Jan 16, 2025 Special Called City Planning Commission

COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT.

HERE.

DISTRICT 10.

HERE.

DISTRICT 11.

COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE.

PRESENT.

DISTRICT 12.

COMMISSIONER HAWK PRESENT.

DISTRICT 13.

COMMISSIONER HALL HERE.

DISTRICT 14.

COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HERE AND PLACE 15 VICE CHAIR RUBIN.

I'M HERE.

YOU HAVE A QUORUM, SIR.

UH, GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS.

UH, GOOD MORNING.

TODAY IS THURSDAY, JANUARY 16TH, 2025, 11:09 AM UH, WELCOME TO THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION, SPECIALLY CALLED HEARING.

HAPPY NEW YEAR.

ONE VERY QUICK ANNOUNCEMENT.

IT IS MY PLEASURE TO WELCOME COMMISSIONER FLARE AND COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE, UH, TO THE HORSESHOE.

UH, WELCOME.

UH, WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU.

AND AS ALWAYS, ANY HELP THAT YOU NEED, WE'RE ALL HERE TO, TO HELP YOU OUT.

UH, AND FOR THE RECORD, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER IS HERE IN THE CHAMBER, UH, AND I KNOW THAT DR.

UYA HAS A QUICK ANNOUNCEMENT AS WELL.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, CHAIR, AND THANK YOU SO MUCH COMMISSIONERS FOR ALLOWING ME JUST A LITTLE ANNOUNCEMENT.

I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT, UM, MEGAN WEIMER, UM, OUR FEARLESS MEGAN WYER IS NOW PERMANENT ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING.

SO YOU CAN ALWAYS, AND I THINK SHE'S HERE, , SHE HAS A, I PROBABLY ALL OF YOU KNOW HER.

SHE HAS A VAST EXPERIENCE ON ALL AREAS OF ZONING, PERMITTING, REZONING, CODE AMENDMENT, AUTHORIZED HEARINGS.

SHE'S A WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE AND SHE'S BEEN WITH THE CITY FOR A LONG, LONG TIME.

PLEASE, AS ALWAYS, ANYTHING HAPPENS, DO NOT HESITATE TO REACH OUT TO ME AND, UH, MEGAN WEER.

AND THEN ANOTHER LITTLE ANNOUNCEMENT.

UH, JASON PAUL WAS OUR, UH, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.

HE ALSO GOT A PROMOTION.

HE'S A NEW ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE, SO HE'S NO LONGER INVOLVED IN THE ZONING TEAM.

AND OUR WONDERFUL FEARLESS SARAH MAY IS AN INTERIM ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, AND THE TEAM THAT HANDLES CITY PLAN COMMISSION IS ACTUALLY IN HER PORTFOLIO.

SO SAME FOR THE INTEREST OF CITY PLAN COMMISSION, ALWAYS ME, MEGAN WEER, SARAH MAY, UH, ARE GO-TO PEOPLE.

AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME THIS ANNOUNCEMENT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DR.

AND, UH, CONGRATULATIONS TO MS. WEER, MR. POOLE, UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE JUST GOING TO JUMP RIGHT INTO THE AGENDA AND BEGIN WITH MR. WAITE.

[BRIEFINGS]

AND I ALSO WANT TO CONGRATULATE MY COLLEAGUES ON THEIR NEW POSITIONS.

UM, MICHAEL WADE, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

TODAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DCA 1 9 0 0 0 2 OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING CODE AMENDMENT.

WE'VE HAD, UM, A COUPLE OF BRIEFINGS ON THIS AND A PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS MORNING'S BRIEFING IS JUST GOING TO BE A SUMMARY.

IT'S THE SAME BASIC INFORMATION, BUT WE'VE GOT SOME NEW MEMBERS AND POTENTIALLY SOME NEW PEOPLE JOINING VIRTUALLY.

SO, UH, WE'LL JUST RUN THROUGH THE BASICS OF THIS PROPOSAL.

JUST A NOTE ON BACKGROUND.

THIS WAS AUTHORIZED IN OCTOBER OF 2019.

SPENT A COUPLE OF YEARS AT OUR ZONING ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, UM, DOING ALL OF THE TECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH, TRYING OUT DIFFERENT FRAMEWORKS AND PUTTING TOGETHER DIFFERENT SCENARIOS.

