WILSON STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
CITY PROJECT NO. 22-01
City Council
May 3, 2022
v
v
WILSON STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 22-01
PROJECT OVERVIEW
•Scope of Work:
• New signing, striping, and traffic calming improvements along Wilson Street from Newport Boulevard to Placentia Avenue. • New crosswalk and HAWK signal in front of Wilson Park. • New bulb-outs at select intersections between Fordham Drive and Fairview Road.
v
v
WILSON STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 22-01
PROJECT OVERVIEW
•Positive Impacts:
• New pavement that will benefit all modes.
• Encourages slower vehicular speeds along Wilson Street. • Enhance pedestrian crossings and Active Transportation along Wilson Street.
v
v
WILSON STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 22-01
•Staff recommends award to the Lowest Responsible Bidder:
All American Asphalt, Inc.
•Bid Amount: $1,795,390.50, includes base bid and two additive bids. •Project Timeline: 50 Working Days
PROJECT OVERVIEW (Continued)
v
v
WILSON STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 22-01
PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY
•Contract Amount: $1,795,390.50
•Funding: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Gas Tax, and Capital Improvement Fund
v
v
WILSON STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 22-01
v
v
WILSON STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 22-01
v
v
WILSON STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 22-01
v
v
WILSON STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 22-01
QUESTIONS AND
DISCUSSION
City Council Meeting
FY 2022-2023
ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
May 3, 2022
2 • The City receives two grants from
HUD each year
• Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG)
• Elimination of run-down areas
• Meet an urgent need
• Benefit to low- and moderate-income
persons
• HOME Investment Partnerships Grant
(HOME)
• Preserve and increase housing opportunities
for low-income residents
BACKGROUND
3 • The City’s Consolidated Plan is required to receive CDBG & HOME funds and was adopted on May 19, 2020
• 5-year strategic plan; covers FY 2020-2021 through FY 2024- 2025
• Analysis of housing and community development needs
• Strategy (projects and programs) to address identified needs and goals • Annual action plan (adopted in May of each year) for the use of CDBG & HOME funds to address local needs and goals
• The FY 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan represents the third year expenditure plan for the Consolidated Plan and implements its goals
CONSOLIDATED PLAN
PRIORITY NEEDS
AND GOALS
Consolidated Plan Goal & Description
1 Housing Preservation
T o provide decent & affordable housing through a variety of activities, including owner-occupied housing rehabilitation, code enforcement & rental housing acquisition/ rehabilitation 2 Infrastructure and Facility Improvements
T o enhance the suitability of the living environment through improvements to public infrastructures & facilities
3 Homeless Continuum of Care
T o provide supportive services & housing assistance for the homeless & near homeless
4 Public Social Services
T o provide services for low- & moderate-income persons & those with special needs (including fair housing services)
5 Program Administration
T o provide administration of the CDBG & HOME programs, ensuring effective & efficient delivery of programs & services and complying all HUD program requirements
5 FY 2022-2023 FUNDING
• The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has not yet announced the annual allocation for CDBG and HOME funds • The City expects to receive approximately $1.63 M in funds from HUD based on last year’s funding
• CDBG
• $1,137,737 annual allocation for FY 22-23
• Plus $867,011 in prior year unspent allocation
•Total: $2,004,748
• HOME
• $501,749 annual allocation for FY 22-23
• Plus $763,401 prior year unspent allocation and $1,454,657 in program income (i.e. lien/loan repayment)
