HomeMy WebLinkAbout20 ADOPT THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING ACTION PLAN20
N/A
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
ATTACHMENT 1
Tustin Residential Parking Action Plan
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
i
Residential
Parking
Action
Plan
City of Tustin, CA
November 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
ii
City of Tustin
Residential Parking Action Plan
Prepared by Dixon Resources Unlimited
on behalf of the City of Tustin, CA
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
iii
Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. v
1. Residential Parking Study ................................................................................................................. 1
Community Outreach............................................................................................................................................... 1
Permit Program Background................................................................................................................................... 1
Current Permit Program........................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Residential Parking Action Plan ........................................................................................................ 3
Context ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Goals .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Parking Action Plan Structure.................................................................................................................................. 3
A. PPP Program Options ................................................................................................................... 4
B. B. Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 6
Near-term .................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Mid-term .................................................................................................................................................................. 16
Long-term ................................................................................................................................................................ 18
C. Comprehensive Implementation Guide ...................................................................................... 20
Near-term ................................................................................................................................................................ 20
Mid-term .................................................................................................................................................................. 24
Long-term ................................................................................................................................................................ 24
Appendix – Online Survey Results ...................................................................................................... 26
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
iv
Figures
Figure 1: Current PPP Areas in Tustin ........................................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2: PPP Program Options .................................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 3: Near-term Recommendations Goals Supported ..................................................................................... 6
Figure 4: Comparable Cities Petitioning Process ..................................................................................................... 8
Figure 5: Permit Rate Analysis for Comparable Cities ........................................................................................... 11
Figure 6: Recommended Fee Schedule .................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 7. Mobile License Plate Recognition Camera ............................................................................................. 13
Figure 8: City of Anaheim Permit Flowchart ........................................................................................................... 15
Figure 9: ParkSL Brand .............................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 10: Mid-term Recommendations Goals Supported ................................................................................... 16
Figure 11: Long-term Recommendations Goals Supported ................................................................................. 18
Figure 12: Near-term Recommendations Overview .............................................................................................. 20
Figure 13: Near-term Implementation Checklist .................................................................................................... 21
Figure 14: Mid-term Recommendations Overview ................................................................................................ 24
Figure 15: Mid-term Implementation Checklist ...................................................................................................... 24
Figure 16: Long-term Recommendations Overview .............................................................................................. 24
Figure 17: Long-term Implementation Checklist.................................................................................................... 25
Figure 18. Permit Application Question (PPP block respondents only) .............................................................. 26
Figure 19. Vehicle Ownership Question (all respondents) ................................................................................... 27
Figure 20. On-site Parking Question (all respondents) ......................................................................................... 27
Figure 21. Parking Availability Question (PPP block respondents only) .............................................................. 28
Figure 22. Parking Availability Question (non-PPP block respondents only) ...................................................... 28
Figure 23. Parking Distance Question (PPP block respondents only) ................................................................. 29
Figure 24. Parking Distance Question (non-PPP block respondents only) ......................................................... 29
Figure 25. Survey Zones ............................................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 26. Parking Distance Question - Response by Zone (non-PPP block respondents only) ...................... 30
Figure 27. Expansion of PPP Question (PPP block respondents only) ................................................................. 31
Figure 28. Expansion of PPP Question (non-PPP block respondents only) ......................................................... 31
Figure 29. Expansion of PPP Citywide Question (PPP block respondents only) ................................................ 32
Figure 30. Expansion of PPP Citywide Question (non-PPP block respondents only)......................................... 32
Figure 31. Allow All Residents to Participate Question (PPP block respondents only) ...................................... 33
Figure 32. Allow All Residents to Participate Question (non-PPP block respondents only) .............................. 33
Figure 33. Eliminate the PPP Program Question (PPP block respondents only) ................................................ 34
Figure 34. Eliminate the PPP Program Question (non-PPP block respondents only) ........................................ 34
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
v
Tustin, CA
Residential Parking Action Plan
Executive Summary
This Residential Parking Action Plan (PAP) was developed to
outline the recommended implementation steps and
strategies to optimize the preferential permit parking (PPP)
program and parking management within Tustin’s
residential neighborhoods.
Steps should be taken incrementally with ongoing
evaluation and community feedback to shape future steps.
This PAP is meant to be used as a helpful guide to highlight
important considerations, measures, and best practices to
optimize operations, regardless of the approach chosen.
The City is encouraged to adjust the implementation
approach as needed to design a program that best fits the
unique and ever-changing needs of the community.
What were the study’s goals?
1. Equitable Access: Develop equitable programs
that appropriately balance the parking needs of all
residents and visitors, while enabling the on-street
parking supply to serve the community fairly and
enhance access for all.
2. Sustainable solutions: Implement financially
sustainable strategies that modernize and
streamline parking program management.
3. Efficient Program Management: Create an
efficient and adaptable parking system that is
optimized for the City’s current needs but can be
incrementally updated and adjusted over time.
Project Background
Dixon Resources Unlimited (DIXON) was retained by the
City of Tustin (City) in October 2019 to conduct a citywide
Residential Parking Study (Study). The Study included a
review of existing conditions, current parking policies, and
community outreach. The Study resulted in a
Recommendations Outline, which was used to develop this
Residential Parking Action Plan (PAP).
Community Outreach
The Study included an online Residential Parking
Survey that was available from July 1-31, 2021. The
purpose of the survey was to gather initial feedback
about residential on-street parking, including
existing policies and programs. The survey was
available online with English and Spanish language
options. There were 1,127 total responses. 1,085 of
those respondents live within Tustin.
To facilitate additional input from the community,
two community meetings were hosted on July 7 and
September 9, 2021. Due to the ongoing pandemic,
the meetings were conducted virtually through
Zoom. During each meeting, an overview of the
project was presented, and attendees were invited
to provide feedback. A third community meeting
was held on October 28, 2021, to present an
overview of the final recommendations from the
Recommendations Outline.
A priority is to align the PPP program with the 2016
State Attorney General’s opinion: “In issuing long-term
residential parking permits, local authorities may not
distinguish among residents based on the type of
dwelling in which they live.”
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
vi
Getting Started
Summarized below are some initial steps that the City can take to optimize the PPP program and
parking management. Detailed descriptions of each are provided in the PAP along with next steps:
To design an equitable PPP program, the City should expand permit eligibility by no
longer differentiating between single-family and multi-family dwellings for establishing
new districts. This approach will align the PPP program with the 2016 Attorney
General’s opinion (#14-304) and enable more drivers to obtain permits. To optimize on-
street availability, a one permit per eligible resident rule should be considered by
requiring the resident’s driver’s license number. This would allow households with
multiple drivers to obtain enough permits. The PPP program should be structured
differently depending on if the neighborhood has external parking demand spillover
versus neighborhoods that solely have high parking demand from residential density.
The City should also implement an escalating rate structure with $25.00 for the first
permit and an additional premium of $25.00 for additional permits. This would
encourage residents to park on their property if they’re able to, and it will also generate
revenue to support the ongoing operating costs of the PPP program.
Investment in new parking enforcement technology, as well as dedicated parking
enforcement staff, will be essential to creating an efficient parking program. The use
of vehicle-mounted mobile license plate recognition (LPR) cameras will streamline
parking enforcement and enable ongoing data collection for program evaluation.
Instead of verifying that each vehicle has a valid physical permit displayed, the LPR
system can automate the process by using the license plate number as the permit
identifier.
To successfully implement program updates, the City should ensure that policy
information is easy to understand and readily accessible. A parking landing web page
could be utilized as one-stop-shop for parking information, including how to apply for
new PPP districts and frequently asked questions. The City could also design and
incorporate a parking and mobility brand that is easily recognizable and leveraged
on all program materials.
Strategic investments in parking technology, such as LPR, are recommended since they
can also be leveraged for ongoing data collection without spending extra funds on
traditional parking studies. Ongoing evaluation of the PPP program should consider
whether a block continues to need the current permit restrictions, or if restrictions can
be adjusted or eliminated. Making data-driven decisions will allow the City to optimize
the program over time.
Steps should be taken incrementally with ongoing evaluation and community feedback to shape future steps.
The City is encouraged to adjust the implementation approach as needed to design a program that best fits
the unique and ever-changing needs of the community.
Permit
Program
Updates
Questions or comments? Contact Krys Saldivar at KSaldivar@tustinca.org
Automation
Marketing
Data
Collection
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
1
Residential Parking Study
Dixon Resources Unlimited (DIXON) was retained by the City of Tustin (City) in October 2019 to conduct a
citywide Residential Parking Study (Study). The Study included a review of existing conditions, current parking
policies, and community outreach. The Study resulted in this Residential Parking Action Plan (PAP) that
provides recommendations for updated policies, procedures, and implementation strategies.
Community Outreach
The Study included an online Residential Parking
Survey, which was available from July 1-31, 2021.
The purpose of the survey was to gather initial
feedback about residential on-street parking,
including existing policies and programs. The
survey was available online with English and
Spanish language options. There were 1,127 total
responses. 1,085 of the respondents lived in
Tustin. The online survey results are included in
Appendix A.
