Santa Ana City Council
October 6, 2026

boundaries, with modifications as appropriate to reflect neighborhood size, parking conditions, district rules, and operational needs. • Drafting and presentation of Ordinance(s) revising the Residential Permit Parking petition process, including reducing the current 66% favorable-petition threshold (owners only) to 60%, which would include multi-family unit tenants/owner-occupants.
• Drafting and presentation of Ordinance revising permit allocations and eligibility requirements to align with legal requirements: draft ordinance(s) to implement the updated Residential Permit Parking Program, including revised permit allocations, eligibility requirements, and other program provisions to align with the 2016 AG Opinion and establish the allocation of 2-permits for single family residences, 2-permits for multi-family units, and the provision of guest passes as defined in the Administrative Permit Parking Guidelines. • Presentation and Adoption of Miscellaneous Fees, as part of the next fiscal year budget process to include the proposed fees for the permit passes and guest passes.
• Approval and Procurement of License Plate Recognition (LPR) technology. • Approval and Procurement of enhanced enforcement services, including amending the existing LAZ Parking enforcement agreement.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
There is no environmental impact associated with this action.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action and the action does not authorize the expenditure of funds or approval of any contracts.

Implementation of the recommended changes from the Study would result in both onetime and recurring costs, as well as recurring revenues from residential parking permits, guest passes, and parking citations. Future permit and guest-pass revenues will depend on the final permit allocation, permit and guest-pass fees, number of participating households, permit utilization, and implementation of the new parking management system. These revenues, along with the final cost of enforcement and citation processing, will be incorporated as part of the Action and Implementation Plan that will need to be considered and approved by the City Council before any future contract or appropriation is presented to the City Council.

EXHIBIT(S)

1. Request for Proposal 22-074 Citywide Parking Study

2. 2019 Pilot Parking Study

3. Outreach and Engagement Summary

4. Existing Permit Parking Program at a Glance
City Council 26 – 5 10/6/2026
Residential Permit Parking Action and Implementation Plan Update October 6, 2026

5. Citywide Residential Parking Action and Implementation Plan

6. Key Findings and Recommendation Basis

7. RPP Program Guidelines

8. Implementation Phasing and Monitoring
Submitted By: Rodolfo Rosas, P.E., Acting Executive Director of Public Works Approved By: Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager
City Council 26 – 6 10/6/2026
Exhibit 1
City Council 26 – 7 10/6/2026
City of Santa Ana RFP 22-074

NOTICE INVITING PROPOSALS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that proposals will be received from qualified Firms for:

CITYWIDE PARKING STUDY - CONSULTING SERVICES
Responses to this Request for Proposals (RFP) must be submitted electronically to the PlanetBids system no later than May 25, 2022 at 12:00 p.m. Proposals received after this date/time will not be considered. It is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that any proposals submitted have sufficient time to be received by the City of Santa Ana prior to this proposal due date and time.

Additionally, it is a requirement that hard copy proposals also be sent by courier service, mailed, or hand delivered in an enclosed sealed envelope and marked clearly with the following “SEALED PROPOSAL FOR
CITYWIDE PARKING STUDY – CONSULTING SERVICES
RFP NO. 22-074

IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA
DO NOT OPEN WITH REGULAR MAIL.”
City of Santa Ana
Attn.: ZDENEK KEKULA
Public Works Agency; M-43
20 Civic Center Plaza; Ross Annex
Santa Ana, CA 92701
For further instructions regarding hard copy submission of proposals, refer to PlanetBids.

All notifications, requests for information, updates and addenda will be posted online on PlanetBids at https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanyID=20137. Proposers shall be responsible for monitoring the site to obtain information regarding this solicitation. Failure to respond to required updates may result in a determination of a nonresponsive qualification.

PRE-PROPOSAL MEETING: There will be a mandatory pre-proposal meeting on Wednesday May 11, 2022, at 11:00 am. We will meet at 20 Civic Center Plaza; Ross Annex, Santa Ana, CA 92701 (4th floor, Conference Room), or through zoom with the link:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84501025411 ,
Meeting ID: 845 0102 5411
One tap mobile: +16699006833, 84501025411# US (San Jose), +13462487799, 84501025411# US (Houston)
City Council 26 – 8 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 9 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 10 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 11 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 12 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 13 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 14 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 15 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 16 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 17 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 18 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 19 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 20 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 21 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 22 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 23 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 24 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 25 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 26 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 27 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 28 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 29 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 30 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 31 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 32 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 33 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 34 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 35 10/6/2026
City Council 26 – 36 10/6/2026

RESIDENTIAL PILOT

PARKING STUDY
Public Works Agency
Traffic Engineering
City of Santa Ana
November 2019
Exhibit 2
City Council 26 – 37 10/6/2026
1 Table of Content 1
Executive Summary 2
Study Objective 3
Parking Supply 4
Parking Demand 5
Mapping Supply/Demand 6
Potential Remedies 8
Decrease Demand for Public Parking Spaces 11
Appendix A - Additional Parking in Multi-family Residential 12 Appendix B - Overnight Street Parking 14
Appendix C - Overnight Use of City Park Parking Lots 18 Appendix D – Overnight Use of School Parking Lots 22
Appendix E – Overnight Parking within Commercial Property 25 Parking Lots

CONTENTS
City Council 26 – 38 10/6/2026
2 RESIDENTIAL PILOT

PARKING STUDY
Executive Summary
Based on concerns from City residents related to parking shortages, the Santa Ana City Council and the City Manager in 2018 directed staff to prepare a Parking Study. Public Works Agency, in conjunction with the Planning and Building Agency, the Police Department, and the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency prepared a Pilot Parking Study to analyze two parking districts within the City. The two parking districts, Northeast and Eastside, were chosen based on the size of the districts, the mix of residential land uses contained within, the volume of parking related requests for service, and potential opportunities for parking relief.

The study contains a parking need vs. parking capacity comparison within the residential areas of the districts. To determine the need, staff requested and received data from the Department of Motor Vehicles on vehicles registered to addresses within the district. The capacity is based on a count of parking spaces available, both on private property and within the street, using City GIS systems, Planning records and field visits. The study includes color-coded maps to indicate areas which have a surplus or deficit of parking.

The analysis demonstrated that parking conditions vary considerably within and between residential neighborhoods. The pilot maps generally indicated that SFR areas had sufficient parking supply relative to the number of registered vehicles, while conditions within MFR areas ranged from adequately parked to substantially underparked. The Eastside District map (Attachment 1) indicates a distinct parking shortage in most of the MFR blocks east of Standard Avenue with parking supply-to-demand ratios at less than 0.8. The map for Northeast District map (Attachment 2) also indicates parking shortages in two of the MFR neighborhoods with supply-to-demand ratios less than 0.8.

The pilot also identified an important limitation of addressing parking shortages solely by creating additional permit parking streets. When parking restrictions are expanded to one street or neighborhood, vehicles that previously parked in that area may be displaced to nearby unrestricted streets. This can create a spillover or “domino” effect, resulting in additional parking concerns and requests for new permit parking areas. The pilot therefore shifted the City's approach from simply responding to individual requests for additional permit parking toward evaluating parking conditions using measurable supply and demand information and considering a broader range of parking management strategies. The information gathered would be applied to potential Requests for Proposals that the City could publish for a citywide parking management solution.

City Council 26 – 39 10/6/2026
3 City Council 26 – 40 10/6/2026
4 RESIDENTIAL PILOT

PARKING STUDY
City Council 26 – 41 10/6/2026
5 City goal to provide: “Community
Health, livability, Engagement &
Sustainability with an objective to
support neighborhood vitality”
Study Objective
The objective of the Parking Pilot Study is to
inventory the current parking and identify
areas that depict a parking shortage, and to
identify potential solutions to reduce the
shortage.

The study focuses on two residential permit
parking districts:
 Northeast - Defined by the portion of the
City lying north of 17th Street and east of
Lincoln Avenue
 Eastside - Bordered by First Street on the
north, Union Pacific Railroad Tracks on the
east (east of Standard Avenue), Edinger
Avenue on the south, and Main Street on
the west.

These two districts were selected based on
the high number of parking -related requests
for service, the housing density mixture, and
the potential areas of additional parking
supply opportunity.

City Council 26 – 42 10/6/2026
6 RESIDENTIAL PILOT

PARKING STUDY
Parking Supply
Supply is based on estimated parking spaces within private residential property and on adjacent public streets. Both parking supply and demand are mapped on a block-by-block basis.

The first phase of the study gathered data from available onsite parking for residential properties and available on-street parking in residential neighborhoods. Staff gathered parking availability inventory data for single-family residential, low-density multi-family and high-density multi-family properties through the following methods:
 Field Checks – Staff visited the residential neighborhood to visually determine onsite (private property) and offsite (public street) parking space quantities, taking into account locations where the parking is prohibited (e.g., driveways, fire hydrants, red curbs, “No Parking” areas).
 Record Search - Because many of the multi-family residential private properties were not accessible, staff determined on-site parking space counts through the use of available planning maps, original land use entitlement records, Santa Ana Property Identification Network, the City’s GovClarity geographic information system (GIS) aerial maps, and Orange County Tax Assessor data.
 Contacted Property Managers – Staff called property managers to inquire on their property’s parking allocation.
 Address Checks – Staff verified address of properties through GIS and planning resources.

City Council 26 – 43 10/6/2026
7 RESIDENTIAL PILOT

PARKING STUDY
Parking Demand
The demand is based on vehicles registered within each district’s borders and staff efforts to establish communication with multi-family complexes. To start, staff requested and received information from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) regarding the number of vehicles registered for each residential address, including all single and multi-family units within each pilot study district. No personal information about the vehicle owners was requested nor provided. The data provided by the DMV included over 27,800 registered vehicles within the two districts. Staff then used the record research previously done in the Parking Supply section to communicate with each multi-family complex regarding the characterization of on-site parking. The following is a typical example of staffs’ findings:

A multi-family non-owner occupied apartment complex reflects a lower register vehicles count from DMV database, 236, than actual vehicles parked on-site of 357. This does not take into account incidental parking from long/ short term house guests.

Multi-family units due to their nature, large unit count, low parking standards at the time of development, short/long term residency, family growth, all creates a need for parking beyond the present capacity, and influences parking intrusion into neighborhoods. This deficiency is being absorbed by surrounding single-family residential area.

Anecdotally there is a demand due to the amount of permit parking streets adjacent to said multi-families, as reflected in both the permit parking district maps and in Mapping Supply/Demand section.

City Council 26 – 44 10/6/2026
8 Mapping Supply/Demand
Both Eastside and Northeast districts were analyzed. Supply/Demand parking ratios within Multifamily and single-family residences are as follows:

Eastside District Observations:
 MFR Parking S/D Ratios – 0.4 to 1.09
 SFR Parking S/D Ratios – 1.13 to 1.96
 Most impacted SFR blocks nearest under-parked MFR

RESIDENTIAL PILOT

PARKING STUDY
City Council 26 – 45 10/6/2026
9 RESIDENTIAL PILOT

PARKING STUDY
Mapping Supply/Demand Continued
Northeast District Observations:
 MFR Parking S/D Ratios – 0.5 to 3.02
 SFR Parking S/D Ratios – 1.19 to 3.23
 Most impacted SFR blocks nearest under-parked MFR
City Council 26 – 46 10/6/2026
10 RESIDENTIAL PILOT

PARKING STUDY
Potential Remedies
The second part of the study includes identifying locations where additional on and off street parking could potentially be created near impacted residential areas. These sources of parking could be:

Additional Parking in Multi-Family Residential
Management of multi-unit properties that have flat parking spaces are being contacted to explore their interest on a variety of options including vehicle lifts on their property; initial feedback from the property managers was not positive as there were several concerns related to maintenance and repairs of the lifts.

See Appendix A.

Overnight Street Parking
Staff identified street segments where parking was known or likely to exist in the past, but had been prohibited in response to complaints unrelated to traffic safety from homeowners, Police Department, Parks, Recreating and Community Services Agency, or others. The reports ranged from nuisance type complaints such as nighttime noise, littering, and criminal activity. These areas of parking restrictions are typically on streets not fronting residential properties. Parking could be re-instituted on:
 Arterial and collector streets on the side or rear yard of residential properties  Neighborhood streets fronting City parks and other uses Northeast Eastside
On Arterials (signs only) 60 40
On Arterials (striping required) 80 130
Adjacent to City Parks Minimal Minimal
In some cases, simply changing or removing signs could accomplish the replacement of parking; in other cases, restriping streets would be required for measures such as back-in angled parking. See Appendix B.

City Council 26 – 47 10/6/2026
11 RESIDENTIAL PILOT

PARKING STUDY
Potential Remedies Continued
Overnight Use of City Park Parking Lots
Based on a review of aerial photographs, it appears there are some park parking lots near some of residential neighborhoods which are experiencing the parking shortages. There are potentially spaces within the park parking lots which could theoretically be available during the nighttime hours. Currently, however, while the City allows parking within parks during operational hours, overnight parking is prohibited.

Staff explored details of a program specific to selected City parks whereby parking within City parks for a monthly fee under a potential new Permit Parking Program. The cost would be significantly higher than the current on-street Residential Permit Parking program, and may need to be restricted to allow residential overnight parking only. See Appendix C.

Parking (overnight) within School parking lots
This type of permitted parking could operate in agreement with appropriate school district, and could potentially operate similar to City Parks parking program described above. See Appendix D. City staff reached out to SAUSD staff to discuss the potential program. The District staff indicated a preliminary interest to consider the proposal further. The District staff believes that through a negotiated agreement, parking space might possibly be made available.

Parking (overnight) within Commercial property parking lots There are potentially thousands of spaces which could theoretically be available during the needed hours based on the presumption that the commercial centers need the parking during the hours that the business are open, but unused during the night-time hours, when the residential parking shortage is greatest. A program to utilize the night-time commercial center parking capacity could, for example, allow parking between 10pm and 6am for residents with appropriate permits.

To gage an interest amongst commercial properties, staff contacted 10 commercial property representatives. Staff found that eight were not interested and two were willing to answer questions regarding a potential permit parking program. See Appendix E.

City Council 26 – 48 10/6/2026
12 Potential Remedies Continued
Potential Parking Spaces
Northeast Eastside
City Park Parking Lots 50 90
School Parking Lots 200+ 220+
Nearby Commercial Property 1000’s 100’s

RESIDENTIAL PILOT

PARKING STUDY
City Council 26 – 49 10/6/2026
13 RESIDENTIAL PILOT

PARKING STUDY
Decrease Demand for Public Parking Spaces
Planning Division to provide information.

City Council 26 – 50 10/6/2026
14 RESIDENTIAL PILOT

PARKING STUDY
Appendix A
Additional Parking in Multi-Family Residential
Based on information provided, it appears that the number of on-site parking spaces within the multifamily residential areas is insufficient to adequately house the cars registered. Potential solutions to help reduce the parking intrusion from high density multi-family residential overnight period into singlefamily residential and other areas are:
 Provide letters to tenants requesting no parking within SFR neighborhoods  Requiring use of existing spaces for the intended parking purpose rather than for storage or other purposes
 Incentives by management to tenants to reduce the number of cars  Restriping existing parking areas to better utilize space  Addition of mechanical parking lifts to surface lots
 Contracting with commercial property owners to provide night-time overflow parking  Contracting with government property owners to provide night-time overflow parking After speaking with several multi-family complexes, it is clear there is a need and desire for additional parking but not without concerns. Management was cooperative in providing staff with property details such as the number of units, assigned spaces per unit, and cost per additional non-registered spaces.

The exact number of spaces on-site were not disclosed. Management expressed a need for monetary aid from the City for implementations such as parking lifts.

District Multi-Unit
Property
Property Details
Willing To
Enter
Program?
Concerns
Northeast
Sandalwood-Coco
Palms Apartments
2301 N Ponderosa
St
Units = 60
Assigned Spaces / Unit
= 2
Cost / Extra Space =
$50/mo
Spaces = Not Declared
Yes Implementation Cost
Subsidized by City?
Northeast
Tustin View
Apartments
2010 Ponderosa St
Units = 84
Assigned Spaces / Unit
= 1
Cost / Extra Space = $0
Spaces = Not Declared
Yes Implementation Cost
Subsidized by City?
City Council 26 – 51 10/6/2026
15 RESIDENTIAL PILOT

PARKING STUDY
Appendix A continued
District Multi-Unit
Property
Property Details
Willing
To Enter
Program
?
Concerns
Northeast
Aspens
Apartment
Homes
1201 Fairhaven
Ave
Units = 642
Assigned Spaces / Unit = 1
Cost / Extra Space = $0
Spaces = 642 assigned and
about 500 extra
May
Consider
Implementation Cost
Subsidized by City?
Northeast
Mango Tree
Apartments
2002 E Santa
Clara Ave
Units = 52
Assigned Spaces / Unit = 1 to
2 Cost / Extra Space = $95 /mo
Spaces = Not Declared
No Implementation Cost
Subsidized by City?
Northeast
Sherry Lane
Garden Homes
1920 Sherry Ln
Units = 62
Assigned Spaces / Unit = 2
Cost / Extra Space = $50 /mo
Spaces = 133
May
Consider
Implementation Cost
Subsidized by City?
Northeast
Latitude
Apartment
Homes
2201-2209 E
Santa Clara Ave
Units = 162
Assigned Spaces / Unit = 1 to
2 Cost / Extra Space = $125
Spaces = Not Declared
Yes Implementation Cost
Subsidized by City?
Northeast
Santa Clara East
Apartments
1950 & 2010 E
Santa Clara Ave
Units = 100
Assigned Spaces / Unit = 1
Cost / Extra Space = $50 /mo
Spaces = 135
Yes Implementation Cost
Subsidized by City?
Northeast
Fairhaven
Apartment
Homes
1300 Fairhaven
Ave
Units = 164
Assigned Spaces / Unit = 1
Cost / Extra Space = $50 /mo
Spaces = 246
May
Consider
Implementation Cost
Subsidized by City?
City Council 26 – 52 10/6/2026
16 RESIDENTIAL PILOT

PARKING STUDY
Appendix B
Overnight Street Parking
Staff identified arterial, collector and certain local street segments near or within single family residential neighborhoods where overnight parking was might have existed in the past and could potentially be allowed again, but is currently restricted or prohibited. Based on research or anecdotal information, in many cases, the parking restrictions were instituted for reasons unrelated to traffic safety. Instead the prohibitions were generally in response to complaints from neighborhood residents, the Police Department, or others. The complaints ranged from nuisance type activity such as night time noise and littering to much worse criminal activity.

These areas of parking restrictions are typically on streets which do not have residential fronting properties, and therefore do not have the benefit of “eyes on the street”. They are often arterial or collector streets that run along the rear yards or side yards of single family residential properties, which are blocked from view of the homes by a fence or wall, and the parked vehicles create the opportunity for hiding spots for individuals engaged in criminal activity. A similar example is local streets adjacent to some neighborhood parks.

Residents have complained about trash left by the drivers, noises generated from the drivers accessing the vehicles in in some cases car alarms going off and running for extended periods before being deactivated. In more extreme cases complaints have included reports of drug use or other illicit actives.

Staff identified three categories of streets where parking may potentially be instated or-reinstated:
along arterial or collector streets with simple signage changes, along arterial or collector streets which require striping changes, and along local streets adjacent to City parks. However, community outreach would be needed prior to reducing the restrictions.

Arterial/Collector Streets – Signage Changes Only
As noted, some arterial and collector streets within or adjacent to the residential areas had previously accommodated parking, but that parking was prohibited overnight with the addition of time restriction signage.

Examples of these streets are where overnight parking bans have been instituted are Santa Clara Avenue in the Northeast Parking District and Hobart Street in the Eastside District. In light of the growing need for parking, the City might remove the overnight bans, which could result in the addition of about 60 spaces in Northeast and about 40 spaces in Eastside. For most of these streets, the overnight parking bans could be removed or otherwise reduced to simply be changing signage.

City Council 26 – 53 10/6/2026
17 RESIDENTIAL PILOT

PARKING STUDY
Appendix B (continued)
Arterial/Collector Streets – Signage Changes Only
Similar to the arterial and collector streets which previously allowed parking as described above, some City streets some streets were designed and built to accommodate parking, but would have to be re-striped to allow parking. These arterial and collector streets have sufficient curb-to-curb width to accommodate parking and the number of travel lanes required by the City’s Circulation Element. Parking may have been allowed in the past, however, as the lane striping is currently configured, vehicle parking would conflict with the travel lanes on these streets.

Examples of streets which are wide enough to accommodate parking are Fairhaven Avenue and Cambridge Street in the Northeast Parking District, and Standard Avenue in the Eastside District.

In light of the growing need for parking, the City might re-align the roadway striping to make space for parking, which could result in the addition of about 80 spaces in Northeast and about 130 spaces in Eastside.

Local Streets fronting City Parks
Although there are no examples within the two subject parking districts, there are streets in the City where overnight parking adjacent to City parks has been prohibited. The topic is included herein for consideration as a potential source of relief to add to the parking in applicable areas of the City.

Within the City, there are streets adjacent to neighborhood parks where parking is prohibited or restricted during the overnight hours, even though space is sufficient width exists to allow parking.

In these cases, the parking is restricted using signage or red curb. Based on discussion with the City’s Police Department or the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency, in addition to reports of unwanted activities listed above, the nighttime restriction of vehicles along park-adjacent streets provides police units to unobstructed view into the parks and therefore more patrol the area within the parks.

As noted, no park-adjacent streets within the Northeast or Eastside District currently have overnight parking, however staff is aware of examples within the City. In general, after community outreach, removing the restriction would simply involve removing or changing the signage.

City Council 26 – 54 10/6/2026
18 Appendix B (continued)
Back-in Angled Parking
There are local streets in the City where the curb to curb width is sufficient to allow diagonal parking.

On these streets, parallel parking already exists, the number of spaces may potentially be increased with the change in angle of the spaces. Because of the traffic safety requirements for adequate visibility between vehicles exiting driveways and vehicles in the travel lanes, the increase in quantity of spaces is significantly limited where driveways are present.

In addition, the traditional head-in configuration of diagonal parking conflicts with bicycle traffic because of the limited visibility for the parked vehicles as they are backing out of the spaces. For that reason, staff has not pursued head-in diagonal parking. This conflict is of particular concern because as the City looks to add bike lanes, staff is identifying local and collector streets which are wider than standard. Those same streets are the locations where diagonal parking might help.

As a potential compromise to encourage bike use and allow diagonal parking, the City can consider “back-in” or reverse diagonal parking on a few specific streets. With back-in diagonal parking, drivers have a better view of traffic, both vehicles as well as bicycles, when exiting the parking space into the travel lane. There are currently no back-in diagonal parking on any streets within the City, however, staff is aware of other agencies within the state which employ the technique. These include the Cities of Oceanside, San Diego, San Francisco, and San Jose. Reports from those agencies as to the effectiveness of the technique is positive, with the qualifier that the street must fit a specific type, and implementation must include community education and be well signed.

Considerations are the streets should fit the design criteria: appropriate speeds, widths, and sufficient lengths between driveways. In addition, because the reverse diagonal parking is new to most of Santa Ana’s drivers, an appropriate segment of street would be a local residential street where the majority of drivers travel and park on the street on a daily basis.

RESIDENTIAL PILOT

PARKING STUDY
City Council 26 – 55 10/6/2026
19 RESIDENTIAL PILOT

PARKING STUDY
Appendix B (continued)
Implementation of the solution would require modifications to street striping and signage as well as community outreach. Because parallel parking already exists in these locations, the outreach would be more focused on the acceptance of the form of the parking. In addition, the Santa Ana Municipal Code would need to be updated to designate any street or portion thereof which would be modified to include diagonal parking.

Although there are no examples of streets fitting the criteria within the two subject parking districts, the topic is included herein for consideration as a potential source of relief to add to the parking in applicable areas of the City.

City Council 26 – 56 10/6/2026
20 Overnight Use of City Park Parking Lots
Existing Conditions -
The City owns and Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Agency (PRCSA) operates, and maintains forty-three parks and about twenty recreation facilities Citywide. Most of those contain parking lots.

Pursuant to SAMC Sec. 31-2.9, City parks are open from 5:00 am to 11:00 pm, however, the code allows the Director of PRCSA to reasonably extend or limit the hours of the parks, or portions thereof. In practice, park hours vary throughout the City with the majority of parks being open from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm or from dawn to dusk. During the overnight hours that parks are closed, parking is not allowed within the off-street lots in response to recurring complaints from residents of noise, litter, overnight camping, drug use and other illicit activities. To regulate the parking, in some cases signs prohibiting the overnight parking are placed within the lots. In other parks, the City relies on the signs which state the hours for park. The parks, which are typically not fenced except for at ballfield perimeters, are patrolled by private security guards until midnight. However, the practice of parking during nighttime hours continues to occur at some locations. To reduce the occurrence of overnight parking, PRCSA is in the process of installing vehicle gates at some parks and updating signage indicating the prohibition.

Overnight Parking Program -
As a potential measure to help provide relief for overcrowded street parking, staff considered a program which would allow overnight paid parking within the park parking lots, based on the presumption that the park users need the parking during the hours the parks are open, but are unused during the overnight hours, when the residential parking shortage is greatest. Such program would allow area residents to park through a permit program. The program could operate generally similar to the City’s Residential Permit Parking program (RPP), however, it is expected that the permits to park within the parks would be much more expensive than the existing RPP to offset capital and staff operation efforts as noted below.

Appendix C

RESIDENTIAL PILOT

PARKING STUDY
City Council 26 – 57 10/6/2026
21 Appendix C (continued)
A particular concern of PRCSA staff is the potential for extended use of the spaces by the permittees, which would leave spaces unavailable or the park users. A potential solution to this concern is a 60-minute period of No Parking (by either park users or permittees) before and after park hours to discourage those with overnight permits from arriving too early or staying beyond program hours. During the 60-minute periods, vehicles parked in the lots would be ticketed or towed. For example, a typical park parking lot under the program could be operate under the following rules:
7:00 am to 10:00 pm - open to park users during operating hours 10:00 pm to 11:00 pm - prohibit all parking
11:00 pm to 6:00 am – allow overnight permit-only parking 6:00 am to 7:00 am - prohibit all parking
An overnight parking program would also have to accommodate special events for the parks, meaning there could be blackout dates, when no parking would be allowed.

City staff had concerns of risk to residents parking within the lots, which are more isolated than City streets, as well as concerns of additional litter, noise, camping, criminal activity, and liability associated with an overnight parking program. It is expected that additional lighting, security personnel, cameras, monitors and enforcement would be needed to reduce nuisance and criminal activity, as well as cleaning services and capital improvements to provide safe accessible path from the parking lot to the streets. Implementation of the program would require extensive community outreach.

Staff researched other Southern California cities for similar programs and associated fees. The fees range from free to $700/year for local cities. Most of these programs allow 24-hour parking.

Also, by comparison, the City of Santa Ana has leased spaces for $500/year for MFR development projects requiring overflow parking. Finally, staff learned that MFR property managers charge about $1200 to $1500/year/space for parking when unbundled from rent. It is expected that, in order to recover capital and operating costs without subsidy, the fees would need to be $1000 to $1500 per year.

RESIDENTIAL PILOT

PARKING STUDY
City Council 26 – 58 10/6/2026
22 RESIDENTIAL PILOT

PARKING STUDY
Appendix C (continued)
Northeast and Eastside District Examples -
Northeast- Within the Northeast District, Portola Park is a 9.0-acre park situated south of Santa Clara Avenue, with space for passive and active space, including a basketball and tennis court, a baseball/softball field, and playground equipment.

The parking lot for park contains 56 spaces, including three accessible spaces. A “Park Rules” sign at the entrance path from the parking area to the grass area says that the park is closed during night-time hours. PRCSA staff indicate that they are in the process of adding signs to clarify that parking is prohibited in the lot between 10 pm and 6am. The parking lot is not subject the joint use agreement between the City and SAUSD.

If overnight residential parking was permitted under a permit as discussed herein, the allowable parking hours would be from 11 pm to 5 am. Staffing to enforce compliance with permit rules, and to provide cleaning services and security services would be required. Also, additional lighting, security cameras and some minor concrete repair to fix broken and uplifted sidewalk would be required. Finally, a concrete walkway along the north side of the lot and to Santa Clara Avenue would be desirable to provide a direct all-weather-surface connection to the street.

Eastside- The Eastside District has Madison Park, a 6.1-acre park situated at the northwest corner of Edinger Avenue and Standard Avenue, with space for passive and active space, including two baseball/softball fields, basketball courts, a community garden, and playground equipment.

The parking lot for Madison Park contains 94 spaces, including four accessible spaces. The lot is accessible to Edinger Avenue. The park parking is not available at night.

City Council 26 – 59 10/6/2026
23 RESIDENTIAL PILOT

PARKING STUDY
Appendix C (continued)
Similar to Portola Park, if overnight residential parking is allowed at Madison Park under a permit, the allowable parking hours would be from 11 pm to 5 am. Staffing to enforce compliance with permit rules, and to provide cleaning services and security services would be required. Also, additional lighting, security cameras and some minor concrete repair to fix broken and uplifted sidewalk would be required.

Finally, a concrete walkway along the south side of the lot to Edinger Avenue would be desirable to provide a direct all-weather-surface connection to the street.

The newly built Pacific Electric Park is within the Eastside Parking District, however, has no off-street parking and was therefore, not considered in this study.

City Council 26 – 60 10/6/2026
24 Appendix D
Overnight Use of School Parking Lots
Within the City, there are over 90 public and private schools. The schools are generally in residential neighborhoods or within walking distance of the neighborhoods. The school parking lots which could theoretically be available during the nighttime hours when not needed for school use.

Currently, however, overnight parking is generally prohibited in school parking lots. The majority of schools within the City operate under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD), so this segment of the study explores SAUSD schools.

Existing Conditions
SAUSD owns, operates and maintains 55 schools Citywide. Most contain parking lots. K-12 schools typically operate Monday through Friday during the in-session weeks between 7:00 am and 3:30 pm, and later depending on daily after-school programs. Sports, performing arts and other activates can extend school operation hours to 10:00 pm. During the overnight hours that schools are closed, parking is not allowed within the off-street lots. To restrict parking, the district places signs or vehicle gates near the driveways, or fences the entire parking area perimeter. The district generally also fences the perimeter of the remainder of the campus. The parking area in some cases signs prohibiting the overnight parking are placed within the lots.

Overnight School Parking
As a potential measure to help provide relief for overcrowded street parking, an overnight parking program is presented below. The program would allow overnight paid parking within the school parking lots, based on the presumption that the parking is unused during the hours that the residential parking shortage is greatest. Implementation of the program would require extensive community outreach.

Such a program would allow area residents to park through with a permit (sticker) program, which could be administered by the school district or the City through an agreement. If managed by the City, the school lot parking program would be coordinated with a program to allow overnight parking within City parks as described in the previous section.

RESIDENTIAL PILOT

PARKING STUDY
City Council 26 – 61 10/6/2026
25 Appendix D (continued)
Staff expects that the cost of permits to park within the school lots would be significantly more expensive than the City’s existing Residential Permit Parking program to offset capital and staff operation efforts as noted below. An overnight parking program would also have to accommodate special events for the schools, meaning there could be blackout dates, when no parking would be allowed.

However, SAUSD staff did list some many concerns, including:
1) Safety and security of the students, faculty administration of staff 2) Availability of the parking lot during morning drop off times 3) Potential for increased traffic during morning drop off times The safety and security concern could be mitigated by additional fencing between the parking lots and the remainder of the campus, and the morning parking lot availability and traffic concerns could be mitigated by a 60-minute No-Parking period prior to expected drop-off hours. Questions remain related to issuance of citation and towing for those vehicles which don’t comply.

District staff had concerns similar to those described for the parks, including risk to residents parking within the schools at night, additional litter, noise, damage to school sites, vandalism and other criminal activity, and liability associated with an overnight parking program. It is expected that additional security, enforcement, custodial and administrative personnel be required by either or both the City and SAUSD would, as well as capital improvement such as lighting, walkway repair, cameras, monitors and would be needed. Implement of such a program would require assignment of responsibility and cost consideration for use of right of way, capital improvements, operational staffing, insurance, liability, etc.

As noted above, the program as described could be operated by the District, or in conjunction with a City parks parking program through agreement with the District. It is expected that, in order to recover capital and operating costs without subsidy, the fees would need to be $1000 to $1500 per year.

City Council 26 – 62 10/6/2026
26 RESIDENTIAL PILOT

PARKING STUDY
Appendix D (continued)
Northeast and Eastside Parking District Examples
Northeast- Within the Northeast Parking District, SAUSD operates John Muir Elementary School (Muir) on Maybury Street, and Sierra Intermediate School (Sierra) on Grand Avenue.

Muir contain two parking lots: a 38-space lot, and a 31-space lot. Muir school operates from 8:00 am begin time to 2:24 pm dismissal.

If overnight residential parking was permitted under a permit as discussed herein, the allowable parking hours could potentially be from 10 pm to 6 am. Capital improvement and operational staffing as discussed above would be required.

Although Fairhaven Elementary School under the jurisdiction of Orange Unified School District (OUSD) is also with the Northeast District, staff focused on schools owned by SAUSD as part of the pilot program. If a program to use SAUSD school parking lots proves successful, the City could explore a similar program with OUSD.

