
received
Summary
of
comments
not
accepted
and
reasons
Survey Service
Providers/
Broad
Community
Available in
English and
Spanish

TBD TBD None
Newspaper
Ad
Non-
targeted/broad
community
15-day public
comment period
(04/17/22 to
05/02/22)

TBD

None
E-blast

Non-English
Speaking –
Specify other
language:

Spanish

TBD TBD None

Public
Hearing
Non-
targeted/broad
community
05/03/22 Regular
City Council
meeting

TBD

None
Table 3 – Citizen Participation Outreach

441

NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND GAPS ANALYSIS
The needs assessment and gap analysis must evaluate the 1) size and demographic composition of HOME-ARP qualifying populations, and 2) unmet needs of HOME-ARP qualifying populations.

Size and Demographic Composition of HOME-ARP Qualifying Populations in Costa Mesa

Homeless Population
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires that all Continuum of Care jurisdictions across the nation complete a biennial unsheltered count and an annual sheltered count of all individuals experiencing homelessness in the community on a single point in time during the last ten days of January. The County of Orange was approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to reschedule the 2022 Point in Time (PIT) count to the last 10 days of February due to the impacts of COVID-19. The County of Orange and Orange County Continuum of Care conducted the sheltered count the night of Monday, February 21, 2022, and the unsheltered count started the morning of Tuesday, February 22 through Thursday, February 24. The results of the 2022 Point in Time count are not yet available; therefore, the information included in this City of Costa Mesa HOME-ARP Allocation Plan is from the 2019 Point in Time (PIT) count that took place from January 22, 2019 to January 24, 2019.

The January 2019 PIT count revealed a total of 193 homeless individuals in the City of Costa Mesa. Among the 193 individuals, 6 were sheltered and 187 were unsheltered. 181 (94%) of those counted were individuals and 12 (6%) were part of a family. Of those who were part of a family, 3 were sheltered and 9 were unsheltered. Only 3 of the 181 individuals that were not part of a family were sheltered at the time of the 2019 PIT count. 20 of the unsheltered persons identified as veterans, 23 were seniors and 5 were transitional aged youth.

The specific demographic composition data was not broken down by City in the 2019 Orange County Point in Time count, however, the data was broken down into three Service Planning Areas – North, Central and South. The City of Costa Mesa is part of the Central Service Planning Area (Central SPA) which includes 9 cities and a county unincorporated area. In the Central SPA, 3,332 homeless individuals were counted. Of that total, 72% were White, 11% were Black or African American, 8% were Multiple Races or Other and 5% were Asian. Additionally, 37% of all persons in the Central SPA count reported being of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity.

442

Table 4 - Homeless Needs Inventory and Gap Analysis
Homeless
Current Inventory Homeless Population Gap Analysis
Family Adults Only Vets Family
HH (at
least 1
child)
Adult
HH
(w/o
child)
Vets Vict
ims
of
DV
Family Adults Only
#
of
Be
ds
# of
Unit
s
# of
Bed
s
# of
Unit
s
# of
Bed
s
# of
Bed
s
# of
Unit
s
# of
Bed
s
# of
Unit
s
Emergency
Shelter
0 76 0
Transitional
Housing
0 0 0
Permanent
Supportive
Housing
0 0 0
Other
Permanent
Housing

Sheltered
Homeless
3 3 0
Unsheltered
Homeless
9 178 20
Current Gap 12 181
Data Sources: 1. Orange County Point in Time Count, Everyone Counts Report 2019 (PIT); 2. Continuum of Care Housing Inventory County (HIC); 3. Consultation
At Risk of Homelessness
The term “at risk of homelessness,” as defined in section 401(1) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(1)); means, with respect to an individual or family, that the individual or family:
 has income below 30 percent of median income for the geographic area;  has insufficient resources immediately available to attain housing stability; and o has moved frequently because of economic reasons;
o is living in the home of another because of economic hardship; 443

o has been notified that their right to occupy their current housing or living situation will be terminated;
o lives in a hotel or motel;
o lives in severely overcrowded housing;
o is exiting an institution; or
o otherwise lives in housing that has characteristics associated with instability and an increased risk of homelessness.

According to the 2014-2018 American Community Survey (ACS), 6,185 renter households in Costa Mesa have household incomes below 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI) and only 875 rental units in Costa Mesa are affordable for households at that income level. This leaves over 5,310 very-low income households in Costa Mesa at risk of homelessness as defined above.

Table 5 - Housing Needs Inventory and Gap Analysis
Non-Homeless
Current Inventory Level of Need Gap Analysis
# of Units # of Households # of Households
Total Rental Units 24,985
Rental Units Affordable to
HH at 30% AMI (At-Risk of
Homelessness)
875 6,185
Rental Units Affordable to
HH at 50% AMI (Other
Populations)
415 4,730
Current Gaps 1,290 10,915 9,625
Data Sources: 1. American Community Survey (ACS); 2. Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)

Fleeing, or Attempting to Flee, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Violence, Sexual assault, Stalking or Human Trafficking The 2019 PIT count identified 140 unsheltered adult and 94 sheltered adult survivors of domestic violence in the Central Service Planning Area of Orange County. Providers of services to survivors of domestic violence indicate the number of individuals in need of shelter is likely undercounted as isolation and physical distancing mandates during the Coronavirus pandemic resulted in increased domestic violence concerns while limiting potential flight from unsafe living situations. Demographic information for this qualifying population is confidential.

444

OTHER POPULATIONS
Other populations, as defined by HOME-ARP, include those who:

1. Are currently housed and at risk of repeat homelessness;

2. Have incomes below 30% AMI and are experiencing severe housing cost burden; and

3. Otherwise meet the definition of at risk of homelessness and have incomes between 30% and 50% AMI.

The Continuum of Care 2019 PIT narrative indicates that 402 or 40.81% of unsheltered individuals reported experiencing homelessness for the first time in the last 12 months.

Therefore, almost 60% of the 985 unsheltered individuals surveyed had experienced homelessness previously and would be at a higher risk for repeat homelessness.

The 2014-2018 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data table indicates that 3,585 renters in Costa Mesa are experiencing severe housing cost burden and 3,505 renters have incomes between 30% and 50% AMI and may be considered eligible under “other populations” if they otherwise meet the definition of at risk homelessness.

Unmet Housing and Service Needs of Qualifying Populations

The greatest unmet housing needs of qualifying populations are:
 Permanent rental housing that is affordable to qualifying and other populations; and
 Permanent supportive rental housing that coordinates specialized services with housing that is affordable to qualifying and other populations.

The greatest unmet service needs of qualifying populations, including sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations, currently housed populations at risk of homelessness, other families requiring services or assistance to prevent homelessness, and those at greatest risk of housing instability or in unstable housing situations are:
 Mental health treatment
 Substance abuse treatment
 Transportation
 Legal Services
 Employment assistance and job training
 Life skills
 Case management
 Outpatient health services
 Outreach services
445

 Credit repair
 Landlord-tenant liaison services
 Housing search and counseling assistance
 Services for special populations
 Financial assistance to secure stable housing, such as rental application fees, security and utility deposits, and first month’s rent

Current Resources Available to Assist Qualifying Populations

As outlined in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, the City has a well-developed strategy to address homelessness in the community. This strategy includes outreach and assessment services for homeless and chronic homeless individuals. These programs will help households, especially extremely low-income households, maximize the amount of income they have available for housing. Program staff will attempt to link individuals to appropriate housing, support services, and public assistance programs (e.g., VA benefits, SSI). To undertake this effort, the City partners with local nonprofit service providers and community-based volunteers. Based on assessments, individuals or households are referred to appropriate housing/service providers. City staff will coordinate the delivery of services and housing with providers to reduce the number of homeless individuals in the community. Both HUD and City funds will be used to carry out these activities, including emergency shelter and rapid rehousing.

Emergency Shelters
According to the 2021 Orange County Housing Inventory Count (HIC), the following emergency shelters are available to assist qualifying populations in the City of Costa Mesa:

The City of Costa Mesa opened an emergency Bridge Shelter at a temporary location in April 2019 with 50 beds, while constructing a permanent shelter location with 70 beds, which opened in April 2021. The permanent Bridge Shelter was built in coordination with the neighboring City of Newport Beach who made a one-time payment of $1.4 million in capital costs as well as $200,000 in furniture, fixtures, and equipment for the site.

Additionally, Newport Beach will provide $1 million annually for 20 set-aside beds. The Bridge Shelter assists persons experiencing homelessness with temporary housing along with a variety of programs including: Collaborative Case Management; Housing 446

Related Support Services (including Coordinated Entry System housing assignments; Housing Search Assistance (linking clients to rental assistance programs and other general housing services); Legal Services; Basic Needs (including food, clothing, and housing/emergency services); Social Services; and Transportation. The permanent Bridge Shelter publishes bi-weekly reports in which they regularly assist approximately 60 to 110+ persons over a two-week span.

Supportive Services
The City recognizes that certain segments of the population require additional assistance to secure decent housing and supportive services. Special needs groups in Costa Mesa include: seniors, persons with disabilities (including developmental disabilities), persons at-risk of experiencing or experiencing homelessness, and low- income families (including large households and female-headed households). Through the annual action plan process for the CDBG program, the City evaluates the needs of various special needs groups and allocates CDBG Public Service dollars accordingly.

The City will continue to expend available CDBG funds in a manner that addresses local needs and augments the regional continuum of care system in Orange County.

Approximately $1,000,000 in General Fund and Housing Authority (former Redevelopment Agency) resources will be allocated to provide direct outreach services for chronic and situational homeless. Services include engagement, assessment, and linkages to appropriate services and housing. City-paid social workers and community volunteers will provide services.

Rental Housing Assistance
The City continues to participate in the Orange County Housing Authority’s (OCHA) Housing Choice Vouchers program to provide rent subsidies to very low-income households provided funding is available. Costa Mesa does not own or manage public housing. It is anticipated that OCHA will continue to provide rental assistance to approximately 591 Costa Mesa renter households (265 disabled persons, 401 elderly persons, 49 families, 74 homeless at admission and 32 veterans). 89 people are currently on the waitlist.

The City also began offering a Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program in 2021. This program assists low-income residents with short-term rental assistance to make renting affordable. The program focus is on families with children at risk of homelessness or exiting temporary or bridge shelter housing. The City will continue to evaluate and offer rental housing assistance programs based on the availability of funding.
447

CDBG and CDBG-CV funding is allocated for rapid rehousing, homelessness prevention and support services. Rapid rehousing is a "housing first" program model that places a household experiencing homelessness directly into an affordable housing unit and provides appropriate supportive services to establish housing stability.

Gaps within the Current Shelter and Housing Inventory and Service Delivery System

Shelter Gap
According to the 2019 Orange County Point-In-Time count, there were 193 individuals experiencing homelessness in the City of Costa Mesa. As a result, the City opened up a temporary shelter with 50 beds available. In 2021, the City closed its temporary shelter and opened its 72 bed permanent Bridge Shelter in the City of Costa Mesa. The resulting gap as illustrated in Table 4 is an estimated need for 181 additional shelter beds. However, on the night of the Point In Time count, 211 Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing beds remained vacant in Orange County’s Central SPA, which points to possible gaps in the service delivery system.

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Gap
The City of Costa Mesa provided $300,000 in HOME funds for a TBRA program in 2021. As of the current date, approximately 9% of the funds have provided assistance to three Costa Mesa families. The City continues to participate in the Orange County Housing Authority’s (OCHA) Housing Choice Vouchers program to provide rent subsidies to very low-income households provided funding is available. Costa Mesa does not own or manage public housing. It is anticipated that OCHA will continue to provide rental assistance to approximately 591 Costa Mesa renter households (265 disabled persons, 401 elderly persons, 49 families, 74 homeless at admission and 32 veterans). 89 people are currently on the waitlist.

Consultation feedback and information available about the vacancy rate in the City of Costa Mesa (2.8% according to the 2020 ACS), points to a more profound gap in the available rental units than the availability of tenant based rental assistance.

Affordable and Permanent Supportive Rental Housing Gap
As identified in Table 5 in this document, there is a need for 10,915 affordable units in the City of Costa Mesa, and only 1,290 units that meet this description. Of the 10,915 that are needed, 5,310 units are needed for households with incomes at or below 30% of the Orange County Area Median Income (AMI) and 4,315 units are need for households with incomes between 30% and 50% AMI.
448

Of the 89 people currently on the waitlist for Housing Choice Vouchers through the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA), there are 30 disabled persons, 34 elderly persons and 16 currently homeless. These populations have a higher success rate in maintaining housing with supportive services. According to The Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH) www.csh.org, the State of California needs approximately 30,000 permanent supportive housing units to resolve chronic homelessness. If you divide that number by the total population of California and then multiply it by the population of Costa Mesa, the gap for permanent supportive housing in Costa Mesa equals 845 units.

Service Delivery System Gap
Consultation with organizations having experience with providing services to the qualifying populations revealed service delivery system gaps including case management, connecting individuals with employment opportunities with sufficient income to afford housing, lack of transportation, move-in assistance, and mental health and substance abuse treatment availability. Service providers also identified that there was a lack of availability of funding for capacity building for their organizations.

Characteristics of Housing Associated with Instability and an Increased Risk of Homelessness

At Greatest Risk of Housing Instability is defined as household who meets either paragraph below:

Has annual income that is less than or equal to 30% of the area median income, as determined by HUD and is experiencing severe cost burden (i.e., is paying more than 50% of monthly household income toward housing costs);
Has annual income that is less than or equal to 50% of the area median income, as determined by HUD AND meets one of the following conditions from paragraph iii of the “At risk of homelessness” definition established at 24 CFR 91.5  Has moved because of economic reasons two or more times during the 60 days immediately preceding the application for homelessness prevention assistance  Is living in the home of another because of economic hardship  Has been notified in writing that their right to occupy their current housing or living situation will be terminated within 21 days after the date of application for assistance
 Lives in a hotel or motel and the cost of the hotel or motel stay is not paid by charitable organizations or by Federal, State or local government programs for low-income individuals
449

 Lives in a single-room occupancy or efficiency apartment unit in which there reside more than two persons or lives in a larger housing unit in which there reside more than 1.5 persons per room, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau  Is exiting a publicly funded institution, or system of care (such as a health-care facility, a mental health facility, foster care or other youth facility, or correction program or institution); or
 Otherwise lives in housing that has characteristics associated with instability and an increased risk of homelessness, as identified in the recipient’s approved consolidated plan

Priority Needs for Qualifying Populations

The analysis of the 2019 Point in Time count, CHAS data, ACS data, and consultation with various agencies identified the priority needs for qualifying populations in Costa Mesa as:
 Development of affordable housing, including permanent supportive housing; and  Housing-related supportive services for qualifying populations How the level of need and gaps in its shelter and housing inventory and service delivery systems were determined

The City of Costa Mesa analyzed several data sources to determine the needs and gaps in the shelter and housing inventory and service delivery systems. First, city-level data was gleaned from the 2019 Orange County Point in Time Count and then the 2014-2018 American Community Survey (ACS) and the 2014-2018 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS). The Costa Mesa 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), 2022 Costa Mesa Housing Element and 2020-2024 Orange County Analysis of Impediments were also reviewed for data to contribute to the needs assessment and gaps analysis for the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan.

Current services provided by the City of Costa Mesa and in collaboration with the County of Orange (OCHA) for the qualifying populations were analyzed and feedback obtained from a virtual meeting, in-person meeting, public hearing and comment period, and completed surveys all were included in the analysis to determine the level of need and gaps in shelter and housing inventory and service delivery systems in Costa Mesa.

450

PROPOSED HOME-ARP ACTIVITIES
Method for Soliciting Applications for Funding and/or Selecting Developers, Service Providers, Subrecipients and/or Contractors

The City of Costa Mesa (City) will be soliciting applications for funding and/or selecting developers, service providers, subrecipients and/or contractors by issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the development and support of affordable housing and/or the provision of supportive services, either as a separate activity or in combination with other HOME-ARP activities.

The Request for Proposals will be announced through notices to the following parties:
 Current and past CDBG Subrecipients
 Interested Developers and Nonprofit Organizations
 2-1-1 OC
 Public Notice in the local Newspaper
 Published on www.Planetbids.com

A qualified developer, service provider, subrecipient and/or contractor (Applicant) shall complete and submit the Proposal for HOME-ARP funds and prepare all required attachments and exhibits. After the deadline for the RFP, the Development Services staff shall review the proposal(s) to determine that the minimum program and RFP requirements are met (minimum threshold review) and the proposal(s) is eligible under HUD CPD Notice 21-10. Proposals that do not meet the minimum threshold review will be considered non-responsive. If the proposal(s) meets the minimum threshold review, Development Services and Homeless Services staff will form a Review Panel.

Using scoring and selection criteria provided in the RFP, the Review Panel shall determine whether the proposal(s) is recommended for approval.

Before any HOME-ARP funds are committed to an affordable housing project, the project will be evaluated to determine the amount of HOME-ARP capital subsidy and operating cost assistance necessary to provide quality affordable housing that meets the requirements of HUD CDP Notice 21-10 and is financially viable throughout the minimum 15-year HOME-ARP compliance period.

The City will not restrict the eligibility/availability of proposals that may be submitted to the City under the RFP that will be issued to solicit applications for funding and/or selecting developers, service providers, subrecipients and/or contractors for the use of HOME-ARP program funds. The City cannot anticipate if proposals will be submitted for eligible projects under Supportive Services or for the Development of Affordable Rental 451

Housing category because the solicitation is going to be available for either type of project. The City also does not want to limit the possibility of proposals for either eligible activity. Therefore, HOME-ARP funds may be allocated to either Supportive Services and/or Development of Affordable Rental Housing based on proposals that the City receives in response to the RFP solicitation process. After the City has selected a proposal(s), the City will adjust the amount of funding allocated in either category, not to exceed to total HOME-ARP allocation or an amount that would trigger a substantial amendment per the City’s Citizen Participation Plan or the HUD CDP 21-10 Notice.

Use of HOME-ARP Funding:

Eligible Activities
Funding Amount Percent of the
Grant
Statutory Limit
Acquisition and Development of Non-
Congregate Shelters
$
Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) $
Development of Affordable Rental Housing $ 544,231
Supportive Services $ 1,000,000
Non-Profit Operating $ % 5%
Non-Profit Capacity Building $ % 5%
Administration and Planning $ 272,511 % 15%
Total HOME-ARP Allocation $1,816,742
Table 6 – Use of HOME-ARP Funding

The City of Costa will not directly administer HOME-ARP activities beyond program administration and planning and no subrecipients or contractors are responsible for program administration and planning on behalf of the City.

Rationale for Uses of HOME-ARP Funding

The vacancy rate of rental units in the City of Costa Mesa according to the 2018 ACS is

2.8%. The actual vacancy rate in 2022 has been suggested to be closer to 1.8%. The number of units available, the high cost of rent and the volume of cost burdened and severely cost burdened renters is a prime indicator for the use of HOME-ARP funds for the development of affordable rental housing.

The City's homeless strategy is based on the proposition that it is less expensive and disruptive for a household to remain housed in their existing home than to be rehoused.

To this end, the City’s focuses its resources on agencies that provide various safety-net services to prevent households from becoming homeless. Although the City already supports programs that provide supportive services to the HOME-ARP qualifying populations, the gap and needs analysis provided in this document reveal the need for additional support services to increase the opportunity and stability for low-income individuals to obtain and maintain housing.
452

HOME-ARP PRODUCTION HOUSING GOALS
Affordable Rental Housing Production Estimate and Goals

The estimated number of affordable rental housing units that will be produced or supported with the City’s HOME-ARP allocation cannot be calculated until after the RFP process is completed. The number will depend on the number of proposed projects received and the required funding to complete any or all of those projects. It will also depend on the type of proposals received since our request will be for both Affordable Housing projects as well as Supportive Services projects.

California’s Regional Housing Needs assessment (RHNA) is the basis for determining future housing need by income category, within the state and is based on growth in population, households, and employment. The City of Costa Mesa’s RHNA allocation is divided among four income categories which are benchmarked on the County of Orange’s median income for a family of four. Costa Mesa’s RHNA Allocation for the 2021-2029 Planning Period for Very Low Income 0-50% MFI is 2,919 units and Low Income 51-80% MFI 1,794 units. The City’s goal is to make as much progress toward the City’s RHNA requirement as possible with the HOME-ARP funding that is available.

PREFERENCES
The City does not intend to give preference to one or more qualifying populations or a subpopulation within one or more qualifying populations for any eligible activity or project.

HOME-ARP REFINANCING GUIDELINES
The City of Costa Mesa will not utilize HOME-ARP funds for refinancing of properties that may be rehabilitated with HOME-ARP funds.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Public Hearing and Comment Period Public Notice HUD Certifications and SF-424

453

CITY OF COSTA MESA

HOME-ARP ALLOCATION PLAN
FY2021 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

454

CITY OF COSTA MESA

HOME-ARP ALLOCATION PLAN
FY2021 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
CERTIFICATIONS AND 424 FORMS
455
ATTACHMENT 3

PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF 15-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD BY

THE CITY OF COSTA MESA REGARDING SUBMISSION OF THE

HOME-AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN (ARP) ALLOCATION PLAN,
A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE 2021-2022 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Costa Mesa City Council will hold a public comment period and public hearing for the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan, a Substantial Amendment to the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan, in compliance with federal regulations (24 CFR 91).

On March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP) was signed into law and allocated federal ARP funds to local cities through the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (H OME). As a recipient of HOME funds, the City of Costa Mesa is eligible to receive a HOME -ARP allocation in the amount of $1,816,742. To receive its HOME -ARP funds, the City must develop a HOME -ARP Allocation P lan and submit a HOME-ARP Allocation Plan to HUD as a substantial amendment to the City’s previously approved Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan. The HOME-ARP Allocation Plan describes how the City intends to distribute HOME -ARP funds to address the needs of qualifying populations. The City has prepared a HOME-ARP Allocation Plan, a Substantial Amendment to its 2021 -2022 Annual Action Plan, which is now available for public review. The Allocation Plan proposes the use of HOME-ARP funds for the following:

Proposed HOME-ARP Activity
 Supportive Services for persons at-risk and/or experiencing homelessness  Development of Affordable Housing
 Program administration

15-Day Public Comment Period
The City is required to make a draft of the HOME -ARP Allocation Plan available for public review for 15 days. The required 15 -day public comment period will begin April 1 8, 2022 and end at 12 PM on May 3, 2022. The draft HOME -ARP Allocation Plan is available for public review at the public counter at Costa Mesa City Hall 2nd Floor – 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA. City Hall is open Monday through Thursday and alternating Fridays, 8 AM to 5 PM. The draft is also posted on the City’s website:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city-departments/development-services/housing-and-community- development. Written comments regarding the Allocation Plan must be submitted to the attention of Mikelle Daily at Costa Mesa City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 or by email to [email protected].

All written comments must be received by the City no later than 12 PM May 3, 2022.

Public Hearing
The City is required to hold a public hearing regarding the HOME -ARP Allocation Plan, a Substantial Amendment to the 2021 -2022 Annual Action Plan. NOTICE IS GIVEN that the Costa Mesa C ity Council will hold a public hearing at its regular meeting on Tuesday, May 3, 2022, at 7:00 PM or as soon as possible thereafter, at Costa Mesa City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California.

Public Comments:

Members of the public wishing to particip ate in the meeting may find instructions to participate on the agenda. Members of the public may also submit written comments via email to the City Clerk at [email protected] and they will be provided to the City Council, made available to the public, and will be part of the meeting record . Any written communications, photos or other materials for copying and distribution to the City Council that are 10 pages or less, can be emailed to the [email protected], submitted to the City Clerk’s Office on a flash drive, or mailed to the City/Clerk’s Office. Kindly submit materials to the City Clerk AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE, BUT NO LATER THAN 12:00PM on the day of the hearing, May 3, 2022 . All materials, pictures, PowerPoints, and videos submitted for display at a public meeting must be previously reviewed by staff to verify appropriateness for general audiences. No links to YouTube videos or other streaming services will be accepted, a direct video file will need to be emailed to staff prior to each meeting in order to minimize complications and to play the video without delay. The video must be one of the following formats, .mp4, .mov, or .wmv. Only one file may be included per speaker for public comments. Please note that materials submitted by the public that are deemed appropriate for general audiences will not be redacted in any way and will be posted online as submitted, including any personal contact information. For further assistance, contact the City Clerk’s Office at (714)754 -5225. The 456
City Council agenda and related documents may also be viewed on the City’s website at http://costamesaca.gov/. 72 hours prior to the public hearing date. IF THE AFOREMENTIONED ACTION IS CHALLENGED IN COURT, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in the notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.

Brenda Green, City Clerk, City of Costa Mesa
Publish: April 17, 2022

457
ATTACHMENT 4
458

459

Orange County – 12 Costa Mesa - 8
460

461

462

463

464

No – 5
Unknown – 2
Drug addicts – 1
BIPOC communities – 1
Hispanic/Spanish Population - 6
465

“We need permanent supportive housing.”
“Please consider more housing support – it’s not enough to have more shelter beds without housing. More shelter beds = more bottleneck in the system without permanent housing. Additionally, support of services in housing that promote economic mobility and flow through housing can ensure we can serve more families.” “Get as many people involved as possible. Make sure that all are involved as more than just the available Home-Arp funds will be needed.”
“Costa Mesa has a great Network of businesses, City, Nonprofits who work in collaboration to help end homelessness. The big challenge is the lack of affordable units, robust mental health support and affordable addition, detox and recovery units.” “Mental Health law changes around mandatory 30 or 60 day hold must change to help those that cannot see they need help and medication.”
“I will be reaching out to city hall tomorrow, I am in desperate need of assistance. I was unrightfully terminated for a job that I was employed with for 9 days, and I feel I was discriminated due to my disability. I applied for unemployment and I was denied benefits because my previous employer said that I quit voluntarily and has misconduct. I filed an appeal and mailed submitted numerous documents to the Appeal Board, but I have not heard anything back from EDD. I have not been able to cover my portion of rent and owe almost $10,000. The leasing office helped me apply for the CA Covid Rent Relief in Febuary, and I call them twice a week and they are stating that my claim is expidited but I have not gotten any response back from my case manager. I am now recieving food stamps and have almost gone through all of my savings over the past three months. I desprately need your help to obtain rental assistance because I am newly diagnosed with bi-polar disorder and this situation is causing me major distress. I look forward to talking with you.”

466
City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 22-639 Meeting Date: 5/3/2022
TITLE:

RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT/ TRANSPORTATION

SERVICES DIVISION
PRESENTED BY: RAJA SETHURAMAN, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR CONTACT INFORMATION: JENNIFER ROSALES, TRANSPORTATION SERVICES MANAGER (714) 754-5343
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Approve revised Residential Permit Parking program guidelines and policies.

2. Approve an annual residential parking permit fee with an escalating rate structure and discount for qualifying low-income residents.

3. Authorize staff and the City Attorney to initiate amendments to the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC) incorporating proposed changes to the Residential Permit Parking program and return to City Council for approval through the Public Hearing process.

BACKGROUND:

The most recent guidelines for the City of Costa Mesa’sResidential Permit Parking program (RPP) were adopted in January 2016 (Attachment 2). The purpose of the RPP program is to help relieve parking congestion on public streets adjacent to impacted residential areas by vehicles unrelated to the neighborhood.

Key components of the existing Residential Permit Parking program include:
• Considered only in R-1 zones on a street by street basis; • Eligible household is defined as a single family or multi-family residence along the designated permit parking street as well as single family residence located in a mixed-use neighborhood located within 250 feet of a permit parking street;
• Parking survey that identifies neighborhood parking demand of 70 percent or more of all available parking is considered significant;
• Petition signed by a majority of households is required for installation or removal of the program;
• Up to three (3) permits per household; and

467
File #: 22-639 Meeting Date: 5/3/2022
• One hundred (100) guest parking permits per household issued per year.

In recent years, the parking demands from single-family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial parking shortages have caused significant parking impacts on other adjacent residential neighborhoods where residents are unable to park on streets adjacent to their homes. The City has received significant feedback from both residents and business owners related to limited parking on public streets.

Several factors have contributed to the increase of significant parking impacts including a growing number of vehicles per household, older neighborhoods originally designed for a lower parking demand, insufficient parking within multi-family communities, and the use of garages for storage. In addition, when a single-family street becomes a newly designated residential permit parking street, vehicles utilizing this street for parking are displaced and moved to other nearby streets. Often, streets designated with residential permit parking become much less utilized since residents not living on that street are displaced and are then required to find parking elsewhere resulting in a new set of parking challenges in adjacent neighborhoods. This sequence of events creates unintended cascading impacts on surrounding streets.

A Professional Services Agreement with Dixon Resources Unlimited for the Citywide Parking Study of the Residential Permit Parking program was approved by the City Council on January 21, 2020 to identify viable solutions including both short-term and long-term solutions to parking impacted neighborhoods. The study objectives include:
· Actively engage stakeholders;
· Holistically understand parking challenges;
· Evaluate the Residential Permit Parking program; and
· Develop recommendations that will have an immediate as well as long-term impact on the City’s parking operations.

The scope of work included extensive stakeholder input, a parking analysis of existing and future parking conditions, alternative parking management strategies and an implementation plan. In April 2020, the project was put on hold and defunded due to financial impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic. In the City’sapproved Capital Improvement Project fund for fiscal year (FY) 20-21, the project funding was restored. The Citywide Parking Study project was reinitiated with Dixon Resources Unlimited in October 2020 when students returned to campus for in-person learning and traffic patterns returned to more typical levels.

ANALYSIS:

The Citywide Parking Study includes a review of existing conditions, current parking policies, extensive data collection and analysis, and community outreach. The on-street parking data collection was conducted in the residential areas of City Council Districts 4 and 5 and approximately 650 blocks were observed consisting of a total inventory of 10,531 spaces. Data collection occurred over two days in October 2020 including weekday and weekend to compare occupancy and turnover rates.

An online Citywide Residential Parking Survey was conducted from March 13, 2021 to April 18, 2021.

The purpose of the survey was to gather initial feedback about residential on-street parking including existing policies and programs. The survey was available online with English and Spanish language

468
File #: 22-639 Meeting Date: 5/3/2022
existing policies and programs. The survey was available online with English and Spanish language options. The City received 356 total responses and four percent took the survey in Spanish.

The City hosted four virtual community outreach meetings to provide information about the project and to solicit feedback from residents. The presentation slides were offered in both English and Spanish, and a Spanish translator was present during the meetings.

The community outreach meetings were held on the following dates:
· March 15, 2021 at 6:00 p.m.
· March 31, 2021 at 6:00 p.m.
· June 30, 2021 at 6:00 p.m.
· September 28, 2021 at 6:00 p.m.

Over 100 residents participated in the community outreach meetings. Results from the surveys and data collection are included in Attachment 3.

Several recommendations were developed taking into consideration the data collection results, community outreach feedback, residential parking survey, industry best practices, and the 2016 California State Attorney General opinion. These recommendations are meant to address the current and long-term residential parking and mobility challenges in Costa Mesa. Initial steps recommended for the RPP program will provide immediate parking management benefits and establish the basis for future improvements. The guiding principles employed in the development of the City’sRPP program include:
· Equitable access: Develop equitable programs that appropriately balance the parking needs of all residents, businesses, and visitors, while enabling the on-street parking supply to serve the community fairly, and enhance access for all.
· Sustainable solutions: Implement financially sustainable strategies that modernize and streamline parking program management.
· Efficient program management: Create an efficient and adaptable parking system that is optimized for the City’scurrent needs, but can be incrementally updated and adjusted over time.

The following are goals and priorities identified for the parking program:
· Align the RPP program with the Attorney General’sopinion and develop an equitable solution that serves the needs of all Costa Mesa residents. The 2016 California Attorney General’s opinion (#14-304), states “In issuing long-term residential parking permits, local authorities may not distinguish among residents based on the type of dwelling in which they live.”
· Improve parking demand management. This includes addressing local neighborhood parking challenges and the parking demand generated by commercial areas. · Improve mobility and promote alternative transportation options. Promoting alternatives to driving alone can lower parking demand, reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and is better for the environment.
· Address spillover impacts and optimize on-street parking supply utilization. There is often an imbalanced distribution of parking demand due to spillover parking impacts from permit

469
File #: 22-639 Meeting Date: 5/3/2022
imbalanced distribution of parking demand due to spillover parking impacts from permit parking restrictions.
· Streamline and modernize the RPP program. This includes utilizing technology to automate and enhance permit applications, approval process and enforcement of permit parking.

Several recommendation options and strategies were developed for the RPP program. These include:
· Implementation of a revised RPP program.
· Future RPP permit zones limited to external parking impacts: residents near commercial areas, OC Fair, and near City boundaries.
· Changes to permit eligibility and permit maximums.
· Annual RPP permit fee and low cost options.
· Implementation of an automated permit management system. · Implementation of mobile license plate recognition cameras, and transition to virtually managed permits.
· Ongoing enforcement staffing adjustments based on data. · Branding and marketing.
· Longer term shared parking agreements.
· Promote and enhance alternative transportation modes for walking and biking.

Feedback from residents regarding proposed recommendation options was obtained during the fourth community outreach meeting held on September 28, 2021. Over 40 community members attended this meeting via zoom. Several residents expressed support for implementing a residential parking permit fee and in favor of keeping a residential permit parking program. Residents on existing residential permit parking streets inquired about potential needs for re-applying and about any renewal priorities. Other topics discussed included virtual permits, parking enforcement, shared parking opportunities, utilization of off-street parking, and increasing housing density.

Based on the public input received at the fourth community outreach meeting, a proposed phased renewal process is recommended for existing residential permit parking streets and application for potential new streets into the program. The existing residential permit parking streets with and without existing external parking impacts, which include commercial businesses, entertainment and event facilities, and educational institutions are shown in Attachment 4.

Proposed recommendations for the RPP program were presented to the City Council in a study session on November 9, 2021. Based on City Council direction, staff is recommending approval of revised RPP Program Guidelines (Attachment 1) and approval of recommendations for implementing the proposed Residential Parking Action Plan. The proposed Residential Parking Action Plan is provided in Attachment 5.

The revised RPP Program Guidelines (Attachment 1) for consideration include the following key components:
· Revised permit eligibility to include Costa Mesa residents of all housing types in compliance with the 2016 California Attorney General’sopinion and remove the limitation of the program to

470
File #: 22-639 Meeting Date: 5/3/2022
only single family, R-1 zones.
· Establish RPP eligibility zones only in areas experiencing external parking demand, which includes impacts from commercial areas, neighboring cities, the Orange County Fairgrounds, schools, and recreational facilities.
· Establish a neighborhood permit zone system with a minimum of 2,000 feet (both sides of the street included) which is about four blocks instead of on a street-by-street basis. · Continue to require a petition for new permit zones with support from majority of households (minimum 51 percent) to form a new zone.
· For petitions in rental complexes, the residents, property managers, and property owners will participate in the petition survey. If the units in a multi-family property are individually owned, each owner would be included in the petitioning.
· Continue 70% parking occupancy threshold of all available on-street parking and visible off- street parking for consideration of new permit zones.
· Implement an annual permit fee structure with an escalating rate structure and low cost permits for qualifying low income residents.
· Replace a maximum of three (3) permits per household limit, with one (1) permit per eligible driver.
· Develop a phased renewal process for existing residential parking permit streets. · Continue to require a petition for removal of residential permit parking restriction with a minimum of 51 percent of more households support for such action. · Continue to provide annual guest permits to eligible residents at a maximum of 100 guest permits per year.

Currently, the City of Costa Mesa does not recover any of the costs associated with parking permits.

In order for the program to become financially sustainable, and for the City to make investments in modernizing the program, an annual fee for residential parking permits is recommended. An escalating permit rate structure is recommended starting at $25 annually for the first permit. For households with multiple drivers, additional permits are recommended at a higher premium rate. The rate structure is similar to the rates in neighboring Southern California cities.

A discounted rate option is recommended to qualifying low-income residents.

471
File #: 22-639 Meeting Date: 5/3/2022
Staff recommends that residential parking permit fees be reviewed annually to determine whether the City’scosts are being recovered and whether the cost structure is effective at discouraging excessive permits. In addition, the cost of providing ongoing enforcement to provide enough consistency and coverage to encourage compliance is recommended to be reviewed annually. These permit fees are aimed to make the RPP program cost-neutral, covering only the administrative costs necessary for the City to efficiently manage and enforce the program.

In order to implement many of the near term recommendations of the proposed Residential Parking Action Plan, new technology investments are recommended to efficiently manage the new RPP program, which includes an automated Permit Management System (PMS) and License Plate Recognition (LPR) cameras. These systems will streamline the management and enforcement of the RPP program.

The following are near-term recommendations to implement the proposed Residential Parking Action Plan:
· Approve the proposed RPP program guidelines and policies. · Approve an annual residential permit fee with escalating rate structure and discount for qualifying low-income residents.
· Approve a Citywide Residential Parking Permit Program Implementation Project for inclusion in the City’sFiscal Year (FY) 22-23 Capital Improvement Project budget in the amount of $220,000 which includes:
o Consulting services of Dixon Resources Unlimited to assist with the program implementation.
o Purchase and development of an automated permit management system for the RPP program.
o Purchase of License Plate Recognition (LPR) cameras for installation on two vehicles. o Public outreach and education.
o Program branding and marketing materials.
o Signage.

The time frame estimated to complete the implementation steps outlined in the near-term recommendations is six to nine (6-9) months from approval and funding.

After the implementation of the near-term recommendations for the RPP program, a phased renewal process is recommended for existing residential permit parking streets and application for potential new streets into the program.

Renewal Phase 1 (Estimated time frame of one to three (1-3) months after near-term implementation): Existing RPP zones with external parking impacts and commercial parking impacts.

These include:
· Impacts from neighboring cities (Newport Beach, Santa Ana, and Huntington Beach). · Orange County Fairgrounds.
· Commercial parking demand.

