The article you’re about to read is from our reporters doing their important work — investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers’ businesses have been impacted. That’s why the DP Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.

DP logoCindy Fleming, Dana Point

Parking is a topic at nearly every Dana Point City Council meeting. It was very instrumental in the creation of Measure H and remains a concern. The passage of Measure H increased the number of parking spaces required by Dana Point Town Center businesses and restaurants to pre-September 2015 numbers, but did not provide a solution to the parking issues.

As the Doheny Village Plan is being created it faces the same parking issues as the Town Center Plan. Can a walkable, pedestrian-friendly village that attracts customers and invites them to stroll and linger also provide adequate nearby parking? Does the requirement for restaurants and businesses to provide parking for their employees and customers increase the cost to the point that it is economically unfeasible to build, own and operate businesses in these areas?

Dana Point is not breaking new ground by creating villages within the city; this has been successfully accomplished dozens of time in other cities, but Dana Point does face the additional challenge of trying to do this in areas with Coastal Commission jurisdiction.

A walkable, pedestrian-friendly village with adequate parking for employees and customers is possible. Eliminating parking beside restaurants and shops removes the need for cars to cross the sidewalks and allows buildings to be located closer together.

By providing a limited number of on-site spaces, under or behind the business, and providing the complement of required spaces at a shared public parking facility, the land use is improved, the per-space parking cost is reduced and customers can park once and enjoy eating and shopping at several businesses. The key is providing the shared public parking facility and making it attractive for shops and restaurants to locate nearby.

Restaurants, retail shops and businesses cannot operate in the Dana Point area without parking for their employees and customers. Even adding multi-tenant residences within these areas will not significantly reduce the parking needs. Limiting the number of on-site parking spaces and providing parking at a central parking facility makes for far better use of the land reducing land-cost per customer. The per-space cost of a central facility should be less than on-site parking facilities because of scale and because the number of entrances is greatly reduced. Each development will require an economic analysis, but business success requires parking and central parking improves land utilization and reduces per-space cost, both of which contribute to the bottom line.

Traffic, parking and noise are the primary concerns of nearby residents when an adjacent commercial area is developed. If the traffic from the commercial area does not pass through the residential neighborhoods, and adequate convenient parking is provided within the commercial areas, the negative impact on the surrounding residential neighborhoods should be minimal.  Parking restrictions in the residential neighborhoods might be necessary to make them less convenient than the central parking, but adequate convenient central parking is the key.  Commercial parking from the restaurants and other businesses in the Town Center is already encroaching into the adjacent residential neighborhoods and this problem will only get worse as the number as the businesses in the Town Center increase.

The residential neighborhood south of Del Prado to the bluff is in the Coastal Commission’s jurisdiction and parking rules that limit public access to the coast are not acceptable. However, all the parks in this area that provide views of or access to the coast are closed from 10 p.m.-6 a.m. so the Coastal Commission is likely to approve resident-only parking restriction during these hours. The residential neighborhood north of the PCH is not in Coastal Commission jurisdiction so more options are available but making more stringent restrictions in one neighborhood than the other will just force more of the encroachment from north of the PCH to south of Del Prado. Resident-only parking restrictions from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. in all the residential neighborhoods surrounding the Town Center will eliminate the late-night noise created by employees and customers parking in these neighborhoods. These restrictions will also make it easier to enforce the closure of the parks/overlooks in these areas reducing vandalism and other nuisance factors.

The City of Dana Point has shown the right vision in the 2008 Town Center Plan and in starting on the Doheny Village Plan. By working with all parties, residents, businesses, restaurants, developers and the Coastal Commission, this vision can be realized. Let’s not get bogged down over issues that can be addressed!

To submit a Letter to the Editor, send us an email at

Trustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

About The Author Dana Point Times

comments (3)

  • Parking is a fertility drug for the automobile…

    • Gezz…enough with the parking . ​A bunch of old people complaining about lack parking and noise can’t have a viable “downtown” with out the two. Leave your car at home, take an uber . Promote uber or cab discounts through the local businesses in the area. That’s what I do going into Laguna, SC or even the summer concert series ! Why even hassle with it

  • This is beyond ridiculous already! The stubborn narrow-minded mentality of those who would rather have empty lots decreasing our home values than allow the plan to go forward to build a vibrant beautiful town where businesses can flourish? And help our existing businesses! And our town center can develop into generating money for our community rather than putting it into our neighboring cities pockets is beyond frustrating! Stopping growth! Rather than progressing and beautifying our town how dare them, they would rather see empty lots talk about WASTE!! Of our dollars!!! We pay good money to be here near the water and wasting valuable land where our townspeople and visitors can shop, and dine is an outrage!! There are weeds and empty lots? Hope you all are proud of your foolshish selves! Let fresh ideas come in and instead of ganging up on growing our town! Our own town reps. Professionals who have worked so hard, and while they’re hammering every idea to the ground instead of allowing it to becoming a more vibrant town why don’t you volunteer to help others in need and volunteer to help children, or an actual cause if you have nothing better to do with your lives than destroy years of trying to progress into an actual walkable pedestrian town like our neighbors have! A place to come together instead of dividing everyone and causing chaos!! Get a life!! Try serving others instead of being stuck in your old narrow ways! No one is trying to destroy the town they will preserve charm and height variances, they’re only trying to bring it to life to make it better! Trying to revive it! Just disgusting already!! Appalling!!!

comments (3)

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>