To facilitate additional input from the community,
two community meetings were hosted in the
summer of 2021 on July 7 and September 9. Due
to the ongoing pandemic, the meetings were
conducted virtually through Zoom. During each
meeting, an overview of the project was presented,
and attendees were invited to provide feedback. A
third community meeting was held on October 28,
2021, to present draft recommendations. The
presentation included both English and Spanish
language content.
Permit Program Background
To evaluate potential adjustments, it is helpful to
understand the history of the existing program.
The City’s Preferential Permit Parking (PPP)
program was initially established in October 2008
by implementing overnight permit parking
specifically to:
1 City of Tustin Policy and Procedures Preferential
Parking on Public Streets (October 7, 2008)
“mitigate parking intrusions (spillover parking) that
may impact the quality of life and affect the public
safety in single family detached neighborhoods.1”
Since then, the Attorney General of California
released opinion 14-3042 on April 14, 2016, stating
that cities should not distinguish between multi-
and single-family housings for residential parking
permit programs.
Current Permit Program
The City’s Policy and Procedures – Preferential
Permit Parking On Public Streets1 document
currently establishes that only residential streets in
single-family detached neighborhoods shall be
eligible for permit parking with the exception of
the Old Town Residential Area where all residential
types are eligible for permit parking in Old Town.
A single household within a proposed PPP area
may submit an application to the City’s Public
Works Department for the establishment of a PPP.
Upon receipt of an application, the City’s Public
Works Department completes a parking evaluation
over a four-night period in the application area to
determine if permit parking should be established.
For the City to consider the permit request, the
evaluation must find that fewer than 60 percent of
the vehicles observed during the evaluation
belong to residents.
2 Office of the Attorney General opinion 14-304
1
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
2
A Permit Parking Area or part thereof may be
removed from the PPP program by the City Council
pursuant to a determination that removal from the
program is in the community’s interest, in the
interest of public safety or, at City Council
discretion. Permit eligibility is a per household-
based system where the City will verify if all off-
street parking spaces have been fully utilized
before issuing permits to that household. The
City’s Code of Ordinances3 requires that off-street
parking areas may not be used for storage of
property and must be utilized for parking.
The Permit Parking Program Criteria program
guidelines4 were last updated in February 2019.
This update established that parking without a
permit is prohibited within PPP blocks between
2:00 AM and 6:00 AM daily. Permit applications
must be submitted online via the City’s permit
management system customer portal. Residents
without access to a computer or an internet-
enabled device may use the computers at the
library free of charge.
The City completes an on-site inspection to ensure
that all of the off-street parking on a property is fully
utilized before approving a permit application.
Permits are issued to the number of vehicles in a
household over the number of off-street parking
spaces available. For example: If a household has
two off-street space and three total vehicles, that
household would be eligible to purchase one PPP
permit. Applicants are required to submit a copy of
their driver’s license and vehicle registration, both
of which must be registered to the applicant’s
address within the PPP area. Authorized work
vehicles may receive a permit with proof that the
vehicle is a take-home vehicle.
PPP permits are currently physical permits. Permits
must be displayed on the bottom left corner of the
rear window of the vehicle to be visible for parking
enforcement. To transfer a permit to a new vehicle,
the original permit must be returned to the Tustin
Police Department before a new permit will be
3 Tustin Municipal Code 9262 – GENERAL PARKING
REGULATIONS
issued. Each household may receive 75 one-day
printable guest permits every six months. Guest
permits are not authorized to be used on residents’
vehicles that have already been provided a PPP
parking permit.
There is currently no charge for the PPP permits,
with the exception of the Old Town Residential
Area, which are priced at $50.00 annually.
On average, 415 total households retained 662
permits annually citywide. 483 permits are issued
to 289 single family households (average of 1.67
per household) citywide, and 179 permits are
issued to 126 multi-family households in the Old
Town Area (average of 1.42 per household).
Demand for parking in residential areas has
increased over time. Some neighborhoods are
experiencing increased density from new
developments or a growing number of people
living in households. Some areas are impacted by
spillover parking from neighboring cities. In the
parking survey and community meetings, some
residents indicated that they had to park multiple
blocks away from their home to find parking.
4 Tustin Permit Parking Program Criteria
Figure 1: Current PPP Areas in Tustin
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
3
Residential Parking Action Plan
Context
Various residential neighborhoods throughout the
City experience on-street parking congestion that
has resulted from an increase in housing density
and spillover parking impacts from permit parking
restrictions.
This Residential Parking Action Plan (PAP)
identifies policies, procedures, and strategies
necessary to address the City’s current and future
residential parking needs.
Goals
The following parking management goals are
established by this PAP:
A priority goal of this PAP is to align the PPP
program with the 2016 Attorney General’s Opinion
(#14-304) and develop an equitable solution that
serves the needs of all Tustin residents. The
Attorney General’s opinion states:
“In issuing long-term residential parking permits,
local authorities may not distinguish among
residents based on the type of dwelling in which
they live”.
In addition to equitable access, the
recommendations also enable a sustainable and
efficient program.
Parking Action Plan Structure
This PAP will highlight important considerations,
measures, and best practices to optimize
operations. The PAP is organized into three
chapters:
This PAP includes a set of 14 recommendations,
but a successful parking operation will ultimately
be dependent on the City’s ability to adapt. Steps
should be taken incrementally with ongoing
evaluation and community feedback to shape
future steps. Therefore, this PAP is intended to be
used as a helpful guide to highlight important
considerations, measures, and best practices to
optimize operations, regardless of the approach
chosen. The City is encouraged to adjust the
implementation approach as needed to design a
program that best fits the unique and ever-
changing needs of the community.
2
A. PPP Program Options evaluates four
overarching options for the PPP program.
The feasibility of each program option was
assessed by its ability to meet the goals.
B. Recommendations presents the PAP
recommendations organized into near-
term, mid-term, and long-term timeframes.
C. Comprehensive Implementation Guide
concludes the report with a guide that may
be used by staff as a checklist for
implementing the recommendations.
1. Equitable Access: Develop equitable
programs that appropriately balance the
parking needs of all residents and visitors,
while enabling the on-street parking supply
to serve the community fairly and enhance
access for all.
2. Sustainable solutions: Implement
financially sustainable strategies that
modernize and streamline parking program
management.
3. Efficient Program Management: Create an
efficient and adaptable parking system that
is optimized for the City’s current needs but
can be incrementally updated and adjusted
over time.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
4
PPP Program Options
The Study identified four overall options that broadly address the size and scope of the PPP program.
The City must start by considering these options since they will fundamentally influence the City’s next steps.
The following table provides an overview of the options along with their associated recommendation.
Since the fourth option, Implement revised PPP program guidelines is recommended, the PAP
recommendations provided next in Chapter B specifically define the associated operational and policy
requirements necessary to support this recommended approach. If after evaluating these options the City
opts to proceed in a different way, the implementation approach will need to be adjusted accordingly.
Figure 2: PPP Program Options
Strategy Analysis Recommendation
Option 1:
No change to the
PPP program
Option 1 is not recommended. No change to the PPP
program would conflict with the City’s stated goal of ensuring
that the program meets the intent of the recent Attorney
General’s opinion (#14-304), which stated:
“In issuing long-term residential parking permits, local
authorities may not distinguish among residents based on the
type of dwelling in which they live.”
Without change, the City may continue to experience
challenges with spillover parking into areas surrounding PPP
restrictions.
Not Recommended
Option 2:
Eliminate the
PPP program
Option 2 is not recommended at this time. However, the City
should continue to evaluate the elimination of the PPP
program as a potential option in the future.
Parking spillover from neighboring cities could still pose an
impact to certain areas in Tustin. In the future, it is possible
that the program may not be effective or needed. For
example, there could be transit and mobility enhancements
introduced that decrease parking demand over time.
Not recommended
at this time.
Consider for future
evaluation.
A
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
5
Strategy Analysis Recommendation
Option 3:
Implement a
citywide PPP
program
Option 3 is not recommended at this time. By expanding the
PPP program Citywide, the City would be applying a “one size
fits all” solution to a challenge that is more nuanced. It is
important to consider that each neighborhood has its unique
challenges, including housing density; the number of
vehicles owned by residents; options for alternative parking;
and proximity to commercial corridors, educational
institutions, employment centers, and transit. There would
also be significant costs to implement and enforce a PPP
program citywide, and the requirement to obtain permits
could be an unnecessary burden for some residents and their
guests.
If the City decides to implement a PPP program on residential
streets citywide, in order to be aligned with the 2016 Attorney
General’s opinion (#14-304), all residents with a vehicle
registered to a Tustin address within the designated district
should be eligible to participate in the permit parking
program regardless of dwelling type.
Not recommended
at this time.
Consider for future
evaluation.
Option 4:
Implement
revised PPP
program
guidelines
Option 4 is the recommended action at this time. There is
significant demand for residential parking in specific
neighborhoods, resulting in high occupancy rates
throughout the evening and overnight. Spillover parking
from neighboring cities pose a challenge for Tustin residents
since on-street parking availability may be impacted from this
external demand.
