APB Archives

TRANSIT AND PARKING (Oct 16, 03)

TAOZ? RTPOZ?? - WHAT ARE THEY? (Oct 16, 03)

-
In early 2000 the city adopted the new Land Development Code (LDC) in place of
the old Zoning Code. The LDC is in the city's municipal code (Chapters 10-15), so it is enforceable by law. The city also made provisions to amend the code from time to time as need arose. At first, the amendments were editorial in nature; grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. Then came other changes.
-
In early-2001, the city adopted a second Amendment to the LDC. The amendment included expanded Transit Area Overlay Zones (TAOZ) and expanded Residential Tandem Parking Overlay Zones (RTPOZ). The TAOZ reduces parking space in urban areas and is supposed to be justified by increased transit. The 2nd Amendment to the LDC expanded a small TAOZ, that ran along the commercial corridors, to cover ALL of City Heights. The justification was new bus service on one part of 47th Street. That's right. An entire community is deprived of adequate
parking, because the Planning Director found increased bus service over less
than a mile of one street. Tandem parking is an extra nightmare that rides on the back of the TAOZ. As the city expands a TAOZ, it can expand the tandem parking too. In the 2nd Amendment to the LDC, a new RTPOZ was laid over City Heights.
-
During the approval process staff went to the Planning Commission (PC), the
Land Use and Housing Committee (LU&H), and the Council. The strange part is
this: The manager's report to PC does NOT mention the tandem parking at all,
and the PC did not discuss or vote on the RTPOZ. The manager's report to LU&H
does NOT mention tandem parking, and LU&H did not discuss or vote on the
RTPOZ. The manager's report to the City Council does NOT mention tandem
parking at all, and the Council did not discuss it. How, then, could it get
passed?
-
Someone very senior in the city staff discovered at the last minute that the
item had not been processed properly. Instead of pulling the item and
returning it to the PC and LU&H for consideration, the staff member arranged
for tandem parking to be quietly written into the Council Agenda. Without knowledge that tandem parking was in the agenda, Council adopted the agenda item. The RTPOZ now overlays City Heights. It means that Tandem Parking can be used on residen-tial projects in City Heights, in addition to reducing parking under the TAOZ. Two hits in one vote.
-
I wrote the Council about this. I personally delivered a copy of my letter to the City Attorney with a request to investigate. Nothing has been investigated. Nothing has been done. Now, without consulting City Heights, city staff wants the PC to confirm tandem parking in City Heights and elsewhere. Without any public discussion the affected communities (ours!), the staff wants to keep the overlay zones they got by devious means.
-
This should give you heartburn, and you should write Council Members Atkins,
Lewis, and Madaffer. Address the letters to them at: City Administration
Building, 202 C Street, San Diego CA 92101. Tell them the Transit Area
Overlay Zone and Residential Tandem Parking Overlay Zone are the wrong
policies for our community. Tell them we are seriously short of parking
spaces now. Tell them that building more homes with less parking is wrong.
Tell them tandem parking creates worse parking nightmares for City Heights.
-

PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION (Oct 16, 03
-
At its October 16, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission heard a request to
return the overlay zones to their original status (before January, 2001). The Commission waffled, voting to recommend denial of the request and asking staff to coordinate the matter through the Parking Management Committee (whatever that is) and through the Mobility Element update process now underway in the planning staff.
-
That means the overlay zones continue, there is reduced parking in City
Heights from the Transit Area Overlay Zone and there is Tandem Parking too.
That's consistent with the planning staff's desire to set the poor communities up for increased density under the City of Villages strategy, while preserving the single family areas against increased density.
-
Wish it were different, neighbors of mine, but the Planning Director has made
the decision that poor communities are the place to dump density. Never mind
that there's no infrastructure; never mind that parking is a nightmare. You're
poor, so you're not entitled to equal treatment from the planning department.
-