1 BENNETT, STACY
From: GREEN, BRENDA
Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 11:17 AM
To: BENNETT, STACY
Subject: FW: CIP Study Session Comments
Public comments.
Brenda Green
City Clerk
City of Costa Mesa
714/754-5221
Effective, Wednesday, February 16, 2022, City Hall will return to walk-in appointments for the public. Costa Mesa will continue to follow the state mask guidelines. While City Hall will be open, we still encourage members of the public to take advantage of our appointment system.
Appointments can be made at www.costamesaca.gov/appointments.
E-mail correspondence with the City of Costa Mesa (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may, therefore, be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the act.
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 11:15 AM
To: REYNOLDS, ARLIS <[email protected]>; MARR, ANDREA <[email protected]>; STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]>; CHAVEZ, MANUEL <[email protected]>; GAMEROS, LOREN <[email protected]>; HARPER, DON <[email protected]>; HARLAN, JEFFREY <[email protected]>
Cc: GREEN, BRENDA <[email protected]>; ROSALES, JENNIFER <[email protected]>; THOMAS, BRETT ATENCIO <[email protected]> Subject: CIP Study Session Comments
Dear Mayor and City Council Members.
As Council Member Marr requested, I am following up on my comments at last week’s Study Session as I ran out of time. My comments came out of the meeting with Staff and members of the Active Transportation Committee’s ATP Implementation subcommittee. As I indicated, we made progress on reaching agreement on the projects to prioritize, but there are still differences, and the ATC will bring its recommendations to you after its meeting this week.
With respect to Study Session Agenda Attachment 1, please note the following:
Item 32 (Adams Ave AT Project). The Staff Report indicates that grant funding is being pursued. Since construction funding has not been secured, it may be years before this project commences. The current year’s budget has an Adams Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Project (#300005) for $2.3M. My understanding is Staff indicated this funding for the current year and next will be earmarked for PMP effort. The subcommittee gave this project a lower priority due to these issues.
2 Item 33 (Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements). This is for small, typically one- off projects not specifically identified in the ATP or PMP. We support funding to cover this type of effort. However, the same project was approved (#450015) in the current year's budget for $150K. Nothing has been spent YTD. Based on that spending trend, the current funding can also cover next year. This funding would be better applied to other AT projects.
Item 34 (Bicycle Safety Education). Safety education is crucial, but the subcommittee believes the cost should be shared with the school district. One option is to approve half and negotiate with NMUSD for the other half. Also, in fiscal 17-18 a safety education project was approved for $30K. We need to know the outcome of that effort before approving additional funding.
Item 35 (Citywide Bicycle) Racks. The existing balance from prior years appropriations is $107K. Last year only $35K was spent. This year only $8K has been spent so far. The existing funding is enough for at least another year and no new funding is needed now. I understand that funding will be redirected to wayfinding signage.
Item 36 (Citywide Class II, III and IV Bicycle Projects). This is an increase in funding from prior years, which is needed. The subcommittee believes that a portion of the existing balance will be used for the Placentia and Del Mar projects, but allocation of the remaining balance to specific projects needs to be identified.
Item 38 (Fairview Road Improvement Project). The subcommittee rated this a high priority project. When we met with Staff, we also recommended a crosswalk midway between Wilson St. and Fair Dr., and I understand it is now included.
The subcommittee gave a high priority to procure and install "Bike Route" signage on all the Class III bike routes. At our meeting Staff seemed to agree with this recommendation, but it is not listed in their proposed budget. Perhaps this was an oversight, but funding from projects 34, 35, and 36 can be redirected to this effort and to the Adams Ave. (Harbor to Fairview) project.
We recommend a crosswalk on Victoria at Thurin St. Staff indicated one was not warranted at this time, but the subcommittee will continue to encourage staff to reevaluate the crosswalk’s need.
Finally, the subcommittee has drafted a Five-Year Forecast for AT projects and will collaborate with Staff on a final Five-Year Forecast.
These are all the comments I had for that evening. I will be presenting more information in the weeks to come. I want to address some of the comments made about bicycle and pedestrian safety and infrastructure that aren’t factual.
