The Brief

Drive to any busy part of L.A., and discussions often turn to parking within a matter of minutes. Go to any local government meeting on new housing, and parking tends to come up even faster.

So it may be surprising to hear that in car-centric Los Angeles, thousands of new apartments are now being developed with little to no on-site parking.

Some neighbors worry any influx of renters without dedicated spots of their own will turn the hunt for street parking into a bloodsport. But housing advocates say there are good reasons to build without parking. Eliminating parking requirements brings construction costs down and makes rents more affordable. They say lack of easy parking also encourages residents to use climate-friendly public transportation options.

“We all want to park free — including me,” said Donald Shoup, a UCLA urban planning professor. “The problem with parking requirements is that in some cases the required parking is so expensive that the developer never even thinks about proposing a development.”

Shoup literally wrote the book on this subject. His seminal 2005 text The High Cost of Free Parking explores how parking requirements have raised construction costs and reduced the types of housing that make financial sense to develop on expensive urban land.

That’s because, Shoup said, “a lot of buildings aren't built” due to parking requirements, “especially small apartment buildings.”

Why parking is no longer a given in new L.A. apartments

Recent changes in state law have allowed developers to ditch on-site parking in many parts of L.A. County — an idea that would have been unthinkable in previous decades.

Laura Friedman, a Burbank state assembly member, authored a 2022 law that bans cities from requiring parking in apartment buildings within half a mile of a major public transit stop.

The state’s density bonus law also lets 100% affordable projects reduce or eliminate on-site parking.

Most of L.A.’s new low-income projects have zero parking

Developers in the city of L.A. are now seizing these opportunities, rolling out plans for thousands of new parking-free apartments.

A recent analysis from real estate data firm ATC Research found that 73% of projects being proposed through L.A. Mayor Karen Bass’s affordable housing fast-tracking program ED1 feature no on-site parking.

Some of those projects have drawn the ire of neighborhood groups.

“We have neighbors who have lived in our neighborhoods for years and they are accustomed to using a car,” said Conrad Starr, president of the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council, which has expressed opposition to two ED1 projects in Larchmont and Windsor Village with no parking.

Existing residents may end up needing to park many blocks away from where they live, Starr said, which can pose real challenges for senior citizens or families with young children.

“I'm primarily a bike rider, and I wish more people would ride bikes,” Starr said. “While we are creating new solutions as a city, and new opportunities for lifestyles that don’t require owning a personal car, that's just not going to solve it for everybody who's already here.”

Starr said one recent neighborhood council meeting regarding an ED1 project in Larchmont drew record attendance. Opponents flooded the council with letters expressing concern about the 52-unit affordable housing project’s lack of parking.

“Those of us who live nearby and shop in Larchmont know how crowded the streets are,” wrote resident Karen Fischer. “Parking is almost impossible both on weekends and weekdays, completely inconveniencing residents who live on streets adjacent to Larchmont Boulevard. This is the wrong place for more development.”

A Metro Rail train carries passengers toward Los Angeles along the 210 Freeway.

(

David McNew

/

Getty Images

)

On-site parking boosts construction costs, increases rents 

Housing advocates say eliminating parking requirements has enabled developers to build lots of new housing that’s affordable to L.A. renters with lower incomes.

Most ED1 units will be reserved for households earning up to 80% of the area’s median income — $70,650 for a one-person household — with studio apartments renting for no more than $1,766 per month under current limits. If parking were required in these buildings, ED1 proponents say, rents would be much higher.

Studies have shown that providing on-site parking in California raises apartment construction costs by around $36,000 per unit and increases rents by about $200 per month.

Scott Epstein, policy director for Abundant Housing L.A.. said scrapping parking is a no-brainer when L.A. needs to plan for 185,000 units of low-income housing by 2029 under state law.

“When you're in an emergency of this proportion and you're trying to build housing for folks, what's more important — more housing units or more space for cars?” Epstein said. “It's not a hard choice in my book.”

Parking requirements continue in many areas

Parking mandates remain in place for L.A. County projects that are further away from major public transit options. But local lawmakers are slowly chipping away at those requirements.

Last week, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors voted in favor of rules for unincorporated parts of the county requiring one parking spot per apartment — regardless of the number of bedrooms — in buildings with 10 units or less. Previous rules often required two spots per unit.

The new rules also allow larger projects to cut the amount of required parking by up to 50% if developers provide perks such as car-share spots, electric bike charging or space for small grocery stores.

