Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing Parking topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council debate spotlights parking shortfall concerns for downtown transit‑oriented apartments

La Mesa City Council · July 29, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council member Lothian raised concerns that a proposed Allison & Palm project (114 apartments / 158 bedrooms, 72 parking spaces) falls short of local parking standards and could add hundreds of cars to the downtown area; staff explained density‑bonus provisions and the project was processed through the Design Review Board.

Council member Lothian pulled a consent item to spotlight parking shortfalls for a new Allison & Palm apartment development and to press staff for remedies the city could pursue.

Lothian cited project figures presented at the meeting: "This new apartment building is gonna have 114 apartments, 158 bedrooms, and 72 parking spaces," and said La Mesa's code would normally require about 2.4 spaces per bedroom. Lothian argued the city could end up absorbing parking demand from multiple transit‑oriented projects and urged staff and the parking commission to act to create 50–100 additional spaces through measures such as converting small parcels into parking, reconfiguring lots and eliminating unnecessary curb restrictions.

Staff and the city attorney explained that, because the development used state density‑bonus provisions and is transit‑oriented, minimum parking requirements can be waived and the proposal was reviewed through the Design Review Board rather than a typical planning commission process. The city attorney advised the council that it could vote not to ratify the DRB decision but recommended careful legal grounds before doing so; past non‑ratifications had drawn state attention. Council members acknowledged the tension between encouraging housing and protecting village character and asked the parking commission to expedite options.

No final change to the project was made at the meeting; the discussion was recorded as a substantive council concern to be considered by staff and the parking commission.