Eastside- Within the Eastside District, SAUSD operates Edward B. Cole Academy and Advanced Learning Academy on Walnut Street (20 spaces), Roosevelt Elementary on Halladay Street (90 spaces), Walker Elementary on Bishop Street (38 spaces), and Madison Elementary on Hobart Street (74 spaces).

The hours of the schools vary from as early as 7:50 am beginning to 3:00 pm dismissal. Hours available for permit parking use could potentially be from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am. Capital improvement and operational staffing as discussed above would be required.

City Council 26 – 63 10/6/2026
27 RESIDENTIAL PILOT

PARKING STUDY
Appendix E
Parking (overnight) within Commercial property parking lots Based on a review of aerial photographs, it appears there are many commercial parking lots near some of residential neighborhoods, which are experiencing the parking shortages. There are potentially thousands of spaces which could theoretically be available during the needed hours based on the presumption that the commercial centers need the parking during the hours that the business are open, but unused during the night-time hours, when the residential parking shortage is greatest. A program to utilize the night-time commercial center parking capacity could, for example, allow parking between 10pm and 6am for residents with appropriate permits. To reduce the likelihood of the users of the programs from leaving the vehicles on the lots during business hours, there could be a period of No Parking between 6am and 7am. Potential fees for the program are unknown. The program could be handled directly between the businesses, or involve the City.

Commercial property owners were contacted to discuss interest in renting/leasing their property to allow for overnight parking. Staff made contact with ten commercial property owners. Eight expressed no interest because:
 Vehicles not being moved prior to start of business hours.  On-site safety (do the properties need to provide: security, lights, cameras, etc.)  Liability (i.e. indemnification for personal safety, tripping, injury, etc.)  Unclear rights for the reservation of parking spaces on their property, and ultimately the control of spaces.
 Additional maintenance on property (e.g. trash)
The two representatives who were willing to discuss a program are:

District Commercial Property Property Details
Willing To
Enter
Program?
Concerns
Northeast Sherwin-Williams
2201 N. Tustin Ave
Spaces = 23
Corporation =
Yes
Yes
- Liability
- Hours of Operation
Northeast Woodwards ACE
Hardware
2343 N Tustin Ave
Spaces = 40
Corporation =
Yes
No
- Liability -Security
- Cleaning
- Hours of Operation
- Illegal Parking
City Council 26 – 64 10/6/2026
City of Santa Ana
Community Engagement Summary
December 3, 2025
DRAFT
Citywide Residential Parking Action and Implementation Plan Exhibit 3
City Council 26 – 65 10/6/2026
December 3, 2025 1
EXHIBIT 3
Community Engagement Summary
The City of Santa Ana (“City”) conducted an extensive community engagement process, including the creation of a new parking program brand, a citywide online parking survey, tabling at local events, a series of Council presentations, and neighborhood meetings. The City also received input via emails and reviewed social media comments. A Community Engagement Plan was developed to outline the various outreach and engagement strategies, as well as the timeline for each activity to guide the overall Study.

Prior to the study, the City held over 75 community meetings and maintained a strong focus on community engagement throughout the project, with transparency in the parking program being one of its main priorities. The variety of community engagement activities and methods used in the study ensured that a wide range of voices contributed to the development of the RPP program. This approach reinforced the City's goal of inclusivity, ensuring that all perspectives, especially those of underrepresented groups, were actively considered. The following section provides an activity description and feedback summary for each community engagement activity conducted throughout the project.

Past City-led Outreach
Over 75 community meetings were held through the City’s Community Linkage Forum (“ComLink”) program, which aims to promote community participation in Santa Ana through regular neighborhood meetings. At these neighborhood meetings, residents had the opportunity to share their feedback regarding residential parking and the current Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program in Santa Ana. Below is a summary of the most common feedback received by topic:
x Permit Parking:
o Concerns about permit program for large households
o Concerns about permit program for accommodating guests o Desire for more guest permits
o Concerns about permit program being costly
o Concerns about permit program being unfair for single-family homes versus duplexes
o Desire for an online permit management system
o Safety concerns with current permit decal exposing driver’s residential information
x Enforcement and Policies:
o People saving parking spots with trash receptacles, traffic cones, etc. o Unfair enforcement
o Insufficient enforcement
x Safety and Sanitation:
o People parking during street sweeping
o Trash/vandalism from non-resident parkers
x Other:

City Council 26 – 66 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 2
o Concern for high-density development
o Condominiums without designated parking
o Desire for an off-street parking structure or leveraging underutilized parking lots for residential parking
Branding
To bring cohesiveness to the City’s parking
program, the Santa Ana Parking Program logo was
developed for use on all engagement materials,
including flyers, bus stop advertisements,
promotional videos, and the program’s webpage.

Branding is a key element in the program’s success,
as it helps establish a distinct identity, increases
recognition, improves the effectiveness of
engagement efforts, and builds trust between the
City and the community.

Citywide Parking Survey
An extensive online survey was conducted to solicit feedback from the public regarding their experience with residential parking and the current RPP program. An extensive promotional campaign of the survey along with the Study was done through bus stop advertisements (Figure 2) and promotional videos to reach as many community members as possible. While the survey was primarily conducted online, printed versions of the survey were also prepared and made available at some community meetings and tabling events.

As part of the Round 1 outreach process, the online survey was open for 582 days starting on March 23, 2023, and closing on October 25, 2024. A total of 3,959 responses were received from residents regarding their parking experience. For Round 2, the survey was reopened for 115 days starting on March 7, 2025, and closing on June 30, 2025. A total of 54 responses were received from residents. For Round 3, the survey was opened for 152 days starting July 1, 2025, and closing on November 30, 2025. A total of 59 responses were received. Across the three rounds, the online survey received a combined total of 4,072 responses1 . The survey was
1 Only counting complete responses.

Figure 2. Bus Stop Advertisements for Parking Survey
Figure 1. Santa Ana Parking Program logo
City Council 26 – 67 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 3
available in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. Below is a summary of key takeaways and findings from the online survey:
x Most respondents find it difficult to find parking on their block in the evening (6pm10pm) and overnight (10pm-6am). x When asked about their parking experience, many respondents expressed that their guests have a difficult time finding parking in their neighborhood, and that they frequently see vehicles parked for long periods of time without moving. x Of the respondents who qualify for a permit, most are unsatisfied when asked about the current permit application process and permit management process. x When asked about the current guest pass allotment, there is a relatively even split among respondents who are satisfied and unsatisfied.
x When asked about the current cost of the permits, most respondents expressed neutrality, while the rest were split between satisfaction and dissatisfaction. x A majority of respondents are dissatisfied with parking enforcement in their area. When asked to expand further, respondents indicated that enforcement tends to be unresponsive, irregular, and ineffective.
x Many residents reported typically parking 1 to 2 blocks away from their residence.

Full results of the survey can be found in the Citywide Parking Survey Outcomes Summary.

Tabling
The following local events were included in the community engagement process:

Fiestas Patrias
DIXON, Fehr & Peers (subconsultant), and City
staff were present at the Fiestas Patrias event
held on September 16, 2023, to share
information about the Study and distribute
printed copies of the citywide parking survey for
community members to fill out.

National Public Works Day
The City’s Public Works staff tabled at the
National Public Works Day event held on May
18, 2024, to promote the Study and the survey,
as well as to engage with community members and gain feedback on their residential parking experience.

Below are the resident comments as captured by Public Works staff:

Figure 3. Printed surveys at Fiestas Patrias
City Council 26 – 68 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 4
x One resident remarked how her
neighbor parks cars in their driveway in a
way that blocks the sidewalk, creating
challenges for the resident’s father who
is in a wheelchair.
x One resident who lives near Orange
Ave/Hobart St can’t find parking due to a
neighbor that has 6 or more cars that
never get moved.
x Other residents had similar concerns
about their neighbors’ vehicles staying
put for “weeks.”
x Most residents that engaged were
looking forward to an improved parking experience.

City Council Presentations
To date, there have been three key City Council presentations that were integral to the advancement of the Study and the parking program. Below is a high-level summary of each presentation:
x August 1, 2023: City Council adopted a resolution for the Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Policy, which outlines the guidelines for use of ALPR technology in Santa Ana, authorized users for the technology, data collection, retention policies, training guidelines, and information security protocols. The adoption of the ALPR Policy allowed the City to conduct parking utilization data collection as part of the Study. x August 15, 2023: A Citywide Parking Study Update was provided, covering a progress update, initial findings, online survey results, parking utilization data collection results, policy impacts, and next steps.
x June 4, 2024: City Council approved a purchase order for two mobile ALPR cameras to be used for parking utilization data collection as part of the Study.

Councilmember One-on-One Updates
A series of Councilmember one-on-one updates were held throughout the Study in order to provide a targeted overview of the project, survey results, and data collection findings specific to the Councilmember’s jurisdiction. In the first round of outreach, DIXON conducted four Councilmember one-on-one meetings and City staff provided information to the remaining three Councilmembers.

Below is a summary of the feedback received:
x Opportunity to use QR codes and visitor permits to manage parking supply. x Discussions regarding how to handle undocumented residents in applying for the permit parking program if adopting a “licensed driver” permit model. x Opportunity to improve the use of existing parking assets, such as leveraging parking supply at community centers, school district property, and city-owned properties to alleviate residential parking demand.

Figure 4. Tabling at Public Works Day
City Council 26 – 69 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 5
o Specific mentions of opportunities to leverage parking lots in Willard neighborhood, El Salvador Park, Bristol area, and churches in Washington Square.
x Emphasis on engaging with private landowners and leveraging their assets for parking. x Emphasis on engaging stakeholders such as schools, churches, and developers throughout the Study.
x Desire to change the physical appearance of parking permits. x Desire to maintain a physical permit format so that it can be easily enforced with an identifier, as well as for residents to be able to identify vehicles that are parked without a permit.
x Focus on having a permit program that is easy to manage for the residents and an emphasis on improving the end-user experience.
x Emphasis should be placed on thorough revision of the municipal codes and policies. x Desire for City staff to cooperate with apartment complexes to install additional parking lifts and expand residential parking supply for apartment residents.

Neighborhood Meetings
Neighborhood meetings were conducted in Spring 2024 to solicit feedback from specific neighborhoods, and target outreach for those where parking utilization data was collected. The following is a list of the meetings that were held:
x Ward 1 (Highland Park District – May 1, 2024, May 20, 2024 x Ward 2 (Brook/Bamdal District) – May 14, 2024, May 28, 2024 x Ward 3 (Northeast District) – April 29, 2024, May 6, 2024 x Ward 4 (Sandpointe District) – May 8, 2024, May 13, 2024 x Ward 5 (Willard District) – May 23, 2024
x Ward 6 (Eastside District) – May 22, 2024
Each meeting consisted of a brief presentation to inform residents about the ongoing parking study, the data collection efforts, and the parking utilization results specific to their community, as well as a facilitated open discussion where residents had the opportunity to voice their concerns, desires, and insights regarding parking in their neighborhood. Below is a summary of the feedback received across all the neighborhood meetings, categorized by topic:
x Enforcement
o Lack of consistency and responsiveness in enforcement o Vehicles parked for extended periods of time and violating the 72-hour rule o Blocked driveways
o Abandoned vehicles/trailers
o Illegal parking such as in front of fire hydrants
o Double parking
o Desire for prioritization of permit parking enforcement o Reported success with using the Santa Ana mobile app to report illegally parked vehicles where the car was removed within a week
o Opportunity to enforce number of vehicles allowed on driveway x Permit Parking
City Council 26 – 70 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 6
o Overreliance on technology
o Limitations on guest passes
o Effect of permit parking system on handicapped residents o Opposition to eliminating the RPP program
o Accessibility for low-income families
o Difficulty for guests to find parking
o Concerns of how guest pass allocations would work for households with ADUs/ garage conversions
o Desire for more permit allocations
o Lower permit fees
o Physical permit passes over digital permits to reduce reliance on technology o Ability to obtain guest passes for private gatherings o (Ward 1 and Ward 2) A previous attempt to petition for permitted parking did not pass due to not reaching the voting threshold (2/3) o Setting up permit program to be a licensed-driver model (1 parking permit per licensed name)
o Permit parking makes neighborhoods safer
x Parking Supply Management
o Spillover parking associated with special events
o Reduction of on-street parking availability due to curb extensions o Neighbors leaving large gaps between vehicles and not using curb space efficiently
o Conflict between neighbors over on-street parking spaces o Unlicensed street vendors taking up parking spaces
o Inability to park near residence and having to walk a long distance from vehicle o Residents do not use their garage and instead park on the street o (Ward 2) Issues with Sierra Intermediate school teachers parking on-street in front of residences instead of at the school parking lot o (Ward 2) Some teachers moving trash cans to free up parking space o (Ward 2) Some teachers park and block neighbor’s driveways o Not enough parking for multi-unit housing
o Residents reserve on-street parking spots
o Vehicles remain parked until street sweeping day and follow street sweeper vehicle to re-park
o Desire for an online interface such as a mobile app to show parking availability within the community
o Interest in using T-bars to delineate parking
o Wanting to park vehicles within safe distance from residence o (Ward 2) Interest in implementing angled parking on Lacy Street o Leveraging shared parking agreements
o (Ward 2) Potential opportunity for the City to lease out a City-owned parcel to a condominium complex for parking
o Full occupancy during the day but no parking issues during the night or during the summer
City Council 26 – 71 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 7
o Potential strategy of “recycling” street sweeping signs to now allow street parking during typical school hours
o Adding red curbs on 3 feet of either side of driveway o Opportunity to change the minimum residential building heights to allow room for garage lifts
o Opportunities to use parking lots at schools for residential parking x Safety and Sanitation
o Neighbors leaving trash receptacles out two days prior to trash pickup day o Blocked sightlines with vehicles parking too close to intersections o Insufficient space to put trash receptacles in the street o Better security and lighting in public parking areas
x Other
o Lack of transparency with City officials
o Overpopulation
o Desire for increased access to alternative modes of transportation (walking, biking, transit) to help curb parking demand
o Desire for a traffic management center
o Holding a street meeting
Prior to the series of six neighborhood meetings that took place in Spring 2024, a separate community outreach meeting was conducted for the Flower Park neighborhood on October 17, 2023, by co-consultants Fehr & Peers. Below is a summary of the feedback received specific to Flower Park:
x Enforcement
o Inconsistent enforcement
x Permit Parking
o Smaller physical permits
o Ability to obtain permits without landlord approval
o In favor of license plate-based permits, however residents want a way to verify if a vehicle is permitted or not
x Parking Supply Management
o Residents reserve on-street parking spots with cones and trash cans o Vehicles occupy more than one on-street parking spot at a time o Vehicles shuffle on-street parking spots
o Converting empty lots throughout the City into public parking lots o Lack of adequate parking requirements for new developments x Other
o Many households have multiple cars due to the increased cost of living Citywide Virtual Community Meeting
A virtual community meeting was held on October 10, 2024, with 36 community member attendees. The presentation consisted of a project overview, data collection results, and a “Parking Magic Wand” exercise to gather feedback from the community regarding their City Council 26 – 72 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 8
experience with residential parking in Santa Ana. Below is a summary of the comments and feedback received by topic:
x Enforcement:
o Inconsistent enforcement of permit parking rules, and lack of responsiveness of enforcement when contacted by residents
o Challenges of legislation that could undermine enforcement by reducing penalties for parking violations
o Difficulty in finding parking due to the high number of work trucks on the street. x Permit Parking:
o Desire for multiple permits per unit as a potential solution for neighborhoods with multi-generational households
o Frustration over limited guest passes and difficulties in finding parking in their community
x Safety:
o Permit parking is an effective tool in maintaining safety in neighborhoods, reducing crime, and managing traffic from nearby schools o Nearby commercial developments, such as new restaurants, negatively impact parking availability in some neighborhoods, leading to more vehicles from nonresidents parking in residential streets x Other (Residential Development and Supply Management):
o Shared parking with nearby institutions (e.g., St. Joseph’s Church) and better space management with angled parking where possible in order to increase parking supply
o Importance of holding developers accountable for providing sufficient parking in new developments, considering growing populations and limited space Environmental and Transportation Advisory Commission
On October 14, 2025, DIXON staff provided a Study update to the Environmental and Transportation Safety Commission (ETAC) in collaboration with City staff which included an overview of the project timeline, existing program, recommended program structure, and next steps.

Below is a high-level summary of the key discussions points from the ETAC meeting:
x Petitioning & Voting Structure: Clarification is needed on owner vs. tenant voting, with emphasis on ensuring tenants are not excluded and that each dwelling unit receives one vote through clearly defined business rules.
x Enforcement Capacity & Program Costs: The current system lacks consistent enforcement. Implementing LPR, hiring additional parking enforcement officers, and operating an online PMS will significantly increase costs, requiring permit fees to rise to maintain a self-funded program.
x Technology and Data Use: LPR, drone audits, and heatmaps can improve coverage, but Commissioners raised concerns about political sensitivity around enforcement technology and data use.

City Council 26 – 73 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 9
x High-Density Neighborhoods: Commissioners emphasized that denser, lower-income areas face the greatest parking challenges but may be least likely to petition. Therefore, City staff should provide ample outreach and support to encourage equitable access. x Shared Parking & Off-Street Parking Management: A major theme was the need to leverage shared parking opportunities (schools, businesses, City facilities) and evaluate off-street parking management in multifamily areas to reduce pressure on on-street supply.

South Coast Villas Virtual Community Meeting
A virtual community meeting was held on November 6, 2025, with 18 attendees from the South Coast Villas community. The presentation consisted of a project overview, data collection results, and a “Parking Magic Wand” exercise to gather feedback from the community regarding their experience with residential parking in Santa Ana, specifically around the South Coast Villas condominium complex. Below is a summary of the comments and feedback received by topic:
x Permit Parking:
o Desire for ability for multi-family residences to participate in the permit program
x Enforcement:
o Concerns of long-term vehicle storage by single-family households that own multiple vehicles
x Safety:
o Many residents have to walk long distances from their cars to their homes due to their inability to find nearby parking
x Other (Residential Development and Supply Management):
o Interest in shared parking opportunities to increase overnight parking supply o Want single-family residents to use their garage for car storage instead of other uses
o Opportunity to convert landscaping into additional parking areas o Wish to see the re-development of open land into a garage structure to add parking supply
o Would like to have on-street parking be allowed on Macarthur Blvd from Main St to Bristol after peak traffic hours (currently no parking is allowed to accommodate traffic)
Emails and Social Media
DIXON received public feedback via emails and monitored public feedback on various social media platforms, including Instagram, Facebook, and Reddit throughout the course of the Study. Below is a summary of some of the feedback received:
x Junk cars consuming valuable parking space
x Insufficient parking resources for new multi-family homes City Council 26 – 74 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 10
x High occupancy households (such as multi-generation households) with multiple vehicles, limiting parking availability for neighbors
x Feedback was primarily against additional developments x Sidewalk safety
x Desire for the City to prioritize enforcement and other socioeconomic issues City Council 26 – 75 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 11
Santa Ana Citywide Parking Survey
Outcomes Summary
Round 1 Survey Results
As part of the Round 1 Community Outreach, the City conducted an online survey from March 23, 2023 to October 25, 2024, to solicit feedback from the public regarding their experience with residential parking and the current Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program.

The online survey was open for 582 days starting on March 23, 2023, and closing on October 25, 2024. A total of 3,959 responses were received from Santa Ana’s residents regarding their parking experience. The survey was available in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. The table below shows the breakdown of the number of responses by language.

Survey Language Number of Responses
English 3,684
Spanish 252
Vietnamese 23
Total 3,959
Summary of Key Takeaways
Below is a summary of key takeaways and findings from the online survey. x Most respondents find it difficult to find parking on their block in the evening (6pm10pm) and overnight (10pm-6am). x When asked about their parking experience, many respondents expressed that their guests have a difficult time finding parking in their neighborhood, and that they frequently see vehicles parked for long periods of time without moving. x Of the respondents who qualify for a permit, most are unsatisfied when asked about the current permit application process and permit management process. x When asked about the current guest pass allotment, there is a relatively even split among respondents who are satisfied and unsatisfied.
x When asked about the current cost of the permits, most respondents expressed neutrality, while the rest were split between satisfaction and dissatisfaction. x Over 50% of respondents are dissatisfied with parking enforcement in their area. When asked to expand further, respondents indicated that enforcement tends to be unresponsive, irregular, and ineffective.

Fixed-choice Survey Results
Below are graphs visualizing the survey responses for the fixed-choice questions, accompanied by some relevant insights.

City Council 26 – 76 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 12
Question 1. Which district do you currently reside in?
City Council 26 – 77 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 13
Question 2. Which time restriction applies to your block?38% of respondents currently reside in an RPP zone.

City Council 26 – 78 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 14
Question 3. How many cars does your household have? The average number of cars per household is approximately 3.0 cars.

City Council 26 – 79 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 15
Question 4. How many drivers does your household have? The average number of drivers per household is approximately 2.8 drivers.

City Council 26 – 80 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 16
Question 5. What type of housing do you live in? According to the Local Housing Data (2021)2 prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 52.8% of housing units in Santa Ana are single-family homes. Additionally, the Orange County Census Atlas (2020)3 reports that 38.6% of Santa Ana’s population resides in multi-unit dwellings (3 or more units). In contrast, 73% of survey respondents indicated they live in a single-family home and 22% live in multi-unit dwellings. This suggests that the survey has a disproportionately higher representation of respondents living in single-family homes compared to the overall housing distribution in Santa Ana. 2 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/santa-ana-he-0421.pdf?16207678073 https://occensusatlas.com/docs/cities/santa-ana.html#hard-to-count-htc-characteristic-breakdown City Council 26 – 81 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 17
Question 6. How many on-site parking spaces does your household have? The average number of on-site parking spaces per household is approximately 2.3 parking spaces.

City Council 26 – 82 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 18
Question 7. Where do you typically park your car(s) at home? City Council 26 – 83 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 19
Question 8. When do you find it difficult to find parking on your block? City Council 26 – 84 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 20
Question 9. How far from your residence do you typically have to park to find an on-street space? City Council 26 – 85 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 21
Question 10. Do you have regular service worker visits to your home that last more than 3 hours? City Council 26 – 86 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 22
Question 11. Where do guests and service workers park when visiting your home? City Council 26 – 87 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 23
Question 12. Which of the following statements apply to your parking experience? City Council 26 – 88 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 24
Question 13. How satisfied are you with the application process for a parking permit? City Council 26 – 89 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 25
Question 14. How satisfied are you with the process for managing parking permits? City Council 26 – 90 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 26
Question 15. How satisfied are you with the current guest pass allotment? City Council 26 – 91 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 27
Question 16. How satisfied are you with the cost of the parking permit? Other responses include general unsatisfaction with the current permit rates, inability to qualify for permits, and complaints regarding the renewal process. The representation of “Unsatisfied” and “N/A” could be higher than what is seen in this graph as some respondents chose to select “Other” instead.

City Council 26 – 92 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 28
Question 17. How many permits do you qualify for?
City Council 26 – 93 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 29
Question 18. Do you use all of your allotted parking permits? City Council 26 – 94 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 30
Question 19. How satisfied are you with parking enforcement in your area? City Council 26 – 95 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 31
Open-ended Survey Results
Survey respondents were given the opportunity to share any additional feedback related to residential parking in an open-ended question at the end of the survey. The table below summarizes the key themes and feedback from the responses:

Category Common Themes
Enforcement and
Policies
x Unresponsive enforcement
x Need for regular enforcement schedule
x Lack of overnight enforcement in RPP zones
x Ticketing over small issues (e.g., permits written in pencil instead of pen, license plate number written in permanent marker fading from permit, permit displayed upside down, etc.) x Vehicles not getting cited in no parking zones
x Cars not moved after 72-hour rule
x Vehicles remain parked until right before street sweeping, then immediately re-park in the same space
x Street sweeper enforcement vehicles do not enforce certain streets
x Request for an enforcement hotline (specifically by residents from the Lacy community and Sunflower St/Ross St area)
x Vehicles without permits park overnight in permitted zones x Abandoned vehicles
x Double parking
x Lack of vehicle size restrictions (commercial vehicles, trailers parked on residential streets)
x Commercial vehicles park overnight in residential streets Permit Program
x Residents who own condos but are not allowed to purchase parking permits have to park far from their residence
x Condo owners want to be able to purchase permits
x Renters (such as apartment residents) who do not qualify for parking permits are parking in the single-family neighborhoods without permits and "taking up" parking space
x Pricing of permits is too high
x Perceived discrimination in RPP program based on
socioeconomic status, particularly for residents not in singlefamily homes or those unable to afford the permits x Concerns that transitioning to virtual permits would inhibit residents’ ability to report unpermitted vehicles to parking enforcement
x Outdated permit processes
x Not enough guest permits
x Guest permits should be reusable
x Lack of transparency of the program
x Current permit stickers are too large, difficult to remove, aesthetically displeasing
City Council 26 – 96 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 32
x Safety concerns with current permit decal exposing driver’s residential information
x Preference for hang tags over stickers/decals
Safety and
Sanitation
x Homelessness
x Walking long distances from parked vehicle
x Drug paraphernalia
x Trash
x Poor lighting
x Walking in high traffic areas
x Sightline issues
x Vehicles parked on-street blocking driveways
x Vehicles parked at red curbs and close to intersections x Street racing/side shows
x Lack of proper street sweeping on certain streets
x Vehicles parked in other people’s driveways on street sweeping days
x Nowhere to put trash bins because people park in front of driveways
Other
x Lack of additional permits for homeowners building accessory dwelling units (ADU)
x Density of (illegal) ADUs cause congested streets
x Desire for accessible alternative transportation modes x Customer service/responsiveness from the City
x Adding hash marks on the street to maximize parking
x Lack of accessible parking spaces for individuals with disabilities x Overcrowding/"too many residents per home"
x Lack of transparency and communication regarding use of LPR and data collection
x Some residents questioned why they can't park overnight in the Santa Ana parking garages; many have stated they'd be willing to pay
x Difficult to find parking on street sweeping days as street sweeping regulations are for entire block instead of by block face
The table below summarizes the general sentiments regarding the RPP program from the open-ended question, based on the 228 respondents who provided specific comments about their support or opposition for the program.

Sentiment Percentage of Respondents
In Support of Permits 38.2%
In Opposition of Permits 29.4%
Not Eligible, Would Like Program Expanded 32.4%
City Council 26 – 97 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 33
Round 2 Survey Results
The City of Santa Ana (City) reopened the online survey distributed during Round 1 of public outreach to continue soliciting feedback from the public regarding their experience with residential parking and the current Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program.

The second round of this online survey was opened on March 7, 2025 and closed on June 30, 2025. A total of 54 responses were received from residents. The survey was available in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. The table below shows the breakdown of the number of responses by language. The first and second round of the online survey received a combined 4,013 responses.

Survey Language Number of Round 2 Responses
English 50
Spanish 2
Vietnamese 2
Total 54
Summary of Key Takeaways
Below is a summary of key takeaways and findings from the online survey. x The majority of respondents are from the Northeast district. x In Round 2 of the survey, 58% of respondents did not qualify for parking permits, a higher share than in Round 1.
x 33% more respondents reported living on blocks where permit parking is required daily from midnight to 6 a.m.
x More than half of respondents (57%) live in multi-unit dwellings, compared to 22% in Round 1.
x Most respondents have one on-site parking space at their residence, while the majority of respondents have two drivers in their household and 2 vehicles. x Most respondents find it most difficult to find parking in the evening. x In Round 2, the majority of respondents reported typically parking one to two blocks away from their residence, whereas in Round 1, most were able to find parking on their own block.

Fixed-choice Survey Results
Below are graphs visualizing the survey responses for the fixed-choice questions, accompanied by some relevant insights. Some questions are accompanied by a supplemental graph comparing Round 2 and Round 1 results.

City Council 26 – 98 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 34
Question 20. Which district do you currently reside in? City Council 26 – 99 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 35In Round 2, there was a significant increase in responses from the Northeast district.

City Council 26 – 100 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 36
Question 21. Which time restriction applies to your block? City Council 26 – 101 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 37
Question 22. How many cars does your household have?
City Council 26 – 102 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 38
Question 23. How many drivers does your household have? City Council 26 – 103 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 39
Question 24. What type of housing do you live in?
City Council 26 – 104 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 40In Round 2, the majority of responses were from residents of multi-unit dwellings.

City Council 26 – 105 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 41
Question 25. How many on-site parking spaces does your household have? City Council 26 – 106 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 42In Round 2, most respondents reported having one on-site parking space, in contrast to Round 1, where most residents reported having two on-site parking spaces.

City Council 26 – 107 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 43
Question 26. Where do you typically park your car(s) at home? City Council 26 – 108 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 44
Question 27. When do you find it difficult to find parking on your block? City Council 26 – 109 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 45
Question 28. How far from your residence do you typically have to park to find an on-street space? City Council 26 – 110 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 46
Question 29. Do you have regular service worker visits to your home that last more than 3 hours? City Council 26 – 111 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 47
Question 30. Where do guests and service workers park when visiting your home? City Council 26 – 112 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 48
Question 31. Which of the following statements apply to your parking experience? City Council 26 – 113 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 49
Question 32. How satisfied are you with the application process for a parking permit? City Council 26 – 114 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 50
Question 33. How satisfied are you with the process for managing parking permits? City Council 26 – 115 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 51
Question 34. How satisfied are you with the current guest pass allotment? City Council 26 – 116 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 52
Question 35. How satisfied are you with the cost of the parking permit? City Council 26 – 117 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 53
Question 36. How many permits do you qualify for?
City Council 26 – 118 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 54
Question 37. Do you use all of your allotted parking permits? City Council 26 – 119 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 55
Question 38. How satisfied are you with parking enforcement in your area? City Council 26 – 120 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 56
Open-ended Survey Results
Survey respondents were given the opportunity to share any additional feedback related to residential parking in an open-ended question at the end of the survey. The table below summarizes the key themes and feedback from the responses during Round 2 outreach:

Category Common Themes
Enforcement and
Policies
x Residents park on lawns.
x Residents park in front of other people’s houses.
x Code enforcement is needed on Baker Street.
x Street parking in front of homes should be designated for that home.
x Residents are parking on sidewalks to avoid street sweeping enforcement.
x Lack of enforcement.
x Lack of enforcement on weekends.

Permit Program
x Preference for permits to be granted to individual property owners over entire blocks.
x Increase parking permits per household.
x Multi-family housing does not receive equitable amount of permits/ inclusion.
x The permit program has overcrowded adjacent neighborhoods. x Duplexes need to receive more permits.
x Condominiums want to be included in the permit program. x There should not be restrictions based on dwelling type. x Condominiums maintain parking access if the street becomes permitted.
x Permit does not guarantee a parking space in the neighborhood. x Certain residents own property and do not qualify for parking passes.
x Want more overnight permits for condominiums.
x Hillview Condos are excluded from the permit parking program x The permit program discriminates against those who are not living in single-family residences.

Safety and Other
x Apartment complexes take up street parking
x Lack of signage for permit rules on different streets x Residents are scared they will be robbed walking to cars. x Residents were scared to walk two blocks to their cars from Hillview Condos.

City Council 26 – 121 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 57
Round 3 Survey Results
The third round of this online survey was recorded between July 1, 2025, and November 30, 2025. A total of 59 responses were received from residents. The survey was available in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. The table below shows the breakdown of the number of responses by language. The first and second round of the online survey received a combined 4,072 responses.

Survey Language Number of Round 3 Responses
English 57
Spanish 2
Vietnamese 0
Total 59
Summary of Key Takeaways
Below is a summary of key takeaways and findings from the online survey. x The majority of respondents are from the Sandpointe district. x In Round 3 of the survey, 58% of respondents did not qualify for parking permits, a higher share than in Round 1.
x In Round 3, most respondents reported living on blocks where permit parking is required all day, every day.
x More than half of respondents (59%) live in multi-unit dwellings. x Most respondents (46%) have one on-site parking space at their residence, while the majority of respondents have two drivers in their household and two vehicles. x There was a higher share of respondents (19%) who reported having four or more onsite parking spaces than in Round 2 (7%). x Most respondents find it most difficult to find parking in the evening, followed by overnight.
x In Round 3, the majority of respondents reported typically parking three to four blocks away from their residence. In Round 2, most were able to find parking one to two blocks away, and in Round 1, most were able to find parking on their own block.

Fixed-choice Survey Results
Below are graphs visualizing the survey responses for the fixed-choice questions, accompanied by some relevant insights. Some questions are accompanied by a supplemental graph comparing Round 3, Round 2, and Round 1 results.

City Council 26 – 122 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 58
Question 39. Which district do you currently reside in? City Council 26 – 123 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 59In Round 3, there was an increase in responses from the following districts:
x Washington Squarex Flower Parkx South Coastx South Metrox Sandpointex Southside City Council 26 – 124 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 60
Question 40. Which time restriction applies to your block? City Council 26 – 125 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 61
Question 41. How many cars does your household have?
City Council 26 – 126 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 62
Question 42. How many drivers does your household have? City Council 26 – 127 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 63
Question 43. What type of housing do you live in?
City Council 26 – 128 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 64In Round 3, the majority of responses were from residents of multi-unit dwellings.

