Loading...
CC - Item 6C - Discussion of Preferential Parking DistrictsROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BEN KIM, CITY MANAGER VA-1 DATE: JANUARY 27, 2026 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF PREFERENTIAL PARKING DISTRICTS SUMMARY At the June 27, 2024, City Council special meeting, Council Member Armenta requested additional information for a discussion on parking districts in the City of Rosemead. The item was subsequently brought back to the City Council on September 24, 2024, and after a brief discussion, it was tabled for consideration at a future meeting. Staff prepared the following information to facilitate a discussion. DISCUSSION California Vehicle Code Section 22507 provides cities with clear statutory authority to regulate the use of public streets for parking purposes and to establish preferential parking districts within residential or mixed -use areas. Specifically, Section 22507 authorizes a local authority, by ordinance or resolution, to restrict parking on streets or portions of streets to permit holders, including residents, businesses, or other designated users, when such restrictions are necessary to address localized parking impacts. Under this section of the Vehicle Code, cities have the flexibility to implement parking controls such as time limits, permit -only parking, overnight restrictions, or other tailored regulations to address local needs, without a mandated one -size -fits -all approach. PPDs prioritize parking for nearby residents and businesses, helping manage limited parking resources. Cities in Los Angeles County that utilize PPDs include Los Angeles, Pasadena, Montebello, Whittier, and Norwalk. Purpose of Preferential Parking Districts PPDs are designed to manage parking in specific areas that experience high parking pressure from commuters, visitors, or nearby activity centers. They serve several important purposes: Reduce Congestion: By restricting parking to residents or permit holders, PPDs help alleviate congestion caused by non-residents or commuters who might otherwise park in these areas. This can make it easier for residents to find parking. Protect Residential Areas: PPDs can protect residential neighborhoods from being overrun by vehicles belonging to non-residents, such as those from nearby businesses, schools, or event venues. AGENDA ITEM 6.0 City Council Meeting January 27, 2026 Page 2 of 4 • Promote Fairness: In areas where parking is scarce, PPDs ensure that the available spaces are used primarily by residents and their visitors, rather than being monopolized by non- residents. • Enhance Quality of Life: By reducing the number of cars parked in front of homes and ensuring that parking is available for residents, PPDs can contribute to a more pleasant and accessible living environment. • Support Local Businesses: While PPDs primarily benefit residents, they can also help local businesses by ensuring that their customers have access to nearby parking. Some PPDs include provisions for short-term parking to accommodate shoppers and visitors. Preferential Parking Districts — Program Details The following details should be considered prior to implementing a PPD: Restricted Access Parking in these districts is often restricted to residents with permits, which helps prevent non-residents from occupying valuable parking spots. This is particularly important in high -demand areas where parking s aces are limited. Permit Requirements Residents of PPDs usually need to obtain a permit to park in designated areas. These permits are typically issued to households, and additional permits may be available for guests or other residents of the household. Time Limitations PPDs might have specific time restrictions, such as limiting the duration of parking for non -permit holders or allowing parking only during certain hours. This can help prevent long-term parking by commuters or visitors. Enforcement Enforcement is a key aspect of PPDs. Parking regulations are monitored by city authorities, and violations can result in fines or towing of vehicles that do not comply with the district's rules. Flexibility Some PPDs offer flexibility for local businesses or short-term visitors, providing limited short-term parking options or special permits for businesses to manage customer parking needs. Community Input The creation of a PPD usually involves input from the community, including public meetings and surveys, to ensure that the district addresses the specific needs and concerns of the residents and businesses in the area. Preferential Parking Districts — Formation Process The PPD formation process is similar in most cities. For consideration, here is the process for the City of Los Angeles: 1. A resident contacts Department of Public Works to discuss the nature of the parking issue, need for a PPD, and potential remedies. 2. If no other remedy is found to resolve the parking issue, the resident will be asked to collect petition forms to obtain signatures demonstrating support for establishing a PPD in the area. City Council Meeting January 27, 2026 Page 3 of 4 3. Petitions must be submitted for several blocks, with signatures from at least 75% of residences from each block. PPD parking restrictions will only be posted on blocks that pass the PPD process. Residents must return completed petitions within a specific allotment of time. 4. Staff will review and validate the petitions to ensure all requirements have been met. 5. Staff will conduct a parking study to determine whether the area meets the excessive parking impact requirements. A lock must have 85% of legal on -street parking occupied to pass the parking study, and a minimum of four blocks must pass the parking study. 