Parking
Implementation
Plan
Prepared for:
City of Redondo Beach
July 2023
LB21-0032
Table of Contents
Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................................4 Existing Conditions......................................................................................................................................................................5 Projecting Future Parking Needs...........................................................................................................................................7 Public/Community Input.........................................................................................................................................................10 Parking Management Strategies..........................................................................................................................................12 Near-Term Strategies.......................................................................................................................................................12 Potential Long-Term Strategies ...................................................................................................................................21 Summary & Recommendations ...........................................................................................................................................24 List of Figures
Figure 1. AACAP Area .........................................................................................................................................................................5 Figure 2. AACAP Activity Nodes .....................................................................................................................................................9 Figure 3. Community Workshop Results..................................................................................................................................11 List of Tables
Table 1. Parking Ratios by Land Use as Compared to Nearby Jurisdictions.................................................................7 Table 2. AACAP Recommended Parking Ratios for Preferred Uses .............................................................................. 17 Table 3. AACAP Parking Supply, Existing & Future Demand..............................................................................................9 Table 4: Summary of Parking Management Strategies...................................................................................................... 24 4 Introduction
Artesia and Aviation Boulevard are prominent commercial corridors serving North Redondo Beach. While other areas of the City (such as Riviera Village) have undergone revitalization and enhancement in recent years, the Artesia and Aviation Corridors have largely been overlooked in this regard. In response to this, the City adopted the Artesia & Aviation Corridors Area Plan (AACAP)1 on December 8, 2020, providing a suite of implementable strategies aimed at revitalizing the corridors. A vital piece of the direction provided by the AACAP focuses on transportation, with particular emphasis on parking.
Since parking is and will remain a key factor in supporting the existing uses and planning future development in the AACAP area, this Parking Implementation Plan (PIP) provides specific recommendations for the City to manage its parking resources such that it can maintain optimum parking supply while removing existing and future barriers to development, placemaking, and connectivity. The PIP is driven by the goals of the AACAP and has been further refined based on input received from community members, City staff, and the City Council.
1 AACAP, RESOLUTION NO. CC-2010-074, December 8, 2020,
https://www.redondo.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=38777.
Purpose
A parking implementation plan is intended to comprehensively address challenges with balancing parking supply and demand, particularly in a downtown or mixed-use area. Historically, cities have sought to address parking issues through an increase in supply, often resulting in the construction of additional surface lots or parking structures. This approach can be very costly as a parking structure may cost upwards of $35,000 per parking space to construct before accounting for annual operational costs.
Instead of addressing only supply, a parking implementation plan addresses the demand for parking, through both the management of existing parking spaces and adding to the parking supply if doing so becomes necessary. In addition, a parking implementation plan outlines actions needed for parkingrelated improvements, such as adjusting parking requirements to better suit present conditions and maximizing space and efficiency by allowing flexible on-site parking configurations.
Existing Conditions
Figure 1. AACAP Area
Source: AACAP, 2020.
A parking study2 was conducted in 2019 to quantify the existing on- and off-street parking supply within the AACAP area (see Figure 1), as well as the peak weekday and weekend parking demand. The study 2 Fehr & Peers, Artesia-Aviation Area Plan Parking Study – Existing Conditions, 2019. 6 found that both on- and off-street parking were underutilized, suggesting that parking is currently oversupplied within the AACAP area.3
Parking surveys were conducted on a weekday and a weekend day in December 2018, capturing peak parking activity along the corridors with an emphasis on retail uses. The AACAP corridors stretch approximately 1.9 miles along Artesia and Aviation Boulevards and include portions of adjacent sidestreets. The non-residential land uses within the AACAP boundary include retail, service, office, automotive, restaurant, hotel, and institutional uses. Residential uses were assumed to generally be selfparked and thus were not further considered in the analysis.