City Council 26 – 129 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 65
Question 44. How many on-site parking spaces does your household have? City Council 26 – 130 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 66In Round 2 and 3, most respondents reported having one on-site parking space, followed by four or more on-site parking spaces in Round 3, unlike in Round 2 where the second most common response was two on-site parking spaces.

City Council 26 – 131 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 67
Question 45. Where do you typically park your car(s) at home? City Council 26 – 132 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 68
Question 46. When do you find it difficult to find parking on your block? City Council 26 – 133 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 69
Question 47. How far from your residence do you typically have to park to find an on-street space? In Round 3, most respondents answered that they typically park 3-4 blocks away from their residence.

City Council 26 – 134 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 70
Question 48. Do you have regular service worker visits to your home that last more than 3 hours? City Council 26 – 135 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 71
Question 49. Where do guests and service workers park when visiting your home? City Council 26 – 136 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 72
Question 50. Which of the following statements apply to your parking experience? City Council 26 – 137 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 73
Question 51. How satisfied are you with the application process for a parking permit? City Council 26 – 138 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 74
Question 52. How satisfied are you with the process for managing parking permits? City Council 26 – 139 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 75
Question 53. How satisfied are you with the current guest pass allotment? City Council 26 – 140 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 76
Question 54. How satisfied are you with the cost of the parking permit? City Council 26 – 141 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 77
Question 55. How many permits do you qualify for?
City Council 26 – 142 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 78
Question 56. Do you use all of your allotted parking permits? City Council 26 – 143 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 79
Question 57. How satisfied are you with parking enforcement in your area? City Council 26 – 144 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 80
Open-ended Survey Results
Survey respondents were given the opportunity to share any additional feedback related to residential parking in an open-ended question at the end of the survey. The table below summarizes the key themes and feedback from the responses during Round 3 outreach:

Category Common Themes
Enforcement and
Policies
x Cars receive citations even in situations residents feel are unfair (e.g., staff at medical/recovery facilities; overly concentrated enforcement near certain homes).
x Residents perceive enforcement as targeting apartment areas while ignoring homeowners who store unused vehicles or
misuse curb space.
x Some argue city rules create inequity by heavily restricting parking in areas with older apartments that rely on street parking.
x Requests for:
o Stricter enforcement against long-term vehicle storage. o More transparency in how enforcement decisions are
made.
o Reduced or re-evaluated red curbs, which residents
believe are excessive and lower available parking.

Permit Program
x Apartment/condo residents overwhelmingly report inequity, as most are not eligible for permits despite limited or no onsite parking. x Many feel the program favors single-family homeowners and higher-income households.
x Residents request:
o Broader eligibility for apartments, condos, and ADUs. o Allowances for multi-car households, especially where off-street parking is unavailable.
o More guest passes; existing limits (e.g., 75 per two
years) are viewed as too restrictive.
o Transition to a fully online permit and guest pass system to reduce administrative burden.
x ADU-related concerns:
o Loss of permits when adding an ADU.
o Restrictions on permits and guest passes discourage
ADU development.
x Some residents want fewer permits overall, believing too many permits overload street parking.

Safety and Other
x People parking far from home experience:
o Walking alone at night.
o Car break-ins and vandalism.
o Poor lighting or long walking distances that feel unsafe. x Concerns of speeding and need for speed bumps, linking overall street safety to parking issues.

City Council 26 – 145 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 81
x Requests for more walkability and public transit to reduce reliance on cars.
x Concerns about development patterns, particularly reducing required parking for multifamily units.
x Concerns that homeowners do not use garages for parking, pushing more cars onto streets.

City Council 26 – 146 10/6/2026
Existing Permit Parking Program at a Glance
Program Element Current Practice
Permit districts 27 districts established by resolution Active permits Approximately 9,000
Single-family eligibility Up to 3 permits per qualifying home Single-family guest
passes 75 annual guest passes per qualifying home
Multifamily eligibility (2 –
4 dwelling units) Generally 1 permit per dwelling unit
Multifamily guest passes None
Multifamily eligibility
(greater than 4 dwelling
units)
Not eligible to receive parking permits
Permit Cost $93.00, or $46.50/year
Permit cycle Two years
Administration Primarily manual/in-house process
Enforcement Existing City parking control enforcement (SAPD) resources; limited coverage
Exhibit 4
City Council 26 – 147 10/6/2026
City of Santa Ana
Citywide Residential
Parking Action and
Implementation Plan
September 18, 2026
DRAFT v1.7
Exhibit 5
City Council 26 – 148 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 2 Table of Contents
Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................................4 Introduction 5
Purpose.............................................................................................................................................5 Study Overview................................................................................................................................5 Community Engagement................................................................................................................5 Planning Context .............................................................................................................................7 Overview of Recommended Strategies 9
Summary of Current and Recommended Strategies ................................................................10 Residential Parking Permit Program 13
Strategy A. Update RPP policies to enhance inclusivity and impact........................................13 Strategy B. Streamline RPP management. ..................................................................................24 Strategy C. Improve RPP enforcement........................................................................................28 Parking Supply and Demand Management 34
Strategy D. Leverage data-based parking management decision-making............................34 Strategy E. Expand residential parking supply. .........................................................................35 On-street Parking Management 38
Strategy F. Minimize paid parking infrastructure in residential areas. ....................................38 Strategy G. Improve on-street turnover and oversized vehicle management. ......................40 Strategy H. Encourage the use of alternative transportation. ..................................................45 Implementation Phases 47
City Council 26 – 149 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 3 List of Figures
Figure 1. Santa Ana Parking Program logo ...................................................................................... 6 Figure 2. Visualization of Santa Ana Residential Permit Parking Districts ...................................14 Figure 3. Two-level Parking Lift........................................................................................................37 Figure 4. Parking Meter in Permit Area(left) and Zoom-in of Sign (right) ...................................38 Figure 5. Time Limit Zones in East San Rafael ................................................................................43 Figure 6. T’s and L’s in San Rafael ....................................................................................................43 Figure 7. Warren Street Design Sample..........................................................................................44 List of Tables
Table 1. Key Legislative Planning Context........................................................................................ 7 Table 2. Summary of Current and Recommended Program........................................................10 Table 3. Recommended Escalating Permit Rate Structure ...........................................................19 List of Appendices
Appendix A: Community Engagement Summary
Appendix B: Parking Utilization Data Report
Appendix C: Comparable Cities Analysis
Appendix D: Permit Parking Case Studies
Appendix E: Enforcement Staffing Schedule
List of Attachments
Attachment A: Draft RPP Administrative Guidelines
Attachment B: Draft Municipal Code Edits
City Council 26 – 150 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 4 Acknowledgements
City of Santa Ana
Public Works Agency (PWA)
Rodolfo Rosas
Zed Kekula
Frank Orellana
Nymia Luque-Ortiz
Cointa Anaya
Maria Leger
Karina Sanchez
Police Department (PD)
Yolanda Bautista
Community Development Agency (CDA)
Julie Castro
Rock Garcia
Dixon Resources Unlimited (DIXON)
Julie Dixon
Emily Kwatinetz
Ben Verdugo
Jennifer Liu
Chisa Nagai
Cameron Clark
Alex Gayte
Ben Tuazon
Fehr & Peers
Paul Herrmann
Raymond Poss
Logan Aspeitia
City Council 26 – 151 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 5 Introduction
Purpose
The City of Santa Ana (City) engaged Dixon Resources
Unlimited (DIXON) and its subcontractor Fehr & Peers to conduct a citywide parking study (Study) focused on
residential parking needs and improvements.

After a deep analysis of existing parking conditions, extensive public participation, and ongoing data collection, DIXON developed the Santa Ana Residential Parking Action and
Implementation Plan (Plan), which recommends immediate, mid-term, and long-term parking management strategies and implementation steps to enhance the residential parking permit (RPP) program, manage supply and demand, and
address commercial and residential area overlap.

There is no “one size fits all” approach to parking
management given the unique characteristics of each city.

This tailored Plan is designed for Santa Ana considering the following guiding principles:
 Inclusivity: Build an inclusive parking approach to on-street parking to ensure more equitable access for all residents and encourage community cohesion.
 Balance: Establish a balanced approach that prioritizes the needs of the community while minimizing the financial burden on residents.
 Utility: Strive for a balanced parking supply and demand to maximize utilization of existing parking locations.
 Accessibility: Ensure accessible solutions for all residents, including accommodation for residents who are
uncomfortable or unfamiliar with technology.

Study Overview
This Study began in November 2022 and has since included an extensive evaluation of existing conditions, program analysis, stakeholder input, and data collection. DIXON has conducted several interviews with City staff, on-site
assessments, workshops, and ride-alongs to gather
information about the existing program and identify
strategies for improvement, which are summarized and
documented in this Plan.

Community Engagement
Community engagement was a priority in this Study, with feedback collected through a variety of methods, including a Citywide survey, neighborhood meetings, tabling at local events, one-on-one meetings with Councilmembers, and
engagement with advisory committees and City agencies
including the Environmental and Transportation Advisory Commission (ETAC), PWA, CDA, and PD. The diverse
outreach strategies reflect the City’s commitment to
transparency and ensured that a wide range of community voices were heard, gathering input on residents' desires, concerns, and insights to develop an equitable and inclusive parking program to improve residential parking citywide. The City also created a new parking program brand (see Figure 1) for use on all engagement materials, ensuring consistency across the program.

City Council 26 – 152 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 6 Key themes that emerged from the engagement process—
including insights from the 75 community meetings held by the City prior to the Study—include a desire for more effective and responsive parking enforcement, equitable access to the RPP program for low-income residents and renters, an
updated permit application and management process,
improved safety and sanitation in neighborhoods (such as better trash pickup, lighting, and sightlines), a desire for accessible alternative transportation modes, and increased transparency of the parking program through more
consistent communication from the City. A full summary of the community engagement process and key outcomes can be
found in Appendix A.

Citywide Parking Utilization Analysis
The City worked with DIXON to develop data collection
routes for 17 districts identified by the City to serve as a sampling of parking utilization trends in the City. Each round of data collection includes one midweek day per district and one weekend day per district at three time periods
throughout the day. The results of these collections are found in Appendix B of this report, which features data collected by the City between July 2023 and August 2026.

The City faces several challenges in its current parking program regarding enforcement, parking behaviors, permit programs and parking congestion. Parking enforcement
coverage of the RPP program is inconsistent due to problems such as blocked driveways, extensive vehicle parking
duration, double parking, oversized vehicles, and fraudulent or incorrectly used permits. Moreover, current RPP program processes are manual, inconvenient, and challenging to
enforce. Certain areas, especially those with dense and multifamily housing experience parking congestion. DIXON analyzed survey feedback from City residents to gain a
broader understanding of the issues the City is facing. Based on study findings, DIXON is providing recommendations to expand permit eligibility, set permit minimums, and adjust permit boundaries to reduce congestion.

Figure 1. Santa Ana Parking Program logo
City Council 26 – 153 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 7 Planning Context
This Study is informed by statewide legislation and guidance, including the California Vehicle Code (CVC), California Government Code (CGC), Senate and Assembly Bills, and the California State Attorney General’s (AG) opinions.

Table 1. Key Legislative Planning Context
Policies affecting Parking and Permit Parking Impact on Parking AB 413 “Daylighting law”: Starting January 1, 2025, it will be illegal in California to park within 20 feet of the approach of any marked or unmarked crosswalk, regardless of painted or unpainted curbs. Over 6,000 parking spaces have been lost as a result in the City.
20 feet is approximately the length of one (1) parking space. AB 413 will reduce the total number of on-street parking spaces available in the City. These spaces could alternatively be used for micromobility parking, or as loading spaces.
2016 AG Opinion (#14-304): The opinion states that “in
issuing long-term residential parking permits, local
authorities may not distinguish among residents based on the type of dwelling in which they live.”
This encourages agencies to modify RPP programs such that all housing types, including single-family homes and multi-family homes, in a permit zone are eligible to participate in the permit program.

Proposition 26: RPP fees (amongst other charges) must not exceed the costs incurred to administer the program.

This prevents the price of parking permits from increasing beyond what is feasible to cover program administration.

Ordinance 76A: This includes restrictions on food truck vendors, including parking regulations, how they can interact with the sidewalk, sanitation requirements, and more.

This establishes clear, concise regulations for vending vehicles, helping to mitigate potential safety concerns and promote a safer community environment.

Automated Parking Enforcement Impact on Parking
SB 34: This bill prohibits the sharing of data collected by License Plate Recognition (LPR) cameras with out-of-state or federal agencies if the data would be used for immigration enforcement purposes. The law aims to protect privacy and prevent the misuse of LPR data to target individuals based on their immigration status.

This may help foster a sense of trust by residents for the City’s use of LPR technology, and its use can help improve efficiency of enforcement and compliance with parking policies.

City Council 26 – 154 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 8 CVC Article 3.5 regarding Transit Lanes/Stops: Local
agencies may use automated parking control devices to
photograph parking violations in transit-only traffic lanes (designated for mass transit or specified vehicles) and transit stops.

This can help automate parking enforcement in transit lanes and improve the efficiency of the City’s transit systems, while improving compliance with traffic regulations.

CVC Article 3.6 regarding Bike Lanes: Local agencies may use automated parking control devices to photograph
parking violations in bicycle lanes.

This can help automate parking enforcement in bicycle lanes and increase the efficiency of enforcement operations while improving access for cyclists as well as compliance with traffic regulations.

CVC Article 3 regarding Street Sweeping Enforcement
(expired January 1, 2016): The 2010 CVC allowed LPR
cameras on street sweepers to capture parking violations and issue citations by mail, setting the precedent for future automated parking enforcement trials.

There is an opportunity for the City to support future legislation that would streamline parking enforcement in residential neighborhoods.

Parking Minimums & Housing
SB 10: Cities can authorize construction of up to ten units on a single parcel without requiring an environmental review.

Increased housing density without increasing residential parking supply could cause a strain on public parking assets.

SB 1211/AB 1033: Local agencies are prohibited from
requiring replacement parking when an uncovered parking space is demolished or replaced with an Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU). However, the agency can choose to
impose parking standards on ADUs including no more than one parking space per ADU or bedroom, whichever is less.

The implementation of SB 1211 could create an imbalance between parking supply and demand, as residential parking needs may increase without a corresponding expansion of supply. Between January 2023 and May 2025, the City received over 500 ADU applications, reflecting the potential impact of this legislation on existing neighborhood parking and underscoring the need for proactive parking management strategies.

AB 2097: Cities are prohibited from imposing parking
minimums within a ½ mile of a major transit stop.

Without significant public transit investment, many residents would continue to rely on their personal vehicles and require a parking space elsewhere, further increasing parking demand beyond supply.

City Council 26 – 155 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 9 Overview of Recommended Strategies
The strategies recommended in this study are organized in the following three categories:

Residential Parking Permit Program Strategies
A. Update RPP policies to enhance inclusivity and impact.

B. Streamline RPP management.

C. Improve RPP enforcement.

Parking Supply and Demand Management Strategies
D. Leverage data-based parking management decision-making.

E. Expand residential parking supply.

On-street Parking Management Strategies
F. Minimize paid parking infrastructure in residential areas.

G. Improve on-street turnover and oversized vehicle management.

H. Encourage the use of alternative transportation.

In the following sections, each strategy is expanded to describe the existing conditions, study findings, and recommendations.

The recommendations are based on recent findings and should be implemented incrementally with a phased, adaptive approach informed by ongoing evaluation and community feedback. Steps do not need to be performed in the order in which they are presented. This Plan highlights key considerations, measures, and best practices to optimize operations. The City is encouraged to adjust the approach as needed, using outcomes from initial steps and ongoing data to create a program that meets the community's unique and evolving needs.

City Council 26 – 156 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 10 Summary of Current and Recommended Strategies
The following table provides a comparison of the current RPP program versus the recommended system and methodology. Under the “Current Program” column, an explanation of current processes and program rules can be found, while the “Recommended Program” column includes an accompanying recommendation for the specific program component that is further outlined in the strategies below. The table is categorized by processes and strategies relating to permit regulations, permit issuance, and costs.

Table 2. Summary of Current and Recommended Program
Permit Regulations - How does a block qualify?
Current Program Recommended Program
After a need for permitted parking has been investigated and confirmed by the City (via minimum parking occupancy threshold of 75%), or an interest form is requested and fulfilled (at least 51% of residents on the block concurring with the request), permit parking may be implemented on a block-by-block basis through a City supplied petition. For a petition to pass, at least 66% of the affected residential property owners must indicate their support for permit
parking on their block. The City will determine the adequacy of the petition in accordance with the City Code. Ineligible properties typically do not have the permit parking
restriction placed along their frontage.

A permit zone may qualify if an Interest Form is requested and completed for one or more qualifying blocks (residential frontage). For a single block to qualify, the block must have a minimum of 2 homes to prevent the privatization of the street frontage for an individual home; residents may also submit a single Interest Form covering multiple contiguous blocks. If the Interest Form meets all criteria (as described in the
Implementation section under Strategy A) and the proposed zone meets the 75% average occupancy threshold, a petitioning process must be carried out. For a petition to pass, at least 60% of the affected residential units must indicate their support for permit parking on their block. The petitioning will consist of one petition per unit. Only residents/legal occupants that live within the property may sign the petition; this excludes any non-resident property owner.
• Permit parking regulations apply on a block-by-block
basis.
• Multiple disconnected clusters of blocks.

District boundaries should generally align with neighborhood boundaries, while individual zones within a district are evaluated and established based on demonstrated need.
• Each permit parking block is assigned one of four
operating hour restrictions:
o 8am-5pm, all day (24-hour), 12am-6am or 2-
6am.
o The majority of permit parking streets have
either all day or 12am-6am operating hours.

Strategic operating hour restrictions associated with either internal or external parking impacts. This will help the City determine which permit parking restriction to apply when evaluating permit parking petitions. Operating hours should reflect daytime, all-day, or overnight restrictions.

City Council 26 – 157 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 11 • Eligible residents can apply for permits either by mail or in person by appointment at the City office. The
application process does not currently offer an online
option.

Permit Allotments – Who is eligible for permits?
Current Program Recommended Program
Residents are typically eligible for permits if they live on a qualifying block and in either of the following:

1. Single-family homes: Up to 3 parking permits. 75
guest permits per year, per home.

2. Multi-family homes with two (2) to four (4) units per parcel: 1 parking permit maximum per dwelling unit
and no guest permits.
• Residents will be eligible for permits if they live on a qualifying block within an established RPP zone. Permits will be issued on a first-come, first-served basis, based on the following maximums:
o Single-family homes: Up to 2 parking permits.
o Multi-family homes: Up to 2 parking permits.
o Guest Passes are limited to 100 passes per
household per year, subject to evaluation and
modification over time.

Permit Issuance – How do I obtain permits?
Current Program Recommended Program

1. The Public Works Agency requires eligible residents to provide legible photocopies of the following documents
before permits are issued. All documents must match the eligible address and name on driver’s license:
a. Valid driver's license (not expired).
b. Proof of address: grant deed, lease agreement or
most current utility bill (gas, water, or electric).
c. Vehicle registration (not expired) of each vehicle. If the vehicle is leased, then a copy of the lease must
be provided instead of vehicle registration.

2. Resident and guest parking permits expire every two
years on a common date within each parking district.

The automated Permit Management System (PMS) will enable the administration of virtual permits. Residents will self-manage their accounts, including applying for a permit, uploading supporting documentation, purchasing permits, making edits, etc.
• No physical decals involved, your license plate is your permit.
• Renewal cycle will change to an annual basis.
• Guest Passes will be virtual, based on the license plate. • Guest Passes are single-use, valid for 24 hours.
• City will continue to offer mail-in and walk-in counter services.

City Council 26 – 158 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 12

3. Residents are responsible for the renewal of their parking permits prior to expiration.

4. Each permit has a unique identification number and has the license plate number of the vehicle written on it.

5. Before vehicles with permits are sold, residents are to remove and return the permit or provide a DMV stamped
release of liability in order to purchase a new permit for another vehicle. Otherwise, DMV records will have to be checked through the Santa Ana Police Department. This
process may take several days from the permit
application.

6. Resident parking permit must be affixed to either the left side of rear bumper or lower left corner of the rear
window on the exterior of the vehicle for which it was
issued.

7. Guest parking permits must be filled in with ink by the resident and placed on the left-hand side of the
dashboard. Each guest permit is valid until noon the
following day. Each guest permit can only be used once, and the date may NOT be changed. Not every district has guest permits. Only residents of single-family homes are eligible for guest permits.

Permit Cost – How much do permits cost?
Current Program Recommended Program
Resident parking permits currently cost $93 each for up to 2 years (subject to change every fiscal year).
• Permits are only required for vehicles parked onstreet. • Permits are required during holidays and citywide
garage sale events.
• Permits are only valid within their respective district boundaries.
• Residential parking permits will be offered on an annual basis, at $40 per parking permit per year. The rate is
subject to change every fiscal year. All other items remain the same.
• Guest passes will be sold at $2 each.
• Permits continue to be valid district-wide.

City Council 26 – 159 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 13 Residential Parking Permit Program
Strategy A. Update RPP policies to enhance inclusivity and impact.

Existing Conditions
The City operates an RPP program to ensure adequate onstreet parking for its residents. This is achieved by establishing permit districts in residential areas, where permits are issued to vehicles associated with residents and property addresses.

The primary purpose of the RPP program is to reduce parking congestion, traffic hazards, noise, and illegal activities. The permits are priced at $93 each (valid for up to two years), with guest permits available at no cost. The overarching goal of the program is to create an inclusive, citywide parking permit system that is both balanced and accessible to all residents.

There are 27 permit districts in the City that have been adopted over time since 1987, and there are currently 518 streets associated with permit parking (see Figure 2).

Establishing Permit Regulations
Permit districts in Santa Ana are established through a petitioning process and by resolution of the City Council. The majority of residential areas are within a permit parking district. To establish permit parking on a block, residents may qualify for the petitioning phase through one of two pathways:
submitting an interest form showing at least 51% support, or requesting a City-conducted parking occupancy observation showing the block is at or above 75% occupancy. Once either threshold is met, the block proceeds to petitioning, where at least 66% of affected property owners must support the
initiative. The City reviews the petition and, if approved, implements the appropriate policies and operating times.

This process takes approximately five weeks. Once complete, residents can then apply for permits.

Permit parking regulations apply on a block-by-block basis, resulting in multiple disconnected clusters of blocks without RPP restrictions within a permit district. Depending on the parking impacts, each permit parking block is assigned one of four operating hour restrictions: 8am–5pm, all day (24- hour), 12am–6am or 2am–6am. The majority of permit parking streets have either all day or 12am–6am operating hours.

Eligible residents can apply for permits either by mail or in person by appointment at the City office. The application process does not currently offer an online option. Applicants must provide a valid driver’s license, proof of address, and vehicle registration for each vehicle, with company vehicles considered on a case-by-case basis.

Permit Allotments
The program has effectively supported neighborhoods with single-family homes, but access to permits is not equally distributed among all Santa Ana residents. Single-family homes are eligible for up to three (3) parking permits per year, per home, while multi-family residences with two to four units per parcel are limited to one (1) parking permit per unit. As a result, single-family homes benefit from more permits, which creates an imbalance.

City Council 26 – 160 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 14 Guest Permits
Guest permits are single-day, single-use physical permits that require information to be filled out in ink and displayed on the guest vehicle’s dashboard. Guest permits must be dated and are valid until 12pm of the following day. Single-family homes are eligible for up to 75 guest permits per year, while multifamily units are not eligible for any.

Guest permits are currently provided for free and can be applied for in-person or by mail. On an as-needed basis, the City may grant up to 25 additional guest permits per
household. Additionally, not every district has guest permits available.

Special Permit for Caregivers
The City also offers “Special Placard Permits” to select agencies. The following are some of these agencies, along with the number of permits issued to each:
• Orange County Health Care Agency (146)
• Santa Ana Unified School District (61)
• City Agencies (4)
• Regional Center of Orange County (62)
• Rancho Santiago Community College District (9)
• Nursing Agencies (162)
Removal of Permit Regulations
Per the Municipal Code, City Council can by resolution
terminate any establishing permit parking district and cause the removal of existing signage. Permit regulations can also be dissolved when 66% of property owners in the block file a petition for regulations to be removed.

Evidence of External Impacts
There are areas in the City where permit parking restrictions could be implemented due to external impacts. In the Willard District, the City has replaced a “No Stopping 12am–6am” restriction with a “No Stopping 6am–7am” restriction to enable cars to recycle parking daily. This is applied in an area without any active parking permit restrictions which sees parking demands from an adjacent community center and
intermediate school.

Figure 2. Visualization of Santa Ana Residential Permit Parking Districts City Council 26 – 161 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 15 Study Findings
The study reviewed legislative guidance, community feedback, data analysis on occupancy, and market research to reach the following findings:
 Multi-family homes do not have equitable access to the curb. Several neighboring agencies have transitioned, or are in the process of transitioning, their RPP programs to align with the 2016 Attorney General’s Opinion to not differentiate between single-family and multi-family dwellings in RPP programs. The case can be made that single-family homes also have driveways and garages intended for off-street parking, while multi-family homes may not have parking
spaces included and therefore have greater dependence on public on-street parking. In some cases, single-family home garages are converted into ADUs. This simultaneously
depletes private off-street parking and creates a greater need for on-street parking.
 Residents in multi-family dwellings have expressed
concerns about parking congestion. Community outreach
efforts have revealed that residents in multi-family dwellings are concerned about parking congestion, especially in the context of recent legislation passed regarding parking
minimums. In the Citywide Parking Survey, there were several comments regarding apartment residents’ desire to
participate in the RPP program but are unable to due to the current program rules.
 Data analysis confirms that parking congestion clusters in areas with multi-family dwellings. To better understand the effect of multi-unit dwellings on parking utilization, the 1 Peak occupancy reflects the highest occupancy observed for that district during the entire data collection period.
parking utilization data collected as part of this Study was analyzed in conjunction with the City’s zoning map. In districts that primarily consist of single-family residences, the average parking occupancy tended to be lower overall compared to districts that contained or were bordered by multi-unit dwellings. For example, the Northwest District had an average peak occupancy1 of 39% during the entire data collection period, while the Willard District, mostly consisting of multiunit dwellings, had an average peak occupancy of 85%. For reference, 85% occupancy is the industry standard threshold at which a parking area is generally considered at capacity and warrants a review of parking program policies. Full parking utilization data results by district can be found in Appendix B.
 The City’s permit rates are generally higher than those of nearby agencies. The City’s RPP program does not generate revenue and is subsidized by the General Fund. However, in comparison with 10 neighboring agencies in Southern
California, Santa Ana’s RPP program has some of the highest rates. Comparable agencies either opted for flat rate or escalating rate models, which typically offer the first permit at $30 per year (compared to the City’s equivalent annual fee of $46.50). Agencies that offer single-day guest permit passes (like Santa Ana) would typically charge $0-$25 per bundle.

Alternatively, some agencies offered a fixed number of guest permits that would act similarly to residential permits, which City Council 26 – 162 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 16 are offered at $7-$40 per permit. The comparison can be found in Appendix C. However, many of these agencies have not adjusted their permit rates for inflation in many years. Lowincome permit rates are typically based off existing City programs to verify eligibility. For example, the cities of Costa Mesa and Pasadena use the low-income eligibility
requirements laid out in the California Code, GOV 68632, which includes recipients of several public benefits programs, as well as anyone below 200% of the federal poverty line.

Some municipalities choose to set differing permit rates by zone, based on factors such as housing density. For example, in Oakland, CA, permit fees in a high-density area are double.

For example, the cities of Oakland and San Francisco, CA, vary their permit cap by zone, based on a number of factors
including housing density, concentration of multi-family properties, and proximity to major transit stations.

Specifically, in Oakland, permit fees in a high-density zone are double the cost of all other zones in an effort to better manage limited parking supply and demand.
 There should be more clarity on how disabled placards operate in permit zones. In California, vehicles displaying a valid disabled parking placard or license plate are generally exempt from permit requirements and certain parking
restrictions, as outlined in CVC Section 22511.5. These exemptions include preferential parking districts and timelimited parking zones, provided the placard or plate is used by the recipient or their driver.
 There are issues with approving permit regulations on a block-by-block basis. This leads to an overly-complex set of permit policies that can be difficult to track and confusing for drivers to comply with. A larger minimum permit zone size should be utilized to improve the effectiveness of the policies.

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 zone, including both single and multi-family homes, and generally provide residents with parking opportunities within a reasonable walking distance. While the City has elected not to adopt a minimum zone size, allowing residents to petition for multiple contiguous blocks together and encouraging this approach as a best practice is intended to reduce, though not fully eliminate, the risk of pushing parking congestion onto adjacent, unrestricted blocks.
 Operating hours of permit restrictions should match
internal and external impacts. There is insufficient
information to understand how the four operating hour
restrictions were established, and whether these restrictions still serve the needs of the streets that they apply to. For example, the two overnight parking restrictions of 12am–6am and 2am–6am could potentially be consolidated.

Additionally, if the 8am–5pm restriction is intended to offset commercial parking impacts, these hours may not be
sufficient to consider traffic and parking congestion directly before or after typical business operating hours. For example, commercial impacts from restaurants could apply until 9pm.

City Council 26 – 163 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 17

 Petitions typically qualify a new residential parking permit zone at 51% or more in nearby Southern California cities. This is much lower than the City’s current petition pass rate of 66%. A higher petition threshold can make it restrictive for new permit zones to qualify for an occupancy assessment, while a lower petition threshold would be more accessible.  Observation periods typically require a 70%-80% parking occupancy threshold. For example, Placer County requires 70%, Berkeley and City of Orange require 75%, and Santa Clara requires 80%. The City’s current 75% threshold matches the most common standard among these comparable
programs.

Recommendations
The City should re-examine the overall RPP program to improve inclusivity, equality, and effectiveness of managing parking congestion. The following is a list of strategies recommended for the City:

1. Update municipal code to increase clarity and flexibility.

The City should introduce municipal code amendments to the permit parking section in order to increase the flexibility of RPP program management and implementation, as well as
clarity of policies, including exemption of disabled placards from permit regulations per CVC Section 22511.5. The
municipal code should establish the RPP program, City
authority, eligibility framework, enforcement authority, and authority to establish permit limits. In addition, it is recommended that the City adopt a set of administrative guidelines that would be referenced in the municipal code to govern the details of the RPP program policies and operating procedures, rather than having all program operating rules outlined in the municipal code itself. The guidelines should cover the parking impact zone criteria, curb-capacity
methodology, documentation requirements, petition
procedures, and permit processes. This ensures that City Council approval is not required to make day-to-day
operational changes to the program.

2. Re-evaluate permit quantities. Per the 2016 AG opinion, the City should adjust the program so that MFRs are eligible to receive the same number of permits as SFRs. MFRs should also be able to access guest permits. The City should set a permit maximum of 2 permits for SFRs and 2 permits for MFRs on a first-come, first-served basis.

What differentiates external vs. internal residential
parking impacts?
External parking impacts are caused by nearby nonresidential uses (e.g., schools, event venues, or commercial districts). Residential parking restrictions (such as time limits, permit-only zones, or both) can help safeguard
parking access for residents, their guests, and service workers.

Internal parking impacts occur in neighborhoods with
insufficient on-street parking for residents. RPP programs can mitigate congestion by encouraging off-street parking where possible, discouraging extra vehicles, and
managing on-street usage.

City Council 26 – 164 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 18 Best Practice #1: In addition to the permit caps per
residence, the City should consider adopting a “one permit per driver” rule, such that a single residence cannot obtain more permits than the number of licensed drivers. For
example, if a resident owns two vehicles and lives in an SFR, they will only qualify for 1 permit, instead of the maximum of 2 permits. This ensures that residents who choose to own additional vehicles are incentivized to use any on-site parking, rather than rely on public on-street parking for vehicle storage.

Optional #1: The City may consider the opportunity to place permit maximums by parcel, to account for the increasing number of ADUs. Given that ADUs require a separate
address, placing permit caps by parcel instead of by address would ensure that a single parcel doesn’t qualify for more than the intended permit cap (e.g. 2 permits for SFR). If a parcelbased limit is introduced, City would need to consider how that would apply for MFRs.

Optional #2: In areas with higher residential density and limited curb capacity, the City could establish designated “Parking Impact Zones” where a reduced permit allowance may be necessary. Parking Impact Zone boundaries may be established through an analysis of factors such as available curb space, number and concentration of multifamily units, dwelling units per block, existing and planned developments, red curb and other parking restrictions, external parking impacts, and overall parking demand. Where the analysis demonstrates that the available on-street parking supply cannot reasonably accommodate the standard permit
allowance, the City could apply a lower permit cap within the defined Parking Impact Zone. This approach would recognize that, due to neighborhood density, property types, and
physical curb constraints, issuing the standard permit
allowance to every eligible household may result in parking demand that exceeds the actual capacity of the area, which was a concern raised by City staff.

