1 Council Action Date: October 1, 2024
To: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
From: ANDREW WINJE, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
TITLE
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE
REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RESULTING FROM PASSAGE OF ASSEMBLY BILL 413 “DAYLIGHTING BILL” AND DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING FUTURE
ORDINANCE CHANGES REGARDING THE ADDITION OF A DRIVEWAY PARKING
PERMIT PROGRAM
INTRODUCE BY TITLE ONLY ORDINANCE NO. XXXX-XX, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 7, ARTICLE 3, SECTIONS 3-7.1201, 3-7.1203, 3-7.1204, 3-7.1205, 3-7.1206, 3-7.1207, 3-7.1208 AND 3-7.1209 OF THE REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PARKING ZONES AND DELETING IN ITS ENTIRETY SECTION 3-7-1210 REGARDING TAXICAB STANDS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Assembly Bill 413 is a state law that went into effect on January 1, 2024. Also known as the “daylighting bill,” AB 413 amended California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22500 to prohibit the stopping, standing, or parking of any vehicle within 20 feet of any marked or unmarked crosswalk. The distance is reduced to 15 feet where a curb extension (bulbout) is present.
Staff is recommending a change to the City’s Municipal Code to make it consistent with AB 413 and to clean up obsolete language and reflect best practices with respect to parking restrictions identified by marked curbs and/or signage. Adoption of the ordinance change will allow the City to better implement and enforce the City’s parking regulations and those identified in State law, including AB 413.
Staff is also seeking direction from the City Council regarding a driveway parking permit program, that was referred by the Council at a previous meeting. A driveway parking permit program would allow residents who meet narrowly defined criteria to purchase parking permits allowing them to park in front of their own driveway with their own vehicle.
While there are some clear and obvious benefits to residents by provision of additional parking, concerns from the Redondo Beach Fire Department and Police Department point out concerns related to public safety and operational impediments. Therefore, staff is seeking direction on whether to continue moving forward toward formal introduction of this program by ordinance.
Administrative Report
2 DISCUSSION
AB 413
In accordance with AB 413, “daylighting” restrictions may not be enforced prior to January 1, 2025 unless curbs are otherwise marked by signage or paint (red curb). In 2025, jurisdictions are allowed to enforce the provisions of AB 413 whether or not red curb and/or signage is present, similar to current parking restrictions adjacent to fire hydrants. The City has started to receive questions from informed residents asking how the City plans to implement this law, in addition to regular requests to add red curb to address crosswalk safety concerns.
The City’s Engineering staff has discussed education and enforcement strategies with the City’s Parking Enforcement Unit, and together determined that a gradual approach for implementation of AB 413 standards would be appropriate. Attachment 1 is an infographic that depicts potential benefits of “daylighting” crosswalks and intersections, as an example of educational material. RBPD will continue to issue citations for parking or standing along any red curbs and begin an educational warning campaign on the dangers of blocking the visibility of crosswalks. RBPD has prepared and will provide a brief educational flyer for drivers violating CVC 22500 where red curb and/or signage may not be present, similar to Attachment 1. In 2025, citations may be considered depending on the nature of the violation in accordance with state law.
AB 413 allows for a shorter 15-foot no parking zone if a curb extension (bulbout) is present. Since AB 413 was signed into law City staff have kept this provision in mind when striping new red curb where bulbouts were recently installed. Staff proposes that if the five (5) foot difference in no parking zone could potentially prevent the loss of an additional parking space, installation of a bulbout (using striping and vertical elements such as flexible posts, or using concrete) may be considered. Construction of a bulbout must also consider drainage conditions, street sweeping load, and bicycle traffic, which will vary on a case-by-case basis.
Implementation of curb marking and signage in conformance with AB 413 addresses these concerns and is especially beneficial at intersections with high pedestrian use, including school and commercial areas. Staff are planning a systematic implementation for these changes, the most common approach in other California cities. If approved, Public Works staff will prioritize implementation by painting red curbs at the following locations:
School zone (painted yellow) crosswalks
Signalized intersections
Crosswalks with visibility challenges
Crosswalks across multiple lanes of traffic in the same direction Crosswalks with higher pedestrian crossing volumes
Other crosswalks determined by engineering staff to experience higher driver/pedestrian conflicts based on engineering judgement and/or resident/RBPD feedback.