The study area encompassed all available on-street parking and 88 private off-street parking lots within the AACAP boundary. The supply generally consists of small, segregated, and privately-owned parking lots. The total parking supply is 2,877 spaces within the AACAP area:
• On-Street Spaces: 688
• Off-Street Spaces: 2,189
Overall, the parking supply within the AACAP area was more than adequate to accommodate existing demand. Ideally, an efficiently parked area would be approximately 85% utilized, with a 15% vacant space buffer to prevent vehicles from circulating for prolonged periods of time to find available spaces. The maximum observed on-street occupancy was 68% and the maximum observed off-street occupancy was 50% within the AACAP area. Further analysis found that the peak parking demand for retail and services along the corridor was less than half of what would be expected based on Urban Land Institute (ULI) ratios.4 This analysis showcased that current parking demand is substantially less than both the existing supply and the predicted demand based on the existing land uses in the AACAP area.
Parking Requirements
An analysis of parking requirements in nearby jurisdictions found that Redondo Beach’s minimum parking requirements were similar to, or higher, as compared to peer cities. Parking requirements, also known as parking ratios, dictate the amount of parking required by land use. For example, Redondo Beach requires parking to be provided at similar rates compared to Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach, but generally requires more parking than the Venice Coastal Zone, the City of Beverly Hills, and the City of Pasadena.
Table 1 below presents the existing parking ratios for the dominant land uses in the AACAP area for the City of Redondo Beach and other nearby cities.
3 It is important to note that these parking counts were collected in 2018 prior to the pandemic. 4 A variety of factors can contribute to the difference between the observed demand on the corridors and the ULI ratios, including the possibility of vacant units in shared commercial buildings or differences in peak parking demand for particular uses when the counts were collected. The ULI provides parking demand data based on land use rates across the United States and publishes these studies in their Shared Parking manual (2020).
Table 1. Parking Ratios by Land Use as Compared to Nearby Jurisdictions City/Land Use Redondo
Beach
Los Angeles
Venice Coastal
Zone
Beverly
Hills
Hermosa
Beach
Long Beach
Coastal Zone
Manhattan
Beach Pasadena
Commercial 1 per 250 SF N/A 1 per 350 SF 1 per 250 SF
to 1 per 333 SF 1 per 200 SF 1 per 200 SF to 250 SF N/A Office 1 per 300 SF 1 per 500 SF N/A 1 per 250 SF
to 1 per 333 SF 1 per 250 SF 1 per 300 SF 1 per 333 SF
Medical/Dental
Office
1 per 150 for
medical/dental 1 per 200 SF
1 per 200 SF
to 1 per 350
SF
1 per 200 SF to
1 per 333 SF
1 per 250 SF to
1 per 500 SF 1 per 200 SF 1 per 250 SF
Restaurant 1 per 75 SF
1 per 200 SF
(<1,000)
1 per 100 SF
1 per 350 SF
(Business
Triangle)
1 per 50 SF
to 1 per 100 SF 1 per 100 SF 1 per 50 SF 1 per 100 SF
Hotel Room 1 per room
1 per room
(first 30)
+ 0.5 per room
(next 30)
+ 0.25 per
room
(remaining)
1 per room
1 per room
(first 50)
+ 1 per 1.5
rooms (next 50)
+ 1 per 2
rooms
(remaining)
1 per room
1.1 per room
with an
additional 1 per
50 SF
1 space per
room
Hotel Other
Uses
1 per 100 SF of
banquet/
restaurant/
gathering area
25 per 1,000 SF
meeting rooms
or 0.2 per fixed
seat
N/A
Other uses will
provide parking
as stated by
each use’s
parking ratio
Other uses will
provide parking
as stated by
each use’s
parking ratio
Other uses will
provide parking
as stated by
each use’s
parking ratio
10 spaces per
1000 SF of
banquet/
restaurant/
gathering area
or 1 space per 8
fixed seats
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022.
Projecting Future Parking Needs
The first step in calculating the future demand for parking in the AACAP area was to obtain the existing land use data from the City and determine any changes in land use since the collection of the December 2018 parking count data.5 The ULI shared parking model was then used to estimate the current parking demand and calibrate the model for Year 2022 conditions to match existing conditions. Fehr & Peers calibrated the ULI model downward by 10% to account for actual counted demand being lower than the model would predict. However, this calibration factor is conservative in that demand was found to be between 17-35% lower.