The PPP program is a powerful tool for the City to continue
managing parking demand within neighborhoods. However,
in order to create a more equitable, sustainable, and efficient
program that achieves the City’s goals, several transformative
adjustments are recommended. These recommendations are
described next in Chapter B.
Recommended
strategy
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
6
Recommendations
The following recommendations take into consideration community and stakeholder feedback and
industry best practices. Each recommendation is organized by phase with implementation steps and
suggested follow-up actions or considerations.
These recommendations are meant to address the current and long-term residential parking and mobility
challenges within the City of Tustin. Implementing the initial phase of the PAP recommendations will provide
immediate parking management benefits and establish the basis for future improvements. Recommended
timing is realistic and achievable.
Recommendations are organized within estimated near-term (1-2 years), mid-term (3-5 years), and long-
term (6+ years) timeframes. However, actual timing will be dependent on City Council prioritization,
stakeholder feedback, funding availability, and the ongoing evaluation of initial implementation steps. The
City is encouraged to adjust the implementation approach as needed in response to evolving needs and
priorities.
Near-term
Figure 3: Near-term Recommendations Goals Supported
Recommendations Equitable Sustainable Efficient
1 Clarify the intent of the PPP program. ✓ ✓ ✓
2 Expand PPP boundary requirements. ✓ ✓ ✓
3 Revise PPP petitioning and occupancy study guidelines. ✓ ✓ ✓
4 Revise PPP program administrative policies. ✓ ✓ ✓
5 Introduce an escalating rate structure. ✓ ✓ ✓
6 Introduce a fee for PPP program applications. ✓ ✓ ✓
7 Implement mobile license plate recognition (LPR)
technology, and transition to virtually managed permits. ✓ ✓ ✓
8 Ongoing enforcement staffing adjustments based on data. ✓ ✓ ✓
9 Adjust enforcement policies for permit parking districts. ✓ ✓ ✓
10 Enhance program branding and marketing. ✓ ✓ ✓
B
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
7
Recommendation 1: Clarify the intent of the PPP program.
Understand the Intent
The original intent of the PPP program was to safeguard the single-family residential areas that were
experiencing overnight parking demand from neighboring cities. Now, rather than being exclusively about
external parking demand, the permit program has been applied to try and solve the challenge of growing
parking demand within residential areas that are experiencing an increase in housing and resident density.
In an attempt to safeguard on-street parking availability, some residents have been excluded from the
program altogether, regardless of whether they rely upon public on-street parking. Especially since some
residents of Tustin may be car-dependent, the current PPP program is not a realistic parking management
solution, and it does not equitably meet the needs of the community as a whole.
Currently, only single-family households are eligible for PPP permits, with the exception of Old Town where
all household types are eligible for permits. Meanwhile, other residents within apartments and condominiums
do not have the same opportunity to apply for and participate in a PPP program. A priority goal of this PAP is
to align the PPP program with the 2016 California Attorney General’s opinion (#14-304) and develop an
equitable solution that serves the needs of all Tustin residents. The Attorney General’s opinion states, “In
issuing long-term residential parking permits, local authorities may not distinguish among residents based on
the type of dwelling in which they live”. Therefore, the City should no longer allow the program to be used to
safeguard on-street parking exclusively for single-family houses.
Expand Eligibility
In order to align with the California Attorney General’s opinion (#14-304), all City residents should be
eligible to participate in the application process for new districts. This means all residential housing
types, including both single-family and multi-family housing, should be eligible for a preferential parking
designation (assuming the other requirements for the application, petition, and assessment are also met).
Recommendation 2: Expand PPP boundary requirements.
Continue Minimum District Sizes
Under the current program guidelines, the City evaluates PPP program applications with a minimum
application of four blocks. The City should continue to evaluate potential PPP district boundaries, with a four-
block minimum district size to improve the effectiveness of the recommended policies. When policies
vary on a block-by-block basis, spillover parking will occur onto the adjacent non-permitted streets. The
inclusion of multiple blocks minimizes the spillover impact to adjacent streets by fully surrounding the most
heavily impacted area. In new districts, permits should be valid for any streets within the applicable permit
district.
The inclusion of multiple blocks will help avoid pushing the problem to adjacent streets by fully surrounding
the most heavily impacted area. The goal should be to cover an entire neighborhood or subarea, including
both single and multi-family homes, and generally provide residents parking opportunities within a
reasonable walking distance. The City should also consider continuity with nearby streets.
The City should allow for an individual block to join an existing permit district provided the block meets all
survey and parking assessment requirements. It is recommended that the City draft a defined policy including
the minimum number of streets or blocks required when petitioning for a new permit district.
District Boundaries
The City should define district boundaries large enough prior to the launch of the new permit program. Permit
districts should take into consideration the number of eligible households along with the amount of available
street parking. The goal of this permit district system should be to cover a whole neighborhood or subarea,
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
8
including both single and multi-family homes, and generally provide parking opportunities within a
reasonable walking distance. The intent of the PPP program should be to have permit restrictions cover
multiple streets and establish the foundation to accommodate a larger area as additional streets within the
neighborhood join the permit district over time.
Recommendation 3: Revise PPP petitioning and occupancy study guidelines.
Current PPP District Verification
Currently, any one person within a potential PPP district can submit an application to the Public Works
Department for the establishment of a permit district. This application process is a significant strain on City
resources, and it does not necessarily reflect the desire of the entire district.
The City’s current process also requires a parking assessment over a four-night period that counts the number
of residential vehicles parked on-street. The assessment must find that fewer than 60 percent of the vehicles
observed on-street during the assessment belong to Tustin residents for the City to consider the permit
request. This requires the use of the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) to
verify vehicle registration, which is not an intended use of the system.
Implement a Resident Petitioning Process
The City should implement a resident petitioning process to request a permit parking district. With a petition
process, Tustin should require confirmed signatures by 65 percent or more households in support of
implementing a new preferential permit parking restriction to ensure the majority interest in establishing
permit restrictions. A petitioning process is the parking industry standard for application of new PPP districts
and the established practice in nearby cities (see Figure 4).
Figure 4: Comparable Cities Petitioning Process
City Petitioning Process
Tustin < 60% residential vehicles during parking study
Anaheim 51% sign petition; 75% vote yes per street segment - $500 fee
Costa Mesa 51% sign petition; City survey; 70%+ on-street parking utilization
Fullerton 65% of residents; staff approval
Huntington Beach 20% of residents or 25 households; City approval
Irvine Initiated by Director of Public Works or request by homeowner’s association +
parking study
Lake Forest 67% of property owners; 30 or more single-family detached homes must be
affected
Norwalk
Two-thirds (66%) sign petition; City survey to determine what percent of vehicles
are registered outside of the zone, and that parking congestion supports the
request
Orange 75% sign petition; 75% occupation during City review - $2,500 fee
Santa Ana 66% of residential lots sign petition; director approval
Stanton 51% sign petition; City survey; 75% or more supporting signatures - $660 fee
Establish New Occupancy Assessment Process
Rather than collecting the data manually, the City will have the opportunity to leverage the same parking
management technology recommended for parking enforcement for data collection purposes; License Plate
Recognition (LPR) technology is recommended for parking enforcement to optimize operations and conduct
the assessments (see Recommendation #7). This technology will be a cost-effective option for data
collection and will improve coverage and efficiency. Both the data collected during site assessments, as well
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
9
as during regular enforcement routes, can be used to monitor on-street parking occupancy of a proposed
district.
Removing a Preferential Parking Designation
In order to remove a preferential parking designation, residents should continue to be required to follow the
existing petitioning process. 65 percent 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
preferential parking district residents. In deciding to remove preferential parking designation from a single
street, staff should carefully consider the surrounding area and permit district. A street where most of
the surrounding streets (50 percent or more) are included in the permit district should not be considered for
removal because of the spillover parking risk.
Ongoing Monitoring of Program Effectiveness
A separate parking occupancy threshold should be established to evaluate future policy changes within
preferential parking districts once they have already been established. The City can leverage the LPR data
collected during regular parking enforcement (see Recommendation #7) for ongoing monitoring of program
effectiveness.
The parking industry standard for the target parking occupancy rate is 85 percent. At this rate, there are
enough vacant parking spaces to minimize congestion from drivers searching for spaces. The City should use
the 85 percent rate as a high threshold for when to consider program adjustments in existing districts. If an
established permit district is found to regularly reach or exceed 85 percent occupancy, this could indicate
the need for policy adjustments (see Recommendation #11). For instance, the district may benefit from a
lower cap on the number of permits or guest permits allowed per household or adjustments to the operating
times.
Recommendation #4: Revise PPP program administrative policies.
PPP Program Guidelines
The PPP program should be designed to optimize on-street access for residents, incentivize compliance,
and minimize exposure to potential permit abuse. Permits should continue to be non-transferable, and
strictly associated with the vehicle’s license plate number. This will allow the City to leverage their automated
permit management system (PMS) for online applications and transition to virtually managed permits, where
the vehicle's license plate is the permit identifier (see Recommendation #7). Additionally, to ensure the
program is financially sustainable, the City should implement a fee to purchase a PPP permit (see
Recommendation #5). These fees should aim to make the PPP program cost-neutral, covering only the
administrative costs necessary for the City to efficiently manage and enforce the program.
