title
CC - PUBLIC HEARING: Introduction of an Ordinance Approving City-Initiated Zoning Code Amendment (P2026-0196-ZCA) to Adopt an Exemption Pursuant to CEQA Section 15183; and Amend the Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC) Chapter 17.320, Off-Street Parking and Loading, to Implement Citywide Maximum Parking Ratios for New Development and Redevelopment Projects.
body
Meeting Date: November 9, 2026
Contact Person/Dept: Gabriel Barreras, Senior Planner
Peer Chacko, AICP, Current Planning Manager
Phone Number: (310) 253-5776 / (310) 253-5755
Fiscal Impact: Yes [ ] No [X] General Fund: Yes [ ] No [X]
Attachments: Yes [X] No [ ]
Public Notification: (Email) Public Notifications - City Council (10/22/2026), Meetings and Agendas - City Council (11/04/2026), (Posted) City Website (10/22/2026), Social Media (10/22/2026); (Published) Culver City News (10/22/2026)
Department Approval: Emily Stadnicki, Planning and Development Director (10/21/2026)
____________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council introduce an ordinance approving the proposed City-initiated Zoning Code Amendment (P2026-0196-ZCA) to adopt an exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15183; and amend the Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC) Chapter 17.320, Off-Street Parking and Loading, to implement citywide maximum parking ratios for new development and redevelopment projects (Attachment 1).
PROCEDURES
1. The Mayor seeks a motion to receive and file the affidavit of mailing, publishing, and posting of public notice.
2. The Mayor calls on staff for a brief staff report and the City Council poses questions to staff.
3. The Mayor seeks a motion to open the public hearing and the City Council receives public comment.
4. The Mayor seeks a motion to close the public hearing after all testimony has been presented.
5. The City Council discusses the matter and arrives at its decision.
BACKGROUND
Over the past several years, Culver City has been considering numerous parking reforms and best practices to support the growth of housing, commercial businesses, and economic development throughout the city. In 2022, Culver City became the first city in Los Angeles County to remove all minimum parking requirements, placing the responsibility on property owners and developers to determine how much parking they need to meet market conditions and future demands.
The option of adopting parking maximums (or caps) on the amount of parking that could be provided on a given site was considered at that time but did not have consensus at Council, so maximums were remanded to the City’s Standing Mobility Subcommittee for further discussion. Subsequently, it was determined that there were too many unknowns and that the discussion would benefit from data on how much parking new projects proposed after minimums were removed.
In early 2025, the Standing Mobility Subcommittee requested the parking maximums issue be brought back for discussion. On June 12, 2025, Planning staff delivered a presentation to the Subcommittee and received feedback on additional research and recommendations on parking maximums. On November 19, 2025, staff delivered a second presentation to the Subcommittee, and was asked to explore options for implementing maximum parking regulations, identify strategies used in other cities, and provide data-driven recommendations on what would be most appropriate in Culver City.
On March 10, 2026, the Current Planning Division approved a contract amendment with Walker Consultants (Consultant) for a comprehensive Parking Maximums Study. The study is intended to guide parking maximum policy by building on Culver City's prior actions, including removal of minimum parking requirements in October 2022. The Parking Maximums Study (Attachment 3) findings are incorporated in the analysis below.
On September 23, 2026, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 2026-P006 (Attachment 2), recommending City Council approval of proposed parking maximum regulations including an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) process to approve increases over the proposed maximum ratios. Some Commissioners offered suggestions to limit AUP-approved increases to 5% (instead of 10% proposed by staff) or two spaces, whichever is greater; capping residential parking at two spaces per unit regardless of bedroom count; and exploring alternative maximums for certain health care and clinic uses as well as updating parking design standards in the future. The Commission unanimously supported future consideration of the complementary strategies noted below in the Analysis section.
On September 29, 2026, the Standing Mobility Subcommittee reviewed the staff proposal and Planning Commission suggestions. In lieu of capping all residential uses and housing types to two spaces regardless of bedroom count, the Subcommittee recommended limiting multifamily developments with 16 or more units to two parking spaces per dwelling, consistent with the intent of California Civil Code Section 1947.1 (AB 1317), which requires parking to be unbundled from rent for certain developments. The Subcommittee further recommended reducing the permissible AUP increase from 10% to 5%, as well as monitoring and evaluating the impact of the code amendment every three to five years.
ANALYSIS
Unlike traditional minimum parking requirements, which may not reflect changing travel patterns, transportation options, and mobility technologies, parking maximums are intended to proactively reduce automobile dependence, support multimodal transportation, and encourage pedestrian-oriented development. Key goals of parking maximums include but are not limited to:
• Reducing development costs;
• Promoting efficient land use by reallocating land from parking to housing, commercial, and other productive and tax-generating uses;
• Supporting safer, pedestrian-oriented streets by reducing parking areas and curb cuts;
• Encouraging multimodal transportation including walking, bicycling, public transit, and other mobility options.
• Reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), emissions, traffic congestion, and noise;
• Advancing broader sustainability by limiting impervious surfaces, stormwater runoff, and urban heat island effects associated with parking and pavement;
Implementation of parking maximums presents several challenges to be considered:
• Stakeholder Resistance - businesses and residents may have concerns about reduced parking access;
• Market and Financing Concerns - lenders may hesitate to support projects with reduced parking due to marketability concerns tied to typical parking expectations;
• Parking Spillover - reduced parking supply may increase demand on adjacent streets or in neighborhoods, potentially requiring complementary strategies such as shared parking, residential permit programs, or parking management;
• Policy Nexus Alignment - parking maximums should align with state law as well as other land use goals and economic policies, and allow for adjustment over time;
• Transit and Mobility Investments - parking maximums may accelerate the necessity of investments in transit service, connectivity, and multimodal infrastructure; and,
• Limited Data - most parking maximums in other jurisdictions have been implemented within the past 5-7 years, with minimal data or analysis on outcomes. This period also coincides with significant disruptions to development, including COVID-19, remote work, land, labor, and construction cost increases, and elevated interest rates, making it difficult to fully interpret the effects of parking maximums.
Current Parking Demands in Culver City
The Parking Maximums Study evaluated existing parking demand and market conditions across various development types in the city. Using Development Pipeline reports from January 2025 to January 2026, the Consultant analyzed proposed parking rates for 52 projects, which were grouped into four primary development types: residential (22 projects), mixed-use (19 projects), office (9 projects), and stand-alone retail (1 project). The Consultant then compared the proposed parking for each Pipeline project to the former minimum parking requirements of the Culver City Zoning Code to show how the former parking minimums would impact these projects if applied as the new parking maximums. Note that this comparison was made for illustration purposes and should not be seen as a predictor of how future projects would be impacted.
Of the 52 Development Pipeline projects reviewed, 12 projects (or 23%) exceeded the former parking minimums, proposing on average (excluding outliers) 11% of excess parking. This indicates that maximum parking ratios based on the former minimum ratios would match the observed parking demand for approximately 77% of current Development Pipeline projects.
Further, proposed parking varies by Development Pipeline project size, location, and context within Culver City. Specifically, smaller projects with fewer than 10 units and higher bedroom counts, including those located near major transit stops, are generally providing more than two parking spaces per unit. Additionally, commercial parking ratios range widely from 1 to 11 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial space. This wide range is largely due to the varied commercial uses, ranging from medical offices to restaurants to studios. Given the variety of commercial uses, applicants may need additional flexibility to accommodate future changes in tenancy and different peak-parking profiles.
Proposed Parking Maximums
Based on the Development Pipeline data, the former parking minimums could feasibly serve as the basis for new parking maximums. However, certain projects may require a relief mechanism, such as an Administrative Use Permit (AUP), to allow increases of up to 2 vehicular spaces or 10%, whichever is greater, above the established maximum where a demonstrated need for additional parking can be substantiated. The 10% allowable increase proposed by staff is derived from the observed average percentage by which Development Pipeline projects exceeded the proposed maximum parking ratios. Note that, for specialized uses with particularly high parking demands, the City has a comprehensive plan process that requires a transportation plan supported by parking and traffic studies, as well as applicable CEQA or environmental analysis and mitigation measures.
Note also that the Planning Commission and the Mobility Subcommittee have recommended a more aggressive limit of 5% to the allowable AUP increase. Using the existing Development Pipeline Project data for illustration, Planning staff compared 10% versus 5% caps on the allowable AUP increase as shown in Table 1 below. A 5% cap would moderately reduce the number of eligible projects from 9 to 7. However, the resulting total number of additional parking spaces allowed would reduce significantly from 67 to 7. While 8 of the 9 projects eligible for the 10% increase are smaller projects resulting in small parking increases, the one large eligible project would result in 55 additional parking spaces. If a 5% cap on the allowable increase by AUP is enacted, this project would need to go through a comprehensive plan process to seek approval. Note that this project would also be required by state law to unbundle parking.
Table 1 - Comparison of Potential AUP Parking Increases
By comparison, the City of Santa Monica allows projects outside of the Downtown to exceed their parking maximum by up to 2 vehicular spaces or 5%, whichever is greater, through a Conditional Use Permit, which requires Planning Commission approval. The City of San Diego allows nonresidential projects to exceed the maximum by up to 25% through a Neighborhood Development Permit, a staff-level discretionary approval.
Staff proposed parking maximum ratios and associated regulatory processes are included in Attachment 1 - Exhibit A.
Complementary Strategies for Future Consideration
Parking maximums are most effective when paired with complementary strategies that provide a more holistic approach to parking reform. In addition to parking maximums, City staff, Planning Commission, and Standing Mobility Subcommittee members recommend the City Council consider the following strategies or to be included in future workplans. These are for future consideration and do not require any City Council action at this time.
1. Limit surface parking coverage on larger lots or for certain development types.
2. Update Parking Design and Layout Standards to modify regular and tandem parking space and aisle dimensions, compact space allowances, enable other space-efficient configurations, and ensure consistency with the intent of parking maximums.
3. Provide incentives for flat floor plates in larger parking structures where future conversion to other uses may be practical.
