Price Tag of Parking

I found an article entitled “Price Tag of Parking.” The author argues that there is really no such thing as free parking. Even parking that is provided at no cost often carries a high price for parking providers. The costs associated with no cost parking include investments in land, construction costs, property and sales taxes, and maintenance and operating costs. These parking costs are usually passed on to the operator of the facility. For example, a mall owner will charge higher rent to cover the costs associated with parking. Higher rents usually translate into higher prices for customers.

The article suggests that owners should carefully consider whether more parking is needed before building new parking since this will involve additional costs. Construction costs for one parking space can be anywhere from $6,000 to $15,000. In assessing parking demand, owners should ask three questions: How long will patrons park? How many times will each space turn over? When will demand exist?

Even if more parking is needed, building a new structure isn’t necessarily the best approach. Owners should consider other options such as operating a shuttle service from remote parking, employing policies to discourage people from driving, building a surface lot on an existing vacant lot, re-striping existing facilities to increase supply, or implementing parking management strategies that allow existing parking facilities to be used more efficiently.

John Dorsett, Price Tag of Parking, Today’s Facility Manager, February 1998, available at http://www.walkerparking.com/documents/dorsett_price_tag.pdf

Upcoming Ballot Initiatives on Eminent Domain and Rent Control

Propositions 98 and 99 – Eminent Domain and Rent Control

On June 3rd, California voters will be given the choice to vote for Propositions 98 and 99, dealing with eminent domain and rent control. The current landscape surrounding these issues is as follows:

With regards to rent control, Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose all currently have some measure of rent control, limiting the amount a landlord can increase the rent charged for a unit during a tenant’s residence. Landlords are free to set the rent at any level when tenants change, however.

Respecting eminent domain, Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) held, in a 5-4 decision, that eminent domain, the right of the government to seize private property for public purposes, allowed cities to seize private property and transfer it to other private owners to further economic development. The Court held that seizure and transfer of property from one private party to another qualified as a “public use” if the new use creates new jobs, increases tax revenues and help to revitalize a depressed urban area. Kelo has generated substantial public backlash and considerable uncertainty. Propositions 98 and 99 are, to great extent, the result of this backlash.

The basics of the propositions are:
Prop. 98 limits the government’s ability to employ eminent domain to seize private property for public uses and eliminates rent control throughout California.

Eminent Domain Effects:

• Private property may not be taken for other private use under any circumstances (i.e. Kelo-type seizures would be prohibited).
• Property may only be taken for public uses like freeway construction, parks, or schools.
• Open spaces and farms may not be seized for the sale of natural resources.
  
• If the government’s purpose change after the seizure, the property must be offered for repurchase to the original owner at the seizure price.

Rent Control Effects

• Tenants living in rent-controlled areas continue to receive the benefit of rent control until they move.
• Once a unit turns over to a new tenant, that unit is no longer subject to rent control.

Prop. 99: In response to a perceived “hidden agenda” behind Prop. 98, evidenced by the substantial financial backing of apartment and mobile home owners, the California League of Cities proposed Prop. 99. The League of Cities claims that the real motivation behind Prop. 98 is the elimination of rent control in order to profit landlords. Prop. 99 also deals with eminent domain, but has no provisions regarding rent control. Under Prop. 99, the government would be prohibited from taking owner-occupied homes for sale to another private party. Prop. 99 is drafted such that if both propositions are passed, the proposition receiving more votes will become law.

Sources
• www.yesprop98.com/facts
• www.eminentdomainreform.com/compare9899
• Tom Chorneau, Eminent Domain Measure on Ballot, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, MAR. 10, 2008.

Tensions between Berkeley High School students and Downtown area merchants

Because Berkeley High School does not have a cafeteria, about 90 percent of students rely on Downtown merchants for lunch, according to a Berkeley High School junior.

When students leave campus for their 50-minute lunch break, some of them steal from food stores, according to local merchants. Nevertheless, the same local merchants admit that much of their income comes from Berkeley High School students.

In response, some students complain that the merchants are “rude” and discriminatory. For instance, one student alleged that the merchants stereotype black teenagers as “gangbangers.” In general, the distrust of high school students leads some merchants to kick out students who are in large groups. Kicking out students in large groups affects black students in particular, because, as one student put it, black students tend to travel “in packs.”

http://www.dailycal.org/article/1708/berkeley_high_students_local_retailers_clash

Landmark Berkeley Ice Rink to Reopen

http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/news/print.asp?id=24535
The Berkeley Ice Rink was scheduled to be shut down about a year ago. The property was going to be used as development property, however a nonprofit group stepped in to raise about $12 million within the next two years to save the landmark.

The ice rink has had several skaters such as Kristi Yamaguchi, Peggy Fleming and Brian Boitano start their career there. It was open for 70 years before being shutting down sometime a year ago.

