The Brief

In Los Angeles, two things often feel impossible to find: a parking spot and an affordable apartment.

Now, some L.A. City Council members are proposing a policy that could make it easier for renters to find housing — as long as they’re willing to forgo off-street parking.

Councilmembers Bob Blumenfield and Nithya Raman introduced a motion Tuesday calling for city planners to report back to the council about a potential citywide elimination of parking requirements in new developments.

“We must find ways to reduce the cost of constructing new housing,” the motion reads, “and eliminating parking requirements is one way to do so.”

The proposal is in early stages. Any final decision on ending parking minimums is still many months away, and would require a vote by the full City Council.

Zero parking already allowed in some zones

Parking requirements have already been removed for projects located within half a mile of major transit stops under the 2022 state law AB 2097. The new city council proposal could expand that policy to the entire city.

Blumenfield and Raman — chairs of the council’s planning and housing committees, respectively — are floating the idea at a time when housing construction in L.A. has been stagnant for years, hovering far below state-mandated goals.

Advocates for boosting housing production cheered the new motion.

“This is one of the most significant motions we've seen in years on housing affordability in the city,” said Azeen Khanmalek, executive director of Abundant Housing L.A., a nonprofit that advocates for affordable housing.

“We have a critical choice to make,” he said. “Are we going to prioritize housing for cars? Or are we going to prioritize housing for people?”

Parking debate ‘always brings people out’

In some neighborhoods where new apartment buildings are already under development with zero on-site parking, the issue has become a lightning rod.

Parking spots are not included in most projects approved through Mayor Karen Bass’s Executive Directive 1, a program to speed up the construction of buildings made entirely of income-restricted apartments.

Conrad Starr, president of the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council, said community members have long-standing concerns about developers using new laws to pursue “cookie cutter projects that are designed to minimize investment and maximize return.”

He said residents have expressed concern about people moving into parking-free buildings and crowding out the neighborhood’s limited street parking. The issue “always brings people out,” Starr said.

“This includes families that perhaps currently live in apartments and are not provided parking,” Starr said. “If they have small kids, for example, it may not be feasible for them to park several blocks away.”

How parking mandates raise rents 

The city’s parking mandates vary depending on the type of housing being built. But generally, developers must provide one parking space for every one-bedroom apartment, or more for larger units. These requirements increase construction costs and reduce the amount of space builders can use for apartments.

A 2020 study from UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation found that building a parking structure for a new affordable housing project raises construction costs by as much as $38,000 per apartment. Another study found that bundling parking with each unit increases rents for L.A. tenants by about $200 per month.

But in a city where the vast majority of households own a car, many developers would likely choose to continue providing on-site parking, even if the city no longer required it.

“Developers and property owners are still looking to sell or lease their units, and there are a lot of people out there for whom parking is really important,” Khanmalek said. “Parking is not going to disappear.”

Eliminating parking requirements would allow developers to cater to renters who may want to ditch their car — and save some rent money in the process, said M. Nolan Gray, a research director at the housing advocacy group California YIMBY.

“Many Angelenos actually want the option to live car-light or car-free,” he said. “And when we mandate off-street parking, we take away that option.”

Businesses would also be allowed to ditch parking

The L.A. City Council proposal would also apply to new commercial developments. The motion says giving small businesses in L.A. the option to reduce or eliminate on-site parking would help “level the playing field” with competitors.

“Amazon is not required to provide parking for its delivery vehicles that flood many of our neighborhoods, and neither are pop-up restaurants that operate under our sidewalk vending rules,” the motion reads.

Some other California cities have already ended parking requirements for new developments. They include San Francisco, Sacramento and Culver City.

What happens next?

Before the proposal can be voted on by the full City Council, it has to get approval from the council’s planning committee. It has not yet been scheduled in committee.

If passed, the motion would require the Department of City Planning and the Department of Building and Safety to deliver a report back to the council outlining the feasibility, as well as the costs and benefits of enacting a citywide elimination of parking requirements. The motion does not say how quickly the departments would have to produce that report.

This story first appeared on Long Beach Post.