5 For example, the CVS/Grocery Outlet on Artesia Boulevard was constructed after the parking surveys were completed and reflects a significant addition to off-street parking supply. 8 Once the parking demand model was calibrated, future parking demand was estimated based on the amount of future development, the type of future development, and the location of future development within the AACAP. The key assumptions were as follows:
• Redevelopment preferred around activity nodes as identified by the AACAP (see Figure 2). • Proposed 0.5 to 0.6 FAR increase within the AACAP area • Office and dining as preferred land uses for redevelopment Parcels within the corridors were identified by City Staff and presumed to redevelop to office (50%) and dining (50%) uses for the purpose of the shared parking analysis. The methodology utilized for determining a future AACAP area land use mix was based on emulating a similar mix/ratio of land uses existing in the Riviera Village. As a result of this comparative analysis of land use mix ratios, the opportunities for redevelopment focused upon existing automotive and service commercial uses. For the determined locations, the built square footage of these parcels was grown by 20% over existing conditions to account for the 0.5 to 0.6 FAR increase.
Three model scenarios were developed to account for future mobility changes that may reduce parking demand. Factors analyzed included autonomous vehicles (AVs), telecommuting, transportation network companies (TNCs, Uber/Lyft), online shopping, transit recovery, and micromobility adoption (e-scooters and e-bikes).6 For example, autonomous vehicles are predicted to reduce parking demand because they would likely continue circulating after dropping off a passenger as opposed to parking. The three model scenarios were classified as higher, mid, and lower parking demand. A higher parking demand future assumes “business as usual”—that parking demand will increase over time (e.g., low levels of AVs and TNC utilization, less walking/biking/taking transit, lower telecommuting rates, etc.). In a lower parking demand future, the transportation environment of the corridors would transform significantly to reduce the need for parking (e.g., higher levels of AV and TNC utilization, more walking/biking/taking transit, higher telecommuting rates). Table 2 shows the estimated weekday and weekend parking demand in the AACAP area under each of the three model scenarios.
As shown in Table 2, if the existing parking supply is unchanged over time, no additional parking is needed to accommodate future development per the assumptions above if existing on-street parking is preserved under all three future scenarios.7 Under the higher parking demand future scenario, an additional 500 parking spaces may be needed if all on-street parking is removed and repurposed. In the mid-demand future scenario, an additional 290 parking spaces may be needed if all on-street parking is removed and repurposed. In the lower parking demand future, no additional parking supply will be needed, even if all on-street parking were to be removed and repurposed. Given the City’s intended direction and public input, the scenario that best fits the AACAP area’s needs is the mid demand future scenario, which assumes moderate increases in parking demand alongside moderate changes to mobility trends.
6 Analysis utilized Trendlab+ by Fehr & Peers.
7 For example, on-street parking could be removed as part of street right-of-way modifications.
Figure 2. AACAP Activity Nodes
Source: AACAP, 2020.
Table 2. AACAP Parking Supply, Existing & Future Demand Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022. Future demand includes a 15% supply buffer to allow for efficient parking access and circulation. Future estimates calibrated down by 10% to reflect existing demand/prior study & rounded to the nearest tenth. 10 Public/Community Input
To gather input from community stakeholders on the AACAP parking management strategies and best practices from nearby jurisdictions, an online community workshop was conducted in April 2022. A total of 216 community members provided feedback during the workshop (via an interactive polling exercise) or after (via online survey). Feedback from the public fell broadly into the following categories:
• On- & Off-Street Supply (garages & converting on-street parking) • Parking Benefit Districts (parking meters & local reinvestment of the collected funds) • Dynamic Monitoring (ongoing parking data collection and analysis) • Parking Flexibility (adjusting parking requirements & providing innovative options) Overall, community stakeholders were supportive of most of the parking management strategies that were presented, with the greatest interest in expanding the off-street supply through the construction of parking garages and implementing parking benefit districts (see Figure 3). The least popular measure was in-lieu fees, although 51% of respondents indicated they supported or felt neutral about this strategy.
Additionally, as mentioned above, community stakeholders felt the mid demand future scenario, which assumes moderate increases in parking demand alongside moderate changes to mobility trends, was the most appropriate scenario for the AACAP area. This PIP presents each of the strategies presented to the public in greater detail, evaluating them according to the categories and scenarios discussed abovealongside cost, public sentiment, and implementation.