PPP Program Restrictions
Oversized vehicles, like RVs, vehicles with trailers, or large work trucks, should not be eligible to receive
parking permits through the PPP program because there are separate considerations related to roadway
access with oversized vehicles. Residents with oversized vehicles should be responsible for identifying
alternate off-street storage locations, rather than relying on public street parking. If the City pursues shared
parking agreements, there could be an opportunity to utilize certain privately owned surface lots for oversize
vehicle parking depending on the terms of the agreement (see Recommendation #12). However, the City
should continue to allow smaller commercial vehicles and work trucks to be eligible for PPP permits,
assuming they meet all permit program requirements.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
10
Redefine Permit Allocations
The City should limit permits to one permit per eligible resident. Each resident should be required to
provide their driver’s license number when applying for their permit, so the City can ensure that each driver
receives only one permit. With the growing number of people living in each household, there are usually
more vehicles needed to support those additional residents. Many residents continue to be reliant on their
cars to get to and from work, childcare, and other essential needs. Residents who need to live with multiple
roommates or in multi-generational households, should not be penalized for doing so. Based on those
surveyed, and responses in the community meetings, many people were not able to typically find parking on
their block, especially in the evening and overnight. This indicates that overnight parking continues to be a
challenge with residents competing for parking space with other residents. The majority of survey responses
supported adjusting eligibility requirements to allow all Tustin residents within a specific district to participate
in the PPP program. But the City still needs to manage on-street parking demand. Limiting permits to one
per eligible resident and eliminating the onsite inspection requirement simultaneously reduces excess
parking demand and provides an equitable solution for residents who are not able to give up their vehicles.
Similar driver’s license requirements are established in the City of Cerritos and the City of San Mateo. San
Mateo requires a current California Department of Motor Vehicle (CADMV) driver’s license for each resident
requesting a permit. The City of Cerritos requires that residents use all the parking available on their property
prior to applying for an on-street permit. The household can then receive one additional permit for each
resident with a driver’s license. The address listed on a driver’s license and vehicle registration must match
the residential address listed on the annual parking permit application. Any exception to this is reviewed by
the Police Department Parking Enforcement Division on a case-by-case basis.
This type of approach is an opportunity for the City to better manage on-street parking demand. Because
a person can only physically drive one vehicle at a time, this program strategy only limits residents who choose
to own extra vehicles. These residents would not be eligible for additional permits and would be incentivized
to use any on-site parking available to them, rather than rely on on-street parking for storing their extra
vehicle(s). Limiting permits to one per eligible resident simultaneously reduces excess parking demand and
provides an equitable solution. This also addresses the “my neighbor has too many cars” concern, a
commonly heard complaint from the community workshops and the online survey. If the City establishes the
above PPP program policy adjustments, property inspections for use of off-street parking should be
eliminated.
Good Neighbor Policies
The City should consider requiring residents to sign “good neighbor policies” when applying for a parking
permit. These good neighbor policies could help guide neighborhood ethos, promote friendly and
cooperative interactions, and soothe residential “parking wars”.
For example, the City of Anaheim has “good neighbor practices” such as “off-street, on-site parking supply
shall be used efficiently for parking. Examples of nonefficient use include:
• “Off-street, on-site parking supply shall be used efficiently for parking. Examples of nonefficient use
include not utilizing garage space(s) and driveways for parking.”
• “Permit parkers shall be considerate of noise and comply with applicable city noise ordinances.”
• “Permit parkers shall not move solid waste containers in a manner that precludes collection of solid
waste, obstructs driveways or other rights of way, or otherwise interferes with vehicular traffic in order
to park on a street or portion thereof designated as permit parking only.”
Residents can be required to sign these policies when applying for a permit. This is a valuable opportunity to
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
11
remind residents that public streets are there to be used by all residents while encouraging them to be
courteous and mindful of their neighbors.
Recommendation #5: Introduce an escalating rate structure.
Implement Fees
Currently, the City only charges for Old Town permits which are available for $50 per year. All other permit
areas are issued at no cost to the resident. For the program to become financially sustainable, and for the
City to make investments in modernizing the program, there should be a cost associated with all parking
permits. Additionally, charging for parking permits can incentivize residents to prioritize using the parking
that is available on their property first, before opting to purchase a parking permit. The City should implement
a fee to purchase a PPP permit, with the goal of the program being cost-neutral.
Determine Rates
It is recommended that the City modify PPP rates and reduce the cost of the first permit in Old Town and
implement an initial $25.00 PPP annual fee for ALL PPP areas. This fee is similar to the rate in neighboring
Southern California cities, which as shown in the Comparable Cities Rate Analysis below range from $10.00
to over $70.00 (See Figure 5 below).
Figure 5: Permit Rate Analysis for Comparable Cities
City # of Permits per
Household
Resident Parking Permit
Cost # of Guest Permits & Cost
Tustin
In some areas 1 with no
restriction; in most areas
permits require that on-site
parking is fully utilized
$50 150 per year
Free
Anaheim
Based on bedroom count;
0-2 = 1 permit; 3-4 = 2; 5+
= 3
$30
100 per household per
year
$1 per permit
Brea Single- family= 2; Multi-
family = 1 $25 in person; $19 online 14 days per vehicle
Free
Costa Mesa5 3 Free 100 per year
Free
Fullerton 5 $10 admin fee + $2 per
permit
$2 per permit (included in
the 5 per household)
Huntington Beach 4 $24 first; $10 for additional
permits
2 per unit
Included with residential
permit
Irvine 3 $25 2 per household
$10 per permit
Lake Forest
1 per registered vehicle for
area A; 2-3 for areas B & C,
regardless of the number
of vehicles
$20
1 per night - no limit is
indicated
Free
Orange 5 for single-family; 2 for
duplex $30
5 for single family or 4 for
duplexes including both
residential and guest
permits for single family
$30 per permit
Placentia 5 $10 5 per household
$10 per permit
5 Costa Mesa permit program was recently re-evaluated so information may not be current.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
12
City # of Permits per
Household
Resident Parking Permit
Cost # of Guest Permits & Cost
Rancho Santa Margarita Based on # of vehicles
registered to address $30 5 per household
$30 per permit
Santa Ana 3 for single family; 1 for
multi-family $72.29 Undefined
Seal Beach Based on # of vehicles
registered to address $20 2 per household
$30 per permit
Stanton 3 $25 100 per year
Free
An escalating rate model for the permit fee should also be implemented. With an escalating rate structure,
the first permit can be set at an affordable price. Additional permits can then be offered at an additional
premium.
It is recommended that the City charge the $25.00 initial permit fee for the first preferential parking permit
per household, then charge an additional escalating premium of $25.00 per additional permit sold (see
Figure 6 below) where permit two would be $50.00, permit three would be $75.00, and permit four would
be $100.00. Each permit purchased should be associated with a single vehicle and license plate that meets
the City’s eligibility requirements.
Fees should be reviewed annually to determine whether the City’s costs are being recovered and whether
the cost structure is effective at discouraging excessive permit usage. The City could opt to adjust the fees
each year based on the local Consumer Price Index (CPI). The City should also evaluate the ongoing
enforcement personnel costs that are required to provide enough consistency and coverage to encourage
compliance (see Recommendation #8).
Guest Permits
At this point, it is not recommended the City charge for guest permits. The 150 single guest passes that are
available to each eligible household are limited enough to prevent abuse. The 150 guest permits should also
be available to multi-family residences in permit districts. The City can leverage their permit management
system to require online registration for guest license plates. Similar to the annual PPP permits, guest permits
should be virtually managed, where the vehicle's license plate is the permit identifier (see Recommendation
#7).
The City should continuously evaluate the occupancy impacts of guest permits and could consider charging
a small fee per guest permit in the future. For example, the City of Anaheim charges $1.00 per permit.
Recommendation #6: Introduce a fee for PPP Program applications.
Application
The City should consider introducing a fee associated with the petition submitted by residents for the
consideration of a new PPP area. This is a common practice in neighboring cities like Anaheim, Stanton, and
Figure 6: Recommended Fee Schedule
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
13
Orange who charge $500, $660, and $2,500 (respectively). This fee should be associated with the cost
recovery of staff time needed to process a new permit parking restriction petition from residents.
Establish Equitable Fee
In order to assure the program is accessible to all neighborhoods, the fee should be reasonable to not
prohibit access. The fee can be further mitigated by using automated tools for the process. $300-$500
should be considered as an introductory fee range, but further staff time and cost recovery analysis should
be conducted to determine the most appropriate initial fee. As a starting point, the City should implement a
$300 initial fee.
Recommendation #7: Implement mobile license plate recognition (LPR) technology, and transition to
virtually managed permits.
