A landowner does not owe invitees a duty to provide adequate onsite parking so that the invitee won’t be exposed to risks from traffic on adjoining streets that the invitee must cross to access the landowner’s property from available offsite parking. Both precedent (Vasilenko v. Grace Family Church (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1077) ad the Rowland factors weigh against such a duty. The the absence of onsite parking by itself does not amount to a “condition” on the property that exacerbates the offsite danger to invitees; hence, it does not give rise to an actionable duty of care. Though the risk to invitees is foreseeable, it is not closely connected with the lack of onsite parking, and imposing a duty would impose expensive burdens on landowners, particularly those with existing structures that cannot be easily changed to provide onsite parking. The plaintiff also could not establish such a duty by relying on a local ordinance requiring a specified amount of onsite parking. The ordinance was a site-specific requirement not enacted for the general public benefit nor designed to protect against pedestrian injury, but rather intended to preserve neighborhood aesthetics.