Long Beach is offering up to $1,500 for local business owners and landlords to equip their storefronts with safety measures like cameras, floodlights, alarms and point-of-sale systems.

The grant program is accepting online applications now. You can apply here.

Businesses with storefronts of 1,500 square feet or less may receive grants of up to $750, while businesses between 1,500 and 5,000 square feet are eligible for up to $1,500.

Nonprofit organizations are eligible as well, and landlords can apply on behalf of commercial storefronts that are vacant or occupied. Franchises can also receive the grant.

To qualify, a business must:

• Have an active business license for a storefront within the city
• Be independently owned and operated (franchises are eligible)
• Be currently open and active for business
• Earn no more than $5 million in annual gross revenue
• Hold “active” status with the California Secretary of State for corporations, limited liability companies and limited partnerships

The funds will be provided as a reimbursement after eligible security improvements are installed. Grants will be given out until funds are exhausted.

It’s a great idea, according to Edwin Jara, who manages a pet store in Belmont Heights and was on the receiving end of a break-in earlier this year.

His store had security measures already in place — two cameras and an alarm system — but even that wasn’t enough to deter a masked burglar who grabbed $1,000 cash and a handful of dog treats.

Despite having footage of the burglar, Jara said police haven’t been able to catch the person and that a detective never responded after he filed a police report.

The grant program is being paid for with $350,000 from the city’s Redvelopment Agency along with $50,000 from Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn’s office.

“Our local small businesses are part of the fabric of our neighborhoods, and when business owners feel unsafe, the whole community feels it,” Hahn said in a statement.

In a statement, Mayor Rex Richardson said the program is a “direct investment in the hardworking business owners who make our commercial corridors vibrant and welcoming.”

Jara said he would consider applying for a grant if the city could send someone to help him and the store’s owner fill out the application.

He was offered a separate grant to replace a glass door the burglar smashed, but the store’s owner opted not to fill out the application.

“There was a lot of stuff that we needed to do, and I don’t have a lot of that information,” Jara said.

Santa Monica College has money problems. Spending has outpaced revenues over the last three fiscal years. And the college doesn’t have enough in its coffers to pay for retirement benefits.

That’s according to the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, the body responsible for evaluating community colleges. The organization has moved to “enhanced fiscal monitoring” of SMC.

In a statement to LAist, Mac Powell, president of ACCJC, said, “Enhanced monitoring is part of the Commission’s routine annual process for identifying and working with institutions that may be experiencing financial pressures; it is not, by itself, an accreditation sanction or adverse action.”

More than 25,000 students are enrolled at SMC, with over 50% identifying as first generation. The school has around 320 full-time faculty and 852 part-time faculty. On their website, SMC touts itself as the “#1 Transfer College” to University of California schools, Loyola Marymount University and the University of Southern California.

In a letter to Santa Monica College informing them of the increased monitoring, ACCJC Vice President Melynie Schiel wrote that a three-year decline of the ending cash balance and multiple open labor agreements factored into the “at risk” designation.

Santa Monica College declined an interview with LAist. But in a post online, Santa Monica College President Kathryn Jeffery wrote that the at-risk category was largely “backward-looking.”

So what does ‘enhanced fiscal monitoring’ mean?

Gaining accreditation from a body like the ACCJC allows SMC to qualify for federal funding and to distribute financial aid to students.

Every year, institutions accredited by the ACCJC submit financial information, including reserves, operating revenues and deficits, salary and benefit costs, enrollment trends and audit findings.

If institutions fall in the “at risk” category like Santa Monica College, they are placed on increased monitoring. This helps ACCJC “better understand the circumstances, remain informed about the institution’s response, and track progress over time,” Powell said.

During this time, ACCJC staffers will meet with representatives from Santa Monica College “and the institution provides information regarding the circumstances contributing to its fiscal condition and the actions it is taking in response,” Powell said.

Is SMC’s accreditation at risk?

In short: No.

“Santa Monica College is accredited by ACCJC and, at this time, is not in danger of losing its accreditation, nor is an adverse accreditation action by the Commission currently anticipated,” Powell said. “The purpose of enhanced monitoring is precisely to identify concerns early and provide appropriate oversight while institutions work to address them.”