The five-member Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to pass these parking reductions, but not without some trepidation. Before the vote, Supervisor Janice Hahn said, “I think we're going to have some unintended consequences from this — some problems.”

What L.A. housing looked like before parking mandates

Gartz Court in Pasadena is an example of a bungalow court, which were popular in Southern California before cars became the dominant form of transportation.

(

Aaricka Washington

/

LAist

)

Epstein said Abundant Housing L.A. had hoped to see the county stick with an early draft of the rules, which removed parking mandates entirely for projects with 10 units or less.

He points out there’s precedent in L.A. history.

“I used to live in a bungalow court,” Epstein said, referring to the small, detached rental home complexes developers once built here at large scale. While most of these bungalow courts predate the widespread adoption of automobiles, Epstein said, “The building form, I think, is still very relevant for Los Angeles.”

Shoup, the UCLA professor, said the dawn of parking requirements in the early to mid-20th century all but killed the bungalow court and other low-rise forms of rental housing that didn’t allow for the required two parking spots per unit.

“The dingbats disappeared, but so did almost all small apartment buildings,” Shoup said. “The kind of housing that people loved in L.A. was just swept away by the first parking requirements.”

Some developers still choose to provide parking

Getting rid of parking requirements hasn’t meant that L.A. developers are always choosing to eliminate parking. Many still plan to provide it.

Tracey Burns is vice president of Century Housing, a lender for affordable housing projects in L.A. She said nixing parking makes the most sense in areas with plentiful bus lines or train stations. Car-free tenants in those neighborhoods appreciate not having to pay more for a parking spot they’ll never use. In less transit-rich areas, discounted rent might not be enough to lure tenants who still rely on cars — and a place to park them.

“In areas such as the San Fernando Valley, where Metro transportation is limited, we as a lender will put on our risk hat and assess whether this development would be able to fully lease up,” Burns said.

There’s also a state bill that, if passed, could make it difficult for tenants to own a car in one of these buildings. Senate Bill 834, authored by Sen. Anthony Portantino of Glendale, aims to ban cities from issuing overnight street parking permits to residents in new parking-free apartments.

“We know that the elimination of parking does not reduce vehicle ownership,” Burns said. “Angelenos still depend on their cars. But we also know that people need a place to live before parking so it's kind of like a double-edged sword.”

Cars drive down Fairfax Avenue, where developer Jason Grant plans to build low-income apartments with no parking.

(

Evan Jacoby

/

LAist

)

Reality check: Will future Angelenos still need a place to park? 

According to U.S Census Bureau data, less than 9% of L.A. County households are completely car-free. Some developers hope investments in public transit — and Silicon Valley efforts to make private car ownership obsolete — could one day reduce L.A.’s need for abundant parking.

Jason Grant, founder of Local Development LLC, recently attended an L.A. City Council committee meeting to speak against a challenge to a 100% affordable project he’s developing on Fairfax Avenue. Opponents with the group North Orange Grove Residents have seized on the 26-unit project’s lack of parking.

On his way to the meeting, Grant saw something that put the whole fight in perspective.

“I'm on Beverly and La Brea, and I'm looking left at this Waymo car,” Grant said. “There was nobody in the vehicle. It was driving itself.”

Grant estimated that excavating land and pouring concrete to create an underground parking structure for the Fairfax project would cost upwards of $1 million.

“Yeah, I'm going to remove a million-dollar parking lot,” Grant said. “Because the parking will probably become obsolete in the next five to 10 years.”

The city council’s planning and land use committee unanimously voted down the challenge to the Fairfax project.

How to watchdog your local government

For people who live in L.A., the Board of Supervisors and City Council have the most direct impact on housing in your neighborhood.

• Learn more about who influences local housing policy
  

The best way to keep tabs on your own local government is by attending public meetings for your city council or local boards. Here are a few tips to get you started.

• Find meeting schedules and agendas: City councils usually meet at least twice a month, although larger ones may meet weekly. Committees and boards tend to meet less often, typically once a month. You can find the schedule and meeting agenda on your local government’s website, or posted physically at your local city hall. Find more tips here.

  • Find L.A. City Council agendas and meeting dates
  • Find meetings for L.A. city boards and commissions
  • Find L.A. County agendas and meeting dates
• Learn the jargon: Closed session, consent calendars and more! We have definitions for commonly used terms here.
• How to give public comment: Every public meeting allows community members to give comment, whether or not it’s about something on the agenda. The meeting agenda will have specific instructions for giving public comment. Review more details here.