Cynthia McDonald
3 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
May 2, 2022
Via Email
Costa Mesa City CouncilLori Ann Farrell Harrison, City ManagerRaja Sethuraman, Public Services Director77 Fair DriveCosta Mesa, CA [email protected]@[email protected] Dear Members of the City Council, City Manager Farrell Harrison and Public Services DirectorSethuraman:
We write in response to the proposed residential parking permit (RPP) policy. As encouragedas we are that Costa Mesa will finally have a fee-based RRP program, the current proposal isfundamentally flawed in three ways. First, the rate analysis is based on the wrong metrics and,as a result, sets the rates far too low. Second, the proposed exemption for low-incomeresidents, while well intentioned, may undermine the desired results and, perversely, harm theseresidents. And third, the policy does not identify a recipient of the funds raised by the RPPprogram, other than covering the program’s administration costs. Over time there should beexcess revenue generated by the RPP program and the residents deserve clear guidance as towhere these funds will go.
The Rates Are Too Dang Low
The rate analysis provided by Dixon (p. 19 of the Citywide Residential Parking Action Plan)appears to be based on three assumptions: any rate is better than free, higher rates are moreeffective than lower ones, and rates should be consistent with neighboring cities. The first twoassumptions are true but do not answer the question, “what the rate should be?”, and the thirdat least answers the question but does so using irrelevant data.
Who cares what Huntington Beach, Orange or Seal Beach charges for permits?Residents arenot comparing parking rates between Costa Mesa and Seal Beach when making parkingchoices, nor between Costa Mesa or Orange. This “finger in the air” approach only makessense as political cover and should be rejected.
Instead, we should ask ourselves how much do residents on these streetsvaluetheir on-streetparking, and at what price would they change their behavior? This question was not askeddirectly, but it could have been inferred from other data. Did Dixon investigate the rates foroff-street parking at local apartment buildings? We checked two (Pacific Park and Park Center, both downtown) and, while each provide the first space for free, the next space costs either $25or $85per month. That’s $300 or $1,020 per year,and a far cry from the proposed $25 per yearfor the first on-street RPP. Did Dixon investigate what storage space costs, given that manyresidents use their allotted off-street parking for storage? We did; a unit comparable to anoff-street parking space (10’x20’) at 17th Street Storage or Public Storage, again bothdowntown, goes for $400 or $374 per month.
Which would you choose if you had an off-street parking space and too much stuff: pay$25/year to park on the street and get 200 sq. ft. of storage for free, or use your off-street spacefor your car and spend $400 per month (an eye-watering $4800 per year) to rent 200 sq. ft.storage unit to store your stuff? Obviously on-street parking spaces aren’t storage units, or even off-street parking spaces, so itwouldn’t be appropriate to price them the same way. But these comparisons show that theproposed rates are likely far too low to change behaviors in the desired ways. While it is true“any rate is better than free,” a rate that is too low won’t make a difference in residents’ lives.And we believe it is likely that the right rate is several multiples of what has been proposed –perhaps closer to $25a month, rather than $25a year–and that rates should escalategeometrically rather than linearly. But whatever is the right rate, we should at least start thecalculation with inputs that actually impact the decision to park on-street versus off-street. And itis certainly easier to lower rates if the estimate is too high than raise them later if they are toolow.
When “Free” Isn’t Equitable
With income inequality rising and inflation eroding purchasing power at a frightening clip,removing subsidies from low-income residents is the last thing a city should do. So weunderstand theintentionbehind Dixon’s recommendationthat low-income residents be giventheir first two RPPs for free, with the escalating rates beginning with their third RPP. But simplygiving away RPPs is the wrong way to go about making these residents whole, because doingso guts the effectiveness of a program intended to benefit them.
