Yesterday, Berkeley abolished parking minimums, instituted parking maximums, and required new development to provide more bus passes and bike parking (among other things). It is a thrilling day for climate action and affordability in our city.
In 2015, I authored legislation to explore parking reform to address affordability and climate goals. (I swear I'm not as scary as this picture makes me look).
So, what do progressive parking reforms like this mean?
--We reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help save the environment.
--We reduce rent.
--We encourage alternative forms of mobility
--We help create more affordable homes for people.
Here are some corrections to misunderstandings:
--We have not banned parking. We are just not forcing people to build it if they don’t want it.
--It does not apply retroactively. The parking police aren’t going to snatch your spots.
--It does not affect evacuation egress. Street management is the only way to help evacuation egress.
--It helps seniors and disabled individuals. Accessibility is central to this policy and allows for more mobility options.
When I introduced this policy in 2015, it was a new idea to many and one that made some nervous but the link between parking requirements and rents has been well-documented.
ONE parking spot in the Bay Area costs AT LEAST $40,000 to construct and those costs are passed on to renters. Not only that, our studies showed that almost HALF of our parking spaces sit empty.
So, do we want to prioritize homes for people or homes for cars?
But antiquated parking requirements are also an environmental issue. The evidence is clear-- mandating parking, even when one doesn’t want it, is bad environmental policy. Currently, 60% of Berkeley’s greenhouse gas emissions are from transportation.
I want to specifically commend our terrific planning commissioners, staff, and the steadfast and consistent leadership of @JesseArreguin and our new(ish) councilmember @RigelRobinson on this issue.
When I talked with a few planning commissioners over the past month, they said this was the most monumental and impactful legislation they had been a part of.
I agree.
This is a big deal. So, thank you everyone for your support. It matters. Local politics can change our world
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A planning commissioner told me yesterday that he felt it was the most impactful legislation he’s worked on in his tenure on the commission. I agree. It’s a win for affordability and a win for the environment AND
Carpenters & building trades are also expressing serious concerns. Attorneys for multi-unit properties for students & others have also said this is an overall home killer. It was a bad policy before COVID-19 & it’s catastrophic policy now. Here is a LONG thread...
...of why I didn’t vote for it at the land use committee. A majority of Council has supported it by sponsorship or in committee. I’m hopeful that some will do the right thing and reverse their vote but I need you to continue your *polite* help.
On a call with Nat’l Weather Service (NWS), CalFire and PG&E et al
—NWS reports continued critical fire weather event thru tonight before tapering off Monday morning. Break comes late Monday before more wind Tuesday-Thursday.
—CalFire—Kinkade is at 30k acres, 10% contained
1/
PG&E describes ongoing event affecting 950k customers (their #s) affecting 6100 critical facilities, 36k medical baseline, and 38 counties.
PG&E expects you restore power 48 hours after all clear working from North to South.
Opened 72 community resource centers but 4 closed.
2nd possible PSPS event Tuesday affecting 32 counties (subset of current).
Military providing support with hand crews, generators, aircraft to patrol lines etc
CalOES is monitoring rail systems and cell carriers. 744 are offline— creates challenges for fire and PDs for alerts