Parking Crunch

I found an article entitled “The Parking Crunch Myth” which examined whether changes in organization of office space lead to a parking crunch as many people believe. As office put more employees in smaller spaces to save costs, many are worried that parking will become an increasing problem.

The article states that it is important for employers to accurately assess the demand for parking. This assessment involves a consideration of the correct occupied floor of the building, the percentage of employees who drive cars, and the density of employees within the building. The trend in recent years has been toward more demand for parking, often above what the buildings can handle. However, recent studies comparing current parking demand ratios to those in the 1980s reveal that parking demand hasn’t increased as dramatically as many people believe. The evidence of dramatic increases in parking demand involve isolated areas.

However, employers should be aware that parking planning is still important. Parking demands may be shifting in coming years as more people telecommute. Some new considerations include incentives to carpool, discouraging reserved parking, re-striping spaces to accommodate smaller cars, leasing spaces from nearby properties that have little weekday traffic, and adding parking decks to lots.

John Dorsett, The Parking Crunch Myth, Today’s Facility Manager, May 1998, available at http://www.walkerparking.com/documents/dorsett_crunch_myth.pdf

Parking Paper Outline

Parking Paper Outline:

1. Why this is an issue
1. Current state

i. Garages

ii. Map

iii. Meters

iv. Employer permits

2. Proposed developments

i. Charles Hotel

ii. Asian Art Museum

3. Increased car use
4. Consumer impacts
1. Considerations in adopting a solution
1. Wide variety of solutions
2. Factors that affect parking demand
3. Policy/pricing factors
4. Spillover problems
5. Incidental costs
6. Transportation and land use objectives
7. Who bears the costs?
8. Measure demand Costs
9. Considerations specific to downtowns
   
10. Methods:

i. Copy other cities

ii. Consult data

3. Possible solutions
1. Parking Pricing

i. Techniques

ii. Objectives

iii. Getting the right price

iv. Benefits/Costs

1. Efficiency

2. Reduced car use

3. Efficient land use

4. Revenues

5. Transaction costs

6. Financial costs

7. spillover

8. Reduces cruising

v. New technology meters

1. Pay and display

2. Pay by space

3. in vehicle meters

4. mobile phone

vi. Examples:

1. Aspen

2. Min/max
3. Increase capacity

i. Increase curb parking

ii. Decrease size

4. Employer
5. Subsidize
6. Remote

i. Example: Chattanooga

7. Re-design
8. Car stackers
9. Information
10. Residential
11. Eliminate reserved parking
12. Reduce demand

i. In lieu

ii. Shared

13. Freezes
14. Reduce demand

i. Ex: Portland

15. Enforcement
3. Examples
1. Pasadena
2. SF
3. Redwood City

NYTimes Travel on Berkeley

http://travel.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/travel/30hours.html?ex=1207454400&en=89b1f25cc3467412&ei=5070

Green Building Paper Outline

Better for The Environment: New Green Buildings or Retrofitting Old Buildings?

I. The Goal: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. California’s AB 32, City of Berkeley and UC Berkeley initiatives
b. LEED certification program: requirements and goals

II. Constructing New Green Buildings
a. Environmental Costs of construction: energy and materials
b. Environmental Savings: energy efficiency, offsets, other measures
c. Net Benefit or impact

III. Retrofit Existing Buildings to Achieve More Energy Efficiency
a. Environmental cost of leaving buildings as they are
b. Environmental costs of retrofitting existing buildings
c. Environmental Savings: energy efficiency, offsets, other measures
d. Net Benefit or impact

IV. Comparing New Green Buildings and Retrofitted Buildings

V. Implications for Berkeley’s Downtown Area Plan
a. Common ground for environmentalists and preservationists?
b. Recommendation for DAPAC

Homelessness / PCEI Paper -- Outline

Proposed Structure for Homelessness Paper:

1. How do homelessness/crime issues relate to DAPAC? [Robert]
1. How The Presence of The Homeless Inhibits Economic Growth
2. How Crime Inhibits Economic Growth

2. The Situation in Berkeley [Linda; Farhad; Efren; Jenny]
1. Current rates / facts

i. How present are the homeless in Berkeley?

ii. What are current crime rates downtown?

iii. Is there a relationship between the presence of the homeless downtown and downtown crime rates?

