Fourth Street Lofts Web Log

Another meeting which is very important is next Tuesday 15 June 2004 at 7pm in the Oakland City Council Chambers at City Hall, 14th & Broadway. There is free parking in the garage attached to City Hall. If the weather is good, it's also a nice walk from Fourth Street Lofts. This will be our LAST chance to say anything about the Jack London Square Partners Redevelopment Plan. Something which may or may not end up being part of the plan is a proposed Parking Garage at the Amtrak Station.

Among concerns for those of us in Jack London District are:

1. Final development plan which is being approved for all nine buildings, including the parking garage - which is problematical because even the architect acknowledges it should be improved.

2. Conditional Use Permits for fast food are not being required, which is different from everywhere else in Oakland, where they are required. Why is our area being given the short shrift?

3. A Mini Design Review Committee is being created for any changes which come up, with no allowances for the Public to be part of that Committee.

4. Parking Mitigations are still not clear.

Speaking of Parking, check online or get Wednesday's Oakland Tribune.
http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1726~2202053,00.html There is an article on the front page of the Cityside section about the Jack London Square Parking Nightmare, written by staff writer Paul T. Rosynsky (prosynsky@agnewspapers.com). It quotes two of our neighborhood activists, GARY KNECHT, President of SONIC (South of Nimitz Improvement Council) and JOANNA ADLER of Jack London Mail, who was a key member of the Jack London Square Parking Committee. I've posted the article in the Mail Room, and it is reprinted below.

Also, check out the Letters to the Editor, and read Liz Taylor's letter on parking, and perhaps be motivated to write one of your own.

JL Square a parking nightmare

Waterfront neighborhood frustrated by City Council inaction
By Paul T. Rosynsky, STAFF WRITER [prosynsky@angnewspapers.com]

OAKLAND -- Parking in the Jack London Square district can be like a nightmare or finding a gold mine; it just depends on what time you get there.
If it's early enough, you could have your choice of more than 1,000 on-street parking spots for free. Getting there late means you'll be cruising block to block with little hope of ever finding a location.

Weekdays are worse than weekends.

In the rush to develop lofts and transform the industrial neighborhood into a residential one, traditional parking regulations for city streets have been largely ignored.

The result is a hodgepodge of rules that have left at least 1,000 spaces without either meters or time limits, allowing commuters and others to park in the district for free all day.

While that might seem like a gift for those living or working there, it has not been.

"By about 9 o'clock, we are pretty much filled up around here," said Gary Knecht, president of the South of Nimitz Improvement Council. "The commuters come in and leave their car here all day."

Business owners can't find space for employees, shoppers can't find space for shopping and residents can't find spaces if they return home in the afternoon.
Years of frustration led to the creation of a committee of residents and business owners.

After almost two years, the group came up with a plan to solve the problem.
Four-hour time limits for street parking would be implemented during the workday. A $100-a-year permit would be available for residents, business owners and employees to park for any length of time.

The plan would expire in three years, when a new parking garage at the Jack London Square Amtrak Station is scheduled to be constructed.
The permit would cost more than triple the amount paid by other residents in other neighborhoods.

"We have a solution that everyone here agreed with," said Joanna Adler, owner of Jack London Mail and key member of the committee. "People are willing to pay this fee. It is an opportunity to create a unique plan for a unique area."
The only problem is, a majority of the Oakland City Council doesn't like the idea. Instead, the majority favored a four-hour time limit but rejected the idea of giving permits to businesses.

"It's a little more complicated than just doing it for that one area," said City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente (Fruitvale-Glenview). "We commend the community for putting together all of that effort and all of that time, but this would have citywide implications."

The city has never issued on-street parking permits for businesses, De La Fuente and others said. Therefore, by doing so in Jack London Square, the city could open a Pandora's box where business in other parking-troubled neighborhoods would request a similar permit.

"If the city did this, I bet you Chinatown would come up with a plan, Fruitvale would come up with a plan," said Councilmember Henry Chang Jr. (at-large). "It will set a precedent where everywhere will be asking for it."

In addition, those council members opposed to the plan said allowing businesses to buy permits would be similar to the city giving them a subsidy for on-street parking.

Those who came up with the plan were angry that a majority of the council rejected their idea.

"It took a lot of time, a lot of effort and a lot of meetings," said Steve Sacks, owner of Prime Smoked Meats. "We involved everybody. We tried to tweak this whole thing around to satisfy everyone, but then it didn't seem like it was good enough."

Sacks and Adler argued the Jack London Square district is different from other city neighborhoods and should have its own unique parking plan.

In fact, the group had amended its original plan for $100 parking permits to one that would raise the price to $200 for the right to purchase a second permit. It was a move made to ensure the program would be revenue-neutral or even make money for the city, they said.

"The city stood to make a substantial amount of money, but it wasn't good enough," Sacks said.

Despite the conflicts over the neighborhood plan, Councilmember Jane Brunner (North Oakland), who said she can support some version of the plan, said the debate should be continued.

"I'm not at all concerned about setting a precedent there; it's a unique area," she said. "I'm interested in supporting some form of permit parking and believe each neighborhood should be looked at differently."

[Letters to the Editor might keep this issue alive (and correct De La Fuente's error): send 250 words (or less) to triblet@angnewspapers.com. Include your full name, city of residence, and daytime phone number.]