UH, EVERY ZAC MEETING DOUBLED AS A PLACE FOR PUBLIC INPUT, AND THEN THERE WAS ALSO ADDITIONAL PUBLIC LISTENING SESSIONS AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT DURING THAT TIME.

AND THEN WHEN WE PICKED IT UP AGAIN IN 2023, ZAC MADE THE RECOMMENDATION ON JANUARY 30TH, 2024.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE EVALUATING TODAY.

AND THEN IT HAS BEEN TO THIS BODY ON NOVEMBER 21ST, DECEMBER 5TH, AND NOW TODAY, JANUARY 16TH.

THERE'S SORT OF THREE ELEMENTS TO THIS.

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, PARKING MINIMUMS, AND PARKING DESIGN.

SO I'LL JUST SPEND A SECOND ON EACH.

THE PURPOSE OF THE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, CAUSING DEVELOPERS TO PLAN FOR THE INTEGRATION OF SUSTAINABLE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION AND TO INCENTIVIZE REDUCTIONS IN VEHICLE TRIPS.

THE PROCESS GENERALLY, THERE ARE JUST A COUPLE PARTS TO IT.

UM, PART OF THE EXISTING SITE PLAN REVIEW AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STUDIES.

SO THERE'S NO, UH, EXTRA

[00:05:01]

APPROVAL PROCESS.

THIS ISN'T INTENDED TO ADD ANY TIME TO.

UH, WHEN A DEVELOPMENT IS SPENDING TIME WITH OUR STAFF, GENERALLY, IT INVOLVES SUSTAINABLE MODES ANALYSIS THAT IS TAKING INVENTORY OF THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALKS AROUND A DEVELOPMENT SITE, TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE, BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE, AND, UH, JUST PLANNING ON HOW A CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT INTEGRATES INTO THAT.

AND THEN CHOOSING TDM STRATEGIES, THERE'S ALSO A TDM GUIDE THAT ACCOMPANIES THE CODE PORTION THAT'S, UH, IN THIS TEXT AMENDMENT.

A DEVELOPMENT TEAM CHOOSES STRATEGIES ABOUT HOW THEY'RE GOING TO INCENTIVIZE, UM, RESIDENTS, EMPLOYEES, VISITORS TO THINK ABOUT NOT DRIVING ALONE IN THEIR VEHICLE, BUT MAYBE CARPOOL, MAYBE RIDE A BIKE, MAYBE LOOK AT TRANSIT, THAT KIND OF A THING.

FOR PARKING MINIMUMS, THE BASICS OF THIS PROPOSAL WOULD REDUCE REQUIRED PARKING MINIMUMS TO ZERO.

UH, THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT REMOVING PARKING SPACES.

UH, WE'RE ALSO NOT INCLUDING MAXIMUMS. WE'RE NOT LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF PARKING SPACES SOMEBODY CAN BUILD IN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS.

UH, THOSE EXPLICITLY MODIFIED PARKING MINIMUMS AND PDS WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT.

SO WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE MANY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS.

SOME, UH, HAVE ALL OF THEIR LAND USES PARKING MINIMUMS SPELLED OUT IN THAT PD.

THAT'S ITS OWN ORDINANCE.

THOSE WOULD REMAIN.

THERE ARE SOME THAT REFER ALL OF THEIR PARKING MINIMUMS TO CHAPTER 51, A BASE CODE THAT'S SUBJECT TO THIS TEXT AMENDMENT.

THOSE WOULD BE CHANGED ALONG WITH THIS TEXT AMENDMENT.

AND THEN THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE COMPLICATED.

ONE OR TWO LAND USES ARE MODIFIED, THE REST REFER THAT KIND OF A THING.

AND THEN PARKING DESIGN, JUST A HANDFUL OF STRATEGIES TO TRY TO EMPHASIZE THE QUALITY OF THE PARKING LOTS THAT WE BUILD OVER.

UH, THE QUANTITY, TALKING ABOUT CURB CUT LIMITS ON THE WIDTH AND NUMBER FOR ONE TO FOUR UNIT DWELLINGS, ALLOWING THE USE OF ANY ALLEYWAYS FOR ENTRANCES, REQUIRING PEDESTRIAN PATHS THROUGH OR AROUND PARKING LOTS, PROHIBITING PARKING IN ONE FRONT, SETBACK, CLARIFYING AND UPDATING BICYCLE PARKING REGULATIONS AND PROHIBITING SURFACE WATER FROM PARKING LOTS FROM DRAINING ACROSS THE SURFACE OF SIDEWALKS.