Impact to Parking Resulting from AB 413
3 While the addition of red curb at many intersections is expected to result in a loss of some street parking, shortening of the City’s minimum parking zone lengths will provide some offset. It is not yet known exactly how many spaces may be lost but, for comparative purposes, the City and County of San Francisco expects a total on-street parking loss of 5% if all intersection corners are painted red. San Francisco has a higher intersection density than Redondo Beach, so staff expect a lower percentage of parking spaces would be affected within Redondo Beach. Nonetheless, daylighting intersections would provide valuable safety benefits to people driving, biking, and walking. When discussed with the Public Works and Sustainability Commission (PWSC) at their regular meeting on March 25, 2024, the PWSC did not suggest any changes to staff’s implementation strategy.
Subsequent to the PWSC meeting, the City Attorney’s office reviewed and approved the proposed RBMC revisions. Attachment 2 shows the March 25, 2024 PWSC Administrative Report.
Ordinance Changes
In addition to field work, staff believes it is important to “clean up” existing parking ordinance language to make it consistent with AB 413, which will make compliance more understandable and enforcement efforts more efficient.
Several modifications to the City’s existing parking ordinances are needed to make it consistent with AB 413. The California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22500 now prohibits parking or stopping 20 feet in advance of any legal crosswalk on the approach side, or 15 feet if a curb extension is present. Cities may install amenities such as bicycle parking corrals or bioswales within the 15 feet daylighting zone, so long as clear sight lines are maintained. Note that daylighting zones are not required on the departure side of crosswalks/intersections, but can be added based on site-specific circumstances and engineering judgement.
At a local level, RBMC 3-7.12 currently mandates the City Manager to paint or mark “no parking” zones within 30 feet of any intersection in the Central Traffic District (area bound by Beryl Street, the coast, Ruby Street, and PCH), or within 25 feet of all other intersections and crosswalks. In practice the City has not prioritized this section of the RBMC, which is more restrictive that AB 413, nor given distinction to the Central Traffic District due to the high demand for parking. Proposed revisions to RBMC would modify language in the RBMC to align with state law and reduce the minimum lengths of the City’s marked no parking zones, thereby increasing available curb length for parking.
Staff also recommends revisions to subsections of RBMC Section 3-7.12 to update and remove conflicting red curb language and to reflect best practices for discretionary curb markings. The proposed changes also take advantage of a state law allowing a reduction of mandatory restricted parking adjacent to a fire hydrant. Engineering staff consulted with the Fire Department, which tested various lengths of no parking zones around fire hydrants.
The Fire Department determined that a 20-foot no parking zone, or within 10 feet of a fire hydrant, would be sufficient for their operations. Correspondence between Public Works and Fire can be found in attachments within the PWSC Administrative Report. If approved, this would shrink the fire hydrant no parking zone from the default State minimum of 30 feet 4 to a locally adopted minimum of 20 feet, allowing potential gains in unrestricted curb parking. Therefore, staff is recommending the municipal code allow this change. Also, staff recommends removing the taxicab stand section of RBMC (3-7.1210) due to societal and technological shifts around ride-hailing and the lack of known and active taxicab zones within the City.
The draft proposed ordinance is included as Attachment 3, and is followed by a markup of the existing ordinance (Attachment 4).
Private Driveway Parking Permit Program
Outside of the discussion regarding the proposed ordinance changes catalyzed by AB 413, staff is also seeking City Council direction regarding a new program featuring a Private Driveway Parking Permit. Staff was asked to investigate this possibility and return with a report to Council for further direction. Such a program would offer parking permits for residents who want to park their own vehicles in front of their own driveway apron under certain specific circumstances. This type of permit program is allowed under CVC Section 22507.2, which allows local authorities to issue parking permits (by ordinance) to owners or lessees of property to park a vehicle in front of the owner’s or lessee’s exclusive driveway apron serving their private driveway. Some cities in California have adopted resolutions to create these driveway parking permit programs, such as Long Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Lawndale. There are various advantages and disadvantages to implementing a driveway parking permit program. The most obvious advantage is increased parking opportunities in parking-impacted areas. Disadvantages include the need to administer and enforce additional parking programs within existing resources, potential disruption of through traffic flow adjacent to active police activities, and a decrease in the number of access points available for emergency services, further discussed below.