Companies that create and manufacture personal delivery devices, those cute bots you see on public sidewalks, have been working on growth plans for years.

Cities, on whose public sidewalks the delivery bots travel, are only now catching up to regulating them and charging the companies fees.

That's what's happening in Glendale, where, City Councilman Dan Brotman says, “[The delivery bots] just appeared out of nowhere. The company that operates [them] never reached out and talked to us."

He and other council members, he said, want to know if the delivery devices make it harder for Glendale residents using wheelchairs to use public sidewalks.

“I also am curious who is getting the financial benefit from these,” he said.

Glendale’s City Council asked city staff last month to draft two proposals, one with regulations and fees and the other pausing the operation of delivery bots while the council studies their impact. Brotman said staff may deliver those proposals to him and his colleagues in the months to come.

The two largest cities in LA County, at two different stages

The City of Los Angeles approved rules for personal delivery devices a few years ago, including flat permit fees. The City Council has since asked staff in the Department of Transportation to revaluate those rules and make suggestions.

One idea being considered — charging companies for every bot trip instead of the flat fee.

A delivery robot sits next to the bike path by the beach

(

Courtesy Coco

)

L.A. City Councilwoman Eunisses Hernandez successfully introduced the motion last year to have the regulations revisited. 

“[The companies are] starting to put movie ads or show ads, and if they're generating revenue off that, we want to know what that looks like but also be able to have a fee for them,” Hernandez said.

That report should be presented to the City Council later this year, she said. 

She’s also keen to hear from the public about their views on delivery bots. 

Companies that make the devices argue they’re providing an essential delivery service to residents while cutting down on the number of vehicles on the road making the deliveries.

“We currently pay fees in Los Angeles, Chicago and West Hollywood as part of their permit programs and are open to similar models in other cities,” said Vignesh Ram, vice president of policy at Serve Robotics, by email.

Starship Technologies' delivery robot exits the elevator in the company's office.

(

Meg Kelly

/

NPR

)

The company is now operating in Long Beach; Ram says it notified the city before beginning to operate there.

A City of Long Beach spokesperson told LAist its business licensing, planning and public works teams are currently working on recommendations for regulations. Those should be presented to the City Council early this summer.

The story first appeared on The LA Local.

When Hermila Melero trains future therapists at Cal State LA, she emphasizes something she learned over nearly two decades working on the Eastside: It matters where you’re from. 

“When you know the difference between East LA and Boyle Heights … they appreciate that on a really fundamental level,” Melero, director of field education at CSULA’s School of Social Work, said. “You feel a sense of safety and being seen when the person reflects what you look like, has a foundational understanding of where you come from.” 

Now, a $48 million grant to California State University, Los Angeles, will open new opportunities for students to serve the communities they come from. The funding will expand the university’s social work and counseling programs, training 1,000 new students to support youth mental health in Eastside communities and other underserved areas of Los Angeles.

What will the funding do?

The five-year investment by the Ballmer Group — the largest grant in the university’s history — will significantly grow Cal State LA’s Master of Social Work program. 

Its one-year MSW program will double in size, the two‑year program will increase by 50%, and the School-Based Family Counseling program will also double. The bulk of the funding will support scholarships, new faculty and the expansion of clinical placements.

Cal State LA already partners with organizations across the Eastside, including El Centro De Ayuda, AltaMed, Survivor Justice Center and schools across LAUSD. The new funding will allow more students to work directly with these groups, serving families who often lack access to care. 

“This speaks to the amazing work our social work and counseling programs are doing within our schools and with LA’s agencies serving youth and families,” said CSULA President Berenecea Johnson Eanes in a statement to Boyle Heights Beat. “With more clinical placements and greater numbers of master’s alumni, we will make real strides in meeting a critical shortage of qualified social workers and counselors.”

In addition to CSULA, CSU Dominguez Hills received $29 million to expand mental health resources in South LA and UCLA will use part of its $33 million grant to develop a minor in youth behavioral health. The three universities have received a total of $110 million. 

When Hermila Melero trains future therapists at Cal State LA, she emphasizes something she learned over nearly two decades working on the Eastside: It matters where you’re from.

(

Courtesy CSULA

)

Why representation matters

For Melero, who was born and raised in East LA, the expansion is personal. 

Melero spent 17 years of her professional career as a social worker in her own community and the surrounding areas. She witnessed firsthand how much her patients appreciated it when she spoke to them in Spanish or told them where she grew up. 

“You don’t have to explain yourself, you don’t have to explain what it’s like, you know, to grow up here,” she said. 