Figure 3. Community Workshop Results
12 Parking Management Strategies
A variety of near- and long-term parking management strategies have been identified for implementation along the Artesia and Aviation corridors. Parking management strategies help prioritize options for increasing parking supply and managing the existing parking supply with greater efficiency and flexibility.
These strategies vary from management of existing parking spaces to changes in zoning requirements and can be used in isolation or in combination with other strategies as part of a larger management plan.
The strategies that were evaluated for this PIP are summarized below based on the relative time to implement.
Near-Term Strategies
• Valet Parking
• On-Site Parking Configuration
• Shared Parking
• Parking Requirements
• Parking Benefit District
• Data Collection
Long-Term Strategies
• Public Surface Lots or Garages
• In-Lieu Fees
Near-Term Strategies
On-Site Valet Parking
Valet parking, or attendant parking, allows for trained personnel to park vehicles on-site or nearby, typically with a greater efficiency than other drivers. With valet parking, a greater number of vehicles can be parked within the same facility because attendants are able to park in non-traditional spaces, such as drive aisles or in tandem parking arrangements. The cost of managing and operating a valet parking service would be the responsibility of the land uses associated with the valet parking operation.
Additionally, a valet parking operation would require approval from the City regarding a valet parking system using on-street parking and designated off-street parking facilities to operate. Other jurisdictions, such as Walnut Creek, have implemented employee valet parking as an option to developers to meet up to 20% of required parking in special districts.
Valet Parking
Type Parking Flexibility
Implementation Scale Project – Programmatic
Cost to City Low
Public Support High8
Redondo Beach City Code
Valet parking is not currently included in the City’s code in the context of reducing required parking. The example language below could be incorporated into the City’s code for the AACAP area.
Sample City: Walnut Creek, CA
As part of section 10-2.3.203 “Provisions for Common Loading and Parking, Parking Space Reduction and Office Parking,” valet parking is offered as an option for developers to help reduce the amount of parking required, provided that the location for valet does not severely impede on- or off-site traffic or pedestrian circulation. Includes provisions related to the on-site parking configuration parking strategy detailed below (e.g. tandem parking). This strategy is specifically implemented in the Downtown.
On-Site Parking Configuration
This strategy provides a suite of physical, site-specific options for developers to meet parking requirements including, but not limited to, tandem parking and mechanical parking systems. Mechanical parking systems (MPS) or automated parking systems (APS) use machines, lifts, elevators, or other mechanical devices to transport vehicles to and from parking spaces to eliminate much of the space that typically goes underutilized in a multi-story parking garage. Allowing for inventive parking configurations can increase parking supply without the need for constructing more parking. The cost of implementing such systems would be borne by the land uses associated with the systems and typically requires on-site 8 Community stakeholders were not polled specifically on this strategy but were broadly supportive of flexibility measures.
14 parking attendants to park and retrieve vehicles. Other jurisdictions, including Beverly Hills, have implemented such systems in commercial zones.
Parking Configuration
Type Parking Flexibility
Implementation Scale Project – Physical
Cost to City Low
Public Support High9
Redondo Beach City Code
Parking configurations (such as tandem parking or MPS) are currently not included in the City’s code as is relates to non-residential parking. The example language below could be incorporated into the City’s code for the AACAP area.
Sample City: Beverly Hills, CA
As part of section 10-3-2730.4 “Alternative Parking Facility,” mechanical parking systems are allowed, if they are located in a commercial zone on a property not exceeding 16,000 square feet. Alternative Parking Facilities are part of a pilot project specifically targeting luxury land uses in the City of Beverly Hills (e.g. retail and restaurant).
Some conditions of approval include: ensuring that the facility has an attendant, technical studies demonstrating no adverse impacts to surrounding uses (and to potential users), and providing back-up power in case of electrical outage.
Shared Parking
Many cities and counties have embraced the concept of shared parking as part of their zoning code to allow mixed-use projects to satisfy their parking requirements, including the City of Redondo Beach.