Are there any other colleges in Southern California in the same boat?

Powell said ACCJC typically doesn't make public whether a college is subject to increased monitoring.

“We are aware that Santa Monica College has chosen to publicly disclose its own fiscal monitoring status. That disclosure was made independently by the institution and does not reflect a change in ACCJC's policy regarding the confidentiality of this information for other member institutions,” Powell added.

What is Santa Monica College doing to address their fiscal woes?

Jeffery wrote in a memo to employees posted on the college website that the at-risk rating “does not account for far-reaching actions the College has taken since,” noting actions like layoffs and contract non-renewals, employee furloughs and salary freezes; and cutting vacant positions.

Amid a growing nationwide backlash against license-plate cameras, California this week, for the fifth year running, failed to enact regulations on the technology.

A bill in the Legislature would have strengthened privacy protections on how license plate data is collected and shared. It also would have guarded against misuse of automated license plate readers by law enforcement officers.

But after clearing the state senate the bill was stopped in the Assembly by majority leader Cecilia Aguilar-Curry on Monday, the final day the Legislature meets this year, before it could be introduced for a floor vote. It was one of a handful of bills that enjoyed strong support from lawmakers and looked poised to pass but died under mysterious circumstances.

All the bills California lawmakers have proposed since 2022 to reform or update regulations on license plate tracking by law enforcement agencies have failed to pass or become law. A similar bill passed last year but was vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“It’s a really disappointing outcome at a time when there is bipartisan concern about this mass surveillance tool,” UC Berkeley Center for Law & Technology codirector Catherine Crump told CalMatters. Crump testified in support of the bill in July.

Lawmakers pushing for more regulation of the readers point to police misuse of the data they collect, including illegally using it to help federal immigration enforcers and stalking people.

But law enforcement agencies say many of the proposed regulations would cripple a tool they say has helped solve a wide range of crimes.

“We were concerned that this bill was going to limit the utility of ALPR data to solve crimes, find missing persons, exonerate innocent individuals, and so the fact that it did not pass, we're glad for that,” California State Sheriff’s Association legislative director Cory Salzillo told CalMatters.

Mounting privacy concerns

Failure to pass the bill or even bring it up for a final vote comes at a time when opposition to license plate readers is growing in and beyond California. Police in Los Angeles and Redwood City and elected officials in California localities like El Cerrito and Campbell have ended contracts with the license plate reader company Flock Safety in recent weeks. Nationwide, more than 200 cities or law enforcement agencies ended license plate reader contracts in August, more than any other month since 2021, according to Secure Justice, a group led by Brian Hofer, a Bay Area privacy advocate who was held at gunpoint after a license plate reader incorrectly told sheriff’s deputies he was driving a stolen car.

License plate readers use cameras and artificial intelligence to log the plate numbers of passing cars. The readers are joined into networks used by law enforcement and information from them can be shared locally or nationwide. The tech can locate criminal suspects or missing persons, but it’s also been tied to police misconduct and immigration enforcement in violation of state law. More than 230 California police or sheriff’s departments currently use license plate readers, according to bill author Senator Sabrina Cervantes, a Democrat from Riverside.

An automated license plate recognition camera near an orchard along Avenue 7 ½ outside of Firebaugh on Aug. 26, 2026.

(

Larry Valenzuela

/

CalMatters

)

“It’s unfortunate that Senate Bill 1013 did not get the chance to be voted on before the deadline passed, but I look forward to continuing to fight for the privacy rights of Californians next year,” she wrote in a statement shared with CalMatters.

Cervantes argued in July that protections in the bill are necessary to prevent unlawful data sharing, because license plate readers routinely collect information about the movement of millions of law-abiding Californians, and to stop other forms of police misconduct. Lawmakers say license plate readers were unlawfully used by law enforcement officers to stalk or harass private citizens in Los Angeles, Marin, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Diego, and Shasta counties.