3. Update petition rules for improved access. It is
recommended that the petitioning process for new RPP zones require a 60% petitioning threshold, lower than the City’s existing 66% threshold. While a simple majority (51%) is typical among nearby cities, the 60% threshold serves as a middle ground to meaningfully improve accessibility for residents seeking to establish a new zone compared to the current threshold, while still requiring a strong consensus for permit restrictions to be placed on the zone. The same 60% threshold is recommended for petitions to remove an
established zone. In multi-family residences, only
residents/legal occupants that live within the property may sign the petition. For multi-family residences with individually owned units, each owner-occupant would be able to petition.

If the owner does not reside in the unit, then the legal occupant may sign the petition. In single-family residences, the resident of the home may sign the petition, whether that resident is an owner-occupant or a tenant. A non-resident owner (e.g., an owner who rents out the home) may not sign.

Best Practice #1: In order for a new RPP zone to be formally established and enforceable following a successful petition in which 60% or more of households have petitioned in favor of an RPP restriction to be placed, the City could consider requiring at least 60% of households in the proposed RPP zone to also purchase at least one kind of permit. This ensures that unnecessary RPP restrictions are not placed on residential streets, and that only RPP zones with a demonstrated interest and actionable need for permit restrictions are formally established. The City may choose to adopt this threshold in the future if, for example, permit purchase rates are low, or if City Council 26 – 165 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 19 the City finds that established RPP zones are not being actively utilized by residents. If the City chooses to adopt this, the program guidelines would need to be updated at that time.

4. Establish permit regulations to allow multiple contiguous blocks to be evaluated simultaneously, rather than one
block at a time. The City should allow residents to submit a single interest form covering multiple contiguous blocks, including both sides of the street, rather than requiring a separate process for each individual block. This approach has precedent in Resolution No. 2024-056, which amended the City’s permit parking regulations to allow a single petition to be considered for multiple contiguous blocks. For a single block to petition, the block should have a minimum of 2 homes to qualify for permit parking, to prevent the
privatization of the street frontage for an individual home.

Best Practice #1: Where feasible, the City should encourage the formation of zones consisting of more than one block, rather than approving single-block zones in isolation. A piecemeal, block-by-block approach can create spillover impacts, effectively pushing parking congestion from a
restricted block onto an adjacent, unrestricted one rather than resolving it. Evaluating and establishing zones across multiple contiguous blocks helps ensure parking impacts are
addressed comprehensively across an affected area, such as through the establishment of a minimum zone size
requirement.

5. Simplify operating hour restrictions. The City should simplify the operating hour restrictions established for permit parking, by using operating hours that are tied to the three qualifying impact types: neighboring city spillover,
commercial impact, and venue impact. The operating hours should consist of all-day, overnight, and/or daytime
restrictions, based on observed parking utilization data and individual neighborhood needs, ensuring that permit
restrictions directly address the specific parking impact affecting each area.

6. Restructure parking permit district boundaries to match neighborhood boundaries. To simplify the parking permit district boundaries in the program, it is recommended that the City uses the neighborhood boundaries as a basis for the permit districts. Where neighborhoods are large, the City may choose to split them, and where no neighborhood
associations (NHA) exist, separate parking districts should be established. The top five largest neighborhoods by area are Riverview West, Artesia Pilar, Santa Anita, Santa Ana Memorial Park, and Delhi. City staff should consider splitting these neighborhoods into smaller parking permit districts to ensure resident needs are adequately met. Permits should continue to be valid district-wide.

7. Update the permit pricing model with market rates based on comparable cities. The City should adopt an annual fee of $40 per parking permit. Generally, permit prices should be reviewed regularly and adjusted for inflation per the
Consumer Price Index or based on the City’s budgeting
practices. The City should also consider an in-depth review of RPP program administration costs and ensure that the permit pricing model is aligned with Proposition 26.

Optional #1: An escalating rate structure can discourage households from acquiring more permits than needed. An
example escalating rate model is provided in Table 3.

Table 3. Example Escalating Permit Rate Structure for 3 Permits Permit Number Fee
1st Permit $40
City Council 26 – 166 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 20 2nd Permit $50
3rd Permit $70
Optional #2: The City may consider setting different permit costs per district if necessary to further regulate parking supply and demand, which is done in cities like Oakland and San Francisco.

Best Practice #1: The City may consider introducing a lowincome permit rate. This is becoming a more popular strategy given income disparity in California, and was a key theme of community feedback. The City could implement a low-income rate at a discount of 50% off the full price and require residents to demonstrate proof of income and/or
participation in a recognized low-income program (e.g., Medicaid, transit fare assistance) as part of their permit application. If a low-income rate is determined, the SCE Household Income Guideline (CARE Income Eligibility Upper Limit) will be the metric that is applied for the varying household sizes. This determination is depicted on the
resident’s SCE bill, and they are required to qualify on an annual basis.

8. Introduce a nominal fee for guest permits. Other agencies offer single-day guest permits for $1 per permit or sell them in bundles equivalent to $0.25 per permit. It is recommended that the City charge $2 per guest permit, with a limit of 100 guest permit passes, subject to evaluation and modification over time. Guest permits should be valid for 24 hours from activation on the PMS.

9. Restrict commercial and oversized vehicles from
purchasing residential permits. The City should restrict the eligibility of commercial and oversized vehicles, as defined by the Municipal Code, from participating in the permit program as they take up more room, can obstruct visibility or access especially in narrow streets, or affect availability intended for personal vehicles of residents. Smaller commercial vehicles, work trucks, and pickup trucks should also be restricted2 .

Residents with oversized vehicles should seek off-street storage locations, rather than relying on on-street parking.

There may be opportunities for oversized vehicle parking through shared agreements with privately owned lots (see Strategy E).

10.Continue to leverage the Parking Program webpage and branding in outreach and updates. The City has been
updating and centralizing Study and RPP program
information online. It should continue maintaining this page with FAQs and clear timelines for changes, using flowcharts and graphics and offering information in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese.

2 Work trucks are defined as vehicles weighing less than 10,000 lbs., featuring a company logo, and carrying work equipment.

City Council 26 – 167 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 21 Implementation
Recommendation 1: To increase flexibility of RPP program administration and improve management, the City should
update the municipal code language to allow specific
program rules and policies to be established in an externally adopted program guidelines on file with the Public Works Agency. See Attachment A for draft administrative guidelines language, and Attachment B for draft municipal code edits.

The draft municipal code edits in Attachment B are provided for policy discussion purposes and must be reviewed and finalized in coordination with the City Attorney's Office prior to adoption.

Recommendations 2, 4, and 5: These are policies that can be adopted in the administrative guidelines.

Recommendations 3: The current RPP program was
established to limit non-residential and commuter parking in residential neighborhoods by creating permit parking
districts via City resolution. Since the program’s inception, permit parking restrictions have expanded rapidly,
particularly near high parking generators such as large multifamily complexes, mixed-use districts, and new developments. As the program grew, the City began
experiencing significant challenges related to limited public on-street parking. The current program is restrictive and does not sufficiently address the needs of all affected areas.

A modernized approach to residential permit parking should better align with the City’s General Plan, specifically Goal 5 (Community Health, Livability, Engagement & Sustainability) and Objective 4 (Support neighborhood vitality and livability).

Parking demand is being driven by several factors:
• A growing number of vehicles per household.
• Older neighborhoods are designed for lower parking
demand.
• Limited on-site parking in multi-family communities.
• Garages being used for storage or as unpermitted
living spaces.
• New housing developments with minimal parking
(e.g., accessory dwelling units, large multi-family
complexes, garage conversions, and office-toresidential conversions).

As new permit parking restrictions are added, parking
demand is often displaced onto nearby streets, creating a “domino effect” and causing more requests for permits.

Prior to initiating the permit zone re-evaluation phases, the City must complete, at a minimum, the following
implementation steps:

1. Adopt the RPP administrative guidelines (see
Attachment A for draft language), municipal code
updates (see Attachment B for draft edits), and the
permit fee rate structure ($40/year for residential
permit, $2 each for guest permits).

2. Procure and launch an automated permit
management system (PMS).

3. Develop an extensive public outreach and education
campaign.

Existing permit parking zones will be grandfathered into the new program and will need to adhere to the new
guidelines upon permit renewal.

City Council 26 – 168 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 22 New petitions to request new zones will be accepted, under the new permit zone guidelines. Below is the proposed
methodology for RPP zone establishment:
(1) Staff will prepare an Interest Form for any new requests for parking permits, consisting of the following factors:
• The identified streets must have residential frontage. A single block must have a minimum of 2 homes to
qualify, to prevent the privatization of the street
frontage for an individual home. Residents may also
submit a single Interest Form covering multiple
contiguous blocks.
• Location and description of parking impacts, time of
parking impact (daytime, overnight, etc.), and any
supplemental photographs documenting the lack of
available parking on all identified streets.
• Residents have up to six months to submit the Interest Form. If it is not submitted, the requestor will lose their spot in the request queue. After one year of nonsubmittal, the process must restart. (2) City staff will evaluate the Interest Form to understand if the identified streets meet the parking impact requirement.

An Interest Form that does not meet the requirement shall be denied, with the specific reason for denial provided to the applicant in writing, including by electronic communication. (3) If parking impact requirement and other permit zone requirements are met, City will conduct a parking utilization study to determine if the 75% parking occupancy threshold requirement is met.
(4) If the utilization analysis demonstrates that there is a need for residential curb management, staff will prepare and mail the petitions to all residents in the identified streets. The petitioning process is described as follows:
• Limited to one petition per unit.
o In single-family residences, the resident of the
home may sign the petition, whether that
resident is an owner-occupant or a tenant. A
non-resident owner (e.g., an owner who rents
out the home) may not sign.
o In multi-family residences, only residents and
legal occupants who live within the property
may sign the petition; this excludes any nonresident property owner. For multi-family residences with individually owned units, each
owner-occupant may sign the petition.
• Residents will be given 5 weeks to review, sign, and
submit petition forms.
• A petition is considered passing if at least 60% of the residents are in support of the permit parking.
o If the petition fails to reach the 60% threshold
within 5 weeks, the petitioning process will
reset, and the same zone may re-apply again in
6 months.
• After the requirements of the RPP program are met,
the new permit zone can be established by resolution.
• City staff should install appropriate signage indicating the permit restriction operating hours following zone
establishment. Enforcement of permit restrictions
should begin after all signage has been installed.
• A petition to remove a permit zone follows the same
process, requiring at least 60% support.

Recommendation 6: During the phased RPP zone renewal
process, the City should update the online permit map
City Council 26 – 169 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 23 database to reflect the permit districts in alignment with the neighborhood boundaries.

Recommendations 7: City staff should adopt the updated
permit fee of $40/year together with the RPP Administrative Guidelines.

Recommendation 8: These pricing-related strategies should be reviewed altogether.

Recommendation 9: A decision made regarding this
recommendation can be implemented at the point that a
refreshed RPP program is announced publicly.

Recommendation 10: The City can designate a staff member involved in the administration of the RPP program to be responsible for actively communicating with public
information staff and ensuring website updates are made.

City Council 26 – 170 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 24 Strategy B. Streamline RPP management.

Existing Conditions
The current permitting program in Santa Ana is a manual process in which residents can apply for permits in-person or by mail with the PWA. The permits are color-coded according to the neighborhood for which they are valid, and they must be physically affixed to the rear window or left rear bumper of the vehicle. Permits are valid for up to two years and require renewal every two years on a date that is specific to each parking district. Prior to each renewal year, the City places an order for physical permits to be printed and prepared. This process typically takes two months and begins in August prior to the renewal year. There is currently no online system that allows residents to apply for or renew their permits, nor the ability to maintain an account that would allow them to monitor their permit status.

Counter Operations
The City’s permit counter staff assist residents with parking permit applications. While walk-ins are accepted, the City encourages residents to make appointments. Residents must present proof of residence, their driver’s license, and proof of vehicle registration. Permit details are entered into an inhouse database that tracks addresses in each parking zone.

The system is large and outdated, making data migration to a new platform challenging. Each permit is linked to one license plate and is only valid in its zone. If a valid permit is not displayed, the vehicle can be issued a $57 fine3
.

Permit Management and Fulfillment
The City manually manages permit applications and data, with access restricted to one employee due to privacy concerns.

While enforcement is functional, issues such as fraudulent permits, zone-specific restrictions, and unfamiliarity with the permit process persist. Physical permits are to be placed either to the left side of rear bumper or at the lower left corner of the rear window of the vehicle. Address verification is crucial, especially for ADUs, which require unique addresses.

The City is exploring models from other municipalities like Anaheim and Seal Beach to improve zone structures, shared parking, and enforcement. Community outreach, including Spanish and Vietnamese surveys, aims to address evolving parking needs and to enhance the permit program
Study Findings
 There is frustration related to the application process and its overall lack of convenience. According to the Citywide Parking Survey results, of the respondents who qualify for a

3 As of FY 2025-26.
permit, most are unsatisfied when asked about the current permit application process and permit management process.

Throughout the community outreach efforts, there was a
City Council 26 – 171 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 25 general sentiment shared among the residents that the
current permit application process is outdated and needs to be revamped to improve user experience.
 Neighboring agencies are leveraging automated Permit
Management Systems (PMS) to streamline their permit
programs and improve end user experience. DIXON
conducted a comparable cities analysis and found that all comparable agencies were either using an automated PMS or were in the process of transitioning to one (see Appendix C).  There is a lack of data access redundancy. Single-access database systems are neither sustainable nor efficient. An automated permit management system can help streamline
administrative efforts as it allows more flexibility related to user access controls, ensuring that data privacy is maintained while allowing limited access to those who need it.
 Shifting guest permits from physical to digital will require a change in process. The City will need to offer a
straightforward way for guest permits to be activated and associated with the address that they are visiting. Any online methods will need to be accompanied by a phone-in method to ensure accessibility.

What are the benefits of automated permit
management systems (PMS)?
An automated PMS enables the administration of virtual
permits, which can provide flexibility in the application and management process for both permit holders and City
staff. Agencies who have transitioned to virtual permits typically experience minimized administrative workload
and increased ease of integration with other parking
technology, such as LPR or a Citation Management System (CMS), to streamline enforcement.

Permit holders typically experience increased convenience and ease of use, which can drive program success.

The vendor would also offer their industry experience to guide the City in implementing RPP program changes,
including designing the application process.

City Council 26 – 172 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 26 Recommendations

1. Transition to an automated PMS. The City should
implement a PMS to streamline administrative tasks and
reduce operational costs. This system would provide greater flexibility in managing permits and enable enforcement staff to access permit details in real time, integrating with the CMS to improve enforcement efficiency.

2. Implement an online permit application process with selfmanaged accounts. To improve the application process for residents, the City should implement a virtual permit
application and management system through the PMS
vendor, and also allow residents to apply for, renew, and selfmanage their permits. In rental complexes, the property manager would be the sole person that manages and
determines who is able to purchase a residential parking permit by creating an account on behalf of the tenant.

3. Transition to a license plate-based virtual permit system.

The City should transition to a license plate-based permit system to improve the effectiveness of permit enforcement, eliminate physical decals, and prevent any fraudulent permit activity. Having a plate-based permit system would allow the City to leverage technology such as LPR to enforce permits.

Each permit should be strictly associated with one vehicle license plate number at a time. Permits can then be
transferable, which means residents can reassign permits themselves to a different license plate using the PMS online portal. Staff would review and verify all permit transfer requests and approve or deny them based on established
eligibility criteria. Transfers may be allowed only under limited circumstances. Administrative guidelines may also establish a maximum number of transfers permitted within a specified time period and a minimum period that a permit must remain assigned to the same vehicle before another transfer is allowed.

4. Create a process to increase transparency of permit zone application status updates for residents. The City could provide residents with status updates of permit zone
applications, such as posting a map with color coding (e.g., red = denied, yellow = in progress, etc.). This would allow the residents to stay involved throughout the permit application process and can help increase the overall transparency of the program.

5. Convert 2-year permit cycle to an annual permit. The industry best practice for permit durations is one year, as it provides the most flexibility for introducing policy updates (as opposed to waiting up to two years for program changes to take effect) and allows for a more accurate record of
permitholders due to residents moving in to, out of, or within the City. As the City’s permit management processes become more automated, the administrative work associated with renewing permits decreases, enabling this shorter permit cycle.

6. Implement a virtual guest permit process. A solution that PMS vendors typically offer is the provision of a QR code unique to each household that the resident can print and stick onto their refrigerator. This QR code would lead the guest to a webpage where they can input their license plate number and register for a guest permit associated with that address, instantaneously activating their vehicle for permitted parking for 24 hours. If the guest or resident does not have access to a mobile device, the City can provide a phone-in number where a customer service representative receives the guest City Council 26 – 173 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 27 vehicle license plate number and a verification of the
household that the vehicle will be associated with (perhaps by a unique code also printed on the same slip as the QR code) to instantly activate guest parking. 24-hour customer service coverage could be requested of the PMS vendor.

Implementation
Recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4: The City is currently in a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) process to procure a PMS solution.

Recommendation 5: This is a policy change that may impact language in the municipal code or require a resolution that would add the new policy to the existing permit parking district resolutions.

Recommendation 6: The City can execute this
recommendation once PMS has been procured.

City Council 26 – 174 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 28 Strategy C. Improve RPP enforcement.

Existing Conditions
Permit Enforcement
Each permit has a unique verification number and has the license plate number of the vehicle written on it. Permits must be affixed to the left side rear bumper or to the lower left corner of the rear window on the exterior of the vehicle.

License plate numbers and the date are written in ink on guest permits, which are only valid until noon of the following day.

Enforcement Staffing
Currently, the Police Department (PD) oversees all parking enforcement, including the Residential Parking Permit (RPP) program. The Parking Control team comprises one (1)
Supervisor and eight (8) Parking Control Officers (PCOs) who handle parking violation calls (including expired meters, street sweeping, and vehicle abatement), citation
management, and patrols. Despite 24/7 operations, patrols for each permit district remain infrequent as PCOs are not dedicated solely to permit enforcement, highlighting the need for increased enforcement resources.

The City utilizes third-party support from LAZ Parking, Inc. (LAZ) for street sweeping and parking meter violations
downtown. However, LAZ provides limited assistance with RPP enforcement due to staffing and safety constraints, offering minimal relief for PD's workload. Currently, permit enforcement is limited to a few patrols per week per district instead of the desired daily or twice-daily patrols (refer to Appendix E for the recommended parking enforcement
schedule). Enforcement resources in the City have been
further strained over time, as the RPP program has expanded to cover more streets. Addressing these limitations would ensure more visible and effective enforcement, alleviate resident concerns, and improve program outcomes.

Technology & Resources
PD uses Data Ticket as its CMS, and City Council approved the use of LPR by PD on May 6, 2025, which will help enhance enforcement efficiency. Currently, the PWA manages RPP
program administration while PD responds to resident
complaints, such as abandoned vehicles, permit issues, and inconsistent enforcement, especially during renewal years.

With over 9,000 vehicles participating in the RPP program, PD's limited capacity exacerbates enforcement gaps.

Since the PD prioritizes safety and traffic issues, there is currently limited capacity for proactive RPP enforcement.

Without tools such as LPR to verify permit validity in the field, enforcement remains largely reactive, contributing to resident frustrations about inconsistent enforcement. Additionally, enforcement of oversized vehicles presents additional
challenges. PD lacks consistent oversized vehicle
enforcement, and citations require coordination with Code Enforcement as they are issued to individuals rather than vehicles. This process limits PD's response to oversized vehicle complaints, which can impact residential parking and further increase residents’ frustrations related to lack of effective enforcement.

City Council 26 – 175 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 29 Study Findings
 Parking enforcement coverage is inconsistent and
insufficient. An RPP program is only as effective as its enforcement, making it critical to have dedicated, trained, and sufficient resources to ensure compliance. Residents are currently unsatisfied with the level of permit enforcement. Low levels of PCO staffing, lack of dedicated permit enforcement personnel, as well as outdated technologies result in a lack of proactive enforcement and timely responses to complaints.

Discussions with PD staff and DIXON’s analysis determined that 14 FTEs would be needed to effectively enforce an RPP program of this scale.
 Fraudulent permit use by residents as a result of
inconsistent enforcement. The City has found that residents create fraudulent copies of parking permits to accommodate more vehicles than the allotted amount.
 Transitioning permit enforcement from PD to PWA could improve efficiency. A parking program is most effective when all functions, including enforcement, are consolidated within the same division or team. Transitioning enforcement of the RPP program from PD to PWA would improve the
program’s overall quality by introducing a direct line of communication between enforcement and program
administration. This strategy would also allow PCOs to focus on other parking-related violations throughout the City, reducing their workload. Many California cities, such as Napa, Alameda, Beverly Hills, Sacramento, Oceanside, and
Riverside, have successfully implemented this practice, demonstrating its effectiveness in enhancing program
management and enforcement outcomes.
 The City receives approximately 10 RPP-related service calls per day. A sample of parking violation service calls and dispatch requests received between late May 2024, and early September 2024 was analyzed. Of the 3,136 calls received, 898 occurred within the RPP zones. Over a 90-day period, an average of approximately 10 RPP-related service calls were made per day, with 14.4% of the calls occurring overnight (between 12 a.m. and 6 a.m.). Adequate enforcement
resources are necessary to effectively address parking-related service calls and ensure residents receive the support they need.
 The community is interested in special events permits.

Feedback demonstrated that the community is interested in an option to block a section of the street for a certain time so that they do not have to use up all their guest permits for a special event. The City already offers temporary nonenforcement free of charge, especially in Washington Square.

The City could benefit from clear communication of special events protocols through making a special events permit available.

City Council 26 – 176 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 30 Recommendations

1. Enhance enforcement staffing resources to the RPP
program to improve coverage. Since current enforcement
resources are limited and do not allow for consistent
enforcement of the permit policies, the City should enhance enforcement resources for the RPP program to improve
program outcomes.

2. Leverage LPR technology for RPP program enforcement.

The City should leverage LPR to enforce the RPP program to enhance enforcement efficiency and streamline permit
validation. By utilizing LPR, enforcement staff would be able to increase coverage across the program area to ensure that permit policies are consistently and equally enforced
throughout the City, rather than only in certain
neighborhoods.

3. Establish a permit revocation process for repeat
violations. To address fraudulent permit use and improve accountability, the City should establish a formal process to revoke a resident's parking permit if the permit holder commits repeated violations of the RPP program within a defined period. This gives the City a direct enforcement tool against fraudulent or repeat misuse, separate from citation issuance alone. See Attachment A for draft Guidelines
language and Attachment B for draft municipal code
language.

4. Use tools to identify areas that need more consistent enforcement coverage. Data Ticket offers tools such as heat mapping that can help visualize where enforcement coverage is lacking and where it can be re-allocated to have more consistent coverage throughout the City. The City can also use Data Ticket to evaluate if certain violation codes are not being cited, which can help identify gaps in enforcement for specific parking violations.

5. Consider transitioning resident permit parking
enforcement from the Police Department to PWA. The City should consider transitioning RPP program enforcement from PD to PWA to create a dedicated team for permit
enforcement. This would allow for more consistent
enforcement and enhance the effectiveness of permit
policies.

6. Consider outsourcing permit parking enforcement to an outside contractor. Currently, PD leverages a contractor, LAZ, to support street sweeping and metered parking
enforcement. The City could amend the existing contract to add permit enforcement to the existing scope of services or consider running a competitive procurement process to
source another vendor. An enforcement contractor provides the personnel and expertise to act as or supplement an
agency’s parking enforcement team. They provide industry expertise, personnel, and any necessary equipment to
perform the job requirements so that the City’s focus would be on managing the vendor instead of permit enforcement.

Especially if RPP program enforcement were to shift into PWA, this is an ideal method of ensuring effective enforcement without having to recruit and train new PCOs.

7. Consider 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
City Council 26 – 177 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 31 strategies. Gap Management is the process of analyzing
citation issuance trends, identifying gaps in issuance, and accounting for all time spent in the field. LPR and citation issuance handheld devices also provide GPS location data which should be monitored to confirm coverage and
assigned routes or zones.

8. Work with the legislative representative to initiate support for the automated street sweeping enforcement
legislation. The City should work with its legislative
representative to reintroduce automated street sweeping enforcement legislation, as it could enhance parking
regulation enforcement during street sweeping hours. The City should also consider reaching out to neighboring
agencies for support in pursuing this opportunity.

What are the benefits of outsourcing?
Reduced administrative labor & risks: When employee and personnel management functions and their associated risks are transferred to the contractor, the City can save time and costs on internal resources, funding, and personnel management. The contractor is responsible for the coverage of open shifts, sourcing temporary and permanent staffing, and providing training.

Assured and consistent service levels: The City has full control over directing the contractor in the execution of enforcement responsibilities, including the procedures and protocols the PCOs must follow when interacting with the community. The contractor is committed to a contractually defined standard of service. This ensures the public receives the same experience regardless of turnover in PCOs and offers the City flexibility in covering hours that are difficult to fill.

Access to equipment: The contractor can also be responsible for providing equipment, such as vehicles and LPR, to improve enforcement operations more efficiently without waiting on longer, sometimes multi-year procurement and internal processes.

This way, PWA would not need to utilize PD’s LPR cameras for permit enforcement.

Ability to efficiently scale the program: The City can direct the contractor to expand or shrink enforcement operations by adjusting the contract value. This gives the City flexibility to quickly adapt to changes in the size of the RPP program, for example, when new streets are added to a district.

Cost savings: The total cost for outsourced labor is typically lower than the fully burdened cost of agency staff due to differences in salary and benefit requirements. For select roles where a full-time employee is not required, the vendor may also have more flexibility than the City in covering partial hours, ensuring efficient resource usage to achieve optimal coverage.

City Council 26 – 178 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 32 Implementation
Recommendations 1 and 6: Santa Ana PD received a
quotation from a vendor offering contracted enforcement services that details several staffing options, the associated total annual operating costs,
4 and optional LPR technology as
an add-on.
• Option 1: 3 Parking Ambassadors with 2 new vehicles,
no supervisor assigned: $408,720 total operating
costs in year 1.
• Option 2: 4 Parking Ambassadors with 2 new vehicles,
including 1 supervisor: $649,480 total operating costs
in year 1.
• Option 3: 5 Parking Ambassadors with 3 new vehicles,
including 1 supervisor: $775,268 total operating costs
in year 1.
• Option 4: 6 Parking Ambassadors with 4 new vehicles,
including 1 supervisor: $901,098 total operating costs
in year 1.

Upon an initial review of the cost estimates and required enforcement capacity, the City is recommended to start with Option 2 while continuing to evaluate operations on an
ongoing basis. Although this does not match the estimated staffing level of 14 FTEs that would be needed to effectively enforce an RPP program of this scale, this is a step in the right direction to increase parking enforcement coverage in the 4 Total operating costs include fully burdened payroll and benefits, employee uniforms and communication devices, new vehicle purchase(s) listed, vehicle insurance/maintenance/operating costs, City and improve compliance with RPP policies. The City should re-evaluate staffing levels for RPP enforcement in the future and expand staffing numbers as needed to help
support the program.

Recommendation 2: PD has received the authorization to
procure LPR cameras and use them for parking enforcement.

PWA has also procured two LPR units for data collection, which it could leverage for permit enforcement should
Recommendation 5 be executed.

Figure 3. City vehicle with LPR installed
and other operational expenses, including additional citation devices.

City Council 26 – 179 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 33 Recommendation 3: The permit revocation clause should be added and defined in the municipal code and program
guidelines.

Recommendations 4 and 7: These are internal operational recommendations that the department responsible for permit enforcement should review on an ongoing basis to optimize operations.

Recommendation 5: Transitioning permit enforcement
responsibility requires alignment with overall City strategies.

The City should evaluate whether such a transition is
appropriate and feasible through ongoing discussions
involving PWA, PD, and other relevant City departments.

Recommendation 8: This is a long-term goal and involves influencing state legislation. The City should engage
appropriate representatives and internal departments to understand the appropriate process to provide such support.

City Council 26 – 180 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 34 Parking Supply and Demand Management
Strategy D. Leverage data-based parking management decision-making.

Existing Conditions
The City previously lacked a central database to track parking supply and demand. There has been no systematic method
for calculating the availability of parking spaces, parking demand, and turnover data.

The City now seeks to adopt a data-driven approach for
ongoing data collection and parking utilization analysis to guide parking improvements.

Study Findings
The City, in collaboration with DIXON, developed data
collection routes for 17 districts. Starting July 29, 2023, PWA staff used a handheld LPR app to gather data, evaluate LPR efficiency, and analyze parking utilization. Data collection occurred on one weekday and one weekend day per district, covering three time periods each day. The LPR pilot
demonstrated the tool's usefulness, as the data was helpful for presentation to the public and to Councilmembers.

Recommendations

1. Procure mobile LPR for data collection. Mobile LPR
technology should be used to collect parking utilization data, helping the City make data-driven decisions for effective parking management. Regular data collection will enable ongoing program adjustments, ensuring resident needs are met year-round.

2. Implement an ongoing data collection and analysis plan.

After the City installs vehicle-mounted LPR units, data collection routes should expand to cover all permit districts.

Monthly data monitoring will help track parking trends and identify areas for potential program or policy adjustments.

Implementation
Recommendations 1 and 2: the City has already procured
and installed two LPR units to conduct ongoing data
collection. The City plans to execute a pilot for ongoing data collection for select districts using this technology.

The City adopted an Automated License Plate
Recognition (ALPR) policy on August 1, 2023, to
enable data collection by use of handheld LPR
technology.

City Council 26 – 181 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 35 Strategy E. Expand residential parking supply.

These recommendations are intended to help address any displaced vehicles as a result of the new permit maximum allocations for single-family and multi-family residences.

Existing Conditions
Demand for parking in residential areas can fluctuate
throughout the week, depending on whether school is in
session, the presence of special events, or whether the residential area is adjacent to a commercial area. Generally, there is a high volume of resident vehicles in the City, causing limited parking availability and congestion due to vehicles circling for parking.

The City is experiencing localized parking congestion and spillover in single-family neighborhoods bordering multifamily dwellings, driven by a lack of on-site parking within those developments. As statewide housing legislation and parking reforms facilitate increased density without requiring additional parking spaces, and as the current housing crisis intensifies, finding available parking is becoming increasingly challenging for residents in these areas.

Areas near Morrison Park and in other neighborhoods are being evaluated for shared parking agreements between
residential and commercial spaces. Some agreements involve businesses or institutions leasing spaces for residential use during off-peak hours.

The City has also explored other attempts at addressing residential parking demand. The City initiated the Memory Lane Pilot Program to address parking demand for a multifamily building that does not qualify for the current RPP program. Through a lottery system, residents of this 56-unit development could request and be assigned one of 10
assigned parking spaces in an area that has been vacant due to speeding and safety concerns. Parking would only be
allowed at certain hours and cars must be moved daily. The pilot is still ongoing with close oversight by the City. There has been low participation despite the requests for more parking, and the City is in touch with the associated homeowners’ association with their observations.

The City has an RV Parking Permit program that allows RVs to park temporarily on-street for up to three (3) consecutive days, with a maximum of 72 permits permitted per address per calendar year. A $5 fee applies for each permit. Requests must be made at least seven (7) business days in advance.

Permits are issued by Traffic Engineering, and once
approved, the Santa Ana Police Department is notified.

City Council 26 – 182 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 36 Study Findings
 High residential parking demand could be alleviated by increasing residential public parking supply. There are several strategies the City could consider to better utilize existing parking supply flexibly without the need to designate more real estate for parking in the City.
 Residents have expressed interest in shared parking
opportunities. Throughout the community engagement
process, there was consistent feedback from residents that they would like to see the City pursue shared parking
opportunities to alleviate curb space demand in the
residential neighborhoods, especially for overnight parking needs.
 There are opportunities to leverage schools, churches, and City-owned properties. Stakeholders, specifically City Councilmembers, have expressed an interest in improving the use of existing parking assets, and have specifically pointed out opportunities to leverage parking assets at community centers, school district property, churches, and city-owned properties.
 Shared parking opportunities may help alleviate evening and overnight parking demand. According to the Citywide survey, most respondents find it difficult to find parking on their block in the evening and overnight, and parking
utilization data consistently show that average occupancy is highest in the evening for all districts where data was collected. Leveraging existing parking assets when they are not typically in use can help alleviate this parking demand during peak occupancy hours.
 Residents have expressed safety concerns with having to park far from their homes. Due to the inadequate parking supply, some residents resort to parking several blocks away from their homes. A primary concern of this is walking long distances at night, as 39% of survey respondents reported that they feel unsafe when having to park far away and walk to their residence. Many residents have also expressed concerns with poor lighting in some neighborhoods, which adds to the
safety concerns associated with walking at night.
 The City should explore creative ways to expand offstreet residential parking supply at multi-family properties. Uncovered off-street residential parking lots offer the opportunity to install parking lifts, which could help double the parking inventory in that lot.

What are shared parking agreements?
The City can increase parking availability in residential districts by establishing shared parking agreements with private lot owners. These agreements allow underutilized parking spaces, such as school lots during off-hours, to be used for public or permit parking. This strategy provides benefits such as reducing the costs of building new parking, improving convenience, optimizing use of existing spaces, and avoiding excessive land use for parking.

Private property owners benefit from added revenue,
municipal support for insurance and enforcement, and
improved signage. The agreements would outline key terms such as usage, maintenance, operations, and enforcement responsibilities. Terms and conditions are to be outlined in a shared parking agreement.