•Total: $2,719,807
6 FY 2022-2023 CDBG FUNDS
1. Housing Rehabilitation Program
Administration: $41,688
2. Public Service Grants: $170,000 max
3. Capital Projects: $1,229,703
• Wilson Street Pavement Rehab & Bike/Ped
improvements
• Westside Street & Bike/Ped improvements
4. Code Enforcement: $335,810
5. Administration: $227,547 max
Code
Enforcement
17%
Capital Project
61%
Housing Rehab
Admin
2%
Public Service
Grants
9%
Administration
11%
CDBG Recommendations
7 CDBG PUBLIC SERVICE GRANTS
• CDBG funds available for Public Service Grants are capped by HUD at 15% of the allocation (or $170,000 maximum)
• City released a request for proposals and received 8 proposals from non-profits for $185,000 and 2 proposals from fair housing* organizations for $38,500
• At their March 23, 2022 meeting, the Council-appointed Housing and Public Service Grants (H&PSG) Ad Hoc Committee heard a brief presentation from each nonprofit organization and evaluated and scored the proposals
*Fair housing is funded out of Administration instead of the Public Service Grant allocation 8 CDBG PUBLIC SERVICE GRANTS
• Housing & Public Service Grant Ad-Hoc Committee recommendations • 15% Cap ($170,000 maximum)
• $30,000 for the City Social Services Program at the Senior Center • $140,000 for 7 nonprofit groups
• Seniors (2) = $60,000
• Homeless (2) - $40,000
• Youth (2)- $55,000
• Low/Moderate - $15,000Seniors
35%
Homeless
24%
Low &
Moderate
9%
Youth
32%
Public Service Grant
Recommendations
9 CDBG NONPROFIT PUBLIC SERVICE GRANTS
Applicant Name Population
to Serve
Amount
Requested
Avg.
Rating
Score
FY 22-23 Grant
Recommendation
Mercy House – Bridge Shelter Homeless $25,000 97.4 $15,000 Project Hope Alliance Youth $30,000 92.2 $30,000
Youth Employment Services Youth $25,000 85.8 $25,000
Families Forward Homeless $25,000 81.4 $25,000
Community SeniorServ – Meals on
Wheels Seniors $15,000 73.6 $15,000
Community SeniorServ – Lunch Café Seniors $15,000 73.0 $15,000 Trellis International Low/Mod $30,000 63.8 $15,000
Easterseals Diagnostics Clinic Disabled $20,000 59.0 NA TOTAL $140,000
Fair Housing Foundation* Low/Mod $20,000 83.75 $20,000
Orange County Fair Housing Council Low/Mod $18,500 86.75 NA *funded under Administration TOTAL $20,000
10 FY 2022-2023 HOME FUNDS
• The HOME Program is the first block grant fund for Affordable Housing
• HOME funds are intended to be “gap” financing for affordable housing projects and require a non-federal funds match of 25% • HOME funds have an 8-year period of availability for
expenditure
• Supportive Services are not an eligible activity and cannot be funded with HOME funds
11 FY 2022-2023 HOME FUNDS
1. Housing Rehabilitation: $275,000
2. Affordable Housing Development: $2,319,368
3. CHDO Reserve (15% required): $75,262
4. Administration: $50,174
• An RFP will be released soliciting affordable
housing proposals for HOME funds
Housing
Rehab
10%
Affordable
Housing
85%
Housing/CHDO
3%
Admin
2%
HOME Recommendations
12 RECOMMENDATIONS
• Hold a Public Hearing
• Approve the recommended allocation of FY 2022-2023 CDBG & HOME funds
• Adopt a Resolution to approve the 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan, and authorize the City Manager to submit to HUD and execute all required agreements, certifications and documents • Authorize the City Manager to approve staff procedures and guidelines for the implementation of CDBG- and HOME-funded programs
City Council Meeting
FY 2022-2023
ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
May 3, 2022
14 HOUSING REHAB PROGRAM
• Council Authorized Program Modifications
• 0% interest, deferred payment loan
- Decrease from 3%
• Adjust household income limit for grants to 80% of median income
- Increase household income limit from 50%
• Increased grant amounts
- Mobile home grants from $10,000 to $12,500
- Single-home units from $14,000 to $17,500
City Council Meeting
Substantial Amendment to the
2021-2022 Annual Action Plan
HOME-ARP ALLOCATION PLAN
May 3, 2022
2 • On March 11, 2021, the American
Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP) was