Modernize the PPP Program through LPR
The City should invest in modernizing the PPP program, by acquiring mobile
license plate recognition (LPR) equipment for the use of parking
enforcement and to support the implementation of virtual parking permits
where the vehicle's license plate is the permit identifier. If the City purchases
new LPR technology, to remain financially sustainable, the investment should
be made in coordination with implementing a permit application fee (see
Recommendation #6).
LPR technology is an important parking management tool that improves
enforcement efficiency and coverage. Using LPR technology as a parking
management tool automates current manual enforcement processes. Instead of verifying that each vehicle
has a physical permit displayed, the license plate number is the unique identifier associated with the vehicle.
LPR for Permit Parking Enforcement
In addition to virtual permit verification, LPR equipment can provide additional enforcement efficiencies. An
LPR system can be leveraged for multiple purposes, including enforcement of permit districts, time districts,
vehicle abatement, scofflaw detection, and wanted vehicle identification. This will enhance enforcement
efficiency and support the implementation of virtual parking permits and other plate-based solutions. It is
recommended that two Parking Control Officer (PCO) vehicles be equipped with mobile LPR
technology initially. Additional LPR technology can be purchased based on PCO staffing, budget, and the
potential implementation of new PPP districts.
Public agencies that utilize LPR in California are required to publish a Surveillance Use Policy that defines
policies including data security and retention schedules. The City should confirm that the Surveillance Use
Policy allows LPR to be used for parking enforcement and ongoing data collection. The City should update
the policy as needed.
Transition to Virtual Permits
The transition to virtual permits should take place once the LPR has been acquired. It is recommended that
the City completely transition to virtual permits during an upcoming permit renewal cycle. This will avoid a
“hybrid” program with physical and virtual permits that is challenging to enforce, as mentioned earlier. It is a
best practice to begin messaging a major program change, like virtual permits, at least two months prior to
implementation. The City can leverage their existing permit and citation management vendor to introduce
an integrated and automated system that provides for both mobile LPR and virtual permit management.
Figure 7. Mobile License Plate
Recognition Camera
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
14
Recommendation #8: Ongoing enforcement staffing adjustments based on data.
Parking policies are only effective if there is compliance. In order to encourage compliance, consistent
parking enforcement and community education is critical. The City should consider allocating one to two
additional part-time staff to parking enforcement. Additional PCOs will be critical for efficient and effective
enforcement of permit districts.
Gap Management
Parking enforcement productivity is not, and should never be, based upon a quota or the number of citations
issued. Consistent enforcement in some cases will reduce the frequency of citations issued over time due to
an increase in compliance. Instead, productivity should be measured and monitored using Gap
Management strategies. Gap Management is the process of analyzing citation issuance trends, identifying
gaps in issuance, 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 consistent coverage of assigned routes
or districts.
Recommendation #9: Adjust enforcement policies for permit parking districts.
Follow the three-step industry best practice: 1. Educate; 2. Warn; 3. Enforce. It is important that the
community and those that will be affected by the new PPP program changes are well informed. The City
should create a comprehensive education and outreach campaign to ensure information is spread across
different platforms such as email, flyers, website, etc. Once changes are made, education is continued
through warning notices. Warning first time violators is important to both educate and ensure compliance in
the future. Once the public is fully educated on the changes, begin enforcement for those who do not comply
with regulations.
Prepare for Enforcement
Before initiating enforcement of a new PPP district, the City should consider a policy where the permit district
restrictions are only active upon the installation of signs, and 50 percent or more of households have
purchased permits. The City should communicate the new restrictions by posting signs, informing residents
by email and/or postcard, and updating the City website and parking landing page (see Recommendation
#10).
If leading up to the program launch at least 50 percent of residents have not yet purchased permits, the City
should evaluate whether there are enough preferential permits to begin enforcement. It is possible that not
all residents need a permit since some may not have a car, and others may use on-site parking. Additional
outreach may be helpful to remind residents that enforcement is coming soon and that they should
purchase permits if they are planning to utilize on-street parking during the designated operating times. If 50
percent of the residents have still not purchased permits, the City should reassess if the PPP district is
necessary.
Warning Notices
The City can also issue warning notices along with permit program informational flyers at the onset of
enforcement to assist with the outreach process. Warning notices should be issued for all first-time PPP
violations within the first three months of implementation. A warning notice phase is a parking industry best
practice whenever there is a parking policy change.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
15
Recommendation #10: Enhance program branding and marketing.
Centralize Information
The City should consider developing a single landing web page
on the City website that functions as a one-stop shop for all things
parking in Tustin. This landing page should be an information hub
for parking that includes links to purchase permits, pay for parking
citations, and any other parking actions necessary to support the
City’s parking programs.
Communicate Processes
Additionally, the City should develop a visual representation of
the process new permit districts petitions will need to follow prior
to being implemented. Whenever possible policies, guidelines,
and rules for the preferential permit parking program should be
represented graphically and communicated clearly. Any materials,
documentation, or graphics created should be produced in both English and Spanish.
Develop a Brand
The City should consider developing a parking and
mobility brand. A brand can maximize ongoing exposure
and familiarity with the City’s parking programs, and there
is an opportunity to incorporate the brand along with a
website landing page. The parking brand should be
designed to help to make parking easy, convenient, and
accessible. For example, the ParkSL brand and website for
the City of San Leandro is a comprehensive mobility brand
that incorporates transit, walking, and other mobility
solutions.
Figure 8: City of Anaheim Permit Flowchart
Figure 9: ParkSL Brand
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
16
Mid-term
Figure 10: Mid-term Recommendations Goals Supported
Recommendations Equitable Sustainable Efficient
11 Ongoing data collection and program evaluation. ✓ ✓ ✓
12 Pursue shared parking agreements. ✓ ✓ ✓
Recommendation #11 Ongoing data collection and program evaluation.
Evaluate Program and Policies
As recommendations are implemented, and new policies are established, the City should continuously
evaluate the effectiveness of the PPP program and policies. Ongoing data collection and evaluation will
be essential to ensuring the program adapts to best fit the needs of the community. Rather than reacting to
perceptions, parking demand management strategies are most effective when changes are made
incrementally and based on data. The ongoing evaluation should identify if program changes previously
evaluated as “Not recommended at this time. Consider for future evaluation” should be implemented. The
City should also evaluate the effectiveness of the PPP program to manage parking demand and determine if
program adjustments are needed.
Leverage Technology
The City should conduct ongoing parking occupancy studies on a regular schedule, at least annually. The
City can leverage mobile LPR equipment (see Recommendation #7) for ongoing analysis of data that is
already being collected during enforcement activities.
The parking industry-standard target for the parking occupancy rate is 85 percent. The City should use
this metric as a threshold for when to make further permit program adjustments. At this rate, there are enough
vacant parking spaces to: 1) minimize congestion from drivers searching for spaces; and 2) reduce
oversupply, which is an inefficient and costly use of valuable land. Parking management and policy decisions
should be made with the 85 percent occupancy target in mind. Peak periods resulting from special events or
holidays are typically managed as exceptions.
If a permit district is found to regularly reach or exceed the 85 percent occupancy and utilization threshold,
this indicates that the City should consider adjusting permit policies. For instance, this particular permit
district may need to implement a limit on guest permits allowed per household, increase the permit rates,
and/or adjust permit hours to begin before 2:00 AM or end after 6:00 AM.
Recommendation #12: Pursue shared parking agreements.
Leverage Existing Supply
A shared parking agreement between the City and a private property owner could provide additional
residential parking opportunities by leveraging the existing parking supply. Benefits of shared parking
include:
• Sharing parking is more cost-effective than acquiring or building off-street parking locations;
• Can provide convenient parking options for evening and overnight parking in neighborhoods where
on-street parking demand exceeds supply;
• Can provide appropriate employee parking in commercial areas to help discourage spillover into
residential areas;
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
17
• Optimizes the use of existing supply; and,
• Avoids overabundance of parking or land space that could otherwise be optimized for better uses.
• Typically, a shared parking agreement is meant to be mutually beneficial by leveraging the parking
supply during times when it is typically underutilized. This can provide another revenue stream for the
property owner.
• Can leverage the City’s existing permit management system for permits in shared parking locations.
The City should prioritize pursuing shared parking agreements, particularly in Districts 2 and 4 (see Figure
25), where survey respondents noted that they regularly had to park from a few blocks to a significant distance
away from their home. Shared parking would provide immediate relief for neighborhoods where parking
demand exceeds supply.
Since shared parking agreements are usually only favorable to property owners when cost-neutral or
profitable, the shared parking approach should be considered in conjunction with efforts to implement the
permit fee and escalating rate structure (see Recommendation #5). Shared parking agreements should be
designed to safeguard the property owner while providing an opportunity for additional revenue through
a negotiated revenue share between the City and the property owner. At a minimum, shared parking
agreements typically consider the following:
• Term and extension: Evaluate the return on investment and ensures that the contract terms
allow for potential redevelopment in the future if needed;
• Use of Facilities: Establishes available hours, number of spaces, time limitations and ensures
that the base user will retain use at the end of the sharing period;
• Maintenance: Evaluates and incorporates the added maintenance and operation costs;
• Lease costs: Cost of the lease and any negotiated revenue shares;
• Operations: Considers revenue collection operations as applicable and needed signage;
• Utilities and Taxes: Determines the responsible parties and any cost-sharing agreements;
• Signage: Considers opportunities for consistency with signage and branding;
• Enforcement and Security: Determines who will handle enforcement and towing;
• Insurance and Indemnification: Considers litigation with any cost-sharing; and
• Termination: Identifies the grounds for termination or cancellation.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
18
Long-term
Figure 11: Long-term Recommendations Goals Supported
Recommendations Equitable Sustainable Efficient
13 Promote and enhance transportation mode alternatives. ✓ ✓ ✓
14 Improve street design elements. ✓ ✓ ✓
Recommendation #13: Promote and enhance transportation mode alternatives.
