Redondo Beach council introduces ordinance to remove parking minimums in Artesia–Aviation corridor

The Redondo Beach City Council on Oct. 14 introduced for first reading Ordinance No. 3306-25, a measure to remove minimum off-street parking requirements for nonresidential properties in the Artesia and Aviation Corridors area plan and to establish a limited process for allowing parking at the front of a property only under specific findings.

Community Development Director Mark Weiner told the council the proposal implements direction the council gave in prior meetings to encourage development and revitalization along the Artesia–Aviation (ACAP) corridor by eliminating on-site parking mandates for nonresidential uses. He described two procedural options staff drafted for how a property might be allowed to locate parking at the front of a lot: one that would require an administrative use permit (AUP) or a conditional use permit (CUP) and all three prescribed findings, and a second, circulated as a blue-folder alternative, that would require only an AUP and two of the three findings. "It really, in my opinion, makes more sense to have it be the 2 of the 3 findings rather than all 3," Weiner said about the blue-folder version.

Under either option, staff said, any parking placed at the front of a property would need to be screened and mitigated with landscaping and design measures to minimize visual impact. The three findings staff drafted are: (1) that site constraints make rear parking infeasible, (2) that a business operation justifies front parking, and (3) that front parking would be screened to minimize visual impacts. In the blue-folder option the screening finding would be required in all cases and either site constraints or business operations could independently justify a front‑of‑building allowance.

Weiner said the planning commission reviewed the draft and recommended an outright prohibition on front-of-property parking, along with several related recommendations: limit driveway widths to improve the pedestrian environment, explore possible off-site parking locations or structures for the corridor, retain (or add) cross-box markings at certain intersections, and develop a right-of-way plan that addresses curbside parking. Council members discussed those recommendations but favored keeping a lower barrier to development by allowing a narrowly constrained administrative process for exceptions.

Council member Darren Barrett (Mayor Pro Tem) said the change is intended to "go bold on Artesia Boulevard and Aviation" to energize the corridor while preserving the council's ability to act later if parking problems arise. Council member H. Obagi asked staff to make clear that locating parking "to the rear of or beneath the primary building or structure on the lot" would satisfy the rear-parking preference, explicitly allowing underground parking where appropriate.

Several members of the public addressed the council during the hearing. Theresa Mitchell, a District 4 resident who said she has professional experience in planning and land development, urged the council to prohibit front parking and prioritize street‑fronting buildings and pedestrian space. "I definitely support the elimination of parking," Mitchell said, adding that driveway aprons reduce space for street trees, bike racks and buffers.

After public comment and council discussion, the council voted to introduce Ordinance No. 3306-25 for first reading, incorporating the blue-folder option that requires an AUP and two of the three findings for front parking, and inserting the words "or beneath" after "rear of" to clarify that rear or underground parking satisfies the rear-location preference. The motion also directed staff to return driveway-apron and driveway-width issues to the Public Works Safety and Sustainability Commission for study and recommendation.

The ordinance was introduced by title only and will return to the council for second reading and possible adoption at a subsequent meeting. Staff noted that if the council selects the blue-folder option tonight, the ordinance can proceed to second reading on the next agenda; if the council makes broader substantive changes beyond the rear‑parking language, additional review will be necessary.

The discussion built on previous council direction given in August and a September review of the ACAP land use element. Staff also said they had circulated the draft to external reviewers, including the UCLA Center for Parking Policy; public comments at the meeting referenced that outreach and the potential for academic interest in a before-and-after study of the policy change.

The change affects nonresidential uses within the Artesia and Aviation Corridors area plan; council members and speakers emphasized the policy aims to encourage new businesses and investment while keeping design and pedestrian safety considerations in mind.