signed into law
• On April 8, 2021 HUD allocated HOME-
ARP funds to cities who already receive
HOME grant funds
• HOME- ARP funds provide for
homelessness assistance and supportive
services
BACKGROUND
3 • The City of Costa Mesa is eligible to
receive a HOME-ARP allocation in the
amount of $1,816,742
• To receive HOME-ARP funds, the City
must engage in consultation, develop a
HOME-ARP allocation plan and submit it
to HUD as a substantial amendment to
its 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan
BACKGROUND
4 • Allocation Plan required to receive HOME-ARP funds
• Must be submitted to HUD as a Substantial
Amendment to the City’s 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan
• Four HOME-ARP eligible activities
• Development and support of affordable housing
• Tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA)
• Supportive services as defined by HUD
• Acquisition and development of non-congregate Shelter
HOME-ARP ALLOCATION PLAN
5 HOME-ARP ELIGIBLE SUPPORTIVE SERVICES
• Mental health services
• Child care
• Education services
• Employment
assistance and job
training
• Food
• Housing search and
counseling services
• Legal services
• Life skills training
• Outpatient health
services
• Outreach services
• Substance abuse
treatment services
• Transportation
• Case Management
• Mediation
• Credit Repair
• Landlord/tenant liaison
• Services for special
populations
• Financial assistance
costs (rental application
fees, security deposits,
utility deposits,
payment of rental
arrears)
6 HOME-ARP CONSULTATION PROCESS
• The City must engage in consultation and outreach and develop a plan that meets HUD requirements. The City of Costa Mesa consulted:
• Orange County Health Care Agency, Office of Care Coordination (CoC) and 44 participants/organizations
• Local service providers meeting at the Norma Hertzog Community Center • Via email and phone contact
• By collecting information about service needs from surveys submitted through the City website and directly through email (surveys available in both Spanish and English)
• Participation at the May 3, 2022 Public Hearing
7 SAMPLE SURVEY RESULTS
8 FEEDBACK
The City received valuable feedback indicating a need to focus on:
• Increasing the availability/affordability of housing units • Mental health and substance abuse supportive services for youth, domestic violence survivors, and individuals experiencing homelessness
• Supportive and wrap around services such as transportation, legal services, credit repair, and assistance with tenant/landlord relations • Case management
• Services for seniors, the disables, and mono-lingual Spanish speakers • Support for existing programs to ensure continuity of services 9 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Information from the following resources was also considered in the preparation of the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan:
• Continuum of Care Housing Inventory County (HIC)
• City of Costa Mesa Housing Element
• Orange County Housing Authority 5-year and 1-year PHA Plan • Orange County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing • 2019 Point In Time Count
• Network for Homeless Solutions
• HUD’s American Community Survey (ACS) and Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
10 HOME-ARP ACTIVITIES
• The City will receive $1,816,742 in HOME-ARP funds
• Staff is recommending funding for two HOME-ARP eligible activities:
1. Development and Support of Affordable Housing
2. Supportive Services including those defined at 24 CFR 578.53(e) McKinney-Vento Supportive Services
Homelessness Prevention Services; and
Housing Counseling Services
11 HOME-ARP RECOMMENDED ALLOCATIONS
1. Development & Support of Affordable
Housing: $544,231
2. Supportive Services: $1,000,000
3. Admin & Planning: $272,511 max Affordable
Housing
30%
Supportive
Svcs
55%
Administration
15%
HOME-ARP Recommendations
12 RFP PROCESS
• Following HUD approval of the City’s Allocation Plan, staff will solicit proposals for Supportive Services and