Enforcement agencies outside of California have put the technology to even more controversial use. Oakland activist Crystal Zermeño, who attended a protest against the technology outside City Hall last month, said she’s concerned about the tech being used to track women who get abortions or by federal authorities. After Cervantes’ bill died, she asked, “How could we not as a state have the political will to do this in a moment when all of these [federal immigration enforcement] attacks are happening and we have limited defense?”

Cervantes’ Senate Bill 1013 would have restricted state law enforcement agencies to using license plate data only for locating criminal suspects or missing people, would have made police take privacy and cybersecurity training, would have restricted sharing with national databases by default, and would have required the attorney general’s office carry out random audits of license plate reader activity for misuse.

Had the bill come up for a vote, it still might have died, given support for the readers as tools of law and order. Nearly 40 law enforcement agencies and police unions opposed the bill.

Regulations in the measure had already been weakened, trading a requirement that police delete license plate data after 30 days for one that they “archive” it after 60 days, at which point they would need to obtain a warrant to search the data, unless it was connected to an active investigation or vehicle hunt. Police argued that old license plate data had helped solve cold cases and missing people investigations, and some, like the California State Sheriff’s Association, opposed the bill even after it was watered down. Newsom vetoed last year’s bill in part because it would have ordered police to delete license plate data after 60 days.

CalMatters reporting last year and this year found that local law enforcement agencies across Southern California repeatedly shared information with federal immigration agencies, a violation of a state law. A 2020 state audit and investigation by Attorney General Rob Bonta found similar violations of state law that prohibits sharing license plate reader data with out-of-state or federal law enforcement agencies. Since June 2024 the California Attorney General’s Office has contacted 18 law enforcement agencies about possible or known violations of Senate Bill 34 and filed a lawsuit against the city of El Cajon near San Diego to stop the practice.

There are roughly 70 documented instances nationwide where police officers misused automated license plate readers to do things like track their wives, stalk formal partners or pursue love interests, according to the Washington Post, including former Riverside County sheriff’s deputy Alexander Vanny, who used Flock to stalk his former fiancée and was sentenced to six years in prison in February.

The technology can also inaccurately label some drivers as criminal suspects, leading to potentially violent confrontations. A Los Angeles Police Department audit released in July found that one out of three vehicles identified as stolen by Flock cameras were inaccurately identified.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has been asked to testify before Congress for an investigation into “potential waste, fraud, and abuse” of federal homelessness funding.

The House of Representatives Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency sent a letter to Bass Wednesday about its concerns with the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, specifically “reports of blatant corruption” in LAHSA’s contracting process and "potential misallocation" of federal dollars.

“Homelessness in California is a long-standing problem, most notoriously in the Skid Row area of downtown Los Angeles,” the letter signed by chairman Tim Burchett states. “The problem has grown worse during your tenure as mayor.”

LAHSA told LAist it consistently welcomes audits and external assessments to continually improve its work, and "none of these reviews have ever found evidence of fraud or corruption."

"Both internal and independent audits have recommended operational enhancements, and LAHSA has delivered demonstrable progress," agency spokesperson Chris Yee said in an email.

Bass’ office didn’t immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What does the letter say?

The mayor is being asked to testify Sept. 15 on Capitol Hill for a hearing called "Fixing Fraud and Failure in Federally Funded Homelessness Services.”

The subcommittee is also asking for years worth of documents, including specific communications between the mayor’s office, LAHSA and the L.A. County Board of Supervisors going back to 2020.

Two of LAist’s articles were cited in the letter, including last year’s reporting on LAHSA’s former top official Va Lecia Adams Kellum.

LAist discovered through public records requests that Adams Kellum signed a $2.1 million contract and two other contract amendments with Upward Bound House, the Santa Monica-based nonprofit where her husband worked in senior leadership. A LAHSA spokesperson told LAist at the time that the contracts had inadvertently ended up in front of Adams Kellum to sign.

The backstory

LAHSA and the Trump administration are in a legal battle over federal homelessness funding, after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development suspended LAHSA from federal grant activity in June, citing alleged mismanagement by the agency.

A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction on the suspension last month, with HUD Secretary Scott Turner vowing on social media to “fight this legally.”

A trial is scheduled to start in February.