McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: I oppose Item 25 - Parking Code Update
Attachments: Comments regarding Item 25.pdf
From: John Thomas
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2026 4:55 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Kiff, Dave CM < [email protected]>; McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]>; Orgill, Mark <[email protected]>; Jones, Hallie < [email protected]>; Whalen, Bob <[email protected]>; Kempf, Sue <[email protected]>; Rounaghi, Alex <[email protected]>
Subject: I oppose Item 25 - Parking Code Update
Item 25 - CITYWIDE PARKING CODE UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND TEMPORARY OUTDOOR DINING
TRANSITION PLAN
I oppose the proposed amendment to Laguna's parking requirements.
It is a bad idea. It is a flawed concept. It relies on magical thinking.
And it's being discussed, literally, in the dark of night.
It encourages intensification of land use: The proposal encourages intensification of land uses without mitigation of the resulting negative impacts. It may result in a windfall for commercial property owners at the expense of some of Laguna's businesses and most of our residents. It will increase demand for a finite or, possibly shrinking number of parking spaces without increasing the supply of parking spaces, and actually allowing for a reduction in parking spaces. It will likely result in less parking being available for customers of less intense retail businesses and more intense users crowding out less intense users.
The study methodology is flawed. It ignores the parking spillover from commercial areas into residential areas. It is as if the study was done wearing blinders. It measures use of the existing parking spaces in a defined area. It ignores the fact that commercial building employees and customers people park outside the defined areas.
You can't count more spaces being used than there are spaces that exist. So, any count of use will result in a number lower than the number of spaces that exist. It treats the number of spaces used in a defined area as the number of spaces used in total, but it does not look at spillover outside the defined commercial areas - into nearby residential areas. And that is a major irritant for residents near commercial areas - customers and employees of commercial businesses parking far into residential areas.
Think of it this way - there are more workers than parking spaces. Compare the number of people working in Laguna businesses to the number of spaces identified in this study. There are over 10,000 people working in Laguna businesses and there are about 4,000 spaces in the all of Laguna's metered and paid areas. There aren't even enough parking spaces for all the workers alone - not including customers or beach goers.
Blended parking works when there is a single commercial owner with multiple density uses like in a shopping center. It does not work in areas with disparate ownership. Blend parking takes from the low intensity uses and gives to the high intensity uses. It's like rob from the poor and give to the rich.
Who is supposed to benefit? The only people I can think of who might benefit will be commercial property owners, and absentee landlords who may think that they will be able to intensify their use, and therefore increase the rent they charge. And we already hear enough complaints about rents being too high. But increasing intensification will lead to more traffic, parking and congestion - problems that we already know we have plenty of This proposal would allow increased commercial development without requiring private developers to mitigate the negative impact that they create. But it is also possible that even commercial building owners will not benefit. How do you rent a building that does not have adequate parking? Allowing more intense uses with a finite or shrinking supply of actual parking, So, if commercial building owners have a harder time leasing space, be prepared for more complaints about all the vacancies we have.
Will this lead to an outcry for the public to provide more parking since private development has been let off the hook? Ultimately, high intensity users will overwhelm low intensity users. And that will eventually lead to a cry for the city to provide more parking spaces. That would amount to a shift of what should be a private development obligation onto the public - a shift of the burden from where it should be with the private developer to where it should not be - onto the public. This is a gift of resident funds to commercial property owners. Private development needs to mitigate the negative impacts that private development causes. This proposal totally ignores that. It is a misguided idea.
The city needs to increase public awareness: Finally, this would be a major change and there is little public awareness of this. I encourage the council to not direct staff at this time to proceed to an ordinance. Instead, to raise public awareness, I suggest the city hold workshops and/or townhalls on this topic. When the public understands the implications of this, I suspect there will be substantial opposition. We need to better think through the implications of this action before proceeding. Somebody is playing checkers when they should be playing chess.
2