4. Limit new curb cuts and driveways to consolidate site access, and preserve curb space for on-street parking, transit, bicycle facilities, parklets, or other active curb uses.
5. Allow for overnight parking permits in public garages.
6. Study the potential of new parking impact fees for new parking, countered by potential reductions in other impact fees. Per Government Code Section 66000 et. seq., a city shall establish the fee's purpose and identify clear relationship between the fee, the development, and the proportionality for the fee amount.
General Plan Consistency
Within the General Plan 2045, the Mobility Element acknowledges an increase in construction, housing demand, and the potential impacts on traffic and congestion without mitigations such as increased mobility options and transit demand management policies. The Mobility Element explicitly calls out the option to, “set maximum parking requirements,” as a tool to cut vehicle trips, support shared parking, and prioritize multimodal access, especially in transit-oriented districts.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The adoption of the proposed Zoning Code Amendments are statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.25(b)(11), which states, “A planning decision carried out by a local agency to reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements or institute parking maximums, remove or restrict parking, or implement transportation demand management requirements or programs.”
Additionally, the proposed Zoning Code Amendments are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. Under Section 15183, the General Plan 2045 Mobility Element and its associated Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) evaluated citywide land use and transportation policies, including the establishment of parking maximums as a potential strategy for reducing VMT and supporting the City's broader mobility objectives. Therefore, the proposed parking maximums are consistent with the adopted General Plan PEIR. The proposed amendment does not authorize new development or intensify existing development potential, and implementation is not expected to result in significant environmental effects beyond those previously evaluated in the General Plan PEIR. Accordingly, the proposed Zoning Code Amendment qualifies for an exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
CCMC Section 17.630.010 requires public notification via a publication in the Culver City News, a minimum of 14 days prior to the formal public hearing. Accordingly, a public notice was published in the Culver City News, posted on the City website, and distributed electronically via GovDelivery and Next Door on October 22, 2026. As of the writing of this report, no comments have been received.
Focus Groups
In preparation of this report, City staff and Consultants conducted two stakeholder focus groups to better understand how the implementation of parking maximums could affect private development, business operations, commercial leasing, project financing, accessibility, and transportation outcomes in Culver City.
The first focus group was held on May 20, 2026, and included members of the development community with experience in Culver City, including property owners, developers, and entitlement specialists. The second focus group was held on July 7, 2026, and included business owners, commercial tenants, real estate brokers, and representatives from the Arts Business Improvement District, Chamber of Commerce, and Downtown Business Association. The discussions addressed the potential impacts of parking maximums on project feasibility, development and financing, site planning and entitlements, business operations, leasing, parking demand, customer access, and broader transportation and economic outcomes.
See Attachment 3 - Appendix C for a complete summary of the focus group discussions and outcomes.
CONCLUSION
The proposed Zoning Code Amendment creates a framework that balances development feasibility with the City's broader mobility, environmental, and land use objectives. Informed by a comprehensive Parking Maximums Study, focus groups, and an analysis of 52 active Development Pipeline projects, the proposed maximums are intended to reflect current market conditions while discouraging the overbuilding of parking that contributes to increased VMT, emissions, and inefficient land use. A built-in relief mechanism through an AUP allowing increases by up to 2 vehicular spaces or 10%, whichever is greater, above the established maximum to ensure projects with demonstrated parking needs are not unduly constrained. Staff finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan 2045 Mobility Element, qualifies for a CEQA exemption pursuant to Section 15183, and recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance.
Staff has incorporated the Mobility Subcommittee recommendation to establish a maximum parking ratio of 2 spaces per unit for residential developments with 16 or more units. The following additional amendments suggested by the Mobility Subcommittee and Planning Commission are identified for City Council consideration:
• Limit the AUP increase to 5% or 2 spaces, whichever is greater;
• Monitor and evaluate the impact of parking maximum every three to five years.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
The recommended Code Amendment would not result in any direct financial impacts to the City. Implementation of the amendment may encourage development to maximize habitable and leasable floor area within projects, which could indirectly result in increased revenue from tax-generating land uses, development impact fees, and applications or development fees associated with requests for relief from parking maximums, on a case-by-case basis. The extent of any future economic impact or additional City revenue will depend on market conditions, development activity, and other factors beyond the City’s control.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2026-11-09_ATT1_Proposed City Council Ordinance (P2026-0196-ZCA) with Exhibit A: Proposed Zoning Code Text Changes in “strikethrough/underline” format
2. 2026-11-09_ATT2_Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-P006, September 23, 2026
3. 2026-11-09_ATT3_Culver City Parking Maximums Study - Walker Consultants
4. 2026-11-09_ATT4_City Council Presentation, November 9, 2026
recommended action
MOTION
That the City Council:
Introduce the proposed Ordinance approving City-initiated Zoning Code Amendment (P2026-0196-ZCA) to adopt an exemption pursuant to CEQA Section 15183; and amend the Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC) Chapter 17.320, Off-Street Parking and Loading, to implement citywide maximum parking ratios for new development and redevelopment projects, as detailed in Attachment 1 - Exhibit A.