City Council 26 – 183 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 37 Recommendations

1. Leverage shared parking agreements to expand public
parking supply. Consider potential shared parking sites, such as the Santa Ana Zoo and other City owned parks and facilities, to offer additional overnight parking supply to nearby residents. Some potential locations that the City could consider for shared parking agreements include the parking lots at Santa Ana College, the Immaculate Heart of Mary Catholic Church, Garfield Elementary and Community Center, and Wilson Elementary. The City should review its permit districts for possible shared parking locations and draw up a templated agreement prior to approaching property owners for discussion. The City should also encourage private parties to enter shared parking agreements with each other to
maximize parking supply in the City. See Attachment C for sample shared parking agreement language.

2. Expand the use of parking lifts as a means to expand offstreet residential parking. With a parking lift already in place on Minnie St. (see Figure 5), the City is well-positioned to evaluate additional locations where this approach would be feasible. The City should gauge interest with property owners, evaluate potential sites, and explore partnerships or subsidies to encourage wider adoption, ultimately helping to expand overall residential parking supply.

Implementation
Recommendations 1 and 2: Expanding residential parking
supply is a mid- to long-term strategy. For both
recommendations, the City is encouraged to take initial steps to lay the groundwork, collaborate with other departments to ensure coordinated planning, and designate this strategy as a goal to work towards. For shared parking agreements, the City should proactively initiate conversations with potential private property owners or relevant City departments to gage interest in shared parking opportunities for overnight
residential parking.

What are parking lifts?
Parking lifts are mechanical systems that vertically park vehicles, optimizing space and reducing parking sprawl.

They lower greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the
time spent searching for parking, improve air quality, and enhance safety by enabling residents to park closer to
their homes. Two-level parking lifts are the most common in residential areas due to their space efficiency.

Figure 4. Two-level Parking Lift on Minnie St.

City Council 26 – 184 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 38 On-street Parking Management
Strategy F. Minimize paid parking infrastructure in residential areas.

Existing Program
In the Willard neighborhood, some spaces feature an overlap in paid parking and residential permit parking restrictions.

These spaces feature both a single-space paid meter as well as exemptions for vehicles with a valid residential parking permit.

This generally leads to such parking spaces generating lower paid parking revenue given that paid parking operating hours are not fully utilized for paid parking. This typically indicates that there could be a better application for paid parking infrastructure available.

Study Findings
DIXON analyzed the ROI of parking payment methods in the Willard District, examining revenue from paid parking and hood rentals against equipment, staffing, and operational costs for single-space meters and mobile payments. The
analysis found the following:
 The City sees a negative ROI of -72% for single-space meters, and a positive ROI of 272% for mobile payments.

The significant negative ROI for single-space meters is primarily due to the high cost of staffing for parking meter maintenance and coin collection activities, as well as low revenue generation in the area. It was estimated that 20% of four full-time meter operations staff’s time is used for meter maintenance. Additional expenses include meter spare parts and maintenance costs. Credit card processing fees were not included as part of the ROI analysis since the single-space meters in the Willard neighborhood only accept coins.
 Lower ROI for single-space meters occurs in spaces with an overlap of permit parking and paid parking. The high cost of operating a single-space parking meter means they are best suited for use in high-utilization, high-turnover areas.

Residential permit vehicles parked long-term at these meters Figure 5. Parking Meter in Permit Area(left) and
Zoom-in of Sign (right)
City Council 26 – 185 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 39 reduce their effectiveness, suggesting the infrastructure could better support parking management elsewhere.
 Pay stations are a viable alternative for single-space meters. To provide a physical payment option while cutting costs, the City can replace multiple single-space meters with a pay station in areas where paid parking overlaps residential permits. This reduces fees, streamlines maintenance, and improves aesthetics by requiring only one or two devices per block instead of one per space.

Recommendations

1. Replace single space meters with pay stations and
promote mobile payment. This is particularly applicable in residential parking areas where utilization of single-space meters for paid parking is lowest. The City should also consider applying this recommendation in low revenue
generating areas citywide, such as in certain commercial areas.

2. Futureproof Municipal Code sections. The current
Municipal Code refers to single-space parking meters and coin payment, whereas new parking technologies can include mobile payments, pay stations, and credit card payments. The City should consider a general refresh of its parking code to ensure that it can remain relevant as the local infrastructure evolves, and to also accommodate the changes suggested in this section.

Implementation
Recommendation 1: The City should conduct an analysis to identify all metered parking areas with low utilization and low revenue and begin the process of sourcing quotations from vendors to understand the cost of a transition to pay stations.

Recommendation 2: The City should make these changes as part of an overall municipal code update associated with the recommendation in this Plan. The City may wish to make these changes incrementally as well, as sections are updated.

City Council 26 – 186 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 40 Strategy G. Improve on-street turnover and oversized vehicle management.

Existing Conditions
The municipal code prohibits the storage of vehicles for longer than seventy-two consecutive hours, but this has not been consistently enforced due to limitations in enforcement resources. Vehicle abatement is managed by PD and Code
Enforcement, and LAZ offers limited assistance for 72-hour parking complaints. Inconsistent enforcement has resulted in insufficient parking turnover, limiting availability for Santa Ana residents to park.

Oversized vehicles (which do not have an authorized
oversized vehicle permit) pose another challenge for turnover as there is inconsistent enforcement for these violations. The City has an oversized vehicle ordinance prohibiting parking on public streets. However, inconsistent enforcement has limited the effectiveness of this ordinance in encouraging turnover.

Study Findings
 Many residents are concerned about vehicles parking for extended periods of time. Across the various community
outreach efforts, there was consistent feedback about how often residents witness vehicles parked for extended periods of time without moving, with many vehicles repeatedly
violating the 72-hour rule. Overstaying vehicles also pose challenges to street sweeping operations, which can
exacerbate sanitation issues in residential neighborhoods.

Residents often report these violations; however,
enforcement is often unresponsive and inconsistent. One resident at a Ward 4 Community Meeting shared that an
abandoned trailer was not removed from the street until seven days after the resident reported it.
 Residents feel there is a lack of enforcement for oversized vehicles. Many residents expressed that there is a lack of or insufficient enforcement of oversized vehicles in many
neighborhoods, which negatively impacts parking availability as well as turnover.
 There is a discrepancy in citation issuance for oversized vehicle violations. Oversized vehicle violations in the City have traditionally been issued as administrative citations, likely due to historical support from Code Enforcement. In contrast, other agencies typically issue them as parking violations under the municipal code. Since PD currently conducts oversized vehicle enforcement, there is an
opportunity to align these violations as parking citations.

City Council 26 – 187 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 41 Recommendations

1. Consider introducing a 24-hour time limit. Introducing a 24-hour time limit in neighborhoods where turnover is
especially insufficient could provide relief to residents by ensuring parking spaces are available. This time limit would apply regardless of permit status, since it is intended to prevent long-term vehicle storage. All residents, including permit holders, would need to move their vehicle at least once every 24 hours to avoid citation. The City of San Rafael applies this same approach, maintaining a 24-hour time limit
independent of its residential permit parking program to ensure permit holders cannot leave vehicles parked
indefinitely. With the introduction of a time limit, the City would need to ensure that consistent enforcement coverage is available to encourage compliance and effectively increase turnover.

2. Prioritize enforcement of oversized vehicles. The City should prioritize the enforcement of oversized vehicles and maintain a proactive approach to ensure that on-street
parking spaces are being efficiently utilized as well as to encourage turnover.

3. Review if oversized vehicle violations can be written as a parking citation with the City Attorney. The City Attorney should be consulted to identify if oversized vehicle violations can be written as parking citations moving forward. If the City chooses to continue writing administrative citations for oversized vehicle parking violations, officers should use the same handhelds and CMS platform for both administrative and parking citations for comprehensive citation
management.

4. Consider implementing marked parking spaces. While
marking on-street parking spaces will have costs associated with the maintenance and upkeep, it could be an effective way for the City to ensure that on-street curb space is maximized by minimizing illegal oversized vehicle parking, and it can also contribute to the effectiveness of parking enforcement by improving accuracy of LPR technology.

5. Utilize LPR technology to enforce the 72-hour rule. To streamline enforcement processes for 72-hour violations, the City should utilize LPR technology instead of reporting the vehicle, tagging it, and addressing it days later. By using LPR technology, enforcement staff can maintain a proactive and efficient approach.

Implementation
Recommendation 1: This policy change should be
considered when the level of enforcement staffing increases, per Strategy C.

Recommendation 2: City departments should align this
priority through internal conversations and procedures.

Recommendation 3: City staff is recommended to consult
the City Attorney regarding this recommendation, alongside the other municipal code-related recommendations
described in this Plan.

City Council 26 – 188 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 42 Recommendation 4: The City is in the process of
implementing marked spaces on Warren Street as a pilot.

Recommendation 5: Enforcement of the 72-hour rule will see improvements as PD uses the LPR units that have been
procured.

City Council 26 – 189 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 43 Case Study: San Rafael, California
24-hour Time Limits
San Rafael introduced the 24-hour time limit to encourage turnover and prevent long term vehicle storage in the residential neighborhoods of East San Rafael (see Figure 7). This area faces high overnight parking demand, starting from late afternoon until early morning, due to the high density of multi-family homes and presence of private streets within the boundaries of the 24-hour parking zone. The policy is enforced by regular patrols of vehicles equipped with LPR cameras and calls from residents. San Rafael does have a municipal code section prohibiting the storage of vehicles for longer than 72 consecutive hours; however, this has not offered sufficient turnover. This 24-hour limit has been successful at ensuring daily turnover so that residents have an opportunity to find parking near their homes.

Parking Space Markings
San Rafael has successfully implemented on-street curb space markings, known as T’s and L’s, to improve the effectiveness of LPR cameras for plate-based enforcement, maximize uniform parking along the curb, and improving parking habits. Uniform spacing has also been effective in minimizing illegal oversized vehicle parking and creating a more orderly appearance on-street. San Rafael applied the following measurements to its T’s and L’s:
• The first and last parking spaces of a block face are approximately 18 feet long.
• The middle parking spaces vary from 20 to 22 feet long. • T’s and L’s are placed approximately 7.5 feet away from the curb and tend to point away from the curb.
• Each stripe is approximately 4 inches wide and is painted with thermoplastic paint.

Figure 6. Time Limit Zones in East San Rafael
Figure 7. T’s and L’s in San Rafael
City Council 26 – 190 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 44 Case Study: Warren Street
Parking Space Markings
The City plans to implement parking space markings on Warren Street, which is located near the eastern edge of the City boundaries. The street segment is characterized by single-family residences to the north and a large multi-family apartment complex to the south. As outlined in Figure 9, the parking space markings are intended to improve ease of enforcement and compliance at red curb spaces and improve parking habits. The City plans to apply markings with the following measurements:
• Each parking space will be approximately 18 feet long. • Parking space markings will be placed approximately 8 feet away from the curb.

Figure 8. Warren Street Design Sample
City Council 26 – 191 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 45 Strategy H. Encourage the use of alternative transportation.

Some of the recommended RPP program goals include decreasing parking congestion and disincentivizing ownership of excess vehicles. The City can also help address these goals by promoting the use of alternative modes of transportation, such as public transit, cycling, car sharing, and walking. These recommendations are also intended to help address any displaced vehicles as a result of the new permit maximum allocations for single-family and multi-family residences.

Existing Conditions
The City operates 27 bus routes with 672 stops and 42 miles of bicycle infrastructure, including multi-use lanes, shared routes, and protected paths. According to a 2017 survey,

87.7% of residents commute by car, 5.8% use transit, 2.1% walk, and 0.9% bike. Residents seek safer, better bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. The City's goals, outlined in the Active Transportation Plan (2019) and the Mobility Element of the General Plan (2022), include developing comprehensive, safe, and convenient infrastructure for all residents; ensuring access to schools, parks, employment, and commercial
centers via non-motorized transportation; ensuring safety and maintenance for pedestrian and bicycle transit; and
improving aesthetics and maintenance of rail corridors.

Study Findings
 The average number of cars per household is three (3) cars. The Citywide Parking Survey revealed that the average number of cars per household is three (3), indicating high car dependence.
 There is a desire for access to alternative modes of
transportation. Throughout the various community outreach efforts, several residents expressed that they would like increased access to alternative modes of transportation such as walking, biking, and transit in order to help alleviate the curb space demand.
 There is limited access to public transit. The City is largely car-dependent as transit service is often delayed, and routes are inaccessible to several neighborhoods. Residents also expressed a need for increased frequency and routes to
better serve local needs, especially regarding local shopping and school traffic.

City Council 26 – 192 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 46 Recommendations

1. Promote cycling and public transit infrastructure updates.

The City should promote progress on their Active
Transportation Plan and General Plan alongside RPP program updates to educate residents on available mobility options.

The City is also encouraged to work with the Orange County Transit Authority to collect public input about local transit needs. The City could also look into working with developers to consider initiatives that would help reduce car
dependence.

2. Partner with car-sharing platforms to provide nonpermitholders with incentives. Peer-to-peer car-sharing platforms help drivers utilize underused vehicles. The City could partner with these platforms to offer vouchers or benefits to households in permit districts with unused permits, allowing residents to access discounted car-sharing instead of applying for excess vehicle permits, reducing on-street parking.

3. Evaluate pilot opportunities to reduce vehicle ownership.

The City should explore opportunities to reduce vehicle ownership by evaluating pilot programs with technology
providers, such as car-share companies and micro-transit services. The City could also require new multi-family housing developments to offer car-share vehicles on-site, providing residents with an alternative to owning multiple vehicles. A car-share pilot program could reduce household vehicle
ownership, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and automobilegenerated pollution, with studies suggesting that each carshare vehicle removes 9 to 13 personal vehicles from the road.

Implementation
Recommendations 1, 2, and 3: All recommendations in this strategy are considered long-term goals to impact overall transportation and driving behavior.

City Council 26 – 193 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 47 Implementation Phases
This Parking Action and Implementation Plan was designed to be realistic and achievable; however, the actual implementation steps may vary depending on the City’s priorities, budget, staffing, and other factors. It is recommended for the City to take an incremental approach to implementing the strategies listed in this Plan. The City should aim to complete any prerequisites listed for each strategy in the appropriate order to optimize the operation. Estimated costs are listed next to each strategy in green font. The cost levels are defined as: $ = low, $$ = medium, and $$$ = high. For the purposes of this timeline, the phases are defined as: Near-term = 1 to 2 years, Mid-term = 3 to 5 years, and Long-term = 6 to 10 years. Some recommendations have additional considerations and prerequisites identified. Steps identified do not need to be taken in the prescribed order. The City is welcome to adapt the following phasing to best suit its processes, as most recommendations can work to achieve multiple priorities.

City Council 26 – 194 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 48 Residential Parking Permit Program
Strategy A: Update RPP policies
to enhance inclusivity and
impact.

Cost/Effort Near-term Mid-term Long-term
#1 Update municipal code to
increase clarity and flexibility
$ • Prepare municipal code
amendment ordinance and
draft RPP program
guidelines
#2 Re-evaluate permit quantities $ • Include permit maximums in RPP program guidelines.
#3 Update petition rules for
improved access
$ • Establish petitioning
process and update RPP
program guidelines.
#4. Establish permit regulations to
allow multiple contiguous blocks
to be evaluated simultaneously,
rather than one block at a time
$ •Describe in RPP program
guidelines.
#5 Simplify operating hour
restrictions
$ • Evaluate external and
internal parking impacts tied
to each operating hour
restriction.
• Continue monitoring of
external and internal parking
impacts to adjust operating
hours as needed.
• Continue monitoring of
external and internal parking
impacts to adjust operating
hours as needed.
#6 Restructure parking permit
district boundaries to match
neighborhood boundaries
$ • Include rule in RPP
program guidelines.
#7 Update the permit pricing
model with market rates based on
comparable cities
$ • Conduct in-depth review of
RPP program administration
costs to establish sustainable
permit pricing model.
#8 Introduce a nominal fee for
guest permits
$ • Include rule in RPP
program guidelines.

City Council 26 – 195 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 49 #9 Restrict oversized and
commercial vehicles from
purchasing residential permits
$ • Include rule in RPP
program guidelines.
#10 Continue to leverage the
Parking Program webpage and
branding in outreach and updates
$ • Post any program
updates/news as needed.
• Post any program
updates/news as needed.
• Post any program
updates/news as needed.

Strategy B: Streamline RPP
management.

Cost/Effort Near-term Mid-term Long-term
#1 Transition to an automated PMS $$$  Currently undergoing RFP process.

#2 Implement an online permit
application process with selfmanaged accounts
$ • Conduct customer
support, training, and
outreach.
• Hold City events for permit
registration.
• Continue education and
community outreach as
needed.
#3 Transition to a license platebased virtual permit system$ • Transition away from physical decal-based
permits.
#4 Create a process to increase
transparency of permit zone
application status updates for
residents
$ • Implement an application
status tracker on the PMS
portal.
• Post neighborhood/zonespecific announcements on
Parking Program webpage
about permit application
status.
#5 Convert 2-year permit cycle to
an annual permit
$ • Include rule in RPP
program guidelines.
#6 Implement a virtual guest
permit process
$ • Work with PMS vendor to
add virtual guest permit
processes.

Strategy C: Improve RPP
enforcement.

Cost/Effort Near-term Mid-term Long-term
City Council 26 – 196 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 50 #1 Enhance enforcement staffing
resources to the RPP program to
improve coverage
$$$ • Evaluate staffing
opportunities for enhanced
permit parking enforcement.
#2 Leverage LPR technology for
RPP program enforcement
$ • Conduct training for
enforcement staff.
• Establish regular
enforcement routes for
maximum coverage.
• Continue ongoing
monitoring of enforcement
operations.
• Continue ongoing
monitoring of enforcement
operations.
#3 Establish a permit revocation
process for repeat violations.
$ • Include process in RPP
program guidelines and
define in municipal code.
#4 Use tools to identify areas that
need more consistent
enforcement coverage
$ • Re-evaluate enforcement
coverage strategy (including
staffing, hours of operation,
etc.)
• Continue ongoing
monitoring of enforcement
operations.
• Continue ongoing
monitoring of enforcement
operations.
#5 Consider transitioning resident
permit parking enforcement from
the Police Department to Public
Works
$ • Collaborate with Police
Department to prepare
departmental transition of
RPP program enforcement.

#6 Consider outsourcing permit
parking enforcement to an outside
contractor
$ • Conduct financial
modeling of in-house vs
outsourced enforcement
costs and ROI.
#7 Consider gap management $ • Use LPR/handheld GPS
data to track officer
coverage against assigned
routes/zones and flag time
gaps in the field
• Set citation issuance trend
reports as the productivity
metric, not citation counts
• Continue ongoing
monitoring of enforcement
operations.
• Continue ongoing
monitoring of enforcement
operations.

City Council 26 – 197 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 51 #8 Work with the legislative
representative to initiate support
for the automated street sweeping
enforcement legislation
$ • Engage appropriate
representatives and internal
departments to explore
legislative opportunities.

City Council 26 – 198 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 52 Parking Supply and Demand Management
Strategy D: Leverage data-based
parking management decisionmaking. Cost/Effort Near-term Mid-term Long-term #1 Procure mobile LPR for data
collection $$$
 Procured 2 mobile LPR
units, underwent training in
January 2025.
#2 Implement an ongoing data
collection and analysis plan $
• Work with enforcement
staff to establish a data
collection and analysis plan.
• Continue to implement
data collection and analysis
plan, and adjust as needed.
• Continue to implement
data collection and analysis
plan, and adjust as needed.

Strategy E: Expand residential
parking supply. Cost/Effort Near-term Mid-term Long-term #1 Leverage shared parking
agreements to expand the public
parking supply
$
• Review permit districts to
identify possible shared
parking locations.
• Prepare a Shared Parking
Agreement template.
• Reach out to businesses,
schools, and churches who
may be interested.
• Implement shared parking
agreements.
• Continue to reach out to
interested parties to expand
parking supply.
#2 Explore parking lifts as a means
to expand off-street residential
parking
$$
• Research parking lift
vendors.
• Reach out to property
owners who may be
interested.
• Implement subsidies to
encourage property owners
to purchase parking lifts if
enough interested is
garnered.
• Ongoing outreach to new
property owners to gauge
interest.

City Council 26 – 199 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 53 On-street Parking Management
Strategy F: Minimize paid
parking infrastructure in
residential areas.

Cost/Effort Near-term Mid-term Long-term
#1 Replace single space meters
with pay stations and promote
mobile payment
$$
• Evaluate existing supply of
meters.
• Prepare a pay station
placement plan following
accessibility requirements.
• Install additional mobile
payment signage as needed,
and conduct promotional
campaign of mobile
payment method.
• Phase out single space
meters and install pay
stations.
#2 Futureproof Municipal Code
sections $
• Conduct refresh of
terminology used in
Municipal Code, especially
relating to paid parking.

Strategy G: Improve on-street
turnover and oversized vehicle
management.

Cost/Effort Near-term Mid-term Long-term
#1 Consider introducing a 24-hour
time limit $
• Determine zones that
would benefit from a 24-hour
time limit.
• Ensure consistent
enforcement coverage is
possible.
• Install new signage as
needed.
#2 Prioritize enforcement of
oversized vehicles $
• Continue ongoing
monitoring of enforcement
operations.
• Continue ongoing
monitoring of enforcement
operations.
• Continue ongoing
monitoring of enforcement
operations.

City Council 26 – 200 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION 54 #3 Review if oversized vehicle
violations can be written as a
parking citation with the City
Attorney
$
• Pursue discussions with
City Attorney.

#4 Consider implementing marked
parking spaces $$
 City is conducting a pilot
on Warren Street.
• Consider expanding
implementation of marked
parking spaces.
#5 Utilize LPR technology to
enforce the 72-hour rule $
• Continue ongoing
monitoring of enforcement
operations.
• Continue ongoing
monitoring of enforcement
operations.
• Continue ongoing
monitoring of enforcement
operations.

Strategy H: Encourage the use of
alternative transportation. Cost/Effort Near-term Mid-term Long-term #1 Promote cycling and public
transit infrastructure updates $
• Conduct community
outreach to collect public
input about local transit
needs.
• Use parking program
webpage to promote
infrastructure updates.
• Continue to promote local
transit options.
• Continue to promote local
transit options.
#2 Partner with car-sharing
platforms to provide nonpermitholders with incentives $ • Reach out to car-sharing
platforms.
• Promote incentives with
non-permitholders.
• Evaluate effectiveness of
incentives and adjust
program as needed.
#3 Evaluate pilot opportunities to
reduce vehicle ownership $
• Reach out to technology
providers to pursue pilot
opportunities once the RPP
program and consistent
parking enforcement plan
has been established.
• Initiate pilot opportunities.
• Conduct community
outreach to gain feedback
on pilot.
• Consider long-term
implementation after
evaluating pilot program
effectiveness and impact.

City Council 26 – 201 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 1
Community Engagement Summary
The City of Santa Ana (“City”) conducted an extensive community engagement process, including the creation of a new parking program brand, a citywide online parking survey, tabling at local events, a series of Council presentations, and neighborhood meetings. The City also received input via emails and reviewed social media comments. A Community Engagement Plan was developed to outline the various outreach and engagement strategies, as well as the timeline for each activity to guide the overall Study.

Prior to the study, the City held over 75 community meetings and maintained a strong focus on community engagement throughout the project, with transparency in the parking program being one of its main priorities. The variety of community engagement activities and methods used in the study ensured that a wide range of voices contributed to the development of the RPP program. This approach reinforced the City's goal of inclusivity, ensuring that all perspectives, especially those of underrepresented groups, were actively considered. The following section provides an activity description and feedback summary for each community engagement activity conducted throughout the project.

Past City-led Outreach
Over 75 community meetings were held through the City’s Community Linkage Forum (“ComLink”) program, which aims to promote community participation in Santa Ana through regular neighborhood meetings. At these neighborhood meetings, residents had the opportunity to share their feedback regarding residential parking and the current Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program in Santa Ana. Below is a summary of the most common feedback received by topic:
 Permit Parking:
o Concerns about permit program for large households
o Concerns about permit program for accommodating guests o Desire for more guest permits
o Concerns about permit program being costly
o Concerns about permit program being unfair for single-family homes versus duplexes
o Desire for an online permit management system
o Safety concerns with current permit decal exposing driver’s residential information
 Enforcement and Policies:
o People saving parking spots with trash receptacles, traffic cones, etc. o Unfair enforcement
o Insufficient enforcement
 Safety and Sanitation:
o People parking during street sweeping
o Trash/vandalism from non-resident parkers
 Other:

City Council 26 – 202 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 2
o Concern for high-density development
o Condominiums without designated parking
o Desire for an off-street parking structure or leveraging underutilized parking lots for residential parking
Branding
To bring cohesiveness to the City’s parking
program, the Santa Ana Parking Program logo was
developed for use on all engagement materials,
including flyers, bus stop advertisements,
promotional videos, and the program’s webpage.

Branding is a key element in the program’s success,
as it helps establish a distinct identity, increases
recognition, improves the effectiveness of
engagement efforts, and builds trust between the
City and the community.

Citywide Parking Survey
An extensive online survey was conducted to solicit feedback from the public regarding their experience with residential parking and the current RPP program. An extensive promotional campaign of the survey along with the Study was done through bus stop advertisements (Figure 2) and promotional videos to reach as many community members as possible. While the survey was primarily conducted online, printed versions of the survey were also prepared and made available at some community meetings and tabling events.

As part of the Round 1 outreach process, the online survey was open for 582 days starting on March 23, 2023, and closing on October 25, 2024. A total of 3,959 responses were received from residents regarding their parking experience. For Round 2, the survey was reopened for 115 days starting on March 7, 2025, and closing on June 30, 2025. A total of 54 responses were received from residents. For Round 3, the survey was opened for 152 days starting July 1, 2025, and closing on November 30, 2025. A total of 59 responses were received. Across the three rounds, the online survey received a combined total of 4,072 responses1. The survey was 1 Only counting complete responses.

Figure 2. Bus Stop Advertisements for Parking Survey

Figure 1. Santa Ana Parking Program logo
City Council 26 – 203 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 3
available in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. Below is a summary of key takeaways and findings from the online survey:
 Most respondents find it difficult to find parking on their block in the evening (6pm10pm) and overnight (10pm-6am).  When asked about their parking experience, many respondents expressed that their guests have a difficult time finding parking in their neighborhood, and that they frequently see vehicles parked for long periods of time without moving.  Of the respondents who qualify for a permit, most are unsatisfied when asked about the current permit application process and permit management process.  When asked about the current guest pass allotment, there is a relatively even split among respondents who are satisfied and unsatisfied.
 When asked about the current cost of the permits, most respondents expressed neutrality, while the rest were split between satisfaction and dissatisfaction.  A majority of respondents are dissatisfied with parking enforcement in their area. When asked to expand further, respondents indicated that enforcement tends to be unresponsive, irregular, and ineffective.
 Many residents reported typically parking 1 to 2 blocks away from their residence.

Full results of the survey can be found in the Citywide Parking Survey Outcomes Summary.

Tabling
The following local events were included in the community engagement process:

Fiestas Patrias
DIXON, Fehr & Peers (subconsultant), and City
staff were present at the Fiestas Patrias event
held on September 16, 2023, to share
information about the Study and distribute
printed copies of the citywide parking survey for
community members to fill out.

National Public Works Day
The City’s Public Works staff tabled at the
National Public Works Day event held on May
18, 2024, to promote the Study and the survey,
as well as to engage with community members and gain feedback on their residential parking experience.

Below are the resident comments as captured by Public Works staff:

Figure 3. Printed surveys at Fiestas Patrias
City Council 26 – 204 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 4
 One resident remarked how her
neighbor parks cars in their driveway in a
way that blocks the sidewalk, creating
challenges for the resident’s father who
is in a wheelchair.
 One resident who lives near Orange
Ave/Hobart St can’t find parking due to a
neighbor that has 6 or more cars that
never get moved.
 Other residents had similar concerns
about their neighbors’ vehicles staying
put for “weeks.”
 Most residents that engaged were
looking forward to an improved parking experience.

City Council Presentations
To date, there have been three key City Council presentations that were integral to the advancement of the Study and the parking program. Below is a high-level summary of each presentation:
 August 1, 2023: City Council adopted a resolution for the Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Policy, which outlines the guidelines for use of ALPR technology in Santa Ana, authorized users for the technology, data collection, retention policies, training guidelines, and information security protocols. The adoption of the ALPR Policy allowed the City to conduct parking utilization data collection as part of the Study.  August 15, 2023: A Citywide Parking Study Update was provided, covering a progress update, initial findings, online survey results, parking utilization data collection results, policy impacts, and next steps.
 June 4, 2024: City Council approved a purchase order for two mobile ALPR cameras to be used for parking utilization data collection as part of the Study.

Councilmember One-on-One Updates
A series of Councilmember one-on-one updates were held throughout the Study in order to provide a targeted overview of the project, survey results, and data collection findings specific to the Councilmember’s jurisdiction. In the first round of outreach, DIXON conducted four Councilmember one-on-one meetings and City staff provided information to the remaining three Councilmembers.

Below is a summary of the feedback received:
 Opportunity to use QR codes and visitor permits to manage parking supply.  Discussions regarding how to handle undocumented residents in applying for the permit parking program if adopting a “licensed driver” permit model.  Opportunity to improve the use of existing parking assets, such as leveraging parking supply at community centers, school district property, and city-owned properties to alleviate residential parking demand.

Figure 4. Tabling at Public Works Day
City Council 26 – 205 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 5
o Specific mentions of opportunities to leverage parking lots in Willard neighborhood, El Salvador Park, Bristol area, and churches in Washington Square.
 Emphasis on engaging with private landowners and leveraging their assets for parking.  Emphasis on engaging stakeholders such as schools, churches, and developers throughout the Study.
 Desire to change the physical appearance of parking permits.  Desire to maintain a physical permit format so that it can be easily enforced with an identifier, as well as for residents to be able to identify vehicles that are parked without a permit.
 Focus on having a permit program that is easy to manage for the residents and an emphasis on improving the end-user experience.
 Emphasis should be placed on thorough revision of the municipal codes and policies.  Desire for City staff to cooperate with apartment complexes to install additional parking lifts and expand residential parking supply for apartment residents.