Development & Support of Affordable Housing
• Depending on the proposal(s) received, the amount of
funding allocated in either category may be adjusted, not- to-exceed the total HOME-ARP allocation
13 RECOMMENDATIONS
• Hold a Public Hearing
• Approve the recommended allocation of $1,816,742 for the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
• Adopt a Resolution to approve the 2021-2022 Substantial Amendment to the Annual Action Plan, and authorize the City Manager to submit it to HUD and execute all required
agreements, certifications and documents
• Authorize revenue and expense appropriations
City Council Meeting
Substantial Amendment to the
2021-2022 Annual Action Plan
HOME-ARP ALLOCATION PLAN
May 3, 2022
CITYWIDE RESIDENTIAL
PARKING STUDY
Public Services Department
City Council Meeting
May 3, 2022
STUDY OBJECTIVES
Actively engage all community stakeholders
(i.e. single family residents, multi-family residents, & businesses)
Holistically address parking challenges
Develop recommendations that are
equitable and will help alleviate current
parking conditions
Evaluate the current Residential Permit
Parking Program
Implement best practices throughout the
City based on the results of the data
collection from Districts 4 & 5
3 STUDY COMPONENTS
Residential
Parking
Survey
2016 CA
Attorney
General
Opinion
Data
Collection
Results
Assessment
of Current
Operations &
Policies
Case Studies
Industry Best
Practices
Community
Outreach
Feedback
Citywide Residential
Parking Action Plan
4 CA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION #14-304
“In issuing long-term residential parking permits, local authorities may not distinguish among residents based
on the type of dwelling in which they live”
• Develop a solution that equitably serves all residents. 5 DATA COLLECTION
October 2020
• Tuesday 10/13 & Saturday 10/17
• 8am, 12pm, 4pm, and 8pm intervals
Districts 4 & 5
• 634 blocks - 10,410 spaces
• 1,814 permit spaces & 8,596 non-permit
spaces
• 849 permits issued in District 4
• 619 permits issued in District 5
Data Collection Map
6 DATA COLLECTION: Results
• Permit parking streets had an average occupancy of 15% throughout the day • This is significantly lower than the average occupancy of non-permit streets (50%) • 70% occupancy indicates residential parking occupancy is high & management decisions should be considered
Weekday Occupancy
Non-permit Streets Permit Streets
Observation Round
Vehicles
Parked Occupancy
Vehicles
Parked Occupancy
8:00 AM 3882 45% 214 12%
12:00 PM 3735 43% 160 9%
4:00 PM 4652 54% 301 17%
8:00 PM 4846 56% 444 24%
Average 4279 50% 280 15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM
Non-permit Streets Permit Streets
Occupancy Findings - Weekday
7 DATA COLLECTION: Results
Weekday Average Occupancy
• While the total average
occupancy did not reach 85%,
individual blocks did
• Only two permit blocks exceeded
65% weekday average occupancy
R symbol indicates an RPP street
Red indicates occupancy exceeded 85%
8 DATA COLLECTION: Results
• Permit parking streets had an average occupancy of 25% throughout the day Occupancy Findings - Weekend
Weekend Occupancy
Non-permit Streets Permit Streets
Observation Round
Vehicles
Parked Occupancy
Vehicles
Parked Occupancy
8:00 AM 5070 59% 435 24%
12:00 PM 4946 58% 410 23%
4:00 PM 5277 61% 453 25%
8:00 PM 5352 62% 488 27%
Average 5161 60% 447 25%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM
Non-permit Streets Permit Streets
9 DATA COLLECTION: Results
Weekend Average Occupancy
• Again, total average occupancy
did not reach 85%, but individual
blocks did
• Most permit streets did not
exceed 65% average occupancy
• No permit streets reached the
85% average occupancy
R symbol indicates an RPP street
Red indicates occupancy exceeded 85%
10 DATA COLLECTION: Conclusions
• Permit streets are underutilized
• Current program exacerbates congestion in neighborhoods • Permit parking pushes the problem to other streets
• Multi-family neighborhoods are impacted
Average Occupancy
Weekday Weekend
Non-permit Street 50% 60%