If the RPP program is supposed to improve parking availability by introducing prices thatdiscourage excessive on-street parking, significant exceptions to the pricing regime willundermine the effectiveness of the program. This effect will be worse on streets where amajority of the residents are low income. The City already knows what a free RPP programlooks like, and it has rightly rejected that approach because it is counterproductive. Figures 8and 9 in the Data Summary Report show that, on average, residents living on RPP streets hadaccess tomoreoff-street parking spaces than thoseliving on non-RPP streets (45% of RPPstreet residents had access to 3 or more off-street spaces, while only 27% of non-RPP streetshad access to 3 or more off-street spaces). However,fewerresidents parked their vehiclesoff-street in RPP streets (47%) than on non-RPP streets (55%). In other words, even thoughRPP residents had access to more off-street spaces, a greater percentage of them parked onthe street. Free RPPs may have made things worse! So where a higher percentage of residents on a street are low-income, and therefore where ahigher percentage of residents will receive free RPPs, the worse the proposed RPP program willperform. And the RPP program might evenreduceon-streetparking availability if it increasesthe rate at which residents prefer to park on the street. And if this happens, the RPP programwon’t just fail to achieve its objectives; it will make residents resent all aspects of the program,including the free RPPs given to low-income residents. So how are we helping low-incomeresidents by potentially making things worse? There are much better ways to ensure the RPP program is equitable. The first option would beto simply reduce the rates for qualifying low-income residents, rather than eliminating prices alltogether. As each additional dollar of transportation spending affects low-income residents morethan middle- or high-income residents, lower RPP rates for this population may still have thedesired effects. This approach, where everyone pays, would also limit feelings of resentmentbetween neighbors.
A more radical but perhaps even more effective option would be a direct subsidy to low-incomeresidents in lieu of waived or discounted RPP permit fees. When a low-income resident isoffered a free RPP, they have a choice — either use the RPP to park a car (if they have one), orforgo the subsidy all together and get nothing. But what if that low-income resident received thevalue of the RPP in cash, and then could choose to either buy the RPP or spend the money onsomething else? For middle- and high-income residents, this is exactly the choice having ahigher income offers. But for low-income residents, they aren’t afforded such choices becausethey don’t have the disposable income in the first place. To fix this, we could provide eachqualifying household a direct subsidy in cash to alleviate the increase in transportation costs.That way, if such residents choose not to own additional cars, they can keep the subsidy anduse it on other goods and services. And if they need to park a car, these residents can use thesubsidy to offset some of their RPP costs.
Either way, an appropriately priced RPP program would have sufficient cash to fund such alow-income resident subsidy, either in the form of reduced RPP rates or cash payments. In fact,it would probably have funds left over — which brings us to our last point.
Where Does the Money Go?
Dixon recommends that the City adopt an RPP rate structure “with the goal of making theprogram cost-neutral.” This is nonsensical on its face; if prices are the mechanism to drivebehavior changes, why should prices then be limited to only achieve cost-neutrality? As wehave written above, the RPP rates likely need to be higher than what would be strictlynecessary to charge to make the RPP program cost-neutral. But if the City is going to receivenet revenue from the RPP program, it should be thoughtfully and transparently explain wherethe excess funds would go.
One option would be to earmark the funds for local street improvements, specifically ones thatsupport mode shifts away from cars and towards more sustainable transportation like walking,bicycling and transit. This would be along the lines of the “parking benefit district” conceptchampioned by Donald Shoup in his landmark bookTheHigh Cost of Free Parking. A parkingbenefit district takes the funds received above the cost of administering a RPP program (orparking meter program in commercial districts) and earmarks them for improvements on thesame street where the RPP program is in place. In addition to active and mass transportationimprovements, these improvements could also take the form of traffic calming, beautification oreven open street events. The intent of a parking benefit district is to directly link the undesirablereality of paying for “free” parking to the undeniable benefit of enjoying a better street.
Another option would be to set aside the funds for other local benefits, such as neighborhoodparks. The Westside, which is where most of the parking impacts are located, also has thepoorest city access to green space. Additionally, park maintenance is a constant drain on Cityresources, and lack of maintenance can quickly degrade the value of the few Westside parks wehave. Having a dedicated funding source such as a local RPP program would take the pressureoff of our parks budget and allow residents to feel like their dollars are having a direct, visibleand positive impact on City life.
