San Diego took a step toward becoming a less car-reliant city on Monday when the City Council voted 8-1 to eliminate parking requirements for new condominium and apartment complexes in neighborhoods near mass transit.

Supporters say the new policy will make housing cheaper by eliminating antiquated rules about parking that fit poorly in a city where many residents are more inclined to use mass transit, bicycles or ride-booking services like Uber and Lyft.

The plan also aims to help the city meet the goals of its legally binding climate action plan, which requires more people to commute by bicycling, walking and transit in order to reduce greenhouse gases.

“We have a housing crisis we have to address, and I believe this proposal will allow more units to be built and will decrease the cost of building these units,” Councilwoman Vivian Moreno said. “We need to recognize that the old standards for parking requirements are outdated.”


Supporters also stressed that the changes will be gradual and are unlikely to affect car-reliant neighborhoods because developers would still choose to include parking spots in projects there.

“I’m a big fan of letting the market decide,” Councilman Scott Sherman said. “If a developer thinks they can build something with zero parking spaces and sell it to a certain clientele, then let them take that risk.”

Critics said the policy change is premature, predicting it will worsen parking scarcity in many neighborhoods, reducing quality of life and frustrating many residents.

“Not having parking will neither provide mass transit nor will it directly provide more housing,” said Councilwoman Dr. Jennifer Campbell, who cast the lone “no” vote. “The removal of parking requirements should be one of the last steps in moving our city away from car-centric transit, instead of one of the first.”


The policy change eliminates rules requiring developers to create at least one parking spot per unit for most projects, including steeper parking requirements for larger apartments and condominiums.

It also requires developers to “unbundle” the cost of a parking spot from monthly rent or a condominium purchase price, allowing residents who prefer not to have a car to pay less for housing.

The only neighborhoods eligible for the new policy are those near transit hubs, which are defined as being located within half a mile of a trolley line, a bus rapid transit station or two high-frequency bus routes. The transit must be operating or scheduled to begin operating within five years.

In addition to eliminating parking minimums, the policy sets a maximum of one parking space per unit for new apartment and condominium projects downtown.


The new policy wouldn’t apply to single-family homes or commercial projects. It is not retroactive; it only applies to new construction.

Campbell and other critics said they’re concerned the policy change is a financial giveaway to developers, who are not obligated to pass the savings from not being required to build parking onto renters and home buyers.

Parking spots typically increase the cost of building an individual housing unit from $35,000 to $90,000.

Sherman, on the other hand, said the policy change will encourage developers to pursue different types of projects that don’t make sense now because parking spots are so expensive to build.


“Right now we have subsidized housing and we have luxury housing and we don’t have that middle market housing and that’s really what is needed,” he said.

The policy change is based on similar changes in Portland and Seattle, where softer parking requirements have resulted in decreased automobile ownership, increased transit use and greater housing production and affordability.

Campbell said San Diego is years away from having the kind of robust transit system that makes zero parking requirements successful in other cities.

“Our regional transportation agencies are only beginning to build the projects that will make not having a car a viable option,” Campbell said, noting that surveys show 95 percent of San Diego residents own cars.


“Putting in zero parking while adding density, without the infrastructure of mass transit already present, will lead to decreased quality of life and frustration for our citizens.”

Mayor Kevin Faulconer, who proposed the change last fall and during his State of the City speech in January, hailed the lower parking requirements before the council’s vote.

“We need to get government out of the way so constructing homes becomes easier, less expensive and faster,” he told the council. “These parking reforms set the city on the right path for the future as new mobility technologies emerge and younger generations increasingly want new cost-saving options.”

It’s the latest in a series of proposed reforms by Faulconer that aim to help solve the city’s housing crisis by boosting production and lowering costs. Other efforts include looser rules for granny flats and reducing fees for dense projects.


Faulconer said this policy change and a separate proposal to eliminate building height rules in many areas, which the council hasn’t yet approved, are needed to really make a difference.

“We’re never going to get there by nibbling around the edges,” he said. “We need radical change.”

Supporters say developers won’t risk millions of dollars building projects without parking spots, unless market studies show there is adequate demand in a particular neighborhood for housing without parking. The proposal would simply give developers the flexibility to include the number of parking spots in each project that they expect residents to want.

Developers who choose to provide less parking than previous requirements will be required to provide what the city calls “transportation amenities,” such as bike lockers and monthly transit passes for residents.


Because some neighborhoods have weaker transit and cycling infrastructure, city officials have agreed to analyze possible “transportation equity fees” that could be required of developers in such areas.

City officials also agreed to study what it means to be within a half-mile of transit, after Councilman Mark Kersey argued that the rule is unfair in places where elevation changes or impediments like freeways make it impractical to travel to transit, even if it’s close by.

“We’re not building housing for crows, we’re building it for people,” he said.

Because the policy change is an ordinance, the council must approve it a second time in coming weeks.


david.garrick@sduniontribune.com (619) 269-8906 Twitter:@UTDavidGarrick