SO THAT'S THE QUICK, UM, AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

WE HAVE SEVERAL STAFF HERE WHO ARE AVAILABLE.

QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS.

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, PLEASE START US OFF.

HAPPY TO BEGIN.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

UH, THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS ELIMINATING MINIMUMS FOR ALL LAND USE OF CITYWIDE, THAT INCLUDES THOSE HISTORIC BUILDINGS.

UH, SO MR. WADE, I HAD SENT YOU A FEW OF THESE AND, UM, I JUST WILL START GOING THROUGH THEM IN ORDER IF I MAY, AND I'LL TRY TO SPEAK MORE CLEARLY INTO THE MICROPHONE.

SO FIRST QUESTION IS, AS STAFF WAS EVALUATING THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, I KNOW ONE OF THE EARLIER ZO OAC, UM, REVIEWS, AND THIS WAS PROBABLY TWO YEARS AGO, WAS TRYING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HISTORIC OR LEGACY BUILDINGS.

COULD YOU SPEAK TO HOW THAT IS INTEGRATED IN THE PROPOSAL BEFORE US? SURE.

SO YOU MIGHT SAY THAT THE PROPOSAL BEFORE US ENCOMPASSES THAT WITHOUT SAYING IT.

UM, DURING THE ZAC FRAMEWORK THAT WAS BEING CONSIDERED IN 2021, THERE WERE JUST CERTAIN LAND USES CERTAIN GEOGRAPHIES WITH ELIMINATED OR REDUCED MINIMUMS. UH, THE IDEA AT THAT TIME WAS THAT THERE WOULD BE A BUFFER AROUND SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS.

AND WITHIN THAT BUFFER, JUST ABOUT ANY LAND USES WOULD KEEP THEIR MINIMUMS EXCEPT FOR A MINIMUM SIZE.

UH, I THINK IT WAS BUILDINGS OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET, OR IT WAS THE FIRST 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF ANY BUILDING.

AND THEN CERTAIN HISTORIC CATEGORIES AND AGES OF BUILDINGS WERE CALLED OUT.

I THINK IT WAS JULY, 1967.

ANY BUILDING BUILT BEFORE THAT TIME WOULD HAVE NO MINIMUMS. AND THEN THERE WERE CERTAIN CATEGORIES THAT WOULD BE EXPLICITLY CALLED OUT.

UM, THE CITY OF DALLAS HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT.

SO BUILDINGS THAT WERE CONTRIBUTING TO THOSE, UH, RECORDED, RECORDED TEXAS HISTORY LANDMARKS, STATE ANTIQUITIES LANDMARKS, NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARKS, UH, OR BUILDINGS THAT ARE LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES.

UM, AS WE LOOKED BACK ON THAT, WHILE PUTTING THIS CURRENT PROPOSAL TOGETHER, WE UNDERSTOOD THAT REALLY THOSE WOULD ACT AS INCENTIVES TO ALLOW FEWER MINIMUMS FOR THOSE.

AND SO THE IDEA IS TO INCENTIVIZE THE PROTECTION OF THOSE BUILDINGS.

UH, WE KNOW THOUGH THAT SO MANY OF THOSE BUILDINGS ARE SO MUCH SMALLER OR JUST, UH, WERE BUILT BEFORE SOME MODERN INTERIOR LAYOUTS, ET CETERA.

AND SO EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE HISTORIC, UH, STATUS DOES MAKE THEM DESIRABLE TO USE AND TO REUSE, ESPECIALLY WE KNOW THAT INCENTIVES AROUND PARKING MINIMUMS FOR REUSE OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS HAS TO INTERACT WITH THE ECONOMICS OF REUSE OF THAT BUILDING.

AND SO, UM, BECAUSE THE CURRENT,

[00:10:01]

SO IF I THINK, IF I UNDERSTAND THE RESPONSES, IT'S NOT EXPLICITLY DEFINED.

SO THERE'S NOTHING THAT WOULD PROACTIVELY PRESERVE OUR HISTORIC FABRIC.

