Out of the Blue: We aren’t obligated to create a parking lot

For years Laguna Beach has been held back from making meaningful changes to its infrastructure by the notion that the California Coastal Commission will not allow the city to remove parking without replacing each and every spot, thereby safeguarding fair beach access for all.

This made perfect sense when it came to development along the beach in the 1970s and ‘80s that relegated access to the privileged few. But it doesn’t make sense for today’s cities seeking to reduce traffic and parking by getting more people to the beach through multimodal options.

Last week the City Council told us the one thing we could all agree on was the need to beautify the gateway to our city. And that the primary reason for the five-story parking structure was to replace the 400 ground-level spaces we would lose through our beautification project. So the project is ostensibly a park that must have a garage as an offset requirement of the Coastal Commission.

Only nobody bothered to contact the Coastal Commission. Had officials checked, they would have discovered that the commission no longer requires replacement parking because of the need for compliance with the California Complete Streets mandate.

The commission’s main focus is still to ensure beach access. Only now its wants want more walkability, bike-ability and public transit and fewer autos, exactly what our community so desperately needs.

Here it is, in plain view on the website. Section 30252 of the commission’s 2013 California Coastal Act (the Public Resource Code on Development), states: “The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by (1) facilitating the provision or extension of transit service; (2) providing commercial facilities within or adjoining residential development or in other areas that will minimize the use of coastal access roads; (3) providing non-automobile circulation within the development; (4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation.”

California is simply enacting what so many cities have already done. Take a holiday to Paris, New York, San Francisco or our sister city, Menton, France, and you’ll see the positive effects of this — an increase in tourism, accessibility, retail sales and the sheer joy of being in a place that’s more livable.

Even our neighboring coastal cities have jumped on the multimodal bandwagon. Corona del Mar and Dana Point are coming from behind and developing larger pedestrian sidewalks, plazas and bike-friendly routes through town. Even Anaheim has bike rental kiosks now.

It just makes good economic, environmental and efficient sense. Every local or visitor who can easily walk, bike or trolley to downtown means one less parking space needed.

Do we need more parking? Without a doubt. But should 200 additional parking spots require $45 million to $65 million? Heck no. Especially if it’s just to gain a park.

Look, we all know the entrance is a blight. But to spend a disproportionate amount of our parking revenue in one place that is fraught with so many obstacles is irresponsible.

We could just put some lipstick on that pig by removing the one row of parking nearest Laguna Canyon Road, plant some trees, put in a nice fence, create an attractive bike and pedestrian path to the Sawdust Festival grounds, and call the Village Entrance project a day — for well under $1 million. Then let’s get cracking on a broad, unified plan to create more parking outside of town, and more multimodal ways in.

Is Act V the answer for parking? Probably one of several. We also need north and south periphery parking. Plus we need to underground the power lines and create a comprehensive pedestrian and bike plan that runs through town, out the canyon, and leads to our crown jewel, the Forest Avenue pedestrian plaza.

Call it Forest Avenue Beautification, or FAB. It’s in much more dire need of beautification and of much more benefit to everyone.

Many who have served and others who still sit on the City Council have expressed support for this idea, but none have pursued it because of the alleged Death Star grip of the Coastal Commission. Now that we know the truth, isn’t it time we get it on the agenda, perhaps on a trial basis?

The truth is, urban planners are now seeing the ill effects of our slavish devotion to car convenience, and how prioritizing cars over people subordinates the human experience, creates isolation, detracts from community interaction, pollutes and is bad for our health. Plus oil supplies are dwindling, so we better get used to alternative transport.

Planners have also discovered that pedestrian plazas actually benefit merchants because patrons linger longer. Think about it. The first thing people do when visiting cities is seek out their urban plaza — the city center where you sip a coffee al fresco, meet and greet, browse the stores and watch the pageantry of people flow by.

It’s fun and lovely to be in an environment free of noise and exhaust. But dining today on Forest Avenue means sitting inside and staring at rows of hood ornaments and windshields. We can do better.

I was a little dismayed to hear the advocates of the Village Entrance Project say that last Tuesday’s meeting was hostile and undignified. I guess they haven’t seen our federal government at work — or Britain’s.

I thought the proceedings were tame and civilized. People were simply expressing impassioned opinions.

I certainly hope in the months ahead we can come together as a community. I hope the council listens to the many points of view and that the community listens to the council and the experts it hires as well.

And then let’s all rise above the rancor and be a part of something historic that changes the destiny of the town we all love.

BILLY FRIED is the chief paddling officer of La Vida Laguna and member of the board of Transition Laguna. He can be reached at billy@lavidalaguna.com.