Neighborhood Meetings
Neighborhood meetings were conducted in Spring 2024 to solicit feedback from specific neighborhoods, and target outreach for those where parking utilization data was collected. The following is a list of the meetings that were held:
 Ward 1 (Highland Park District – May 1, 2024, May 20, 2024  Ward 2 (Brook/Bamdal District) – May 14, 2024, May 28, 2024  Ward 3 (Northeast District) – April 29, 2024, May 6, 2024  Ward 4 (Sandpointe District) – May 8, 2024, May 13, 2024  Ward 5 (Willard District) – May 23, 2024
 Ward 6 (Eastside District) – May 22, 2024
Each meeting consisted of a brief presentation to inform residents about the ongoing parking study, the data collection efforts, and the parking utilization results specific to their community, as well as a facilitated open discussion where residents had the opportunity to voice their concerns, desires, and insights regarding parking in their neighborhood. Below is a summary of the feedback received across all the neighborhood meetings, categorized by topic:
 Enforcement
o Lack of consistency and responsiveness in enforcement o Vehicles parked for extended periods of time and violating the 72-hour rule o Blocked driveways
o Abandoned vehicles/trailers
o Illegal parking such as in front of fire hydrants
o Double parking
o Desire for prioritization of permit parking enforcement o Reported success with using the Santa Ana mobile app to report illegally parked vehicles where the car was removed within a week
o Opportunity to enforce number of vehicles allowed on driveway  Permit Parking
City Council 26 – 206 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 6
o Overreliance on technology
o Limitations on guest passes
o Effect of permit parking system on handicapped residents o Opposition to eliminating the RPP program
o Accessibility for low-income families
o Difficulty for guests to find parking
o Concerns of how guest pass allocations would work for households with ADUs/ garage conversions
o Desire for more permit allocations
o Lower permit fees
o Physical permit passes over digital permits to reduce reliance on technology o Ability to obtain guest passes for private gatherings o (Ward 1 and Ward 2) A previous attempt to petition for permitted parking did not pass due to not reaching the voting threshold (2/3) o Setting up permit program to be a licensed-driver model (1 parking permit per licensed name)
o Permit parking makes neighborhoods safer
 Parking Supply Management
o Spillover parking associated with special events
o Reduction of on-street parking availability due to curb extensions o Neighbors leaving large gaps between vehicles and not using curb space efficiently
o Conflict between neighbors over on-street parking spaces o Unlicensed street vendors taking up parking spaces
o Inability to park near residence and having to walk a long distance from vehicle o Residents do not use their garage and instead park on the street o (Ward 2) Issues with Sierra Intermediate school teachers parking on-street in front of residences instead of at the school parking lot o (Ward 2) Some teachers moving trash cans to free up parking space o (Ward 2) Some teachers park and block neighbor’s driveways o Not enough parking for multi-unit housing
o Residents reserve on-street parking spots
o Vehicles remain parked until street sweeping day and follow street sweeper vehicle to re-park
o Desire for an online interface such as a mobile app to show parking availability within the community
o Interest in using T-bars to delineate parking
o Wanting to park vehicles within safe distance from residence o (Ward 2) Interest in implementing angled parking on Lacy Street o Leveraging shared parking agreements
o (Ward 2) Potential opportunity for the City to lease out a City-owned parcel to a condominium complex for parking
o Full occupancy during the day but no parking issues during the night or during the summer
City Council 26 – 207 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 7
o Potential strategy of “recycling” street sweeping signs to now allow street parking during typical school hours
o Adding red curbs on 3 feet of either side of driveway o Opportunity to change the minimum residential building heights to allow room for garage lifts
o Opportunities to use parking lots at schools for residential parking  Safety and Sanitation
o Neighbors leaving trash receptacles out two days prior to trash pickup day o Blocked sightlines with vehicles parking too close to intersections o Insufficient space to put trash receptacles in the street o Better security and lighting in public parking areas
 Other
o Lack of transparency with City officials
o Overpopulation
o Desire for increased access to alternative modes of transportation (walking, biking, transit) to help curb parking demand
o Desire for a traffic management center
o Holding a street meeting
Prior to the series of six neighborhood meetings that took place in Spring 2024, a separate community outreach meeting was conducted for the Flower Park neighborhood on October 17, 2023, by co-consultants Fehr & Peers. Below is a summary of the feedback received specific to Flower Park:
 Enforcement
o Inconsistent enforcement
 Permit Parking
o Smaller physical permits
o Ability to obtain permits without landlord approval
o In favor of license plate-based permits, however residents want a way to verify if a vehicle is permitted or not
 Parking Supply Management
o Residents reserve on-street parking spots with cones and trash cans o Vehicles occupy more than one on-street parking spot at a time o Vehicles shuffle on-street parking spots
o Converting empty lots throughout the City into public parking lots o Lack of adequate parking requirements for new developments  Other
o Many households have multiple cars due to the increased cost of living Citywide Virtual Community Meeting
A virtual community meeting was held on October 10, 2024, with 36 community member attendees. The presentation consisted of a project overview, data collection results, and a “Parking Magic Wand” exercise to gather feedback from the community regarding their City Council 26 – 208 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 8
experience with residential parking in Santa Ana. Below is a summary of the comments and feedback received by topic:
 Enforcement:
o Inconsistent enforcement of permit parking rules, and lack of responsiveness of enforcement when contacted by residents
o Challenges of legislation that could undermine enforcement by reducing penalties for parking violations
o Difficulty in finding parking due to the high number of work trucks on the street.  Permit Parking:
o Desire for multiple permits per unit as a potential solution for neighborhoods with multi-generational households
o Frustration over limited guest passes and difficulties in finding parking in their community
 Safety:
o Permit parking is an effective tool in maintaining safety in neighborhoods, reducing crime, and managing traffic from nearby schools o Nearby commercial developments, such as new restaurants, negatively impact parking availability in some neighborhoods, leading to more vehicles from nonresidents parking in residential streets  Other (Residential Development and Supply Management):
o Shared parking with nearby institutions (e.g., St. Joseph’s Church) and better space management with angled parking where possible in order to increase parking supply
o Importance of holding developers accountable for providing sufficient parking in new developments, considering growing populations and limited space Environmental and Transportation Advisory Commission
On October 14, 2025, DIXON staff provided a Study update to the Environmental and Transportation Safety Commission (ETAC) in collaboration with City staff which included an overview of the project timeline, existing program, recommended program structure, and next steps.

Below is a high-level summary of the key discussions points from the ETAC meeting:
 Petitioning & Voting Structure: Clarification is needed on owner vs. tenant voting, with emphasis on ensuring tenants are not excluded and that each dwelling unit receives one vote through clearly defined business rules.
 Enforcement Capacity & Program Costs: The current system lacks consistent enforcement. Implementing LPR, hiring additional parking enforcement officers, and operating an online PMS will significantly increase costs, requiring permit fees to rise to maintain a self-funded program.
 Technology and Data Use: LPR, drone audits, and heatmaps can improve coverage, but Commissioners raised concerns about political sensitivity around enforcement technology and data use.

City Council 26 – 209 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 9
 High-Density Neighborhoods: Commissioners emphasized that denser, lower-income areas face the greatest parking challenges but may be least likely to petition. Therefore, City staff should provide ample outreach and support to encourage equitable access.  Shared Parking & Off-Street Parking Management: A major theme was the need to leverage shared parking opportunities (schools, businesses, City facilities) and evaluate off-street parking management in multifamily areas to reduce pressure on on-street supply.

South Coast Villas Virtual Community Meeting
A virtual community meeting was held on November 6, 2025, with 18 attendees from the South Coast Villas community. The presentation consisted of a project overview, data collection results, and a “Parking Magic Wand” exercise to gather feedback from the community regarding their experience with residential parking in Santa Ana, specifically around the South Coast Villas condominium complex. Below is a summary of the comments and feedback received by topic:
 Permit Parking:
o Desire for ability for multi-family residences to participate in the permit program
 Enforcement:
o Concerns of long-term vehicle storage by single-family households that own multiple vehicles
 Safety:
o Many residents have to walk long distances from their cars to their homes due to their inability to find nearby parking
 Other (Residential Development and Supply Management):
o Interest in shared parking opportunities to increase overnight parking supply o Want single-family residents to use their garage for car storage instead of other uses
o Opportunity to convert landscaping into additional parking areas o Wish to see the re-development of open land into a garage structure to add parking supply
o Would like to have on-street parking be allowed on Macarthur Blvd from Main St to Bristol after peak traffic hours (currently no parking is allowed to accommodate traffic)
Emails and Social Media
DIXON received public feedback via emails and monitored public feedback on various social media platforms, including Instagram, Facebook, and Reddit throughout the course of the Study. Below is a summary of some of the feedback received:
 Junk cars consuming valuable parking space
 Insufficient parking resources for new multi-family homes City Council 26 – 210 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 10
 High occupancy households (such as multi-generation households) with multiple vehicles, limiting parking availability for neighbors
 Feedback was primarily against additional developments  Sidewalk safety
 Desire for the City to prioritize enforcement and other socioeconomic issues City Council 26 – 211 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 11
Santa Ana Citywide Parking Survey
Outcomes Summary
Round 1 Survey Results
As part of the Round 1 Community Outreach, the City conducted an online survey from March 23, 2023 to October 25, 2024, to solicit feedback from the public regarding their experience with residential parking and the current Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program.

The online survey was open for 582 days starting on March 23, 2023, and closing on October 25, 2024. A total of 3,959 responses were received from Santa Ana’s residents regarding their parking experience. The survey was available in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. The table below shows the breakdown of the number of responses by language.

Survey Language Number of Responses
English 3,684
Spanish 252
Vietnamese 23
Total 3,959
Summary of Key Takeaways
Below is a summary of key takeaways and findings from the online survey.  Most respondents find it difficult to find parking on their block in the evening (6pm10pm) and overnight (10pm-6am).  When asked about their parking experience, many respondents expressed that their guests have a difficult time finding parking in their neighborhood, and that they frequently see vehicles parked for long periods of time without moving.  Of the respondents who qualify for a permit, most are unsatisfied when asked about the current permit application process and permit management process.  When asked about the current guest pass allotment, there is a relatively even split among respondents who are satisfied and unsatisfied.
 When asked about the current cost of the permits, most respondents expressed neutrality, while the rest were split between satisfaction and dissatisfaction.  Over 50% of respondents are dissatisfied with parking enforcement in their area. When asked to expand further, respondents indicated that enforcement tends to be unresponsive, irregular, and ineffective.

Fixed-choice Survey Results
Below are graphs visualizing the survey responses for the fixed-choice questions, accompanied by some relevant insights.

City Council 26 – 212 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 12
Question 1. Which district do you currently reside in?
City Council 26 – 213 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 13
Question 2. Which time restriction applies to your block? 38% of respondents currently reside in an RPP zone.

City Council 26 – 214 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 14
Question 3. How many cars does your household have?
The average number of cars per household is approximately 3.0 cars.

City Council 26 – 215 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 15
Question 4. How many drivers does your household have?
The average number of drivers per household is approximately 2.8 drivers.

City Council 26 – 216 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 16
Question 5. What type of housing do you live in?
According to the Local Housing Data (2021)2 prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 52.8% of housing units in Santa Ana are single-family homes. Additionally, the Orange County Census Atlas (2020)3 reports that 38.6% of Santa Ana’s population resides in multi-unit dwellings (3 or more units). In contrast, 73% of survey respondents indicated they live in a single-family home and 22% live in multi-unit dwellings. This suggests that the survey has a disproportionately higher representation of respondents living in single-family homes compared to the overall housing distribution in Santa Ana. 2 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/santa-ana-he-0421.pdf?1620767807 3 https://occensusatlas.com/docs/cities/santa-ana.html#hard-to-count-htc-characteristic-breakdown City Council 26 – 217 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 17
Question 6. How many on-site parking spaces does your household have? The average number of on-site parking spaces per household is approximately 2.3 parking spaces.

City Council 26 – 218 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 18
Question 7. Where do you typically park your car(s) at home? City Council 26 – 219 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 19
Question 8. When do you find it difficult to find parking on your block? City Council 26 – 220 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 20
Question 9. How far from your residence do you typically have to park to find an on-street space? City Council 26 – 221 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 21
Question 10. Do you have regular service worker visits to your home that last more than 3 hours? City Council 26 – 222 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 22
Question 11. Where do guests and service workers park when visiting your home? City Council 26 – 223 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 23
Question 12. Which of the following statements apply to your parking experience? City Council 26 – 224 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 24
Question 13. How satisfied are you with the application process for a parking permit? City Council 26 – 225 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 25
Question 14. How satisfied are you with the process for managing parking permits? City Council 26 – 226 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 26
Question 15. How satisfied are you with the current guest pass allotment? City Council 26 – 227 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 27
Question 16. How satisfied are you with the cost of the parking permit? Other responses include general unsatisfaction with the current permit rates, inability to qualify for permits, and complaints regarding the renewal process. The representation of “Unsatisfied” and “N/A” could be higher than what is seen in this graph as some respondents chose to select “Other” instead.

City Council 26 – 228 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 28
Question 17. How many permits do you qualify for?
City Council 26 – 229 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 29
Question 18. Do you use all of your allotted parking permits? City Council 26 – 230 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 30
Question 19. How satisfied are you with parking enforcement in your area? City Council 26 – 231 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 31
Open-ended Survey Results
Survey respondents were given the opportunity to share any additional feedback related to residential parking in an open-ended question at the end of the survey. The table below summarizes the key themes and feedback from the responses:

Category Common Themes
Enforcement and
Policies
 Unresponsive enforcement
 Need for regular enforcement schedule
 Lack of overnight enforcement in RPP zones
 Ticketing over small issues (e.g., permits written in pencil instead of pen, license plate number written in permanent marker fading from permit, permit displayed upside down, etc.)  Vehicles not getting cited in no parking zones
 Cars not moved after 72-hour rule
 Vehicles remain parked until right before street sweeping, then immediately re-park in the same space
 Street sweeper enforcement vehicles do not enforce certain streets
 Request for an enforcement hotline (specifically by residents from the Lacy community and Sunflower St/Ross St area)
 Vehicles without permits park overnight in permitted zones  Abandoned vehicles
 Double parking
 Lack of vehicle size restrictions (commercial vehicles, trailers parked on residential streets)
 Commercial vehicles park overnight in residential streets Permit Program
 Residents who own condos but are not allowed to purchase parking permits have to park far from their residence
 Condo owners want to be able to purchase permits
 Renters (such as apartment residents) who do not qualify for parking permits are parking in the single-family neighborhoods without permits and "taking up" parking space
 Pricing of permits is too high
 Perceived discrimination in RPP program based on
socioeconomic status, particularly for residents not in singlefamily homes or those unable to afford the permits  Concerns that transitioning to virtual permits would inhibit residents’ ability to report unpermitted vehicles to parking enforcement
 Outdated permit processes
 Not enough guest permits
 Guest permits should be reusable
 Lack of transparency of the program
 Current permit stickers are too large, difficult to remove, aesthetically displeasing
City Council 26 – 232 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 32
 Safety concerns with current permit decal exposing driver’s residential information
 Preference for hang tags over stickers/decals
Safety and
Sanitation
 Homelessness
 Walking long distances from parked vehicle
 Drug paraphernalia
 Trash
 Poor lighting
 Walking in high traffic areas
 Sightline issues
 Vehicles parked on-street blocking driveways
 Vehicles parked at red curbs and close to intersections  Street racing/side shows
 Lack of proper street sweeping on certain streets
 Vehicles parked in other people’s driveways on street sweeping days
 Nowhere to put trash bins because people park in front of driveways
Other
 Lack of additional permits for homeowners building accessory dwelling units (ADU)
 Density of (illegal) ADUs cause congested streets
 Desire for accessible alternative transportation modes  Customer service/responsiveness from the City
 Adding hash marks on the street to maximize parking
 Lack of accessible parking spaces for individuals with disabilities  Overcrowding/"too many residents per home"
 Lack of transparency and communication regarding use of LPR and data collection
 Some residents questioned why they can't park overnight in the Santa Ana parking garages; many have stated they'd be willing to pay
 Difficult to find parking on street sweeping days as street sweeping regulations are for entire block instead of by block face
The table below summarizes the general sentiments regarding the RPP program from the open-ended question, based on the 228 respondents who provided specific comments about their support or opposition for the program.

Sentiment Percentage of Respondents
In Support of Permits 38.2%
In Opposition of Permits 29.4%
Not Eligible, Would Like Program Expanded 32.4%

City Council 26 – 233 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 33
Round 2 Survey Results
The City of Santa Ana (City) reopened the online survey distributed during Round 1 of public outreach to continue soliciting feedback from the public regarding their experience with residential parking and the current Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program.

The second round of this online survey was opened on March 7, 2025 and closed on June 30, 2025. A total of 54 responses were received from residents. The survey was available in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. The table below shows the breakdown of the number of responses by language. The first and second round of the online survey received a combined 4,013 responses.

Survey Language Number of Round 2 Responses
English 50
Spanish 2
Vietnamese 2
Total 54
Summary of Key Takeaways
Below is a summary of key takeaways and findings from the online survey.  The majority of respondents are from the Northeast district.  In Round 2 of the survey, 58% of respondents did not qualify for parking permits, a higher share than in Round 1.
 33% more respondents reported living on blocks where permit parking is required daily from midnight to 6 a.m.
 More than half of respondents (57%) live in multi-unit dwellings, compared to 22% in Round 1.
 Most respondents have one on-site parking space at their residence, while the majority of respondents have two drivers in their household and 2 vehicles.  Most respondents find it most difficult to find parking in the evening.  In Round 2, the majority of respondents reported typically parking one to two blocks away from their residence, whereas in Round 1, most were able to find parking on their own block.

Fixed-choice Survey Results
Below are graphs visualizing the survey responses for the fixed-choice questions, accompanied by some relevant insights. Some questions are accompanied by a supplemental graph comparing Round 2 and Round 1 results.

City Council 26 – 234 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 34
Question 20. Which district do you currently reside in? City Council 26 – 235 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 35
In Round 2, there was a significant increase in responses from the Northeast district.

City Council 26 – 236 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 36
Question 21. Which time restriction applies to your block? City Council 26 – 237 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 37
Question 22. How many cars does your household have?
City Council 26 – 238 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 38
Question 23. How many drivers does your household have? City Council 26 – 239 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 39
Question 24. What type of housing do you live in?
City Council 26 – 240 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 40
In Round 2, the majority of responses were from residents of multi-unit dwellings.

City Council 26 – 241 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 41
Question 25. How many on-site parking spaces does your household have? City Council 26 – 242 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 42
In Round 2, most respondents reported having one on-site parking space, in contrast to Round 1, where most residents reported having two on-site parking spaces.

City Council 26 – 243 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 43
Question 26. Where do you typically park your car(s) at home? City Council 26 – 244 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 44
Question 27. When do you find it difficult to find parking on your block? City Council 26 – 245 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 45
Question 28. How far from your residence do you typically have to park to find an on-street space? City Council 26 – 246 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 46
Question 29. Do you have regular service worker visits to your home that last more than 3 hours? City Council 26 – 247 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 47
Question 30. Where do guests and service workers park when visiting your home? City Council 26 – 248 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 48
Question 31. Which of the following statements apply to your parking experience? City Council 26 – 249 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 49
Question 32. How satisfied are you with the application process for a parking permit? City Council 26 – 250 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 50
Question 33. How satisfied are you with the process for managing parking permits? City Council 26 – 251 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 51
Question 34. How satisfied are you with the current guest pass allotment? City Council 26 – 252 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 52
Question 35. How satisfied are you with the cost of the parking permit? City Council 26 – 253 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 53
Question 36. How many permits do you qualify for?
City Council 26 – 254 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 54
Question 37. Do you use all of your allotted parking permits? City Council 26 – 255 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 55
Question 38. How satisfied are you with parking enforcement in your area? City Council 26 – 256 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 56
Open-ended Survey Results
Survey respondents were given the opportunity to share any additional feedback related to residential parking in an open-ended question at the end of the survey. The table below summarizes the key themes and feedback from the responses during Round 2 outreach:

Category Common Themes
Enforcement and
Policies
 Residents park on lawns.
 Residents park in front of other people’s houses.
 Code enforcement is needed on Baker Street.
 Street parking in front of homes should be designated for that home.
 Residents are parking on sidewalks to avoid street sweeping enforcement.
 Lack of enforcement.
 Lack of enforcement on weekends.

Permit Program
 Preference for permits to be granted to individual property owners over entire blocks.
 Increase parking permits per household.
 Multi-family housing does not receive equitable amount of permits/ inclusion.
 The permit program has overcrowded adjacent neighborhoods.  Duplexes need to receive more permits.
 Condominiums want to be included in the permit program.  There should not be restrictions based on dwelling type.  Condominiums maintain parking access if the street becomes permitted.
 Permit does not guarantee a parking space in the neighborhood.  Certain residents own property and do not qualify for parking passes.
 Want more overnight permits for condominiums.
 Hillview Condos are excluded from the permit parking program  The permit program discriminates against those who are not living in single-family residences.

Safety and Other
 Apartment complexes take up street parking
 Lack of signage for permit rules on different streets  Residents are scared they will be robbed walking to cars.  Residents were scared to walk two blocks to their cars from Hillview Condos.

City Council 26 – 257 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 57
Round 3 Survey Results
The third round of this online survey was recorded between July 1, 2025, and November 30, 2025. A total of 59 responses were received from residents. The survey was available in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. The table below shows the breakdown of the number of responses by language. The first and second round of the online survey received a combined 4,072 responses.

Survey Language Number of Round 3 Responses
English 57
Spanish 2
Vietnamese 0
Total 59
Summary of Key Takeaways
Below is a summary of key takeaways and findings from the online survey.  The majority of respondents are from the Sandpointe district.  In Round 3 of the survey, 58% of respondents did not qualify for parking permits, a higher share than in Round 1.
 In Round 3, most respondents reported living on blocks where permit parking is required all day, every day.
 More than half of respondents (59%) live in multi-unit dwellings.  Most respondents (46%) have one on-site parking space at their residence, while the majority of respondents have two drivers in their household and two vehicles.  There was a higher share of respondents (19%) who reported having four or more onsite parking spaces than in Round 2 (7%).  Most respondents find it most difficult to find parking in the evening, followed by overnight.
 In Round 3, the majority of respondents reported typically parking three to four blocks away from their residence. In Round 2, most were able to find parking one to two blocks away, and in Round 1, most were able to find parking on their own block.

Fixed-choice Survey Results
Below are graphs visualizing the survey responses for the fixed-choice questions, accompanied by some relevant insights. Some questions are accompanied by a supplemental graph comparing Round 3, Round 2, and Round 1 results.

City Council 26 – 258 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 58
Question 39. Which district do you currently reside in? City Council 26 – 259 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 59
In Round 3, there was an increase in responses from the following districts:
 Washington Square
 Flower Park
 South Coast
 South Metro
 Sandpointe
 Southside
City Council 26 – 260 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 60
Question 40. Which time restriction applies to your block? City Council 26 – 261 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 61
Question 41. How many cars does your household have?
City Council 26 – 262 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 62
Question 42. How many drivers does your household have? City Council 26 – 263 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 63
Question 43. What type of housing do you live in?
City Council 26 – 264 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 64
In Round 3, the majority of responses were from residents of multi-unit dwellings.

City Council 26 – 265 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 65
Question 44. How many on-site parking spaces does your household have? City Council 26 – 266 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 66
In Round 2 and 3, most respondents reported having one on-site parking space, followed by four or more on-site parking spaces in Round 3, unlike in Round 2 where the second most common response was two on-site parking spaces.

City Council 26 – 267 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 67
Question 45. Where do you typically park your car(s) at home? City Council 26 – 268 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 68
Question 46. When do you find it difficult to find parking on your block? City Council 26 – 269 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 69
Question 47. How far from your residence do you typically have to park to find an on-street space? In Round 3, most respondents answered that they typically park 3-4 blocks away from their residence.

City Council 26 – 270 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 70
Question 48. Do you have regular service worker visits to your home that last more than 3 hours? City Council 26 – 271 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 71
Question 49. Where do guests and service workers park when visiting your home? City Council 26 – 272 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 72
Question 50. Which of the following statements apply to your parking experience? City Council 26 – 273 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 73
Question 51. How satisfied are you with the application process for a parking permit? City Council 26 – 274 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 74
Question 52. How satisfied are you with the process for managing parking permits? City Council 26 – 275 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 75
Question 53. How satisfied are you with the current guest pass allotment? City Council 26 – 276 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 76
Question 54. How satisfied are you with the cost of the parking permit? City Council 26 – 277 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 77
Question 55. How many permits do you qualify for?
City Council 26 – 278 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 78
Question 56. Do you use all of your allotted parking permits? City Council 26 – 279 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 79
Question 57. How satisfied are you with parking enforcement in your area? City Council 26 – 280 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 80
Open-ended Survey Results
Survey respondents were given the opportunity to share any additional feedback related to residential parking in an open-ended question at the end of the survey. The table below summarizes the key themes and feedback from the responses during Round 3 outreach:

Category Common Themes
Enforcement and
Policies
 Cars receive citations even in situations residents feel are unfair (e.g., staff at medical/recovery facilities; overly concentrated enforcement near certain homes).
 Residents perceive enforcement as targeting apartment areas while ignoring homeowners who store unused vehicles or
misuse curb space.
 Some argue city rules create inequity by heavily restricting parking in areas with older apartments that rely on street parking.
 Requests for:
o Stricter enforcement against long-term vehicle storage. o More transparency in how enforcement decisions are
made.
o Reduced or re-evaluated red curbs, which residents
believe are excessive and lower available parking.

Permit Program
 Apartment/condo residents overwhelmingly report inequity, as most are not eligible for permits despite limited or no onsite parking.  Many feel the program favors single-family homeowners and higher-income households.
 Residents request:
o Broader eligibility for apartments, condos, and ADUs. o Allowances for multi-car households, especially where off-street parking is unavailable.
o More guest passes; existing limits (e.g., 75 per two
years) are viewed as too restrictive.
o Transition to a fully online permit and guest pass system to reduce administrative burden.
 ADU-related concerns:
o Loss of permits when adding an ADU.
o Restrictions on permits and guest passes discourage
ADU development.
 Some residents want fewer permits overall, believing too many permits overload street parking.

Safety and Other
 People parking far from home experience:
o Walking alone at night.
o Car break-ins and vandalism.
o Poor lighting or long walking distances that feel unsafe.  Concerns of speeding and need for speed bumps, linking overall street safety to parking issues.

City Council 26 – 281 10/6/2026

APPENDIX A
December 3, 2025 81
 Requests for more walkability and public transit to reduce reliance on cars.
 Concerns about development patterns, particularly reducing required parking for multifamily units.
 Concerns that homeowners do not use garages for parking, pushing more cars onto streets.

City Council 26 – 282 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
City of Santa Ana
Parking Utilization Data Report
Updated September 3, 2026
City Council 26 – 283 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
This Data Appendix includes data
collected by the Santa Ana Public Works
Department from July 28, 2023, to August
1, 2026, with a focus on identifying
locations of high (above 85%) occupancy.

The City plans to continue collecting data
indefinitely as a means of monitoring onstreet parking space utilization in the RPP’s permit districts to influence future
policy recommendations.

Sampling Coverage
Includes permitted and adjacent nonpermitted streets in 16 districts.

Methodology
Mobile License Plate Recognition (LPR)
technology was used to collect rounds of
data following pre-set routes. Data
collection rounds include a mix of daytime
and nighttime hours, and weekday and
weekend periods.

About Data Collection
2 City Council 26 – 284 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Primary Land Uses:

R1 = Single-Family Residence
A1 = General Agricultural
R4 = Suburban Apartment
C5 = Arterial Commercial
Considerations: • Commercial spillover
• Daytime demand
• Higher parking occupancy
in areas with higher
housing density
• Evening demand
Permit Policy Highlights: • Overnight restrictions near apartments
• All-day restrictions in
several areas
Northeast District
3 City Council 26 – 285 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Northeast District
Study Area
Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is low overall. • Occupancy is highest
during the evenings,
averaging 45%, compared
to 34% in the morning and
31% at midday. • Streets with permit
restrictions are generally
less congested. • Blocks with all-day
restrictions see less
congestion than other
permit areas.

Northeast District Average Parking Occupancy: 38%
4 City Council 26 – 286 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Northeast District Average Parking Occupancy: 38%
Study Area
Northeast District
• Has no permit restrictions
• Possible commercial and
RPP spillover
• Demand highest during
the evening
Sherry Ln
Average Parking Occupancy: 59%
5 City Council 26 – 287 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Northeast District Average Parking Occupancy: 38%
Northeast District
Study Area
• Overnight permit
restrictions
• Congestion, especially in
the evening, by the
apartment complexes
Millwood St
Average Parking Occupancy: 65%
Evening Average Parking Occupancy: 75%
6 City Council 26 – 288 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Northeast District Average Parking Occupancy: 38%
Northeast District
Study Area
• Has no permit restrictions
• No adjacent external
spillover generators; likely
mostly residential demand
E 18th and 19th Streets
Average Parking Occupancy: 66%
7 City Council 26 – 289 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Morning: 36% Evening: 48%
Weekday: 38% Weekend: 38%
Northeast District Average Occupancy
Midday: 34%
8 City Council 26 – 290 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Northeast District Total Daily Averages
Non-Permitted Areas: 41% All-Day Permitted Areas: 29% 12am-6am Permitted Areas: 38% • All-day permit areas had the lowest overall parking occupancy. • Permitted blocks have lower parking demand on average. 9 City Council 26 – 291 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Primary Land Uses:

R1 = Single-Family Residence
R2 = Two-Family Residence
R3 = Multiple-Family Residence
C5 = Arterial Commercial
Considerations: • Commercial spillover
• Daytime demand
• High parking occupancy on
both permitted and nonpermitted streets
Permit Policy Highlights: • Overnight restrictions near schools
• All-day restrictions in several
areas
Eastside District
10 City Council 26 – 292 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Eastside District
Study Area
Key Observations
• Lower occupancy on
permitted streets than
non-permitted streets. • Occupancy is highest
during the evenings,
averaging 80%, compared
to 65% in the morning and
58% at midday. • Occupancy is higher on
weekends, at 69% on
average compared with
62% on weekdays. • Streets without permit
restrictions experience
spillover impacts.

Eastside District Average Parking Occupancy: 66%
11 City Council 26 – 293 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Eastside District Average Parking Occupancy: 66%
Eastside District
• No permit restrictions
• Spillover from adjacent
permitted streets
E Russel, E Oxford,
Griffith, Oak, E
Wilshire & Hobart
Streets
Average Parking Occupancy: 77%
12 Study Area
City Council 26 – 294 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Eastside District Average Parking Occupancy: 63%
Eastside District
Study Area
• No permit restrictions
• Spillover from adjacent
permitted streets
• High evening average
Kilson Drive
Average Parking Occupancy: 87%
13 City Council 26 – 295 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Eastside District Average Parking Occupancy: 66%
Study Area
Eastside District
• Has no permit restrictions
• No adjacent external
spillover generators; likely
mostly residential demand
Orange Avenue
Average Parking Occupancy: 84%
14 City Council 26 – 296 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Morning: 65% Midday: 58% Evening: 80%
Weekend: 69%
Eastside District Average Occupancy
15 Weekday: 62%
City Council 26 – 297 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Eastside District Total Daily Averages
Non-Permitted Areas: 76% All-Day Permitted Areas: 57% 12am-6am Permitted Areas: 54% • 12am – 6am permit areas had the lowest overall parking occupancy. • Permitted blocks have lower parking demand on average. 16 City Council 26 – 298 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Primary Land Uses:

R1 = Single-Family Residence
C1 = Community Commercial
O = Open Space Land
Considerations: • Daytime demand near parks and
churches
• Higher parking occupancy near multiunit dwellings
Permit Policy Highlights: • Overnight restrictions near apartments, parks, and churches
• All-day restrictions in some areas
• Mostly non-permitted
Northwest District
17 City Council 26 – 299 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Northwest District
Study Area
Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is low overall. • Occupancy is low during
all times of day but is
higher on weekends with
an average of 36%
compared to 31% on
weekdays. • Low occupancy in this
district can be attributed
to the lack of multi-unit
dwellings.

Northwest District Average
Parking Occupancy: 34%
18 City Council 26 – 300 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Morning: 34% Midday: 30% Evening: 38%
Weekday: 31% Weekend: 36%
Northwest District Average Occupancy
19 City Council 26 – 301 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Northwest District Total Daily Averages
Non-Permitted Areas: 33% All-Day Permitted Areas: 27% 12am-6am Permitted Areas: 55% • All-day permit areas had the lowest overall parking occupancy. • 12am-6am permitted blocks have higher occupancy than non-permitted blocks. 20 City Council 26 – 302 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Primary Land Uses:

R2 = Two-Family Residence
R3 = Multiple-Family Residence
P = Professional
SP3 = Midtown Specific Plan
Considerations: • Daytime demand near school and
government office buildings
• Higher parking occupancy in areas
with higher housing density
• Evening demand
Permit Policy Highlights: • Overnight restrictions on all streets • Metered streets
Willard District
21 City Council 26 – 303 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Willard District
Study Area
Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is moderate
overall. • Occupancy is 16
percentage points higher
in 2026 than in 2023
• Occupancy is highest
during the evenings at
80% on average,
compared with 64%
during the morning and
58% during midday. • High occupancy at certain
blocks correspond with
nearby commercial
businesses and multi-unit
dwellings.

Willard District Average Parking Occupancy: 67%
22 City Council 26 – 304 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Willard District Average Parking Occupancy: 67%
Study Area
Willard District Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is low overall • Occupancy is highest
during the evenings at
45% on average,
compared with 30%
during the morning +
midday
• Streets with permit
restrictions are generally
less congested • Blocks with all-day
restrictions see less
congestion than other
permit areas
• Overnight permit
restrictions
• Highly congested at all
times
W Halesworth Street
Average Parking Occupancy: 95%
23 City Council 26 – 305 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Willard District Average Parking Occupancy: 67%
Willard District Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is low overall • Occupancy is highest
during the evenings at
45% on average,
compared with 30%
during the morning +
midday
• Streets with permit
restrictions are generally
less congested • Blocks with all-day
restrictions see less
congestion than other
permit areas
• Overnight permit
restrictions
• Street across from school,
high occupancy at all
times
W Washington Avenue
Study Area
Average Parking Occupancy: 91%
24 City Council 26 – 306 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Willard District Average Occupancy
Morning: 64% Midday: 58% Evening: 80%
Weekday: 61% Weekend: 74%
25 City Council 26 – 307 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Willard District Total Daily Averages
2am-6am Permitted Areas: 67%
• Higher occupancies observed near W Washington Ave, possibly due to parking demand for the school across the street and multi-unit dwellings. 26 City Council 26 – 308 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Primary Land Uses:

R1 = Single-Family Residence
R2 = Two-Family Residence
R3 = Multiple-Family Residence
O = Open Space Land
Considerations: • Possible spillover effects from Jerome Park • Higher parking occupancy in areas
with higher housing density
Permit Policy Highlights: • All-day restrictions on a few streets • Mostly non-permitted
Brook/Bamdal District
27 City Council 26 – 309 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Brook/Bamdal District Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is relatively
high. • Occupancy is highest
during the evenings at
75% on average,
compared with 68%
during the morning and
50% during midday. • Streets with permit
restrictions often exceed
85%. • Streets with no permit
restrictions experience
spillover effects from
surrounding permitted
streets.