IT'S NOT PRECLUDED EITHER, BECAUSE BY ELIMINATING MINIMUMS, THEY'RE POTENTIALLY REDEVELOP.

BUT ALL USE THE EXAMPLE OF DEEP EUM THAT EMBEDDED THE IDEA OF MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGES.

I KNOW WE DO THIS IN MANY OF OTHER, UM, AREAS OF OUR, UM, CITY AS WELL VIA PDS AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS, BUT IT PROACTIVELY ENSURES THAT THE, UM, HISTORIC FABRIC IS MAINTAINED VERSUS, YOU KNOW, BEING REDEVELOPED.

AND I THINK WE'RE STARTING TO SEE THAT NEXT WAVE IN DEEP EL WHERE WE'RE LOSING SOME OF THAT FABRIC BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE GETTING OUR DENSER BUILDINGS, WHICH WE ALSO NEED.

SO IS THERE ANY, ANY CONSIDERATION OF HOW WE, UM, THINK ABOUT THAT BALANCE THAT, YOU KNOW, AS OUR CITY CONTINUES TO GROW, THAT WE'RE MORE PROACTIVELY, UM, KEEPING OUR HISTORIC BUILDING STOCK? I THINK ONE CONCURRENT ACTIVITY, OUR DEMOLITION, DEMOLITION DELAY OVERLAY, UM, HAS BEEN EXPANDED TO COVER MORE BUILDINGS AS FAR AS THE USE OF PARKING.

THAT CAN ONLY EVER REALLY BE AN INCENTIVE.

IT'S, IT'S HARD FOR US TO REALLY CALL THAT A PROTECTION AND UNDERSTOOD.

ALRIGHT.

AND I HAVE A SERIES, IF I MAY CONTINUE.

UM, SO AS ZAC WAS, UM, CONSIDERING THIS AMENDMENT AND WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY, WERE THERE EVALUATION OF OTHER POTENTIAL MODELS SUCH AS USING TRANSIT CORRIDORS? UM, AND AGAIN, I, I REALIZE THAT WOULD'VE BEEN A MORE INCREMENTAL STEP VERSUS THE CITYWIDE NO MINIMUMS THAT'S BEFORE US WITH THE T-D-M-M-P, BUT WAS THERE DISCUSSION ABOUT CORRIDORS, TRANSIT STATIONS, HIGH FREQUENCY BUS, THOSE TYPES OF CONCEPTS THAT I THINK HAVE BEEN UTILIZED IN OTHER CITIES? SURE, AND I'LL GIVE A TWO PART ANSWER TO THAT.

THERE WAS THE EXPLICIT CONVERSATION AT ZO OAC AND THEN, UM, THE BROADER CONVERSATION PRECEDENT IN OTHER CITIES.

SO ZAC EXPLICITLY WAS LOOKING AT ELEMENTS SUCH AS THE BUFFER THAT I DESCRIBED, 330 FEET OUT FROM SINGLE FAMILY AREAS.

UM, RAIL HAS GENERALLY SEEN POPULARITY EITHER A QUARTER MILE, HALF MILE, AROUND RAIL STATIONS.

THOSE ARE VERY POPULAR, UH, EXCUSE ME, VERY PERMANENT, ALSO VERY POPULAR.

UM, AS AREAS WHERE GENERALLY PEOPLE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH INCREASED DENSITY.

THE ONE IDEA THAT WAS BROUGHT UP NEAR THE END OF THE TIME AT THE ZO OAC, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF IDEAS.

ONE WAS A LIST OF LAND USES THAT TEND TO BE THE MOST EGREGIOUS IN TERMS OF SPILLOVER BARS, RESTAURANTS, COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT, THAT KIND OF A THING.

AND SO JUST PINPOINTING CERTAIN LAND USES TO MAINTAIN MINIMUMS. UH, ONE IDEA THAT WAS THOUGHT UP WAS ATTACHING IT IN SOME WAY TO THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

WE HAVE A THOROUGHFARE PLAN THAT WAS LAST, UH, UPDATED IN 1993.

IT'S ABOUT TO BE UPDATED AGAIN, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE IDEA OF LOOKING AT CORRIDORS FOR PARKING MINIMUM REDUCTIONS OR ELIMINATION MAKES SENSE IN THEORY.