Below are various requirements and conditions that could be included in this type of parking permit program, which are modeled after the City of Long Beach:
Permits only available for residences with driveway aprons that serve a single dwelling unit
The permit does not guarantee a parking space if there is insufficient space between other legally parked vehicles.
Only allows for parallel on-street parking where vehicles are parked within the roadway, similar to other vehicles parked along a curb. Driveway parking permits are specific to the driveway address. Up to one permit may be issued per address, and up to three vehicles may be added to each permit, as long as each vehicle is registered at the address to which the permit applies. Permits will not be issued if the parked vehicle would conflict with other local and State parking regulations, or create a safety hazard, as determined by the City Engineer or Chief of Police.
Vehicles parked under this program would still be subject to other local and State parking regulations, such as street sweeping restrictions, time limits (if applicable), sidewalk parking, and the CVC. Only one vehicle may be parked along each driveway apron at a time.
5 If adopted by the City Council, the Police Department has estimated that the appropriate permit fee for this type of parking permit during this first fiscal year would be $300 per permit per year. This fee would serve to only recover costs associated with the program.
This could be adjusted after some data is gathered about real costs. The fee accounts for the increased cost and staff time to administer this type of parking program and process each permit. Each permit received would require review by a Municipal Services Officer (or their designee) in the Police Department and by the Engineering Services Division. If the parking program is adopted by a future ordinance, a resolution to adopt the fee would then be brought forward for future consideration by the City Council. While Staff anticipates no physical permit will need to be attached to the vehicles, permit stickers would be distributed for each permit’s registered vehicle(s) for public visibility purposes.
This will foster public education on the program’s privileges.
The Police Department has also expressed some concern regarding such a program.
Operationally, when policy activity requires a vehicle visit to a given address, police vehicles typically find available parking only in the space in front of driveway aprons. If civilian vehicles are parked there, police are forced to park in the street’s travel lanes.
This is always disruptive to passing traffic, but is especially difficult on narrow residential streets, where legally parked cars prevent a way forward. When this occurs on one-way streets, passing traffic is forced to stop and wait or turn around to drive against the normal flow of traffic.
Engineering staff also met with Fire Department staff on potential implications to emergency services if this type of permit program is adopted for single dwelling unit driveways. The Fire Department expressed concerns that vehicles parked in front of driveways can affect the transport of medical gurneys between residences and ambulances, and would also affect the ability to respond to residential fires, especially garage fires. The Fire Department’s concerns are outlined in Attachment 5.
The proposed revisions to RBMC under this item do not include provisions for a Private Driveway Parking Permit Program. Rather, staff is seeking direction from the City Council on whether to continue moving forward with development of a draft ordinance necessary to implement such a program.
COORDINATION
Coordination of this report and revisions to RBMC took place within the Public Works Department, RBFD, RBPD Parking Enforcement Unit, and the City Attorney’s Office.
Communications also took place with transportation engineers at other California cities.
Staff also discussed AB 413 with the Councilmembers for Districts 3, 4, and 5 separately.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost to install red curbs at intersections in accordance with the City’s AB 413 Implementation Plan will be paid from within the Public Works Department’s annual operations budget as part of staff’s regular duties and as time allows. City staff will utilize GIS-based technologies to implement and track new red curb installations related to AB 6 413, which will improve efficiency and accuracy of red curb inventory. Costs to administer an additional parking permit type, if approved, are expected to be recovered by revenue generated parking permit fees on a cost recovery basis.
ATTACHMENTS
1 – AB 413 Infographic
2 – March 25, 2024 PWSC Administrative Report
3 – Proposed Ordinance for first reading
4 – Track Change Revisions to RBMC 3-7.12
5 – RBFD Comments on the Proposed Driveway Parking Permit Program