472
File #: 22-639 Meeting Date: 5/3/2022
· Schools and recreation facilities
Renewal Phase 2 (Estimated time frame of 6-12 months after near-term implementation): Existing RPP zones with only residential parking demand (without external impacts) will be evaluated for renewal based on the following criteria:
· Zones must confirm their interest in participating in the RPP program by providing a petition signed by 51% of residents.
· Existing zones will be required to re-apply for the RPP zone, and will be re-evaluated under the new permit zone guidelines. The City will contact and notify these zones of the required action.
· Existing zones that are required to re-apply, and do so within 6 months will be given re- evaluation priority. If a zone has not re-applied after 6 months of notification, the zone will be removed.

Existing RPP zones will not be enforced until 1) the zone is renewed, 2) residents have been notified of the renewal, and 3) at least 50% of eligible households receive a permit under the new permit guidelines. Regardless of the phase in which a zone is renewed, all RPP zone residents will be required to meet the new eligible driver criteria and permits will be subject to the permit fee rate structure.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council could consider other alternatives such as retaining the current program with modifications to address the 2016 Attorney General opinion, elimination of residential permit parking program, any other changes to proposed recommendations, or deferring funding for the implementation project to a future fiscal year. Staff does not recommend retaining the current program as it will continue to exacerbate the issues by pushing parking impacts to other neighborhoods. Elimination of RPP program is not supported by several members of the community.

FISCAL REVIEW:

If funding is approved, the initial implementation cost for new Citywide Residential Permit Parking program estimated at $220,000, will be included in the FY2022-23 Capital Improvement Program Budget. Future operating costs of the program will be funded by fees collected through the new RPP program.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’sOffice has reviewed this report and approves it as to form. Modifications to the Costa Mesa Municipal Code will be presented for City Council approval in the future.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item supports the following City Council Goals:
· Achieve long-term fiscal sustainability.
· Strengthen the public’s safety and improve the quality of life.

473
File #: 22-639 Meeting Date: 5/3/2022
· Advance environmental sustainability and climate resiliency.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Approve revised Residential Permit Parking program guidelines and policies.

2. Approve an annual residential parking permit fee with an escalating rate structure and discount for qualifying low-income residents.

3. Authorize staff and the City Attorney to initiate amendments to the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC) incorporating proposed changes to the Residential Permit Parking program and return to City Council for approval through Public Hearing.

474

ATTACHMENT 1

Print on Transportation Letterhead

April 19, 2022

CITY COUNCIL GUIDELINES AND POLICIES FOR CONSIDERATION OF

INSTALLATION OR REMOVAL OF RESIDENT ONLY PERMIT PARKING

The City of Costa Mesa’s Resident Permit Parking (RPP) program was developed with the following guiding principles:
 Equitable access : Develop equitable programs that appropriately balance the parking needs of all residents, businesses, and visitors, while enabling the on -street parking supply to serve the community fairly, and enhance access for all.  Sustainable solutions: Implement financially sustainable strategies that modernize and streamline parking program management.
 Efficient program management: Create an efficient and adaptable parking system that is optimized for the City’s current needs, but can be incrementally updated and adjusted over time.

The RPP program is aligned with the Attorney General’s opinion and develop s an equitable solution that serves the needs of all Costa Mesa residents. The 2016 California Attorney General’s opinion (#14 -304), states “In issuing long -term residential parking permits, local authorities may not distinguish among residents based on the type of dwelling in which they live.”

Resident only permit parking will be limited to areas experiencing external parking demand which includes impacts from commercial areas, neighboring cities, the Orange County Fairgrounds, schools, and recreational facilities. At the onset of this RPP program, a phased renewal process will be implemented for existing residential parking permit streets from the prior RPP program (prior to 2021).

Requests for new RPP zones will be reviewed and evaluated by Transportation Services staff using the following guidelines and policies:

 Permit eligibility include s Costa Mesa residents of all housing types in compliance with the 2016 California Attorney General’s opinion and remove s the limitation of the program to only single family, R-1 zones.
 RPP eligibility zones are limited to areas experiencing external parking demand which includes impacts from commercial areas, neighboring cities, the Orange County Fairgrounds, schools, and recreational facilities.  Requests for installation or removal of resident only permit parking shall be considered as a n eighborhood permit zone s ystem established with a minimum of 475

2 2,000 feet (both sides of the street included) which is about four blocks instead of on a street-by-street basis.
 When considering requests to implement resident permit parking, the City will conduct parking occupancy surveys to determine the utilization of on -street parking.

A 70% parking occupancy threshold of all available on-street parking and visible off- street parking is required for consideration of new neighborhood permit zones.  A petition signed by a majority (5 1% or greater) of households is required to install or remove neighborhood permit zones for resident permit parking. o For petitions in rental complexes, the residents, property managers, and property owners will participate in the petition survey. If the u nits in a multi - family property are individually owned, each owner would be included in the petitioning.
 Only one signature per household will be considered.
 Upon receipt of a valid (majority) petition for a neighborhood permit zone, the City will send not ification of the resident only permit parking installation or removal request to all households in the affected neighborhood zone.  If the Transportation Services Manager approves the install ation or removal of a neighborhood permit parking zone per these g uidelines and policies, a recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Once final action has been taken by the City Council, no further changes or requests for changes in resident permit parking for this neighborhood zone will be considered for a minimum period of one year.
 Resident permit parking will be implemented in accordance with the provisions of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code summarized below:
o Replace a maximum of three (3) permits per household limit, with up to one (1) resident parking permit per eligible driver based on verification of residence and vehicle registration.
o Permits are non-transferable and strictly associated with the vehicle's license plate number.
o Continue to provide a maximum of one hundred (100) guest parking permits per year to each eligible household. Each guest pass is for one -time use only.
o Parking permits are valid only for the zone in which issued. o An annual resident permit parking fee structure with an escalating rate structure and low cost permits for qualifying low income residents will be implemented with the amount of annual permit fees subject to change annually.

City Council Approved ______________________
476
ATTACHMENT 2
477
ATTACHMENT 2
478

31 Appendix A. On-street Data Collection Results.

ATTACHMENT 3
479
1 February, 2021
Dixon Resources Unlimited

City of Costa Mesa
Parking Data Collection
Summary Report

480
2 Contents

1.  Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Background ................................................................................................................................... 3 Data Types ................................................................................................................................................. 3

2.  Parking Data .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Weekday Collection .................................................................................................................................. 4 Weekend Collection .................................................................................................................................. 9

3.  Summary & Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 14 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 15

4.  Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 16

Tables
Table 1 Weekday Occupancy Data ........................................................................................................................ 4 Table 2 Weekday Duration Data ............................................................................................................................ 5 Table 3 Weekday Permit Street Occupancy Data .................................................................................................. 7 Table 4 Weekday Permit Duration Data ................................................................................................................ 8 Table 5 Weekday Permit Duration by Permit Type ............................................................................................... 8 Table 6 Weekend Occupancy Data ........................................................................................................................ 9 Table 7 Weekend Duration Data ......................................................................................................................... 10 Table 8 Weekend Permit Street Occupancy Data ............................................................................................... 12 Table 9 Weekend Permit Duration Data .............................................................................................................. 13 Table 10 Weekend Permit Duration by Permit Type ........................................................................................... 13 Figures
Figure 1 Weekday Occupancy ............................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2 Weekday Average Occupancy Heat Map ................................................................................................. 5 Figure 3 Weekday Duration ................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4 Weekday Average Duration Heat Map .................................................................................................... 6 Figure 5 Weekday Permit Street Occupancy ......................................................................................................... 7 Figure 6 Weekday Permit Duration ....................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 7 Weekend Occupancy ............................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 8 Weekend Average Occupancy Heat Map .............................................................................................. 10 Figure 9 Weekend Duration ................................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 10 Weekend Average Duration Heat Map ................................................................................................ 11 Figure 11 Weekend Permit Street Occupancy ..................................................................................................... 12 Figure 12 Weekend Permit Duration ................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 13 Occupancy Comparison ....................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 14 Duration Comparison .......................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 15 Permit Streets Duration Comparison ................................................................................................... 14 481
3 1. Introduction
Project Background
Dixon  Resources  Unlimited  (DIXON)  procured  the  services  of  IDAX  Data  Solutions  (IDAX)  to  complete  a  data collection effort for the City of Costa Mesa (City), consisting of on‐street parking within select residential areas of City Council Districts 4 and 5. Approximately 634 block faces were observed, an inventory of 10,410 spaces.

Data collection took place over two days in Oc
tober 2020. Weekday data was collected during 8 AM, 12 PM, 4 PM, and 8 PM observations on Tuesday, October 13th. Weekend data was collected during the same observation timeframes on Saturday, October 17th.  The two days were selected to allow for a comparison between weekday and weekend occupancy and turnover rates.

The  data  collection  dates  were  determined  with  involvement  from  the  City.  The  City  recognizes  that  due  to COVID‐19  and  the  shelter  in  place  order, the  data  may  not  reflect  the  exact  parkin g   habits  of pre‐pandemic times. It is estimated that the daytime parking occupancy and average stay duration were higher than typical times  due  to  an  increase  in  remote  work  resulting  from  workplace  closures.  However,  at  this  stage  in  the pandemic,  schools  had  recently  reopened  and  welcomed  students  on  campus  for  in‐person  learning.  Th e Newport‐Mesa Unified School District in Costa Mesa divided students into AM/PM cohorts that were receiving half‐day in‐person instruction on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday.

Data Types
Occupancy Data
A key objective of the data collection was to determine the parking occupancy of the selected residential streets.

Parking  counts  were  conducted  at each  location  at  8  AM,  12  PM, 4 PM,  and  8  PM. For  each  block  or street segment, the occupancy rate was calculated by dividing the number of observed ve hicles by the total parking space supply.

The  parking  industry‐standard  for  parking  occupancy  rate  is  85%.  Maintaining  at  least  a  15%  vacancy  rate ensures there is enough parking available for residents and their guests. The 85% occupancy rate can be a helpful threshold when evaluating parking management strategies or policy a djustments.

Duration Data
During the four collection periods, identifiable information was recorded for each vehicle. If the same license plate number was recorded only once, the vehicle was assigned a less than 4‐hour stay duration. If the same license plate was recorded during two, three, or four successive observations, the vehicle was assigned a 4‐8 hour, 8‐12 ho
ur, or over 12 hour stay duration, respectively. The license plate information was only used for data comparison purposes.

The  vehicle  volume  was  calculated  based  on  the  number  of  unique  vehicles  observed  each  day.  Turnover percentages for each study area were calculated by dividing the numb er  of vehicles that turned over by the total volume  of  cars.  The  turnover  rate  is  an  important  measure  of  the  length  of  time  that  drivers  utilize  parking supply.

Permit Data
In addition to occupancy and duration data, vehicles displaying a residential parking permit were recorded and analyzed  separately.  At  the  time  the  data  was  collected,  the  residential  parking  restrictions  were  not  being enforced  and  parking  on  the  permit  designated  streets  did  not  require  a  permit.  However,  many  vehicles continued to display a physical resident parki ng permit or guest pass. Of the 634 block faces observed, 61 had residential permit parking restrictions for a total inventory of 1,814 parking spaces. 482
4 2. Parking Data
Weekday Collection
Weekday data was collected during 8 AM, 12 PM, 4 PM, and 8 PM observations on Tuesday, October 13th, 2020.

Occupancy Data
Table 1 shows the number of cars parked during each observation round. Of the total 10,410 parking spaces observed, an average of 44% of spaces were occupied. Figure 1 below shows how parking occupancy fluctuated throughout the day, with the highest average occupancy observed during the 8:00 PM observation round.

Table 1 Weekday Occupancy Data
Weekday
Observation Round  Vehicles Parked  Occupancy
8:00 AM  4131  40%
12:00 PM  3894  37%
4:00 PM  4952  48%
8:00 PM  5285  51%
Average  4566  44%

While the total average occupancy did not reach the 85% occupancy threshold, individual blocks did. Figure 2 below  shows  how  average  occupancy  differed  by  block  face.  Red  segments  indicate  the  block’s  parking occupancy exceeded the 85% threshold. Streets with resident permit parking restrictions are indicated with the colored R symbol. Th e  Appendices of this report include additional heat maps and corresponding tables that provide the block‐by‐block occupancy for each observation round. 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
8:00 AM 12:00  PM 4:00  PM 8:00  PM
Figure 1 Weekday Occupancy
483
5 Duration Data
During the weekday data collection, the average length of time a vehicle occupied a single space was 5.51 hours.

Table 2 shows how many vehicles were parked for each duration interval. Figure 3 shows how the time interval volumes are distributed. Nearly half of all vehicles observed parked for 4 hours or l ess.

Table 2 Weekday Duration Data
Weekday
Duration Interval  Number of Vehicles  Percent
< 4 hours  4539  47.70%
4 ‐ 8 hours  2633  27.67%
8 ‐ 12 hours  983  10.33%
> 12 hours  1361  14.30%

Figure 2 Weekday Average Occupancy Heat Map
484
6 Figure 4 below is a parking duration heat map that shows the average stay by block face in < 4 hours, 4‐6 hours, 7‐9  hours,  and  10  +  hour  intervals.  The  heat  map  intervals  were  selected  to  best  demonstrate  the  range  of results, and the darker colors ind icate  where vehicles were parked for longer periods.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%
< 4 Hrs 4  ‐ 8 Hrs 8  ‐ 12 Hrs >  12 Hrs
Figure 3 Weekday Duration
Figure 4 Weekday Average Duration Heat Map
485
7 Permit Data
During the weekday data collection, the 61 streets with permit parking restrictions had an average occupancy of 15% throughout the day. This is significantly lower when compared to the average occupancy of all streets (44%), as seen in Figure 5.

Table 3 Weekday Permit Street Occupancy Data
Permit Streets  Vehicles with a permit  Vehicles without a permit Observation Round
Vehicles
Parked  Occupancy
Vehicles
Parked  Occupancy
Vehicles
Parked  Occupancy
8:00 AM  214  12%  153  8%  60  3%
12:00 PM  160  9%  104  6%  55  3%
4:00 PM  301  17%  212  12%  87  5%
8:00 PM  444  24%  327  18%  111  6%
Average  280  15%  199  11%  78  4%

While residential parking restrictions were not being enforced and parking on permit designated streets did not require  a  permit,  many  vehicles  continued  to  display  a  physical  resident  parking  permit  or  guest  pass.  The average stay of a vehicle not displaying a parking permit (whether residential or guest) was just slightly shorter than the ave
rage stay of vehicles with a resident parking permit (3.57 hours vs. 3.91 hours) as shown in Table 4 and Table 5. Table 5 shows the breakdown of parking duration by permit type.

On the permit streets, 7 cars were found to be illegally parked (in a red zone, block ing a driveway, etc.), but 6 were observed during only one observation round, and therefore assigned a parking interval of less than 4 hours.

These potential violations may be useful for guiding enforcement coverage in the future.

Figure 5 Weekday Permit Street Occupancy
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
8:00 AM 12:00  PM 4:00  PM 8:00  PM
All Streets Permit Streets
486
8 Table 4 Weekday Permit Duration Data
Permit  No Permit  Illegally Parked
Duration Interval
Number of
Vehicles  Percentage
Number of
Vehicles  Percentage
Number of
Vehicles  Percentage
< 4 hours  344  45.44%  158  20.87%  6  0.79%
4 ‐ 8 hours  133  17.57%  43  5.68%  0  0.00%
8 ‐ 12 hours  25  3.30%  8  1.06%  0  0.00%
12 + hours  28  3.70%  11  1.45%  1  0.13%
Average Stay  3.91 hours   3.57 hours   3.43 hours

Table 5 Weekday Permit Duration by Permit Type
Resident Permit  Guest Permit
Duration Interval
Number of
Vehicles  Percentage
Number of
Vehicles  Percentage
< 4 hours  300  39.63%  44  5.81%
4 ‐ 8 hours  114  15.06%  19  2.51%
8 ‐ 12 hours  22  2.91%  3  0.40%
12 + hours  25  3.30%  3  0.40%
Average Stay   3.91 hours  3.88 hours

Figure 6 below shows how the volume of vehicles parked for each duration interval is distributed, broken down by all permit streets, vehicles displaying a resident permit, and vehicles not displaying a permit.

Figure 6 Weekday Permit Duration

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%
< 4 Hrs 4  ‐ 8 Hrs 8  ‐ 12 Hrs 12 + Hrs
Permit Streets Resident Permit No Permit
487
9 Weekend Collection
Weekend data was collected during 8 AM, 12 PM, 4 PM, and 8 PM observations on Saturday, October 17th, 2020.

Occupancy Data
Table 6 shows the number of cars parked during each observation round during the weekend data collection.

Of the total 10,410 parking spaces observed, on average 54% of spaces were occupied. Figure 6 shows how parking occupancy only fluctuated slightly throughout the day. The highest average occupancy was observed during the 8:0 0  PM observation round, just like during the weekday data collection (56% and 51% respectively).

Table 6 Weekend Occupancy Data
Weekend Data Collection
Observation Round  Vehicles Parked  Occupancy
8:00 AM  5500  53%
12:00 PM  5353  51%
4:00 PM  5727  55%
8:00 PM  5832  56%
Average  5603  54%

Figure 8 below shows the average occupancy by block face. Red segments indicate the block’s parking occupancy exceeded the 85% threshold. Streets with resident permit parking restrictions are indicated with the colored R symbol.  Additional  heat  maps  and  corresponding  tables  that  provide  the  block‐by‐block  occupancy  for  each observation r ound  are included in the Appendices of this report.

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
8:00 AM 12:00  PM 4:00  PM 8:00  PM
Figure 7 Weekend Occupancy
488
10 Duration Data
During the weekend data collection, the average length of time a vehicle occupied a single parking space was 6.91 hours. This is 1.4 hours longer than the average weekday stay, which was 5.51 hours. Table 7 shows the number of vehicles that were parked for each duration interval, and Fi gure  9 shows how that volume was distributed.

Table 7 Weekend Duration Data
Weekend
Duration Interval  Number of Vehicles  Percent
< 4 hours  3758  38.77%
4 ‐ 8 hours  2171  22.40%
8 ‐ 12 hours  843  8.70%
> 12 hours  2921  30.14%
Figure 8 Weekend Average Occupancy Heat Map
489
11 Figure 10 below shows the average length of stay by block face in < 4 hours, 4‐6 hours, 7‐9 hours, and 10 + hour intervals. The heat map intervals were selected to best demonstrate the range of results. The colors tend to be darker compared to those in Figure 4, th e Weekday Average Duration Heat Map, signaling that in many areas vehicles were parked for longer periods during the weekend than during the weekday.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%
< 4 Hrs 4  ‐ 8 Hrs 8  ‐ 12 Hrs >  12 Hrs
Figure 9 Weekend Duration
Figure 10 Weekend Average Duration Heat
490
12 Permit Data
During the weekend data collection, the 61 streets with permit parking restrictions had an average occupancy of 25% throughout the day. This is significantly lower when compared to the average occupancy of all streets during the weekend collection, but higher in comparison to the permit streets during weekday collection (15% average occup ancy).

Table 8 Weekend Permit Street Occupancy Data
Permit Streets  Vehicles with a permit  Vehicles without a permit Observation Round
Vehicles
Parked  Occupancy
Vehicles
Parked  Occupancy
Vehicles
Parked  Occupancy
8:00 AM  435  24%  312  17%  118  7%
12:00 PM  410  23%  289  16%  118  7%
4:00 PM  453  25%  323  18%  127  7%
8:00 PM  488  27%  302  17%  178  10%
Average  447  25%  307  17%  135  7%

While residential parking restrictions were not being enforced and parking on permit designated streets did not require a permit, many vehicles continued to display a physical resident parking permit or guest pass. As shown in Table 9 and Table 10, during the weekend collection the average length of stay for vehicles no t  displaying a parking permit (whether residential or guest) was shorter than vehicles with a resident permit (4.29 hours vs.

6.87 hours). Vehicles not displaying a permit increased their average duration on the weekend (4.29 hours vs.

3.57 hours on the weekday) as well as vehicles displaying a resident permit (6.87 hours vs. 3. 91 hours on the weekday). 163 vehicles with resident permits were found to have stayed for less than 4 hours, just slightly more than the number of vehicles found to have stayed for 12+ hours (142 vehicles). 17 vehicles were found to be illegally parked (in a red zon e,  blocking a driveway, etc.), up from 7 during the weekday observation.

Figure 11 Weekend Permit Street Occupancy
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM
All Streets Permit Streets
491
13 Table 9 Weekend Permit Duration Data
Permit  No Permit  Illegally Parked
Duration Interval
Number of
Vehicles  Percentage
Number of
Vehicles  Percentage
Number of
Vehicles  Percentage
< 4 hours  204  23.29%  220  25.11%  15  1.71%
4 ‐ 8 hours  110  12.56%  51  5.82%  2  0.23%
8 ‐ 12 hours  56  6.39%  19  2.17%  0  0.00%
12 + hours  159  18.15%  40  4.57%  0  0.00%
Average Stay  6.68 hours   4.29 hours   2.47 hours
Table 10 Weekend Permit Duration by Permit Type

Figure 12 below shows how the volume of vehicles parked for each duration interval is distributed, broken down by all permit streets, vehicles displaying a resident permit, and vehicles not displaying a permit.

Resident Permit  Guest Permit
Duration Interval
Number of
Vehicles  Percentage
Number of
Vehicles  Percentage
< 4 hours  163  18.61%  41  4.68%
4 ‐ 8 hours  92  10.50%  18  2.05%
8 ‐ 12 hours  47  5.37%  9  1.03%
12 + hours  142  16.21%  17  1.94%
Average Stay  6.87 hours  5.69 hours
Figure 12 Weekend Permit Duration

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%
< 4 Hrs 4  ‐ 8 Hrs 8  ‐ 12 Hrs 12 + Hrs
Permit Streets Resident Permit No Permit
492
14 3. Summary & Conclusions
Figure 13 compares the average occupancy throughout the day during the weekday collection and the weekend collection.  The  61  block  segments  with  permit  restrictions  are  also  included,  showing  significantly  lower occupancy.

Figure 14 shows how the distribution of time intervals fluctuated during the weekday collection and weekend collection. During both days, most ve hicles were observed to be parked for less than 4 hours. Figure 15 shows how the permit restricted streets followed a similar curve.

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
8:00 AM 12:00  PM 4:00  PM 8:00  PM
Weekday Occupancy Weekend Occupancy
Weekday Permit Streets Weekend Permit Streets
Figure 13 Occupancy Comparison

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%
< 4 Hrs 4  ‐ 8 Hrs 8  ‐ 12 Hrs >  12 Hrs
Weekday Duration Weekend Duration
Figure 14 Duration Comparison

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%
< 4 Hrs 4  ‐ 8 Hrs 8  ‐ 12 Hrs >  12 Hrs
Weekday Permit Streets Weekend Permit Streets
Figure 15 Permit Streets Duration Comparison
493
15 Conclusions
Weekday Highlights
 The weekday average parking occupancy was 44%, with the highest average occupancy observed at 8:00 PM.
 The average duration of a vehicle during the weekday data collection was 5.51 hours.  Nearly half of all vehicles parked for 4 hours or less during the weekday data collection.  The average st ay of a vehicle not displaying a parking permit (whether residential or guest) was just slightly shorter than the average stay of vehicles with a resident parking permit (3.57 hours vs. 3.91 hours) during the weekday collection.

Weekend Highlights
 The weekend average parking occupancy was 54%, 10% higher than the w eekday  collection.  The weekend occupancy only fluctuated slightly throughout the day, the lowest average occupancy being 51% and the highest being 56%.
 During the weekend data collection, the average length of time a vehicle occupied a single parking space was 6.91 hours. This average is 1.4 hours longer th an  the average weekday stay, which was 5.51 hours.
 During the weekend collection, the average length of stay for vehicles not displaying a parking permit (whether residential or guest) was shorter than vehicles with a resident permit (4.29 hours vs. 6.87 hours).