BUT OPERATIONALIZING THAT GAVE STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE A LOT OF HEARTBURN ABOUT HOW EXACTLY TO ATTACH THAT, UM, TO A PLAN IN, IN THE WORLD OF PLANNING AND ZONING.

OUR PLANS DO GUIDE DECISIONS, BUT TO REALLY EXPLICITLY ATTACH IT IN SOME WAY, UM, IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH IN THE CODE.

UM, THE, THE BROADER RATIONALE ABOUT WHY WE'RE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH IT TOO IS THAT THOROUGHFARES GENERALLY ARE CALLED OUT AS THE ROADS THAT ARE PREPARED NICELY FOR VEHICLE VEHICULAR TRAVEL.

THIS IS THE PLACE WHERE WE'RE SAYING IF THERE ARE GONNA BE CARS IN DALLAS, IT'S THOROUGHFARES.

AND SO FOR US TO MAKE A MOVE THAT WOULD, UM, SORT OF RIGHT SIZE PARKING AROUND THOSE THOROUGHFARES, THOSE ROADS AND NOT IN OTHER AREAS SEEMS COUNTERINTUITIVE.

UM, SO THAT'S, THAT WAS THE RESPONSE GIVEN AT ZAC AND WE MOVED FORWARD WITH THE PRESENT PROPOSAL.

PLANNING AROUND CORRIDORS CAN MAKE SENSE WHEN IT COMES TO CORRIDOR PLANS AND THEN MAYBE AUTHORIZED HEARINGS.

AND SO, AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT, I KNOW WE NOW HAVE OUR COMPLETE STREETS MANUAL, UM, COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS, I BELIEVE IS THE TERMINOLOGY THAT WAS UTILIZED IN FOR DALLAS THAT AGAIN, ARE SIMILAR CONCEPTS, BUT START TO SPEAK TO MULTIMODAL ALTERNATE FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION AND PROGRESSING ESSENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, THE CONVERSATION AROUND HOW WE THINK ABOUT OUR ROADWAYS, ROADWAYS ARE FOR PEOPLE, NOT FOR CARS.

YOU KNOW, THE THINGS WE, I THINK ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH, BUT IS IT A QUESTION OF TERMINOLOGY IN THE PLAN OR IS IT A QUESTION OF IMPLEMENTATION? IN THINKING ABOUT CORRIDORS, I AM GOING TO GIVE AN ANSWER AND I MIGHT INVITE, UH, SOMEONE FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO ALSO WEIGH IN ON THIS.

THE, THE

[00:15:01]

FOLLOWING UP ON THAT, I KNOW THAT OUR, UM, SMALL AREA PLANNING DIVISION IN OUR GROUP IS, UM, INCORPORATING, SORT OF EXPANDING THEIR REALM FROM JUST DOING NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS OR DISTRICT PLANS SPECIFICALLY TO CORRIDOR PLANS.

AND THEN THE TYPICAL PROCESS IS FOLLOWING THAT UP WITH AN AUTHORIZED HEARING WHERE MAYBE PARKING MINIMUMS CAN BE ADDRESSED.

UM, IF IT'S IMPORTANT TO ATTACH THOSE TO CORRIDORS.

I THINK IT'S, IT'S REALLY THE, THE TERMINOLOGY IT COMES DOWN TO THE NUT, THE SORT OF LEGAL NUTS AND BOLTS OF ATTACHING IT.

WE'VE WORKSHOPPED A COUPLE OF IDEAS, HOWEVER, THE, THE DEPTH AT WHICH SORT OF THE PROPOSAL WOULD NEED TO BE TAKEN APART AND RECONSIDERED, UM, COULD, COULD SEE A PRETTY MAJOR DELAY FOR THIS CODE AMENDMENT.

UM, I MIGHT INVITE SOMEONE FROM CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IF THEY HAVE ANY EXTRA THOUGHTS TO ADD.

WAS THE QUESTION HOW THE CITY CAN TIE PARKING MINIMUMS TO CERTAIN STREET CORRIDORS IN DALLAS? WELL, I GUESS, SO THE, THE QUESTION THAT I HAD ASKED WAS SPECIFIC TO THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN, AND I UNDERSTAND, UH, FOR MR. WADE THAT THERE MAY BE A FUNCTIONAL CHALLENGE WITH THAT MECHANISM.

