Page One

Patrick Kennedy's Plan

Rob Wrenn
Tuesday April 04, 2000

In regards to proposals for development of the City’s Oxford Street surface parking lot in downtown (Berkeley Daily Planet, April 1-2), it should be noted that the City Council voted in October to designate the Oxford lot as an “Opportunity Site for as much low income housing and multipurpose multicultural space as possible.” 

The Council did not call for a 330-space parking garage as proposed by developer Patrick Kennedy. From a planning standpoint, a 330-car garage is a very inappropriate use for that site. 

First, the Oxford lot is only a block away from BART and numerous AC Transit bus lines. Building a parking garage there would be contrary to the Downtown Plan’s “transit first” policy. People should not be encouraged to drive to an area that has excellent transit access. 

Second, 330 parking spaces aren’t needed at the Oxford site. The current surface parking lot is not fully utilized. The City’s 1997 Parking Survey found that the Oxford lot had a lower percentage of occupied spaces than other garages and surface parking lots in downtown. While the survey found parking occupancy rates of 83% for a weekday mornings and 85 percent for weekday afternoons for downtown off street parking as a whole, the rates for the Oxford lot were 43 percent and 42 percent. 

The parking situation is tighter at the Oxford lot today because as many as 40 of the 130 spaces in the lot have not been available to the public in recent months due to construction on the adjacent site and due to a number of spaces being reserved for holders of special permits. Even with the reduced number of spaces, the lot is only occasionally full and spaces can generally be found by shoppers. 

The Council in October called for replacing the existing parking and called for additional parking “appropriate for new development at the site.” Current zoning for the site requires 1 1/2 parking spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of new non-residential space. So 10,000 sq. ft. of new development would require only 15 additional parking spaces. 

One parking space is required for every 3 dwelling units, so 150 housing units would require only 50 more spaces. However, the current draft of the General Plan suggests eliminating the parking requirement for new housing in what it calls the “Downtown Transit Oriented District,” which includes the Oxford lot. So, it’s possible that only a few extra parking spaces for the ground floor uses would be needed. A plan that included 150 to 200 spaces would be consistent with the Council’s October action; 300 or 330 spaces is more parking than is needed or desirable or called for by the City Council. 

Third, the Downtown Plan identifies Oxford Street as a “desirable location for housing.” A project that combines housing with theater and arts-related uses would be very consistent with the Downtown Plan. However, the more space that is wasted on parking, the less space will be available for housing. The height limit for the Oxford lot, including allowable bonuses for housing and cultural facilities, is five stories and 60 ft. If three floors are wasted on parking, there will be limited space left for housing. Ideally, parking at the site should be moved underground to maximize the amount of space available above-ground for cultural uses and housing. 

In addition, it is not just housing that is needed, but affordable housing. Rents in Berkeley are soaring and market rents are not affordable to a majority of Berkeley’s current population of tenants. The Oxford lot affords the City with an excellent opportunity to create a relatively large number of affordable units. Most affordable housing projects require large per-unit subsidies from the City’s Housing Trust Fund. It would be possible to have a higher percentage of affordable units with smaller per-unit subsidies on the City-owned Oxford lot. 

The Council in October wisely called for a “thorough planning process involving all the “stakeholders” for the Oxford site. The City should allow sufficient time to make sure it gets maximum benefit from development of the site. The City should encourage competition among developers to see who can come up with the best designed project that provides the most space for affordable housing and cultural uses within the existing height limits. The City’s Request for Proposals should, consistent with the Council’s October recommendation, emphasize that housing, not a massive parking garage, is the primary desired use for the site.  

 

Rob Wrenn is chair of the Berkeley Planning Commission.