Shared parking can maximize the use and efficiency of existing parking facilities, reduce the need to 9 Community stakeholders were not polled specifically on this strategy, but broadly supportive of flexibility measures. provide more parking, and enables more compact development. To be successful, shared parking requires that each component of a shared parking agreement have complementary parking patterns (i.e., peak parking occupancy for each participating land use must occur at a different time of day). Additionally, shared parking agreements should be reviewed to ensure that parking demand does not exceed the available supply. Encouraging current and future developments to share parking facilities would increase parking efficiency and decrease the need to supply additional parking facilities.
Shared parking can be implemented in two ways: 1) contained within new, mixed-use developments, or 2) shared between planned and existing developments. This provision could encourage new development in the AACAP area and discourage projects from oversupplying parking. The cost of implementing shared parking agreements would be borne by the land uses associated with a given shared parking agreement.
Other jurisdictions, including Santa Monica, Pasadena, and Beverly Hills, have implemented shared parking. The City has sought to encourage shared parking agreements for uses within the AACAP area, but there have been barriers to implementation because the owners of accommodating lots must record by deed or covenant the parking spaces utilized by the other property.
Shared Parking
Type Parking Flexibility
Implementation Scale Project – Programmatic
Cost to City Low
Public Support High
16 Redondo Beach City Code
The City currently allows shared parking under Code section 10-2.1706 under subsection (d) “Overlap parking requirements, nonresidential uses.” Additionally, as part of allowing shared parking, the City requires a utilization survey and additional information to ensure there is adequate parking supply, which follows the recommendations above. We also recommend working closely with property owners and businesses to develop mutually beneficial arrangements for use of shared parking.
Additionally, the RBMC section 10-2.1702 (c)(1) “Off-street parking on same lot as use” allows parking for one business to be accommodated on a nearby private off-street parking lot. However, the accommodating lot must record by deed or covenant the parking spaces utilized by the other property and they must be maintained by recorded document, as long as the other use is active.
Sample Cities: Ventura &
Beverly Hills, CA
In the City of Ventura, 100% of required parking can be satisfied under shared parking (for all land uses). Under Code section “8176-2.3.3 – Offsite parking agreements,” requirements regarding lease agreements are laid forth.
City of Beverly Hills code section 10-3-2734 “Parking Covenants,” for shared parking arrangements, prior to any issuance of a building permit, a covenant is required ensuring that the “Owners will continue to maintain such parking space so long as such structure or improvement exists.”
Parking Requirements
Changes to parking requirements seek to balance access to the AACAP area with the needs of the community, while making it easier to encourage the growth envisioned in the AACAP. Given that the existing parking demand is significantly lower than the supply, re-adjusting parking requirements can help “right size” parking based on observed data. Additionally, as compared to nearby peer cities, Redondo Beach’s parking requirements are generally higher and could be adjusted downwards appropriately. The cost of implementation is negligible, as such changes will solely be made to the City’s code. Other jurisdictions such as Santa Monica, Pasadena, and Beverly Hills have moved towards reducing parking requirements.
Additionally, some jurisdictions such as Walnut Creek and Hermosa Beach have simplified their parking requirements for further flexibility by introducing “flat” rates for community-benefitting land uses in certain areas (e.g. downtown). For example, in downtown Hermosa Beach, commercial and office uses share the same parking requirements. Further analysis for the corridors was performed to explore flexible parking requirements, encouraging development of office and dining land uses (preferred AACAP land uses). Following the assumptions of the mid demand future model scenario (as detailed earlier in the plan under “Projecting Future Parking Needs” on page 8), ULI analysis showed that the AACAP area could support 1 per 300 parking spaces for the preferred land uses (see Table 3).
Parking Requirements
Type Parking Flexibility
Implementation Scale Plan Area – Programmatic
Cost to City Low
Public Support High/Medium
Redondo Beach City Code The City’s parking requirements are listed in Article 5, under “Parking Regulations,” section 10-2.1706.
Sample City
[See Table 1 for parking code requirements in other cities as reference and Table 3 (below) for recommended parking code requirements for preferred land uses.]
Table 3. AACAP Recommended Parking Ratios for Preferred Uses Preferred Land Uses Redondo Beach Redondo Beach Recommended Office 1 per 300 SF 1 per 300
18 Medical/Dental Office 1 per 150 for medical/dental
Restaurant 1 per 50 SF
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022.