SO THE QUESTION FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE WAS IF IT UTILIZED COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS, WHICH ARE I BELIEVE THE, UM, TERMINOLOGY WITHIN FOR DALLAS THAT WAS JUST ADOPTED OR OTHER PLANS THAT WE HAVE, WE HAVE OTHER MECHANISMS WHERE WE SPEAK ABOUT CORRIDORS.

IT JUST, THE QUESTION WAS IF IT WAS A DIFFERENT PLAN OR A DIFFERENT TERMINOLOGY, DOES THAT CHANGE THE CONSIDERATION, UM, FOR STAFF AND FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S PERSPECTIVE ON IMPLEMENTATION? RIGHT.

WE, WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT, UM, IN DETAIL.

ALL OF THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN ARTICLE FOUR, I THINK, BECAUSE THAT'S OUR ZONING CODE.

WE COULDN'T TIE PARKING MINIMUMS IN ARTICLE FOUR TO AMENDMENTS TO OUR THOROUGHFARE PLAN BECAUSE THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN IS A SECOND.

UM, IT'S A SEPARATE DOCUMENT THAT HAS ITS OWN, UM, METHOD AND PROCEDURE FOR AMENDMENT.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAVE AMENDMENTS TO THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN CHANGE PARKING MINIMUMS IN ARTICLE FOUR, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE NOTICE AND, YOU KNOW, TO CHANGE ONE COULDN'T THEN CHANGE THE OTHER.

IF YOU WANTED TO, TO MAKE ANY AMENDMENTS TO THAT, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE FOUR.

AND I GUESS MY ONLY REASON WHY I MIGHT ASK, AND I'M GLAD TO TAKE THIS OFFLINE 'CAUSE I IMAGINE THERE'S OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS, BUT THE, UM, SUBDIVISION REVIEW COMMITTEE APPROVES THOROUGH FAIR AMENDMENTS.

SO IT COMES BACK BEFORE THIS BODY, WHICH SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE TIED TO ARTICLE FOUR.

WELL, IT'S NOT TIED TO ARTICLE FOUR AT ALL.

IT'S NOT TIED TO THE ZONING CODE.

IT'S TIED TO, WELL, SORRY, I STATED THAT POORLY, ARTICLE NINE.

IT'S, IT'S WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF CITY PLAN COMMISSION.

RIGHT, OKAY.

BUT, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S A FUNCTION OF ZONING.

HOUSING DEPARTMENT AND OUR HOUSING PLAN.

I'LL LEAVE THAT WHEN I MAY HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION.

, UM, FEW OTHER ITEMS, UM, AS, AND I THINK I'M GONNA ASK A QUESTION THAT, UM, I THINK WAS ASKED PREVIOUSLY.

UM, THERE'S OTHER PLANS THAT WE HAVE ADOPTED, A CURB MANAGEMENT PLAN, SOME OF THE OTHER INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE BROUGHT FORWARD, UM, FOR THE COMMISSION JUST TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS AMENDMENT WOULD WORK MORE GLOBALLY.

UM, ONE OF THE, YOU KNOW, ITEMS THAT JUMPED OUT AT ME WAS THAT IT WAS TALKING ABOUT SOME OF OUR MORE HIGH INTENSITY USES ARE ANTICIPATED TO CREATE A SIGNIFICANT ON-STREET PARKING NUISANCE.

UM, CAN YOU SPEAK TO HOW STAFF EVALUATED SOME OF THE OTHER PLANS RELATIVE TO, UM, THE AMENDMENT THAT'S BEFORE US AND, AND CORRELATING WITH THOSE OTHER PLANS? I SHOULD, YES.

SO MUCH OF OUR TIME SPENT WITH OTHER PLANS, NOT AS EXPLICITLY, UM, IMPACTING PARKING AS THE ON STREET PARKING AND CURB MANAGEMENT PLAN INVOLVED.

IN WHAT WAY DOES OFF STREET PARKING AFFECT OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS, OUR HOUSING GOALS, UM, OUR CCAP GOALS, AND GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE, WE ALSO SOUGHT THE EXPERTISE FROM THE RELEVANT DEPARTMENTS OPERATIONALIZING THESE DIFFERENT PLANS.

I WON'T SAY IT WAS UNANIMOUS, BUT IT WAS PRETTY WIDESPREAD THAT PARKING MINIMUMS TOUCH ON ALL OF THESE AND AT THE PRESENT LEVEL CREATE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT BARRIERS TO, UM, SOME OF THESE GOALS WHEN EVALUATED IN SILOS.