While residential vehicle parking is the primary focus of this report, it is also important to acknowledge how
encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation is better for the environment and reduces
roadway congestion. For those that are capable, walking should be encouraged. It is a healthy, convenient
option that can be further enhanced with some improvements.
Mitigate Parking Demand
Promotion of alternative transportation modes can help residents understand options available other than
driving alone. Encouraging residents to utilize other modes of transportation can relieve some commercial
parking pressure, as well as help reduce overall roadway congestion. Additionally, as stated in
Recommendation #10, the City should consider developing a parking and mobility brand. The
comprehensive mobility brand can be leveraged to promote transit, walking, and other mobility solutions.
Enhance Pedestrian Safety
The City should evaluate ways to improve walkability and enhance pedestrian infrastructure.
Improvements are most important in areas where walking is a viable option to access goods and services.
Locations within a reasonable distance to destinations such as transit stops, schools, libraries, hospitals,
medical clinics, community centers, commercial areas, and public parks should be prioritized. It is important
to ensure the safety of those who chose to walk. If a pedestrian feels unsafe, they may not choose to walk on
specific routes or may choose to eliminate walking as alternative mode of transportation all together.
Enhancements such as increased lighting along major routes can improve visibility and the feeling of safety
(see Recommendation #14), especially in those areas where residents are parking and walking a significant
distance to their homes.
Recommendation #14: Improve street design elements.
The City should invest in improving residential street design elements to improve safety and maximize
parking efficiency.
Improve Lighting and Sidewalks
When asked if you could change, fix, or improve anything about residential parking in Tustin, some of the
survey respondents expressed concern about the lack of lighting in their neighborhood. In order to improve
safety, the City should evaluate the current level of residential street lighting and improve visibility as needed,
particularly in high-density areas where parking demand and occupancy rates are high.
Additionally, the City should consider sidewalk enhancements and the feasibility of adding new sidewalks in
any neighborhoods without them. Improvements to street lighting and sidewalk safety would benefit
residents who rely on street parking and must walk a few blocks to and from their vehicles.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
19
Maximize On-street Parking
To maximize on-street parking supply, the City could consider residential parking design elements that make
efficient use of the existing right-of-way. In high-density areas where parking demand and occupancy rates
are high, the City could consider marking spaces on-street. This can help prevent vehicles from parking
improperly, saving spaces, and blocking driveways.
Additionally, the City could consider implementing angled parking in any areas where street width and
design allows; however, each block should be evaluated as angle parking can reduce the total number of
parking spaces versus parallel parking.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
20
Comprehensive Implementation Guide
This section provides an overview of recommendations and implementation steps for the estimated near-
term (1-2 years), mid-term (3-5 years), and long-term (6+ years) timeframes. Actual timing will be dependent
on City Council prioritization, funding availability, and the ongoing evaluation of initial implementation steps.
Certain recommendations have dependencies or important considerations that will impact the approach or
timing. These are indicated with footnotes to provide a summary, and additional explanations can be found
in the individual recommendation sections.
The following symbols are used as applicable throughout the implementation guide:
• MC: May require a municipal code update.
• $, $$, or $$$: May require a budget allocation, investment, or purchase. Estimated budget
amounts are indicated based upon the following ranges.
Symbol Estimated Range
$ Less than $20,000
$$ Between $20,001 - $50,000
$$$ More than $50,000
Near-term
Figure 12: Near-term Recommendations Overview
Recommendations
1 Clarify the intent of the PPP program.
2 Expand PPP boundary requirements.
3 Revise PPP petitioning and occupancy study guidelines.1
4 Revise PPP program administrative policies.1
5 Introduce an escalating rate structure.1
6 Introduce a fee for PPP program applications.
7 Implement mobile license plate recognition (LPR) technology, and transition to virtually
managed permits.2
8 Ongoing enforcement staffing adjustments based on data.
9 Adjust enforcement policies for permit parking districts.
10 Enhance program branding and marketing.
C
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
21
1Many of the near-term recommendations involve adjustments to the PPP program permit districts and administrative policies. The
new policies should be implemented all at once, along with any of the recommended program adjustments.
2Ongoing data collection (preferably with LPR technology) will be critical for evaluating the impact of the PPP program policies.
Occupancy and turnover data should be leveraged to determine whether policy adjustments are needed, or if tailored permit district
polices are needed.
Figure 13: Near-term Implementation Checklist
✓ Implementation Steps
1 Update the municipal code to enable the updated PPP district policies and administrative
policies. MC (Recommendation #1)
2 Allocate funding for the procurement of LPR technology. (Recommendation #7)
3 Allocate funding for additional parking enforcement staff. (Recommendation #8)
4 Update PPP District
Policies
• Allow all residential housing types to be eligible to apply for new
PPP districts.
• Require a 4-block minimum when establishing a new standalone
permit district.
• Allow individual streets/blocks/complexes to annex into existing
permit areas.
• Require streets/blocks/complexes petitioning to join an existing
permit area to be assessed individually.
• Establish a residential petitioning process.
• Require 65% or more of household to be in support of
implementing a new PPP area.
• If the street/block/complex is adjacent to an area with a current
permit parking designation within a given district a resident can
petition his/her street/block/complex to be annexed into the
existing permit area. Non-adjacent streets/block/complex will
require a minimum 65% vote by petition of the remaining non-
permitted district area in order to activate the entire district as a
permit parking district.
• If the street/block/complex is in a district where no permit
parking areas currently exist, then a resident can petition the
entire district which will require a minimum of 65% vote to
activate the entire district as a permit parking district.
• Expand PPP petition to include residents/tenants of multi-family
buildings.
• Require streets petitioning to be removed from a permit district
to have less than 50% of the surrounding streets have permit
requirements.
• Do not allow oversized vehicles to receive parking permits.
• Allow guest permits to be available to all eligible households,
including multi-family residences.
(Recommendations #2, 3, 4)
5
Update PPP
Administrative
Policies
• Make all permits non-transferable and associated with vehicle’s
license plate number.
• Allow existing permits to be transferred only after a new vehicle
is purchased.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
22
✓ Implementation Steps
• Limit permits to one permit per eligible resident by requiring
driver’s license number and proof of tenancy.
(Recommendation #4)
6 Begin outreach and communication of new PPP district and PPP administrative policies. $
(Recommendation #9)
7
Determine a set of guidelines for occupancy rates. For instance, when a permit district
regularly exceeds 85% occupancy, there should be consideration for additional policy
changes. (Recommendations #3, 11)
8 Determine number of LPR units needed. (Recommendation #7)
9
Evaluate any existing City LPR data privacy and retention policies, develop them if needed, and
ensure they provide the ability to use LPR for ongoing data collection. The City’s policy should
be posted on the City website. (Recommendation #7)
10 Procure vehicle-mounted, mobile LPR technology on a minimum of two vehicles to start. $$
(Recommendation #7)
11 Eliminate property inspections for PPP eligibility with the purchase of LPR technology.
(Recommendations #4, 7)
12
Determine required adjustments for City’s existing permit management system (PMS) based
on updated permit policies. The PMS should be integrated with the City’s citation
management system (CMS) and LPR technology. (Recommendation #4)
13
Develop a landing page on the City’s website that functions as a one-stop-shop for all things
parking in Tustin, which includes links to the site to purchase permits, pay for citations, and any
other parking actions necessary to support the City’s parking programs. $ (Recommendation
#10)
14
Consider developing a parking and mobility brand to incorporate into the website and any
future outreach materials. The comprehensive mobility brand can be leveraged to promote
transit, walking, and other mobility solutions in the future. (Recommendation #10)
15
Develop content for the landing page, including visual representations of the process of new
permit districts, and a summary of frequently asked questions (FAQ’s) relating to parking,
policies, procedures, and other information that is often discussed. Whenever possible,
develop materials, documentation, or graphics in both English and Spanish to inform the
public of any general parking or PPP program changes. (Recommendation #10)
16
Designate an employee or a team to review the page and links regularly, such as twice
annually, to ensure the information remains up-to-date and reflects any recent changes in
policies, ordinances, or fees. (Recommendation #10)
17 Begin outreach of new parking website through emails, flyers, and postcards. Utilizing QR
codes can be an effective way to publicize the website. $ (Recommendation #10)
18
Determine fee to petition for a new PPP district. For instance, neighboring cities like Anaheim,
Stanton, and Orange charge $500, $660, and $2,500 (respectively). Tustin should consider a
fee of $500 to begin with. (Recommendation #6)
19
Introduce and implement fee associated with the petition submitted by residents for the
installation of a new PPP district. Ensure residents are aware of this new fee by incorporating
the information in the application and on the City’s parking website. (Recommendation #6)
20
Determine annual resident parking permit fee. Consider market rates for off-street parking
when determining the appropriate permit fees. It is suggested that Tustin begin with $25
annually for the first permit and price remaining permits at an escalated rate. Offering
additional permits at an escalated rate of $25 per additional permit. For instance, Permit 1 is
$25, Permit 2 is $50, Permit 3 is $75, Permit 4 is $100, etc. (Recommendation #5)
