Circulate San Diego submitted a comment letter in response to the Navy’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Navy Old Town Campus Revitalization. The proposal is a bold and welcome contribution to the future of the built environment in San Diego. The Navy’s preferred proposal will bring thousands of new homes, large amounts of office space, and secure a permanent home for an important piece of our national security infrastructure.
The location is prime for new development, with regional transit access via the Old Town Transit Center, including access to both UTC and the Downtown jobs centers. The site is located within the Midway-Pacific Highway planning area, where the City of San Diego’s voters approved an elimination of a longstanding height limit, and the community plan calls for infill growth.
Circulate San Diego supports Alternative 4, the most dense development and the Navy's preferred alternatives. Circulate also gave detailed recommendations that the Navy establish requirements for affordability, parking, and transportation that reflect the region’s goals. Read the full letter here. [pdf]
Circulate San Diego submitted a letter of support for AB 1401, which would eliminate local minimum parking requirements for both residential and commercial buildings in transit priority areas. By reducing the over-building of parking, this bill would reduce traffic, greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, reduce the cost of housing to renters and homeowners, and improve the prospects of small neighborhood businesses fighting to survive during the pandemic.
On-site parking reduces the housing supply by taking up space that could otherwise be used for additional apartments. Providing on-site parking is also very expensive, costing $30,000 to $75,000 per space to build. This cost is passed on to renters and home buyers, regardless of whether they own a car. In fact, a recent study by Santa Clara University, researchers found that the cost of garage parking to renter households is approximately $1,700 per year, or an additional 17% of a housing unit’s rent.
This bill does not prohibit property owners from building on-site parking. Rather, it gives them the flexibility to decide on their own how much on-site parking to provide, instead of requiring compliance with a one-size-fits-all mandate. Read the full letter here [pdf].