Parking Benefit District
In Parking Benefits Districts (PBDs), revenues from parking meters and other public parking facilities are reinvested within the district and used to fund neighborhood improvements, such as street sweeping, tree planting and trimming, and sidewalk and street repair. In the context of the AACAP, the City of Redondo Beach has already begun the process of implementing a Business Improvement District (BID), in which a PBD can be included. Currently, there is no metered parking in the AACAP area, although time restrictions are enforced. By installing parking meters, funds gathered from parking fees can be reinvested into the corridors for community-wide improvements. For example, improving sidewalk conditions can make it easier for people to walk and visit the area without a vehicle. The cost of implementation is relatively high given the need for installation of parking meters. Other jurisdictions, including Pasadena (Old Town Pasadena), have implemented this strategy with notable success.
Parking Benefit District
Type Parking Benefit District
Implementation Scale Plan Area – Programmatic & Physical Cost to City Medium
Public Support High
Redondo Beach City Code
The City’s metered zones are described in Section 3-6.02, “Parking meter zones.” A Parking Benefits District could also be added to the AACAP area to collect funds for other needed improvements in the area.
Sample City: Los Angeles, CA
The City of Los Angeles implemented LA Express Park to better manage on-street parking demand and increase parking revenues. The program implemented parking meters with dynamic pricing that accounts for parking demands by time of day. LA Express Park launched as a pilot program in Downtown in 2012, expanded to Westwood Village in 2015, and the Hollywood Entertainment Core in 2018.
Parking Credits Program
Parking credits are a land use entitlement that allow new and expanding businesses to satisfy coderequired parking using a pool of public or private parking spaces identified as surplus or underutilized inventory. The number of active credits is determined by regular occupancy surveys taken at parking facilities in designated districts. Active parking credits are then monitored, subtracting the number of parking credits sold from the number of credits available in the district. Encouraging current and future developments to utilize existing facilities would increase parking efficiency and decrease the need to supply additional parking facilities. However, it is important to note that there are barriers to implementing this program on private properties. The cost of implementation is relatively high given the need for management and monitoring. The City could potentially purchase surface lots to expand offstreet supply if needed. Other jurisdictions, including Pasadena, West Hollywood, and Santa Monica, have implemented this strategy.
Parking Credits Program
Type Parking Flexibility
Implementation Scale Plan Area – Programmatic & Physical Cost to City Medium to High
Public Support High10
10 Community stakeholders were not polled specifically on this strategy, but broadly supportive of flexibility measures. 20 Redondo Beach City Code
A parking credits program is currently not in the City’s code. The example language below could be incorporated into the City’s code for the AACAP area.
Sample City: Pasadena, CA &
West Hollywood, CA
As part of section 17.46.030, “Zoning Credit Parking Program,” the City of Pasadena allows uses to fulfill a portion of their parking requirements using existing or future planned parking supply, both off- and on-street.
The Zoning Credit Parking Program is only allowed in areas as designated by the City, for example, the Old Pasadena Historic Core Precinct. This program is applicable to parking supply developed, owned or operated by the City or Parking Authority.
As part of section 19.28.080, “Parking Credits,” the City of West Hollywood allows uses to fulfill parking requirements off-site.
Dynamic Monitoring
Dynamic monitoring is a strategy aimed at collecting parking data in and around a study area. It focuses on capturing parking demand and supply data over time in regular intervals (e.g., annually or biannually).
By monitoring parking conditions in and around the AACAP area, the City can evaluate the success of its parking management actions and provide valuable information to inform the modification of strategies over time to achieve the desired outcome. Furthermore, this strategy can monitor parking conditions on nearby residential streets to see if there are any unintended parking spillover effects in the surrounding neighborhood. The cost of implementation can range from low to high based on the frequency of the monitoring and given the need for management, monitoring, and data collection. The City could also investigate deploying technology solutions to regularly monitor parking occupancy on streets and in parking structures and lots. However, a portion of the cost can be shifted to developers if or when they conduct parking utilization surveys. Other jurisdictions, including Hermosa Beach and Santa Ana, have explored this strategy.