494
¯
0 0.50.25
Miles
Parking Occupancy
< 65%
65% - 75%75% - 85%
> 85%
Construction
Costa Mesa Parking Study
8AM Weekday Occupancy
Data Collected October 13, 2020
Victoria St
W 19th St
W 17th St
Wilson St
Placentia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Costa Mesa Fwy
W 18th St
W 16th St
Whittier Ave
Monrovia Ave
495
¯
0 0.50.25
Miles
Parking Occupancy
< 65%
65% - 75%75% - 85%
> 85%
Construction
Costa Mesa Parking Study
12PM Weekday Occupancy
Data Collected October 13, 2020
Victoria St
W 19th St
W 17th St
Wilson St
Placentia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Costa Mesa Fwy
W 18th St
W 16th St
Whittier Ave
Monrovia Ave
496
¯
0 0.50.25
Miles
Parking Occupancy
< 65%
65% - 75%75% - 85%
> 85%
Construction
Costa Mesa Parking Study
4PM Weekday Occupancy
Data Collected October 13, 2020
Victoria St
W 19th St
W 17th St
Wilson St
Placentia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Costa Mesa Fwy
W 18th St
W 16th St
Whittier Ave
Monrovia Ave
497
¯
0 0.50.25
Miles
Parking Occupancy
< 65%
65% - 75%75% - 85%
> 85%
Construction
Costa Mesa Parking Study
8PM Weekday Occupancy
Data Collected October 13, 2020
Victoria St
W 19th St
W 17th St
Wilson St
Placentia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Costa Mesa Fwy
W 18th St
W 16th St
Whittier Ave
Monrovia Ave
498
¯
0 0.50.25
Miles
Parking Occupancy
< 65%
65% - 75%75% - 85%
> 85%
Construction
Costa Mesa Parking Study
Weekday Average Occupancy
Data Collected October 13, 2020
Victoria St
W 19th St
W 17th St
Wilson St
Placentia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Costa Mesa Fwy
W 18th St
W 16th St
Whittier Ave
Monrovia Ave
499
¯
0 0.50.25
Miles
Average Stay
< 4 Hours4 - 6 Hours7 - 9 Hours> 10 Hours
Construction
Costa Mesa Parking Study
Weekday Average Stay
Data Collected October 13, 2020
Victoria St
W 19th St
W 17th St
Wilson St
Placentia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Costa Mesa Fwy
W 18th St
W 16th St
Whittier Ave
Monrovia Ave
500
¯
0 0.50.25
Miles
Parking Occupancy
< 65%
65% - 75%75% - 85%
> 85%
Construction
Costa Mesa Parking Study
8AM Saturday Occupancy
Data Collected October 17, 2020
Victoria St
W 19th St
W 17th St
Wilson St
Placentia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Costa Mesa Fwy
W 18th St
W 16th St
Whittier Ave
Monrovia Ave
501
¯
0 0.50.25
Miles
Parking Occupancy
< 65%
65% - 75%75% - 85%
> 85%
Construction
Costa Mesa Parking Study
12PM Saturday Occupancy
Data Collected October 17, 2020
Victoria St
W 19th St
W 17th St
Wilson St
Placentia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Costa Mesa Fwy
W 18th St
W 16th St
Whittier Ave
Monrovia Ave
502
¯
0 0.50.25
Miles
Parking Occupancy
< 65%
65% - 75%75% - 85%
> 85%
Construction
Costa Mesa Parking Study
4PM Saturday Occupancy
Data Collected October 17, 2020
Victoria St
W 19th St
W 17th St
Wilson St
Placentia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Costa Mesa Fwy
W 18th St
W 16th St
Whittier Ave
Monrovia Ave
503
¯
0 0.50.25
Miles
Parking Occupancy
< 65%
65% - 75%75% - 85%
> 85%
Construction
Costa Mesa Parking Study
8PM Saturday Occupancy
Data Collected October 17, 2020
Victoria St
W 19th St
W 17th St
Wilson St
Placentia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Costa Mesa Fwy
W 18th St
W 16th St
Whittier Ave
Monrovia Ave
504
¯
0 0.50.25
Miles
Parking Occupancy
< 65%
65% - 75%75% - 85%
> 85%
Construction
Costa Mesa Parking Study
Saturday Average Occupancy
Data Collected October 17, 2020
Victoria St
W 19th St
W 17th St
Wilson St
Placentia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Costa Mesa Fwy
W 18th St
W 16th St
Whittier Ave
Monrovia Ave
505
¯
0 0.50.25
Miles
Average Stay
< 4 Hours4 - 6 Hours7 - 9 Hours> 10 Hours
Construction
Costa Mesa Parking Study
Saturday Average Stay
Data Collected October 17, 2020
Victoria St
W 19th St
W 17th St
Wilson St
Placentia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Costa Mesa Fwy
W 18th St
W 16th St
Whittier Ave
Monrovia Ave
506
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
American Ave
American Pl‐American Ave‐State Ave
E  25  48%  48%  48%  84%
W  45  31%  27%  44%  64%
Victoria St‐American Ave‐American Pl
E  10  40%  40%  60%  80%
W  8  38%  25%  38%  88%
American Pl
American Ave‐American Pl‐End
N  7  100%  100%  100%  100%
S  8  38%  75%  75%  75%
Anaheim Ave
Center St‐Anaheim Ave‐Plumer St
E  13  31%  0%  8%  62%
Park Dr‐Anaheim Ave‐Terminal Way
E  14  93%  57%  43%  43%
W  15  40%  40%  33%  73%
Plumer St‐Anaheim Ave‐Center St
W  10  20%  30%  20%  80%
Terminal Way‐Anaheim Ave‐Superior Ave
W  3  0%  33%  33%  33%
W 18th St‐Anaheim Ave‐Center St
E  33  82%  36%  36%  55%
W  24  13%  13%  38%  54%
W 18th St‐Anaheim Ave‐Park Dr
E  9  56%  33%  33%  22%
W  14  36%  21%  43%  57%
W 19th St‐Anaheim Ave‐Plumer St
E  3  33%  0%  33%  100%
W 19th St‐Anaheim Ave‐Yorkshire St
E  49  55%  49%  65%  61%
W Bay St‐Anaheim Ave‐Yorkshire St
E  12  50%  17%  67%  83%
W  10  60%  50%  80%  70%
Wilson St‐Anaheim Ave‐End
E  18  11%  61%  61%  89%
W  15  40%  40%  80%  80%
Yorkshire St‐Anaheim Ave‐W 19th St
W  50  34%  36%  78%  68%
507
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
Arbor St
Continental Ave‐Arbor St‐Monrovia Ave
N  11  27%  18%  9%  9%
S  16  38%  25%  38%  38%
Republic Ave‐Arbor St‐Monrovia Ave
N  24  8%  0%  8%  8%
S  18  33%  22%  17%  33%
Whittier Ave‐Arbor St‐End
N  9  56%  44%  33%  44%
S  8  63%  38%  50%  50%
Whittier Ave‐Arbor St‐Republic Ave
N  21  14%  14%  10%  10%
S  35  26%  6%  9%  9%
Arnold Ave
Cove St‐Arnold Ave‐Seal St
E  6  100%  83%  50%  50%
W  11  82%  82%  36%  36%
Ross St‐Arnold Ave‐Surf St
W  17  82%  76%  76%  71%
Seal St‐Arnold Ave‐Ross St
E  8  88%  75%  38%  38%
W  10  70%  70%  50%  30%
Surf St‐Arnold Ave‐Beach St
E  8  75%  50%  88%  88%
W  11  82%  91%  73%  73%
Surf St‐Arnold Ave‐Ross St
E  8  88%  75%  63%  88%
Aviemore Terrace
Gleneagles Terrace‐Aviemore Terrace‐
Valley Rd
E  41  12%  7%  5%  12%
W  33  30%  24%  21%  30%
Avocado St
Avalon St‐Avocado St‐Fairview Rd
N  20  70%  60%  75%  80%
S  27  22%  67%  85%  85%
College Ave‐Avocado St‐Rutgers Dr
N  41  88%  78%  90%  93%
S  42  21%  69%  86%  86%
508
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
Rutgers Dr‐Avocado St‐Avalon St
N  15  87%  60%  73%  80%
S  23  4%  52%  87%  78%
Babcock St
W 16th St‐Babcock St‐W 17th St
W  21  81%  90%  52%  48%
W 17th St‐Babcock St‐W 16th St
E  23  61%  61%  39%  26%
Balmoral Pl
Sea Bluff Dr‐Balmoral Pl‐End
E  6  33%  33%  33%  33%
W  4  25%  25%  25%  25%
Beach St
Arnold Ave‐Beach St‐Meyer Pl
N  18  83%  39%  72%  94%
S  20  65%  35%  70%  85%
Bernard St
Charle St‐Bernard St‐Harbor Blvd
S  12  8%  42%  67%  58%
Charle St‐Bernard St‐Maple Ave
S  12  17%  42%  25%  25%
Charle Street‐Bernard St‐Maple Ave
N  11  55%  45%  64%  73%
Harbor Blvd‐Bernard St‐Charle St
N  13  46%  46%  77%  46%
Parsons St‐Bernard St‐End
N  11  0%  18%  27%  27%
S  12  33%  58%  67%  67%
Parsons St‐Bernard St‐Harbor Blvd
N  11  27%  91%  91%  91%
S  17  76%  53%  71%  71%
Canyon Dr
Glen Cir‐Canyon Dr‐Sea Bluff Dr
W  6  0%  33%  0%  0%
Local Access‐Canyon Dr‐Nancy Ln
W  30  80%  80%  37%  13%
Local Access‐Canyon Dr‐Trabuco Cir
W  7  29%  29%  29%  57%
Modjeska Cir‐Canyon Dr‐Trabuco Cir
509
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
E  4  75%  50%  25%  75%
Modjeska Cir‐Canyon Dr‐Wilson St
W  5  0%  0%  40%  60%
Sea Bluff Dr‐Canyon Dr‐Glen Cir
E  10  10%  20%  20%  20%
Trabuco Cir‐Canyon Dr‐End
E  10  90%  90%  50%  70%
Trauoco Cir‐Canyon Dr‐Modjeska Cir
W  7  14%  29%  57%  71%
Victoria St‐Canyon Dr‐Glen Cir
E  8  50%  50%  75%  75%
W  8  50%  50%  38%  38%
Wilson St‐Canyon Dr‐Modjeska Cir
E  3  67%  33%  33%  33%
Wilson St‐Canyon Dr‐Victoria St
E  47  4%  45%  66%  66%
W  37  14%  46%  68%  70%
Capital St
Continental Ave‐Capital St‐National Ave
N  25  24%  24%  24%  24%
National Ave‐Capital St‐Continental Ave
S  23  22%  22%  13%  13%
National Ave‐Capital St‐Republic Ave
N  24  13%  13%  13%  17%
Pomona Ave‐Capital St‐End
N  13  0%  0%  8%  15%
S  15  13%  7%  33%  27%
Republic Ave‐Capital St‐National Ave
S  23  9%  22%  30%  30%
Cedar Pl
Monrovia Ave‐Cedar Pl‐Republic Ave
N  27  41%  33%  37%  33%
S  30  33%  17%  40%  43%
Center St
Anaheim Ave‐Center St‐Pomona Ave
N  48  77%  79%  63%  79%
Monrovia Ave‐Center St‐Placentia Ave
S  57  89%  74%  93%  95%
Placentia Ave‐Center St‐Monrovia Ave
510
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
N  59  29%  80%  81%  58%
Placentia Ave‐Center St‐Wallace Ave
N  16  44%  13%  19%  63%
S  19  37%  5%  21%  68%
Pomona Ave‐Center St‐Anaheim Ave
S  47  19%  19%  68%  83%
Pomona Ave‐Center St‐Wallace Ave
N  21  43%  24%  86%  86%
Wallace Ave‐Center St‐Pomona Ave
S  19  32%  21%  89%  89%
Charle Dr
End‐Charle Dr‐Victoria St
W  8  63%  38%  63%  75%
Victoria St‐Charle Dr‐End
E  7  43%  43%  71%  71%
Charle St
Hamilton St‐Charle St‐Bernard St
E  60  23%  37%  60%  72%
W  67  21%  37%  69%  84%
College Ave
Avocado St‐College Ave‐Victoria St
W  13  8%  15%  62%  92%
Avocado St‐College Ave‐Wilson St
E  38  100%  100%  95%  95%
Victoria St‐College Ave‐Avocado St
E  35  94%  83%  94%  94%
Victoria St‐College Ave‐End
E  7  14%  0%  0%  29%
W  10  20%  10%  30%  40%
Wilson St‐College Ave‐Avocado St
W  21  0%  24%  52%  90%
Congress St
End‐Congress St‐Wallace Ave
S  9  0%  11%  44%  89%
National Ave‐Congress St‐Placentia Ave
S  43  2%  21%  35%  49%
National Ave‐Congress St‐State Ave
N  36  6%  0%  11%  11%
Placentia Ave‐Congress St‐National Ave
511
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
N  55  5%  18%  31%  31%
Pomona Ave‐Congress St‐Puente Ave
N  14  29%  14%  71%  79%
S  18  33%  39%  67%  72%
Raleigh Ave‐Congress St‐Wallace Ave
N  9  22%  11%  22%  78%
State Ave‐Congress St‐National Ave
S  37  3%  8%  22%  22%
Wallace Ave‐Congress St‐End
N  6  33%  33%  83%  83%
Wallace Ave‐Congress St‐Raleigh Ave
S  9  22%  22%  44%  89%
Continental Ave
Arbor St‐Continental Ave‐W 20th St
E  37  27%  19%  14%  24%
Capital Ave‐Continental Ave‐Wilson St
E  8  0%  0%  0%  0%
Capital St‐Continental Ave‐Senate St
W  7  29%  29%  14%  14%
Oak St‐Continental Ave‐W 20th Ave
W  43  33%  23%  28%  26%
Senate St‐Continental Ave‐Wilson St
E  11  9%  36%  36%  36%
Victoria St‐Continental Ave‐Oak St
E  27  48%  41%  41%  44%
W  27  41%  37%  33%  63%
W 20th St‐Continental Ave‐Arbor St
W  44  25%  16%  30%  23%
W 20th St‐Continental Ave‐Oak St
E  44  52%  43%  34%  43%
Wilson St‐Continental Ave‐Capital St
W  5  0%  20%  40%  40%
Cove St
Arnold Ave‐Cove St‐Meyer Pl
S  18  39%  0%  39%  39%
Meyer Pl‐Cove St‐Arnold Ave
N  20  20%  15%  30%  35%
Crestmont Pl
Park Dr‐Crestmont Pl‐Shalimar Dr
512
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
E  8  63%  50%  88%  88%
Park Dr‐Crestmont Pl‐W 18th St
E  6  67%  67%  83%  83%
Shalimar Dr‐Crestmont Pl‐Park Dr
E  7  71%  71%  86%  86%
W 18th St‐Crestmont Pl‐Park Dr
W  10  70%  60%  70%  70%
Darrell St
Meyer Pl‐Darrell St‐Pomona Ave
N  31  90%  77%  77%  77%
Monrovia Ave‐Darrell St‐Federal Ave
N  31  6%  10%  16%  26%
S  32  41%  31%  38%  47%
Pomona Ave‐Darrell St‐Meyer Pl
S  35  37%  43%  63%  63%
Republic Ave‐Darrell St‐Monrovia Ave
N  41  7%  15%  17%  15%
S  41  44%  34%  41%  44%
Dogwood St
Cedar Pl‐Dogwood St‐Evergreen Pl
N  31  23%  32%  29%  29%
Monrovia Ave‐Dogwood St‐Republic Ave
S  35  14%  14%  20%  20%
Evergreen Pl
End‐Evergreen Pl‐Monrovia Ave
S  20  35%  30%  40%  35%
Monrovia Ave‐Evergreen Pl‐End
N  21  38%  29%  14%  48%
Farad St
Ohms Way‐Farad St‐End
S  15  0%  53%  53%  20%
Ohms Way‐Farad St‐Pomona Ave
S  7  71%  100%  57%  29%
Pomona Ave‐Farad St‐End
N  24  29%  46%  38%  21%
Federal Ave
Darrell St‐Federal Ave‐Joann St
E  8  13%  25%  25%  75%
W  10  0%  20%  50%  70%
513
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
Oak St‐Federal Ave‐W 20th St
E  43  33%  30%  28%  26%
W  36  39%  36%  31%  33%
Pine Pl‐Federal Ave‐Oak St
W  8  0%  25%  38%  63%
Pine Pl‐Federal Ave‐Plum Pl
E  8  25%  13%  13%  25%
Plum Pl‐Federal Ave‐End
E  6  50%  50%  67%  83%
Plum Pl‐Federal Ave‐Pine Pl
W  11  36%  36%  18%  18%
Victoria St‐Federal Ave‐Plum Pl
W  8  38%  25%  38%  63%
W 20th St‐Federal Ave‐W 19th St
E  56  23%  13%  16%  16%
W  36  22%  19%  19%  22%
Wilson St‐Federal Ave‐Darrell St
E  8  25%  38%  50%  88%
W  8  13%  25%  50%  75%
Ford Rd
Harbor Blvd‐Ford Rd‐Parsons St
S  8  90%  85%  67%  54%
Newport Blvd‐Ford Rd‐Parsons St
N  13  15%  0%  23%  23%
Parsons St‐Ford Rd‐Newport Blvd
S  15  13%  20%  40%  40%
Glen Cir
Canyon Dr‐Glen Cir‐End
N  6  33%  50%  50%  50%
S  8  13%  13%  38%  63%
Gleneagles Terrace
Aviemore Terrace‐Gleneagles Terrace‐End
N  7  29%  29%  29%  29%
S  9  11%  22%  11%  11%
Gleneagles Terrace‐Gleneagles Terrace‐
Aviemore Terrace
N  3  33%  33%  33%  33%
Sea Bluff Dr‐Gleneagles Terrace‐Valley Rd
E  23  22%  17%  13%  13%
514
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
W  24  29%  38%  33%  29%
Governor St
National Ave‐Governor St‐Placentia Ave
S  46  17%  13%  22%  22%
National Ave‐Governor St‐State Ave
N  34  44%  32%  35%  35%
Placentia Ave‐Governor St‐National Ave
N  44  16%  16%  23%  27%
Pomona Ave‐Governor St‐Puente Ave
N  15  13%  7%  13%  40%
S  16  6%  38%  31%  31%
State Ave‐Governor St‐National Ave
S  31  19%  29%  23%  23%
Grove Pl
Republic Ave‐Grove Pl‐State Ave
N  25  4%  12%  4%  4%
S  28  11%  11%  18%  18%
State Ave‐Grove Pl‐End
N  7  14%  0%  29%  14%
S  11  18%  18%  18%  36%
Hamilton St
End‐Hamilton St‐Thurin St
N  20  10%  0%  45%  30%
Harbor Blvd‐Hamilton St‐Maple Ave
N  25  36%  32%  68%  76%
Harbor Blvd‐Hamilton St‐Thurin St
S  48  4%  35%  54%  54%
Maple Ave‐Hamilton St‐Meyer Pl
N  23  70%  35%  78%  83%
Meyer Pl‐Hamilton St‐Pomona Ave
N  9  78%  22%  56%  78%
Placentia Ave‐Hamilton St‐Wallace Ave
N  15  60%  47%  93%  100%
Pomona Ave‐Hamilton St‐Sterling Ave
N  5  20%  0%  60%  80%
Raleigh Ave‐Hamilton St‐Wallace Ave
N  23  48%  35%  78%  83%
Sterling Ave‐Hamilton St‐Raleigh Ave
N  6  50%  0%  83%  67%
515
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
Thurin St‐Hamilton St‐End
S  22  9%  14%  27%  14%
Thurin St‐Hamilton St‐Harbor Blvd
N  47  9%  32%  64%  40%
Harbor Blvd
Bernard St‐Harbor Blvd‐Ford Rd
E  12  75%  75%  50%  50%
Ford Rd‐Harbor Blvd‐W Bay St
E  16  63%  63%  50%  44%
James St
Pomona Ave‐James St‐Wallace Ave
N  23  83%  87%  87%  91%
Wallace Ave‐James St‐Pomona Ave
S  23  91%  83%  96%  91%
Joann St
End‐Joann St‐Federal Ave
N  7  14%  29%  57%  86%
Federal Ave‐Joann St‐End
S  7  0%  71%  86%  86%
Federal Ave‐Joann St‐Monrovia Ave
N  34  41%  29%  44%  50%
S  33  9%  12%  12%  15%
Maple St‐Joann St‐Meyer Pl
N  23  39%  39%  74%  74%
Maple St‐Joann St‐Miner St
S  12  33%  25%  92%  92%
Meyer Pl‐Joann St‐Maple St
S  18  61%  56%  94%  94%
Meyer Pl‐Joann St‐Pomona Ave
N  40  48%  0%  75%  75%
Miner St‐Joann St‐Maple St
N  21  52%  10%  71%  71%
Monrovia Ave‐Joann St‐Republic Ave
N  45  31%  27%  18%  40%
S  45  2%  11%  13%  11%
Pamela Ln‐Joann St‐Placentia Ave
E  14  50%  0%  50%  50%
N  21  38%  52%  81%  81%
Pamela Ln‐Joann St‐Pomona Ave
516
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
S  27  30%  0%  78%  78%
Placentia Ave‐Joann St‐Pamela Ln
S  10  30%  0%  70%  70%
Pomona Ave‐Joann St‐Meyer Pl
S  34  50%  0%  74%  74%
Pomona Ave‐Joann St‐Pamela Ln
N  30  23%  0%  63%  83%
Kenwood Pl
Shalimar Dr‐Kenwood Pl‐W 18th St
W  19  74%  58%  53%  74%
W 18th St‐Kenwood Pl‐Shalimar Dr
W  17  71%  24%  53%  88%
Knowell Pl
Meyer Pl‐Knowell Pl‐Maple Ave
N  24  38%  21%  42%  33%
S  29  48%  17%  52%  41%
Linden Pl
State Ave‐Linden Pl‐End
N  22  32%  23%  18%  32%
S  21  5%  0%  10%  14%
State Ave‐Linden Pl‐Republic Ave
N  24  29%  42%  21%  21%
S  34  21%  15%  12%  12%
Maple Ave
Bernard St‐Maple Ave‐W 19th St
W  25  28%  4%  28%  28%
Bernard St‐Maple Ave‐Yorkshire St
E  29  48%  45%  97%  97%
Hamilton St‐Maple Ave‐Knowell Pl
E  11  36%  9%  64%  55%
W  12  50%  8%  75%  58%
Knowell Pl‐Maple Ave‐W Bay St
E  8  63%  13%  63%  38%
W  7  57%  14%  57%  43%
W 19th St‐Maple Ave‐Bernard St
E  18  22%  11%  22%  22%
W Bay St‐Maple Ave‐Yorkshire St
W  12  33%  33%  58%  50%
Yorkshire St‐Maple Ave‐Bernard St
517
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
W  29  45%  38%  76%  76%
Yorkshire St‐Maple Ave‐W Bay St
E  12  50%  17%  83%  67%
Maple St
Joann St‐Maple St‐Wilson St
W  17  41%  59%  82%  82%
Victoria St‐Maple St‐Wilson St
E  49  27%  29%  61%  71%
Wilson St‐Maple St‐Joann St
E  18  50%  67%  83%  83%
Wilson St‐Maple St‐Victoria St
W  45  42%  36%  64%  62%
Meyer Pl
Beach St‐Meyer Pl‐Surf St
N  20  70%  45%  85%  90%
Beach St‐Meyer Pl‐W 19th St
W  6  83%  67%  83%  83%
Cove St‐Meyer Pl‐Seal St
W  6  100%  0%  83%  67%
Darrell St‐Meyer Pl‐Joann St
E  3  100%  100%  100%  100%
W  9  0%  11%  56%  78%
Hamilton St‐Meyer Pl‐Knowell Pl
W  11  36%  27%  64%  82%
E  9  100%  100%  78%  78%
Knowell Pl‐Meyer Pl‐W Bay St
W  13  62%  15%  54%  92%
Meyer Pl‐Meyer Pl‐Arnold Ave
N  22  23%  14%  36%  68%
Ross St‐Meyer Pl‐Seal St
E  9  100%  78%  56%  78%
Ross St‐Meyer Pl‐Surf St
E  8  88%  75%  75%  75%
Seal St‐Meyer Pl‐Cove St
E  10  60%  50%  50%  60%
Seal St‐Meyer Pl‐Ross St
E  7  86%  86%  71%  86%
Surf St‐Meyer Pl‐Beach St
E  9  78%  67%  78%  78%
518
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
W  10  70%  60%  80%  70%
Surf St‐Meyer Pl‐Ross St
E  10  90%  80%  90%  100%
W Bay St‐Meyer Pl‐Cove St
W  12  33%  17%  50%  83%
E  12  83%  75%  58%  58%
W Bay St‐Meyer Pl‐Knowell Pl
E  8  88%  88%  63%  63%
W 19th St‐Meyer Pl‐Beach St
E  14  57%  50%  57%  57%
Wilson St‐Meyer Pl‐Darrell St
E  9  56%  67%  56%  89%
W  9  33%  22%  22%  44%
Wilson St‐Meyer Pl‐End
E  38  16%  16%  24%  37%
W  36  28%  8%  22%  36%
Miner St
Joann St‐Miner St‐Wilson St
W  27  37%  30%  63%  63%
Wilson St‐Miner St‐End
E  33  6%  24%  42%  85%
W  39  23%  36%  56%  77%
Modjeska Cir
Canyon Dr‐Modjeska Cir‐End
S  5  60%  80%  80%  60%
End‐Modjeska Cir‐Canyon Dr
N  6  67%  33%  50%  83%
Monrovia Ave
Arbor St‐Monrovia Ave‐Cedar Pl
E  7  43%  0%  0%  0%
Arbor St‐Monrovia Ave‐W 19th St
E  9  11%  0%  0%  11%
W  6  0%  0%  0%  0%
Cedar Pl‐Monrovia Ave‐Dogwood St
E  11  9%  0%  0%  0%
Center St‐Monrovia Ave‐Towne St
E  7  86%  86%  86%  43%
W  5  20%  0%  100%  100%
Center St‐Monrovia Ave‐W 19th St
519
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
E  9  78%  89%  78%  89%
Darrell St‐Monrovia Ave‐Wilson St
W  7  14%  29%  43%  29%
Dogwood St‐Monrovia Ave‐Cedar Pl
W  8  38%  0%  0%  0%
Dogwood St‐Monrovia Ave‐Evergreen Pl
E  8  25%  0%  13%  25%
Evergreen Pl‐Monrovia Ave‐Dogwood St
W  6  0%  0%  0%  0%
Evergreen Pl‐Monrovia Ave‐W 20th St
E  7  0%  0%  0%  43%
Joann St‐Monrovia Ave‐Darrell St
E  11  0%  0%  0%  0%
W  8  0%  0%  0%  0%
National Ave‐Monrovia Ave‐Oak St
E  29  17%  17%  21%  17%
National Ave‐Monrovia Ave‐W 20th St
W  16  6%  13%  6%  6%
Newhall St‐Monrovia Ave‐Play Port Mobile
Village Driveway
E  5  80%  20%  0%  20%
Newhall St‐Monrovia Ave‐W 16th St
W  22  50%  82%  55%  5%
Oak St‐Monrovia Ave‐National Ave
W  24  33%  17%  21%  38%
Play Port Mobile Village Driveway‐
Monrovia Ave‐W 17th St
E  3  67%  67%  33%  33%
Sunset Dr‐Monrovia Ave‐W 17th St
W  17  47%  41%  29%  29%
Towne St‐Monrovia Ave‐W 18th St
W  14  29%  14%  93%  100%
Victoria St‐Monrovia Ave‐Oak St
W  28  4%  11%  29%  32%
W 16th St‐Monrovia Ave‐Newhall St
E  16  81%  81%  25%  13%
W 17th St‐Monrovia Ave‐Newhall St
W  11  0%  9%  27%  18%
W 17th St‐Monrovia Ave‐Sunset Dr
520
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
E  12  58%  58%  33%  33%
W 18th St‐Monrovia Ave‐Sunset Dr
E  16  63%  50%  6%  19%
W  14  57%  50%  29%  64%
W 18th St‐Monrovia Ave‐Towne St
E  16  94%  69%  63%  94%
W 19th St‐Monrovia Ave‐Center St
W  13  46%  85%  100%  100%
W 20th St‐Monrovia Ave‐Evergreen Pl
W  7  14%  14%  29%  29%
W 20th St‐Monrovia Ave‐National Ave
E  16  6%  0%  6%  6%
Wilson St‐Monrovia Ave‐Darrell St
E  8  0%  0%  0%  13%
National Ave
Capital St‐National Ave‐Senate St
E  7  14%  14%  14%  14%
W  7  0%  0%  43%  43%
Capital St‐National Ave‐Wilson St
E  6  17%  17%  17%  17%
Congress St‐National Ave‐Governor St
W  7  43%  43%  14%  14%
Governer St‐National Ave‐Congress St
E  9  0%  0%  0%  0%
Governor St‐National Ave‐Victoria St
W  3  33%  33%  0%  33%
Monrovia Ave‐National Ave‐National Ave
N  9  33%  33%  22%  33%
National Ave‐National Ave‐Monrovia Ave
S  9  22%  22%  33%  22%
National Ave‐National Ave‐Oak St
E  28  21%  21%  25%  32%
Oak St‐National Ave‐National Ave
E  26  85%  58%  65%  65%
W  30  20%  23%  27%  17%
Senate St‐National Ave‐Congress St
E  7  0%  0%  0%  0%
W  6  33%  33%  17%  17%
Victoria St‐National Ave‐Oak St
521
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
E  27  26%  22%  15%  44%
W  25  16%  16%  16%  28%
Victory St‐National Ave‐Governer St
E  3  0%  0%  0%  0%
Wilson St‐National Ave‐Capital St
W  7  0%  0%  0%  0%
Newhall St
End‐Newhall St‐Monrovia Ave
S  20  30%  40%  30%  15%
Monrovia Ave‐Newhall St‐End
N  23  17%  17%  17%  13%
Newton Way
End‐Newton Way‐Placentia Ave
N  27  41%  41%  48%  15%
Placentia Ave‐Newton Way‐End
S  22  41%  64%  50%  5%
Oak St
Continental Ave‐Oak St‐Federal Ave
N  28  2%  14%  21%  25%
S  7  0%  0%  0%  0%
Continental Ave‐Oak St‐Monrovia Ave
N  7  43%  57%  43%  57%
S  9  11%  11%  22%  22%
Monrovia Ave‐Oak St‐National Ave
N  7  57%  14%  0%  29%
National Ave‐Oak St‐Monrovia Ave
S  10  30%  30%  10%  10%
National Ave‐Oak St‐President Pl
N  11  9%  9%  9%  18%
President Pl‐Oak St‐National Ave
S  8  0%  0%  0%  0%
President Pl‐Oak St‐Republic Ave
N  11  36%  27%  18%  18%
S  10  60%  40%  40%  40%
Republic Ave‐Oak St‐State Ave
N  33  30%  21%  24%  27%
S  25  36%  20%  24%  28%
Ohms Way
End‐Ohms Way‐Mid‐Block
522
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
N  13  31%  92%  92%  69%
S  13  69%  92%  77%  77%
Farad St‐Ohms Way‐Mid‐Block
E  9  56%  78%  78%  22%
W  13  23%  54%  69%  0%
Pacific Ave
Victoria Pl‐Pacific Ave‐Wilson St
E  55  45%  51%  67%  67%
W  52  38%  44%  54%  52%
Wilson St‐Pacific Ave‐End
E  21  19%  67%  86%  86%
W  16  6%  25%  75%  75%
Pamela Ln
End‐Pamela Ln‐Joann St
E  15  60%  60%  87%  87%
Joann St‐Pamela Ln‐End
W  16  31%  38%  88%  88%
Park Ave
W 18th St‐Park Ave‐W 19th St
E  12  8%  0%  8%  0%
W 19th St‐Park Ave‐W 18th St
W  56  29%  43%  54%  54%
Park Dr
Anaheim Ave‐Park Dr‐W 18th St
N  38  0%  24%  42%  34%
S  19  42%  26%  47%  42%
Crestmont Pl‐Park Dr‐Pomona Ave
S  30  80%  83%  80%  73%
Pomona Ave‐Park Dr‐Crestmont Pl
N  25  80%  84%  96%  96%
W 18th St‐Park Dr‐Anaheim Ave
N  16  38%  38%  38%  44%
Parkcrest Dr
1879 Parkcrest Dr‐Parkcrest Dr‐Parkhill Dr
W  5  40%  40%  20%  40%
1882 Parkcrest Dr‐Parkcrest Dr‐1898
Parkcrest Dr
E  5  20%  20%  40%  40%
523
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
1895 Parkcrest Dr‐Parkcrest Dr‐1879
Parkcrest Dr
W  13  8%  8%  31%  23%
1898 Parkcrest Dr‐Parkcrest Dr‐W 19th St
E  4  0%  0%  0%  0%
W  3  33%  33%  33%  67%
Parkhill Dr‐Parkcrest Dr‐1882 Parkcrest Dr
E  7  43%  29%  29%  29%
Parkglen Cir
End‐Parkglen Cir‐Parkhill Dr
W  4  25%  25%  0%  25%
Parkhill Dr‐Parkglen Cir‐End
E  3  0%  0%  0%  33%
Parkhill Dr
Parkcrest Dr‐Parkhill Dr‐Parkvista Cir
N  9  67%  33%  33%  33%
Parkcrest Dr‐Parkhill Dr‐Whittier Ave
N  3  0%  0%  0%  33%
Parkglen Cir‐Parkhill Dr‐Parkvista Cir
N  11  0%  0%  0%  9%
Parkglen Cir‐Parkhill Dr‐Whittier Ave
S  8  38%  13%  38%  38%
Parkview Cir‐Parkhill Dr‐Parkglen Cir
S  6  17%  33%  0%  33%
Parkvista Cir‐Parkhill Dr‐Parkcrest Dr
S  10  50%  50%  30%  60%
Parkvista Cir‐Parkhill Dr‐Parkglen Cir
W  9  22%  33%  44%  33%
Parkview Cir
Parkhill Dr‐Parkview Cir‐End
E  12  54%  33%  33%  38%
W  10  50%  40%  50%  50%
Parkvista Cir
Parkhill Dr‐Parkvista Cir‐End
E  3  33%  33%  67%  67%
W  2  50%  50%  50%  100%
Parsons St
Ford Rd‐Parsons St‐Bernard St
E  13  15%  38%  38%  46%
524
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
W  17  0%  6%  29%  29%
Ford Rd‐Parsons St‐W Bay St
E  28  39%  29%  71%  71%
Victoria St‐Parsons St‐End
E  10  0%  10%  10%  20%
W  11  0%  27%  36%  55%
W Bay St‐Parsons St‐Ford Rd
W  28  82%  57%  75%  75%
Pine Pl
Federal Ave‐Pine Pl‐End
N  8  25%  13%  0%  50%
S  8  63%  38%  38%  63%
Plum Pl
Federal Ave‐Plum Pl‐End
N  8  63%  25%  25%  63%
S  7  57%  57%  57%  57%
Plumer St
Anaheim Ave‐Plumer St‐Pomona Ave
N  49  69%  65%  65%  73%
Pomona Ave‐Plumer St‐Anaheim Ave
S  50  72%  80%  82%  88%
Pomona Ave
Capital St‐Pomona Ave‐Senate St
W  8  88%  75%  75%  88%
Center St‐Pomona Ave‐Plumer St
E  6  33%  33%  50%  83%
Center St‐Pomona Ave‐Weelo Dr
W  10  20%  10%  80%  90%
Congress St‐Pomona Ave‐Governor St
W  11  64%  64%  64%  73%
Darrell St‐Pomona Ave‐Wilson St
E  9  22%  22%  67%  67%
W  10  100%  100%  100%  100%
Farad St‐Pomona Ave‐W 16th St
W  14  93%  93%  64%  50%
Governor St‐Pomona Ave‐Congress St
E  6  0%  67%  100%  100%
Governor St‐Pomona Ave‐Victoria St
E  2  50%  0%  100%  100%
525
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
W  2  50%  50%  50%  50%
Hamilton St‐Pomona Ave‐Sterling Ave
W  18  100%  100%  61%  61%
Hamilton St‐Pomona Ave‐Victoria St
W  11  36%  18%  64%  91%
James St‐Pomona Ave‐W 17th St
W  26  69%  65%  81%  88%
Joann St‐Pomona Ave‐Darrell St
E  7  57%  43%  86%  86%
W  9  100%  100%  89%  89%
Park Dr‐Pomona Ave‐W 18th St
E  11  45%  73%  82%  91%
Senate St‐Pomona Ave‐Congress St
E  6  33%  42%  83%  83%
W  6  50%  50%  67%  50%
Sterling Ave‐Pomona Ave‐Hamilton St
W  20  55%  5%  65%  75%
Sterling Ave‐Pomona Ave‐W 20th St
W  12  92%  92%  100%  100%
Victoria St‐Pomona Ave‐Hamilton St
W  16  50%  6%  44%  81%
W 16th St‐Pomona Ave‐Farad St
E  12  83%  83%  33%  8%
W 17th St‐Pomona Ave‐Farad St
E  26  88%  69%  81%  77%
W  15  73%  73%  80%  80%
W 17th St‐Pomona Ave‐Park Dr
E  34  47%  68%  82%  82%
W 18th St‐Pomona Ave‐James St
W  3  67%  100%  100%  100%
W 18th St‐Pomona Ave‐Weelo Dr
E  9  22%  44%  89%  78%
W 19th St‐Pomona Ave‐Center St
W  3  0%  0%  33%  67%
W 19th St‐Pomona Ave‐W 20th St
E  30  53%  40%  80%  83%
W 20th St‐Pomona Ave‐Sterling Ave
E  14  57%  64%  71%  71%
W 20th St‐Pomona Ave‐W 19th St
526
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
W  33  79%  79%  67%  88%
Weelo Dr‐Pomona Ave‐Center St
E  8  75%  13%  38%  88%
Weelo Dr‐Pomona Ave‐W 18th St
W  11  45%  18%  82%  91%
Wilson St‐Pomona Ave‐Capital St
E  5  60%  20%  100%  100%
W  4  75%  75%  100%  75%
President Pl
End‐President Pl‐Oak St
W  24  38%  29%  33%  29%
Oak St‐President Pl‐End
E  30  23%  27%  13%  17%
Victoria St‐President Pl‐End
E  22  27%  27%  32%  32%
W  20  45%  45%  50%  50%
Puente Ave
Congress St‐Puente Ave‐Governor St
E  10  20%  0%  30%  30%
Congress St‐Puente Ave‐Senate St
W  6  0%  0%  17%  33%
Governor St‐Puente Ave‐Congress St
W  8  25%  0%  38%  63%
Governor St‐Puente Ave‐End
E  5  0%  0%  0%  40%
W  12  0%  0%  0%  8%
Senate St‐Puente Ave‐Congress St
E  10  10%  0%  20%  30%
Ralcam Pl
End‐Ralcam Pl‐Thurin St
S  19  11%  11%  47%  42%
Thurin St‐Ralcam Pl‐End
N  19  11%  42%  32%  21%
Raleigh Ave
Congress St‐Raleigh Ave‐End
E  20  40%  40%  40%  35%
W  20  30%  10%  15%  25%
Congress St‐Raleigh Ave‐Wilson St
W  17  53%  41%  35%  59%
527
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
Hamilton St‐Raleigh Ave‐End
E  20  25%  0%  55%  65%
W  18  11%  6%  33%  44%
Wilson St‐Raleigh Ave‐Congress St
E  18  56%  22%  33%  33%
Republic Ave
Arbor St‐Republic Ave‐Cedar Pl
W  8  38%  63%  25%  25%
Capital St‐Republic Ave‐Senate St
W  10  20%  30%  50%  50%
Cedar Pl‐Republic Ave‐Arbor St
E  8  63%  50%  38%  38%
Darrell St‐Republic Ave‐Joann St
E  10  20%  20%  20%  20%
Darrell St‐Republic Ave‐Wilson St
W  10  10%  10%  10%  20%
Dogwood St‐Republic Ave‐Cedar Pl
E  9  22%  11%  11%  0%
W  14  7%  7%  7%  7%
Grove Pl‐Republic Ave‐End
E  27  7%  15%  26%  11%
W  22  9%  14%  18%  18%
Grove Pl‐Republic Ave‐Linden Pl
E  7  0%  14%  29%  29%
Joann St‐Republic Ave‐Darrell St
W  9  33%  11%  11%  22%
Linden Pl‐Republic Ave‐Grove Pl
W  9  0%  11%  0%  0%
Linden Pl‐Republic Ave‐Oak St
E  8  13%  13%  13%  13%
Oak St‐Republic Ave‐Linden Pl
W  8  25%  0%  0%  38%
Senate St‐Republic Ave‐Capital St
E  7  29%  14%  29%  29%
Union Ave‐Republic Ave‐Victoria St
E  17  24%  18%  35%  24%
Victoria St‐Republic Ave‐Union Ave
W  20  20%  20%  20%  15%
Wilson St‐Republic Ave‐Capital St
528
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
E  7  29%  29%  29%  29%
W  7  71%  57%  57%  57%
Wilson St‐Republic Ave‐Darrell St
E  8  0%  13%  0%  0%
Ridgecrest Cir
Valley Rd‐Ridgecrest Cir‐End
N  7  14%  14%  14%  14%
S  6  50%  50%  50%  50%
Ross St
Arnold Ave‐Ross St‐Meyer Pl
N  17  35%  29%  41%  41%
S  20  35%  5%  30%  55%
Scott Pl
Placentia Ave‐Scott Pl‐Wallace Ave
S  19  31%  46%  82%  85%
Sea Bluff Dr
Canyon Dr‐Sea Bluff Dr‐Valley Rd
N  20  0%  0%  0%  0%
S  14  0%  14%  7%  7%
Valley Rd‐Sea Bluff Dr‐Balmoral Pl
S  9  0%  11%  22%  0%
Valley Rd‐Sea Bluff Dr‐Gleneagles Terrace
N  14  0%  0%  14%  7%
S  11  0%  9%  18%  0%
Seal St
Arnold Ave‐Seal St‐Meyer Pl
S  22  55%  50%  73%  68%
Senate St
Continental Ave‐Senate St‐National Ave
N  24  33%  33%  33%  29%
National Ave‐Senate St‐Continental Ave
S  28  39%  39%  32%  32%
National Ave‐Senate St‐Republic Ave
N  23  22%  17%  30%  22%
Pomona Ave‐Senate St‐Puente Ave
N  16  38%  6%  38%  75%
S  16  6%  6%  38%  63%
Republic Ave‐Senate St‐National Ave
S  25  20%  16%  12%  12%
529
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
Shalimar Dr
Crestmont Pl‐Shalimar Dr‐End
N  9  78%  67%  78%  89%
Crestmont Pl‐Shalimar Dr‐Local Access
S  9  89%  89%  89%  100%
Kenwood Pl‐Shalimar Dr‐Crestmont Pl
N  9  78%  56%  56%  100%
S  4  50%  50%  75%  75%
State Ave
American Ave‐State Ave‐Congress St
W  7  43%  43%  57%  57%
American Ave‐State Ave‐Wilson St
E  16  31%  38%  50%  88%
W  34  50%  47%  56%  41%
Congress St‐State Ave‐American Ave
E  6  50%  33%  50%  33%
Congress St‐State Ave‐Governor St
E  8  0%  0%  0%  0%
W  7  71%  43%  43%  43%
End‐State Ave‐Governor St
E  7  71%  43%  29%  86%
Governor St‐State Ave‐End
W  3  100%  67%  100%  100%
Grove Pl‐State Ave‐Linden Pl
W  7  43%  43%  29%  29%
Linden Pl‐State Ave‐Grove Pl
E  10  40%  40%  40%  40%
Oak Street‐State Ave‐Linden Pl
E  9  11%  33%  11%  11%
Oak St‐State Ave‐Linden Pl
W  10  20%  20%  20%  20%
Sterling Ave
Hamilton St‐Sterling Ave‐End
E  20  10%  15%  35%  35%
W  15  0%  0%  33%  20%
Pomona Ave‐Sterling Ave‐Sterling Ave
S  14  79%  79%  50%  86%
Sterling Ave‐Sterling Ave‐Pomona Ave
S  10  100%  90%  90%  90%
530
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
Sterling Ave‐Sterling Ave‐W 20th St
W  7  71%  14%  0%  43%
Sunset Dr
End‐Sunset Dr‐Monrovia Ave
S  20  60%  70%  50%  75%
Monrovia Ave‐Sunset Dr‐End
N  18  39%  56%  61%  50%
Surf St
Arnold Ave‐Surf St‐Meyer Pl
S  18  72%  72%  94%  83%
Terminal Way
End‐Terminal Way‐Anaheim Ave
S  28  43%  61%  46%  18%
Thurin St
Hamilton St‐Thurin St‐Ralcam Pl
E  11  9%  45%  91%  55%
Hamilton St‐Thurin St‐W Bay St
W  23  65%  57%  61%  61%
Ralcam Pl‐Thurin St‐Hamilton St
W  6  100%  83%  100%  0%
Ralcam Pl‐Thurin St‐Victoria St
E  7  14%  86%  71%  71%
Victoria St‐Thurin St‐Ralcam Pl
W  7  86%  57%  71%  57%
W Bay St‐Thurin St‐Hamilton St
E  20  0%  30%  70%  60%
Towne St
Monrovia Ave‐Towne St‐Placentia Ave
N  38  32%  11%  21%  34%
S  40  20%  5%  23%  35%
Trabuco Cir
Canyon Dr‐Trabuco Cir‐Local Access
S  5  80%  80%  80%  80%
End‐Trabuco Cir‐Canyon Dr
N  7  100%  57%  57%  86%
Union Ave
Union Ave‐Union Ave‐Republic Ave
N  9  22%  22%  22%  22%
S  23  48%  30%  35%  43%
531
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
Victoria St‐Union Ave‐Republic Ave
E  16  38%  44%  56%  38%
Victoria St‐Union Ave‐Union Ave
W  18  44%  39%  39%  33%
Valley Cir
Valley Rd‐Valley Cir‐End
N  8  38%  50%  13%  13%
S  9  67%  44%  56%  56%
Valley Rd
Aviemore Terrace‐Valley Rd‐Gleneagles
Terrace
E  7  43%  29%  57%  43%
Gleneagles Terrace‐Valley Rd‐Aviemore
Terrace
W  5  20%  20%  20%  20%
Ridgecrest Cir‐Valley Rd‐Sea Bluff Dr
W  5  100%  60%  40%  40%
Sea Bluff Dr‐Valley Rd‐Gleneagles Terrace
E  13  8%  8%  15%  8%
W  9  0%  11%  0%  0%
Sea Bluff Dr‐Valley Rd‐Ridgecrest Cir
E  4  75%  25%  25%  25%
Valley Cir‐Valley Rd‐Ridgecrest Cir
E  8  38%  13%  13%  13%
W  7  57%  43%  43%  43%
Valley Cir‐Valley Rd‐Victoria St
E  6  17%  17%  17%  17%
Victoria St‐Valley Rd‐Valley Cir
W  2  0%  0%  0%  0%
Victoria Pl
Victoria St‐Victoria Pl‐Pacific Ave
N  4  50%  25%  75%  75%
S  7  57%  86%  86%  86%
Victoria St
Continental Ave‐Victoria St‐Federal Ave
S  7  86%  57%  57%  86%
End‐Victoria St‐Union Ave
S  4  0%  100%  100%  75%
Federal Ave‐Victoria St‐End
532
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
S  11  64%  55%  82%  82%
Monrovia Ave‐Victoria St‐Continental Ave
S  9  56%  33%  33%  67%
National Ave‐Victoria St‐Monrovia Ave
S  6  83%  67%  50%  83%
President Pl‐Victoria St‐National Ave
S  4  50%  50%  0%  0%
Republic Ave‐Victoria St‐President Pl
S  7  14%  14%  0%  0%
Union Ave‐Victoria St‐Republic Ave
S  6  67%  83%  67%  67%
W 16th St
Hampton Dr‐W 16th St‐End
N  8  63%  50%  50%  50%
Monrovia Ave‐W 16th St‐Hampton Dr
N  26  62%  58%  54%  15%
Placentia Ave‐W 16th St‐Pomona Ave
S  15  20%  13%  27%  20%
Pomona Ave‐W 16th St‐Placentia Ave
N  16  88%  81%  81%  81%
W 17th St
Babcock St‐W 17th St‐Monrovia Ave
N  25  92%  64%  32%  16%
S  15  67%  80%  33%  20%
End‐W 17th St‐Whittier Ave
S  10  90%  70%  50%  10%
Monrovia Ave‐W 17th St‐Whittier Ave
N  22  68%  73%  50%  27%
Placentia Ave‐W 17th St‐Babcock St
N  13  77%  92%  38%  31%
S  3  100%  67%  67%  0%
Whittier Ave‐W 17th St‐End
N  13  62%  69%  31%  23%
Whittier Ave‐W 17th St‐Monrovia Ave
S  32  84%  88%  19%  16%
W 18th St
Anaheim Ave‐W 18th St‐Park Dr
S  7  29%  14%  29%  29%
Anaheim Ave‐W 18th St‐Pomona Ave
533
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
N  33  45%  36%  64%  79%
Crestmont Pl‐W 18th St‐Kenwood Pl
S  6  67%  50%  50%  83%
Kenwood Pl‐W 18th St‐Anaheim Ave
S  8  38%  25%  25%  25%
Monrovia Ave‐W 18th St‐Placentia Ave
S  17  65%  65%  65%  65%
Monrovia Ave‐W 18th St‐Whittier Ave
N  43  56%  49%  44%  53%
S  28  64%  71%  61%  71%
Peninsula Pl‐W 18th St‐Whittier Ave
S  22  55%  59%  41%  32%
Placentia Ave‐W 18th St‐Monrovia Ave
N  34  68%  68%  65%  65%
Placentia Ave‐W 18th St‐Wallace Ave
S  16  50%  44%  75%  75%
Pomona Ave‐W 18th St‐Crestmont Pl
S  12  92%  67%  67%  92%
Pomona Ave‐W 18th St‐Wallace Ave
N  14  93%  86%  93%  100%
Wallace Ave‐W 18th St‐Placentia Ave
N  9  67%  67%  67%  89%
Wallace Ave‐W 18th St‐Pomona Ave
S  24  83%  88%  88%  96%
Whittier Ave‐W 18th St‐Peninsula Pl
N  19  53%  42%  32%  68%
W 19th St
Federal Ave‐W 19th St‐Monrovia Ave
N  9  67%  56%  89%  89%
Monrovia Ave‐W 19th St‐Placentia Ave
S  17  24%  76%  82%  88%
Monrovia Ave‐W 19th St‐Whittier Ave
N  21  0%  5%  10%  43%
Parkcrest Dr‐W 19th St‐Whittier Ave
S  12  33%  8%  25%  33%
Placentia Ave‐W 19th St‐Federal Ave
N  4  75%  0%  50%  0%
Whittier Ave‐W 19th St‐Monrovia Ave
S  37  38%  16%  59%  76%
534
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
Whittier Ave‐W 19th St‐Sundance Dr
N  10  10%  10%  40%  30%
W 20th St
Continental Ave‐W 20th St‐Federal Ave
S  9  11%  11%  0%  11%
Continental Ave‐W 20th St‐Monrovia Ave
N  9  11%  11%  11%  11%
End‐W 20th St‐Monrovia Ave
S  14  36%  29%  29%  43%
Federal Ave‐W 20th St‐Continental Ave
N  9  22%  0%  11%  11%
Monrovia Ave‐W 20th St‐Continental Ave
S  8  38%  50%  38%  50%
Monrovia Ave‐W 20th St‐End
N  13  38%  38%  38%  23%
Palace Ave‐W 20th St‐Wallace Ave
N  9  67%  56%  89%  89%
S  16  75%  81%  75%  88%
Placentia Ave‐W 20th St‐Palace Ave
N  7  43%  0%  100%  100%
S  10  100%  90%  90%  80%
Sterling Ave‐W 20th St‐Pomona Ave
N  10  40%  20%  80%  80%
S  11  100%  82%  82%  100%
Wallace Ave‐W 20th St‐Sterling Ave
N  8  75%  38%  100%  100%
S  9  78%  67%  89%  78%
W Bay St
Anaheim Ave‐W Bay St‐Meyer Pl
N  13  38%  15%  46%  38%
Harbor Blvd‐W Bay St‐Parsons St
S  5  80%  60%  100%  80%
Maple Ave‐W Bay St‐Anaheim Ave
N  15  40%  13%  33%  33%
S  13  31%  23%  46%  38%
Meyer Pl‐W Bay St‐Anaheim Ave
S  12  42%  17%  25%  25%
Parsons St‐W Bay St‐Harbor Blvd
N  10  80%  100%  90%  90%
535
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
Parsons St‐W Bay St‐Thurin St
S  27  11%  70%  81%  67%
Thurin St‐W Bay St‐Parsons St
N  30  17%  50%  77%  77%
Wallace Ave
Center St‐Wallace Ave‐Weelo Dr
W  10  20%  90%  100%  100%
End‐Wallace Ave‐James St
W  5  60%  60%  60%  80%
Hamilton St‐Wallace Ave‐End
E  23  35%  9%  52%  78%
W  16  31%  13%  44%  81%
Hamilton St‐Wallace Ave‐W 20th St
W  46  83%  74%  78%  72%
James St‐Wallace Ave‐End
E  6  83%  67%  83%  100%
James St‐Wallace Ave‐Shalimar Dr
W  12  100%  92%  92%  100%
Scott Pl‐Wallace Ave‐W 18th Ave
W  4  25%  75%  100%  100%
Shalimar Ave‐Wallace Ave‐James St
E  9  67%  56%  67%  89%
W 18th St‐Wallace Ave‐Scott Pl
E  9  100%  78%  89%  89%
W 19th St‐Wallace Ave‐Center St
E  19  89%  84%  74%  84%
W  10  10%  30%  100%  100%
W 19th St‐Wallace Ave‐W 20th St
E  38  55%  29%  89%  87%
W 20th St‐Wallace Ave‐Hamilton St
E  36  58%  61%  89%  92%
W 20th St‐Wallace Ave‐W 19th St
W  43  88%  77%  91%  91%
Weelo Dr‐Wallace Ave‐Center St
E  10  90%  90%  90%  90%
Weelo Dr‐Wallace Ave‐Scott Pl
E  8  75%  38%  75%  63%
W  6  33%  83%  100%  100%
Wilson St‐Wallace Ave‐Congress St
536
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
E  17  29%  12%  29%  35%
W  20  55%  5%  30%  45%
Weelo Dr
Wallace Ave‐Weelo Dr‐Pomona Ave
N  19  89%  89%  89%  89%
S  24  71%  79%  79%  83%
Whittier Ave
Arbor St‐Whittier Ave‐End
E  20  25%  10%  25%  40%
Arbor St‐Whittier Ave‐W 19th St
W  7  14%  0%  14%  0%
End‐Whittier Ave‐Arbor St
W  16  19%  19%  13%  13%
Parkhill Dr‐Whittier Ave‐W 18th St
E  31  77%  42%  16%  26%
W  15  73%  53%  53%  7%
W 17th St‐Whittier Ave‐Hampton Dr
E  12  75%  75%  50%  75%
W  12  25%  8%  0%  0%
W 18th St‐Whittier Ave‐W 17th St
E  37  89%  76%  41%  27%
W  2  0%  0%  0%  0%
W 19th St‐Whittier Ave‐Arbor St
E  7  14%  0%  0%  0%
W 19th St‐Whittier Ave‐Parkhill Dr
E  8  75%  75%  63%  75%
W  23  65%  65%  52%  52%
Wilson St
Canyon Dr‐Wilson St‐State Ave
S  4  50%  50%  50%  75%
Continental Ave‐Wilson St‐Federal Ave
S  20  70%  60%  65%  55%
Continental Ave‐Wilson St‐Monrovia Ave
N  12  42%  42%  42%  50%
Federal Ave‐Wilson St‐Continental Ave
N  14  50%  57%  43%  43%
Monrovia Ave‐Wilson St‐Continental Ave
S  11  36%  45%  18%  18%
Monrovia Ave‐Wilson St‐National Ave
537
Weekday Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
N  10  30%  30%  30%  30%
National Ave‐Wilson St‐Monrovia Ave
S  14  14%  21%  29%  29%
Pacific Ave‐Wilson St‐Canyon Dr
S  21  67%  67%  38%  57%
Republic Ave‐Wilson St‐Canyon Dr
N  18  28%  22%  22%  22%
Republic Ave‐Wilson St‐National Ave
N  23  17%  22%  30%  17%
S  20  30%  30%  35%  35%
State Ave‐Wilson St‐Republic Ave
S  6  50%  50%  50%  0%
Yorkshire St
Anaheim Ave‐Yorkshire St‐Maple Ave
S  13  38%  62%  92%  77%
Maple Ave‐Yorkshire St‐Anaheim Ave
N  15  47%  53%  80%  80%