6. If all requirements are met, staff will submit a report with a recommendation to the Transportation Commission to establish the proposed PPD. 7. Upon receipt of staff s recommendation, the Transportation Commission will conduct a public hearing. 8. If the Transportation Commission approves staff s recommendation, the City Council shall then consider staff s recommendation for formal establishment of the PPD. 9. Upon final approval by the City Council, staff will begin production of parking restriction signs and parking permits. Installation of signs may require several months. 10. Staff will notify residents and Parking Enforcement when restrictions take effect. Preferential Parking Districts — Permit Types Another option to consider is offering full-time parking restrictions vs. overnight parking restrictions. In the City of Los Angeles, these options are distinguished as follows: Preferential District Overnight District Full Time Parking Restriction Nighttime Parking Restriction Residents Annual - $34 each permit Annual $15 each permit Visitors — Max of 2 permits 4 months - $22.50 each 4 months - $10 each Guests — One Day permit Unlimited - $2.50 each 25 each day - $1.00 each STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council direct staff as necessary to further evaluate and/or develop a preferential parking program in the City of Rosemead. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed action does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and it can be seen with certainty that it will have no impact on the environment. As such, this matter is exempt under CEQA. STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT None. City Council Meeting January 27, 2026 Page 4 of 4 FISCAL IMPACT None. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Prepared and Submit)ed by: Sam of Public W Attachment A: Draft Excerpt Minutes Dated September 24, 2024 Attachment A Excerpt Draft Minutes Dated September 24, 2024 SUMMARY EXCERPT OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MEETING MINUTES FOR AGENDA ITEM 6.A DECEMBER 9, 2025 The following is an action excerpt from the Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council held on September 24, 2024 at 7:00 p.m. in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. Present: Mayor Ly, Mayor Pro Tern Clark, Council Members Armenta and Low Absent: Council Member Dang Staff Present: City Manager Kim, City Attorney Richman, Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua, Director of Community Development Valenzuela, Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking, Director of Public Works Wang and City Clerk Hernandez 1. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL A. Discussion of Preferential Parking Districts At the June 27, 2024, City Council special meeting, Council Member Armenta requested additional information for a discussion on parking districts in the City of Rosemead. Recommendation: That the City Council direct staff as necessary to further evaluate and/or develop a preferential parking program in the City of Rosemead. City Manager Kim spoke about the potential advantages and disadvantages of implementing a residential parking permit program. He stated that a primary benefit of the program would be its ability to address parking issues in specific areas by providing residents of those neighborhoods with greater access to on -street parking. Mr. Kim noted that a potential disadvantage would be the need to establish parameters governing the number of permits issued. He emphasized that permits could not be issued in unlimited quantities, as demand in certain areas may exceed available on -street parking. Depending on the eligibility criteria established, not all residents may receive the number of permits they desire, despite residency or tax payments. He explained that the program would apply exclusively to on -street parking and would not affect residents' or property owners' ability to park on their own property. Mr. Kim further stated that the details of the program would require additional discussion should the Council wish to move forward. Staff would conduct further research and provide recommendations regarding the appropriate number of permits to be issued. Page 1 of 5 As an example, he talked about the City of Los Angeles parking permit program. He explained that the program could include three types of permits: 1. A resident permit valid for one year; 2. A long-term guest permit valid for a specified number of months (noting that the City of Los Angeles issues such permits for four months); and 3. A short-term, one -day permit for temporary needs, such as special events or gatherings. Council Member Armenta stated that the Council could establish parameters limiting the permit program to overnight parking only, rather than all -day parking. She noted that this determination would be within the Council's discretion. She further emphasized the importance of