2. Berkeley’s Past (Unconstitutional) Measures to Address Homelessness

i. Measures N and O (1998)

ii. Judicial decision declaring the measures unconstitutional violation of First Amendment

3. Berkeley’s Attempts to Address Homelessness Downtown

i. The Public Commons for Everyone Initiative (PCEI)

ii. Other Relevant Legislation or Policies / Other Social

1. Housing the homelessness

iii. Financial impact of Berkeley’s programs

4. How Other Cities Have Tried to Address Homelessness

i. Case examples of what works and does not work

ii. Comparison to Berkeley

3. Public Commons for Everyone Initiative [Jesse; Matt; Beverly; David]
1. Why The PCEI Will Fail to Address Homelessness in Berkeley

i. Eighth Amendment Cruel & Unusual Analysis [Beverly]

ii. Fourteenth Amendment Due Process / Void for Vagueness Analysis [David]

iii. The merits of criminalization on homelessness [Matt]

iv. Straight Policy Discretion Analysis [Jesse]

2. Proposed Solutions

i. A Redrafted PCEI Ordinance [Jesse, Matt, David, Beverly]

TDR Paper: Outline (Draft 1)

I. Introduction to TDR
a. Definitions and TDR Basics (Allison)
b. Why TDRs could help downtown Berkeley: addressing gaps in DAP (Allison)
i. Density
1. DAPAC height limits and cost-effective building
2. Environmental goals
a. Berkeley Greenhouse Gas plan
ii. Historic Preservation
1. Parcel assembly
2. Balancing new development with effective preservation of historic buildings
c. Legal Issues with TDRs (Natalie)
d. TDRs in Berkeley: existing plan (Josh)

II. TDRs and Density
a. Benefits of dense development (Hana)
i. Environmental
ii. Economic
iii. Safety
b. Case Studies of TDRs to achieve dense development (Hana)

III. TDRs and Historic Preservation
a. Historic Preservation in Berkeley
i. CEQA (Meg)
ii. Ramifications of listing (Meg)
b. Case Studies of Historic Preservation TDRs (Natalie)

IV. Implementation Recommendations (Sara and Michael) – Does it make sense to include sub-sections specific to recommendations for achieving density and for achieving preservation?
a. TDR Bank
b. Sending/Receiving Areas
c. Densities (?)
d. Is anything missing?

Paper Outline - Eminent Domain

MATT SIEVING
PAPER PROPOSAL: EMINENT DOMAIN & BERKELEY’S DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN

Broad Questions to Answer
1) When is eminent domain legal?
2) When is eminent domain advisable? When is it unadvisable?
3) How does DAPAC square with the answers to #2?
4) Are there Berkeley-specific issues that make this a particularly good/bad idea?

Outline

1. Eminent Domain: Basic Intro
1. General Intro: Definition & Mechanics
2. Legal Precedents
1. Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954): Landmark case upholding private to private transfers as part of urban renewal schemes.
2. Hawaii v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984)
3. Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005): Recent endorsement of private→private transfers.
2. Responses to Kelo
1. Legislative Responses
1. Sensenbrenner Bill: in response to Kelo, would deny federal funds to cities that use eminent domain to transfer property from one private party to another.
1. http://www.counterpunch.org/adler07292006.html
2. Academic Responses
1. “Eminent Domain for Urban Redevelopment - An essential tool for development? Or an unnecessary intervention in the market.”
1. http://ideas.repec.org/a/uct/ctecon/05-win-1.html
3. Public Responses: Newspaper articles, etc.
3. Practical Guide to Eminent Domain
1. New HUD guidelines – Jan 4 2008
1. http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/centers/sac/eminent/
4. Case Studies: Cities that have employed eminent domain
1. New London (Kelo)
5. Berkeley Profile w.r.t. Eminent Domain issues
1. Past experiences
1. Ashby BART – specific resolution not to use ED
2. Demographic / Infrastructural / Geographical / Geological characteristics
3. Issues w/ Historic Preservation & Eminent Domain?
6. Recommendation: What role should Eminent Domain play in downtown redevelopment?