538
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
American Ave
American Pl‐American Ave‐State Ave
E  25  56%  60%  72%  84%
W  45  53%  51%  60%  60%
Victoria St‐American Ave‐American Pl
E  10  60%  60%  20%  80%
W  8  50%  50%  75%  100%
American Pl
American Ave‐American Pl‐End
N  7  100%  86%  86%  86%
S  8  50%  75%  63%  63%
Anaheim Ave
Center St‐Anaheim Ave‐Plumer St
E  13  69%  62%  85%  92%
Park Dr‐Anaheim Ave‐Terminal Way
E  14  79%  71%  64%  79%
W  15  33%  40%  40%  33%
Plumer St‐Anaheim Ave‐Center St
W  10  50%  50%  50%  90%
Terminal Way‐Anaheim Ave‐Superior Ave
W  3  0%  0%  33%  33%
W 18th St‐Anaheim Ave‐Center St
E  33  67%  39%  45%  42%
W  24  46%  46%  42%  88%
W 18th St‐Anaheim Ave‐Park Dr
E  9  67%  33%  56%  44%
W  14  79%  50%  64%  64%
W 19th St‐Anaheim Ave‐Plumer St
E  3  100%  67%  100%  100%
W 19th St‐Anaheim Ave‐Yorkshire St
E  49  69%  71%  80%  80%
W Bay St‐Anaheim Ave‐Yorkshire St
E  12  67%  67%  92%  92%
W  10  100%  90%  90%  80%
Wilson St‐Anaheim Ave‐End
E  18  78%  78%  89%  94%
W  15  73%  60%  80%  80%
Yorkshire St‐Anaheim Ave‐W 19th St
W  50  80%  68%  78%  74%
539
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
Arbor St
Continental Ave‐Arbor St‐Monrovia Ave
N  11  18%  18%  27%  27%
S  16  31%  25%  31%  31%
Republic Ave‐Arbor St‐Monrovia Ave
N  24  21%  13%  21%  17%
Whittier Ave‐Arbor St‐End
N  9  56%  56%  33%  22%
S  8  50%  13%  38%  13%
Whittier Ave‐Arbor St‐Republic Ave
N  18  22%  19%  22%  30%
S  35  20%  11%  17%  17%
Arnold Ave
Cove St‐Arnold Ave‐Seal St
E  6  67%  67%  83%  67%
W  11  64%  55%  73%  55%
Ross St‐Arnold Ave‐Surf St
W  17  82%  65%  82%  82%
Seal St‐Arnold Ave‐Ross St
E  8  75%  25%  63%  63%
W  10  50%  50%  60%  40%
Surf St‐Arnold Ave‐Beach St
E  8  75%  75%  75%  88%
W  11  73%  45%  73%  82%
Surf St‐Arnold Ave‐Ross St
E  8  63%  38%  63%  75%
Aviemore Terrace
Gleneagles Terrace‐Aviemore Terrace‐
Valley Rd
E  41  12%  12%  7%  10%
W  33  27%  18%  27%  36%
Avocado St
Avalon St‐Avocado St‐Fairview Rd
N  20  80%  75%  75%  85%
S  27  78%  78%  81%  81%
College Ave‐Avocado St‐Rutgers Dr
N  41  83%  85%  85%  90%
S  42  83%  86%  90%  86%
Rutgers Dr‐Avocado St‐Avalon St
540
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
N  15  73%  80%  87%  93%
S  23  83%  83%  87%  87%
Babcock St
W 16th St‐Babcock St‐W 17th St
W  21  33%  33%  29%  24%
W 17th St‐Babcock St‐W 16th St
E  23  26%  30%  30%  30%
Balmoral Pl
Sea Bluff Dr‐Balmoral Pl‐End
E  6  33%  67%  83%  50%
W  4  25%  50%  50%  50%
Beach St
Arnold Ave‐Beach St‐Meyer Pl
N  18  83%  67%  89%  94%
S  20  85%  85%  85%  90%
Bernard St
Charle St‐Bernard St‐Harbor Blvd
S  12  25%  83%  75%  50%
Charle St‐Bernard St‐Maple Ave
S  12  75%  58%  100%  92%
Charle Street‐Bernard St‐Maple Ave
N  11  91%  82%  82%  91%
Harbor Blvd‐Bernard St‐Charle St
N  13  62%  77%  92%  62%
Parsons St‐Bernard St‐End
N  11  18%  36%  55%  27%
S  12  58%  75%  67%  50%
Parsons St‐Bernard St‐Harbor Blvd
S  17  65%  65%  65%  65%
Parsons St‐Bernard St‐Harbor St
N  11  91%  100%  91%  91%
Canyon Dr
Glen Cir‐Canyon Dr‐Sea Bluff Dr
W  6  33%  67%  83%  83%
Local Access‐Canyon Dr‐Nancy Ln
W  30  23%  20%  13%  13%
Local Access‐Canyon Dr‐Trabuco Cir
W  7  71%  57%  57%  57%
Modjeska Cir‐Canyon Dr‐Trabuco Cir
541
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
E  4  25%  50%  50%  75%
Modjeska Cir‐Canyon Dr‐Wilson St
W  5  80%  80%  40%  40%
Sea Bluff Dr‐Canyon Dr‐Glen Cir
E  10  40%  60%  60%  60%
Trabuco Cir‐Canyon Dr‐End
E  10  80%  90%  60%  60%
Trauoco Cir‐Canyon Dr‐Modjeska Cir
W  7  71%  57%  71%  71%
Victoria St‐Canyon Dr‐Glen Cir
E  8  63%  75%  75%  75%
W  8  63%  50%  25%  75%
Wilson St‐Canyon Dr‐Modjeska Cir
E  3  67%  33%  67%  67%
Wilson St‐Canyon Dr‐Victoria St
E  47  70%  72%  85%  87%
W  37  89%  89%  97%  100%
Capital St
Continental Ave‐Capital St‐National Ave
N  25  28%  20%  32%  24%
National Ave‐Capital St‐Continental Ave
S  23  17%  13%  26%  17%
National Ave‐Capital St‐Republic Ave
N  24  13%  17%  17%  25%
Pomona Ave‐Capital St‐End
N  13  15%  8%  31%  38%
S  15  40%  40%  53%  40%
Republic Ave‐Capital St‐National Ave
S  23  30%  43%  35%  30%
Cedar Pl
Monrovia Ave‐Cedar Pl‐Republic Ave
N  27  56%  52%  44%  41%
S  30  40%  33%  37%  33%
Center St
Anaheim Ave‐Center St‐Pomona Ave
N  48  81%  81%  77%  92%
Monrovia Ave‐Center St‐Placentia Ave
S  57  91%  86%  86%  86%
Placentia Ave‐Center St‐Monrovia Ave
542
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
N  59  73%  88%  85%  88%
Placentia Ave‐Center St‐Wallace Ave
N  16  75%  75%  69%  69%
S  19  63%  63%  68%  74%
Pomona Ave‐Center St‐Anaheim Ave
S  47  77%  83%  81%  91%
Pomona Ave‐Center St‐Wallace Ave
N  21  76%  67%  95%  100%
Wallace Ave‐Center St‐Pomona Ave
S  19  79%  84%  79%  84%
Charle Dr
End‐Charle Dr‐Victoria St
W  8  63%  50%  25%  38%
Victoria St‐Charle Dr‐End
E  7  71%  43%  71%  71%
Charle St
Hamilton St‐Charle St‐Bernard St
W  67  70%  81%  82%  82%
E  60  67%  70%  65%  65%
College Ave
Avocado St‐College Ave‐Victoria St
W  13  85%  69%  77%  100%
Avocado St‐College Ave‐Wilson St
E  38  87%  89%  100%  100%
Victoria St‐College Ave‐Avocado St
E  35  77%  80%  94%  94%
Victoria St‐College Ave‐End
E  7  29%  14%  14%  14%
W  10  20%  40%  40%  40%
Wilson St‐College Ave‐Avocado St
W  21  81%  67%  86%  95%
Congress St
End‐Congress St‐Wallace Ave
S  9  89%  100%  89%  100%
National Ave‐Congress St‐Placentia Ave
S  43  56%  35%  51%  53%
National Ave‐Congress St‐State Ave
N  36  22%  28%  44%  33%
Placentia Ave‐Congress St‐National Ave
543
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
N  55  35%  40%  40%  40%
Pomona Ave‐Congress St‐Puente Ave
N  14  57%  50%  57%  57%
S  18  67%  50%  78%  72%
Raleigh Ave‐Congress St‐Wallace Ave
N  9  67%  78%  67%  78%
State Ave‐Congress St‐National Ave
S  37  19%  14%  46%  27%
Wallace Ave‐Congress St‐End
N  6  67%  67%  83%  83%
Wallace Ave‐Congress St‐Raleigh Ave
S  9  67%  78%  78%  89%
Continental Ave
Arbor St‐Continental Ave‐W 20th St
E  37  41%  30%  32%  35%
Capital Ave‐Continental Ave‐Wilson St
E  8  38%  38%  38%  38%
Capital St‐Continental Ave‐Senate St
W  7  43%  29%  29%  29%
Oak St‐Continental Ave‐W 20th Ave
W  43  28%  28%  30%  30%
Senate St‐Continental Ave‐Wilson St
E  11  18%  9%  36%  27%
Victoria St‐Continental Ave‐Oak St
E  27  44%  52%  59%  67%
W  27  59%  56%  52%  56%
W 20th St‐Continental Ave‐Arbor St
W  44  30%  23%  36%  36%
W 20th St‐Continental Ave‐Oak St
E  44  45%  41%  34%  43%
Wilson St‐Continental Ave‐Capital St
W  5  20%  20%  20%  40%
Cove St
Arnold Ave‐Cove St‐Meyer Pl
S  18  50%  22%  33%  50%
Meyer Pl‐Cove St‐Arnold Ave
N  20  60%  35%  35%  50%
Crestmont Pl
Park Dr‐Crestmont Pl‐Shalimar Dr
544
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
E  8  88%  88%  88%  88%
Park Dr‐Crestmont Pl‐W 18th St
E  6  100%  50%  83%  83%
Shalimar Dr‐Crestmont Pl‐Park Dr
E  7  71%  100%  71%  100%
W 18th St‐Crestmont Pl‐Park Dr
W  10  80%  60%  70%  90%
Darrell St
Meyer Pl‐Darrell St‐Pomona Ave
N  31  81%  81%  87%  90%
Monrovia Ave‐Darrell St‐Federal Ave
N  31  35%  39%  42%  42%
Moronovia Ave‐Darrell St‐Federal Ave
S  32  47%  44%  34%  47%
Pomona Ave‐Darrell St‐Meyer Pl
S  35  86%  80%  77%  86%
Republic Ave‐Darrell St‐Monrovia Ave
N  41  29%  29%  39%  34%
S  41  22%  20%  29%  29%
Dogwood St
Cedar Pl‐Dogwood St‐Evergreen Pl
N  31  19%  19%  19%  29%
Monrovia Ave‐Dogwood St‐Republic Ave
S  35  17%  20%  31%  31%
Evergreen Pl
End‐Evergreen Pl‐Monrovia Ave
S  20  25%  35%  15%  30%
Monrovia Ave‐Evergreen Pl‐End
N  21  29%  24%  24%  24%
Farad St
Ohms Way‐Farad St‐End
S  15  33%  40%  40%  33%
Ohms Way‐Farad St‐Pomona Ave
S  7  43%  29%  29%  29%
Pomona Ave‐Farad St‐End
N  24  17%  21%  17%  21%
Federal Ave
Darrell St‐Federal Ave‐Joann St
E  8  63%  50%  50%  63%
545
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
W  10  50%  40%  50%  70%
Oak St‐Federal Ave‐W 20th St
E  43  49%  35%  28%  30%
W  36  47%  31%  31%  39%
Pine Pl‐Federal Ave‐Oak St
W  8  63%  50%  63%  75%
Pine Pl‐Federal Ave‐Plum Pl
E  8  63%  38%  50%  63%
Plum Pl‐Federal Ave‐End
E  6  83%  33%  67%  67%
Plum Pl‐Federal Ave‐Pine Pl
W  11  45%  36%  27%  55%
Victoria St‐Federal Ave‐Plum Pl
W  8  50%  38%  63%  63%
W 20th St‐Federal Ave‐W 19th St
W  36  25%  28%  28%  25%
E  56  18%  14%  20%  20%
Wilson St‐Federal Ave‐Darrell St
E  8  88%  75%  88%  88%
W  8  63%  50%  63%  63%
Ford Rd
Harbor Blvd‐Ford Rd‐Parsons St
S  8  85%  83%  81%  81%
Newport Blvd‐Ford Rd‐Parsons St
N  13  54%  31%  31%  31%
Parsons St‐Ford Rd‐Newport Blvd
S  15  67%  40%  20%  20%
Glen Cir
Canyon Dr‐Glen Cir‐End
N  6  83%  83%  67%  67%
S  8  38%  25%  88%  50%
Gleneagles Terrace
Aviemore Terrace‐Gleneagles Terrace‐End
N  7  43%  43%  29%  29%
S  9  11%  0%  0%  0%
Gleneagles Terrace‐Gleneagles Terrace‐
Aviemore Terrace
N  3  33%  33%  33%  33%
Sea Bluff Dr‐Gleneagles Terrace‐Valley Rd
546
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
E  23  13%  17%  17%  13%
W  24  38%  33%  42%  46%
Governor St
National Ave‐Governor St‐Placentia Ave
S  46  30%  33%  30%  28%
National Ave‐Governor St‐State Ave
N  34  38%  44%  41%  44%
Placentia Ave‐Governor St‐National Ave
N  44  23%  14%  32%  25%
Pomona Ave‐Governor St‐Puente Ave
N  15  33%  13%  33%  33%
S  16  19%  25%  19%  50%
State Ave‐Governor St‐National Ave
S  31  19%  23%  39%  39%
Grove Pl
Republic Ave‐Grove Pl‐State Ave
N  25  20%  24%  24%  20%
S  28  14%  14%  14%  14%
State Ave‐Grove Pl‐End
N  7  14%  29%  43%  43%
S  11  27%  64%  27%  27%
Hamilton St
End‐Hamilton St‐Thurin St
N  20  35%  30%  40%  40%
Harbor Blvd‐Hamilton St‐Maple Ave
N  25  80%  76%  72%  84%
Harbor Blvd‐Hamilton St‐Thurin St
S  48  69%  75%  81%  85%
Maple Ave‐Hamilton St‐Meyer Pl
N  23  78%  87%  87%  78%
Meyer Pl‐Hamilton St‐Pomona Ave
N  9  56%  56%  78%  78%
Placentia Ave‐Hamilton St‐Wallace Ave
N  15  93%  87%  93%  93%
Pomona Ave‐Hamilton St‐Sterling Ave
N  5  60%  100%  100%  100%
Raleigh Ave‐Hamilton St‐Wallace Ave
N  23  74%  74%  78%  87%
Sterling Ave‐Hamilton St‐Raleigh Ave
547
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
N  6  67%  67%  67%  67%
Thurin St‐Hamilton St‐End
S  22  41%  27%  32%  27%
Thurin St‐Hamilton St‐Harbor Blvd
N  47  72%  77%  87%  83%
Harbor Blvd
Bernard St‐Harbor Blvd‐Ford Rd
E  12  50%  67%  58%  58%
Ford Rd‐Harbor Blvd‐W Bay St
E  16  31%  31%  13%  13%
James St
Pomona Ave‐James St‐Wallace Ave
N  23  83%  87%  83%  78%
Wallace Ave‐James St‐Pomona Ave
S  23  100%  96%  100%  91%
Joann St
End‐Joann St‐Federal Ave
S  7  86%  71%  86%  100%
Federal Ave‐Joann St‐End
S  7  43%  71%  86%  100%
Federal Ave‐Joann St‐Monrovia Ave
N  34  47%  44%  38%  44%
Maple St‐Joann St‐Meyer Pl
N  23  74%  78%  91%  83%
Maple St‐Joann St‐Miner St
S  12  83%  83%  92%  92%
Meyer Pl‐Joann St‐Maple St
S  18  89%  94%  100%  100%
Meyer Pl‐Joann St‐Pomona Ave
N  40  73%  70%  80%  83%
Miner St‐Joann St‐Maple St
N  21  57%  67%  43%  43%
Monrovia Ave‐Joann St‐Federal Ave
S  34  35%  38%  35%  47%
Monrovia Ave‐Joann St‐Republic Ave
N  45  42%  36%  44%  33%
S  45  20%  38%  42%  40%
Pamela Ln‐Joann St‐Placentia Ave
E  14  64%  71%  79%  79%
548
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
N  21  86%  86%  81%  81%
Pamela Ln‐Joann St‐Pomona Ave
S  27  63%  81%  78%  89%
Pamona Ave‐Joann St‐Pamela Ln
N  30  77%  77%  83%  83%
Placentia Ave‐Joann St‐Pamela Ln
S  10  80%  90%  80%  90%
Pomona Ave‐Joann St‐Meyer Pl
S  34  76%  85%  97%  97%
Kenwood Pl
Shalimar Dr‐Kenwood Pl‐W 18th St
W  19  63%  68%  74%  74%
W 18th St‐Kenwood Pl‐Shalimar Dr
W  17  76%  53%  65%  71%
Knowell Pl
Meyer Pl‐Knowell Pl‐Maple Ave
N  24  83%  75%  75%  63%
S  29  59%  48%  52%  48%
Linden Pl
State Ave‐Linden Pl‐End
N  22  32%  18%  23%  27%
S  21  10%  5%  10%  5%
State Ave‐Linden Pl‐Republic Ave
N  24  21%  29%  29%  25%
S  34  21%  12%  21%  18%
Maple Ave
Bernard St‐Maple Ave‐W 19th St
W  25  48%  60%  52%  48%
Bernard St‐Maple Ave‐Yorkshire St
E  29  86%  90%  97%  97%
Hamilton St‐Maple Ave‐Knowell Pl
E  11  55%  73%  100%  82%
W  12  67%  58%  83%  83%
Knowell Pl‐Maple Ave‐W Bay St
E  8  63%  63%  63%  63%
W  7  71%  71%  86%  86%
W 19th St‐Maple Ave‐Bernard St
E  18  72%  72%  78%  78%
W Bay St‐Maple Ave‐Yorkshire St
549
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
W  12  50%  58%  58%  58%
Yorkshire St‐Maple Ave‐Bernard St
W  29  72%  69%  72%  72%
Yorkshire St‐Maple Ave‐W Bay St
E  12  75%  75%  75%  67%
Maple St
Joann St‐Maple St‐Wilson St
W  17  94%  88%  94%  94%
Victoria St‐Maple St‐Wilson St
E  49  69%  69%  71%  71%
Wilson St‐Maple St‐Joann St
E  18  78%  78%  78%  83%
Wilson St‐Maple St‐Victoria St
W  45  80%  73%  84%  78%
Meyer Pl
Beach St‐Meyer Pl‐Surf St
N  20  80%  85%  85%  95%
Beach St‐Meyer Pl‐W 19th St
W  6  50%  83%  83%  83%
Cove St‐Meyer Pl‐Seal St
W  6  100%  83%  100%  83%
Darrell St‐Meyer Pl‐Joann St
E  3  67%  67%  67%  67%
W  9  67%  67%  78%  67%
Hamilton St‐Meyer Pl‐Knowell Pl
W  11  73%  82%  73%  82%
E  9  67%  44%  89%  89%
Knowell Pl‐Meyer Pl‐W Bay St
W  13  54%  46%  69%  77%
Meyer Pl‐Meyer Pl‐Arnold Ave
N  22  68%  50%  50%  68%
Ross St‐Meyer Pl‐Seal St
E  9  67%  100%  89%  89%
Ross St‐Meyer Pl‐Surf St
E  8  63%  75%  75%  75%
Seal St‐Meyer Pl‐Cove St
E  10  50%  80%  80%  90%
Seal St‐Meyer Pl‐Ross St
E  7  86%  86%  86%  86%
550
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
Surf St‐Meyer Pl‐Beach St
E  9  67%  78%  67%  89%
W  10  50%  70%  80%  80%
Surf St‐Meyer Pl‐Ross St
E  10  100%  90%  90%  100%
W 19th St‐Meyer Pl‐Beach St
E  14  50%  50%  57%  71%
W Bay St‐Meyer Pl‐Cove St
W  12  83%  67%  83%  92%
E  12  75%  58%  75%  75%
W Bay St‐Meyer Pl‐Knowell Pl
E  8  100%  88%  88%  88%
Wilson St‐Meyer Pl‐Darrell St
E  9  56%  78%  89%  89%
W  9  44%  11%  44%  67%
Wilson St‐Meyer Pl‐End
E  38  37%  32%  45%  32%
W  36  42%  42%  36%  53%
Miner St
Joann St‐Miner St‐Wilson St
W  27  74%  74%  74%  74%
Wilson St‐Miner St‐End
E  33  79%  67%  82%  100%
W  39  77%  79%  82%  95%
Modjeska Cir
Canyon Dr‐Modjeska Cir‐End
S  5  80%  100%  80%  100%
End‐Modjeska Cir‐Canyon Dr
N  6  50%  83%  83%  83%
Monrovia Ave
Arbor St‐Monrovia Ave‐Cedar Pl
E  7  43%  57%  57%  43%
Arbor St‐Monrovia Ave‐W 19th St
E  9  44%  33%  33%  11%
W  6  17%  33%  17%  33%
Cedar Pl‐Monrovia Ave‐Dogwood St
E  11  9%  9%  0%  0%
Center St‐Monrovia Ave‐Towne St
E  7  86%  57%  71%  71%
551
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
W  5  100%  60%  80%  80%
Center St‐Monrovia Ave‐W 19th St
E  9  56%  78%  89%  100%
Darrell St‐Monrovia Ave‐Wilson St
W  7  43%  43%  43%  57%
Dogwood St‐Monrovia Ave‐Cedar Pl
W  8  50%  38%  50%  38%
Dogwood St‐Monrovia Ave‐Evergreen Pl
E  8  25%  25%  50%  38%
Evergreen Pl‐Monrovia Ave‐Dogwood St
W  6  0%  0%  0%  0%
Evergreen Pl‐Monrovia Ave‐W 20th St
E  7  29%  29%  14%  43%
Joann St‐Monrovia Ave‐Darrell St
E  11  9%  9%  0%  0%
W  8  25%  50%  38%  25%
National Ave‐Monrovia Ave‐Oak St
E  29  21%  28%  21%  21%
National Ave‐Monrovia Ave‐W 20th St
W  16  13%  13%  6%  6%
Newhall St‐Monrovia Ave‐Play Port Mobile
Village Driveway
E  8  63%  63%  50%  63%
Newhall St‐Monrovia Ave‐W 16th St
W  22  32%  41%  27%  5%
Oak St‐Monrovia Ave‐National Ave
W  24  38%  42%  33%  33%
Play Port Mobile Village Driveway‐
Monrovia Ave‐W 17th St
E  3  100%  67%  67%  67%
Sunset Dr‐Monrovia Ave‐W 17th St
W  17  35%  35%  41%  47%
Towne St‐Monrovia Ave‐W 18th St
W  14  64%  57%  86%  86%
Victoria St‐Monrovia Ave‐Oak St
W  28  36%  21%  29%  21%
W 16th St‐Monrovia Ave‐Newhall St
E  16  50%  56%  44%  6%
W 17th St‐Monrovia Ave‐Newhall St
552
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
W  11  9%  9%  18%  9%
W 17th St‐Monrovia Ave‐Sunset Dr
E  13  62%  54%  54%  46%
W 18th St‐Monrovia Ave‐Sunset Dr
E  16  25%  19%  6%  63%
W  14  57%  36%  36%  50%
W 18th St‐Monrovia Ave‐Towne St
E  16  63%  56%  81%  81%
W 19th St‐Monrovia Ave‐Center St
W  13  100%  92%  92%  92%
W 20th St‐Monrovia Ave‐Evergreen Pl
W  7  0%  0%  29%  0%
W 20th St‐Moronovia Ave‐National Ave
E  16  13%  13%  13%  13%
Wilson St‐Monrovia Ave‐Darrell St
E  8  25%  25%  25%  63%
National Ave
Capital St‐National Ave‐Senate St
E  7  29%  29%  29%  29%
W  7  29%  29%  43%  14%
Capital St‐National Ave‐Wilson St
E  6  17%  17%  50%  33%
Congress St‐National Ave‐Governor St
W  7  29%  14%  29%  14%
Governer St‐National Ave‐Congress St
E  9  0%  0%  0%  0%
Governor St‐National Ave‐Victoria St
W  3  33%  33%  33%  33%
Monrovia Ave‐National Ave‐National Ave
N  9  44%  44%  44%  44%
National Ave‐National Ave‐Monrovia Ave
S  9  33%  22%  78%  67%
National Ave‐National Ave‐Oak St
E  28  21%  29%  18%  29%
Oak St‐National Ave‐National Ave
E  26  46%  46%  54%  54%
W  30  37%  40%  30%  30%
Senate St‐National Ave‐Congress St
E  7  0%  14%  0%  0%
553
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
W  6  0%  17%  17%  17%
Victoria St‐National Ave‐Oak St
E  27  30%  22%  30%  30%
W  25  24%  20%  20%  32%
Victory St‐National Ave‐Governer St
E  3  0%  0%  0%  0%
Wilson St‐National Ave‐Capital St
W  7  14%  0%  0%  0%
Newhall St
End‐Newhall St‐Monrovia Ave
S  20  30%  25%  35%  10%
Monrovia Ave‐Newhall St‐End
N  23  4%  9%  4%  4%
Newton Way
End‐Newton Way‐Placentia Ave
N  27  26%  22%  26%  19%
Placentia Ave‐Newton Way‐End
S  22  27%  59%  64%  14%
Oak St
Continental Ave‐Oak St‐Federal Ave
N  28  30%  21%  21%  23%
S  7  14%  29%  0%  0%
Continental Ave‐Oak St‐Monrovia Ave
N  7  14%  14%  29%  29%
S  9  22%  22%  22%  33%
Monrovia Ave‐Oak St‐National Ave
N  7  57%  29%  29%  43%
National Ave‐Oak St‐Monrovia Ave
S  10  40%  30%  10%  10%
National Ave‐Oak St‐President Pl
N  11  18%  18%  27%  27%
President Pl‐Oak St‐National Ave
S  8  0%  0%  13%  13%
President Pl‐Oak St‐Republic Ave
N  11  18%  27%  18%  18%
S  10  60%  60%  50%  50%
Republic Ave‐Oak St‐State Ave
N  33  30%  24%  27%  30%
S  25  12%  16%  20%  24%
554
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
Ohms Way
End‐Ohms Way‐Mid‐Block
N  13  62%  69%  85%  77%
S  13  46%  92%  77%  46%
Farad St‐Ohms Way‐Mid‐Block
E  9  22%  11%  11%  11%
W  13  8%  8%  0%  0%
Pacific Ave
Victoria Pl‐Pacific Ave‐Wilson St
E  55  67%  69%  73%  76%
W  52  73%  77%  77%  79%
Wilson St‐Pacific Ave‐End
E  21  90%  81%  86%  90%
W  16  94%  69%  94%  100%
Pamela Ln
End‐Pamela Ln‐Joann St
E  15  93%  87%  87%  87%
Joann St‐Pamela Ln‐End
W  16  94%  88%  88%  100%
Park Ave
W 18th St‐Park Ave‐W 19th St
E  12  8%  8%  8%  0%
W 19th St‐Park Ave‐W 18th St
W  56  38%  64%  70%  29%
Park Dr
Anaheim Ave‐Park Dr‐W 18th St
N  38  5%  58%  37%  18%
S  19  42%  47%  37%  32%
Crestmont Pl‐Park Dr‐Pomona Ave
S  30  87%  87%  87%  87%
Pomona Ave‐Park Dr‐Crestmont Pl
N  25  92%  96%  92%  100%
W 18th St‐Park Dr‐Anaheim Ave
N  16  44%  44%  50%  56%
Parkcrest Dr
1879 Parkcrest Dr‐Parkcrest Dr‐Parkhill Dr
W  5  40%  40%  80%  20%
555
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
1882 Parkcrest Dr‐Parkcrest Dr‐1898
Parkcrest Dr
E  5  20%  40%  20%  40%
1895 Parkcrest Dr‐Parkcrest Dr‐1879
Parkcrest Dr
W  13  8%  15%  15%  15%
1898 Parkcrest Dr‐Parkcrest Dr‐W 19th St
E  4  0%  0%  0%  0%
W  3  67%  67%  67%  33%
Parkhill Dr‐Parkcrest Dr‐1882 Parkcrest Dr
E  7  14%  14%  43%  0%
Parkglen Cir
End‐Parkglen Cir‐Parkhill Dr
W  4  50%  25%  50%  50%
Parkhill Dr‐Parkglen Cir‐End
E  3  67%  67%  33%  33%
Parkhill Dr
Parkcrest Dr‐Parkhill Dr‐Parkvista Cir
N  9  56%  56%  44%  33%
Parkcrest Dr‐Parkhill Dr‐Whittier Ave
N  3  67%  33%  0%  33%
Parkglen Cir‐Parkhill Dr‐Parkvista Cir
N  11  18%  27%  45%  36%
Parkglen Cir‐Parkhill Dr‐Whittier Ave
S  8  38%  38%  38%  38%
Parkview Cir‐Parkhill Dr‐Parkglen Cir
S  6  33%  33%  33%  0%
Parkvista Cir‐Parkhill Dr‐Parkcrest Dr
S  10  70%  50%  50%  40%
Parkvista Cir‐Parkhill Dr‐Parkglen Cir
W  9  11%  22%  0%  0%
Parkview Cir
Parkhill Dr‐Parkview Cir‐End
E  12  58%  54%  63%  42%
W  10  60%  55%  45%  55%
556
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
Parkvista Cir
Parkhill Dr‐Parkvista Cir‐End
E  3  33%  67%  67%  67%
W  2  100%  50%  100%  50%
Parsons St
Ford Rd‐Parsons St‐Bernard St
E  13  62%  62%  77%  77%
W  17  47%  65%  76%  76%
Ford Rd‐Parsons St‐W Bay St
E  28  71%  68%  89%  89%
Victoria St‐Parsons St‐End
E  10  20%  20%  30%  40%
W  11  45%  27%  45%  55%
W Bay St‐Parsons St‐Ford Rd
W  28  54%  54%  82%  82%
Pine Pl
Federal Ave‐Pine Pl‐End
N  8  63%  50%  50%  50%
S  8  63%  38%  25%  50%
Plum Pl
Federal Ave‐Plum Pl‐End
N  8  38%  63%  50%  63%
S  7  57%  57%  43%  57%
Plumer St
Anaheim Ave‐Plumer St‐Pomona Ave
N  49  65%  47%  86%  78%
Pomona Ave‐Plumer St‐Anaheim Ave
S  50  62%  50%  64%  66%
Pomona Ave
Capital St‐Pomona Ave‐Senate St
W  8  88%  75%  88%  75%
Center St‐Pomona Ave‐Plumer St
E  6  100%  100%  100%  100%
Center St‐Pomona Ave‐Weelo Dr
W  10  60%  40%  80%  90%
Congress St‐Pomona Ave‐Governor St
W  11  73%  73%  82%  73%
Darrell St‐Pomona Ave‐Wilson St
E  9  67%  67%  67%  67%
557
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
W  10  100%  100%  100%  100%
Farad St‐Pomona Ave‐W 16th St
W  14  79%  64%  29%  36%
Governor St‐Pomona Ave‐Congress St
E  6  100%  100%  100%  100%
Governor St‐Pomona Ave‐Victoria St
E  2  100%  100%  100%  100%
W  2  50%  50%  50%  50%
Hamilton St‐Pomana Ave‐Sterling Ave
W  18  89%  89%  89%  100%
Hamilton St‐Pomona Ave‐Victoria St
W  11  91%  55%  91%  91%
James St‐Pomona Ave‐W 17th St
W  26  62%  65%  58%  65%
Joann St‐Pomona Ave‐Darrell St
E  7  86%  100%  57%  57%
W  9  100%  89%  100%  100%
Park Dr‐Pomona Ave‐W 18th St
E  11  73%  82%  82%  82%
Senate St‐Pomona Ave‐Congress St
E  6  67%  83%  83%  83%
W  6  67%  67%  67%  67%
Sterling Ave‐Pomona Ave‐Hamilton St
W  20  70%  50%  60%  85%
Sterling Ave‐Pomona Ave‐W 20th St
W  12  83%  92%  92%  92%
Victoria St‐Pomona Ave‐Hamilton St
W  16  75%  63%  75%  75%
W 16th St‐Pomona Ave‐Farad St
E  12  75%  75%  17%  8%
W 17th St‐Pomona Ave‐Farad St
E  26  81%  62%  73%  81%
W  15  73%  67%  53%  87%
W 17th St‐Pomona Ave‐Park Dr
E  34  71%  68%  79%  91%
W 18th St‐Pomona Ave‐James St
W  3  100%  100%  67%  100%
W 18th St‐Pomona Ave‐Weelo Dr
E  9  100%  89%  100%  100%
558
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
W 19th St‐Pomona Ave‐Center St
W  3  67%  67%  67%  67%
W 19th St‐Pomona Ave‐W 20th St
E  30  77%  80%  87%  87%
W 20th St‐Pomona Ave‐Sterling Ave
E  14  79%  71%  71%  79%
W 20th St‐Pomona Ave‐W 19th St
W  33  79%  73%  76%  85%
Weelo Dr‐Pomona Ave‐Center St
E  8  100%  100%  88%  100%
Weelo Dr‐Pomona Ave‐W 18th St
W  11  73%  82%  82%  82%
Wilson St‐Pomona Ave‐Capital St
E  5  100%  100%  100%  100%
W  4  100%  75%  75%  75%
President Pl
End‐President Pl‐Oak St
W  24  38%  33%  33%  42%
Oak St‐President Pl‐End
E  30  30%  37%  30%  27%
Victoria St‐President Pl‐End
E  22  32%  32%  32%  32%
W  20  45%  40%  50%  50%
Puente Ave
Congress St‐Puente Ave‐Governor St
E  10  50%  60%  60%  70%
Congress St‐Puente Ave‐Senate St
W  6  33%  33%  50%  50%
Governor St‐Puente Ave‐Congress St
W  8  25%  50%  38%  25%
Governor St‐Puente Ave‐End
E  5  40%  0%  20%  20%
W  12  0%  8%  0%  0%
Senate St‐Puente Ave‐Congress St
E  10  30%  20%  50%  30%
Ralcam Pl
End‐Ralcam Pl‐Thurin St
S  19  74%  58%  68%  63%
Thurin St‐Ralcam Pl‐End
559
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
N  19  63%  74%  63%  63%
Raleigh Ave
Congress St‐Raleigh Ave‐End
E  20  50%  45%  40%  65%
W  20  45%  45%  35%  50%
Congress St‐Raleigh Ave‐Wilson St
W  17  65%  47%  53%  76%
Hamilton St‐Raleigh Ave‐End
E  20  50%  50%  55%  55%
W  18  28%  22%  22%  39%
Wilson St‐Raleigh Ave‐Congress St
E  18  67%  56%  67%  89%
Republic Ave
Arbor St‐Republic Ave‐Cedar Pl
W  8  25%  13%  13%  13%
Capital St‐Republic Ave‐Senate St
W  10  50%  50%  20%  30%
Cedar Pl‐Republic Ave‐Arbor St
E  8  38%  38%  63%  75%
Darrell St‐Republic Ave‐Joann St
E  10  10%  20%  20%  20%
Darrell St‐Republic Ave‐Wilson St
W  10  20%  20%  20%  20%
Dogwood St‐Republic Ave‐Cedar Pl
E  9  0%  0%  0%  0%
W  14  14%  14%  7%  7%
Grove Pl‐Republic Ave‐End
E  27  22%  19%  22%  30%
W  22  23%  32%  36%  32%
Grove Pl‐Republic Ave‐Linden Pl
E  7  57%  29%  14%  14%
Joann St‐Republic Ave‐Darrell St
W  9  56%  56%  22%  44%
Linden Pl‐Republic Ave‐Grove Pl
W  9  0%  0%  11%  11%
Linden Pl‐Republic Ave‐Oak St
E  8  25%  38%  63%  63%
Oak St‐Republic Ave‐Linden Pl
W  8  25%  25%  25%  38%
560
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
Senate St‐Republic Ave‐Capital St
E  7  43%  29%  43%  43%
Union Ave‐Republic Ave‐Victoria St
E  17  41%  29%  29%  29%
Victoria St‐Republic Ave‐Union Ave
W  20  25%  25%  20%  25%
Wilson St‐Republic Ave‐Capital St
E  7  14%  14%  14%  14%
W  7  57%  57%  57%  57%
Wilson St‐Republic Ave‐Darrell St
E  8  0%  0%  13%  0%
Ridgecrest Cir
Valley Rd‐Ridgecrest Cir‐End
N  7  14%  14%  14%  29%
S  6  50%  50%  17%  33%
Ross St
Arnold Ave‐Ross St‐Meyer Pl
N  17  82%  71%  71%  71%
S  20  65%  50%  70%  90%
Scott Pl
Placentia Ave‐Scott Pl‐Wallace Ave
S  19  69%  77%  82%  74%
Sea Bluff Dr
Canyon Dr‐Sea Bluff Dr‐Valley Rd
N  20  10%  10%  20%  15%
S  14  36%  36%  43%  43%
Valley Rd‐Sea Bluff Dr‐Balmoral Pl
S  9  11%  22%  33%  22%
Valley Rd‐Sea Bluff Dr‐Gleneagles Terrace
N  14  21%  29%  36%  21%
S  11  36%  27%  18%  27%
Seal St
Arnold Ave‐Seal St‐Meyer Pl
S  22  68%  59%  55%  73%
Senate St
Continental Ave‐Senate St‐National Ave
N  24  21%  38%  38%  38%
National Ave‐Senate St‐Continental Ave
S  28  36%  25%  25%  21%
561
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
National Ave‐Senate St‐Republic Ave
N  23  39%  35%  39%  43%
Pomona Ave‐Senate St‐Puente Ave
N  16  69%  63%  44%  56%
S  16  44%  56%  44%  56%
Republic Ave‐Senate St‐National Ave
W  25  28%  24%  24%  20%
Shalimar Dr
Crestmont Pl‐Shalimar Dr‐End
S  9  89%  78%  100%  89%
Crestmont Pl‐Shalimar Dr‐Local Access
N  9  100%  100%  78%  78%
Kenwood Pl‐Shalimar Dr‐Crestmont Pl
N  9  100%  78%  67%  78%
S  4  75%  100%  100%  100%
State Ave
American Ave‐State Ave‐Congress St
E  7  43%  43%  100%  71%
American Ave‐State Ave‐Wilson St
E  16  63%  56%  69%  75%
W  34  62%  50%  56%  68%
Congress St‐State Ave‐American Ave
E  6  50%  50%  100%  67%
Congress St‐State Ave‐Governor St
E  8  25%  25%  75%  0%
W  7  43%  71%  100%  100%
End‐State Ave‐Governor St
E  7  57%  43%  57%  71%
Governor St‐State Ave‐End
W  3  100%  100%  100%  100%
Grove Pl‐State Ave‐Linden Pl
W  7  29%  14%  29%  29%
Linden Pl‐State Ave‐Grove Pl
E  10  40%  40%  40%  40%
Oak Street‐State Ave‐Linden Pl
E  9  11%  11%  11%  11%
Oak St‐State Ave‐Linden Pl
W  10  30%  10%  40%  40%
Sterling Ave
562
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
Hamilton St‐Sterling Ave‐End
E  20  20%  30%  50%  40%
W  15  20%  13%  27%  27%
Pomona Ave‐Sterling Ave‐Sterling Ave
S  14  43%  21%  86%  86%
Sterling Ave‐Sterling Ave‐Pomona Ave
S  10  100%  90%  100%  100%
Sterling Ave‐Sterling Ave‐W 20th St
W  7  43%  14%  29%  29%
Sunset Dr
End‐Sunset Dr‐Monrovia Ave
S  20  70%  75%  40%  35%
Monrovia Ave‐Sunset Dr‐End
N  18  33%  44%  39%  22%
Surf St
Arnold Ave‐Surf St‐Meyer Pl
S  18  94%  94%  89%  94%
Terminal Way
End‐Terminal Way‐Anaheim Ave
S  28  29%  36%  32%  36%
Thurin St
Hamilton St‐Thurin St‐Ralcam Pl
E  11  91%  91%  91%  82%
Hamilton St‐Thurin St‐W Bay St
W  23  65%  61%  61%  61%
Ralcam Pl‐Thurin St‐Hamilton St
W  6  67%  83%  83%  83%
Ralcam Pl‐Thurin St‐Victoria St
E  7  57%  71%  86%  86%
Victoria St‐Thurin St‐Ralcam Pl
W  7  71%  71%  71%  57%
W Bay St‐Thurin St‐Hamilton St
E  20  75%  80%  75%  75%
Towne St
Monrovia Ave‐Towne St‐Placentia Ave
N  38  42%  37%  45%  47%
S  40  45%  55%  45%  45%
Trabuco Cir
563
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
Canyon Dr‐Trabuco Cir‐End
S  5  80%  60%  60%  80%
End‐Trabuco Cir‐Canyon Dr
N  7  57%  57%  29%  29%
Union Ave
Union Ave‐Union Ave‐Republic Ave
N  9  22%  11%  22%  22%
S  23  39%  48%  52%  35%
Victoria St‐Union Ave‐Republic Ave
E  16  19%  6%  38%  44%
Victoria St‐Union Ave‐Union Ave
W  18  28%  39%  39%  33%
Valley Cir
Valley Rd‐Valley Cir‐End
N  8  38%  50%  38%  25%
S  9  89%  67%  67%  56%
Valley Rd
Aviemore Terrace‐Valley Rd‐Gleneagles
Terrace
E  7  57%  43%  43%  29%
Gleneagles Terrace‐Valley Rd‐Aviemore
Terrace
W  5  0%  0%  0%  0%
Ridgecrest Cir‐Valley Rd‐Sea Bluff Dr
W  5  0%  0%  60%  0%
Sea Bluff Dr‐Valley Rd‐Gleneagles Terrace
E  13  8%  15%  8%  8%
W  9  0%  0%  0%  0%
Sea Bluff Dr‐Valley Rd‐Ridgecrest Cir
E  4  0%  0%  25%  0%
Valley Cir‐Valley Rd‐Ridgecrest Cir
E  8  38%  50%  25%  25%
W  7  86%  57%  71%  29%
Valley Cir‐Valley Rd‐Victoria St
E  6  17%  17%  0%  17%
Victoria Pl
Victoria St‐Victoria Pl‐Pacific Ave
N  4  75%  100%  100%  75%
S  7  71%  100%  100%  100%
564
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
Victoria St
Continental Ave‐Victoria St‐Federal Ave
S  7  71%  43%  86%  86%
End‐Victoria St‐Union Ave
S  4  50%  75%  100%  0%
Federal Ave‐Victoria St‐End
S  11  91%  82%  82%  82%
Monrovia Ave‐Victoria St‐Continental Ave
S  9  44%  44%  67%  22%
National Ave‐Victoria St‐Monrovia Ave
S  6  0%  0%  33%  17%
President Pl‐Victoria St‐National Ave
S  4  0%  25%  25%  50%
Republic Ave‐Victoria St‐President Pl
S  7  0%  0%  0%  0%
Union Ave‐Victoria St‐Republic Ave
S  6  67%  50%  0%  0%
W 16th St
Hampton Dr‐W 16th St‐End
N  8  63%  50%  38%  63%
Monrovia Ave‐W 16th St‐Hampton Dr
N  26  15%  15%  15%  8%
Placentia Ave‐W 16th St‐Pomona Ave
S  15  7%  7%  7%  0%
Pomona Ave‐W 16th St‐Placentia Ave
N  16  75%  75%  69%  63%
W 17th St
Babcock St‐W 17th St‐Monrovia Ave
N  24  13%  13%  13%  17%
S  15  13%  27%  13%  0%
End‐W 17th St‐Whittier Ave
S  10  40%  50%  30%  10%
Monrovia Ave‐W 17th St‐Whittier Ave
N  22  55%  59%  27%  32%
Placentia Ave‐W 17th St‐Babcock St
N  14  57%  21%  14%  36%
S  3  67%  33%  33%  33%
Whittier Ave‐W 17th St‐End
N  13  23%  31%  23%  15%
565
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
Whittier Ave‐W 17th St‐Monrovia Ave
S  32  53%  47%  19%  13%
W 18th St
Anaheim Ave‐W 18th St‐Park Dr
S  7  29%  43%  43%  29%
Anaheim Ave‐W 18th St‐Pomona Ave
N  33  85%  79%  82%  88%
Crestmont Pl‐W 18th St‐Kenwood Pl
S  6  50%  33%  67%  83%
Kenwood Pl‐W 18th St‐Anaheim Ave
S  8  13%  13%  25%  38%
Monrovia Ave‐W 18th St‐Placentia Ave
S  17  59%  41%  59%  59%
Monrovia Ave‐W 18th St‐Whittier Ave
N  43  63%  44%  44%  47%
S  28  61%  43%  50%  50%
Peninsula Pl‐W 18th St‐Whittier Ave
S  22  55%  50%  45%  45%
Placentia Ave‐W 18th St‐Monrovia Ave
N  34  68%  68%  68%  68%
Placentia Ave‐W 18th St‐Wallace Ave
S  14  71%  71%  79%  79%
Pomona Ave‐W 18th St‐Crestmont Pl
S  12  92%  100%  100%  92%
Pomona Ave‐W 18th St‐Wallace Ave
N  15  80%  87%  87%  87%
Wallace Ave‐W 18th St‐Placentia Ave
N  9  78%  78%  67%  78%
Wallace Ave‐W 18th St‐Pomona Ave
S  24  96%  96%  96%  96%
Whittier Ave‐W 18th St‐Peninsula Pl
N  19  58%  68%  79%  74%
W 19th St
Federal Ave‐W 19th St‐Monrovia Ave
N  9  89%  78%  78%  67%
Monrovia Ave‐W 19th St‐Placentia Ave
S  17  82%  82%  82%  82%
Monrovia Ave‐W 19th St‐Whittier Ave
N  21  62%  67%  62%  62%
566
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
Parkcrest Dr‐W 19th St‐Whittier Ave
S  12  58%  58%  50%  50%
Placentia Ave‐W 19th St‐Federal Ave
N  4  50%  50%  75%  50%
Whittier Ave‐W 19th St‐Monrovia Ave
S  37  78%  76%  86%  76%
Whittier Ave‐W 19th St‐Sundance Dr
N  10  40%  60%  60%  60%
W 20th St
Continental Ave‐W 20th St‐Federal Ave
S  9  11%  11%  11%  11%
Continental Ave‐W 20th St‐Monrovia Ave
N  9  33%  33%  22%  56%
End‐W 20th St‐Monrovia Ave
S  14  50%  36%  64%  64%
Federal Ave‐W 20th St‐Continental Ave
N  9  22%  11%  11%  11%
Monrovia Ave‐W 20th St‐Continental Ave
S  8  13%  38%  38%  50%
Monrovia Ave‐W 20th St‐End
N  13  62%  38%  38%  62%
Palace Ave‐W 20th St‐Wallace Ave
N  9  100%  100%  100%  100%
S  16  88%  69%  81%  81%
Placentia Ave‐W 20th St‐Palace Ave
N  7  100%  100%  100%  100%
S  10  90%  80%  80%  90%
Sterling Ave‐W 20th St‐Pomona Ave
N  10  70%  80%  100%  100%
S  11  73%  73%  82%  82%
Wallace Ave‐W 20th St‐Sterling Ave
N  8  88%  88%  100%  100%
S  9  56%  89%  89%  89%
W Bay St
Anaheim Ave‐W Bay St‐Meyer Pl
N  13  69%  54%  85%  77%
Harbor Blvd‐W Bay St‐Parsons St
S  5  60%  80%  60%  60%
Maple Ave‐W Bay St‐Anaheim Ave
567
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
N  15  53%  33%  47%  47%
S  13  77%  69%  69%  62%
Meyer Pl‐W Bay St‐Anaheim Ave
S  12  58%  42%  42%  50%
Parsons St‐W Bay St‐Harbor Blvd
N  10  80%  90%  80%  80%
Parsons St‐W Bay St‐Thurin St
S  27  85%  81%  85%  85%
Thurin St‐W Bay St‐Parsons St
N  30  67%  77%  83%  83%
Wallace Ave
Center St‐Wallace Ave‐Weelo Dr
W  10  90%  90%  90%  90%
End‐Wallace Ave‐James St
W  5  60%  60%  60%  60%
Hamilton St‐Wallace Ave‐End
E  23  78%  65%  78%  70%
W  16  69%  31%  31%  56%
Hamilton St‐Wallace Ave‐W 20th St
W  46  74%  74%  78%  78%
James St‐Wallace Ave‐End
E  6  100%  83%  83%  83%
James St‐Wallace Ave‐Shalimar Dr
W  12  100%  100%  100%  100%
Scott Pl‐Wallace Ave‐W 18th Ave
W  4  100%  75%  100%  100%
Shalimar Ave‐Wallace Ave‐James St
E  9  67%  67%  78%  78%
W 18th St‐Wallace Ave‐Scott Pl
E  9  89%  100%  100%  100%
W 19th St‐Wallace Ave‐Center St
E  19  42%  58%  68%  89%
W  13  85%  85%  92%  100%
W 19th St‐Wallace Ave‐W 20th St
E  38  84%  87%  95%  95%
W 20th St‐Wallace Ave‐Hamilton St
E  36  94%  94%  97%  97%
W 20th St‐Wallace Ave‐W 19th St
W  43  70%  77%  88%  93%
568
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
Weelo Dr‐Wallace Ave‐Center St
E  10  70%  80%  90%  80%
Weelo Dr‐Wallace Ave‐Scott Pl
E  8  75%  63%  63%  75%
W  6  67%  100%  100%  100%
Wilson St‐Wallace Ave‐Congress St
E  17  24%  35%  29%  35%
W  20  55%  40%  40%  55%
Weelo Dr
Wallace Ave‐Weelo Dr‐Pomona Ave
N  19  84%  84%  84%  89%
S  24  79%  71%  83%  79%
Whittier Ave
Arbor St‐Whittier Ave‐End
E  20  20%  25%  30%  30%
Arbor St‐Whittier Ave‐W 19th St
W  7  14%  14%  14%  0%
End‐Whittier Ave‐Arbor St
W  16  19%  6%  13%  6%
Parkhill Dr‐Whittier Ave‐W 18th St
E  30  27%  17%  20%  37%
W  14  7%  21%  21%  14%
W 17th St‐Whittier Ave‐Hampton Dr
E  17  47%  41%  41%  47%
W  12  25%  42%  42%  42%
W 18th St‐Whittier Ave‐W 17th St
E  29  31%  28%  24%  10%
W  10  0%  10%  10%  10%
W 19th St‐Whittier Ave‐Arbor St
E  7  14%  0%  14%  14%
W 19th St‐Whittier Ave‐Parkhill Dr
E  8  0%  25%  13%  0%
W  23  65%  57%  65%  78%
Wilson St
Canyon Dr‐Wilson St‐State Ave
S  4  25%  0%  0%  75%
Continental Ave‐Wilson St‐Federal Ave
S  20  70%  65%  90%  100%
Continental Ave‐Wilson St‐Monrovia Ave
569
Weekend Occupancy
From‐Street‐To
Total
Spaces   8:00 AM  12:00 PM  4:00 PM  8:00 PM
N  12  67%  67%  58%  75%
Federal Ave‐Wilson St‐Continental Ave
N  14  57%  50%  64%  71%
Monrovia Ave‐Wilson St‐Continental Ave
S  11  36%  18%  27%  64%
Monrovia Ave‐Wilson St‐National Ave
N  10  40%  40%  20%  40%
National Ave‐Wilson St‐Monrovia Ave
S  14  36%  21%  29%  43%
Pacific Ave‐Wilson St‐Canyon Dr
S  21  48%  33%  33%  48%
Republic Ave‐Wilson St‐Canyon Dr
N  18  33%  28%  28%  28%
Republic Ave‐Wilson St‐National Ave
N  23  22%  17%  22%  13%
S  20  30%  25%  20%  30%
State Ave‐Wilson St‐Republic Ave
S  6  50%  50%  33%  67%
Yorkshire St
Anaheim Ave‐Yorkshire St‐Maple Ave
S  13  100%  85%  100%  100%
Maple Ave‐Yorkshire St‐Anaheim Ave
N  15  73%  67%  80%  93%