Permit Street 15% 25%
11 COMMUNITY OUTREACH
4 meetings held
• March 15, 2021
• March 31, 2021
• June 30, 2021
• September 28, 2021
130+ residents attended
Topics discussed:
Bilingual
Community
Meetings
Month-long survey
• March 13 to April 18, 2021
Offered in English & Spanish
Received 356 total responses
• 4% Spanish speaking
respondents
Purpose: to gather initial
feedback on policies &
practices regarding residential
on-street parking within the City
Bilingual
Online Survey
•Residential permit
parking
•Spillover parking
•Overnight parking
•Street sweeping
•Walkability
•Blocked driveways
•Pedestrian safety
•On-street parking
availability
•Driveway visibility
•72-hour parking
enforcement
•Commercial parking
•Multi-family
housing parking
12 GUIDING PRINCIPLES
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
Equitable
Access
Implement financially sustainable strategies that modernize and streamline parking program management
Sustainable
Solutions
Create an efficient and adaptable parking system that is optimized for the City’s current needs but can be
incrementally updated and adjusted over time
Efficient
Program
Management
13 RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM OPTIONS
Strategy Analysis Recommendation
Option 1
No change to the
RPP program
• Does not address the 2016 Attorney General’s opinion (#14-304). • Does not address inadequate parking supply in multi-family residential neighborhoods.
X
Not Recommended
Option 2
Eliminate
the RPP program
• COVID-19 and suspended enforcement provided a preview of program elimination.
• The data collection results suggest that the RPP program should not be eliminated.
X
Not recommended at this
time. Consider for future
evaluation.
Option 3
Implement a Citywide
RPP program
• Significant costs to implement and enforce a Citywide RPP program. • The requirement to obtain permits could be burdensome for residents and their guests.
X
Not recommended at this
time.
Option 4
Implement revised RPP
program guidelines
• The data collection results suggest there is significant parking demand in specific neighborhoods.
• The RPP program is a tool to manage parking demand within a neighborhood. • Implement recommendations to better align with the guiding principles of an equitable, sustainable, and efficient program.
Recommended strategy
14 PETITIONING ANALYSIS
Comparable Cities Petitioning Analysis
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 T own Stanton 51% sign petition; City survey; 75% or more supporting signatures - $660 fee Tustin 60% or more
Near-Term
Recommendations
1. Create Permit Zones
2. Conduct Petitioning & Occupancy Study
3. Implement New Permit Policies
4. Utilize New Permit Fees
5. Implement Permit Management System
6. License Plate Recognition Cameras
7. Address Enforcement
8. Utilize Branding & Marketing
16 Near-Term Recommendations
• Limit to external parking impacts
only:
• Near commercial areas, OC Fair, &
near City boundaries only
• Create a minimum segment length
of 2,000 ft (about 4 blocks)
1. CREATE
New Permit Zones
• Continue petition to be signed by
51% of residents
• In rental complexes, allow residents,
property managers, & property
owners to all participate in the
petition equitably
• Continue 70% occupancy
threshold for new permit zones
2. CONDUCT
Petitioning & Occupancy Studies
17 Near-Term Recommendations
Permit eligibility:
• Allow all residents & housing types to
purchase permits in compliance with
the 2016 AG opinion
• Oversized vehicles, as defined by
CMMC, should not be eligible for
permits
Permit maximums:
• Replace the 3 permit per household
limit, with 1 permit per eligible driver
• “Eligible driver”: resident on a permit
street with a valid driver’s license and
a vehicle register to the same address
3. IMPLEMENT
New Permit Policies
Benefits:
•Reduces excess parking
demand.
•Equitable solution for
residents who require a
vehicle.
•Residents who choose to
own additional vehicles are
incentivized to use any on-
site parking, rather than rely
on on-street parking for
vehicle storage.
