Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking Lot E topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines to meter Lot E after residents and businesses raise spillover concerns
Summary
Staff recommended metering Lot E (25 spaces) off Pacific Coast Highway; council voted to take no action after public commenters and some council members said meters could push cars into neighborhoods and yield less revenue than projected.
The Hermosa Beach City Council declined to meter Lot E (the 25‑space city lot between Second and Third streets along Pacific Coast Highway) on Sept. 30, voting to take no action on staff’s recommendation.
Staff had presented Lot E as the only city‑owned lot not currently metered or deed‑restricted and estimated the cost to prepare and meter the lot at roughly $30,000 (about $20,000 for ADA grading and roughly $8,000 for a single multi‑space meter plus installation). Using a comparator (Lot D), staff estimated annual revenue at about $50,000 if Lot E were metered; staff also noted occupancy observations of roughly 64% during spot checks.
In public comment residents and business owners disputed the revenue projection and warned of spillover into nearby residential streets and CVS parking if Lot E became paid. Several speakers said the lot often serves customers for nearby bars and restaurants and that metering could deter those patrons or push parking into neighborhoods; others argued the lot is already well used and questioned enforcement capacity. One commenter noted that Lot G — a nearby city lot — generates far less revenue, and suggested Lot E’s practical revenue might be closer to $12,500 annually rather than the $50,000 staff estimate.
Councilmember Francois moved that the council take no action on Lot E; Mayor Pro Tem De Toit seconded. The motion carried 4–1, with Councilmember Jackson voting no. Councilmembers who supported no action cited uncertain revenue, possible negative impacts to local businesses and residents, and enforcement/spillover concerns. Councilmembers who opposed the motion argued the lot is frequently used, has value as a managed resource and could generate revenue and turnover if properly enforced.
Staff said metering Lot E would trigger ADA improvements and the purchase and installation of a multi‑space meter; enforcement could later be assisted by planned license‑plate‑reader technology, but those systems are not yet fully deployed.
Outcome: Lot E remains an unmetered city lot; staff may revisit metering if council directs a different approach or if further data changes the revenue/impact assessment.