570

32 Appendix B. Online Survey Results.

571

1 June 2021
Dixon Resources Unlimited

City of Costa Mesa
Resident Parking Survey
Summary Report

572

2 Contents
Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Question: Which City Council District do you live in? ............................................................................... 3 Question: Do you live on a street with a Residential Parking Permit program? ...................................... 3 Permit Zone Residents ......................................................................................................................... 4 Question: How satisfied are you with the current process for applying for a parking permit? ............... 4 Question: How satisfied are you with the current guest pass allotment? ............................................... 4 Question: Have you utilized the 25 pre-dated guest passes for special events? ..................................... 5 Permit Streets Vs. Non-permit Streets ................................................................................................. 5 Question: How many cars does your household have? ............................................................................ 5 Question: How many on-site parking spaces does your household have available at home? ................. 6 Question: Where do you typically park your car(s) while you are at home? ........................................... 6 Question: When do you find it difficult to find parking on your block? ................................................... 7 Question: When the majority of spaces are occupied, how far from your residence do you typically have to park? ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Question: During typical times, do you have regular service worker visits to your home that last more than 3 hours? ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Question: Where do your guests and service workers typically park their cars when visiting your home? ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 Potential Program Changes ................................................................................................................ 10 Potential Change: Eliminate the Residential Permit Parking Program. .................................................. 10 Potential Change: Expand the residential permit parking program. ...................................................... 10 Potential Change: Modernized online parking permit management system. ........................................ 11 Potential Change: On permit parking streets, cars without a parking permit should be subject to a time limit (e.g. 2 hours). .......................................................................................................................... 11 Potential Change: On permit parking streets, residents should have a limited number of guest passes to give to their visitors. ........................................................................................................................... 12 Resident Priorities ............................................................................................................................. 12 Question: Please rank the following investments from most important (1) to least important (4) for your neighborhood: ................................................................................................................................ 13 Question: If you had a magic wand and could change, fix, or improve anything about residential parking in Costa Mesa what would you do? ........................................................................................... 13 Parking Magic Wand .......................................................................................................................... 15

573

3 Overview
The City of Costa Mesa conducted a Residential Parking Survey from March 13, 2021, to April 18, 2021. The purpose of the survey was to gather initial feedback on policies and practices regarding residential on-street parking within the City. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish.
 There were 356 total responses.
 4% took the survey in Spanish.

Question: Which City Council District do you live in?
 Most respondents live in District 4 (26%).
 The fewest live in District 1 (8%), and District 6 (10%) being similarly represented.

Figure 1: Answers to Question – Which City Council District do you live in?

Question: Do you live on a street with a Residential Parking Permit program? While the residential permit parking program was not being enforced at the time of the survey, residents wer e asked to respond based on what they typically do when the restrictions are enforced.
 87% of total respondents stated do not live on a residential permit parking street.  11% stated yes, they do live on a residential permit parking street, and either typically get a permit or do not need one.

Figure 2: Answers to Question- Do you live on a street with a Residential Parking Permit program? Yes, and I typically get a permit
Yes, but I do not need a permit
No
I don’t know
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 % of Respondants
574

4 Permit Zone Residents
Respondents that either stated, “Yes, and I typically get a permit” or “Yes, but I do not need a permit” to the previous question were then directed to answer three additional questions specifically relating to the Residential Permit Parking Program, and their experience living on a street with a permit parking program.

Question: How satisfied are you with the current process for applying for a parking permit?
 60% of respondents stated they are satisfied.
 20% stated they are neutral.
 20% of respondents stated they are unsatisfied.

Figure 3: Answers to Question - How satisfied are you with the current process for applying for a parking permit?

Question: How satisfied are you with the current guest pass allotment? Residential parking permit holders receive 100 guest passes per household annually to use freely. Each permit is valid for 24 hours and cannot be reused.  63% of respondents stated they are satisfied.
 23% stated they are neutral.
 14% of respondents stated they are unsatisfied.

Figure 4: Answers to Question - How satisfied are you with the current guest pass allotment? Neutral
Unsatisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Unsatisfied
Satisfied
575

5 Question: Have you utilized the 25 pre -dated guest passes for special events? Residential parking permit holders can receive a bulk set of up to 2 pre-dated guest passes that can be used for a one-time special event. Each permit is valid for 24 hours on the date requested and cannot be reused.
 58% of respondents stated they were not aware of this option.

Figure 5: Answers to Question - Have you utilized the 25 pre-dated guest passes for special events? Permit Streets Vs. Non-permit Streets
The following questions were posed to all respondents. To better understand the results, responses were broken out into two groups, respondents that live on a street with a Residential Parking Permit Program (“Permit Streets”), and respondents with no permit restriction on their street (“Non-permit Streets”).

Question : How many cars does your household have?
 The average response of both groups was 2.7 cars per household.  There were no respondents that stated they did not own a car, in either group.  There were no respondents on permit streets with less than two cars (one or zero).

Figure 6: Residents on a street without a
Residential Parking Permit Program.

Figure 7: Residents on a street with a Residential
Parking Permit Program.

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
2 3 4 or more
Permit Streets
% of Respondants
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
No, I've never needed to. No, I was not aware of this. Yes % of Respondants
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
1 2 3 4 or more
Non-permit Streets
% of Respondants
576

6 Question: How many on -site parking spaces does your household have available at home?
Respondents were told to include parking in garages, carports, double parking on long driveways, and other similar situations in their response.  The average response was 2.2 parking spaces available per household.  While no respondents stated that they did not own a car to the previous question, 7% of respondents said they did not have any on-site parking available at home.  45% of permit street respondents had 3 or more spaces available at home, compared to only 27% of non-permit street respondents.

Figure 8: Residents on a street without a
Residential Parking Permit Program.

Figure 9: Residents on a street with a Residential
Parking Permit Program.

Question: Where do you typically park your car(s) while you are at home? Respondents were asked to “select all that apply” for the cars that they own, or provide a write-in answer that better describes their situation.
On my property or private parking area
On the street
Other: Free response

 On non-permit streets, more respondents stated they use parking on their property (55%), compared to permit streets (47%).
 A handful of non-permit street respondents selected “Other” and wrote-in answers.

Answers included that they park at a nearby school or alley. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0 1 2 3 4 or
more
Non-permit Streets
% of Respondants
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0 1 2 3 4 or
more
Permit Streets
% of Respondants
577

7 Figure 10: Residents on a street without a
Residential Parking Permit Program.

Figure 11: Residents on a street with a
Residential Parking Permit Program.

Question: When do you find it difficult to find parking on your block? Respondents were asked to select all the times of day that apply, or could select “N/A this rarely occurs on my block”.
 The most common responses from both groups were evening, overnight, and afternoon.
 The evening was selected by 29% non-permit street respondents, and similarly 31% of permit street respondents.

Figure 12: Residents on a street without a
Residential Parking Permit Program.

Figure 13: Residents on a street with a
Residential Parking Permit Program.

Question: When the majority of spaces are occupied, how far from your residence do you typically ha ve to park?
Respondents were asked to select how far they have to park, from the following options:
On my block (either side of the street)
0% 20% 40% 60%
On my property or
private parking area
On the street
Non-permit streets
% of Respondants
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
N/A this rarely occurs
on my block
Overnight
Evening
Afternoon
Mid-day
Morning
Permit Streets
% of Respondants
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
N/A this rarely occurs on
my block
Overnight
Evening
Afternoon
Mid-day
Morning
Non-permit Streets
% of Respondants
0% 20% 40% 60%
On my property or
private parking area
On the street
Permit Streets
% of Respondants
578

8 A block or two away (but still in my neighborhood)
A few blocks away (slightly outside my neighborhood)
A significant distance away (outside my neighborhood) N/A (this rarely occurs on my block)
N/A (I do not know/I do not use street parking)
 The most common response from the non-permit street group was “a block or two away” (55%).
 The most common response from the permit street group was a tie between “a block or two away” and “on my block” (35% each).

Figure 14: Residents on a street without a
Residential Parking Permit Program.

Figure 15: Residents on a street with a
Residential Parking Permit Program.

Question: During typical times, do you have regular service worker visits to your home that last more than 3 hours?
 80% of non-permit street respondents stated no, they do not have service visits (like yard work, childcare, or caretakers) that last longer than 3 hours.  Similarly, 71% of permit street respondents answered no.

Figure 16: Residents on a street without a
Residential Parking Permit Program.

Figure 17: Residents on a street with a
Residential Parking Permit Program.
0% 20% 40% 60%
N/A this rarely occurs on
my block
On my block
A block or two away
A few blocks away
A significant distance
away
Non-permit Streets
% of Respondants
0% 20% 40% 60%
N/A this rarely occurs on
my block
On my block
A block or two away
A few blocks away
A significant distance
away
Permit Streets
% of Respondants
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Yes No
Non-permit Streets
% of Respondants
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Yes No
Permit Streets
% of Respondants
579

9 Question: Where do your guests and service workers typically park their cars when visiting your home?
Respondents were asked to select from the following options:
On my property or private parking area
On the street
Other: free response
I don’t know

 92% of respondents on permit streets stated that their guests and service workers park on the street.
 65% of non-permit street respondents state their guests and service workers park on the street, and 11% stated their guests park on their property.  While there were very few write-in answers from respondents on permit streets, 19% of non-permit street respondents wrote in providing more specific detail regarding where their guests and service works park. Responses from non-permit street respondents included:
“I move my car before they come so they can park in my spot at my apartment because parking is ridiculous”
“I park in the street in the morning so my guest can park on my property parking spot” “My guests have to find parking down the street or ask a neighbor to park in their driveway”
“In order to have guests, we have to park all our cars on the street to have the driveway available for our guests”
“They park on our property illegally - behind other cars or in front of garages because there are no street spaces available”
“They Uber over or I have to pick up guests“
Figure 18: Residents on a street without a
Residential Parking Permit Program.

Figure 19: Residents on a street with a
Residential Parking Permit Program.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
On my property or…
On the street
I don’t know
Other: free response
Non-permit Streets
% of Respondants
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
On my property or
private parking area
On the street
Permit Streets
% of Respondants
580

10 Potential Program Changes
The following five questions asked respondents to gauge their support for possible changes to the Residential Permit Parking Program. To preface the questions, the survey stated:

To balance the needs of all residents, the City is considering changes to the existing Residential Permit Parking Program. Please help the City understand your residential parking priorities by rating your support for the following options.

Potential Change: Eliminate the Residen tial Permit Parking Program.  76% of permit streets selected “Do not support”.
 29% of non-permit street respondents supported this potential change, compared to only 13% on permit streets.

Figure 20: Residents on a street without a
Residential Parking Permit Program.

Figure 21: Residents on a street with a
Residential Parking Permit Program.

Potential Change: Expand the residential permit parking program .  A similar portion of non-permit street and permit street respondents supported expanding the program (54% and 61% respectively).
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Support Do not
support
Neutral Not sure
Non-permit Streets
% of Respondants
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Support Do not
support
Neutral Not sure
Permit Streets
% of Respondants
581

11 Figure 22: Residents on a street without a
Residential Parking Permit Program.

Figure 23: Residents on a street with a
Residential Parking Permit Program.

Potential Change: Modernized online parking permit management system .  60% of non-permit street respondents and 71% of permit street respondents support modernizing the program.
 No permit street respondents selected “Not sure”.

Figure 24: Residents on a street without a
Residential Parking Permit Program.

Figure 25: Residents on a street with a
Residential Parking Permit Program.

Potential Change: On permit parking streets, cars without a parking permit should be subject to a time limit (e.g. 2 hours).
 More than half of non-permit street respondents supported this potential change (51%), as opposed to the more than half of permit street respondents that did not support this change (55%).
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Support Do not
support
Neutral Not sure
Non-permit Streets
% of Respondants
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Support Do not support Neutral
Permit Streets
% of Respondants
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Support Do not
support
Neutral Not sure
Non-permit Streets
% of Respondants
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Support Do not
support
Neutral Not sure
Permit Streets
% of Respondants
582

12 Figure 26: Residents on a street without a
Residential Parking Permit Program.

Figure 27: Residents on a street with a
Residential Parking Permit Program.

Potential Change: On permit parking streets, residents should have a limited number of guest passes to give to their visitors.
 58% of non-permit street respondents supported this idea.  On permit streets, a similar portion of respondents did not support this idea as opposed to supporting it (42% and 37% respectively).

Figure 28: Residents on a street without a
Residential Parking Permit Program.

Figure 29: Residents on a street with a
Residential Parking Permit Program.

Resident Priorities
The final two questions of the survey looked to identify respondent’s larger neighborhood priorities and understand their more specific parking concerns. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Support Do not
support
Neutral Not sure
Non-permit Streets
% of Respondants
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Support Do not
support
Neutral Not sure
Permit Streets
% of Respondants
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Support Do not
support
Neutral Not sure
Non-permit Streets
% of Respondants
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Support Do not
support
Not sure Neutral
Permit Streets
% of Respondants
583

13 Question: Please rank the following investments from most important (1) to least important (4) for your neighbor hood:
 Improved maintenance of roads and on-street parking.
 Additional mobility options (local transit, bike lanes, walkability, and sidewalk improvements).
 Neighborhood beautification (public art, customized signage, public space landscaping).
 Increase residential parking opportunities (additional on-street parking, off-street facilities, etc.).

 The investment that was most often selected as the first priority, was “Increase residential parking opportunities”.
 The least selected top priority investment was “Neighborhood beautification”, which was most often selected as the fourth priority.

Figure 30: Answers to Question – Please rank the following investments from most important (1) to least important (4) for your neighborhood.

Question: If you had a magic wand and could change, fix, or improve anything about residential parking in Costa Mesa what would you do?
The final question was a free response that allowed respondents to write in as much or as little feedback as they wished. There were 307 answers to this question. The full set of responses is available in the Parking Magic Wand section of this report.  Some responses to highlight include:
“I wish there was parking nearby when street sweeping happens. It’s difficult to find parking on the streets in the neighborhood when they’re all being swept the same day.”
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Improved maintenance of roads and on-street parking
Additional mobility options
Neighborhood beautification
Increase residential parking opportunities
1st Rank 2nd Rank 3rd Rank 4th Rank
584

14 “Automatically make Costa Mesa have parking permits with specific rules that accommodate the residents of Costa Mesa.
“My street is 99.5 percent multiple dwelling units. Give the residents permits to park.” “Get rid of parking permits. It isn’t fair that I can’t park on a street overnight. I have to park FAR away and typically have to walk by weird people (aka druggies).” “Eliminate residential parking permit program, it hinders residents more than it helps.

Parking communities should also have permits rather than reserved spaces that better flow with the come and go of people to their homes and thus the parking lot. It is so frustrating to see open spaces everywhere yet nowhere to park but that tiny section of street that isn’t permitted and is actually open for public parking. Parking is a huge issue here, and opening things up and thinking more creatively is the answer.” “Create more spaces in high density areas. Make the builders include parking for 4 people for a 2 bedroom apartment. Everyone has a car.”
“Implement metered parking in congested areas; use meter revenue for streetscape improvements (sidewalks, benches, trees, waste bins, protected bike lanes, bus shelters, public restrooms, maintenance); eliminate minimum off-street parking requirements.”
“Get people to park in their own garages and off-street spaces instead of automatically parking in the street and using garages purely for storage.” “It shouldn't be easy for people to own many cars and use public space as storage.

And owning a car shouldn't be required to live here. My magic wand would make car- lite living possible through intentional walkability/bikeability efforts.”

585

15 Parking Magic Wand
Parking Magic Wand Free Response Answers:

If you had a magic wand and could change, fix, or improve anything about residential parking in Costa Mesa what would you do?
Fix it
Business owners cannot park their business use vehicles in the street No industrial vans or unpermitted cars allowed to park on Paularino Ave. This makes it very dangerous for us to back onto the street and my wife and kids have almost been hit a few times because they cannot see through the vans and cars. Please start enforcing the permits again at Paularino Ave near Coolidge Ave. Thank you!
Fine owners who convert their garages/ driveways into living spaces & ALWAYS park on the street License Plate based permit parking. Large Public parking structure.

Leave homeowners alone
Post all streets for street sweeping but stagger days
Keep apartment residents from parking in homeowner neighborhoods Add better street lighting, landscaping, increase guest parking, bigger streets.

Implement metered parking in congested areas; use meter revenue for streetscape improvements (sidewalks, benches, trees, waste bins, protected bike lanes, bus shelters, public restrooms, maintenance); eliminate minimum off-street parking requirements.

Automatically make Costa Mesa have parking permit with specific rules that accommodates the residents of Costa Mesa.

Look at more public parking lots for over flow [sic] parking along with increased Parking Permits Reduce dependence on cars so people have fewer cars to store on public property.

Improve walkability. Eliminate permit parking. Require new developments to have significantly more parking (one to two spaces is NOT enough).

They [sic] residential parking permit hinders and shifts the problem to other adjacent streets. I was denied a parking permit pass from City hall since I live in a adjacent street and main street (Pomona between Wilson and Victoria in district 4) not within the limit of 250 ft, but I think I am. We would need to have data on how many cars are owned per household on Multifamily and single family area.

The private apartment area behind us park on our street and hence no parking for us or our visitors.

Did the study find which streets are the heavy impact streets? reduce the need for parking by providing more public or active transport options Create more spaces in high density areas. Make the builders include parking for 4 people for a 2 bedroom apartment. Everyone has a car.

Remove Permit Parking
limit private business parking more than 1-2 cars, occupying public street parking Street sweeping violations on all streets overnight parking with permits only Create more parking spaces
Install camera along busy streets or send a letter to residents reminding them that street parking is public property not private property as I have heard/experienced cars getting keyed and coffee thrown over it when parked outside a specific apartment complex.

