San Clemente planners present parking study; commissioners table major decisions to February

San Clemente planners on Wednesday summarized a year-long parking and transportation analysis and recommended a menu of options — from modest permit and meter changes to better enforcement and longer-term modernization — but the advisory commission stopped short of directing implementation, voting to table major decisions until February.

Zach Reedman, the city's principal planner, told the Beaches, Parks & Recreation Commission the study grew from roughly four days of direct data collection in January and July, supplemented by consultant analysis funded through a $250,000 Coastal Commission grant. Reedman said occupancy across study areas averaged roughly 50—60 percent, with peak summer areas reaching about 85 percent, and noted turnover patterns show many users park for two hours or less while a significant share park for longer periods.

The study also quantified current revenues and enforcement patterns. "We bring in about $1,700,000 in revenue between the meters and the passes," Reedman said, adding citation revenue runs "about $600,000." He reported about 4,000 resident parking permits were sold last year, generating roughly $230,000, and noted 10,444 parking citations were written in the prior year, with an average gross citation around $58—62.

Reedman outlined options: expanding volunteer or park ranger enforcement, modest permit or nonresident fee increases, time-limit restructuring to encourage turnover, improved wayfinding and shuttles to reduce parking demand, and modernization of parking devices. He emphasized the city is not proposing automated license-plate readers at this time: "We're not proposing automated license plate meters at this time," he said, and characterized ALPRs as a consultant-suggested option that could be examined in a longer-term (five-year) window.

Public commenters and several commissioners expressed skepticism about revenue-driven solutions. "These studies ... are saying we don't have a parking problem," resident Chris Dean said, contending most demand appears confined to short peak periods and warning against changes that would make beach parking harder. Resident Chris Kane cautioned about privacy and surveillance risks tied to automated systems and questioned whether the city needs the expense.

Commissioners asked for additional appendices and targeted analysis about how proposed changes would affect beach access, parklets and downtown businesses. One motion asked staff to return with a shorter packet directly answering those questions and to include parks in the scope of follow-up work. The commission then voted to table the item until a future meeting in February so staff can supply the requested detail.

Next steps: staff said they will return with a slimmer packet and direct responses to commissioner questions at the February meeting and can present updated material to the planning commission and city council as the package is finalized.

Actions and votes recorded at the meeting included a motion to table the draft parking and transportation plan for additional analysis on beach access and parks; commissioners approved the motion. The commission also received public comment opposing automated license plate readers and asking the city to prioritize shuttles and other demand-management over broad enforcement increases.