Los Angeles City Council Committee Advances Parking Reform Motion

The Los Angeles City Council’s Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee has approved a motion that could reshape how parking requirements are applied to new development across the city.

The motion, authored by Councilmembers Bob Blumenfield and Nithya Raman, directs city departments to study the feasibility, costs, and benefits of eliminating minimum off-street parking requirements. If adopted by the full Council, this approach would allow developers to determine the appropriate level of parking for each project, rather than adhering to the city’s traditional one-size-fits-all codes that apply equally to the urban core and suburban neighborhoods.

State Law Context

California law (AB 2097) already prohibits cities from requiring parking for most new housing within a half-mile of major transit stops. In addition, state density bonus laws relax parking mandates for affordable housing projects. Several California cities, including San Francisco, San José, Sacramento, and Culver City, have eliminated parking requirements citywide. Lancaster, Santa Monica, and San Diego have also removed mandates in their central areas.

Los Angeles has taken incremental steps in the past, lifting minimums in some central areas and eliminating requirements for affordable housing in transit-rich locations under Mayor Karen Bass’ Executive Directive 1. The new PLUM motion could extend those reforms citywide.

Additional Housing Motions

Alongside the parking reform motion, the committee approved additional measures to streamline housing production. These include motions to facilitate permitting for affordable housing, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), plan checks, DWP utility connections, and the use of public agency sites (including Metro, LAUSD, and LACCD properties) for new housing.

Support and Opposition

Supporters argue that eliminating mandatory minimums will reduce development costs, prevent unnecessary reductions in housing units to meet parking requirements, and create flexibility for projects located near transit. Blumenfield emphasized that the intent is not to eliminate parking but to provide options. “This issue often gets mischaracterized as the city trying to eliminate parking, but certainly that’s not the intent,” Blumenfield said. “It’s about providing options. Developers of market-rate housing and commercial projects will still provide parking, because that’s what they need to do to be financially successful.”

Opponents, however, warn that reducing or eliminating parking minimums could worsen street congestion in areas where developers choose to build fewer spaces. Councilmember John Lee, the sole dissenting vote, pointed to issues in his district where projects without on-site parking have caused spillover into single-family neighborhoods.

What’s Next

The PLUM Committee’s approval is only the first step. City staff will prepare a detailed report on the potential impacts of eliminating parking minimums before the motion moves to the full Council for consideration. Any final decision would require additional public hearings and a Council vote.