I would also allow the street of Shalimar Drive to have street parking as their residents park on James Street and James Street residents then have to move to West 18th Street, and those residents then have to move over to Pomona, center and other further streets. You could also make Shalimar Drive a permit parking street or phase into allowing parking by allow cars to park there on the days near by [sic] streets have street sweeping. Next, I would ensure all cars on the street have an updated 586

16 registration sticker as a few cars on 18th street do not have a registration sticker and the owners consistently park it in the same spot for 4 days or more. Finally, with the use of technology, I would provide the city transportation officers with phones to upload photos of a car that has not been moved in three days into a city database instead of marking it because people are beating the system by moving it when they see it is marked. With technology, you have a digital trace of the date the photo was taken, time and location, which can be used for the ticket.

I would make it so that it wasn't needed by improving biking and walking options in the city.

Find a better way to spend your time and my tax dollars Get all vehicles that haven't moved for 72 hours, off the street We have to change peoples perception on parking rights. There are the people who work the system, NIMBYS, people who currently occupied or garage and driveways with either toys, i.e., trailers, water sports, trailers, or in operable [sic] cars. But then rely on street parking for maybe up to 4 to 5 household vehicles. High density apartment complexes, condo complexes, and even small district shopping areas, who all fight in the same parking.

No changes at this point...my particular neighborhood does not have issues, but I know some people at the edge of the neighborhood are impacted by many cars parking at their homes due to condos and apartments nearby, so they may feel differently.

All apartments would be required to have at least one parking spot per bedroom.

It shouldn't be easy for people to own many cars and use public space as storage. And owning a car shouldn't be required to live here. My magic wand would make car-lite living possible through intentional walkability/bikeability [sic] efforts. Also - maybe the burden of car-ownership [sic] can be eased through efforts to expand on-demand short-term car rental opportunities:
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/car-sharing-guide-car-rental-turo-zipcar/.

Give street permits to homes that have their garages full of cars, not stuff. My condo complex:

Monticello did this in 2021.

Street sweeping violations on all streets overnight parking with permits only Have cars with permits or make landlords pay for reserved spots for tenants since rent control is out of hand
Parking
1- Provide street sweeping signs for all streets in the city not just some and enforce ticketing during those street sweeping hours. Many people who park their car over night [sic] are just throwing out their trash on the curb outside where they parked (fast food bags, cigarettes, beer bottles (glass and cans), etc.
2- For developers do not approve plans unless adequate parking is provided in the plans to accommodate at least four parking spots per residence.
3-For existing apartments/ high density developments implement a program where they must use the garage units provided to them for parking and not as a storage unit and fine if not used properly. 4- Do not allow commercial vehicles to be parked overnight on the street. Businesses need to have a designated parking lot away from residences to store their equipment. The streets are not their free storage for their business.
5- SAFETY- many areas of the City do not have adequate sidewalk space or even sidewalks to walk, ride your bike or push a stroller. Therefore, pushing people to do these activities in the streets where cars (speeding is a problem in the City especially East Side Costa Mesa on the main run through streets). People especially children are not seen by speeding cars when trying to cross the street in between all the cars which many times are trucks and SUV’s that are much taller than them. 6- parked cars on the street are blocking the mailbox which discourages the mailman from delivering mail until the obstacle is no longer an issue therefore causing a delay in delivery. 587

17 7- For parking permits, it should not be three per household, but instead based on number of bedrooms or a max number. A family renting a one bedroom should not have three permits. This is especially important in high density areas, where six passes could be distributed to two individual one bedroom units, and the site may only provide a single spot on premises, leading to significant street use.

Any new/old apartment complexes that get created/evaluated should be allotted at least two parking spaces if it's a one-bedroom. I find it ridiculous that this is not in effect and feel like this needs to get implemented to help resolve overflow parking. For example, I considered getting a 1-bedroom in district 4 with my husband and we did not move forward with the area because they had a really long waiting list for reserved parking. This is an inconvenience, since we don't need a 2-bedroom because

1.No kids and 2.Saving to buy a house one day. on top of that, having a first-come, first-serve parking is difficult, since my work hours vary. We are not City life like NY or SF, but more suburb life. People around me need their cars to commute to work because their jobs reside in other cities and it's faster than public transit. If I have a wand I would implement parking structures to alleviate all the excess cars from families that live in apartments and have their kids that now have cars and still live with their parents because it's too expensive to live elsewhere. Hopes this helps! Get people to rid themselves of cars. Make owners of fleets of vehicles park them at a place of business, not residential areas.

Limit the amount of cars parking in the street and limit amount of hours a car can be parked in the same spot to 72 hours and actually reinforce it. Limit amount of gaps cars leave between each other, drawn parking lines?, Open up shalimar street for parking but have more police patrol that area.

Limit number of cars per household, especially rentals.

I would limit each household to the amount of cars they are allowed to park on the street and in front of other peoples houses. Some houses rent out their rooms and have an enormous amount of tenants that have their own cars. Not fair to other people living in the family homes on the same street. They treat the houses as if they were apartments, which affects the rest of the residents in the area when it comes to the parking situation on the street.

Increased enforcement late afternoon and evening
Follow Shoup's model - all streets charge for parking at rates set so that there are always 10-20% of spaces available and the money earned goes to local neighborhood improvements.

Enforce Restricted Parking on my Street
Limit parking for this living in high density apartments. That takes up parking allocations on the surrounding streets
Reduce the number of cars by improving public transit and bikeability [sic] Limit parking for this living in high density apartments. That takes up parking allocations on the surrounding streets
Have apartments provide sufficient parking for their residents so they do not flow over to the streets.

They end up parking in front of houses.

My street needs No Parking signs for street sweeper days and parking permits Step up enforcement of parking violations and fees
move cars up or back that are blocking a potential parking space on the street.

Add parking structures
Keep people from apartment and condo complexes from parking in front of our home blocks away and leaving cars over the weekend, sometimes keeping the street sweeper from cleaning our gutter... no tickets given.

I would encourage the city grants Permit Parking for those streets like Ralcam Place who have limited space due to the street being a cul-de-sac.
588

18 Enforce it. Since the permit parking, I’ve noticed less vandalism, loitering and meth heads on the streets roaming around looking for opportunities to steal something. I do feel for the people in search of parking and it may suck at times but for those witnessing and having to endure parking far off or not being able to get a parking in front of your house-that’s [sic] just awkward and not right.

Give me back my residential parking with ENFORCEMENT. My street has been the safest, cleanest, and most quiet since we got our Parking By Permit Only. PLEASE.

Put the program back and enforce the rules. On our street we are inundated by transient vehicles created by the apartments over crowding [sic] and using their garages for storage and renting the garages out for people to live in them. (Apts east of Mendoza, north of El Camino) You cure that problem, you then cure my problem.

Give me back my residential parking and enforce it. Please.

I hope and pray that I can park in front of my own house because residents from apartment complex always park on my street, I want resident parking permit must be enforced at all times.

Open up Shalimar street parking so residents from that part of the neighborhood don’t park over outside our house on James street or Wallace.

Fix parking by putting line dividers to ensure nobody taking extra space or parking meters Allow streets with duplexes become residential parking permits too. More than duplex (2 apartments) maybe not.

Eliminate multi family dwellings
Have people park in their garage or on their driveway. On our street most people have two or three cars park on the street as their garage is used as strorage [sic] or full of junk.

Paint marked parking and have parking enforcement patrol that cars do not stay for more than 48 hours on a parking
Limit of cars per household
Enforce permit parking in the evenings and overnight
Have more parking space available.

Make apartment dwellers use their parking spaces instead of cluttering up the streets.

Area around the Lab better parking
Have the neighborhood apartment complexes park in their own parking structures. They give discounts if they park in the street. Mandatory! Park inside their complex.

Create public parking buildings, line out parking spaces, open more spaces for public parking, limit hours for on street parking
Have apartment managers force residents to park in their garage. This can be done by doing quarterly garage checks.

Stricter building codes to reduce population density and enforcement of those codes make permits/passes available to residents
Limit the amount of cars each house may have for example if 4 adults live in one house hold [sic] and only 2 have a driver’s license only 2 cars are allowed to have in that house hold. ex#2 Two adults in one household and have 3 cars but only one driver’s license only one car should be allowed. Street parking is being misused by many ppl with multiple cars specially parking in the middle of two parkings [sic], not allowing other ppl with one car that go out to work struggling to find parking. Traffic control should also take pictures of cars parked more than 24 hrs in the same spot instead of marking the tires with chalk. That way people will get ticketed instead of them getting away with just moving their cars back and forth to misalign the marked tire. Also think marking where each car should park along curbside will help. To help the city financially maybe even meter parking. That way people with multiple cars will think twice of having too many cars that are not being used.

Limit the number of apartment residents parking on my street. 589

19 People use their garage and driveways for their vehicles rather than use them for storage Create system which penalizes owners who leave cars sitting out on the street for long periods of time. Cars that are not used should be kept in storage or sold. limit vehicles per household, my neighbors have 10 cars, only 7 drivers, (mult-generation [sic] family) they rarely park any vehicles on their property. Another neighbor has 8 cars, 6 drivers, they also have a gardening service, 6 of their vehicles parked on the street. These are single family homes. Maybe have a fee for more than 3 or 4 cars per single family home. have a clean out [sic] garage program - no permit parking unless garages are utilized.

Limit the amount of cars people park on the street
If possible, increase resident parking only permits, have street sweeper do both sides same day(no more one side one day and the other side on a different day), not allow commercial cars be park on residential streets overnight. we know of some homes that have from 5 to 10 cars per house hold [sic]. Note; the last question is a little confusing, the way the questions are in relation to the answers. my respond should be 1# (3), #2- (3), #3 (Public Art (1) Landscape (4) # 4 (1) on street parking (3) on facilities (3)
By my house I would close the wall opening which would eliminate residents from the apartments parking in the track and would also stop motorcycles from riding on the sidewalk through the opening.

By my house I would close the wall opening which would eliminate residents from the apartments parking in the track and would also stop motorcycles from riding on the sidewalk through the opening.

I think abandoned vehicle reporting needs to be encouraged more. I've seen too many cases where vehicles are parked on the street and never moved. The only time they're moved is for the street sweeping hours, after which they're parked again and never touched for the rest of the week. No one seems to report these vehicles, but I think it's because people aren't aware they can report vehicles that are deemed abandoned (72 hours). The other main issue causing the residential parking problems is people having too many useless cars or junk cars taking up parking spots in their apartment complexes which could be used for cars that are actually used, but I don't know of any suggestions that could fix this.

We have many cars that park overnight around Wimbledon Park that are residents of Santa Ana apartments on the other side of Sunflower. There is absolutely no street parking due to this.

Residents of apartments should not be able to monopolize home owner parking. There should be a system in place to regulate this.

Make new residential buildings have double the amount of parking before being approved for construction
Make public parking a thing again.

Require the owners of multi family dwellings provide on site parking for their residents and forbid parking in surrounding neighborhoods.

Enforce 72 hour parking limits (but not during a pandemic!) Not have the dmv a block away from me.

MAKE IT MORE EQUITABLE
On the block on Mendoza Street from Baker to El Camino is a red curb. There is no reason that parking shouldn’t be allowed on both sides of the street.

I would have the front of my house available to my family and friends and not apartment dwellers parking and throwing trash on the ground in front of my property I would have the front of my house available to my family and friends and not apartment dwellers parking and throwing trash on the ground in front of my property 590

20 Increase transit options and increase the development of denser housing with mixed-use so that residents could walk to store and restaurants rather than drive. Critical mass is also essential for public transit systems to succeed.

Enforce existing laws, cite/tow expired license vehicles parked on city streets.

Require private residences operating commercial businesses on site to remove their business vehicles (gardner [sic] vehicles for example) to commercial areas.

Utilize code enforcement by addressing overflowing parking from apartment complexes which are over rented and dumping into the residential neighborhood.

Create and enforce mandatory street sweeping. Monrovia for example is mandatory but Victoria is not, which now never gets swept due to all the overnight parking issues.

The majority of the impact to where we live is too many vehicles from the apartments at the end of Victoria and a resident on Continental running a commercial gardening service from their home. The management of these businesses should be required to obtain the needed parking for their residents and business vehicles through commercial rental agreements with adjacent commercial properties. It is unfair that the residents of the tract are impacted due to the business practices of a few owners.

Permit parking in areas with low amounts of parking soaces [sic] Limit apartment tenant housing numbers allowed. Then less car parking spots are needed Not have the dmv a block away from me.

Get rid of parking permits. It isn’t fair that I can’t park on a street overnight. I have to park FAR away and typically have to walk by weird people (aka druggies). parking spots painted on the ground. people constantly take up two spots with a single car To maximize parking spaces and visibility, I suggest more parking spaces created to line up perpendicular to the condos on Ludingto; similar to streets such as Vanguard Way, El Camino Real and Coolidge. The residents in the condos do not have enough private property parking and primarily park on Ludington. It would also be easier to see cross traffic when exiting the streets from our home on Pierpont Dr or any of the 6 streets connected to Ludington.

Make vanguard university provide parking for there school not our streets Put up red lanes so cars can’t park in front of my house all hours of the day and night. Especially the homeless RV... it’s so rude and no respect..

Most excess parking in my neighborhood comes from surrounding apartment buildings that charge so much rent you need 4 people to afford a 2 bedroom apartment. Figure this out & poof problem gone...

Make vanguard university provide parking for there [sic] school not our streets Less people
More parking enforcement people blocking my driveway should not he [sic] allowed More vehicle parking near my block
Stop shopping center workers and grit cycle members from taking all our parking spots. They have a designated lot they should not be on our street!!!
Implement and enforce ticketing of non operational vehicles that are used to save parking spots Allow people who live in apartments to park on both sides of their streets. Why do the houses on the other side get permits that allow only them to park on that side of the street, which has more than enough space for everyone, while people on the apartments side need to walk blocks to find parking.

It’s not safe for people to walks blocks to find parking at night. 591

21 By Wilson school
Have more parking.

Fix the pavement where cars park by the alley way [sic] entrance To limit the apartment parking on my street. Resident that own homes can't find parking on street Require 1 to 2 vehicles be parked onsite/off the street. Limit the amount of vehicles that one property is allowed to park on the street.

Have more parking spots in residential areas and on the streets. end weekly street sweeping as a revenue generating stream. There isn't a carnival every week so the streets don't need to be swept that often!
let anyone park in residential parking or open up for parking spots.

Have cars that don’t move for months because sweeper doesn’t pass removed! I would fix the entire street of pomona ave since there are many accidents we need to add more and effected speed bumps because many cars speed through the street keep in mind there is a school pomona elementary, i can speak from experience my vehicle was involved in an accident while parked out in the street of pomona ave.

Stop building so many homes that there is no parking for Limit number of cars on street per resident
Designating no parking zones and ticketing people for parking only makes for angry citizens. Limit the number of people living in apartments
Off street commercial vehicle parking
For people not to park so far apart to save parking for their other family members Only allow cars whom live in the neighborhood
Let anyone park there
Reduce unnecessary no parking zones ( red paint area).

Give more parking to apartment neighborhoods
Create parking space lines on residential streets so the correct amount of vehicles can fit per area If residential parking doesn’t pass, I would support marked parking spaces such as those seen on pch with the parking meters. The reason I bring up designated parking spaces is because sometimes people park in a way that doesn’t allow another vehicle to park. This would bring in extra revenue for the city for violators.
1)Require ADU’s and big townhouse projects to have more residential and guest parking. 2) Mass transportation system (besides busses, similar to Europe) that would allow people to get around with out [sic] needing a car.
3) Less congested living situations that don’t have enough parking for residents and guest.

Require all developments to have sufficient ON SITE [sic] parking! The city permits high density [sic] housing and doesn’t require builders to provide enough parking on their own property. It’s ridiculous Enforce it . Never parking in front of my own house . Neighborhood apartment buildings move all their cars over in the late afternoon and then move them again in the morning I live on Westside CM across from Lions Park. There are multiple houses that own cars that sit on the street and are only moved for street sweeping, a lot of these are recreational vehicles. The house across from me has 6 cars, they only drive 1 of them, so 5 cars are permanently taking up street spots, they do not utilize their driveway. These are 2-3 bedroom houses. 6 cars is ridiculous. My roommates and I constantly battle for parking and never get any near our unit. Permit parking should limit the number of cars per household so garages and driveways are utilized properly, and should monitor how many guest passes per day or week but not limit the amount of time a guest can spend (i.e. 2 hours) guest passes should be 24 hours at a time.

Improve parking for people who work late
592

22 Limit how many cars per household allowed to park on street! Don’t allow motor homes/campers/sprinters parked on street!
People saving street parking leaving huge gaps
Stop adding density. Too many r-2s, puds [sic] and apartments all over the east side.

Require new buildings to provide as many parking spots as there are bedrooms per unit. (2 bedrooms = 2 designated parking spots).

Secondly Vanguard college needs to provide free parking so the students and sport attendees stop taking all of the spots on Vanguard.

Parking permits
More street parking for my guests
Allow me to have residential parking since I live in an apartment Create parking space lines on residential streets so the correct amount of vehicles can fit per area Eliminate residential parking except for orange fair grounds [sic] area and paint parking spaces in congested neighborhoods because people love to park in two spaces to save a spot for later but it’s really annoying and part of the problem. Some of my neighbors have multiple families and more than 3 cars but they only have one spot on the property so they double park out on the street Remove residential parking
Limit the number of work related vehicles on residential streets. Our neighbor owns a mobile car wash business and has four work vehicles that take up space on our street plus three personal vehicles.

Seven cars for one residence really takes up a lot of street parking since once two vehicles are parked in the driveway and five are on the street.

Make it so people could park in the Un used [sic] parking lots around Costa Mesa behind or in front of shopping centers, sometimes where I live there is no parking at all I risk parking on red Add the lines on the floor, a lot of people save parking. A lot of space between the cars. So many car portals are being used to store old junk cars.

Remove all red curves except the ones next to a fire hydrant because all fire trucks police and ambulances don’t use them they park where ever in an emergency so there shouldn’t be as many red curves (unless it conflicts an entrance/exit/fire hydrant) you could find a parking spot right by the house.

Residents should have priority vs other people that come and dump there cars on our street for days.

People that don’t live on our street shouldn’t be able to park there!!! Have city and property owners in High dense areas ( where most renters/apartments are located ) collaborate on finding ways to create more parking. Example: Garages should not be solely for storage, tenants in a 2bedroom apartment with 4-5 cars don’t have sufficient parking on site; therefore, spill over into other residential neighborhoods as well as violate parking rules. We need better and stricter enforcement. Landlords should find opportunities to create additional carports. Or parking spaces for tenants. Maybe issue grants or other incentives to investors/owners. none of these ideas will be as effective unless we enforce our city ordinances/rules! .

Provide more parking
permit parking
Provide parking stickers
Reduce occupancy of adults in overpopulated low income housing units Parking permits for Beach st. No more DMV or Apartment tenants parking there. It would be nice for all the Beach st residents to park remotely close to there [sic] home after work.

STOP giving permits to build more condos or apartments complex Make residents, renters use their GARAGES
593

23 Stop allowing DMV Parking on Beach st! Also, all the people living in the apartments across the street on Meyer. Enforce parking permits!
Implement permit parking on our crowded cul-de-sac.

Pay for street parking, like meters
remove some of the red-painted curbs to increase parking availability May parking permita [sic] because I have seen so many people that park in the neighbor that don’t live here and they only come to work their cars.

Limit how many cars were allowed per residence
In this area at night there has been increased burglaries lighting needs improvement, also city needs to turn on the cameras in alley ways [sic]. I would add lighting where there are stop signs because it is difficult to see during the night.

Parking on our street is overcrowded, people park right up next to our driveway making it very dangerous and difficult to pull out without getting hit. You can't see oncoming traffic at all because of the parked cars obstructing our view of the street.

Paint parking spots on street - many people park in such a way they take up way more space than needed, preventing others from parking.

Have the apartment residents stop parking on residential street Not allow cars to park in front of my house for days at a time.

Limited permitted parking passes per house hold [sic]
Enforce no commercial trucks on residential streets. There are 10s or 20s of landscaping/contractor/worker trucks on our street alone. Takes away from the residential feel of the neighborhood. Also, the apartment complexes need to provide more parking or a solution. It makes me feel uneasy when people park in front of our house and then walk blocks away and leave their car for days in front of our house.
there is not enough parking to support 17 th promenade (grit cycle, mi casa, side car, etc.). patrons take up all the street parking on cabrillo, santa ana, and orange. patrons park in resident's driveways and alleys. there needs to be a parking structure. grit cycle only has enough parking to accommodate 1/3 of their class capacity.

Mark the spaces on the. Street so cars. Don't doble park that way it would be more room for others I get out of work at midnight aaa woman is scary to walk at night a few block away from my home to find a parking 5 days a week .

Not enforce the 72hr limit in a damn pandemic! If we work from home, unemployed, home schooling [sic] and following quarantine rules, it seems ridiculous to have to remember to move your car every 72hrs...then find it's been towed.

Business owners could not park business use vehicles on the street Add space marking so other residents don’t park bad to save parking for their own household.

Fix the parking situation in Santa Ana
Have street permit parking
make more space for parking and get rid of permits or make them more accessible. if i can’t park in my townhome parking lot i’m stuck walking 3 blocks to park because permit parking is closest and i can’t get one because i don’t live on that street.

Demolish obsolete and dilapidated apartments and replace them with properly parked ownership opportunities.

Remove residential parking
Create more of it. I live in an apartment and street parking is difficult for friends and family to find.

There’s a lot of businesses around here and it would be great for them to allow parking when the businesses are closed.
594

24 Make permit renewing available online/ more parking space available in downtown Costa Mesa Expand parking. Many people come and leave their cars here over night [sic] that are not residents within the area. Also, the surrounding neighbors from a few streets over come and park here and it makes it hard to find parking at night
Paint parking spots so people so not hog up spots
Way too many people who don’t live on our street park for extended periods of time (24+) on our street...this had to be monitored and ticketed. There are also too many people on our street renting out back units and not providing parking on the property, so the street is overrun with extra cars. Very very fed up with parking on our street
Paint parking lines on the street.

Red zones at the beginning of the street. When you exit a street you cannot see traffic because cars are blocking the view.

First off there are to many people living in the apartment complexes near or in residential parking areas, therefore the overflow of cars park in the neighborhoods and nearby business parking lots.

Make all the streets with houses only, permit parking! Stop letting people register 10 cars to a one bedroom address! Make landlords and management companies accountable so they don’t have a ridiculous amount of cars belonging to an area that doesn’t have enough parking. Hope this helps! Expand parking and remove cars parked on the street that take up two parkings [sic] Have resident parking only on my street from 5:00PM to 8:00AM and, no more than 2 vehicles per household can park on the residential only parking. No service vehicles allowed to park overnight on residential streets. I recently purchased an investment property and improved my property at great expense. My tenants have trouble getting parking for their guests.

Have permit parking
More enforcement of parking rules, such as cars parking in the red curve and in front of fire hydrants.

House across the street of 1826 Pomona Ave is split into 3 residences and they have 9 vehicles, that include their work vans that block the views to exit our driveway safely.

Have an extra parking area for overflow with no cost.

Limit the amount of cars a SFR or duplex can have parked on street if they have an existing garage.

Garages should be used for cars, not junk storage.

Make more parking!
Have people not park like jerks. Maybe make lines to have people not park like jerks. Ticket people who block driveways. Dont ticket when you are doing alley and street repair since that is a jerk move by the city. Have parking control people ticket other than street sweeping.

Eliminate parallel parking and replace grassy areas and develop new parking .

If cars are parked in the same spot for more than 72 hrs to be moved or ticketed.

Be able to move cars forwards or backwards that way they don’t save parking for there [sic] relatives because it’s not fair for people to be looking for parking at night just because someone is saving space for someone else. That’s the power I would like to have I would make school parking lots bigger those of us whom live by elementary schools Lack parking due to parents needing to drop
Off and pick up their children . Parking at school sites should be an option, rather than residential streets by school
Home owners use garage instead of parking all vehicles on street Force homeowners to use the garage for parking/not storage. Limit the amount of vehicles per household
Increase parking capacity by 100%.

Eliminate long term parking on street
595

25 Reduced multi unit housing construction
Reduce the density of living. There are too many people already and they just keep Building more compacted homes.

Stop the construction of Condos that are over populating cars and therefore street parking.

Let us park at schools or parks
PLEASE HELP DISTRICT 1
I live on Coriander. Commericial [sic] and "extra" vehicles are parked on my street and other "spice" streets for periods exceeding 72 hours regualrly [sic]. The alley between Coriander and Caraway is being blocked by vehicles parking head in, in front of garages and blocking the public right of way.

Private garages, (mine specifically) are being blocked regularly by unknown cars. Since I park in my garage, this is a HUGE problem. (YES, the police have been called.) There is ZERO parking for disabled people. Visitor parking is non existant [sic] because there are typically several families living in two bedrooom [sic] apartments with 4+ cars. There are more vehicles than there is space because very few people use their garages. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE create a parking permit program for our neighborhood. Parking is no longer allowed overnight on Cinnamon because it was a haven for homeless/ tweakers living in cars, vans, and motorhomes, and commercial vehicles being stored.

People would also park vehicles for sale on that street as well. Because there are signs, it's regulated, and people get cited, this doesn't happen anymore and it's GREAT!!!! Now PLEASE, help us. I have a detached garage, a disabled mother and am currently on crutches. I have to double park in the middle of the street to unload groceries, etc; PLEASE START CITING PEOPLE WHO PARK ILLEGALLY. Cars park on corners, in red zones, and block the public right of way in alleys every single night! PLEASE HELP US!!! If families can afford to have 4 or 5 cars per apartment, they can afford to pay for a permit to park them!!!
Limit sky rise /condos being built the city is already too crowded Road marking for parking spaces.

Limit parking to the street you live on! I live off Pomona and center. The 600 block and parking is horrible because we have the senior nursing on our street and all the employees park on our street.

We also get people that come leave their cars here and get pick up or ride off on a skateboard. It’s absurd!
Get people to park in their own garages and off street spaces instead automatically parking in the street and using garages purely for storage.

Have traffic officer patrol more Joann st/Maple st Ive lived here 44yrs at the same apt and I see a man who doesnt live here park his multiple cars on joann and maple st and he lives on pomona st. Not fair to others and his cars have expired tags. One of his truck parked in front of 2269 maple st. has a mexican plate that has been there for years!!Also to [sic] many cars park in the School bus loading area during morning hours and don't get tickets. I also see a lady in the morning switching cars to go to work. She lives also on pomona st and parks her other car on joann st. My neighbor knows her and she told me about it thats how I know. Just another example on how congested Joann st. because of tenants coming from other streets . Its hard to have permit parking on a street with apt buildings but this is getting ridiculous. Im all for permit parking! I think it works great and streets look cleaner.

Thank you for your attention
Make ALL residential areas parking with permit only
My neighborhood regularly has people sleeping in their cars which leads to a lot of people feeling unsafe to be out at nights. More social programs I [sic] address this need for housing would be great.

I would not allow cars to be parked in front of my home that do not move on a regular basis. I have a neighbor who stores their car in front of my home for weeks at a time! 596

26 It would be great if parking spots had lines between them to show where cars should be parking. It’s really frustrating when cars take up the equivalent of two parking spaces for no reason and create more congestion than necessary.

It would also be really great if there was a public parking yard for work trucks. There are many small business owners that park their business vehicles on residential streets - like a gardening truck, plumbing vehicle, etc. These often take up more than one parking space. Can we create a safe parking yard for people to park their work vehicles overnight? I don’t know - maybe this already exists? But it’s very frustrating when large work vehicles take up a lot of space.

The only reason I said that I did not support the modernization of the permit system is because of accessibility. I think I’d support it if it’s simple to use and is offered in multiple languages. Costa Mesa is a diverse community and it should be easily accessible to all.

Add parking lot spaces to Smallwood Park
Stop building high-rise apartment/condo buildings in residential neighborhoods. That just depleted all the parking spaces.

Require permits
Affordable housing so not so that there aren't so many pp living in a household that is smaller than what spaces there are for parking. ie 3 single adults living in a 2 bdrm w 2 stalls.

Resident only parking should be permitted in neighborhoods with apartments or schools in close proximity. Those establishments should have their own parking zones for their patrons.

I would love to have permits for our street!! Also there should be a limit of how many cars a house can have. For example on our street (Yorkshire at)( between Anaheim and Maple) it’s bad!! One house has 4 cars in their gated front house and about 9 cars on the street. It’s ridiculous and not far [sic] to the neighbors. As well we compete with the apartments on Maple street. Something needs to be done!!
I would shrink the cars so there were more available parking spaces.

Limit number of cars each apartment can have with permit parking for streets with houses and apartments.

I would make a visit also streets parking permit only
Permit parking on my street
Less red areas
Add permit parking to district 4 and limit the # of guests permits per household I would make it illegal to park non working [sic] cars on the street.

Remove all the cars that are not driven or moved by owners. Taking up parking space for people that actually move their cars and need parking after work!!! College parking that they made those cars have not been moved since they made those parking spots!!! Please so something about it!!! Enforce citations for overnight parking of commercial vehicles on residential streets. Enforce citations of vehicles unsafely parked on corners, creating visual obstructions.

No more development
Making sure all residents that live in an apartment use their garage for parking instead of storage. Not so long ago, the city made parking spaces in between Coolidge Ave and Paularino Ave but, youll see the same cars parked there daily.

Create a public parking lot with security cams everywhere. Parking is allowed if people pay a monthly subscription.

I wish there was parking nearby when street sweeping happens. Its difficult to find parking on the streets in the neighborhood when theyre all being swept the same day 597

27 Improve parking by limiting the area where folks can park RVs Increase the number of parking spaces required for businesses and apartments.

Parking permits. Been teying [sic] to get it on our street for years Residential parking permit
Get rid of permit parking. 2000 wallace has awful parking and people use the street to park their 100s of work trucks. The side streets are permit parking only and are always empty. Why cant I park there after work until I leave here until I leave the next morning??? Bunch of Karens will call the cops.

Decrease the number of cars using street parking. When all of the street parking is full it’s nearly impossible to see oncoming cars when pulling out of my driveway. Combine that with the speeding issue on my street and Ive had several close calls where Ive almost been hit. My neighbor was hit pulling out of her driveway because she couldnt see the oncoming car. Her view was blocked by a truck parked on the street.

Permit parking on our street, its too crowded and our guests can never park More parking in force for non resident [sic] parking
Make sure occupants or drivers do not exceed available parking. Provide some type of public parking nearby. We have a habitat house built by the city at the end of my cul De sac. [sic].the owner is disliked by most neighbors as he constantly complains.. calls police...he also has 8 cars! That city owned property would have been much better served as a neighborhood parking structure....

Meters perhaps. I hate to say it, but I think it might solve so many issues. I have a neighbor that has over 10 cars. I love my neighbor, but definitely keeps some of my friends from visiting because they can't find parking. Funds generated from meters could go to green painted bike lanes.

Time limit on parking, some leave our car parked for days and move it to the opposite side of street when there is street sweeping. Sea Breeze apartments do not have guest parking on their property.

Every apartment complex should provide guest parking. We tried getting a permit street on our street but because half of our block is duplex/triplex/apartments and houses it said it couldn't be done. If unable to provide permit only parking, provide time limits on parking, like no overnight parking unless with valid permit. There needs to be more parking enforcement, people park illegally on the curbs and fail to completely stop at stop signs on the intersection of Pomona/Joann St. Cars park along the curb from Darrell St/Pomona.

Residential parking permit
My street is 99.5 percent multiple dwelling units. Give the residents permits to park. And change street sweeping no park to one side on Tuesdays instead of BOTH sides.

Make more private parking for individual households
Reduce street sweeping to once or twice a month which makes parking hectic. Limited street parking is the small price we pay to live so close to Fairview park snd [sic] the beach Btw the previous question did not allow me to erase my choices which gives an erroneous answer to your question regarding residential parking
Allow parking for residents only and stop other non residents [sic] from parking their cars and work vehicles in front of homes that they do not reside in.

Decrease rent so there wouldn't have to be multiple families cramming into a single family [sic] residence and taking multiple parking spots on street. Allow parking in front of your own driveway.

Increased patrols in regards to 72 hour parking violations.

Incentivize parking in available garage spaces rather than using them as storage Eliminate residential parking permit program, it hinders residents more than it helps. Parking communities should also have permits rather than reserved spaces that better flow with the come and go of people to their homes and thus the parking lot. It is so frustrating to see open spaces everywhere yet nowhere to park but that tiny section of street that isn’t permitted and is actually 598

28 open for public parking. Parking is a huge issue here, and opening things up and thinking more creatively is the answer.

More spots to park, open business lots after-hours even if for paid-parking lots New buildings (residential and commercial) would include ample parking WITHOUT including street parking. A typical dwelling should have a minimum of one spot per bedroom plus two on the street! Don't allow all of the residents from apartments a few blocks away to park in our neighborhood and take up our spaces.

Require people to park in their garage or drive way [sic].

Move all sidewalks directly next to the street (not landscaping) so one can use passenger side doors and walk directly to the sidewalks. Sidewalk to Street Parking, not Sidewalk to Landscaping to Street Parking
eliminate residential perking [sic] permits. The streets belong to all residents.

Allow to park on any street - no parking permits
Our street, Vista Baya would have a posted sign for street cleaning and no parking.

Our neighborhood was affected by over occupied apartment complexes. Too many people per unit, thus too many cars.

In San Juan Capistrano they made an effort to determine how many people lived in a unit.

Stop home business from using residential parking for their employees Find out who left the street names off your map and fire their boss More options for mobility
Ticket those who park on corners and on alley ways [sic] Require the employees of business [sic] and churches to park in the business or church lot.

Stop home business from using residential parking for their employees Have permit parking for CM residents/homeowners near colleges. Vanguard student [sic] have parking on campus but still park on street to save $2 but no parking for residents.

Make our street parking for residents only
Make people park in their garage
Build 3D and upward. Offer underground park.

Make sure everybody moves their car during street sweeping. Center st has gotten so bad these last few months. Streets are looking dirty. I want my streets to look clean I would have an officer drive around neighborhood to ticket cars that park from Tuesday, usually after sweeper comes, and don't move their cars til [sic] the following week. Some neighbors have visitors over specially [sic] on Miner, between Joann and Wilson st, they double park on street blocking road for ongoing traffic to move
Eliminate high density residential, eliminate three story residential with no property offsets, and eliminate ADUs. Set a cap on the amount of Sober Living Homes as a percentage of population.

Not allow service trucks parked on residential streets overnight. Example there is a vacuum truck and plummer [sic] vehicle that park on the street outside the residents [sic] house. Either park it on your driveway/in garage or move it elsewhere.
∗Mark lines for each car because people only set aside parking, limit of 4 cars per apartment, give a ticket to those who only have unused parked cars because they only move them when the sweeper passes and the garages only use them to live there.

∗ Comment was submitted in Spanish, but text was translated to English for review. 599

29 ∗I live behind an alley and I would like them to check the garages because most of them have them full of things and the cars go through them and they do not leave much space for the cars to pass and the garages are supposed to put the cars.
∗Make a parking spot in the neighborhood.
∗Give tickets to all those who do not move their cars all week ∗It would be to limit the parking permit and put caps on the Mayer streets. Pomona. Wallace. please please.
∗That everyone was cordial and did not park their vehicles in spaces no more than one car so that someone can use the other space. And another that my neighbors let me into my garage without having to stress because they park in double line. Thank you. ∗I would take away all my neighbors Who do not work and set aside incorrectly parked spaces on Wallace Street and Shalimar There is a family That has Like 7 cars and cannot beat them. Why do they bother and that creates conflicts between neighbors? Thank you very much. ∗Limit the number of vehicles per department and allow them to park outside your home. Use a crane in case the space is not respected.
∗That they stop building large apartment complexes that makes it difficult to find parking ∗I would like all people to be able to park their cars on the same street where they live that they do not bring cars to park them on other streets and less large cars from work.

∗ Comment was submitted in Spanish, but text was translated to English for review.

600

CITY OF

HUNTINGTON
BEACH

CITY OF

SANTA ANA
UPPER

NEWPORT
BAY

CITY OF

NEWPORT
BEACH
E. 15TH ST.

E. 16TH ST.

E. 17TH ST.

E. 18TH ST.

E. 19TH ST.

BROADWAY ST.

TUSTIN AVE.

IRVINE AVE.

SANTA ANA AVE.

ORANGE AVE.
22ND ST.
23RD ST.

SANTA ISABEL AVE.

DEL MAR AVE.

NEWPORT BLVD.

SUPERIOR AVE.W. 16TH ST.

W. 17TH ST.

W. 18TH ST.

W. 19TH ST.

WILSON ST.

VICTORIA ST.

HAMILTON ST.

POMONA AVE.

HARBOR BLVD.

PLACENTIA AVE.

FAIRVIEW RD.

BAY ST.

MERRIMAC WAY
FAIR DR.

ARLINGTON AVE.

BAKER ST.

BAKER
ST.

AVE.

PAULARINO
SUNFLOWER AVE.

RED HILL AVE
.

AIRWAY AVE.

BRISTOL ST.

ANTON BLVD.

AVE. OF THE ARTS
SAKIOKA DR.

BEAR ST.

FAIRVIEW RD.

ADAMS AVE.

GISLER AVE.

SOUTH COAST DR.

SUNFLOWER AVE.

MACARTHUR AVE.

CANYON
DR.

HARBOR BLVD.

HYLAND
AVE.

MESA
VERDE
DR.

SUSAN ST.

J O H N W A Y N E A I R P O R T
MESA DR.