This is another example of the landmarking and attempting to save older buildings which could be used for more productive development. Society thriving on decay anyone?

Building Reuse is Green, Says Leading Architect

Richard Brenneman, “Building Reuse is Green, Says Leading Architect,” The Berkeley Daily Planet, Mar. 11, 2008 (available at http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-03-11/article/29433).

The Berkeley Daily Planet featured an article this week summarizing green development perspectives held by architect and green building expert Sandra Mendler.

Mendler, who spoke as a Green Building and Development panel member at the UC Berkeley Energy Symposium, explained that retrofits can generally match the efficiency standards of new construction. She further offered that retrofitting an existing building is generally greener than tearing it down and building a new one. Her conclusions echo findings made by DAPAC in their preparation of the Downtown Area Plan.

Other panelists at the symposium included Steve Selkowitz and Charles Huizenga of Lawrence Berkeley and Gail Brager of UC Berkeley’s Center for the Built Environment. Each shared Mendler’s perspective that the current levels of emissions stemming from building energy use identified buildings as major targets for conservation efforts.

Among the factors contributing to energy use, “90% of a building’s embodied energy derives from five material choices: framing (steel, concrete or wood), enclosure systems (glass, masonry or metal), flooring, roofing and partitions.” Mendler offered, for example, that aluminum requires tens times the energy to produce as steel.

The article concludes with a plug for buildcarbonneutral.org, where builders can go to calculate the green-ness of their projects.

Center Street Plaza

The Berkeley Planning Commission Task Force evaluated the proposal to build a hotel/conference center/museum complex in the heart of Downtown Berkeley. The report found that the proposed 200-room hotel and conference center and relocation of the UC museums downtown could significantly boost the Downtown economy and add nearly $1 million per year to direct City revenues.

The Task Force found that Center Street between Oxford and Shattuck is ideally suited to become a public open space closed to cars. Center Street is the major pedestrian link between the campus and Downtown. More than 10,000 walking trips per day are made on this block, while there is relatively little automobile traffic. This block’s dimensions are: Length- 460'; curb-to-curb width- 42'; total right-of-way- 80'; width of sidewalk on the south side of the street- about 22'; and width of sidewalk on the north side- 16'. Making Center Street a pedestrian block will encourage more people to walk to and from campus, bus, and BART Downtown. Trees can be planted to provide landscaping and open space.

The proposed hotel and conference center would be strategically located at the most significant transit point in Berkeley. That said, it could still generate significant traffic by hotel guests, conference-goers, museum visitors, and employees. A project transportation plan can reduce traffic impacts. The report outlines a number of strategies to reduce car use: locating parking underground; raising parking rates for all-day use; and/or providing hotel guests with a day’s free transit by means of a BART excursion ticket, perhaps a policy contributing to LEED certification.

Other suggestions for the plaza:

● Use of the hotel/conference center should flow easily to and from the street and encourage spilling into Downtown.

● Include ground-level and second-story cafes, restaurants and retail developed in conjunction with the hotel, preferably with outdoor seating.

● Feature ecological amenities that relate to the civic, environmental, arts, and economic values supported by the Berkeley General Plan.

- Jayni Foley

Report of the Planning Commission Task Force on a Downtown Hotel/Conference Center/Museums Complex and Public Open Space (April 27, 2004), available at http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_(new_site_map_walk-through)/Level_3_-_General/DowntownAreaDocs.pdf

Another Permit for Patrick Kennedy

The Berkeley Zoning Board Adjustment approved three projects in Berkeley last week: 1) add a restaurant downtown, 2) build a bio fuels station in south Berkeley, and 3) permit a child care center for Pixar employees in West Berkeley. With regard to the most relevant project to downtown Berkeley, the first project, developer Patrick Kennedy now has a blanket use permit to establish a 13, 974 square foot full service restaurant and bar (able to serve alcohol) at the former location of the Act 1&2 Theater on the 2100 block of Center Street. Kennedy sees potential for a Spanish or Latin restaurant with live entertainment. On behalf of Kennedy, Niloo Nouri expressed, “We wanted to have the full-service restaurant necessary to attract a good reputable high end name to Berkeley.” Board member Sarah Shumer opposed the permit and expressed concern over the nature of the blanket permit, as well as the availability of parking that would accompany the development of the restaurant. Vice chair Bob Allen, in favor of the permit, asked rhetorically, “If we are not going to allow this type of a development, what use can we allow downtown? . . . Do we want more of a ghost town than we have now?” From another perspective, Doug Hambleton, Berkeley police chief, expressed concern over the noise and supervision issues.

Riya Bhattacharjee, “ ZAB Approves Center Street Restaurant Permit, BioFuels Station,” The Berkeley Daily Planet, Volume 9 Issue 96, March 7-10 2008, at 3.