Redondo Beach council debates raising FAR, easing parking and allowing mixed use to revive Artesia-Aviation corridor

Redondo Beach city staff laid out policy options for revitalizing the Artesia‑Aviation corridor, telling the City Council that increasing the allowed floor‑area ratio (FAR) and removing some on‑site parking requirements are central levers to encourage redevelopment.

City staff and the council said the corridor’s small parcel sizes and current parking and open‑space rules have discouraged investment. Community Development Director Mark Weiner told the council that small lots can’t practically accommodate the parking that would be required under a 1.5 FAR without expensive solutions — “you would need to go three levels deep with a parking structure,” he said, and estimated a garage could exceed $10,000,000 for an illustrative corner lot. Weiner presented study examples showing how a 6,500‑square‑foot lot at current code yields a small two‑story building and that higher FARs quickly create parking deficits unless alternative parking strategies are used.

The staff presentation recommended a menu of changes: raising the FAR from the current 0.6 toward 1.5 (an amount covered by the environmental impact report the council certified last year), permitting three stories (roughly 36–45 feet depending on final story heights), eliminating the 10% on‑site open‑space requirement for these small parcels, and allowing vertical mixed use (residential above commercial) while adopting design standards so ground floors remain active retail or hospitality. To address parking shortfalls, staff proposed removing or substantially reducing on‑site parking requirements and replacing them with one or more mitigation tools such as an in‑lieu parking fee, shared‑parking programs, valet or mechanical parking options, or city‑owned consolidated parking funded by an in‑lieu bank.

Why it matters: Artesia Boulevard is a primary commercial corridor in Redondo Beach and councilmembers said revitalization could expand local business activity and city revenues. Many property owners along the corridor are long‑term holders of small parcels whose redevelopment incentives are limited under current code. Councilmembers framed the discussion as an effort to remove regulatory barriers that deter investment while retaining the ability to “pivot” if results prove problematic.

Council debate and public comments: Council members debated the pace and degree of change. Some members pushed for bold action — including temporarily granting higher FARs or fee relief as incentives to accelerate redevelopment — while others urged caution about adding residential uses that historically have not always supported strong ground‑floor commercial performance. Several council members said they would back eliminating or substantially reducing parking requirements for commercial uses if the city simultaneously builds or facilitates shared parking and other demand management programs.

Members of the public and business groups largely supported changes to spur investment. Hudson Hochbrand urged vacancy fees and changes to Measure D to make local planning decisions more responsive to neighboring districts; representatives of the North Redondo Beach Business Association and organizers of the Dine Around Artesia event said more people are willing to walk the corridor and favored measures that increase pedestrian activity. Residents and business owners urged the council to adopt signage and design standards and to use interim, low‑cost public space interventions such as parklets and street closures for events.

State law and housing‑law considerations: Staff noted state housing laws referenced in the agenda — AB 2011 and SB 6 — that can allow housing on commercial corridors under some circumstances and said the council could retain more local control by adopting a mixed‑use land‑use allowance on its own terms (for example, by requiring commercial on the ground floor and reserving residential for upper floors). Planning staff and the city attorney said they will analyze how state laws and density‑bonus rules would interact with any local code changes.

Council direction and next steps: Councilmembers generally instructed staff to return with more detailed zoning code language and ordinance options. Several members said items that can be implemented quickly — signage rules, rooftop‑dining standards, elimination or reduction of on‑site parking requirements, and a targeted property‑maintenance ordinance — should be prioritized and brought back to the council and to the Planning Commission without waiting for an Article XXVII (land‑use) election. Staff said a formal land‑use amendment adopting an increased FAR would follow the policy direction and could be scheduled for a citywide vote in a future election cycle; staff also said it will return to the council in September with draft code amendments and incentive options (for example, temporary fee reductions or phased FAR incentives) for council review.

Ending: Councilmembers emphasized a desire to be “bold” but reversible: multiple speakers said any change should be possible to scale back if parking or other problems emerge once redevelopment begins. Staff will prepare draft ordinances and implementation options and return to the council for further direction.