Data Collection
Type Dynamic Monitoring
Implementation Scale Plan Area – Programmatic
Cost to City Low to Medium
Public Support High
Redondo Beach City Code A dynamic monitoring program is currently not the in the City’s code.
Sample City: N/A N/A
Potential Long-Term Strategies
Public Parking Lots/Garages
This potential strategy would provide new public parking lots or garages in the AACAP. Given the current excess of parking in the AACAP, any implementation of this strategy will be long-term. Additionally, the cost of building parking structures is extremely high, totaling an estimated minimum of $35,000 per space. Purchasing surface parking lots to provide supply for the parking credit program and/or in case of on-street parking supply loss could potentially help the City with parking management. Building a parking garage is not needed in the near-term, however, acquiring surface lots as part of a parking credits program could be a potential option to increase the supply of public parking in the area. In addition, it is possible that demand for parking may shift over time and a garage may never be needed.
Public Parking Lots/Garages
Type On- & Off-Street Supply
Implementation Scale Site – Physical
Cost to City High
Public Support High
22 Redondo Beach City Code
Acquisition/development of parking garages/lots is currently not referenced in the City’s code. Any acquisition or development of parking can be studied further in the future, if needed, and alongside a parking credit program.
Sample City: West Hollywood,
CA
In the City of West Hollywood, there are parking credit districts, where the City manages parking supply and conducts regular review of parking capacity. Private and public parking are included as part of this pooled supply, which developments can apply for.
In-Lieu Fees
This strategy can be used to encourage infill development of desired land-uses such as specialty retail, restaurants, or other commercial uses. These uses are often burdened by relatively high on-site parking requirements and can benefit from providing parking for employees or/and customers in public parking facilities. Developers may be given the option to pay a fee in lieu of providing parking on-site. In-lieu fees provide the developer access to public parking facilities near the development site. A pool of available public parking would be needed to create an in-lieu fee program. The fees paid into the program can then be used to build more parking or better manage the existing parking demand to create additional parking supply. Given the amount of time it would take to collect enough fees to build more parking, this is a long-term strategy. In addition, demand for parking may shift over time and a garage funded by inlieu fees may not be needed.
In-Lieu Fees
Type Parking Flexibility
Implementation Scale Site – Programmatic
Cost to City Medium
Public Support Medium
Redondo Beach City Code
In-lieu fees are currently not referenced in the City’s code. This option could be explored in the future.
Sample City: Venice Beach, Los
Angeles, CA
The Venice Beach area in the City of Los Angeles has an in-lieu parking program. For each parking space that a developer cannot provide onsite, they can pay into the City’s in-lieu fee program for a cost of $18,000 per parking space. The payment of fees does not guarantee that a parking space will be available for that particular site. Rather, the City operates several public parking lots that are available to all visitors in the area. The fees collected have been used to construct two parking lots and to fund planning services related its management.
24 Summary & Recommendations
This Parking Implementation Plan presented near- and long-term parking management for implementation within the AACAP area. Each of these strategies have been evaluated on the basis of type, implementation scale, cost, and best practices from other peer jurisdictions. Table 4 summarizes the strategies by cost and relative time to implement. The near-term strategies are expected to sufficiently accommodate the expected parking demand with the development anticipated in the AACAP area. The long-term strategies can be revisited in the future, if they are needed, and their potential effectiveness can be assessed in combination with other near-term strategies (e.g., parking lot acquisition in combination with a parking credit program).
Table 4: Summary of Parking Management Strategies
Based on community feedback and direction provided by the Redondo Beach City Council at their meeting on July 12, 2022, along with the detailed analysis of existing and future parking conditions, most of the strategies identified in this PIP can be implemented immediately to meet the vision of the AACAP.
While some of these strategies are immediately practicable, the study also anticipates the future. Parking demand is constantly changing with the development of new mobility technologies, market trends, and changes in land use. The parking management strategies discussed in this PIP are intended to be adaptable and flexible to meet the current and future needs of the AACAP area.
Strategy Cost Time to Implement
Valet Parking $
Parking Configuration $
Shared Parking $
Parking Requirements $
Parking Benefit District $$
Parking Credits Program $$
Data Collection $$
Public Parking Lots/Garages $$$
In-Lieu Fees $$