ATTACHMENT 4
601
i

Citywide
Residential
Parking
Action
Plan

City of Costa Mesa , CA

Final Draft V2
March 8, 202

2 ATTACHMENT 5
602

City of Costa Mesa
Citywide Residential Parking Action Plan

Prepared by Dixon Resources Unlimited
on behalf of the City of Costa Mesa, CA

603

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... i Residential Parking Study .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Data Collection .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Community Outreach .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Permit Program Background .............................................................................................................................................. 2 Residential Parking Action Plan .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Context ................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Guiding Principles ............................................................................................................................................................... 3 PAP Structure ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 RPP Program Options .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Near-term ............................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Mid-term ............................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Long-term .......................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Comprehensive Implementation Guide ............................................................................................................................ 26 RPP Zone Renewal .......................................................................................................................................................... 26 Near-term Implementation Steps ...................................................................................................................................... 27 Mid-term Implementation Steps ........................................................................................................................................ 29 Long-term Implementation Steps ...................................................................................................................................... 30 Appendix A. Data Collection Results ...................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix B. Online Survey Results ........................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

604

Figures
Figure 1. Data Collection Map ........................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2. Virtual Community Meeting ................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 3. Permit Streets ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 4. RPP Program Options ........................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 5. Near-term Recommendations Goals Supported ................................................................................. 6 Figure 6. Current Permit Zone Map ................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 7. Petitioning Process Analysis ............................................................................................................... 9 Figure 8. Recommended Escalating Rate Model ............................................................................................. 13 Figure 9. Permit Rate Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 10. Guest Permit Configuration Strategies ............................................................................................ 15 Figure 11. Mobile LPR Camera ....................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 12. ParkSL Brand ................................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 13. City of Anaheim Permit Flowchart ................................................................................................... 18 Figure 14. Mid-term Recommendations Goals Supported ............................................................................... 20 Figure 15. Shared Parking Area Evaluation. .................................................................................................... 22 Figure 16. Shared Parking Evaluation Map. ..................................................................................................... 22 Figure 17. Long-term Recommendations Goals Supported ............................................................................. 24 Figure 18. Existing RPP Zone Impacts Map .................................................................................................... 26 Figure 19. Existing RPP Zone Impacts ............................................................................................................ 26 Figure 20. Near-term Implementation Checklist ............................................................................................... 28 Figure 21. Mid-term Implementation Checklist ................................................................................................. 30 Figure 22. Long-term Implementation Checklist ............................................................................................... 30 605
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED i
Costa Mesa, CA
Citywide Residential Parking Action Plan

Executive Summary

This Citywide Residential Parking Action Plan (PAP) was developed to outline the recommended implementation
steps and strategies to optimize the residential permit parking (RPP) program and parking management within
Costa Mesa’s residential neighborhoods.

Steps should be taken incrementally with ongoing
evaluation and community feedback to shape future steps.

Therefore, this PAP is meant to be used to highlight
important considerations, measures, and best practices to optimize operations, regardless of the approach chosen.

The City is encouraged to adjust the implementation
approach as needed to design a program that best fits the unique and ever-changing needs of the community.

What were the study’s goals?

1. Equitable: Develop equitable programs that appropriately balance the parking needs of all residents, businesses, and visitors, while enabling the on-street parking supply to serve the community fairly and enhance access for all.

2. Sustainable: Implement financially sustainable strategies that modernize and streamline parking program management.

3. Efficient: Create an efficient and adaptable parking system that is optimized for the City’s current needs but can be incrementally adjusted over time.

The on-street parking data collection effort was conducted in the fall of 2020 within residential areas of City Council Districts 4 and

5. A total of 634 block faces with 10,410 on-street parking spaces were observed. Data collection occurred over two days in October 2020. Weekday data was collected at 8:00am, 12:00pm, 4:00pm, and 8:00pm on Tuesday, October 13, 2020. Weekend data was collected during the same observation timeframes on Saturday, October 17, 2020. The two days were selected to allow for a comparison between weekday and weekend
occupancy and turnover rates.

The data collection results suggest that in specific residential neighborhoods, there ar e external non- residential demand that creates parking impacts. This includes neighborhoods bordering surrounding cities, near commercial areas, schools and recreation facilities.

Data Collection Area Importance of Data
A priority is to align the
RPP program with the 2016
State Attorney General’s
opinion:
“In issuing long- term
residential parking permits,
local authorities may not
distinguish among residents
based on the type of dwelling
in which they live.”

606
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED ii

b

Community Outreach
The Study included an online Residential Parking Survey that was offered from March 13th to April 18th, 2021. The purpose of the survey was to gather feedback about policies and practices related to residential on- street parking within the City. The survey was available online with English and Spanish language options. There were 356 total responses , and 4 percent of respondents took the survey in Spanish.

The City also hosted two initial community meetings in spring 2021. Due to the shelter in place order, the meetings were conducted virtually through Zoom. An overview of the project was presented, and attendees were invited to provide feedback.

Two additional community meetings were hosted in June and September 2021. In June, the results from the on- street data collection and online survey were presented, and in September the draft recommended strategies were presented. Community members in attendance provided constructive feedback. During all four meetings, t he presentation slides were offered in both English and Spanish, and a Spanish translator was present.

Over 130 residents attended the virtual community meetings.

Getting Started

Summarized below are some initial steps that
the City can take to optimize the RPP program
and parking management. Detailed
descriptions of each are provided within the
Plan:

RPP
Program
In order to design an equitable RPP program, the City should consider expanding permit eligibility by no longer differentiating between single -family and multi -family dwellings for establishing new zones. This approach will align the program with the 2016 Attorney General’s opinion (#14-304) and enable more drivers to obtain permits . To optimize on- street availability, a one permit per eligible resident rule should be considered, by requiring the resident’s driver’s license number. This would allow households with multiple drivers to obtain enough permits. The City should also implement an escalating rate structure. The proposed rate structure is $25.00 for the first permit, with a premium of $25.00 for each additional permit ($25 for the first permit, $50 for the second permit, and $75 for the third permit). This would encourage residents to park on their property if they’re able to, and it will also generate revenue to support the ongoing operating costs.

The City should leverage an automated permit management system for the RPP program.

Additionally, the use of license plate recognition (LPR) technology will significantly improve enforcement efficiency and coverage by automating enforcement processes. Instead of verifying that each vehicle has a valid physical permit displayed, the LPR system can automate the process by using the license plate number as the permit identifier. Even with these efficiencies, the City should allocate additional parking enforcement staff, especially if the RPP program is expanded.

To successfully implement program updates, the City should ensure that policy information is easy to understand and readily accessible. A parking program landing page on the City website could be utilized as one- stop-shop for parking information, including how to apply for new RPP zones and frequently asked questions. The City could also design and incorporate a parking and mobility brand that is easily recognizable and leveraged on all program materials.

Strategic investments in parking technology, such as LPR, are recommended since they can also be leveraged for ongoing data collection without spending extra funds on traditional parking studies.

Ongoing evaluation of the RPP program should consider whether a block continues to need the current permit restrictions, or if the restrictions can be adjusted or eliminated.

Questions or comments? Please visit costamesaca.gov/parking Automation
Marketing
Data
Collection
607
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 1
Residential Parking Study

Dixon Resources Unlimited (DIXON) was retained
by the City of Costa Mesa (City) to conduct a
Citywide Residential Parking Study (Study). The
Study included a review of existing conditions,
current parking policies, 634 block faces of data
collection, and community outreach. The Study has
resulted in this Citywide Residential Parking Action
Plan (Plan) that provides recommendations for
updated parking program policies, procedures, and
implementation strategies.

Data Collection

The on-street parking data collection effort was
conducted in the fall of 2020 within residential areas
of City Council Districts 4 and 5. The study area
included 634 block faces, with a total on-street
parking inventory of 10,410 spaces.

Data collection occurred over two days in October
2020. Data was collected at 8:00am, 12:00pm,
4:00pm, and 8:00pm on Tuesday, October 13, 2020.

Weekend data was collected during the same
timeframes on Saturday, October 17, 2020. The two
days were selected to allow for a comparison
between weekday and weekend occupancy and
turnover rates.

The data collection dates were determined with
involvement from the City. Due to COVID-19 and the
shelter in place order, the data may not reflect the
exact parking habi ts of pre -pandemic times. While
pre-pandemic conditions are uncertain, it is
estimated that the daytime parking occupancy and
average stay duration were higher than typical times
due to an increase in remote work resulting from
workplace closures. However, at this stage in the
pandemic, schools had reopened and welcomed
students on campus for in- person learning. The
Newport-Mesa Unified School District in Costa Mesa
divided students into AM/PM cohorts for half-day in-
person instruction on Monday, Tuesday, T hursday,
and Friday. It is also unknown exactly how parking
and mobility trends will change moving forward due
to the lasting impacts of the pandemic. The data
collection results are included in Appendix A.

Figure 1. Data Collection Map

Community Outreach

The Study included an online Residential Parking
Survey from March 13 to April 18 , 2021. The
purpose of the survey was to gather feedback about
policies and practices related to residential on-street parking within the City. The survey was available
online with English and Spanish language options.

There were 356 total responses, and 4 percent of
respondents took the survey in Spanish. The online
survey results are included in Appendix B.

The City hosted two initial community meetings in
spring 2021. Due to the shelter in place order, the
meetings were conducted virtually through Zoom. In
the meetings, DIXON presented an overview of the
project and invited feedback from the attendees.

Two additional community meetings were held in
June and September 2021. In June, the results from
the data collection and online survey were
presented, and attendees provided additional
feedback related to residential parking. In
September, the draft recommended strategies were
presented, and the community members in
attendance provided their feedback.
1 608

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 2
During all four meetings, t he presentation slides
were offered in both English and Spanish, and a
Spanish translator was present. Over 130 residents
attended the virtual community meetings.

Permit Program Background

The residential permit parking (RPP) program was
established in 1984, primarily as a response to
parking impacts from Pacific Amphitheater and
Orange County Fairgrounds. Since the early 1990s,
the RPP program has evolved to include residential
areas where older neighborhoods, originally
designed for lower parking demand, are
experiencing increased parking demand from new
housing developments that provide minimal parking
(such as accessory dwelling units) and limited
parking within multi-family developments.

In 2016, the most recent RPP Program Guidelines
(Guidelines) were approved. These Guidelines
establish that the purpose of the Residential Permit
Parking Program i s specifically to safeguard
residential access and mitigate parking impacts from
nearby businesses or entertainment activities. The
Guidelines also state that RPP restrictions are only
appropriate when other methods of parking control
have failed.

The Guidelines require a petition to be signed by 51
percent or more households in support of
implementing a new residential permit parking
restriction. When a street is evaluated for a new
residential permit parking restriction, an occupancy
study is conducted and must find that parking
utilization is over 70 percent at any time.

Once a residential permit parking restriction is
implemented, eligible households can visit the
Transportation Division located on the 4th floor of
City Hall (77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, 92626) to apply
for a permit. Eligible households include single-
family or multi- family dwellings located in an R1
single-family residential district on permit streets or single-family households within 250 feet of permit
streets. Applicants need to provide registration for
the vehicle at the address where they are seeking a
permit, and proof of residency (driver’s license,
insurance, utility bill, etc.). Eligible households can receive up to three permits per household, and 100
guest permits per household each year.

Residents receive physical parking permits, which
hang from the vehicle’s rearview mirror or are
displayed on the vehicle’s dashboard. The City does
not charge any fee for parking permits ; however,
there are costs associated with operati ng the
program such as staff time, enforcement resources,
and establishing a permit parking area.

There are 2,152 homes on streets designated with
residential permit parking made up of both single-
family and multi-family properties. Of those homes,
1,426 (66 percent) have been issued residential
parking permits. An average of 2.3 permits have
been issued to homes totaling 3,257 permits issued
in the City.

Figure 2. Virtual Community Meeting
609

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 3
Residential Parking Action Plan

Context

Various residential neighborhoods throughout the
City experience on- street parking congestion
resulting from an increase in housing density and
external parking demand.

Currently, there are 2,152 homes on streets
designated with residential permit parking . RPP
parking zones have been established in response to
spillover parking impacts from adjacent commercial
areas and multi-family housing developments.

Figure 3. Permit Streets

This Parking Action Plan ( PAP) identifies policies,
procedures, and strategies necessary to address the
City’s current and future residential parking needs.

The City is encouraged to adjust the implementation
approach as needed to best fit the ever -changing
needs of the community.

Guiding Principles

The following parking management guiding
principles are established by this PAP:

A priority objective of this PAP is to align the RPP
program with the 2016 California Attorney General’s
opinion (#14-304) and develop an equitable solution
that serves the needs of all Costa Mesa residents.

The Attorney General’s opinion states, “In
issuing long -term residential parking permits,
local authorities may not distinguish among
residents based on the type of dwelling in which
they live”.

PAP Structure

This PAP is meant to highlight important
considerations, measures, and best practices to
optimize operations.

This PAP is organized into three chapters:
2 Chapter 3 evaluates overarching options for th e
RPP program identified by the Study.

Chapter 4 presents the recommendations,
organized into near-term, mid-term, and long-term
timeframes.

Chapter 5 concludes the report with a
Comprehensive Implementation Guide.

1. Equitable: Develop equitable programs that
appropriately balance the parking needs of
all residents, businesses, and visitors, while
enabling the on-street parking supply to
serve the community fairly and enhance
access for all.

2. Sustainable: Implement financially
sustainable strategies that modernize and
streamline parking program management.

3. Efficient: Create an efficient and adaptable
parking system that is optimized for the City’s
current needs but can be incrementally
adjusted over time.

610

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 4
RPP Program Options

The Study identified four overarching options that broadly address the size and scope of the RPP program. The City must start by consider ing these options since they will fundamentally influence the City’s next steps. The following table provides an overview of the options along with their associated recommendation.

Since the fourth option, Implement revised RPP Program Guidelines , is recommended, the PAP recommendations provided next in Chapter 4 specifically define the associated operational and policy requirements to support that approach. If after evaluating these options the City decides to move forward in a different way, the implementation approach will need to be adjusted accordingly.

Figure 4. RPP Program Options
Strategies Analysis Recommendation

Option 1:

No change to the
RPP Program
Option 1 is not recommended. No change to the Residential Permit Parking Program would conflict with the City’s stated goal of ensuring that the program meets the intent of the recent Attorney General’s opinion (#14-304), which stated:

“In issuing long -term residential parking permits, local authorities may not distinguish among residents based on the type of dwelling in which they live.”

Without change , the City may continue to experience
challenges with spillover parking into areas surrounding RPP restrictions. Streets designated with RPP policies were found to be much less utilized than neighboring streets with an uneven distribution of parking demand.

X
Not Recommended

Option 2:

Eliminate the RPP
Program
Option 2 is not recommended at this time. During COVID-19 and the shelter in place orders, the City suspended
enforcement of the permit parking restrictions and all vehicles were allowed to park on -street in the residential areas. This enforcement suspensi
on provided a preview of what
elimination of the RPP program may look like. The recent data collection results revealed that while some zones currently do not have significant parking congestion, others do experience high parking occupancy rates, suggestin
g that the permit
program should not be eliminated at this time.

The City should continue to evaluate the elimination of the RPP program as a potential option. In the future, it is possible that the program may not be effective or needed. For
example, there could be transit and mobility enhancements introduced that decrease parking demand over time.

X
Not recommended at
this time. Consider
for future evaluation.

Option 3:

Implement a
Citywide RPP
Program
Option 3 is not recommended at this time. By revising the RPP program Citywide, the City would be applying a “one size fits all” solution to a challenge that is more nuanced. It is important to consider that each neighborhood has its unique challenges, including housing density; the number of vehicles owned by residents; options for alternative parking; and

X
Not recommended at
this time.
3 611

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 5
proximity to commercial corridors, educational institutions, employment centers, and transit.

Additionally, t here would be significant costs to implement and enforce an RPP program Citywide, and the requirement to obtain permits could be burdensome for residents and their guests. The data collection showed that while some areas of Costa Mesa do experience high parking occupancy, there are many neighborhoods where on -
street parking demand is
relatively low throughout the day. In these areas, a permit program would be inconvenient and unnecessary for
residents.

Option 4:

Implement revised
RPP Program
Guidelines
Option 4 is the recommended action at this time. The data collection results suggest that in specific residential neighborhoods, there is external non-residential demand that creates parking impacts. This includes neighborhoods
boarding surrounding cities, near commercial areas, or close to schools and recreation facilities.

The RPP program is a powerful tool for the City to manage parking demand impacts. However, in order to create a more equitable, adaptable, and efficient program that is aligned with the City’s goals, several transformative adjustments are recommended throughout this PAP.

Recommended
strategy

612

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 6
Recommendations

The following recommendations take into consideration the data collection results, community feedback, and industry best practices. Each recommendation is organized by phase with implementation steps and suggested follow-up actions or considerations.

These recommendations are meant to address the current and long -term residential parking and mobility challenges within the City of Costa Mesa. Implementing the initial phase of the PAP recommendations will provide immediate parking management benefits and es tablish the basis for future improvements.

Recommended timing is meant to be realistic and achievable.

Recommendations are organized within estimated near -term (1-2 years), mid-term (3-5 years), and long -term (6+ years) timeframes. However, actual timing will be dependent on City Council prioritization, stakeholder feedback, funding availability, and the ongoing evaluation of initial implementation steps. The City is encouraged to adjust the implementation approach as needed in response to evolving needs and priorities.

Near-term

Figure 5. Near-term Recommendations - Goals Supported
Recommendations Equitable Sustainable Efficient
1 Revise RPP program eligibility. ✓ ✓ ✓
2 Establish right-sized permit zones. ✓ ✓ ✓
3 Revise RPP petitioning and occupancy study guidelines. ✓ ✓ ✓ 4 Revise RPP permit policies. ✓ ✓ ✓
5 Consider permit-exempt time limits. ✓ ✓ ✓
6 Introduce permit fee and escalating rate structure. ✓ ✓ ✓ 7 Implement an automated permit management system (PMS). ✓ ✓ ✓ 8 Implement mobile license plate recognition (LPR) cameras. ✓ ✓ ✓ 9 Activate new permit parking zones. ✓ ✓ ✓
10 Consider future adjustments to enforcement staffing. ✓ ✓ ✓ 11 Enhance program branding and marketing. ✓ ✓ ✓
12 Develop permanent parklet and on-street dining policies. ✓ ✓ ✓

4 4
613

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 7
Recommendation 1: Revise RPP program eligibility.

The original intent of the RPP program was specifically to address the spillover parking impacts of the Pacific Amphitheater and Orange County Fairgrounds . Now, r ather than being exclusively about external parking demand, the permit program has been applied to try and solve the challenge of growing parking demand within residential areas that are experiencing an increase in housing and resident density. In an attempt to safeguard on-street parking availability, certain residents have been excluded from the program altogether , regardless of whether they rely upon public on-street parking. The current RPP program is not a realistic parking management solution, and it does not equitably meet the needs of the community as a whole.

Currently, only those households within R1 single- family residential districts or single -family households within 250 feet of permit streets are eligible for permits . Meanwhile, other residents within apartments and condominiums do not have the same opportunity to apply for and participate in an RPP program. A priority goal of this PAP is to align the RPP program with the 2016 California Attorney General’s opinion (#14-304) and develop an equitable solution that serves the needs of all Costa Mesa residents. The Attorney General’s opinion states, “In issuing long-term residential parking permits, local authorities may not distinguish among residents based on the type of dwelling in which they li ve”. Therefore, the City should no longer allow the program to be used to safeguard on-street parking exclusively for single-family neighborhoods.

Revise Eligibility
The data collection results revealed that on-street parking was frequently underutilized within most RPP zones.

These empty parking spaces are essentially removed from the overall parking supply available to nearby residents that live within multi -family developments. This exacerbates the issue of parking availabil ity, and it means that nearby residents must search longer and farther to find public parking. The goal is not to fill all on- street spaces, but to provide an opportunity to revise permit eligibility for residents of all housing types . The utilization of on-street parking should be optimized, while still maintaining sufficient on-street parking availability so that parking is convenient and easy to find for residents and their guests.

Clarify the Intent of the Program
It is recommended that the City clarify the intent of the RPP program to address the core root of the parking impacts the program was originally intended to solve. The City should only consider introducing RPP zones i n neighborhoods experiencing external parking demand (not from other local residents). The intent of the program should simply be to safeguard access for Costa Mesa residents and their guests. External parking demand includes impacts from commercial areas, neighboring cities, the Orange County Fairgrounds, schools, and recreational facilities.

In order to align with the California Attorney General’s opinion (#14-304), all City residents should be eligible to participate in the application process for new zones. This means all residential zoning districts (including R1, R2- MD, R2-HD, and R3) should be eligible for an RPP zone (assuming the other requirements for the application, petition, and evaluation are also met).

Recommendation 2: Establish right-sized permit zones.

Under the current program guidelines, the City evaluates RPP program applications on a street-by-street basis, or in segments with a minimum of 25 contiguous households. Rather than a piecemeal approach, the City should expand the minimum size requirement to leverage a neighborhood permit zone system that will avoid pushing the parking issues from one block to the next. This means that the City should only consider adding a new RPP zone with a collection of streets that amount to a “neighborhood permit zone”. Single blocks that are immediately adjacent to an existing RPP zone could still be added to the existing zone.

Surround the Problem Area
A larger minimum RPP zone size should be utilized to improve the effectiveness of the policies. Rather than establishing permit parking restrictions on an individual street or portions of streets, the City should only consider 614

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 8
implementing new restrictions to a collection of streets. The inclusion of multiple blocks will help avoid pushing parking congestion to adjacent streets by fully surrounding the most heavily impacted area. The goal should be to cover an entire neighborhood or subarea, including both single and multi-family homes, and generally provide residents parking opportunities within a reasonable walking distance.

Establish Size Requirements
When initiating a neighborhood petition for a new permit zone, residents should consult with City staff regarding the minimum number of streets or blocks to be included. In most cases, a minimum of 2,000 feet (both sides of the street included) rounded to the end of the next street should be considered to establish a new standalone RPP zone. This is approximately the length of four blocks. This approach aligns with the City’s existing Guidelines that state, “the creation of an isolated resident only permit parking “island” unrelated to surrounding land use or current parking conditions will not be allowed”.

This approach is recommended since smaller zones
likely do not provide enough coverage to effectively
address the parking impacts. This requirement would
not apply to applicants attempting to join an existing
neighboring permit zone.

Permit Zone Numbering
Currently, the City is divided into six permit “zones” that encompass the entire City, and most of these six permit “zones” have multiple disconnected clusters of RPP
streets (see Figure 6). Currently, a permit is valid on any RPP street within that entire zone.

To introduce the recommended neighborhood permit
zone approach, the City should adopt a new zone
numbering or lettering system to replace the six
oversized “zones”. Instead, the City should assign a
unique zone number or letter to each individual
neighborhood parking zone. The oversized “zones” that
encompass multiple clusters of permit streets currently allow permit holders to leverage RPP streets outside of their immediate neighborhood. Since the
recommendation is to only establish RPP zones in
areas experiencing external demand, this naturally
means some RPP zones will be conveniently located near commercial areas. To make sure that parking is safeguarded for those that reside adjacent to these commercial areas or destinations, the permits from other neighborhood permit zones should not be valid. Otherwise, this could result in excess parking demand in certain neighborhoods, which reduces the effectiveness of the RPP program.

Additionally, each neighborhood permit zone may have unique needs, so parking policies could differ between neighborhood permit zones. For example, operating hours could differ in zones that experience external parking demand primarily during the day versus in the evening. Therefore, each RPP zone should have a unique zone number or letter so the policies can be specifically applied on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis. This will allow permit holders to understand zone boundaries and associated rules, and it will allow the City to effectively enforce the program.

Recommendation 3: Revise RPP petitioning and occupancy study guidelines.

The City should continue to require a petition for new permit zones. In order to implement a new permit parking restriction, the current program requires a resident petition to be signed by 51 percent or more households in Figure 6. Current Permit Zone Map
615

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 9
support of implementing the restriction. The City should continue to utilize the 51 percent threshold as it is similar to the petitioning processes of nearby Southern California cities, as shown in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7. Petitioning Process Analysis

Clarify the Petition Rules for Multi-family Properties
In rental complexes, the residents, property managers, and property owners should all be allowed to participate in the petition survey. If the units in a multi -family property are individually owned, each owner would have the opportunity to vote.

Optimize Occupancy Studies
The petition is currently followed by a parking occupancy study to evaluate whether permit restrictions are needed. Rather than collecting the data manually, the City will have the opportunity to leverage the same parking management technology recommended for parking enforcement for data collection purposes ; License Plate Recognition (LPR) cameras are recommended for parking enforcement to optimize operations and conduct the evaluations (see recommendation #8). This technology will be a cost-effective option for data collection and will improve coverage and efficiency . Both the data collected during site assessment s, as well as during regular enforcement routes, can be used to monitor on-street parking occupancy of a proposed zone.

It is also important to consider when the occupancy studies are conducted. Currently , the occupancies studies are typically conducted between the hours of 10:00 pm and 2:00 am. These overnight hours may not capture the time periods when external parking demand is at its peak. Since it is recommended that new RPP zones only be established in response to external parking demand (see r ecommendation #1), the City should collect data during the heaviest impacted days and times. The use of LPR will provide historical data from regular enforcement coverage that can be leveraged, and it will be more efficient to collect samplings of data using LPR for the purpose of the occupancy studies.

The City should continue to require a parking occupancy threshold of 70 percent for evaluating whether to establish a new RPP zone. Once parking reaches 70 percent occupied within a neighborhood, it may become challenging for residents to find convenient on-street parking, which can justify the need for permit restrictions .

The 70 percent occupancy should be used as a measure to determine the appropriate boundaries and operating times for the new permit zone.

City Current Petitioning Process
Costa Mesa 51% sign petition; City survey; 70%+ on-street parking utilization Anaheim 51% sign petition; 75% vote yes per street segment - $500 fee Brea All households eligible
Fullerton 65% of residents; staff approval
Huntington Beach 20% of residents or 25 households; City approval Irvine Initiated by Director of Public Works or request by homeowner’s association + parking study
Lake Forest 67% of property owners; 30 or more single-family detached homes must be affected
Orange 75% sign petition; 75% occupation during City review - $2,500 fee
Placentia Undefined
Rancho Santa Margarita N/A
Santa Ana 66% of residential lots sign petition; director approval Seal Beach In areas designated by municipal code; primarily Old Town Stanton 51% sign petition; City survey; 75% or more supporting signatures - $660 fee
Tustin 60% or more
616

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 10
Currently, the occupancy studies consider each street on an individual basis. When establishing neighborhood permit zones with multiple blocks (see recommendation #2), not every street should be required to reach the 70 percent occupancy threshold individually to be included within the zone. Instead, the City should evaluate the collection of blocks to determine if the proposed boundaries are right-sized to address the impacts.

For a street to join an existing permit zone, the street should follow the exis ting process that evaluates the applicable street individually. The residents should continue to provide a petition with support from 51 percent of residents on that street, and an occupancy study should show that parking occupancy is over 70 percent.

Removing a Zone
In order to remove a residential parking restriction including those established with the revised RPP program , residents should continue to be required to follow the existing petitioning process and 51 percent of residents should support remov ing the restriction for it to be considered. No parking occupancy study is needed, but notification should be given to any surrounding permit zone residents. In deciding to remove permit parking from a single street, staff should carefully take into consideration the surrounding area and permit zone. A street where the majority of surrounding streets (50 percent or more) are included in the permit zone should not be considered for removal because of the spillover parking risk.

Evaluating Future Adjustments
A separate parking occupancy threshold should be established to evaluate future policy changes within RPP zones once they have already been established. The City can leverage the LPR data collected during regular parking enforcement (see recommendation #8) for ongoing monitoring of program effectiveness.

The parking industry standard for the target parking occupancy rate is 85 percent. At this rate, there are enough vacant parking spaces t o minimize congestion from drivers searching for spaces . The City should use the 85 percent rate as a high threshold for when to consider program adjustments in existing zones. If an established permit zone is found to regularly reach or exceed 85 percent occupancy, this could indicate the need for policy adjustments (see recommendation #13). For instance, the zone may benefit from a cap on the number of permits allowed per household or adjustments to the operating times.

Recommendation 4: Revise RPP permit policies.

In order to implement many of the following permit policy recommendations, the City will need to invest in new technology to manage the RPP program. It is recommended that the City procure a permit management system (PMS) as well as LPR systems (see recommendations #7 and #8). These systems will streamline the management and enforcement of the RPP program. Additionally, to ensure the program is financially sustainable, the City should implement a fee to purchase an annual resident parking permit (see recommendation #6) . These fees should aim to make the RPP program cost -neutral, covering only the administrative costs necessary for the City to efficiently manage and enforce the program.

Leverage Technology
The new RPP program should be designed to incentivize compliance and minimize exposure to potential permit abuse. Permits should continue to be non- transferable and strictly associated with the vehicle's license plate number. This will allow the City to leverage a PMS for online applications and transition to virtually managed permits, where the vehicle's license plate is the permit identifier. Since the City should begin charging for permits (recommendation #6), the City could consider allowing a permit to be transferred to a different vehicle only when a new vehicle is purchased and the vehicle sold had an active permit associated.

Prevent Oversized Vehicles
Oversized vehicles, as defined by the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, should not be eligible to receive parking permits through the RPP program because there are separate considerations related to roadway access with oversized vehicles. However, smaller commercial vehicles and work trucks would still be eligible for RPP permits, assuming they meet all other permit program requirements. Residents with oversized vehicles should be responsible for identifying alternate off -street storage locations, rather than rely on public street parking (see 617

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 11
recommendation #9). There could be an opportunity to leverage certain privately owned surface lots for oversize vehicle parking through shared parking agreements (see recommendation #15).

Redefine Permit Allocations
The City should limit permits to one permit per eligible resident. Each resident should be required to provide their driver’s license number when applying for their permit, so the City can ensure that each driver receives only one permit. With the growing number of people living in each household, there are more vehicles needed to support those additional residents. Although the City has made great efforts to enhance access to active transportation and encourage less reliance on personal vehicles., many Costa Mesa residents continue to be reliant on their cars to get to and from work, childcare, and other essential needs. Residents who need to live with multiple roommates or in multi-generational households, should not be penalized for doing so. This being said, the City still needs to manage on- street parking demand. Limiting permits to one per eligible resident simultaneously reduces excess parking demand and provides an equitable solution for residents who are not able to give up their vehicles.

Similar driver’s license requirements are in place in the City of Cerritos and the City of San Mateo. San Mateo requires a current D epartment of Motor Vehicles (DMV) driver’s license for each resident requesting a permit.

The Cerritos permit program requires that residents use all the parking available on their property prior to applying for an on-street permit. The household can then receive one additional permit for each resident with a driver’s license. The address listed on a driver’s license and vehicle registration must match the residential address listed on the annual parking permit application.

This type of approach is an opportunity for the City to better manage on- street parking demand. This also addresses the “my neighbor has too many cars” concern, a commonly expressed theme from the community meetings and the online survey. Because a person can only physically drive one vehicle at a time, this program strategy only limits residents who choose to own extra vehicles. These residents would not be eligible for additional permits and therefore would be incentivized to use any on- site parking available to them rather than rely on public on-street parking for storing their extra vehicle(s).

Re-evaluate Permit Maximums
By limiting permits to one permit per eligible resident, the City can consider removing the three permit s per household maximum that is currently in place. Once permits are limited to one per eligible driver, the number of permits per household will already be limited to how many drivers are living in the household. This will align permit allocations with the actual need, rather than a one- size-fits-all maximum, and ensure permits are only used by those who need a permit for their vehicle. Additionally, implementing a permit fee and the recommended escalating rate model (see recommendation #6) will encourage larger households to utilize any parking available to them off-street. The permit fee and escalating rate model can be increased if needed to encourage the use of off-street parking.

As mentioned in recommendation #3, the City should use the 85 percent rate as a high threshold for when to consider program adjustments. If the permit maximum is rem oved, but on-street occupancy is found to remain high in a permit zone , a per household maximum may ultimately be needed in order to safeguard on- street availability. Before doing so, it would be helpful to identify alternative off -street parking and alter native transportation options to address the needs of households with more drivers than the permit maximum.

Encourage Cooperation
The City should consider requiring residents to sign “good neighbor policies” when applying for a parking permit.

These good neighbor policies could help guide neighborhood ethos, promote friendly and cooperative interactions, and soothe residential “parking wars”. For example, the City of Anaheim has “good neighbor policies” that include:
• “Off-street, on-site parking supply shall be used efficiently for parking. Examples of non- efficient use include not utilizing garage space(s) and driveways for parking.” • “Permit parkers shall be considerate of noise and comply with applicable city noise ordinances.” 618

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 12
• “Permit parkers shall not move solid waste containers in a manner that precludes collection of solid waste, obstructs driveways or other rights of way, or otherwise interferes with vehicular traffic in order to park on a street or portion thereof designated as permit parking only.”

Residents can be required to acknowledge these policies when applying for a permit. While these policies are difficult to enforce, they provide a valuable opportunity to remind residents that public streets are to be used by all residents and encourage them to be courteous and mindful of nearby residents. If a permit holder is found to violate these policies, they can lose the privilege to participate in the RPP program.

Criteria-specific Hours of Operation
The existing permit parking restriction is uniformly applied 24 hours daily. For neighborhoods impacted by external parking demand, such as schools, entertainment venues, or shopping centers, parking may only be impacted during certain times of day and days of the week . With a neighborhood zone-based system, the City could consider the benefit of focusing restricted operating times based upon demand and occupancy peaks in neighborhoods impacted by external demand. One location to consider is the area surrounding the Orange County Fair & Event Center , as this permit zone is focused specifically on mitigating event parking demand.

Since events do not occur consistently year-round, it does not necessarily make sense to apply the permit parking restriction year-round. There are other parking demand generators that only occur during certain periods.

For example, if one neighborhood sees an increase in daytime parking from a nearby high school, permit operating hours could be during school hours only such as Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 3:00 pm.

These adjustments should be considered on a case -by-case basis in neighborhoods impacted by external demand. The City should be careful to not introduce a complicated range of operating times and policies that become difficult to communicate or enforce. If introduced, this strategy would need to be combined with focused enforcement. If a permit parking restriction is limited to a specific time period, the City would need to allocate staffing resources to enforce the RPP program specifically during that period.

Recommendation 5: Consider permit-exempt time limits.

The City could consider implementing permit-exempt time- limited parking on specific blocks immediately between residential and commercial areas to provide a buffer between the commercial area and the residential neighborhood. The use of a 1 or 2 -hour time limit will discourage employees from storing their vehicles all day on-street, while still allowing for short visits by guests of residents and patrons of the businesses. A 1 or 2-hour time limit should be considered in these scenarios. Any longer than 2 hours can be difficult to enforce and may lead to employees shuffling or moving their cars during their breaks.

Evaluate Alternatives
Before introducing a time limit or a n RPP restriction in a neighborhood bordering a commercial area, it is important to evaluate whether there are other reasonable alternative parking and mobility options for employees.

The key is identifying a balanced approach that will support the needs of all users.

Define the Policies
As mentioned, this strategy would exempt permit holders from the time limits. A permit-exempt time limit allows residents and guests with a valid permit to park on the street longer than the posted time limit. Others may park on these streets without a permit as long as they obey the posted time limit. The time limit helps create turnover so that parking remains easy to find. These time limit exemption permits should follow the same administrative policies as the RPP program. This includes rules for assigning permits, guest passes, and permit fees.

Allocate Enforcement
The implementation of a time limit would require an allocation of parking enforcement resources in order to be effective. The City should ensure daily, reoccurring patrols of the area (minimally two to four times daily) in order to encourage compliance with the time limit. The procurement of LPR cameras (see recommendation #8) would allow the City to efficiently enforce time limits by leveraging “digital chalking” features. Additionally, digital parking 619

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 13
“zones” can be configured within the LPR system to alert the officer if a vehicle has been parked beyond the limit.

Recommendation 6: Introduce a permit fee and escalating rate structure.

Define the Fees
Currently, the City of Costa Mesa does not recover any of the costs associated with parking permits. In order for the program to become financially sustainable, and for the City to make investments in modernizing the program, there should be a cost associated with the permits . The City should implement a fee to purchase an annual resident parking permit, with the goal of making the program cost -neutral. It is recommended that the City introduce an escalating permit rate structure starting at $25.00 annually for the first permit. For households with multiple drivers, additional permits should be offered at a higher premium rate (see figure 8 below). This rate structure is similar to the rates in neighboring Southern California cities, as shown in the P ermit Rate Analysis (figure 9) range from $10.00 to over $70.00.

Figure 8. Recommended Escalating Rate Model

In order to ensure that permits remain affordable, the City should offer a discounted rate to qualifying low-income residents. This option should be available in conjunction with the recommended increase in permit fees . This program should be aligned with any other low -income qualifying programs the City provides. For ins tance, if there are low-income recreation program fee waivers, the City can piggyback off of those program guidelines, or use the same criteria as used for customers who wish to enter into a citation payment plan for low -income persons per CVC Section 40220.

Encourage Off-street Parking
A permit fee will incentivize residents to first use the parking that is available on their property (if they have the option), before opting to purchase a parking permit. As mentioned, the escalating rate structure, combined with the one permit per eligible driver restriction, would allow the City to replace the three permit -per-household maximum. Instead, the premium rate for extra permits could discourage households from excessively purchasing permits. This way, households who need additional permits will have the flexibility to purchase additional permits as needed, but they will have to pay a premium. Additionally, the permit fee and escalating rate model can be increased if needed based on demand (see recommendation #3).

Fees should be reviewed annually to determine whether the City’s costs are being recovered and whether the cost structure is effective at discouraging excessive permits. The City could opt to adjust the fees each year based on the local CPI, but the first two factors also must be considered. The City must also consider the cost of providing ongoing enforcement to provide enough consistency and coverage to encourage compliance.