Study Area
Brook/Bamdal District Average Parking Occupancy: 73%
28 City Council 26 – 310 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Brook/Bamdal District Average Parking Occupancy: 73%
Brook/Bamdal District Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is low overall • Occupancy is highest
during the evenings at
45% on average,
compared with 30%
during the morning +
midday
• Streets with permit
restrictions are generally
less congested • Blocks with all-day
restrictions see less
congestion than other • permit areas Has no permit restrictions • Congestion all day
adjacent to apartment
complexes
S Sullivan Street
Study Area Average Parking Occupancy: 80%
29 City Council 26 – 311 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Brook/Bamdal District Average Parking Occupancy: 73%
Brook/Bamdal District Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is low overall • Occupancy is highest
during the evenings at
45% on average,
compared with 30%
during the morning +
midday
• Streets with permit
restrictions are generally
less congested • Blocks with all-day
restrictions see less
congestion than other • permit areas Has no permit restrictions • Congestion all day
• Possible RPP spillover
S Golden West Avenue
Average Parking Occupancy: 89% Study Area
30 City Council 26 – 312 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Morning: 78% Midday: 60% Evening: 82%
Weekday: 66% Weekend: 80%
Brook/Bamdal District Average Occupancy
31 City Council 26 – 313 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Brook/Bamdal District Total Daily Averages
Non-Permitted Areas: 78% All-Day Permitted Areas: 57%
• Permitted blocks have lower parking demand on average. 32 City Council 26 – 314 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Primary Land Uses:

R1 = Single-Family Residence
R2 = Two-Family Residence
C2 = General Commercial
Considerations: • Commercial spillover
• Daytime demand
• Higher parking occupancy in areas
with higher housing density
• Evening demand
Permit Policy Highlights: • Overnight restrictions near apartments • All-day restrictions in several areas
Highland Park District
33 City Council 26 – 315 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Highland Park District
Study Area
Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is moderate. • Occupancy is highest
during the mornings and
evenings at 58% and 67%
on average, compared
with 47% during the
midday. • Streets with permit
restrictions are generally
less congested.

Highland Park District Average Parking Occupancy: 56%
34 City Council 26 – 316 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Study Area
Highland Park District Average Parking Occupancy: 56%
Highland Park District Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is low overall • Occupancy is highest
during the evenings at
45% on average,
compared with 30%
during the morning +
midday
• Streets with permit
restrictions are generally
less congested • Blocks with all-day
restrictions see less
congestion than other
permit areas
• Has no permit restrictions
• Exceeds 85% occupancy
on mornings and
evenings. • RPP spillover
W Raymar Street
Average Parking Occupancy: 88%
35 City Council 26 – 317 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Study Area
Highland Park District Average Parking Occupancy: 56%
Highland Park District Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is low overall • Occupancy is highest
during the evenings at
45% on average,
compared with 30%
during the morning +
midday
• Streets with permit
restrictions are generally
less congested • Blocks with all-day
restrictions see less
congestion than other
permit areas
• All day permit restrictions
• High occupancy on
evenings.

S Huron Drive
Evening Average
Occupancy: 81%
Average
Occupancy: 74%
36 City Council 26 – 318 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Morning: 58% Midday: 47% Evening: 67%
Weekday: 52% Weekend: 62%
Highland Park District Average Occupancy
37 City Council 26 – 319 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Highland Park District Total Daily Averages
Non-Permitted Areas: 63% All-Day Permitted Areas: 50%
• All-day permit areas had the lowest overall parking occupancy. • Both areas had higher occupancy on weekends and in evenings. 38 City Council 26 – 320 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Primary Land Uses:

R1 = Single-Family Residence
O = Open Space Land
C4 = Planned Shopping Center
Considerations: • Higher parking occupancy near the
school, park, and multi-unit dwellings
Permit Policy Highlights: • All-day restrictions in several areas • No restrictions near school and park
Sandpointe District
39 City Council 26 – 321 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Sandpointe District
Study Area
Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is somewhat
high, especially near the
school and park. • Occupancy is highest
during the evenings at
57% on average. • Blocks with permit
restrictions have lower
occupancy on average. • Blocks with no permit
restrictions are
experiencing spillover
effects from permitted
streets.

Sandpointe District Average Parking Occupancy: 52%
40 City Council 26 – 322 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Study Area
Sandpointe District Average Parking Occupancy: 52%
Sandpointe District Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is low overall • Occupancy is highest
during the evenings at
45% on average,
compared with 30%
during the morning +
midday
• Streets with permit
restrictions are generally
less congested • Blocks with all-day
restrictions see less
congestion than other
permit areas
• Has no permit restrictions
• High congestion around
Little King Park and the
school, which are also
bordered by multi-unit
dwellings. • RPP spillover
W Alton Avenue
Average Parking Occupancy: 81%
41 City Council 26 – 323 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Study Area
Sandpointe District Average Parking Occupancy: 52%
Sandpointe District Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is low overall • Occupancy is highest
during the evenings at
45% on average,
compared with 30%
during the morning +
midday
• Streets with permit
restrictions are generally
less congested • Blocks with all-day
restrictions see less
congestion than other
permit areas
• Has no permit restrictions
• High congestion at all
times of the day
• RPP spillover
W Columbine Avenue
Average Parking Occupancy: 89%
42 City Council 26 – 324 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Study Area
Sandpointe District Average Parking Occupancy: 52%
Sandpointe District Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is low overall • Occupancy is highest
during the evenings at
45% on average,
compared with 30%
during the morning +
midday
• Streets with permit
restrictions are generally
less congested • Blocks with all-day
restrictions see less
congestion than other
permit areas
• Has no permit restrictions
• Moderate congestion
during morning and
evening
• Adjacent to park
W Columbine Avenue
Evening Average: 65%
Morning Average: 72%
43 City Council 26 – 325 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Morning: 54% Midday: 46% Evening: 57%
Weekday: 50% Weekend: 55%
Sandpointe District Average Occupancy
44 City Council 26 – 326 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Sandpointe District Total Daily Averages
Non-Permitted Areas: 62% All-Day Permitted Areas: 38% 12am-6am Permitted Areas: 43% • All-day permit areas had the lowest overall parking occupancy. • Permitted blocks have lower parking demand on average. 45 City Council 26 – 327 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Primary Land Uses:

R1 = Single-Family Residence
R2 = Two-Family Residence
SP1 = Bristol Street Corridor Specific Plan
C1 = Community Commercial
Considerations: • Commercial spillover
• Midday and evening demand
• Higher parking occupancy near schools
and commercial businesses
Permit Policy Highlights: • Overnight restrictions near apartments • All-day restrictions in several areas
Washington Square District
46 City Council 26 – 328 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Washington Square District
Study Area
Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is low overall. • Occupancy is highest
during the evenings at
50% on average,
compared with 34%
during the morning. • Streets with permit
restrictions are generally
less congested. • Blocks with all-day
restrictions see less
congestion than other
permit areas.

Washington Square District Average Parking Occupancy: 38% 47 City Council 26 – 329 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Study Area
Washington Square District Average Parking Occupancy: 38% Washington Square District Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is low overall • Occupancy is highest
during the evenings at
50% on average,
compared with 30%
during the morning +
midday
• Streets with permit
restrictions are generally
less congested • Blocks with all-day
restrictions see less
congestion than other
permit areas
• Has no permit restrictions
• Commercial spillover
• Averages 100%
occupancy on weekend
evenings
N Baker Street
Average Parking Occupancy: 81%
48 City Council 26 – 330 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Morning: 34% Midday: 31% Evening: 50%
Weekday: 34% Weekend: 42%
Washington Square District Average Occupancy
49 City Council 26 – 331 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Washington Square District Total Daily Averages
Non-Permitted Areas: 46% All-Day Permitted Areas: 33% 2am-6am Permitted Areas: 19% • Overnight permit areas had the lowest overall parking occupancy. • Permitted blocks have lower parking demand on average. 50 City Council 26 – 332 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Primary Land Uses:

R1 = Single-Family Residence
R2 = Two-Family Residence
R3 = Multiple-Family Residence
SP1 = Bristol Street Corridor Specific Plan
C1 = Community Commercial
O = Open Space Land
Considerations: • High residential demand
• Morning and evening peaks
• Weekend peak
Permit Policy Highlights: • All-day restrictions on part of Anahurst Place next to Memorial Park
• Overnight restriction on S Broadway by
supermarket • All-day restrictions on W Saint Andrew
Place
Bristol Manor District
51 City Council 26 – 333 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Bristol Manor District
Study Area
Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is moderately
high overall. • Occupancy is highest during
the evenings at 79% on
average, compared with
51% during the midday. • Streets with permit
restrictions are less
congested.

Bristol Manor District Average Parking Occupancy: 62%
52 City Council 26 – 334 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Study Area
Bristol Manor District Average Parking Occupancy: 62%
Bristol Manor District Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is low overall • Occupancy is highest
during the evenings at
50% on average,
compared with 30%
during the morning +
midday
• Streets with permit
restrictions are generally
less congested • Blocks with all-day
restrictions see less
congestion than other
permit areas
• Has no permit restrictions
• Averages 100%
occupancy on weekends
all day
S Olive Street
Average Parking Occupancy: 92%
53 City Council 26 – 335 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Morning: 59% Midday: 51% Evening: 79%
Weekday: 55% Weekend: 69%
Bristol Manor District Average Occupancy
54 City Council 26 – 336 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Bristol Manor District Total Daily Averages
• All-day permit areas had the lowest overall parking occupancy. • Several non-permitted blocks exceeded 85% occupancy overall. 55 Non-Permitted Areas: 64% All-Day Permitted Areas: 28% City Council 26 – 337 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Primary Land Uses:

R1 = Single-Family Residence
R2 = Two-Family Residence
SP1 = Bristol Street Corridor Specific Plan
C1 = Community Commercial
O = Open Space Land
Considerations: • Elementary school spillover
Permit Policy Highlights: • All-day restrictions in several areas • Overnight restrictions on one block
Central City District
56 City Council 26 – 338 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Central City District
Study Area
Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is moderately
high overall. • Occupancy is highest during
the evenings at 77% on
average, compared with
62% during the midday. • Streets with permit
restrictions are less
congested.

Central City District Average Parking Occupancy: 69%
57 City Council 26 – 339 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Study Area
Central City District Average Parking Occupancy: 69%
Central City District Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is low overall • Occupancy is highest
during the evenings at
50% on average,
compared with 30%
during the morning +
midday
• Streets with permit
restrictions are generally
less congested • Blocks with all-day
restrictions see less
congestion than other
permit areas
• All day permit restrictions
• Always exceeds 85%
occupancy except midday
on weekdays
Richland Ave
Average Parking Occupancy: 90%
58 City Council 26 – 340 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Morning: 71% Midday: 62% Evening: 77%
Weekday: 67% Weekend: 72%
Central City District Average Occupancy
59 City Council 26 – 341 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Central City District Total Daily Averages
• Permit areas had lower overall parking occupancy. • Several non-permitted blocks exceeded 85% occupancy overall. 60 Non-Permitted Areas: 79% All-Day Permitted Areas: 57% 12am-6am Permitted Areas: 52% City Council 26 – 342 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Primary Land Uses:

R1 = Single-Family Residence
R2 = Two-Family Residence
A1 = General Agricultural
C1 = Community Commercial
C4 = Planned Shopping Center
C5 = Arterial Commercial
O = Open Space Land
Considerations: • Higher parking occupancy near senior
apartments
Permit Policy Highlights: • All-day restrictions in some areas 61 Fairmont District
City Council 26 – 343 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Fairmont District
Study Area
Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is low overall. • Occupancy is highest
during the evenings at 51%
on average, compared with
35% during the midday. • Streets with permit
restrictions have slightly
higher demand.

Central City District Average Parking Occupancy: 40%
62 City Council 26 – 344 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Study Area
Central City District Average Parking Occupancy: 40%
Fairmont District Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is low overall • Occupancy is highest
during the evenings at
50% on average,
compared with 30%
during the morning +
midday
• Streets with permit
restrictions are generally
less congested • Blocks with all-day
restrictions see less
congestion than other
permit areas
• Has no permit restrictions
• Always exceeds 80%
occupancy
18th Street
Average Parking Occupancy: 86%
63 City Council 26 – 345 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Morning: 37% Midday: 35% Evening: 51%
Weekday: 36% Weekend: 44%
Fairmont District Average Occupancy
64 City Council 26 – 346 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Fairmont District Total Daily Averages
• All-day permit areas had slightly higher parking occupancy. • One non-permitted block exceeded 85% regularly 65 Non-Permitted Areas: 39% All-Day Permitted Areas: 47% City Council 26 – 347 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Primary Land Uses:

R3 = Multi-Family Residence
SP3 = Midtown Specific Plan
C1 = Community Commercial
SD19 = Special Development No. 19
P = Professional
Considerations: • Higher parking occupancy near the
French Park Care Center
Permit Policy Highlights: • Overnight restrictions in most of the district
66 French Court/French Park District
City Council 26 – 348 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
French Court/French Park District
Study Area
Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is moderately
high overall. • Occupancy is consistent
across times and days. • Streets with permit
restrictions are more
congested.

French Court/French Park District Average Parking Occupancy: 75% 67 City Council 26 – 349 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Study Area
French Court/French Park District Average Parking Occupancy: 75% French Court/French Park District Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is low overall • Occupancy is highest
during the evenings at
50% on average,
compared with 30%
during the morning +
midday
• Streets with permit
restrictions are generally
less congested • Blocks with all-day
restrictions see less
congestion than other
permit areas
• Has overnight permit
restrictions
• High occupancy at all
times
Wellington Ave
Average Parking Occupancy: 93%
68 City Council 26 – 350 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Morning: 74% Midday: 74% Evening: 78%
Weekday: 72% Weekend: 79%
French Court/French Park District Average Occupancy
69 City Council 26 – 351 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
French Court/French Park District Total Daily Averages
• Permit areas had higher occupancy than unrestricted blocks. • Some non-permitted blocks exceeded 85% occupancy. 70 Non-Permitted Areas: 57% All-Day Permitted Areas: 90% 12am-6am Permitted Areas: 83% City Council 26 – 352 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Primary Land Uses:

R1 = Single-Family Residence
R3 = Multi-Family Residence
SP1 = Bristol Street Corridor Specific Plan
C1 = Community Commercial
Considerations: • Commercial spillover
• Weekend and evening demand
Permit Policy Highlights: • All day permits on 4 blocks only 71 Mid-City West District
City Council 26 – 353 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Mid-City West District
Study Area
Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is high overall. • Occupancy is over 85% at all times except midday
weekdays. • Streets with permit
restrictions are less
congested.

Mid-City West District Average Parking Occupancy: 84%
72 City Council 26 – 354 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Study Area
Mid-City West District Average Parking Occupancy: 84%
Mid-City West District Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is low overall • Occupancy is highest
during the evenings at
50% on average,
compared with 30%
during the morning +
midday
• Streets with permit
restrictions are generally
less congested • Blocks with all-day
restrictions see less
congestion than other
permit areas
• Has all day permit
restrictions
• Higher occupancy on
weekends (43%) than
weekdays (33%)
W Elder Ave
Average Parking Occupancy: 38%
73 City Council 26 – 355 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Morning: 89% Midday: 73% Evening: 89%
Weekday: 79% Weekend: 89%
Mid-City West District Average Occupancy
74 City Council 26 – 356 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Mid-City West District Total Daily Averages
• All-day permit areas had lower overall parking occupancy. • Non-permitted blocks frequently exceeded 85% occupancy. 75 Non-Permitted Areas: 86% All-Day Permitted Areas: 68% City Council 26 – 357 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Primary Land Uses:

R1 = Single-Family Residence
R2 = Two-Family Residence
R3 = Multi-Family Residence
SP1 = Bristol Street Corridor Specific Plan
O = Open Space Land
Considerations: • Residential demand primarily
Permit Policy Highlights: • All day restrictions throughout the district • Overnight restrictions on one block
76 Pico-Lowell District
City Council 26 – 358 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Pico-Lowell District
Study Area
Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is moderate
overall. • Occupancy is highest during
the evenings at 72% on
average, compared with
47% during the midday. • Streets with permit
restrictions are less
congested.

Pico-Lowell District Average Parking Occupancy: 57%
77 CN1
City Council 26 – 359 10/6/2026
Slide 77
CN1 Blake - For this district, be sure to select both “Pico-Lowell District” and “Pico-Lowell Ward 2” on the LPR Tool.

Chisa Nagai, 2026-09-01T18:31:49.473
City Council 26 – 360 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Study Area
Pico-Lowell District Average Parking Occupancy: 57%
Pico-Lowell District Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is low overall • Occupancy is highest
during the evenings at
50% on average,
compared with 30%
during the morning +
midday
• Streets with permit
restrictions are generally
less congested • Blocks with all-day
restrictions see less
congestion than other
permit areas
• Has no permit restrictions
• Higher occupancy on
weekdays (80%) than
weekends (71%)
W Brook Street
Average Parking Occupancy: 76%
78 City Council 26 – 361 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Morning: 56% Midday: 47% Evening: 72%
Weekday: 53% Weekend: 60%
Pico-Lowell District Average Occupancy
79 City Council 26 – 362 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Pico-Lowell District Total Daily Averages
• Permit areas had lower overall parking occupancy. • Some non-permitted blocks exceeded 85% occupancy overall. 80 Non-Permitted Areas: 64% All-Day Permitted Areas: 47% 12am-6am Permitted Areas: 47% City Council 26 – 363 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Primary Land Uses:

R1 = Single-Family Residence
R2 = Two-Family Residence
R3 = Multi-Family Residence
R4 = Suburban Apartment
O = Open Space Land
Considerations: • High school spillover
• High morning demand
• Demand near high school
Permit Policy Highlights: • All-day restrictions throughout district 81 South Coast District
City Council 26 – 364 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
South Coast District
Study Area
Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is moderate
overall. • Occupancy is highest during
the mornings at 71% on
average, compared with
58% during the midday. • Streets with permit
restrictions are slightly less
congested.

South Coast District Average Parking Occupancy: 64%
82 City Council 26 – 365 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Study Area
South Coast District Average Parking Occupancy: 64%
South Coast District Key Observations
• On-street parking
occupancy is low overall • Occupancy is highest
during the evenings at
50% on average,
compared with 30%
during the morning +
midday
• Streets with permit
restrictions are generally
less congested • Blocks with all-day
restrictions see less
congestion than other
permit areas
• Has no permit restrictions
• Averages 81% occupancy
in the morning
Ramona Drive
Average Parking Occupancy: 70%
83 City Council 26 – 366 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
Morning: 71% Midday: 58% Evening: 64%
Weekday: 61% Weekend: 67%
South Coast District Average Occupancy
84 City Council 26 – 367 10/6/2026

APPENDIX B
South Coast District Total Daily Averages
Non-Permitted Areas: 77% All-Day Permitted Areas: 60%
• Permit areas had lower overall parking occupancy. • Non-permitted blocks exceeded 85% occupancy in mornings. 85 City Council 26 – 368 10/6/2026
Comparable Cities Analysis of Residential Permit Parking Programs # of Permits per
Household
Resident Parking
Permit Cost # of Guest Permits Cost # of Permits Issued Per Year Permit Revenue
Destination
Managing
Department
Staffing Resources Involved
Uses a Permit
Management
System?
Single-family: 3; Multifamily: 1$85 each for up to 2
years
Single-family: 75 guest
permits per year per home;
Multi-family: none.
$0 $5,000 General Fund Public Works
Public Works issues permits; enforcement
through the Police Department
In-house system
Based on bedroom
count: 0-2 = 1 permit; 3-
4 = 2; 5+ = 3. Max 3 per
household.
$30 each for up to 2
years
100 per household per year $1/permit
3,099
(+7,636 guest
permits)
General Fund
Public Work (Traffic &
Transportation)
Engineering staff complete study, permits
issued through Public Works,
enforcement through the Police
Department
Yes
Single family: 2; Multifamily: 1$25 in person; $22 online (+$1 s/h fee) 14 days per vehicle $0 1,528 General Fund Community
Development
Community Development issues permits
and tracks revenue with Administrative
Services. Enforcement is done by Code
Enforcement (Community Development)
and the Police Department.

Yes
4 Escalating rate at $25,
$50, $75, $100.

Low-income rate at $5,
$10, $25, $50
100 single-use, 24-hour
permits
$25 for bundle of 100
permits 3,257 General Fund
Public Works
(Transportation
Services)
2 FTE in Transportation Services manage
the program with support from the Police
Department
In progress of
transitioning to one.
5 $10 admin fee + $2 per
permit (for each
calendar year)
None, guests should display
one of the household's
permits
N/A 4,000 General Fund
Public Works - Traffic
Engineering & Signals
Traffic Engineering manages the
program, which is enforced by the Police
Department's Traffic Bureau.

Yes
4 $24 first permit (up to 3-5
years); $10 for additional
permits;$20-40 one-time
signage cost
4 per household, included
with first residential permit $0 Up to 7664 permits General Fund Community & Library
Services (Facilities &
Events Division)
Facilities & Events manages the program
with enforcement support from the Police
Department
Yes
3 District 1/2/4/5/7: $95;
District A/B: $25 2 per household District 1/2/4/5/7: $40; District A/B: $10 119 General Fund Police Department Permits issued and enforced by the Police
Department, preferential districts set up
by Public Works
Yes
Balboa Village Limited to # of
registered vehicles $18 (Oct-Apr) N/A, the permit described to the left is also for patrons $18 (Oct-Apr) Residential Zones 3
$19 (duration varies per
zone)
Part of the 3 permits per
household total $19
3 $7 3 per household $7/permit N/A General Fund
Public Safety
Department
Public Safety Department issues and
enforces permits, supported by the
Finance department regarding fees.

Yes
Single-family: 5; Duplex:
2 $30 each for up to 3
years
Single-family: up to 5 (RPP +
guest permits cannot
exceed 5 per household);
Duplex: 2 per unit; Singleday guest passes: up to 20
available 4 times per year
per resident.
$30/permit, singleday guest passes $03,500 (residential permits only)
General Fund, but
Orange also has a
number of Parking
Funds (Old Towne
Parking Facility Fund)
Police Department
Permits are administered and issued by
the Police Department. This is supported
by the Permit Services desk.

Yes
Correlates with the
number of vehicles that
cannot fit into availale offstreet parking space.
$50 in Old Town
Residential Area, $0 for
all other areas
150 24-hour passes per year
(75 every 6 months) $0 662 General Fund
Public Works & Police
Department
Public Works in charge of policy,
issued/enforced by Police Department
Yes
Within the General
Fund, into specific
permit accounts by
zone
Irvine

RESIDENTIAL PERMITS GUEST PERMITS PROGRAM DETAILS
City
Yes
Santa Ana
Anaheim
Finance
Permits and citations managed by the
Revenue Division through a vendor,
enforced by a 3rd party enforcement
vendor. Public Works oversees the
municipal code.

Norwalk
(Program currently paused)
Newport
Beach
Orange
Tustin
Brea
Costa Mesa
Fullerton
Huntington Beach
1,000

APPENDIX C
City Council
1 26 – 369 10/6/2026

APPENDIX D
September 3, 2025 1
Permit Parking Case Studies
Including Multi-Family Homes in Permit Program
The Parking Action and Implementation Plan (PAIP) recommends incorporating multi-family dwellings into the Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program in response to the 2016 California Attorney General’s opinion and community feedback. The following case studies document City staff’s evaluation of feasibility, resident interest, and utilization associated with extending RPP eligibility to multi-family dwellings. Findings show inconsistent participation and limited buy-in, indicating that permit parking alone cannot resolve the parking supply–demand imbalance in higher-density areas.

Case Study 1: Westwood Townhomes
A 56-unit complex requested inclusion in the City’s residential permit parking program. The complex provides 78 on-site parking spaces for 130 registered vehicles, along with 48 on-street spaces adjacent to the property that are subject to existing permit restrictions on nearby streets.

To evaluate the feasibility of extending permit parking to multi-family developments, staff initiated a pilot program. The pilot designated ten parking spaces on a nearby collector street, approximately 175 feet from the complex, with a 24/7 permit parking restriction.

Staff implemented a lottery system to allocate the ten permits fairly and transparently. All 56 households expressed interest in participating. After three rounds of outreach over several months, staff identified only ten permit holders.

Staff monitored the designated spaces at regular intervals and observed an average utilization rate of only 20 percent, with the majority of use occurring at night.

Case Study 2: Lacy Crossings Development
The Homeowners Association (HOA) Board of a 117-unit small-parcel Planned Unit Development (PUD) requested inclusion in the City’s permit parking program for streets abutting the development.

Staff established a pilot program that authorized the HOA to administer eligibility criteria, conduct resident outreach, gather resident input, and manage the allocation of approximately 98 public street spaces.

After several months, the HOA was unable to achieve sufficient participation from the 117-unit development. The HOA began doubling permit allocations to residents who had expressed interest, which led to complaints from other residents who opposed permit parking. Public Works Agency (PWA) staff petitioned the 117-units in the HOA and identified that fewer than 50% responded favorably. As a result, staff did not implement the pilot program further.

Case Study 3: Warwick Square Apartments (Warren Street) Warren Street, from S Lyon Street to the cul-de-sac, is in proximity to five apartment complexes and one mobile home park. The street currently has a 24/7 ‘no parking’ restriction, which the City received a resident request to remove in hopes that permit parking could be introduced.

City Council 26 – 370 10/6/2026

APPENDIX D
September 3, 2025 4
o 12am–6am: 1 permitted streets
o 24/7: 18 permitted streets
• Parking supply totals:
o 463 on-site spaces associated with single-family homes (limited to parking area in front of garage, carport, etc.)
o 930 on-site spaces associated with multi-family homes o 650 on-street spaces (463 on permitted streets, 187 on non-permitted streets) • Number of vehicles registered according to the DMV:
o Single-family homes: 1,133
o Multi-family homes: 1,273
The following are permit and parking utilization findings:
• Permit usage:
o Of the 260 Qualified Homes, 192 properties (73.85%) have permits o Of the 766 permits available in this district, 419 (54.70%) are used o On average, there are 2.2 permits issued per participating property, or 1.60 permits per Qualified Home
• Multi-family complex parking demands:
o 1 apartment complex has a surplus of +10 parking spaces (200 spaces – 190 registered vehicles)
o 9 apartment complexes have a deficit of -46 parking spaces (166 spaces – 212 registered vehicles)
o 47 apartment complexes have a deficit of -279 parking spaces (592 spaces – 871 registered vehicles)
• Average parking occupancy rate:
o On permitted streets: 53% on weekdays, 71% on weekends. o On non-permitted streets: 73% on weekdays, 80% on weekends.

This case study finds that there are insufficient on-street parking spaces in this district to accommodate even one permit per housing unit. Also, the analysis indicates high utilization of the RPP program, warranting retention of the 24/7 permit parking restriction. It is not feasible to demonstrate the actual on-street parking demand as it would far exceed the available supply. The City could consider offering multi-family residences access to guest passes, reorganizing public street parking if possible, and on-site parking improvements to expand supply.

City Council 26 – 371 10/6/2026

APPENDIX D
September 3, 2025 2
To evaluate this request, staff temporarily lifted the restriction for three months to test open parking conditions. During this period, staff held neighborhood and on-site meetings with residents of the multi-family complexes to assess interest in permit parking. Of the six complexes surveyed, four responded, and only two expressed support.

Staff concluded that permit parking could not be implemented due to factors outside of the City’s control. These included unbundled parking, unlimited vehicle registration per unit, and “space saving” practices. In addition, there is a fundamental mismatch between supply and demand, as more than 1,000 units would be competing for only 55 available spaces.

Case Study 4: Capacity Evaluation
Staff conducted a capacity evaluation of apartment complexes of varying sizes that requested inclusion in the permit program. The study analyzed the availability of street parking on surrounding residential permitted and non-permitted streets, as well as nearby non-residential streets, based on a qualifying minimum ratio of one permit per housing unit.

The evaluation found that surrounding residential streets could not accommodate the ratios considered without severely impacting nearby blocks and exceeding available street space inventory. Expanding parking to nearby non-residential streets would provide only limited relief.

Applying New RPP Program Methodology to Districts
Staff applied the new methodology recommended for the RPP program in the PAIP to two permit parking districts: Northeast and Eastside. The two district case studies were intended to evaluate parking inventory, permit restrictions, vehicle ownership, and permit utilization in order to identify possible policy impacts for each district. The analysis found that, at any ratio of permits per housing unit—even at one permit per housing unit—available street space was insufficient to meet demand and custom policy adjustments would be needed to mitigate parking demand in each district. Key metrics and findings for each district case study are provided below. “Qualified Homes” refers to properties currently eligible to participate in the RPP program, which are primarily single-family homes at this time.

District Case Study 1: Northeast Permit Parking District The study area consists of:
• 312 Qualified Homes (single-family residences & 2–4 unit complexes) and 6 multi-family complexes totaling 521 units
• 32 streets—roughly 30 streets with permit parking, 2 without • The following permit parking restrictions:
o 12am–6am: 20 permitted streets
o 24/7: 10 permitted streets
• Parking supply totals:

City Council 26 – 372 10/6/2026

APPENDIX D
September 3, 2025 3
o 551 on-site spaces associated with single-family homes (limited to parking area in front of garage, carport, etc.)
o 812 on-site spaces associated with multi-family homes o 648 on-street spaces (583 on permitted streets, 67 on non-permitted streets) • Number of vehicles registered according to the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV):
o Single-family homes: 767
o Multi-family homes: 807
The following are permit and parking utilization findings:
• Permit usage:
o Of the 312 Qualified Homes, only 114 properties (36.54%) have permits o Of the 800 permits available in this district, only 175 (21.88%) are used o On average, there are 1.50 permits issued per participating property, or 0.56 permits per Qualified Home
• Multi-family complex parking demands:
o 4 of the complexes (2 apartment buildings and 2 condominiums) have a surplus of +110 parking spaces (387 spaces – 277 registered vehicles) o 2 of the complexes (1 apartment building and 1 condominium) have a deficit of -76 parking spaces (454 spaces – 530 registered vehicles) • Average parking occupancy rate:
o On permitted streets: 31% on weekdays, 31% on weekends o On non-permitted streets: 91% on weekdays, 90% on weekends This case study finds that there are insufficient on-street parking spaces in this district to accommodate even one permit per housing unit. Also, the analysis indicates low occupancy of permit parking streets. The City could consider retaining the 12am–6am permit restriction only and removing the 24/7 permit restriction while conducting a utilization study to understand the actual occupancy of on-site parking at multi-family complexes.

District Case Study 2: Eastside Permit Parking District The study area consists of:
• 304 Qualified Homes (single-family residences) and 6 multi-family parcels with complexes totaling 841 units
• 34 streets—19 streets with permit parking, 15 without • The following permit parking restrictions:

City Council 26 – 373 10/6/2026

APPENDIX E
August 29, 2025 1
Permit Enforcement Staffing Schedule
This staffing schedule is designed in consideration of existing permit parking enforcement protocols (i.e., with permit enforcement remaining with the Police Department) and is intended to demonstrate the distribution of shifts amongst 14 FTEs fully dedicated to permit parking enforcement. Of the 14 FTEs, 5 are to be in senior supervisory roles.

It is recommended that the City review and adjust as necessary. The objective is to provide the City with a flexible foundation for enforcement that can be adapted to meet its evolving needs in the future.

Figure E1. Enforcement Schedule, Showing Staff Assignments by Shift This is a week-long enforcement schedule that designates each letter to an individual staff member (Senior Full-Time Employee vs.

Full-Time Employee). Each staff member is assigned a specific shift for each day throughout the week, following a 5/8 schedule that ensures two consecutive days off. The schedule divides each day into three 8-hour shifts, with at least one Senior Full-Time Employee assigned to each shift.

The "Key" can be read as:
• SR - Senior staff member
• FTE - Full time employee
City Council 26 – 374 10/6/2026

APPENDIX E
August 29, 2025 2
Figure E2. Enforcement Schedule, By Employee
This figure presents the staffing schedule, broken down by individual employee (represented as a letter) as outlined in Figure E1. It details each shift throughout a 24-hour period, specifying the assignments for every officer.

City Council 26 – 375 10/6/2026

APPENDIX E
August 29, 2025 3
Figure E2. Enforcement Schedule, By Number of Employees Per Hour Per Day Based on the schedule provided in Figure E1, this table outlines the number of employees required each hour, per day, to effectively enforce all areas throughout Santa Ana.

City Council 26 – 376 10/6/2026

APPENDIX E
August 29, 2025 4
Figure E4.1. Districts Grouped into Zones
This chart illustrates how all districts have been grouped into four "zones" based on proximity and similar permitting regulations.

This approach allows officers to be assigned a specific "enforcement zone," ensuring they can effectively manage the time requirements for each area.

City Council 26 – 377 10/6/2026

APPENDIX E
August 29, 2025 5
Figure 4.2. Number of Enforcement Officers Assigned Per Enforcement Zone This figure shows the number of employees required for each enforcement zone during each designated permitting time to adequately cover and enforce regulations.

Figure 5. Minimum Number of Enforcement Officers by Shift Per Day This table can be read as the minimum number of employees by shift per day, assuming a 24 hour day is broken up between three 8 hour shifts. A senior staff member is included in the count per shift.

City Council 26 – 378 10/6/2026

ATTACHMENT A
September 18, 2026 1
Draft RPP Administrative Guidelines
About This Document
These Administrative Guidelines (“Guidelines”) implement the Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program established under Santa Ana Municipal Code Article XI. Article XI provides the City's legal authority to establish permit parking districts and zones, permit caps, and fee structures by resolution of the City Council, while directing the specific operating rules for the program, including petition standards and permit display and verification requirements, to be set forth in these Guidelines.

These Guidelines are adopted and amended by the Director of Public Works (or their designee) and are made publicly available on the City’s website. This structure allows the City to update day-to-day program operations in response to changing conditions without requiring City Council action for each change, while Article XI continues to govern the program’s core legal framework.

