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.

Long-term eviction defense funding for Los Angeles renters could soon begin to flow now that city officials have announced a break in an impasse dating back to May 2025.

L.A. City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto said Thursday she intends to sign a new $107 million contract with the Legal Aid Foundation of L.A. She said the contract — which was approved by the City Council and the mayor in April but still awaits her approval — was “nearly finalized.”

“I am fully committed to supporting these crucial eviction defense services for our vulnerable neighbors in need,” Feldstein Soto said in a statement.

Feldstein Soto — who will not secure a second term after placing third in last month’s primary election — pledged to continue investigating the legal aid group. She has frequently criticized the nonprofit for what she sees as a lack of transparency, though L.A. Housing Department officials say the group has consistently provided accounting and caseload data to the city.

“Taxpayers deserve transparency and accountability and to know that their money is being used as intended,” Feldstein Soto said.

Barbara Schultz, a Legal Aid Foundation attorney overseeing the city-funded Stay Housed L.A. program, said both parties have been negotiating final contract details for more than a week. She said the city attorney’s announcement was encouraging.

“[Feldstein Soto] said she was going to approve the contract, so I'm very excited to hear that,” Schultz said. “Moving forward… we can continue to grow, fully implement the ‘Right to Counsel,’ and tenants in Los Angeles will be much better off as a result.”

In response to Feldstein Soto’s claims that more than $58 million in eviction defense grants remain “unaccounted for” in the foundation’s financial audits and IRS forms, Schultz said taxpayer dollars have not been misspent and that no findings have been made to that effect.

“[The Legal Aid Foundation] is a very large nonprofit law firm that has over 40 federal, state and local government contracts,” Schultz said. “We are very used to being audited. Any audit the city wants to do to satisfy itself is absolutely fine with us.”

Feldstein Soto denied a five-year contract to the legal aid group last year, arguing it should have gone through a competitive bidding process. After the city solicited applications and selected the group for new long-term funding, she later told city councilmembers in a confidential memo that they should consider withholding support for “a frequent litigant against the city.”

While she announced the contract should be ready for her signature by July 7, Feldstein Soto said her office would move forward with plans to assign forensic accountants to study how the legal aid group has spent more than $90 million in city funds since 2021.

At the Bristol Swap Mall in Santa Ana, people are flocking to buy their Mexico soccer team jerseys and paraphernalia.

“The color is green and that says Mexico right here,” said Catherine Hernandez, who’s entering third grade, as she pointed to the replica Mexico soccer jersey her mother had bought her at a nearby stall.

She asked her mother to get her one the day after Mexico’s win against Ecuador and is already thinking about how she’ll feel wearing it Sunday during Mexico’s knockout game against England in the Round of 16.

“Excited, very excited because I’m Mexican and I love this shirt,” she said.

Hernandez was born in the U.S. and her mother was born in Mexico. Both say their Mexico jerseys symbolize those similar but different prides in their Mexican backgrounds.

They're among fans rooting for Mexico’s men’s national soccer team to advance further than ever before into the World Cup tournament. A win against England would move the team to the Round of 8, the quarterfinals, for the third time. Along the way, this Mexico team has captured the imagination of many in the U.S. who have, or are close to, those of Mexican heritage.

Proudly wearing the green jersey

The market vendor at the stall said only one adult-size 2026 jersey remained. So many had been sold they'd had to place an order for more.

A replica of Mexico's 2026 FIFA World Cup soccer jersey.

(

Adolfo Guzman-Lopez

/

LAist

)

Many Mexico fans have been wearing their jerseys on the days leading up to the team's World Cup matches.

“On Monday, I looked around to see a sea of green, white and red, and it nearly brought me to tears in line at Costco,” said Alex Alcantar, who lives in Norwalk.

He was born and raised in the U.S. and he says his Mexico soccer jersey symbolizes that experience.

“Why I wear my Mexico jersey is because I want to visibly represent this community when our contributions to society are so heavily discounted,” he said.

The team’s growing prominence has also coaxed some others in Mexican communities in the U.S. to feel more confident in their identity.

“I've never used [a Mexico jersey] before,” said Xochi Flores, who was born in Oxnard and whose great-grandparents were Mexican.

“I didn't feel like I could go around representing Mexico when I'm a Chicana, third generation, not the best Spanish speaker,” she said.

Xochi Flores (left), with her husband Cesar Castro, has become more comfortable wearing the soccer jersey recently.

(

Courtesy Xochi Flores

)

In the past year, she said she’s felt closer to her Mexican roots as she’s seen reports of farmworkers and other people of Mexican descent arrested by ICE agents.

So to her, wearing her Mexico soccer jersey means leaving behind insecurities she used to have about not being “Mexican enough,” as well as “not being American enough.”

“I want my kids to see me embracing all of the parts of me. … They don't have those insecurities, and that makes me happy,” Flores said.

Wearing the jersey when you're Mexican-ish

The stalls are attracting all types of customers. “I'm just looking for a Mexican soccer jersey,” said Son Lam, who lives in nearby Orange and identifies as Vietnamese.

Lam says he’s become devoted to soccer since the World Cup started June 11. Buying and wearing a Mexican soccer team jersey means showing off his newfound sports fandom already embraced by his extended family

“My wife is Mexican and to me, [wearing the Mexico jersey] means I can fit in with the family more," he said as he laughed.

However they identify, all these shoppers will likely be wearing their jerseys as they watch Mexico compete against England on Sunday, July 5. Joining millions of fans rooting for their team to advance to the next round, and keeping dreams of a 2026 FIFA World Cup championship alive.

Santa Ana voters could be asked in November to maintain the city’s 1.5% sales tax, which was set to decrease in 2029 and eventually expire.

Voters approved the citywide sales tax in 2018 on the condition that it sunset in 20 years. Now, the Santa Ana City Council will vote Tuesday on whether to ask voters in November to make the tax permanent.

The big picture

Only about one-third of cities in Orange County have a local sales tax on top of the county-imposed sales tax of 7.75%. Sales taxes in most of Los Angeles County are much higher — L.A.’s countywide sales tax is 9.75% and the highest total sales taxes for cities in L.A. County are in Lancaster and Palmdale, at 11.25% each, according to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.

Other potential tax hikes in OC

Voters in Orange will be considering a sales tax hike on their November ballot, after failing to get voters’ approval in 2024. San Clemente voters will also consider a local sales tax in November to pay for more sand to shore up local beaches.