Now as director of field education, she helps place students in organizations, clinics and schools across the region, many of them serving the neighborhood they call home. 

Barriers to access

The need for more mental health workers comes at a time when many Eastside families are facing more barriers to care.

Stigma around mental health combined with fear tied to immigration raids have discouraged some people from seeking services, Melero said.

At the same time, financial challenges are making it harder for students to enter the profession. 

In January, the U.S. Department of Education updated its definition of a “professional degree” and excluded social work, which will affect graduate students’ eligibility for federal student loans, creating a significant financial barrier, according to the Council on Social Work Education.

Students hope to give back

For students like Silvia Perez, 41, financial assistance would be a great help.

The Cal State LA undergraduate student is pursuing her master’s degree after she graduates in May, all while raising two teenagers and a 23-year-old. Perez has been paying for her education by selling shoes and perfume outside of her home in East LA. 

Her decision to pursue a career in social work came after seeing her sister navigate the Department of Children and Family Services system with her children and witnessing how young people in her community struggled with substance abuse and homelessness. 

After graduating, Perez hopes to work in East LA to help the people she encounters every day. She believes that level of understanding can create trust with an already vulnerable population.

“I would like to help the people in my community first…I live the daily life that everyone else in my community faces,” she said.

For more information on CSULA’s MSW programs, click here.

Editor’s Note: The LA Local also receives support from the Ballmer Group.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

California scored a legal victory Monday that for now, undermines the Trump administration’s efforts to drastically cut funding for homeless housing.

Changes that would have diverted huge chunks of federal funds away from permanent housing and funneled them instead into temporary shelters and sober living programs will remain suspended after the Trump administration dropped its appeal of an earlier court loss. While the broader case is still being litigated, the new development could provide some reassurance to California counties waiting for the federal funds.

“We continue to fight for Californians and the rule of law, and we continue to win,” Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a news release. “People experiencing housing insecurity or homelessness need the federal government’s continued support — not a rollback of assistance.”

In November, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development attempted to change the way it doles out money for homeless services via its Continuum of Care program. It decreed that jurisdictions applying for a piece of about $4 billion in federal homelessness funds can’t spend more than 30% of that money on permanent housing — a move that would result in a significant cut to the type of long-term housing that can resolve someone’s homelessness.

Last year, California communities spent about 90% of their federal Continuum of Care funds on permanent housing.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration quickly joined 19 other states and the District of Columbia in suing to stop the Trump administration’s changes. In December, a federal judge in Rhode Island temporarily blocked the changes and ordered HUD to process funding applications under the original rules. The Trump administration appealed that ruling, leaving local governments and homeless service providers unsure of what they would be awarded funding for, and when.

The federal government on Monday dropped its appeal. While the rest of the lawsuit will move forward, and could take months to resolve, counties should be able to access permanent housing funds in the meantime.

Instead of prioritizing permanent housing, as has been the rule in the past, the Trump administration wants to focus more on shelters that get people off the streets quickly and temporarily, and on programs that require residents to be sober. HUD also attempted to ban the use of federal homelessness funds for diversity and inclusion efforts, support of transgender clients, and use of “harm reduction” strategies that seek to reduce overdose deaths by helping people in active addiction use drugs more safely.

A HUD spokesperson said the agency stood by its funding reforms.

“HUD remains committed to reforming the failed ‘Housing First’ approach and restoring the Continuum of Care program to its core objectives; reducing homelessness and promoting self-sufficiency for all vulnerable Americans, ensuring taxpayer dollars are directed towards those goals,” a spokesperson said in a statement.

HUD experienced another legal setback last month when a federal judge in Rhode Island shot down the agency’s attempt to upend another, smaller, source of federal homelessness funding. At issue in that case was a program called the Continuum of Care Builds grant, which funds the construction of new homeless housing. HUD last year made grantees reapply under a very different set of criteria, which seemed to disqualify organizations that support trans clients, use “harm reduction” to prevent drug overdose deaths or operate in a “sanctuary city.”

About $75 million in federal funds had been frozen as that case moved forward.

In March, the court found HUD violated the law through its “slapdash imposition of political whims.”

“This ruling is a victory for people across this nation who have overcome homelessness and stabilized in HUD’s permanent housing programs,” Ann Oliva, chief executive of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, which filed the lawsuit, wrote in a statement. “Today’s news reinforces a fundamental truth: that the work to end homelessness is not partisan, and never should be interfered with for political means.”

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