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.

State and local lawmakers are joining immigrant rights groups in urging Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign a bill that would bar California law enforcement from moonlighting for ICE.

Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, who represents Angelenos from South L.A. to Mar Vista, introduced AB 1537 in January. If implemented, the bill would ban California police, sheriffs and other law enforcement from taking on second jobs that involve “arresting, detaining, transporting, or deporting” people.

The bill has made its way through the state legislature and is now on the governor’s desk. Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto it.

At a press conference outside L.A. City Hall on Wednesday, José Madera, who directs the Pasadena Job Center, pointed to multiple deaths involving federal immigration agents in recent months — from Minneapolis to Houston — and to a recent shooting in Austin. “We don't need our local police to be part of that violence,” he said.

“ICE is a lawless, rogue agency that is terrorizing our communities, separating our families and kidnapping our neighbors,” said Bruno Huizar, supervising policy manager at the California Immigrant Policy Center. “Governor Newsom must sign AB 1537 into law to protect Californians.”

L.A. City councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, whose own parents were undocumented, said it pained him to see immigrant parents go to work and to church in fear of being separated from their children.

“If you’re a public servant, you should be serving the public — not helping ICE tear families apart,” he added in a follow-up email statement.

The bill, dubbed “No side jobs for ICE” by its proponents, would also require officers to report secondary employment offers relating to immigration to their employers.

“If a law enforcement agent gets a conditional offer from an immigration enforcement agency, that will be part of their employment records. And that will be subject to a public records act request,” said Shiu-Ming Cheer, a licensed attorney at the California Immigration Policy Center. “This is aimed at bringing transparency, so that we know how many officers are actually getting offers to work as an ICE agent or a Border Patrol agent.”

The Peace Officers Research Association of California, which represents officers across the state, has spoken out against the bill, arguing that “policies like this don’t improve public safety.” The Los Angeles Police Protective League did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

The bill is part of a growing effort to bar local law enforcement from engaging in the ongoing mass deportation effort. The L.A. City Council approved a motion in March, barring city employees from holding second jobs with federal immigration enforcement agencies.

In Santa Ana, the City Council recently adopted a policy that prohibits employees from obtaining outside work that involves federal immigration enforcement activities.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a bill aimed at protecting children who are abused.

The law, which went into effect this week, is named “Gabriel’s Law,” after Gabriel Fernandez — an 8-year-old boy in Palmdale who died in 2013 after being tortured and abused by his mother and her boyfriend.

“It devastated the community. Still has,” said State Assemblymember Tom Lackey (R-Palmdale), who worked on legislation related to Gabriel’s case for years. “It hasn't gone away, right? It’s something we still acknowledge.”

Since Fernandez’s death, the Antelope Valley has seen a number of high-profile child deaths at the hands of their parents.

The new law requires social workers to make sure a child gets emergency medical care when needed, and it makes it easier to prosecute social workers who knowingly falsify records.

Officials said there had been warning signs about Fernandez’s abuse, but social workers with the L.A. County Department of Children and Family Services failed to follow up on them. The high-profile case prompted internal reforms in the agency.

What happened to Gabriel

Gabriel died in May 2013, after months of abuse from his mother and her boyfriend. He was found with a number of injuries, including a fractured skull, broken ribs and BB pellets lodged in his body. His mother and her boyfriend were both sentenced.

A teacher had reported signs of abuse to the county, but social workers did not remove him from the home. Then they ended the investigation. Prosecutors charged the social workers with child abuse, but the charges were later dismissed.

“He was literally tortured. And there were many, many, many documented events, and there are many encounters that he had with people that lacked follow-up,” Lackey said.

What does the law change?

Before this week, the law said that social workers may authorize care if a child needs immediate emergency care, but did not require it. Gabriel’s law requires a social worker to secure medical care for a child.

“ They call for an ambulance or escort the child to an emergency room— make sure a physician has the opportunity to provide some level of remedy and documentation of the injury,” Lackey said.

It also clarifies the law so that social workers who are guilty of falsifying or destroying public records can be imprisoned or fined.

Why did the law take so long to change?

Lackey’s previous legislative efforts related to Fernandez’s case failed over the years. He introduced at least five different pieces of legislation that failed to advance.

“I'm not even saying that I blame the pushback and the concern, because if you're too aggressive, there's a tendency to accuse people of wrongdoing when they are not guilty of wrongdoing, so we wanted to make sure that the balance was reasonable,” he said.

Lackey terms out this year. “We're trying to do something as a community to not only pay tribute to [Gabriel], but to prevent it from reoccurring,” he said.

The Los Angeles Fire Department has completed its investigation into the cause of the Lineage warehouse fire in Boyle Heights but was unable to determine what caused it. 

In a press release, LAFD said the June 17 fire was caused by an “electrical event” that occurred on the roof of the building, “adjacent to a section of solar panels.” Despite a “comprehensive investigation,” the department could not determine what caused the electrical event.

“The Department’s thoughts remain with all those impacted by this deeply tragic incident,” Arson and Fire Investigation Chief Thomas Raymond said in a release.

In response to the inconclusive investigation, District 14 Councilmember Ysabel Jurado said, “LAFD’s finding that the cause remains undetermined does nothing to alleviate what Boyle Heights residents have endured and are still carrying: months of health concerns and disruption, along with unanswered questions about whether this site can safely operate again.”

“The fact that we still cannot explain how this catastrophe began is yet another reason I will continue opposing any permits to rebuild this facility,” Jurado said.

Recently, the LA City Council voted to withhold rebuilding permits for the Lineage warehouse until after the Los Angeles Fire Department completed its investigation. Earlier this month, Lineage Chief Executive Officer Greg Lehmkuhl told Boyle Heights Beat and The LA Local that the company had not decided whether to rebuild, saying, “We’re still focused on holding the right people accountable here and making sure that we’re continuing to support the community.”

The CEO’s comments came after Lineage sued solar power provider Altus Power, Inc. and its contractor, blaming them for the fire. Altus Power and its contractor dispute those claims.

In a statement following the completed investigation, Lineage said, “Today’s report from the Los Angeles Fire Department validates what we have known all along: This was a solar fire.”

The fire and subsequent cleanup of millions of pounds of rotting food caused a flood of issues for residents living in Boyle Heights, East LA and surrounding communities, including an infestation of flies and pests, nausea and headaches, higher utility bills and other health concerns. 

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Boyle Heights Beat senior reporter Alejandra Molina and LA Local reporter Christopher Damien contributed to this report.

The post LAFD closes investigation into Lineage warehouse fire without determining a cause appeared first on LA Local.