As the RPP program grows the City will need to decide what it will do with these funds. It wouldbe better to articulate a clear vision now, centering transparency and maximizing theeffectiveness of the RPP program’s stated goals, than to mumble something like “cost neutrality”and kick the can down the road. Otherwise, these funds will either be used frivolously or, worse,in a way that undermines the purpose of the RPP program.
A Step in the Right Direction, but A Long Way to Go
Any program that treats our street space as public space of significant value is a good program.But trying to get prices to work their magic when they are set arbitrarily, or when large swaths ofaffected residents are exempted from paying anything at all, is a recipe for frustration andresentment. Costa Mesa needs its RPP program to be successful. There is no way to reducecar dependency, without residents having to face the true costs of car ownership. So while thisproposal is a step in the right direction, we challenge the Council and staff to think harder aboutwhat an RPP program is trying to accomplish, whether the means used to achieve it arerealistic, and how the RPP program fits into the larger narrative of City improvement.
Best,Jenn TanakaMarc VukcevichDavid Martinez
CC:Jennifer Rosales ([email protected])Brett Atencio Thomas ([email protected])
COSTA MESA
CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION
APRIL 2022
www.ochft.org
OCHFT OVERVIEW
•Created in March 2019.
•Joint Powers Authority (JPA) formed between the County of Orange and a majority of cities in the county.
•Finance the development affordable housing
The mission of the Orange County Housing
Finance Trust is to strengthen the
communities in Orange County by financing
the development of affordable housing for
homeless and low-income individuals and
families.
MISSION
The vision of the Orange County Housing Finance
Trust is to respond to the humanitarian crisis of
homelessness by identifying and securing funding
that will contribute to the construction of 2,700
permanent supportive housing units and work to
secure funding that will contribute to additional
affordable housing units by 2025.
VISION
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
•23 cities and the County
•5-year strategic plan, updated annually
•$30 million in funding
•13 projects totaling 901 affordable housing units
•Website with administrative and project related
information
•Outreach to developers, cities, service providers
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
•Announced Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs) in 2020, 2021 and 2022. •2020 Funds Available: $11.5 Million
•2021 Funds Available: $11.0 Million
•2022 Funds Available: $10.5 Million
•Committed funding to a total of 13 project, 7 in 2020 and 6 in 2021. •2020 Funds Awarded: $10,165,360 (466 units)
•2021 Funds Awarded: $10,192,730 (434 units)
•Awarded $4,215,360 in 2020 from HCD for capital and administrative funding through the Local Housing Trust Fund program.
•Awarded $600,000 from OCCOG for their Regional Early Action Plan (REAP) grant for administrative funding.
•Awarded $5,000,000 in 2021 from HCD for capital and administrative funding through the Local Housing Trust Fund program.
DEVELOPMENT TRACKING
ANNUAL FUNDING SOURCES
•Administrative Funding
•County of Orange General Fund -
$200,000/year
•Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) Program -
~$105,000/year
•Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) Grant -
~$310,000/year
•City Member Contributions - $0/year
•T otal Administrative Budget: ~$615,000
•Capital Funding
•County of Orange General Fund -
$1,000,000/year
•Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) -
$4,500,000/year
•Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) Program -
$4,750,000/year
•T otal Capital Budget: ~$10.25 Million
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
•Expand Trust membership to all 34 cities in the county •Receive additional funding through State budget allocation •Develop sources of private donations for affordable and workforce housing
•2,700 new permanent supportive housing units by 2025
•Work with other stakeholders in Orange County to create more regional collaborative opportunities to address the housing crisis and homelessness.
COSTA MESA
CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION
APRIL 2022
www.ochft.org
California Bicycle Coalition
Summit 2022
Report to city council
Protected
Intersection
Panels
Working Towards an E-bike Future!
Changes in Federal Transportation Policy and the Impact on California The Future of Open Streets
California Bicycle Advocacy Success Stories
What Is the Future of Mobility?
