i
Citywide
Residential
Parking
Action
Plan
City of Costa Mesa , CA
Final Draft V2
March 8, 202
2 ATTACHMENT 5
City of Costa Mesa
Citywide Residential Parking Action Plan
Prepared by Dixon Resources Unlimited
on behalf of the City of Costa Mesa, CA
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.
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 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.”
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
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 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
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.
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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.”
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
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
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
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.
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
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,
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.