Permit 1:
$25
Permit 2:
$50
Permit 3:
$75
Permit 4:
$100
Permit 1:

Free
Permit 2:

Free
Permit 3:
$25
Permit 4:
$50
Parking Permit
Low Income Parking Permit
620

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 14

Figure 9. Permit Rate Analysis
City # of Permits per
Household
Resident Parking
Permit Cost
# of Guest Permits
and Cost
Costa Mesa 3 Free 100 per year
Free
Anaheim
Based on bedroom
count; 0-2= 1 permit; 3-
4= 2; 5+= 3
$30
100 per household per
year
$1 per permit
Brea Single family= 2; Multi-
family= 1
$25 in person; $19
online
14 days per vehicle
Free
Fullerton 5 $10 admin fee + $2 per
permit
$2 per permit (included
in the 5 per household)
Huntington Beach 4 $24 first; $10 for
additional permits
2 per unit
Included with residential
permit
Irvine 3 $25 2 per household
$10 per permit
Lake Forest
1 per registered vehicle
for area A; 2-3 for areas
B & C, regardless of the
number of vehicles
$20
1 per night - no limit is
indicated
Free
Orange 5 for single-family; 2 for
duplex $30
5 for single-family or 4
for duplexes including
both RPP and guest
permits for single-family
$30 per permit
Placentia 5 $10 5 per household
$10 per permit
Rancho Santa
Margarita
Based on # of vehicles
registered to address $30 5 per household
$30 per permit
Santa Ana 3 for single family; 1 for
multi-family $72.29 undefined
Seal Beach Based on # of vehicles
registered to address $20 2 per household
$30 per permit
Stanton 3 $25 100 per year
Free
Tustin
In some areas 1 with no
restriction; in most
areas permits require
that on-site parking is
fully utilized
$50 150 per year
Free

Consider Guest Permits
At this point, it is not recommended the City charge for guest permits. The 100 single-day guest passes that are available to each eligible household is just limited enough to prevent abuse. This limit is similar to the City of Anaheim (100 permits annually) and the City of Tustin (150 guest permits annually). However, the City could consider charging a small fee per guest permit to assist with cost recovery for the administration of the program.

As found in the Comparable Cities Rate Analysis, the City of Anaheim charges $1.00 per permit.

Alternatively, some cities provide annual guest permits that can be reused for multiple guests, rather than single- day passes (see recommendation #7 for an evaluation of this option) . If the City were to transition to annual 621

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 15
guest permits, the City should charg e the same annual fee and utilize the es calating rate structure for guest permits as they do annual permits. Otherwise, residents would likely try to abuse the system by utilizing their free guest permit rather than the annual permit.

Recommendation 7: Implement an automated permit management system (PMS).

Automate Permit Management
For efficiency, the City should implement a parking-specific automated permit management system (PMS). The PMS must be integrated with the City’s citation management system (CMS) (see recommendation #11) and the selected LPR cameras (see recommendation #8). In order for the program to remain financially sustainable, the PMS should be implemented in coordination with the introduction of a permit fee (recommendation #6).

In the Residential Parking Survey conducted in the Spring of 2021, 60 percent of non-permit street respondents and 71 percent of permit street respondents support modernizing the program. A parking PMS and online portal will allow residents to self -manage and create an account, log in, apply for a permit, upload supporting documentation, purchase, add/change/remove vehicles, make edits to contact information, etc. The City will have the ability to review pending applications, review supporting documentation, approve/deny applications, send notifications and alerts, run reports, etc. The PMS will automate the annual renewal process, by sending notices, having customers log in, make updates to vehicles, reconfirm residency, and collect payments.

Minimize Permit Abuse
The City should be mindful when selecting a PMS provider to confirm their ability to support virtually managed permits and visitor permits without subjecting the permit program to potential abuse. Currently, the City provides each household with 100 free guest permits to be used at the permit holder’s discretion annually. With an automated permit management system, there are typically several opportunities for managing guest permits.

An analysis of potential options is provided below, however, these options should be re- evaluated during the vendor selection process. If the City were to pursue the annual guest permit approach, it is recommended that the City charge the same annual fee for visitor permits as they do annual permits. If the City were to charge less for annual visitor permits, many would likely try to abuse the system by getting the lower-cost visitor permit rather than the annual permit. Regardless of the City’s preferred option, the guest passes should be managed with the PMS and set up to be transitioned to virtual guest permits that can be easily enforced with mobile license plate recognition (LPR) cameras (see recommendation #8).

In rare circumstances, some residents may not be able to use the automated permit portal to manage visitor permits if they are unable to access the internet. In these exceptional situations, to accommodate those residents, but mitigate abuse, those customers could be offered the physical visitor permit hangtag for a fee that will recover the costs of processing, fulfillment, and manual enforcement. However, it is important to acknowledge that this exception will make parking enforcement more challenging since the permits will not be associated with a license plate number. Therefore, the LPR system will not recognize that the vehicle has a valid permit, and the officer will be required to double-check whether the physical permit is displayed on every vehicle that is potentially in violation. Due to this inefficiency, this blended approach with physical and virtual permits is discouraged except in rare circumstances.

Figure 10. Guest Permit Configuration Strategies
Strategy Analysis Recommendation

Annual Guest
Permits
Households could continue to be provided a pre -defined number of visitor permits in the online portal that are continuously valid. Residents could then self -manage the visitor permit by inputting the license plate of their visitor as often as needed. Annua l visitor permits are beneficial for residents that have a re -occurring visitor like yard workers,

Re-evaluate during
vendor selection.
622

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 16

Recommendation 8: Implement mobile license plate recognition (LPR) cameras.

Optimize Operations
The City should invest in modernizing the program and acquire mobile license plate recognition (LPR) cameras for the use of parking enforcement and ongoing data collection. This will enhance enforcement efficiency and allow the implementation of virtual parking permits (s ee recommendation #9). LPR technology is an important parking management tool that improves enforcement efficiency and coverage. The City should evaluate the opportunity to leverage the existing LPR cameras that are already owned by the Costa Mesa Police D epartment. Currently, the Police Department’s LPR cameras are being used to identify stolen vehicles. These LPR cameras could potentially be reallocated to the Police Department’s parking enforcement vehicles, where they would serve a dual purpose . If the LPR cameras are installed on parking enforcement vehicles, the parking control officers can enforce permit parking, time-limited parking, and continue to identify stolen vehicles using the LPR system.

Transition to Virtual Permits
Using LPR as a parking management tool means that manual enforcement processes will be automated. Instead of verifying that each vehicle has a physical permit displayed, that the permit number is tied to the correct license plate number, and that the date is valid, the LPR syste m can automate the process by using the license plate number as the permit number and verifying permit status using a database with real-time information. The PMS (see recommendation #7) and LPR camera systems eliminate the need for physical hangtag or decal permits. A transition to virtual permits is contingent on the City acquiring mobile LPR cameras for parking enforcement.

The transition to virtual permits should take place once the LPR has been installed and the PMS system has been established. It is recommended that the City completely transition to virtual permits during an upcoming permit renewal cycle. This will avoid a “hybrid” program with physical and virtual permits that is challenging to enforce, as mentioned earlier . It is a best practice to begin messaging a major program change, like virtual permits, at least two months prior to implementation.

Increase Efficiency
childcare, caretakers, or family members that may make
frequent visits.

The City should continue to limit the number of visitor permits per household, like the current three visitor permits per eligible address, or alternatively, one per resident permit purchased.

However, if a household does not need a resident permit, they should still be eligible for an annual visitor permit.

Limited Guest
Passes
The City could limit the number of single -day visitor passes each household has available. The resident could self - manage their visitor pass allotment by inputting the license plate of their visitor and a visitor parking session as often as needed. Single-day passes would allow the City to track how frequently a vehicle is using visitor passes, which can help identify abuse.

For example, the City could provide 100- 200 visitor passes per household, which are each valid fo r a 24 -hour parking session.

Re-evaluate during
vendor selection.

Figure 11. Mobile LPR Camera
623

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 17
Beyond permit management, LPR cameras can provide additional enforcement efficiencies. An LPR system can be leveraged for multiple purposes simultaneously, including enforcement of permit zones, time zones, the 72- hour rule, abandoned vehicle abatement, scofflaw detection, and wanted vehicle detection. This will enhance enforcement efficiency and support the implementation of virtual parking permits and other plate-based solutions.

Ultimately, the City’s goal should be to equip all vehicles used for compliance activities with LPR to optimize operations. However, based on the City’s current inventory of vehicles used for parking compliance, it is recommended that a minimum of two vehicles be allocated as a reasonable starting point. In the future, as new vehicles are added to the fleet for parking enforcement, they should be delivered with LPR equipment already installed, so that eventually most of the fleet can perform compliance activities and gather data. This is similar to the way vehicles delivered for police patrol already have lights, sirens, radios, and other equipment installed— vehicles delivered for parking compliance should already have LPR installed.

Define Data Policies
Prior to utilizing LPR for parking enforcement, t he City should confirm that the Surveillance Use Policy allows LPR to be used for both parking enforcement and ongoing data collection, and update it as needed. Similarly, the municipal codes may need to be updated to allow for the use of virtual permits. The LPR system will support ongoing data collection and program evaluation (see recommendations #13) by continually collecting plate and location data for various restriction programs. Additionally, the data will also support Gap Management (see recommendation #12), which allows management staff to measure parking control officer productivity.

Recommendation 9: Activate new permit parking zones.

Before initiating enforcement of a new residenti al permit parking zone, the City should consider a policy requirement that permit zone restrictions are only active upon the installation of signs and 50 percent or more of households have purchased permits. Warning notices should then be leveraged for first -time violations within the first three months of implem entation. The City should continue to follow the three-step industry best practice: 1. Educate; 2. Warn; 3.

Enforce.

Enhance Outreach
The City should communicate the new restrictions by posting signs, informing residents by email and/or postcard, and updating the City website and parking landing page (see recommendation #11). In addition to warning notices, the City could also issue informational program flyers to further assist with the outreach and educational process.

Recommendation 10: Consider future adjustments to enforcement staffing.

Parking enforcement was a common concern of residents in the community meetings and the online survey.

Residents expressed a desire for increased residential parking enforcement coverage including abandoned vehicle abatement, permit parking restrictions, and street sweeping restrictions. In order to increase customer service and to be responsive to these concerns, the City should consider the staffing requirements necessary to effectively monitor parking in residential areas and promote compliance. Parking programs and restrictions are only effective if they are followed. In order to encourage compliance, consistent parking enforcement is critical.

As recommendations are implemented, the City should monitor the effectiveness of parking enforcement staffing levels and consider allocating additional staff.

Gap Management
Parking control officer productivity is not, and should never be, based upon a quota or the number of citations issued. Consistent enforcement in some cases will reduce the frequency of citations issued over time due to an increase in compliance. Instead, productivity should be measured and monitored using Gap Management strategies. Gap Management is the process of analyzing citation issuance trends, identifying gaps in issuance, 624

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 18
and accounting for all time spent in the field. LPR and citation issuance handheld devices also provi de GPS location data which should be monitored to confirm coverage and assigned routes or zones.

Recommendation 11: Enhance program branding and marketing.

Centralize Information
The City should leverage the recently created Transportation Services’ “Parking” webpage as a landing page that functions as a one-stop-shop for all things parking in Costa Mesa. This landing page should be an information hub for parking that includes links to the site to purchase permits, pay for parking citations, and any other parking actions necessary to support the City’s parking programs.

The webpage should include a summary of frequently asked questions (FA Qs) relating to parking, policies, procedures, and other information that is often discussed , and a “news” section of the page where the most recent changes are summarized. An employee or a team should review the webpage and destination links regularly, such as twice annually, to ensure the information remains up -to-date and reflects any recent changes in policies, ordinances, or fees. Additionally, the City should consider developing a parking and mobility brand. A brand can maximize ongoing exposure and familiarity with the City’s parking programs, and there is an opportunity to incorporate the brand along with a website landing page. The parking brand should be designed to help to make parking easy, convenient, and accessible. For example, the ParkSL website for San Leandro, CA is pictured in Figure 12.

Communicate Processes
Additionally, the City should develop a visual representation of the process new permit zones petitions will need to go through prior to being implemented. As shown in Figure 13, the City of Anaheim utilizes a simple flowchart graphic to the required steps to implement a new permit zone. Whenever possible, the policies, guidelines, and rules for the RPP program should be represented graphicall y, and communicated clearly and concisely. Any materials, documentation, or graphics created should be produced in both English and Spanish.

Recommendation 12: Develop permanent parklet and on-street dining policies.

Parklets are an opportunity to rethink how curb space is utilized within Costa Mesa. These types of uses can help activate and liven commercial areas and improve the visitor experience. Opportunities for pedestrian zones can be a tremendous benefit and draw for the community, but it is important to consider parking and commercial loading impacts.

In June of 2020 the Costa Mesa City Council unanimously passed an urgency ordinance to help local restaurants adapt to the current circumstances by allowing:
• Expansions into existing outdoor space on private property • Expansion into private parking lots
• Expansions into wide sidewalks
• Expansions into on-street parking (“parklets”)
• Expansions into closed-off lanes of traffic

Implement Best Practices
Even after the pandemic, parklets can be an opportunity to improve commercial area vibrancy by activating outdoor spaces. While they do displace on-street parking supply, this trade-off may be a worthwhile consideration depending on community feedback and the success of other parking management strategies.

Figure 12. ParkSL Brand
Figure 13. City of Anaheim
Permit Flowchart
625

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 19
The City should proactively implement curb management best practices and accommodate all users.

Traditionally, the City’s curb space has primarily been allocat ed for the purpose of on -street public parking.

However, as mobility trends are ever -changing, the City should work to convert valuable curb space for other uses, where appropriate, and assess creative uses to support the commercial areas. The City should evaluate the Temporary Use Permit fee for outdoor dining in the public right-of-way, taking into consideration the value of the parking space. The City should consider an ongoing fee for the permit, and the frequency of reapplication.

626

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 20
Mid-term

Figure 14. Mid-term Recommendations - Goals Supported
Recommendations Equitable Adaptable Efficient
13 Ongoing data collection and program evaluation. ✓ ✓ ✓ 14 Evaluate street sweeping routes. ✓ ✓ ✓
15 Pursue shared parking agreements. ✓ ✓ ✓
16 Promote and enhance mode alternatives. ✓ ✓ ✓

Recommendation 13: Ongoing data collection and program evaluation.

Evaluate Programs and Policies
As recommendations are implemented, and new policies are put into place, the City should continuously evaluate the effectiveness of the permit program and policies. Ongoing data collection and evaluation will be essential to ensuring the program adapts to best fit the needs of the community. Rather than reacting to perceptions, parking demand management strategies are most effective when changes are made incrementally based on data.

Primarily, the City should evaluate if the RPP program hours of operation should be adjusted. If occupancy is only over the 70 percent threshold in the overnight or evening hours, it is likely a 24- hour program is not necessary. The City should evaluate the effectiveness of the RPP program to manage parking demand, and determine if program adjustments are needed.

Leverage Technology
The City should leverage the data collected by mobile LPR cameras (see recommendation #8) for ongoing monitoring of program effectiveness. Data can illustrate the need to add, expand, condense, or eliminate a permit zone, or add, revise, or remove other restrictions. As mentioned earlier, the City should use the parking industry- standard target occupancy rate, 85 percent, as a threshold for when to consider program adjustments.

With an LPR system continually collecting data, over time, an occupancy history for each block in a permit zone will be accumulated. Analytics on the data will give staff a clearer picture of the actual utilization of on -street parking, which may not reflect perception. Staff can determine if the restrictions are supported by the current parking utilization and should consider whether the block continues to need the current permit restrictions, or if the restrictions can be adjusted or eliminated.

Recommendation 14: Evaluate street sweeping routes.

While all residential streets are periodically swept, the City has not posted all residential streets for street sweeping. Signs stating “no parking” during designated hours have been installed on an as-needed basis, or by resident complaints. When a resident reaches out to the City about street sweeping, the City investigates whether or not a significant portion of the street is not being swept due to too many vehicles being parked on-street. The City looks to see if less than 50 percent of the street is regularly being swept. If the City finds that the sweeper is having to go around vehicles for more than 50 percent of the street, then signage is considered. A common concern from residents during the community workshop and online survey was that when street sweeping restrictions are installed on just one street, the parki ng demand “spills over” and is pushed to nearby streets without a restriction. Rather than chasing the problem, or waiting for residents to come to the City with concern, the City should consider expanding street sweeping restrictions by posting signs at t he entrance to a neighborhood.
627

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 21
The City should proactively address street sweeping postings and routes citywide, and develop a coordinated street sweeping plan. The City should carefully consider where residents are allowed to park during street sweeping and aim to have half the on- street parking available in a neighborhood during the street sweeping period. The City should evaluate the ability to sweep only one side of the street per day, or alternatively north/south streets in a neighborhood on one day, and east/west streets on another. While these options could be more expensive operationally, they would provide needed relief to residents who rely on on-street parking.

Recommendation 15: Pursue shared parking agreements.

Leverage Existing Supply
A shared parking agreement between the City and a private or quasi -public property owner could provide additional parking opportunities by leveraging the existing parking supply. Benefits of shared parking include:
• Sharing parking is more cost-effective than acquiring or building off-street parking locations; • Can provide convenient parking options for evening and overnight parking in neighborhoods where on- street parking demand exceeds supply;
• Can provide appropriate employee parking in commercial areas to help discourage spillover into residential areas;
• Optimizes the use of existing supply; and,
• Avoids overabundance of parking or land space that could otherwise be optimized for better uses. • Typically, a shared parking agreement is meant to be mutually beneficial by leveraging the parking supply during times when it is typically underutilized. This can provide another revenue stream for the property owner.

Since shared parking agreements are usually only favorable to property owners when cost-neutral or profitable, the shared parking approach should be considered in conjunction with efforts to implement the permit fee and escalating rate structure (see recommendation #6 ). Shared parking agreements should be designed to safeguard the property owner while providing an opportunity for additional revenue through a negotiated revenue share between the City and the property owner. Municipal code changes may be required to allow the implementation of shared parking agreements.

At a minimum, a shared parking agreement typically considers the following:
• Term and extension: Evaluate the return on investment and ensure that the contract terms allow for potential redevelopment in the future if needed;
• Use of Facilities: Establishes available hours, number of spaces (and which subset, if applicable), time limitations and ensures that the base user will retain use at the end of the sharing period; • Maintenance: Evaluates and incorporates the added maintenance and operation costs; • Lease costs: Cost of the lease and any negotiated revenue shares; • Operations: Considers revenue collection operations as applicable and needed signage; • Utilities and Taxes: Determines the responsible parties and any cost-sharing agreements; • Signage: Considers opportunities for consistency with signage and branding; • Enforcement and Security: Determines who will handle enforcement and towing; • Insurance and Indemnification: Considers litigation with any cost-sharing; and • Termination: Identifies the grounds for termination or cancellation.

Shared parking agreements are a priority for the City, as they would provide immediate relief for neighborhoods where parking demand exceeds supply. An evaluation of potential priority shared parking areas was conducted.

Figure 15 and Figure 16 below identify the neighborhoods that would benefit from shared parking opportunities, due to their high weekday evening and overnight parking occupancy, as identified in the on-street data collection effort. While shared parking agreements should be pursued in additional neighborhoods, these locations were selected based on the need identified in the operational needs assessment, data collection effort, site visits, and expressed need from residents in the community workshops and online survey.

628

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 22
Figure 15. Shared Parking Area Evaluation.

Area Shared Parking Space Inventory
within 500ft (estimated) Site types
1 300-350 spaces School; Church;
Commercial; Public/City
2 250-300 spaces School; Church
3 250-300 spaces Church; Commercial
4 300-350 spaces School; Public
5 100-200 Church
6 50 School

Figure 16. Shared Parking Evaluation Map.

Recommendation 16: Promote and enhance mode alternatives.

While residential vehicle parking is the primary focus of this report, it is also important to acknowledge how encouraging the use of alternative modes is better for the environment and reduces roadway congestion. For those that are capable, walking should be encouraged. It is a healthy, convenient option that can be further enhanced with some improvements.

The City is focused on enhancing active transportation options by improving bicycle and pedestrian accessibility and connectivity throughout the City. Recently, the City completed over 7 miles of improved bike lanes, and 21 bike racks were installed in 2021. Construction of the Merrimac Way Active Transportation Improvements is 629

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 23
complete, which includes the City’s first cycle tracks. Additionally, over $2 million was approved by City Council for Active Transportation projects for the fiscal year 2021-2022.

Mitigate Parking Demand
Promotion of alternative transportation modes can help residents understand the options available other than driving alone. E ncouraging residents to utilize other modes of transportation can relieve some commercial parking pressure, as well as help reduce overall roadway congestion.

Enhance Pedestrian Safety
The City should evaluate ways to improve walkability and enhance pedestrian infrastructure. Improvements are most important in areas where walking is a viable option to access goods and services. Locations within a reasonable distance to destinations such as transit stops, schools, libraries, hospitals, medical clinics, community centers, commercial areas, and public parks should be prioritized. In order to improve safety, the City should evaluate the current level of residential street lighting, and improve visibility as needed, particularly in high - density areas where parking demand and occupancy rates are high.

The City should consider sidewalk enhancements and the feasibly of adding new sidewalks in neighborhoods that have missing segments. Improvements to street lighting and sidewalks would benefit residents who rely on street parking that have to walk a few blocks to and from their vehicles.

To maximize on-street parking supply the City should consider residential parking design elements that make efficient use of the existing right-of-way. In high-density areas where parking demand and occupancy rates are high, the City should consider marking spaces on-street. This can help prevent vehicles from parking improperly, saving spaces, and blocking driveways. Additionally, the City should c onsider implementing angled parking in any areas where street width and design allows.

630

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 24
Long-term

Figure 17. Long-term Recommendations - Goals Supported
Recommendations Equitable Sustainable Efficient
17 Consider a fee for RPP program applications. ✓ ✓ ✓
18 Evaluate minimum parking requirements. ✓ ✓ ✓
19 Evaluate pilot opportunities to reduce vehicle ownership. ✓ ✓ ✓

Recommendation 17: Consider a fee for RPP program applications.

The City should consider introducing a fee associated with the petition submitted by residents for the installation of a new RPP zone. This is a common practice in neighboring cities like Anaheim, Stanton, and Orange, which charge $500, $660, and $2,500 (respectively). This fee should be associated with the cost recovery from staff time needed to process a new permit parking restriction petition from residents.

Define the Fee
In order to assure the program is accessible to all neighborhoods, the fee should be kept reasonable in order to not prohibit access. The fee can be further mitigated by using automated tools for the process. $500 should be considered as an introductory fee range, but further staff time and cost recovery analysis should be conducted in order to determine the most appropriate starting fee. Alternatively, the fee could be based on the number of households in the proposed permit zone, such as $5 per residence.

Recommendation 18: Evaluate minimum parking requirements.

The City’s Development Code defines minimum parking requirements for various types of developments and land uses. Based on a comparative review, the current requirements are similar to those in the nearby cities of Anaheim, Orange, Downey, and Norwalk.

While some cities are choosing to reduce or waive parking requirements to lower the cost of development, this approach is most successful when combined with other strategies or programs that increase access by alternative modes of transportation. This is because waiving parking requirements does not necessarily mean that the reliance on cars will be reduced. In Southern California, car dependency and personal vehicle ownership has only increased since the beginning of the pandemic.

Make Data-driven Decisions
Unless there are adequate alternatives, such as walking, biking, and transit throughout the region, reducing the requirements can impact public parking availability and cause spillover parking challenges. Therefore, it is recommended that the City wait to consider any adjustments to these requirements until LPR can be leveraged for ongoing parking data analysis. For example, this will allow the City to conduct periodic studies around proposed development sites to evaluate and project parking demand. If certain areas of the City are found to be frequently underutilized (less than 85 percent occupied), then this could justify reducing on -site parking requirements.

Recommendation 19: Evaluate pilot opportunities to reduce vehicle ownership.

631

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 25
Evaluate Opportunities
New technologies may allow the City to encourage residents to own fewer vehicles. As these technologies are developed, the City should evaluate pilot opportunities with the technology providers, like car-share companies and micro-transit services.

Encourage Car-sharing
The City could consider requiring new multi -family housing developments to provide a certain number of car - share vehicles on -site, which may provide the opportunity for residents to not own a vehicle. For instance, a family may be more confident not owning a vehicle or only owning one vehicle if they know vehicles are available in their complex for unexpected needs.

A car-share pilot program could reduce the rate of individual car ownership per household, the average number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per household, and the total amount of automobile- generated pollution per household. Studies by the University of California, Berkeley, suggest that 9 to 13 personal vehicles are removed from the road for each car-sharing vehicle.

6 632

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 26
Comprehensive Implementation Guide

This section provides an overview of the recommended phased RPP zone renewal approach, followed by the detailed implementation steps for the recommendations in estimated near-term (1-2 years), mid-term (3-5 years), and long -term (6+ years) timeframes. Actual timing will be dependent on City Council prioritization, funding availability, staff and consultant resources, and the ongoing evaluation of initial implementation steps.

RPP Zone Renewal
The RPP program has been paused for further evaluation and to allow for the preparation of this Residential Parking Action Plan. For the duration of this project, enforcement of t he existing RPP zones has been paused.

Due to the transformative changes proposed, it is recommended that all existing permit zones be required to go through renewal. This will allow the City to ensure that the zones meet the new RPP program goals. Additionally, the renewal process will provide the opportunity for the 2,152 homes in exi sting RPP zones to decide if they would like to continue to participate in the program under the revised guidelines.

Prior to initiating the permit zone renewal phases, the City needs to complete the following steps to update the RPP program:
• Adopt the RPP zone policies and the permit fee rate structure. • Procure and launch an automated permit management system (PMS). • Develop an extensive public outreach and education campaign to communicate the renewal process.

The steps required to implement these minimum steps are outlined in the near -term implementation checklist (Figure 21) and additional explanation can be found in the individual recommendation sections.

All existing RPP permit zones should be re- evaluated
and renewed in the phases outlined below. Figures 18 &
19 show the existing streets that will be evaluated in each renewal phase. The renewal process for the existing
RPP zones will depend on 1) the source of the parking
impacts and 2) the size of the RPP zone. The renewal
process may require action from residents, depending on these two factors.

Figure 19. Existing RPP Zone Impacts
Existing RPP Zones
Zone Impacts
Number of RPP
Streets
(approximate)
Renewal
Phase
External Impacts 60-70 streets Phase 1
Without External
Factors 50-60 streets Phase 2
5 Figure 18. Existing RPP Zone Impacts Map
633

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 27

Existing RPP zones will not be enforced until 1) the zone is renewed, 2) residents have been notified of the renewal, and 3) 50% of eligible households receive a permit under the new permit guidelines. Regardless of the phase a zone is renewed in, all RPP zone residents will be required to meet the new eligible driver criteria and permits will be subject to the permit fee rate structure.

Near-term Implementation Steps

Near-term Recommendations
1 Revise RPP program eligibility. 1
2 Establish right-sized permit zones.
3 Revise RPP petitioning and occupancy study guidelines. 4 Revise RPP permit policies.
5 Consider permit-exempt time limits.
6 Introduce a permit fee and escalating rate structure. 7 Implement an automated permit management system (PMS). 8 Implement mobile license plate recognition (LPR) cameras. 9 Activate new permit parking zones.
10 Consider future adjustments to enforcement staffing. 11 Enhance program branding and marketing.
12 Develop permanent parklet and on-street dining policies. 1 Many of the near -term recommendations involve adjustments to the RPP program permit zones and administrative policies. The new policies should be implemented all at once, along with many of the recommended program adjustments.

Renewal Phase 1: (Estimated timeframe 1-3 months after Near-Term Implementation) Existing RPP zones with external parking impacts and commercial parking impacts will be renewed with new permit guidelines. External impacts include:
• Impacts from neighboring cities (Newport Beach, Santa Ana, and Huntington Beach). • Orange County Fairgrounds.
• Commercial parking demand.
• Schools and recreation facilities
Renewal Phase 2: (Estimated timeframe 6-12 months after Near-Term Implementation) Existing RPP zones with only residential parking demand (without external impacts) will be evaluated for renewal based on the following criteria:
• Zones must confirm their interest in participating in the RPP program by providing a petition signed by 51% of residents.
• Existing zones will be required to re-apply for the RPP zone, and will be re-evaluated under the new permit zone guidelines. The City will contact and notify these zones of the required action. • Existing zones that are required to re-apply, and do so within 6 months will be given re-evaluation priority. If a zone has not re-applied after 6 months of notification, the zone will be removed.

634

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 28
Figure 20. Near-term Implementation Checklist
✓ Implementation Steps
▢ 1 Update the municipal codes to enable the updated RPP zone policies and administrative policies. ▢ 2
Evaluate the opportunity to leverage the existing license plate recognition (LPR) cameras that are already owned by the Costa Mesa Police Department for parking enforcement. Otherwise, determine if funding for the procurement of new LPR cameras should be allocated. ▢ 3 If existing cameras cannot be utilized, procure vehicle -mounted, mobile LPR cameras on a minimum of two vehicles to start. The LPR system must integrate with the PMS. ▢ 4 Evaluate the opportunity to procure an automated PMS in conjunction with the upcoming Police Department’s procurement of a citation management system (CMS). ▢ 5
Update
RPP Zone
Policies
- Make all residential zoning districts eligible to apply for new permit parking zones.
- Implement RPP zones only in neighborhoods found to be impacted by external demand.
- Align operating hours for RRP zones implemented due to external parking demand with when external demand is most impactful.
- Establish a 2,000-foot minimum zone size for new RPP zones (approximately the length of four blocks).
- In rental complexes, the residents, property managers, and property owners should all be allowed to participate in the petition survey. - Adopt a new permit zone numbering or lettering system to replace the existing six zones.
- Require streets petitioning to join a permit zone to be assessed individually. - Require streets petitioning to be removed from a permit zone to have less than 50% of the surrounding streets have permit requirements. - Implement permit-exempt 1 or 2-hour time on specific blocks immediately between residential and commercial areas to provide a buffer between the commercial area and the residential neighborhood.
- Strictly associate permits with the vehicle’s license plate number. - Limit permits to one permit per eligible resident by requiring each resident’s driver's license number.
▢ 6 Determine required specifications for a parking-specific automated PMS based on the updated permit policies. The PMS will need to be integrated with the City’s LPR cameras. ▢ 7
Evaluate any existing City LPR data privacy and retention policies, develop them if needed, and ensure they provide the ability to use LPR for ongoing data collection. The City’s policy should be posted on the City website.
▢ 8
When selecting a PMS provider, carefully consider the permit program policies, the City’s preferred business rules, and the ability of the PMS systems ability to meet the City’s needs.

Select a PMS provider based on their ability to support virtually managed permits and visitor permits without subjecting the permit program to potential abuse. ▢ 9 During the evaluation of vendor systems, the City should evaluate guest parking permits and select a PMS vendor that will support the desired configuration. ▢ 10 Implement the selected PMS and work with the vendor to configure the system based upon the established permit administration policies and business rules. ▢ 11
Leverage the recently created Transportation Services’ “Parking” webpage as a landing page that functions as a one-stop-shop for all things parking in Costa Mesa. The webpage should include links to the site to purchase permits, pay for parking citations, and any other parking actions necessary to support the City’s parking programs. Consider includ ing a “news” section on the page where the most recent changes are summarized.
▢ 12 Consider developing a parking and mobility brand that can maximize ongoing exposure and familiarity with the City’s parking programs.
▢ 13
Develop content for the landing page, including a visual representation of the process of new permit zones, and a summary of frequently asked questions (FAQs) relating to parking, policies, procedures, and other information that is often discussed. 635

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 29
✓ Implementation Steps
▢ 14
Designate an employee or a team to review the page and links regularly, such as twice annually, to ensure the information remains up -to-date and reflects any recent changes in policies, ordinances, or fees.
▢ 15 Introduce an escalating permit rate structure of $25.00 annually for the first permit, and then an additional premium of $25.00 per additional permit.
▢ 16 Introduce a low -income qualifying permit option, where the first two permits are free, then the escalating rate structure begins at $25.00 for each additional permit after two. ▢ 17 Consider developing “good neighbor policies” and require residents to acknowledge these policies when applying for a parking permit.
▢ 18
Train staff on how to utilize the LPR cameras for enforcement of permit zones, as well as time zones, the 72 -hour rule, abandoned vehicle abatement, scofflaw detection, and wanted vehicle detection.
▢ 19
Establish clear guidelines for parking control officers on when to issue a warning notice to first - time violators. Officers can use the “Remarks” field to explain to the vehicle’s driver. The use of warning notices should be tracked to determine patterns by officer, violation, and vehicle. ▢ 20
Develop and launch an education and outreach campaign to support the renewal phases and the transition to the new PMS system. This should begin no later than 2 months before starting RPP zone renewal phase 1.
▢ 21
Launch the RPP program on the PMS only after LPR cameras have been installed, and the program is ready to transition to virtually managed resident and visitor permits. The transition should take place when permits are being renewed, and any “hybrid” programs should be avoided. ▢ 22
As RPP zones are renewed in RPP zone renewal phases 1 and 2, utilize the LPR for enforcement and adjust enforcement zone assignments and routing as needed based on efficiency of coverage.
▢ 23 Implement a policy where the permit zone restrictions are only active upon the installation of signs, and 50 percent or more of households have purchased permits. ▢ 24
When new RPP zones are installed, leverage warning notices for all first-time violations within the first three months of implementation. Communicate the new restrictions by posting signs, informing residents by email and/or postcard, and updating the City website and parking landing page.
▢ 25
Allocate additional staff to parking enforcement as needed in order to efficiently and effectively enforce permit zones, and time -limited parking in residential areas. Ensure daily, reoccurring patrols of the area (minimally two to four times daily) to encourage compliance with the time limit. ▢ 26 Update LPR configuration to enable time limit enforcement in new time limit area(s). ▢ 27 Establish a data collection and analysis methodology using LPR for evaluating proposed zones. ▢ 28 Leverage LPR cameras for parking occupancy studies of proposed zone. ▢ 29 Adjust parking occupancy studies procedure and collect data during the heaviest impacted days and times.
▢ 30
Leverage LPR cameras for ongoing monitoring of RPP zone effectiveness, and determine if, for instance, a zone may benefit from a cap on the number of permits allowed per household or adjustments to the operating times.
▢ 31
Utilize the CMS and LPR cameras for gap management and monitor parking control officer productivity. Officer productivity is not, and should never be, based upon a quota or the number of citations issued.

Mid-term Implementation Steps

Mid-term Recommendations
13 Ongoing data collection and program evaluation.1
14 Evaluate street sweeping routes.
15 Pursue shared parking agreements.
636

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 30
16 Promote and enhance mode alternatives.
1 Ongoing data collection (preferably with LPR enforcement equipment) will be critical for evaluating the impact of the RPP program policies. Occupancy and turnover data should be leveraged to determine whether policy adjustments are needed, or if tailored permit zone policies are needed.

Figure 21. Mid-term Implementation Checklist
✓ Implementation Steps
▢ 1 Evaluate the opportunity to reserve funding and procure additional LPR cameras, to equip all vehicles used in compliance activities with LPR to optimize operations. ▢ 2 As new vehicles are added to the fleet for parking enforcement, they should be delivered with LPR equipment already installed
▢ 3
Evaluate the Temporary Use Permit fee for outdoor dining in the public right -of-way, taking into consideration the value of the parking space. Consider an ongoing fee for the permit and the frequency of reapplication.
▢ 4 Develop a shared parking agreement template for use in upcoming negotiations. ▢ 5
Re-evaluate street sweeping routes, and evaluate the ability to sweep only one side of the street per day, or north/south streets on one day, and east/west streets on another. Signs can be posted at entrances to neighborhoods or posted at the entry and exit points of each block face (for a long block, some include a sign mid-block as well).
▢ 6 Proactively address street sweeping postings and routes citywide, and develop a coordinated street sweeping plan. Consider expanding street sweeping restrictions to cover entire neighborhoods. ▢ 7 Actively pursue and negotiate potential shared parking opportunities. The shared parking approach should be considered in conjunction with efforts to adjust permit fees. ▢ 8 Depending on the terms of the shared parking agreements, additional parking enforcement support or coverage may be required.
▢ 9
Evaluate options for expanding transportation mode alternatives and improv ing walkability and enhancing pedestrian infrastructure. Locations within a reasonable distance to destinations such as transit stops, schools, libraries, hospitals, medical clinics, community centers, commercial areas, and public parks should be prioritized.
▢ 10
Over time, an occupancy history for each block in a permit zone will be accumulated by the LPR system. Staff should analyze the data collect ed and leverage the information to determine if the restrictions are supported by the current parking utilization. ▢ 11 Review fees annually and adjust as needed based on operating costs and utilization.

Long-term Implementation Steps

Recommendations
17 Consider a fee for RPP program applications.
18 Evaluate minimum parking requirements. 1
19 Evaluate pilot opportunities to reduce vehicle ownership. 1 The City should take into consideration political changes that may impact parking minimum requirements from the state level.

Figure 22. Long-term Implementation Checklist
✓ Implementation Steps
▢ 1 Continue to seek out shared parking agreements with private property owners as needed. ▢ 2 Ongoing evaluation of the RPP program should consider whether restrictions should be adjusted. ▢ 3 Continue to utilize LPR for ongoing data collection and evaluation of the RPP program. 637

DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 31
✓ Implementation Steps
▢ 4
Determine the appropriate fee and rate structure for RPP zone applications. This fee should be associated with the cost recovery from staff time needed to process a new permit parking restriction petition from residents.
▢ 5 Implement the fee associated with the petition submitted by residents for the installation of a new residential preferential parking zone.
▢ 6
Evaluate pilot opportunities with technology providers that may offset parking demand, such as car- share companies and micro- transit services. Consider requiring new multi -family housing developments to provide a certain number of car -share vehicles on- site, which may provide the opportunity for residents to not own a vehicle.
▢ 7
Evaluate minimum parking requirements. If certain areas of the City are found to be frequently underutilized (less than 85% occupied), then this could justify reducing on- site parking requirements.

638