establishing residency requirements, specifying that permit eligibility could be limited to residents of the City of Rosemead or those residing within the affected district. She raised concerns regarding protecting Rosemead residents from non-residents of neighboring cities who may park on local streets and stated that eligibility criteria should be structured to prioritize and safeguard city residents. Council Member Low inquired whether the parking issues currently experienced by residents in the affected area occur primarily during nighttime hours. She asked whether the residents' concerns were specifically related to overnight parking, rather than all -day parking restrictions. Council Member Armenta stated that, based on her discussions with residents, the parking issues in the area stem from an apartment complex located across the railroad tracks, where insufficient parking is available on the City of San Gabriel side. As a result, residents from that area cross over and park on streets within the City of Rosemead. She noted that this is the same area previously discussed by residents during earlier public comments regarding Ivar Avenue. She expressed general hesitation regarding the implementation of parking permit programs, noting that such a program would not be effective on her own street due to minimal on - street parking demand. She further stated that in other areas, particularly in the southern portion of Rosemead, limited garage and driveway space necessitates on - street parking for residents, making a permit program less feasible in those neighborhoods. Mrs. Armenta stated that the need for a parking permit program should be evaluated based on a petition process and emphasized that implementation would require a collaborative effort among residents within the affected district. Council Member Low stated that it would be necessary to clearly define what constitutes a "district" for purposes of a parking permit program. She noted that a district could vary in size and scope, potentially including a single street, multiple streets, or a limited number of residences along a street. Page 2 of 5 Council Member Armenta stated that the item was presented for consideration and purposes for discussion. She requested that the matter be placed on record and included on the agenda to allow for an open discussion and to receive input from residents. She emphasized that hearing from residents is essential to the Council's decision -making process and enables the Council to make informed and balanced decisions that serve not only specific neighborhoods, but the City of Rosemead as a whole. Mayor Pro Tem Clark stated that the parking issues experienced by residents occur primarily overnight, noting that residents are unable to find available parking during nighttime hours due to non-residents parking in the area. She inquired whether the same parking problems occur during daytime hours. Council Member Armenta stated that residents did not express concerns regarding daytime parking and that their comments and concerns were specifically focused on overnight parking issues. Mayor Pro Tern Clark inquired whether a parking district could be structured to address overnight parking needs only, while not imposing restrictions during daytime hours, should residents choose to proceed in that manner. Council Member Armenta confirmed that such an arrangement would be feasible, explaining that parking permits would be enforced only during the designated restricted time periods. She stated that, for example, a non-resident vehicle parked during daytime hours would be permitted; however, once the permit enforcement period begins, the vehicle would no longer be allowed to park in the area without a valid permit. Mayor Ly provided comments on the proposed residential parking permit program. He began by acknowledging Council Member Armenta for her advocacy on behalf of the community and residents, noting that her efforts are greatly appreciated. He stated that he has no fundamental objections to the concept of a parking permit system. However, from a public policy perspective, he expressed concerns regarding the use of public streets for restricted private access. He emphasized that any impact on the street, including wear and tear, potential accidents, and related liability, should be considered in calculating permit costs. He noted that covering only staff costs would be insufficient. Streets used regularly by permit holders will experience wear and tear, and if access is limited to permit holders, the associated costs should be allocated to those users rather than the general taxpayer. He reiterated that he supported the permit program in principle, provided that the costs reflect the actual impact of permit use on public infrastructure. Council Member Low noted that under current conditions, all vehicles parked on a street including those belonging to non-residents contribute equally to wear and tear on the roadway, regardless of whether the owners live on that street. Page 3 of 5 Mayor Ly noted that under current conditions, any resident or visitor may park on a public street, and the associated costs are covered by general taxpayer funds. He explained that if a permit program restricts parking to only residents of a specific street or district, non-residents would no longer have