Definitions
Single-family residence means a dwelling consisting of a single housing unit, occupied by one household.

Multi-family residence means a property containing two or more separate dwelling units, whether under common ownership (e.g., a rental complex) or individually owned (e.g., condominiums).

Resident/legal occupant means a person who resides at a property as their primary residence, whether as an owner, tenant, or other legal occupant. A non-resident property owner who does not reside at the property is not a resident or legal occupant for purposes of this section.

Owner-occupant means an owner of a residence (single-family or multi-family) who resides at that residence as their primary residence, as distinguished from a non-resident owner who does not live at the property (e.g., an owner who rents out the home).

RPP Zone Policies
• Introduce RPP zones in neighborhoods experiencing internal and/or external parking demand (such as impacts from ADUs, multi-family residences without on-site parking, commercial areas, schools, churches, and recreational facilities). The intent of the program should be to safeguard access for Santa Ana residents and their guests. • All City residents should be eligible to participate in the application process for new zones. This means all residential zoning neighborhoods should be eligible for an RPP zone, including multi-family residences (assuming the other requirements for the application, petition, and evaluation are also met).
• A zone may consist of any number of contiguous blocks with residential frontage (both sides of the street included). However, for a single block to petition, the block must have a minimum of 2 homes to qualify for permit parking, to avoid privatization of the curb space for a single household.

City Council 26 – 379 10/6/2026

ATTACHMENT A
September 18, 2026 2
• Permit parking districts and permit parking zones are distinct concepts. A district is a larger area, generally based on neighborhood boundaries, within which one or more zones may be established; designating a district does not by itself impose any parking restriction. A zone is the specific area within a district, comprising of one or more contiguous blocks, where a petition has passed and parking restrictions actually apply.

A single district may contain multiple zones, as well as areas that are not part of any zone.

RPP Zone Petitioning Policies
• Residents may submit a single interest form or petition covering multiple contiguous blocks, rather than requiring a separate process for each individual block, consistent with the precedent set by Resolution No. 2024-056.
• Require a petition for new permit zones, which is signed by 60% or more households in support of implementing the restriction. Each unit is limited to one petition. • In rental complexes, only residents/legal occupants that live within the property may sign the petition; this excludes any non-resident property owner, as they are not directly impacted by the parking problem. For multi-family properties with individually owned units, each owner-occupant may sign the petition.
• Require a parking occupancy threshold of 75% for evaluating whether to establish a new RPP zone.
• In order to remove a residential parking restriction, residents should continue to be required to follow the existing petitioning process and 60% of residents should support removing the restriction for it to be considered. No parking occupancy study is needed, but notification should be given to any surrounding permit zone residents.

RPP Zone Operating Hour Policies
• Operating hour restrictions should be tied to the qualifying external impact type identified for each zone: neighboring city spillover, commercial impact, or venue impact.
• Three operating hour types are available for a zone, to be assigned based on observed parking utilization data and neighborhood needs:
o All-day restriction — for zones with impacts occurring throughout the day. o Overnight restriction — for zones with impacts concentrated during overnight hours.
o Daytime restriction — for zones with impacts concentrated during specific daytime hours (e.g., school drop-off/pick-up, business operating hours). • City staff shall determine the appropriate operating hour type for each zone at the time of establishment, based on the parking utilization data collected during the evaluation process.

Permit Policies
• Virtual License Plate Based system, where the plate is the permit • Permits are valid only within the specific district for which they are issued.

City Council 26 – 380 10/6/2026

ATTACHMENT A
September 18, 2026 3
• Permit holders can request permit transfers to another vehicle's license plate number through the PMS.
o Staff would review and verify all permit transfer requests and approve or deny them based on established eligibility criteria. Transfers may be allowed only under limited circumstances.
o Permits can be transferred to a different license plate a maximum of one (1) time per twelve (12) months. Exceptions may be made for a documented sale or total loss.
• Commercial or Oversized vehicles, as defined by the Santa Ana Municipal Code, should not be eligible to receive parking permits through the RPP program. • Every permit can be valid for 365 days upon activation and it is up to the permit holder to renew the permit through the Permit Management System (PMS) portal online or seek assistance at City Hall ahead of expiration.
• Resident permit fees are established by resolution of the City Council, in accordance with Section 36-491 of the Municipal Code. The current fee schedule is available on the City's website and at the Public Works Agency.
• Permit issuance is subject to the maximum permits per dwelling established in Section 36-486 of the Municipal Code. Permits are issued on a first-come, first-served basis based on parking availability data maintained by staff. • Guest permits are $2.00 each, maximum of 100 single-use 24-hour permits per eligible household. A resident who does not hold a residential permit would still be able to purchase guest permits, as long as they live in an established RPP zone. o Any resident within a permit zone may purchase guest permits. o Resident shall use the virtual PMS to assign guest permits to their guests, including specification of the guest’s vehicle license plate. • A City residential parking permit requirement does not override the parking privilege established by CVC § 22511.5. The placard is not a City-issued permit; the exemption is provided under state law.

RPP Zone Establishment Process
(1) Staff will prepare an Interest Form for any new requests for parking permits, consisting of the following factors:
• Location and description of parking impacts, time of parking impact (daytime, overnight, etc.), and any supplemental photographs documenting the lack of available parking on all identified streets.
• Residents have up to six months to submit the Interest Form. If it is not submitted, the requestor will lose their spot in the request queue. After one year of non-submittal, the process must restart.
(2) City staff will evaluate the Interest Form to understand if the identified streets meet the parking impact requirement. An Interest Form that does not meet the requirement shall be denied, with the specific reason for denial provided to the applicant in writing, including by electronic communication.

City Council 26 – 381 10/6/2026

ATTACHMENT A
September 18, 2026 4
(3) If parking impact requirement and other permit zone requirements are met, City will conduct a parking utilization study to determine if the 75% parking occupancy threshold requirement is met.
(4) If the utilization analysis demonstrates that there is a need for residential curb management, staff will prepare and mail the petitions to all residents in the identified streets. The petitioning process is described as follows:
• Each unit is limited to one petition. Residents will be given 5 weeks to review, sign, and submit petition forms.
o In single-family residences, the resident of the home may sign the petition, whether that resident is an owner-occupant or a tenant. A non-resident owner (e.g., an owner who rents out the home) may not sign.
o In multi-family residences, only residents and legal occupants who live within the property may sign the petition; this excludes any non-resident property owner.

For multi-family residences with individually owned units, each owner-occupant may sign the petition.
• A petition is considered passing if at least 60% of the residents are in support of the permit parking.
o If the petition fails to reach the 60% threshold within 5 weeks, the petitioning process will reset, and the same zone may re-apply again in 6 months. • After the requirements of the RPP program are met, the new permit zone can be established by resolution.
• City staff should install appropriate signage indicating the permit restriction operating hours following zone establishment. Enforcement of permit restrictions should begin after all signage has been installed.

RPP Permit Purchasing Process
• Permit purchases and fulfillment shall be completed on the City’s online PMS platform, or through the City’s mail-in/walk-in services [insert business hours] at the following address:

City of Santa Ana
Public Works Agency, M-43
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
• To purchase a permit, residents must provide the following documentation:
o Valid driver’s license
 If this does not contain the permit-eligible address, proof of residency will be required.
o Current vehicle registration
 Vehicle registration must contain the permit eligible address.  If the vehicle is leased, then provide a copy of the lease instead of vehicle registration.
 If the vehicle is a company vehicle, then each request will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

City Council 26 – 382 10/6/2026

ATTACHMENT A
September 18, 2026 5
Permit Revocation Process
• A parking permit is subject to revocation if the permit holder commits two (2) or more violations of Article XI within a continuous six (6) month period. • Upon determining that grounds for revocation exist, the Director shall provide written notice to the permit holder, including by electronic communication. The notice shall summarize the reasons for the proposed revocation and shall state that the permit holder may request a hearing within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the notice. • If a hearing is timely requested, the Director shall designate a hearing officer to conduct the hearing at a date set within thirty (30) calendar days of the request, unless the permit holder and the City agree to an extension.
• At the hearing, the permit holder may testify and present evidence. The hearing officer is not bound by formal rules of evidence, except that hearsay evidence alone may not be the sole basis for a decision.
• The hearing officer shall issue a written decision within ten (10) calendar days of the hearing. The decision shall be provided to the permit holder in writing and shall be final. • The household may reapply for a permit after one (1) year from the date of permit revocation as long as there are no outstanding citation fines.

City Council 26 – 383 10/6/2026

ATTACHMENT B
Permit Parking Draft Municipal Code Edits
ARTICLE XI. PREFERENTIAL PARKING DISTRICTS
Sec. 36-480. Definitions.

As used in this article, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

Director means the executive director of the public works agency of the City of Santa Ana.

Permit parking district means a geographic area, generally based on neighborhood boundaries, within which one or more permit parking zones may be established pursuant to this article.

Designation of a district alone does not impose any permit parking restriction.

Permit parking zone means an area, consisting of any number of blocks as provided in the Guidelines, established by resolution of the city council within a permit parking district, within which parking limitations apply pursuant to this article.

Guest means any person visiting or intending to visit a person residing in a permit parking zone.

Block means both sides of a street lying between two intersecting streets without interruption by any other intersecting street on either side, except that a resolution containing the provisions specified in section 36-482 may incorporate a map or maps designating blocks, in which case "block" means any block so designated.

Nonresidential user means the owner or tenant-in-possession of any property in a permit parking zone which is not used for residential purposes, and the officers, employees, agents, licensees, and invitees thereof.

Guidelines mean the adopted program guidelines on file with the Public Works Agency for the administration and management of the residential permit parking program. (Ord. No. NS-1919, § 1, 7-20-87)
Sec. 36-481. Designation of permit parking districts.

The city council may establish permit parking districts by resolution. Any such resolution shall designate the boundaries of the permit parking district and shall specify the maximum parking limitations which apply within the district. District boundaries shall generally be based on neighborhood boundaries; where a neighborhood is large, it may be divided into multiple districts, and where no neighborhood association exists for an area, a separate district may be established for that area.(Ord. No. NS-1919, § 1, 7-20-87; Ord. No. NS-2430, § 1, 6-19-00) Sec. 36-482. Establishment of permit parking zones.

Within a permit parking district, the City Council may, by resolution, establish one or more permit parking zones pursuant to the Guidelines. No permit parking zone shall be established unless a petition signed by residents (as defined in the Guidelines) of sixty (60) percent of the households within the proposed zone has been filed with the director, in accordance with the standards set forth in the Guidelines.
(Ord. No. NS-1919, § 1, 7-20-87; Ord. No. NS-2336, § 1, 11-3-97) City Council 26 – 384 10/6/2026
Sec. 36-483. Nonresidential users.

The resolution specified in section 36-481 may specify the parking limitations applicable to the sides of streets adjacent to the property of nonresidential users within the permit parking zone and the entitlement of nonresidential users to parking permits. The entitlement of any specified nonresidential user may be based upon the extent to which its parking needs exceeds its on-site parking capacity. (Ord. No. NS-1919, § 1, 7-20-87)
Sec. 36-484. Signs.

Upon the establishment of a permit parking zone, the director shall cause appropriate signs to be erected in the zone, indicating thereon the parking limitation applicable to the zone and the exemption therefrom of vehicles with permits; provided, however, that the director shall not post such signs on any zone within a permit parking district established by a resolution containing the provisions specified in section 36-482 until such time as the director has determined that an adequate petition has been filed for such zone.
(Ord. No. NS-1919, § 1, 7-20-87)
Sec. 36-485. Exemption for permit holders.

The parking limitations in effect within a permit parking zone shall not apply to vehicles for which a parking permit pertaining to that zone has been issued pursuant to this article, provided the permit can be verified in the manner prescribed in section 36-488. No such permit shall reserve any particular parking place within the zone to the holder of the permit. Each such permit shall be valid only for the permit parking district for which it is issued or for such smaller area within that district as may be designated pursuant to the regulations applicable to that district. (Ord. No. NS-1919, § 1, 7-20-87; Ord. No. NS-2113, § 2, 3-4-91) Sec. 36-486. Issuance of permits.

Unless otherwise prescribed in the resolution establishing a permit parking zone, applications for permits to park within a permit parking zone may be made by any resident within such zone who is licensed to drive a vehicle. Such applications shall be filed with the director or his designated representatives. No more than two (2) parking permits shall be issued per single-family dwelling, and no more than two (2) parking permits shall be issued per multi-family dwelling unit, regardless of dwelling type, consistent with California Attorney General Opinion No. 14-304. The Director may establish additional permit issuance procedures and eligibility criteria in the Guidelines, provided such criteria do not distinguish among residents based on the type of dwelling in which they reside. Unless otherwise prescribed by the resolution establishing the zone, parking permits may be issued pursuant to the provisions of this article and the Guidelines. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the director may appeal such decision to the city manager, whose decision on the matter shall be final. (Ord. No. NS-1919, § 1, 7-20-87; Ord. No. NS-2113, § 3, 3-4-91) Sec. 36-487. Guest parking permits.

Unless otherwise prescribed in the resolution establishing a permit parking zone, each resident residing in a permit parking zone shall be entitled to receive guest parking permits from the director as described in the Guidelines. Such resident may issue a guest parking permit to any guest of such City Council 26 – 385 10/6/2026
resident pursuant to the Guidelines. Any vehicle for which a guest parking permit has been issued shall be exempt from the parking limitations within the zone during the period for which it is valid as described in the Guidelines, provided such permit is displayed or can be verified in the manner prescribed in section 36-488.
(Ord. No. NS-1919, § 1, 7-20-87)
Sec. 36-488. Verification of permits.
(a) A parking permit issued pursuant to this article (other than a guest parking permit) shall be verified by license plate number through the Permit Management System, in lieu of a physical decal or placard, except as otherwise provided in the Guidelines. (b) Guest parking permits shall be verified in the same manner, or as otherwise directed in the Guidelines.
(Ord. No. NS-1919, § 1, 7-20-87; Ord. No. NS-2689, § 2, 7-5-05) Sec. 36-489. Exempt vehicles.

The following vehicles are exempt from the parking restrictions applicable to any permit parking zone:
(1) Repair, maintenance, refuse collection, utility, fuel, delivery and service vehicles being used in the course of business.
(2) Vehicles owned or operated by any governmental agency, or contractor of a governmental agency, being used in the course of business.
(3) Emergency, life support and health care vehicles being used in the course of business. (4) Vehicles displaying a valid ADA placard, as described in Section 22511.5 of the vehicle code.
(Ord. No. NS-1919, § 1, 7-20-87)
Sec. 36-490. Authority of the director.

The director is authorized to establish rules and procedures in the Guidelines and to produce signs, forms and other materials necessary or appropriate to implement the provisions of this article.

The director is further authorized to establish the specific parking limitations which apply within the zone, subject to the maximum parking limitations specified in the resolution for the zone. The director shall post appropriate signs giving notice of the specific permit parking restrictions.

The Guidelines, and any amendments thereto, shall be adopted by the Director and shall be made publicly available on the City's website. Notice of any amendment materially affecting permit eligibility, fees, or petition requirements shall be provided in accordance with the Guidelines. (Ord. No. NS-1919, § 1, 7-20-87; Ord. No. NS-2430, § 2, 6-19-00) Sec. 36-491. Permit fees.

The city council may, by resolution, establish fees for permit applications under this article. (Ord. No. NS-1919, § 1, 7-20-87)
City Council 26 – 386 10/6/2026
Sec. 36-492. Removal of permit parking restrictions.
(a) The city council may, by resolution, terminate and dissolve any previously established permit parking zone(s). The director shall remove parking restriction signs in accordance with any such resolution.
(b) Permit parking restrictions imposed on a permit parking zone pursuant to section 36-482 shall be ended when a petition so requesting and signed by residents of sixty (60) percent, or such other threshold as provided in the Guidelines, of the households within such zone has been filed with the director. Upon a determination that the petition is adequate in accordance with the standards set forth in the Guidelines, the director shall remove parking restriction signs from such zone. (Ord. No. NS-1919, § 1, 7-20-87; Ord. No. NS-2336, § 2, 11-3-97) Sec. 36-493. Penal provisions.
(a) Unless exempted by the provisions of this article, no person shall stand or park a motor vehicle in any permit parking zone in violation of any parking restrictions established pursuant to this article.

Police officers are authorized to remove a vehicle from the street when such vehicle is standing or parked in violation of this section, provided that a sign giving notice that the vehicle may be removed has been posted. Violations of this article shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable as provided for in section 1-8 of this Code.

Alternatively, violations may be addressed through the use of an administrative citation as set forth in sections 1-21.1 through 1-21.9. Use of criminal enforcement and/or administrative citations shall not prevent or preclude the city from seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties in court for violations of this article.
(b) No person shall falsely represent himself or herself as eligible for a parking permit or furnish false information to the director or his representatives in an application for a parking permit. (c) No person who has been issued a parking permit shall sell, rent, lease, or otherwise allow the use thereof by any other person for value or consideration, except that a permit holder may reassign a permit to a different vehicle registered to that same permit holder in accordance with the Guidelines. No person shall buy or otherwise acquire a parking permit for value from any person other than the City. Upon conviction of a violation of this subsection, the parking permit sold, rented, or leased in violation of this subsection shall be void, and any remaining parking permits issued to the same household shall be subject to revocation in accordance with Section 36-494. (d) No person shall copy, produce, create or use any facsimile or counterfeit parking permit. (Ord. No. NS-1919, § 1, 7-20-87; Ord. No. NS-2146, § 2, 11-4-91) Sec. 36-494 Permit Revocation
A parking permit is subject to revocation if the permit holder commits two (2) or more violations of this article within a continuous six (6) month period. A permit holder is entitled to written notice of a proposed revocation and an opportunity for a hearing prior to revocation, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Guidelines.

Secs. 36-495—36-499. Reserved.

City Council 26 – 387 10/6/2026
Finding What the Study Demonstrates
Parking demand varies
substantially by district.

The study found that some districts experience high
peak occupancy while others have substantial
available capacity. For example, average peak
occupancy was approximately 85 percent in Willard,
compared with approximately 39 percent in
Northwest, 56 percent in Highland Park, 38 percent in
Northeast, 52 percent in Sandpointe, and 73 percent
in Brook/Bamdal.

Permit restrictions can
reduce congestion on
regulated streets but
may create spillover.

Permitted streets generally showed lower congestion
than nearby unrestricted streets in several study
areas. This indicates that district boundaries and
enforcement coverage must be considered together
rather than treating each block independently.

The existing allocation
structure does not
provide a consistent
framework across
housing types.

Single-family homes may receive up to three permits
and guest passes, while qualifying multifamily
properties receive one permit per unit and no guest
passes. The study identified a need for clearer, more
consistent rules that recognize household needs while
managing limited curb space and providing equitable
access for all residents, regardless of dwelling type
consistent with the 2016 California Attorney General’s
opinion.

Permit administration
should be modernized.

The current manual process creates administrative
burden and limits the City's ability to maintain current eligibility, vehicle, payment, guest-pass, and utilization information. A Permit Management System software
platform would improve customer access, data
quality, reporting, and operational efficiency.

Enforcement coverage
and compliance need
improvement.

Observed compliance in the Eastside and Northeast
districts was approximately 56 percent and 53
percent, respectively. Existing enforcement is not
sufficient or a consistently scheduled Residential
Permit Program function across all districts.

Parking management
can be improved
without relying only on
new construction.

Shared parking agreements, partnerships with
institutional property owners, improved use of Cityowned facilities, curb management, enforcement of oversize vehicles, and data-based adjustments can
increase effective parking availability and reduce
pressure on residential streets.

Exhibit 6
City Council 26 – 388 10/6/2026
The proposed permit allotment, fee, guest-pass quantity, and boundary framework should be understood as an initial policy structure for Council consideration, not as fixed assumptions that cannot be adjusted. The implementation process would establish measurable performance indicators and allow staff to recommend changes based on actual demand, compliance, occupancy, spillover, and program costs.

Study/Program
Finding Policy Implication Proposed Response
Variation in
occupancy and
spillover
Use consistent citywide
standards with districtspecific boundaries, caps,
monitoring, and
adjustments.

Two-permit SFR / two-permit-perMFR-unit framework; neighborhoodbased boundary review; annual monitoring.

Existing
disparity in
guest-pass
access
Provide a defined guestparking allowance while
managing issuance and
curb demand.

Up to 100 guest passes per SFR or
MFR unit at $2 each. Guest passes
valid for 24-hours, to be initiated on
PMS.

Manual
administration
and outdated
records
Create a reliable,
accessible source of
permit, vehicle, payment,
guest-pass, and demand
data.

Cloud-based Permit Management
System; digital plate-based permits;
physical/in-person access retained.

Limited and
inconsistent
enforcement
coverage
Create a dedicated
enforcement function that
can be scaled to
demonstrated need.

Enhanced Residential Permit Parking
enforcement resources and evaluation
of LPR technology.

Need for
current eligibility
and demand
information
Shorten the period
between eligibility checks
and fee updates.

Annual permit renewal cycle.

Need to avoid
unnecessary repetitioning of
existing districts
Preserve established
districts while applying
updated standards
prospectively and
addressing the current
piecemeal approach.

Grandfather existing permit blocks;
new rules apply to participating
properties.

Neighborhood
identity and
administrative
clarity
Use recognizable
boundaries while
confirming that boundaries
reflect actual parking
conditions.

Neighborhood boundaries as the
starting framework, subject to technical
review, outreach, legal review, and
Council approval.

City Council 26 – 389 10/6/2026
September 18, 2026 1
EXHIBIT 7
Draft RPP Administrative Guidelines
About This Document
These Administrative Guidelines (“Guidelines”) implement the Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program established under Santa Ana Municipal Code Article XI. Article XI provides the City's legal authority to establish permit parking districts and zones, permit caps, and fee structures by resolution of the City Council, while directing the specific operating rules for the program, including petition standards and permit display and verification requirements, to be set forth in these Guidelines.

These Guidelines are adopted and amended by the Director of Public Works (or their designee) and are made publicly available on the City’s website. This structure allows the City to update day-to-day program operations in response to changing conditions without requiring City Council action for each change, while Article XI continues to govern the program’s core legal framework.

Definitions
Single-family residence means a dwelling consisting of a single housing unit, occupied by one household.

Multi-family residence means a property containing two or more separate dwelling units, whether under common ownership (e.g., a rental complex) or individually owned (e.g., condominiums).

Resident/legal occupant means a person who resides at a property as their primary residence, whether as an owner, tenant, or other legal occupant. A non-resident property owner who does not reside at the property is not a resident or legal occupant for purposes of this section.

Owner-occupant means an owner of a residence (single-family or multi-family) who resides at that residence as their primary residence, as distinguished from a non-resident owner who does not live at the property (e.g., an owner who rents out the home).

RPP Zone Policies
• Introduce RPP zones in neighborhoods experiencing internal and/or external parking demand (such as impacts from ADUs, multi-family residences without on-site parking, commercial areas, schools, churches, and recreational facilities). The intent of the program should be to safeguard access for Santa Ana residents and their guests. • All City residents should be eligible to participate in the application process for new zones. This means all residential zoning neighborhoods should be eligible for an RPP zone, including multi-family residences (assuming the other requirements for the application, petition, and evaluation are also met).
• A zone may consist of any number of contiguous blocks with residential frontage (both sides of the street included). However, for a single block to petition, the block must have a minimum of 2 homes to qualify for permit parking, to avoid privatization of the curb space for a single household.

City Council 26 – 390 10/6/2026
EXHIBIT 5
September 18, 2026 2
• Permit parking districts and permit parking zones are distinct concepts. A district is a larger area, generally based on neighborhood boundaries, within which one or more zones may be established; designating a district does not by itself impose any parking restriction. A zone is the specific area within a district, comprising of one or more contiguous blocks, where a petition has passed and parking restrictions actually apply.

A single district may contain multiple zones, as well as areas that are not part of any zone.

RPP Zone Petitioning Policies
• Residents may submit a single interest form or petition covering multiple contiguous blocks, rather than requiring a separate process for each individual block, consistent with the precedent set by Resolution No. 2024-056.
• Require a petition for new permit zones, which is signed by 60% or more households in support of implementing the restriction. Each unit is limited to one petition. • In rental complexes, only residents/legal occupants that live within the property may sign the petition; this excludes any non-resident property owner, as they are not directly impacted by the parking problem. For multi-family properties with individually owned units, each owner-occupant may sign the petition. • In order to remove a residential parking restriction, residents should continue to be required to follow the existing petitioning process and 60% of residents should support removing the restriction for it to be considered. No parking occupancy study is needed, but notification should be given to any surrounding permit zone residents.

RPP Zone Operating Hour Policies
• Operating hour restrictions should be tied to the qualifying external impact type identified for each zone: neighboring city spillover, commercial impact, or venue impact.
• Three operating hour types are available for a zone, to be assigned based on observed parking utilization data and neighborhood needs:
o All-day restriction — for zones with impacts occurring throughout the day. o Overnight restriction — for zones with impacts concentrated during overnight hours.
o Daytime restriction — for zones with impacts concentrated during specific daytime hours (e.g., school drop-off/pick-up, business operating hours). • City staff shall determine the appropriate operating hour type for each zone at the time of establishment, based on the parking utilization data collected during the evaluation process.

Permit Policies
• Virtual License Plate Based system, where the plate is the permit • Permits are valid only within the specific district for which they are issued.

City Council 26 – 391 10/6/2026
EXHIBIT 5
September 18, 2026 3
• Permit holders can request permit transfers to another vehicle's license plate number through the PMS.
o Staff would review and verify all permit transfer requests and approve or deny them based on established eligibility criteria. Transfers may be allowed only under limited circumstances.
o Permits can be transferred to a different license plate a maximum of one (1) time per twelve (12) months. Exceptions may be made for a documented sale or total loss.
• Commercial or Oversized vehicles, as defined by the Santa Ana Municipal Code, should not be eligible to receive parking permits through the RPP program. • Every permit can be valid for 365 days upon activation and it is up to the permit holder to renew the permit through the Permit Management System (PMS) portal online or seek assistance at City Hall ahead of expiration.
• Resident permit fees are established by resolution of the City Council, in accordance with Section 36-491 of the Municipal Code. The current fee schedule is available on the City's website and at the Public Works Agency.
• Permit issuance is subject to the maximum permits per dwelling established in Section 36-486 of the Municipal Code. Permits are issued on a first-come, first-served basis based on parking availability data maintained by staff. • Guest permits are $2.00 each, maximum of 100 single-use 24-hour permits per eligible household. A resident who does not hold a residential permit would still be able to purchase guest permits, as long as they live in an established RPP zone. o Any resident within a permit zone may purchase guest permits. o Resident shall use the virtual PMS to assign guest permits to their guests, including specification of the guest’s vehicle license plate. • A City residential parking permit requirement does not override the parking privilege established by CVC § 22511.5. The placard is not a City-issued permit; the exemption is provided under state law.

RPP Zone Establishment Process
(1) Staff will prepare an Interest Form for any new requests for parking permits, consisting of the following factors:
• Location and description of parking impacts, time of parking impact (daytime, overnight, etc.), and any supplemental photographs documenting the lack of available parking on all identified streets.
• Residents have up to six months to submit the Interest Form. If it is not submitted, the requestor will lose their spot in the request queue. After one year of non-submittal, the process must restart.
(2) City staff will evaluate the Interest Form to understand if the identified streets meet the parking impact requirement. An Interest Form that does not meet the requirement shall be denied, with the specific reason for denial provided to the applicant in writing, including by electronic communication.

City Council 26 – 392 10/6/2026
EXHIBIT 5
September 18, 2026 4
(3) If parking impact requirement and other permit zone requirements are met, City will conduct a parking utilization study to determine parking occupancy. (4) If the utilization analysis demonstrates that there is a need for residential curb management, staff will prepare and mail the petitions to all residents in the identified streets.

The petitioning process is described as follows:
• Each unit is limited to one petition. Residents will be given 5 weeks to review, sign, and submit petition forms.
o In single-family residences, the resident of the home may sign the petition, whether that resident is an owner-occupant or a tenant. A non-resident owner (e.g., an owner who rents out the home) may not sign.
o In multi-family residences, only residents and legal occupants who live within the property may sign the petition; this excludes any non-resident property owner. For multi-family residences with individually owned units, each owneroccupant may sign the petition. • A petition is considered passing if at least 60% of the residents are in support of the permit parking.
o If the petition fails to reach the 60% threshold within 5 weeks, the petitioning process will reset, and the same zone may re-apply again in 6 months. • After the requirements of the RPP program are met, the new permit zone can be established by resolution.
• City staff should install appropriate signage indicating the permit restriction operating hours following zone establishment. Enforcement of permit restrictions should begin after all signage has been installed.

RPP Permit Purchasing Process
• Permit purchases and fulfillment shall be completed on the City’s online PMS platform, or through the City’s mail-in/walk-in services [insert business hours] at the following address:

City of Santa Ana
Public Works Agency, M-43
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
• To purchase a permit, residents must provide the following documentation:
o Valid driver’s license
 If this does not contain the permit-eligible address, proof of residency will be required.
o Current vehicle registration
 Vehicle registration must contain the permit eligible address.  If the vehicle is leased, then provide a copy of the lease instead of vehicle registration.
 If the vehicle is a company vehicle, then each request will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

City Council 26 – 393 10/6/2026
EXHIBIT 5
September 18, 2026 5
Permit Revocation Process
• A parking permit is subject to revocation if the permit holder commits two (2) or more violations of Article XI within a continuous six (6) month period. • Upon determining that grounds for revocation exist, the Director shall provide written notice to the permit holder, including by electronic communication. The notice shall summarize the reasons for the proposed revocation and shall state that the permit holder may request a hearing within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the notice. • If a hearing is timely requested, the Director shall designate a hearing officer to conduct the hearing at a date set within thirty (30) calendar days of the request, unless the permit holder and the City agree to an extension.
• At the hearing, the permit holder may testify and present evidence. The hearing officer is not bound by formal rules of evidence, except that hearsay evidence alone may not be the sole basis for a decision.
• The hearing officer shall issue a written decision within ten (10) calendar days of the hearing. The decision shall be provided to the permit holder in writing and shall be final. • The household may reapply for a permit after one (1) year from the date of permit revocation as long as there are no outstanding citation fines.

City Council 26 – 394 10/6/2026

IMPLEMENTATION PHASING AND MONITORING
Implementation is anticipated to occur through a phased and data-driven approach rather than through a single citywide transition. Phasing will allow the City to establish the necessary policy, technology, administrative, and enforcement framework before fully implementing program changes, while providing opportunities to evaluate actual permit demand, parking conditions, compliance, and program costs. This approach will allow enforcement and other resources to be scaled over time based on demonstrated need and available program revenues, while maintaining continued public outreach and stakeholder engagement.

Proposed Phasing and Schedule
Phase Anticipated
Timing Primary Activities

1. Program
Direction
and
Finalization
December
2026
Council direction; Adoption of Plan; Approve PMS
agreement; legal and operational review; final program
framework; draft code and administrative tasks and
guidelines.

2. Permit
Management
System
January – June
2027
Execute agreement; Resolutions and Ordinances,
configure districts, rules, fees, renewals, guest passes, payments, reporting, and enforcement integration;
migrate records; train staff.

3. Program
Transition
and
Notification
July 2027 -
June 2028
Notify permit holders; transition records; implement
allocations, fees, guest-pass rules, and approved
boundaries; provide multilingual and in-person
assistance. Rollout of transition on phased, monthly
basis tied to permit renewals.

4. Enhanced
Enforcement July 2027
Implement enhanced program enforcement; evaluate
and deploy LPR; establish coverage based on
demand, compliance, violations, and available
resources.

5. Monitoring
and Program
Adjustment
Ongoing
Track permits, renewals, occupancy, guest-pass use,
compliance, citations, complaints, response times,
spillover, and costs; recommend adjustments as
needed.

Exhibit 8
City Council 26 – 395 10/6/2026
Public Works Agency
www.santa-ana.gov/pw
Item # 27
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
October 6, 2026
TOPIC: Ordinance Establishing City Council Approval of Changes Affecting Drinking Water Quality Standards and Regulations

AGENDA TITLE
Adopt an Ordinance Establishing City Council Approval of Changes Affecting the City’s Drinking Water Quality Standards and Regulations

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt an Ordinance Establishing City Council Approval of Changes Affecting the City’s Drinking Water Quality Standards and Regulations.

ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXXX entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION 39-43 TO ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 39 OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH CITY

COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CHANGES AFFECTING DRINKING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS [includes determination that ordinance adoption is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), 15061(b)(3), 15378, and 15378(b)(5)]
GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES: No

DISCUSSION
On May 18, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a proposal to revise federal drinking water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for two per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) compounds: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), and a proposal to rescind drinking water standards for four additional PFAS compounds: perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS), as well as Hazard Index mixtures of these PFAS chains.

It is important to note that these proposed rules are still being considered by the EPA and have not yet gone into effect. However, the recent proposals from the EPA have City Council 27 – 1 10/6/2026
Ordinance Establishing City Council Approval of Changes Affecting Drinking Water Quality Standards and Regulations
October 6, 2026