SO MORE HOUSING UNITS OF, UH, DIFFERENT KINDS FOR THE

[00:20:01]

UM, THE ABILITY FOR SMALL BUSINESSES TO SET UP AND RUN, UM, AND REALLY BUILD COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODS.

UM, CA AGAIN, THE, NOT ONLY HAVE OUR CURRENT PARKING LOTS AND PARKING SPACES BEEN BUILT JUST WITH BLANKET CONCRETE, NO, UH, NOTHING TO ADDRESS THE URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT.

NOTHING TO MITIGATE, UM, SURFACE WATER RUNOFF AND POLLUTION, THAT KIND OF A THING.

SO, UM, NOT ONLY DO OUR CURRENT PARKING LOTS SORT OF SIT UNDEVELOPED BECAUSE OF OUR CURRENT PARKING REGULATIONS, UM, AND UNRENEWED YOU MIGHT SAY UN UN REDESIGNED, UM, BUT IN GENERAL, NEW DEVELOPMENT COULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ROLL BACK SOME OF THE CONCRETE AND THAT KIND OF A THING.

THINKING IN, IN TERMS OF ZO OAC AND THEN, I'M SORRY, CCA.

UM, AND THEN ON, ON THE CCAP LEVEL TWO, JUST THE, THE BROADER STUDIES THAT SHOW CAUSALITY BETWEEN PROVISION OF PARKING SPACES AND HOW MUCH WE DRIVE ALONE IN GAS POWERED VEHICLES CREATING EMISSIONS.

SO THESE ARE JUST EXAMPLES OF BROADER CITY POLICIES THAT ARE SORT OF ONE OR TWO STEPS OUT FROM HOW WE MANAGE PARKING.

THE CURB MANAGEMENT, UH, ON STREETE PARKING AND CURB MANAGEMENT PLAN REALLY IS THE ONE THAT GOES HAND IN HAND WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY.

THAT OF COURSE INCLUDES THE PAID PARKING AREA, THE RESIDENT PARKING PER RESIDENT PARKING ONLY PERMIT PROGRAM, THAT KIND OF A THING.

UM, UPDATING CHARGES AND COSTS FOR METERS.

AND, UM, IT FORESEES WHETHER WE DO ANYTHING WITH PARKING OR NOT A GROWING DALLAS DENSIFYING DALLAS.

AND SO MANAGEMENT WILL NEED TO BE A STRATEGY THAT THE CITY USES REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DO WITH THIS TODAY.

UM, I THINK IT'S, THAT'S SORT OF A, A HARD STOP TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST, BECAUSE, UM, WE REALLY DON'T EXPECT THE PROPOSAL AS EVALUATED BEFORE US TODAY TO HAVE A MASSIVE CATACLYSMIC CHANGE TO THE CITY'S URBAN FABRIC.

IT'LL TAKE TIME.

THE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE TAKES TIME AND, UH, DURING THAT TIME, OUR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS IS BEEFING UP A LOT OF THE POLICIES THAT THEY CALL FOR AND PLAN FOR IN THEIR POLICY DOCUMENT.

AM I ANSWERING WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? UM, NOT FULLY, BUT, UM, I'M GONNA ASK TWO MORE QUESTIONS AND THEN I'M ANXIOUS TO HEAR WHAT MY, UM, COLLEAGUES, UM, QUESTIONS MAY HAVE.

IN THE STAFF REPORT IN NOVEMBER, THERE WERE FOUR REFERENCE CITIES THAT WERE, UM, INCLUDED.

UM, BUFFALO, SEATTLE, UM, I'M FORGETTING ONE.

AUSTIN AND MINNEAPOLIS.

MINNEAPOLIS.

OR WHETHER IT WAS MIXED USE.

UM, CAN YOU SPEAK TO, I MEAN, ARE THOSE AN APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON, UM, WITH OUR CITY? IS THERE DATA ABOUT HOW THEY ROLLED OUT THEIR, UM, PARKING AMENDMENTS AND THEIR REQUIREMENTS AND, AND JUST HOW THOSE WERE THOUGHT ABOUT VERSUS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE TODAY? SURE.