access. In such cases, he stated that those who lose access should not bear the additional costs associated with maintaining the street under the permit program. He emphasized that permit fees should reflect actual use and benefit, rather than imposing costs on taxpayers who no longer receive access. He emphasized that if Rosemead were to implement a permit system that restricts parking exclusively to Rosemead residents or businesses, the cost of street maintenance and wear and tear should be incorporated into permit fees. He stated that without accounting for these costs, taxpayers would effectively subsidize private parking access, which he considers inequitable. He referenced the City of Los Angeles as an example where distributed costs and insufficient funding have contributed to poorly maintained streets. He concluded that while he supports the concept of a permit program, it is essential that permit fees accurately reflect the actual costs associated with maintaining affected streets to ensure fair and sustainable management. Council Member Low stated that while a policy could be established to allow overnight parking, the application fees for the permit should include costs associated with street maintenance and wear and tear. She noted that incorporating these costs would result in higher permit fees for residents. Mayor Ly noted that implementation of a residential parking permit program is feasible, as similar programs exist in other cities. He emphasized that the item is currently for discussion only and no action or vote is being taken at this meeting. He suggested that, if the Council wishes to proceed, the appropriate next step would be to establish a committee at a future meeting. The committee could include Council members, the Traffic Commission, and relevant staff to evaluate key issues such as cost recovery, permit eligibility, and potential impacts on commercial and overflow parking in the affected area. He concluded that these matters are solvable but require further study and community engagement before implementation. Mayor Pro Tem Clark acknowledged the concern regarding cost and inquired how many residents have raised this issue. She asked whether the San Gabriel cross - jurisdictional parking problem is limited to a single concern and whether any communication has been initiated with the appropriate departments in San Gabriel to address vehicles spilling over into Rosemead streets. City Manager Kim stated we would not be able to do that since there is public parking, anybody could park there. Mayor Pro Tem Clark noted a potential concern in situations where residents host gatherings and are uncertain in advance about the number of attendees, which may result in an insufficient number of permits for guests. She indicated some hesitancy regarding the program based on this issue. Page 4 of 5 Council Member Armenta emphasized the importance of public input in the decision -making process. She noted that the item was brought forward to hear perspectives from residents and suggested that outreach and public meetings could help gauge broader community feedback. She acknowledged that a group of residents had expressed a need for assistance with parking, but stated that the ultimate decision rests with the Council. She described the discussion as a matter for consideration and reflection. Mayor Ly suggested that the topic be continued to a future meeting to allow for input from Council Member Dang. He recommended that if the Council decides to proceed, a committee should be established to conduct further outreach, gather community feedback, and evaluate the program. The committee would be responsible for assessing whether the permit program is appropriate and, if so, determining its structure and implementation details. Council Member Low stated that she is open to further exploring the residential parking permit program. She acknowledged the need for such a program but expressed concerns regarding potential expansion, noting that if it is implemented in one area, other areas particularly near commercial zones, may also request similar restrictions to limit non-resident parking. She further noted a concern regarding enforcement, specifically that permit holders may fail to properly display their permits, which could result in citations despite compliance with the program. Council Member Armenta emphasized that the program is not a single solution and could have broader implications affecting other areas. She expressed appreciation for the collaborative discussion among Council Members and stated that the ultimate decision should reflect what is collectively best for the City of Rosemead and its residents. Council Member Low highlighted the importance of considering long-term effects and potential unintended consequences when evaluating policy changes, rather than focusing solely on immediate or isolated problems. Mayor Ly recommended tabling the item until the full Council is present to allow for input from all members, including Council Member Dang. He further noted that when the item is brought back for future discussion, the Council could consider appointing a committee to conduct additional research, evaluate options, and potentially develop a formal policy regarding the residential parking permit program. End of draft minute excerpt Page 5 of 5