On the related subject, I was happy to see that the PC went along with allowing associated business on the second story in the residential area. Many stores need additional storage, and every restaurant I am familiar with has a large amout of storage area, up to the equivalent floor area of the restaurant itself. Rather than using prime ground floor commercial space, the logical location for the extra storage is in the basement or on the second floor.

I’d appreciate it if, when contradicting what I’ve written, that you wouldn’t put words in my mouth – or at least avoid blatant lies.

1. Reducing availability of parking inherently reduces value. Why? Because people like me, who rely on a car, must have parking. Less demand = lower prices. It’s simple economics. I never said no one would build “such a thing” let alone suggest they should be illegal. This is why I offered the option of plug-in stations in each space.

2. I did not claim that since “I need a car, everyone does”. YOU are the one extrapolating my personal experience. Not everyone has the luxury of living without a car; I’m one of them, and there are certainly 2 or 3 other people like me. You and your wife may be able to live with only one car and no parking now, but what will happen if 10 or 50 thousand other people move into the CBD with no increase in parking?

3. Your last suggestion is just preposterous. People will pay for parking, but THERE HAS TO BE PARKING AVAILABLE. Again I say, if 50,000 people move in, with increased spaces for 10,000 cars, there will clearly be less parking available. Your 2 to 1 ratio of people to cars is not the norm; until it is, CBD requires parking.

Where the hell is Pasadena shops? I assume Pasadena – and why you would use an example from a wealthy, suburban town to counter the needs of urban Oakland, I’ll never understand.

BRIAN: “In my neighborhood I never park in the meter spots, I’m too cheap. So shoppers and visitors always have somewhere to park.” Thank you for “universalizing one person’s experience.” Your one extra space has made all the difference.

Of course the city needs to do a better job at that too (the City has been relatively ineffective at attracting distribution & wholesale companies, and the Planning Commission looks down on these uses).

Personally I think Self Storage should be C/U anywhere…A couple years ago someone from CEDA told me they were working on a deal to attract a distribution business to an industrial property in West Oakland that had the potential to employ 30 workers. It got scooped up by a Self Storage that employs 2 or 3 people per shift…

1. You claim no parking or less than 1/unit would reduce the value of a building, meaning no developer would ever build such a thing; then claim we need to make such buildings illegal. Why? according to your logic no one would build one anyway. So let it be legal.

2. You claim because you need a car, everyone does, therefore buildings without parking won’t work. That is universalizing one person’s experience. Besides I live in a building near DTO with no parking and my wife and I both have car (would like to go car-free someday). So it is quite possible to have no parking and a car. There are commercial lots around as well.

3. You claim street parking for residents = less for shoppers. That is just not true. As was discussed about JLS, 100% subsidized street parking will often be used up. Metered or permit-required parking is only used by those who value it enough to pay something, anything.

Pasadena shops became popular and rich on the simple idea of: metered parking $ == more streetscape improvements == more shoppers

In my neighborhood I never park in the meter spots, I’m too cheap. So shoppers and visitors always have somewhere to park. I don’t think Oakland actually uses the meter money to improve the streetscape but that is a whole different subject.

Self-storage units are just as bad for blue collar employment in warehouses as they are for white collar employment in the downtown. Therefor anyone that advocates self-storage only belonging in warehouses is (intentionally or not) against maximizing blue collar jobs at a time Oakland needs them the most.

It would seem that having storage built into new condo units would make the most sense. For existing buildings where that’s not the case, a limited number of downtown storage units, conditionally permitted with design impact taken into consideration, also seems to make sense.

I think you’ve hit on a couple of fairly cool criteria for CUPs for mini-stores. Use of windowless interior space and basements? Alley access for vehicles? No more than a single curbcut for in and out traffic? Curbside loading zone allowed only if proprietor covers the cost of lost city parking revenue?

There are certainly ways to make this work. And also, lets not kid ourselves, one of the most common uses for unleased space is storage, often with under-the-table payment. That money makes it possible for a landlords to offset holding costs, which keeps our downtown emptier. Add some legit storage facilities and you cut into this market a bit.