21 Introduce and implement permit fees to purchase an annual resident parking permit.
(Recommendation #5)
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
23
✓ Implementation Steps
22 Develop “Good Neighbor” policies. (Recommendation #4)
23 Begin to require residents to sign “good neighbor” policies when applying for a parking
permit. (Recommendation #4)
24 Install LPR technology on enforcement vehicles that will be dedicated to parking enforcement.
(Recommendation #7)
25 Allocate and train one or two additional part-time staff in the Police Department for parking
enforcement to support PCOs. $$-$$$ (Recommendation #8)
26
Train staff on how to utilize the LPR technology for enforcement of permit districts, time zones,
the 72-hour rules, abandoned vehicle abatement, scofflaw detection, and wanted vehicle
detection. (Recommendation #8)
27
Begin enforcement using LPR and adjust enforcement zone assignments and routing as
needed based on GIS location data to ensure consistent and efficient coverage of routes and
zones. (Recommendations #7, 8)
28 Establish clear guidelines for PCO’s on when to issue a warning notice to first-time violators.
(Recommendation #9)
29
Draft and begin community outreach for the transition to virtual permits at least two months
prior to the annual renewal period. Publish information on the City’s parking website and
mailing out postcards or flyers to residences in permit districts. (Recommendations #9)
30
Launch the PPP program on the PMS only after LPR technology has been installed, and the
program is ready to transition to virtually managed resident and visitor permits. The transition
should take place during the annual renewal period, and any “hybrid” program should be
avoided. (Recommendations #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
31
Monitor permit purchasing of new districts before installation of signage. Ensure permit
districts restrictions are only active once 50% or more of households have purchased permits.
If under 50%, begin additional education and outreach efforts such as emails, postcards, flyers,
and updating the City’s parking website. (Recommendation #9)
32 Reassess PPP districts if education and outreach has been completed in new PPP district and
still, under 50% of residences have purchased permits. (Recommendation #9)
33
When new PPP districts are established, require that any new restrictions or changes in
restrictions will be enforced with warnings for the first three months. Begin additional outreach
such as providing informational flyers to violators. (Recommendation #9)
34 Determine a fee for guest permits. A small fee could be considered. For example, the City of
Anaheim charges $1.00 per permit. (Recommendation #5)
35 Begin to implement fee for guest permits. (Recommendation #5)
36 Leverage LPR technology for occupancy studies of proposed districts. (Recommendations #3,
7)
37
Utilize CMS and LPR technology for gap management and monitor PCO productivity. PCO
productivity is not, and should never be, based upon a quota or the number of citations
issued. (Recommendation #8)
38
Review permit fees and enforcement costs annually to determine whether the City’s costs are
being recovered and whether the cost structure is effective at discouraging excessive permit
usage. (Recommendations #5, 6)
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
24
Mid-term
Figure 14: Mid-term Recommendations Overview
Recommendations
11 Ongoing data collection and program evaluation.2
12 Pursue shared parking agreements.
Figure 15: Mid-term Implementation Checklist
✓ Implementation Steps
1
Leverage LPR technology for ongoing monitoring of PPP district effectiveness and determine if
policies need to be adjusted. Revise parking demand management strategies and PPP
program policies based on collected data. Utilize the collected data to also evaluate program
changes stated as above. (Recommendation #11)
2
Identify potential shared parking locations that can be utilized to provide additional parking
supply, provide evening and overnight parking, mitigate on-street demand, and optimize
existing supply. Specifically in Zones 2 and 4 where residents identified a significant need for
additional parking options. (Recommendation #12)
3
Develop a shared parking agreement template for use in upcoming negotiations. The
agreement should address term and extension, use of facilities, maintenance, lease cost,
operations, utilities and taxes, signage, enforcement and security, insurance and
indemnification, and termination. Consider allowing PPP program restricted oversized vehicles
to utilize shared parking locations. (Recommendation #12)
4
Actively pursue and negotiate potential shared parking opportunities. The shared parking
approach should be considered in conjunction with implementing permit fees.
(Recommendation #12)
5 Negotiate revenue shares with the property owner to find a mutually beneficial option.
(Recommendation #12)
6 Establish shared parking agreements with private property owners to provide residents with
additional parking opportunities. $ (Recommendation #12)
7 Begin outreach to PPP district permit holders who qualify and would benefit from utilizing the
shared parking locations. (Recommendation #12)
8 Depending on the terms of the shared parking agreements, additional parking enforcement
support or coverage may be required. (Recommendation #12)
Long-term
Figure 16: Long-term Recommendations Overview
Recommendations
13 Promote and enhance transportation mode alternatives.
14 Improve street design elements.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
25
Figure 17: Long-term Implementation Checklist
✓ Implementation Steps
1 Allocate funding for pedestrian infrastructure improvements such as lighting and sidewalk
repairs. $$$ (Recommendation #14)
2 Evaluate ways to improve walkability, enhance pedestrian infrastructure, and increase safety.
For instance, sidewalk repairs, lighting, and connectivity. (Recommendation #14)
3
Begin to encourage alternative modes of transportation to reduce roadway congestion and be
environmentally friendly. Leverage the City’s parking website to promote transit routes,
bikeways, and other mobility options. (Recommendation #13)
4 Incorporate transit, walking, and mobility solutions into the City’s mobility brand.
(Recommendation #13)
5
Identify locations along major routes and locations where walking would be a viable option to
access goods and services. Locations within a reasonable distance to destinations such as
transit stops, schools, libraries, hospitals, medical clinics, community centers, commercial areas,
and public parks should be prioritized. (Recommendation #13)
6 Evaluate the feasibility of additional sidewalk enhancements such as adding new sidewalks in
neighborhood without them. (Recommendation #14)
7 Begin walkability and lighting improvements at identified locations. (Recommendation #14)
8
Identify locations in high-density areas where parking demand and occupancy rates are high.
Begin to mark spaces on-street at these locations to maximize on-street parking supply and
utilize the existing right-of-way. (Recommendation #14)
9
Evaluate blocks that would benefit, and street widths would allow for angled parking. It is
important that each block be assessed individually as angles parking can sometimes reduce the
total number of parking spaces versus parallel parking. (Recommendation #14)
10 Begin on-street marking accordingly, based on location and evaluation. (Recommendation #14)
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
26
Appendix – Online Survey Results
An online Residential Parking Survey was conducted from July 1-31, 2021. The purpose of the survey was to
gather initial feedback about residential on-street parking, including existing policies and programs. The
survey was available online with English and Spanish language options.
There were 1,127 total responses. 1,085 of the respondents live in Tustin.
o It should be noted that not all respondents answered every survey question as a certain
response to select questions automatically directed the respondent to a specific set of
questions.
3% of respondents took the survey in Spanish.
The following is an overview of feedback received through the survey.
33% (68 respondents) of those who live on a street with a Preferential Permit Parking (PPP)
requirement (216 total responses) were unsatisfied with the current permit application process.
o 30% (64 respondents) were satisfied, 21% (45 respondents) were neutral, 18% (39
respondents) answered N/A.
Figure 18. Permit Application Question (PPP block respondents only)
Of 978 responses, the average household has 2.6 cars, while 804 respondents reported having an
average of 3.1 on-site parking spaces.
28.30%
21.23%
32.08%
18.40%
How satisfied are you with the current process for applying for
a parking permit?
Satisfied
Neutral
Unsatisfied
N/A (I don’t typically need a
permit.)
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
27
Figure 19. Vehicle Ownership Question (all respondents)
Figure 20. On-site Parking Question (all respondents)
40% (83 respondents) of those who live on a street with a PPP requirement (205 total responses), and
50% (204 respondents) of those who do not (752 total responses – multiple choice), found it difficult
to find parking on their block in the evening.
o 42% (382 respondents) of those not living on streets with a PPP requirement (752 total
responses – multiple choice) also found it difficult to park overnight.
0.10%
10.33%
41.62%
27.51%
20.45%
Responses
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%
How many vehicles does your household have in Tustin?
4 or more
3
2
1
0
0.92%
14.36%
41.24%
16.60%
26.88%
Responses
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
How many on-site parking spaces does your household have
available at home (including garages/carports, double
(tandem) parking on long driveways, etc.)?
0
1
2
3
4 or more
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
28
Figure 21. Parking Availability Question (PPP block respondents only)
Figure 22. Parking Availability Question (non-PPP block respondents only)
43% (87 respondents) of those living on a street with a PPP requirement (204 total responses) can
typically find parking on their block versus only 26% (197 respondents) of those without a PPP
requirement (753 total responses).