18 Near-Term Recommendations
Implement an annual permit fee of $25:
• Allows for program to become financially sustainable
• Permits investment to modernize the program
• Note: Other Southern California cities range from $10 to over $70 Escalating rate structure:
• First permit is $25, second is $50, and third is $75, and so on • Introduce a low-cost permit for qualifying low-income residents
4. UTILIZE
New Permit Fees
19 Near-Term Recommendations
• Residents can self-manage their
accounts:
• Login, create an account, apply for
a permit, upload supporting
documentation, purchase permits,
make edits, etc.
• Pivotal in moving towards permits
by license plate data
5. IMPLEMENT
Permit Management System (PMS)
• Aids enforcement & transitions to
virtually managed permits
• Improves enforcement efficiency &
coverage
• Automates permit enforcement,
license plate number becomes the
permit identifier
• Data collected during enforcement
can be leveraged for ongoing
program evaluation, based on
occupancy data
6. INSTALL
License Plate Recognition (LPR)
Cameras
20 Near-Term Recommendations
Adjust enforcement staffing:
• Allocate additional staff to parking
enforcement
• Critical to effective enforcement of
permit zones
New permit zone enforcement:
• Only active upon:
• Installation of signs
• 50% of households have
purchased permits
• Issue warning notices & program
flyers to assist with outreach
7. ADDRESS
Enforcement
• Utilize City website
• Use a Transportation Services’
“Parking” landing page as an
information hub for parking
• Include links to purchase permits
and pay for parking citations.
8. UTILIZE
Branding & Marketing
Mid-Term
Recommendations
1. Explore Shared Parking Agreements
2. Utilize Alternative Transportation Modes
22 Mid-Term Recommendations
• Agreements between
the City and private
property owners to
increase parking
opportunities
• Can provide
additional residential
parking opportunities
• Meant to be mutually
beneficial - leverages
the parking supply
when it is typically
underutilized
1. EXPLORE
Shared Parking
Agreements
23 Continue to promote & enhance
alternative modes:
• Improve walkability and pedestrian
infrastructure
• Prioritize locations within a
reasonable distance to key areas:
• Transit stops, schools,
libraries, hospitals, and
medical clinics, community
centers, commercial areas,
and public parks.
Mid-Term Recommendations
Recent achievements:
•7+ miles of improved bike lanes
•25 bicycle racks installed in 2021
• Completion of Merrimac Way Active
Transportation Improvements
• 1st cycle track in Costa Mesa
• 3rd cycle track in all of OC
•$2+ million approved by City
Council in FY 21-22 for ATP
projects
2. UTILIZE
Alternative Transportation Modes
24 PHASES: Pre-Implementation
Prior to implementation and permit zone re-evaluation, the City must complete the following implementation steps (6-9 months):
1. Adopt the RPP zone policies and the permit fee rate structure
2. Procure and launch an automated permit management system (PMS)
3. Develop an extensive public outreach and education campaign to communicate the renewal process.
Pre-
Implementation
6-9
mo.
6-9
mo.
25 PHASES: Implementation
The existing permit zones can be re-evaluated and renewed in two phases after initial implementation (6-9 months):
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, & Huntington Beach) • Orange County Fairgrounds
• Commercial parking demand
• Schools and recreation facilities
PHASE 1
1-3
mo.
1-3
mo.
Existing RPP zones with only residential parking demand (without external impacts) will be evaluated for renewal:
• Zones must confirm their interest 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
• Existing zones that re-apply within 6 months will be given re-evaluation priority.
After 6 months, the zone will be removed
PHASE 2
6-12
mo.
6-12
mo.
26 PHASES: Current Permit Zones
Staff
Recommendations
Staff recommends the City Council:
1. Approve revised Residential Permit Parking program guidelines and policies.
2. Approve an annual residential parking permit fee with an escalating rate structure and discount for qualifying low-income residents.
3. Authorize staff and the City Attorney to initiate amendments to the Costa Mesa Municipal Code incorporating proposed changes to the Residential Permit Parking program and return to City Council for approval through Public Hearing.