International Cycling Cities
Decriminalizing Biking & Walking
CalBike Design Symposium
Building Mobility Justice
Speed Cameras: Enforcement and Equity
Show Me the Money
Bike Tourism
Quick Build 101
Principles of Equitable Micromobility
The Pandemic Pivot
People Power in Bike Advocacy
Lessons from Latin America
Report Card on California Bike Funding
Community Bike Shops
State Leadership for a New Paradigm
Disabilities and Cycling: Truly Inclusive Bike Advocacy The Business of Growing the Movement
Educating for Better Bicycling
Climate Change and Culture Change: Let’s Get Creative Right Now In Defense of the Pedal
The Case for Bike Highways: Examples from the Bay Area and Los Angeles County
Bike Skills in Schools
Quick Build 101
- I always thought quick builds = pop ups
- I was wrong
- Quick builds are have a few premises
- Use cheap but durable materials
- Do something that doesn’t require a study
- Learn from doing
Panel led by ALTA and Mr.
Barricade from Tik Tok
Protected Intersections aka Dutch Junctions
O
RAlta: Evolution of the Protected Intersection
What to Quick Build? Don’t give up at the intersection! Quick Build Process
Plan
Monitor
Engage
Iterate
Maintain
Repeat
Check out ALTA’s public quick build white paper:
https://altago.com/wp-content/uploads/Quick-Build-
Guide-White-Paper-2020-1.pdf
Bike Education
Learned so much good stuff:
- How to teach
- Curriculum
- How to motivate kids
- Trick them into learning
- Bring pizza
- What bike education can mean:
- Self repair
- Teaching drivers how to drive
- How to be a good cyclist
- How to ride a bike from zero to hero
- Bike commuting
- Put the bike in the back of the car, drive halfway and bike to work - Tell everyone you biked the whole way
- Becoming an LCI trained instructor
Show me the money!
Show me the money!
Amazing talk
Talked about the various funding sources and grants that cities can apply to and what each is looking for Just as importantly,
It talked about the way that non profits can help
We can review applications (even just for spelling)
We can collect community input
We can write letters of support
We can work work cities to buttress their arguments
Federal and State: pots of money
RAISE - Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
American Rescue Plan
Member-Designated Transportation Projects (Earmarks)
Urban Greening Program
Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) Program
STP - Sustainable Transportation Planning
LPP - Local Partnership Program (Funded by SB1 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program RMRA )
LSRP - Local Streets and Roads Program(Funded by SB1 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program RMRA )
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3
OTS – Office of Traffic Safety
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC) Fights Climate Change by reducing GHG’s by funding:
Infill affordable housing near transit
Transit Improvements & Bikeways, Sidewalks, Trees
Maximum funding request: $30 million per project
$20 million max for Affordable Housing
$10 million max available for transit, bike, and walk
Housing and Biking
No one at the policy level really about housing and biking — they talk about transit but not walkability and bikeability We need to be thinking about housing in the context of
regional mobility
Parking reform is the nexus
Talking about housing affordability
What I feel like I want to bring back to CM
- Ideas around bike education
- Networking important relationships
- SAAS
- CalTrans
- Other bike coalitions
- Rock Miller
- Education folks
- Latino Health Network
- What grants should CM apply for?
- How can CMABS help? We can do more than just a letter - What could we accomplish / take on?
- How can we as city be more collaborative with state agencies? - OCPW ATP
- CalTrans
What I hope council takes away:
Staff and councilmembers should attend next year!!! (Likely in San Diego next year) CMABS wants to help whatever way it can. We know money is tight and staff time is limited but we can help with those things at the margins by:
- Finding grants
- Conducting community outreach
- Helping buttress the arguments in our grants
What would it take to get the CalBike summit to Costa Mesa in 2-3 years? Happy to send you all a link to any powerpoint and or/panel recording
VOLUNTEERS
Fairview Park Alliance
Concerts in the Park
July 12 – Balearic Park
July 19 – Tewinkle Park
July 26 – Lion’s Park
Balearic Park is PERFECT for Concerts in the Park
Fairview
Park
Purchase
Agreement
Signed by
the city in
1986
Enterprise
Fund
Wilson Street Plans
By David
Martinez
Bike box?
Dutch Junction
Sidewalk connection?
Bulb outs?
Missing leg, identified in PMP
Another crossing?