6.83%
10.24%
20.49%
40.49%
28.29%
27.80%
19.02%
9.76%
When do you typically find it difficult to find parking on your
block (either side of the street)? (select all that apply)
Morning
Mid-day
Afternoon
Evening
Overnight
N/A (this rarely occurs on my
block)
N/A (I do not know/I do not use
street parking)
16.22%
17.15%
27.13%
50.80%
41.89%
29.92%
14.49%
When do you typically find it difficult to find parking on your
block (either side of the street)? (select all that apply)
Morning
Mid-day
Afternoon
Evening
Overnight
N/A (this rarely occurs on my
block)
N/A (I do not know/I do not use
street parking)
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
29
Figure 23. Parking Distance Question (PPP block respondents only)
Figure 24. Parking Distance Question (non-PPP block respondents only)
o Respondents who are not eligible for permits in Zones 2, 4, 6, and 7 as defined in the survey
(see Figure 27) (162 respondents of 329 responses for these zones) are parking at least a block
or two away over 30% of the time.
42.65%
6.86%
3.92%2.45%
16.18%
27.94%
On my
block
(either side
of the
street)
A block or
two away
A few
blocks away
A significant
distance
away
N/A (this
rarely
occurs on
my block)
N/A (I do
not know/I
do not use
street
parking)
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
How far from your home do you typically have to park?
Responses
26.16%
12.62%
7.97%7.70%
18.33%
27.22%
On my
block
(either side
of the
street)
A block or
two away
A few
blocks away
A significant
distance
away
N/A (this
rarely
occurs on
my block)
N/A (I do
not know/I
do not use
street
parking)
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
How far from your home do you typically have to park?
Responses
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
30
Figure 26. Parking Distance Question - Response by Zone (non-PPP block respondents only)
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
How far from your home do you typically have to park?
On my block (either side of
the street)
A block or two away
A few blocks away
A significant distance away
N/A (this rarely occurs on
my block)
N/A (I do not know/I do not
use street parking)
Figure 25. Survey Zones
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
31
Both those who live on a street with a PPP requirement and those who do not were split in support to
expand the permit program to include additional public residential streets.
o 36% (71 of 195 total responses) and 38% (269 of 712 total responses) support expansion,
respectively
o 27% (52 of 195 total responses) and 35% (248 of 712 total responses) do not support
expansion, respectively
Figure 27. Expansion of PPP Question (PPP block respondents only)
Figure 28. Expansion of PPP Question (non-PPP block respondents only)
Support
36%
Neutral
27%
Do not support
27%
Not sure
10%
Rate your support for:
Expand the Preferential Permit Program to include additional
public residential streets where permit holders can park.
Support
38%
Neutral
15%
Do not support
35%
Not sure
12%
Expand the Preferential Permit Program to include additional
public residential streets where permit holders can park.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
32
Responses were also split among those who live on a street with a PPP requirement and those who do
not to:
o Expand the PPP program Citywide to include all blocks with housing fronting public streets
35% (68 of 196 total responses) and 35% (246 of 712 total responses) support
34% (66 if 196 total responses) and 41% (295 of 712 total responses) do not support
Figure 29. Expansion of PPP Citywide Question (PPP block respondents only)
Figure 30. Expansion of PPP Citywide Question (non-PPP block respondents only)
o Adjust eligibility requirements to allow all Tustin residents within a specific zone to participate
in the PPP program
Support
35%
Neutral
20%
Do not support
33%
Not sure
12%
Rate your support for:
Expand the Preferential Permit Program citywide to include all
blocks with housing fronting public streets.
Support
35%
Neutral
12%
Do not support
41%
Not sure
12%
Rate your support for:
Expand the Preferential Permit Program citywide to include all
blocks with housing fronting public streets.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
33
37% (72 of 196 total responses) and 43% (308 of 710 responses) support
35% (68 of 196 total responses) and 28% (198 of 710 responses) do not support
Figure 31. Allow All Residents to Participate Question (PPP block respondents only)
Figure 32. Allow All Residents to Participate Question (non-PPP block respondents only)
In response to if the City should eliminate the permit program altogether, 24% (46 of 195 total
responses) of those who live on a block with a PPP requirement supported the elimination of the
permit program and 57% (111 of 195 total responses) did not.
o 26% (185 of 710 total responses) of those who do not live on a block with a PPP requirement
supported the elimination of the permit program and 33% (237 of 710 total responses) did not.
Support
37%
Neutral
13%
Do not support
35%
Not sure
15%
Rate your support for:
Adjust eligibility requirements to allow all Tustin residents
within a specific zone to participate in the Preferential Parking
Permit Program.
Support
43%
Neutral
14%
Do not support
28%
Not sure
15%
Adjust eligibility requirements to allow all Tustin residents
within a specific zone to participate in the Preferential Parking
Permit Program.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
34
Figure 33. Eliminate the PPP Program Question (PPP block respondents only)
Figure 34. Eliminate the PPP Program Question (non-PPP block respondents only)
When survey respondents were asked if they could change, fix, or improve anything about residential
parking in Tustin, responses were wide-ranged and included (in no particular order):
o Updating street sweeping hours and times
o Restrict overnight parking to only Tustin residents
o Require multi-family buildings to supply enough off-street parking
o Build more off-street parking
o Reduce the number of apartment/condo buildings being built, and increase the amount of on-
site parking required for new developments
Support
24%
Neutral
13%Do not support
57%
Not sure
6%
Rate your support:
Eliminate the Preferential Permit Parking Program.
Support
26%
Neutral
21%
Do not support
33%
Not sure
20%
Eliminate the Preferential Permit Program altogether.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED
35
o Review zoning requirements for mandatory green space and setback regulations to evaluate
adjustments that may allow for more on-site parking
o Issue permits based on household size (e.g., one permit per person)
o Restrict recreational vehicle (RV) and commercial vehicle parking in residential areas
o Allow for parking in commercial/business parking lots overnight
o Mark the parking spaces on-street with painted lines (space markers)
o Allow a single parking permit to be assigned to more than one vehicle
o Eliminate parking permits altogether
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
ATTACHMENT 2
FAQs
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
City of Tustin – Residential Permit Parking FAQs
November 15, 2022
1. I already have permit parking where I live. What changes?
a. The primary change will be the assessment of a fee to cover costs related to the
program.
2. How will zones work?
a. Streets/blocks/complexes which currently have permit parking, or those adjacent
streets/blocks/complexes which annex in, or those whose petition is successful will
be eligible to park overnight anywhere within their pre-defined area where permit
parking is established.
3. We do not currently have permit parking. What is the process to establish permit
parking on my street/block?
a. If the street/block/complex is adjacent to an area with a current permit parking
designation within a given district a resident can petition his/her
street/block/complex to be annexed into the existing permit area. Non-adjacent
streets/blocks/complexes will require a minimum 65% vote by petition of the
remaining non-permit district area in order to activate the entire district as a permit
parking district.
b. If the street/block/complex is in a district where no permit parking areas currently
exist, then a resident can petition the entire district which will require a minimum
of 65% vote to activate the entire district as a permit parking district.
4. How many parking permits can I get?
a. Each licensed driver in the household is eligible for a permit that will be associated
to one vehicle. Proof of residence in the permit parking zone is required.
5. Why am I being charged for a permit?
a. There is a cost associated with the program including administering the permits
and enforcing the regulations. The intent of the fee is to cover the cost of the
program.
6. Am I eligible for a permit if I live in Multi-Family housing?
a. Yes. See #3 above for the process.
7. Who will enforce the permits and how will they be enforced?
a. One of the first steps of the Parking Action Plan (PAP) is to budget for additional
staff. The use of License Plate Reader (LPR) technology will help to streamline
enforcement.
8. Will I be able to park in any parking zone with my permit?
a. The residential portions of the City with public streets will be broken up into
districts. Permit holders will only be able to park overnight on permitted streets
within their district. Or said another way, vehicles not registered within your permit-
activated district will not be able to park overnight within your district.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16
9. How long will the implementation take?
a. The near-term phase, including staffing, setting fee amounts, designating districts,
providing access for all residents within the given districts, obtaining License Plate
Reader (LPR) equipment, and updating requirements will take approximately 9
months. There is a level of outreach, messaging, marketing that will go along with
it.
10. Will the new process require a City inspection site visit?
a. Current site visits will be discontinued. Each licensed driver in a household will be
eligible for a permit.
11. Does the fee increase with each additional permit?
a. An escalated fee model is proposed to incentivize residents to only purchase
permits needed.
12. When are permits enforced?
a. Permit parking hours are 2am-6am.
13. Can I get permits for guests and what is the fee?
a. Each household is eligible for guest passes. The number and fee amount will be
determined at a later date.
14. What are Good Neighbor Practice Guidelines?
a. Guidelines will be developed for neighbors to be kind, courteous and respectful to
one another. Violations could result in revoked permits.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A79378CC-A72C-493A-BDC4-3BD95374DB16