I, I'VE NEVER HEARD A CITY LEADER OR A CITY PLANNER SAY THAT ANOTHER CITY IS AN EXACT, UH, REPLICA OF THEIRS.

UM, OF THOSE PLUS DALLAS, WE'D BE THE BIGGEST CITY, UM, BY LAND AREA AND BY POPULATION THERE IS DATA.

I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE LINKS TO THE STUDIES, STUDIES THAT PRODUCE SOME OF THOSE, UM, PERCENTAGES AND SOME OF THOSE RESULTS.

THREE OF THOSE FOUR, MINNEAPOLIS, BUFFALO, SEATTLE, UM, THE RESULTS, AND I CAN I CAN DESCRIBE THOSE HERE IN A MOMENT, WERE THE PRODUCT OF MASSIVE PARKING REFORM IN AUSTIN, EVEN THOUGH THEY DID JUST ELIMINATE MINIMUM CITYWIDE, UH, THOSE, THE DATA THAT I REPRODUCED THERE CAME FROM THEIR EQUIVALENT TO OUR M-I-H-D-B PROGRAM.

THEY CALL IT AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED.

AND INSTEAD OF OFFERING A HALF PARKING SPACE PER UNIT AS AN INCENTIVE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THEY OFFERED ZERO PARKING, UH, OR THEY DID AT THE TIME.

AND SO THAT WAS STILL STUDIED IN, I'LL, I'LL JUST TICK THROUGH THE RESULTS VERY QUICKLY.

IN MINNEAPOLIS, THEY ACTUALLY STARTED PARKING REFORM IN 20 12, 20 13, AND HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT INCREMENTALLY UNTIL I THINK 2021 WHEN THEY FULLY ELIMINATED MINIMUMS. AND YOU CAN SEE A SLOW REDUCTION IN THE RATIO OF, UM, PARKING PER NEW DEVELOPMENT.

THE STUDY THAT I READ OR PARKING PER UNIT IN THE NEW DEVELOPMENT, THE STUDY THAT I READ DIDN'T DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN WHETHER THE HOUSING WAS PURELY MULTIFAMILY

[00:25:01]

SOME OF THE OTHER STUDIES FOR OTHER CITIES DO THAT.

UM, I I CAN SAY ANECDOTALLY FROM LIVING THERE FOR SEVEN YEARS, I SAW A LOT OF MIXED USE GO UP.

UM, BUT THAT SAW A REDUCTION I THINK FROM, WAS IT 1.3, 1.4 PARKING SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT TO 0.7 0.8 PER UNIT AFTER FULLY ELIMINATING IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN DEVELOPMENTS, I THINK IT WAS 35, UM, MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS SAW A REDUCTION OF ABOUT 25% IN PARKING SPACES BUILT FOR THOSE DEVELOPMENTS THAT USED THE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED PROGRAM IN SEATTLE.

SO IN SEATTLE THERE WERE TWO CONCURRENT STUDIES THAT PAINT A PICTURE.

UM, KING COUNTY, WHERE SEATTLE IS LOCATED DID A, AN INVENTORY OF ALL OF THE PARKING SPACES IN THEIR COUNTY, WHICH MUST HAVE BEEN A, A WILD LIFT FOR SOME YOUNG INTERNS PERFORMING THAT STUDY.

UM, AND THEY SAW THAT 40% OF PARKING SPACES ARE NEVER USED ACROSS THE COUNTY SINCE THEN.

I, I THINK THAT WAS ABOUT THREE OR FOUR YEARS BEFORE SEATTLE ENACTED THEIR PARKING REFORM.

IT WASN'T ELIMINATION CITYWIDE, BUT IT WAS MUCH OF THE CITY, UH, REDUCED OR ELIMINATED.

THEY SAW EXACTLY THAT NUMBER, 40% DROP IN HOW MANY PARKING SPACES WERE CONSTRUCTED.

AND THEN IN, UH, BUFFALO CITYWIDE ELIMINATION, THEY SAW, I THINK IT WAS 23, 20 5% FEWER SPACES CONSTRUCTED.

WE'VE ALSO HEARD ANECDOTALLY FROM OUR PARTNERS AT TREK AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING, UH, GROUPS THAT IT'S IN, IT'S IN THE TWENTIES.

UM, AS FAR AS THE PERCENT OF PARKING THAT WE'RE OVER BUILDING, I THINK ONE OF OUR COMMISSIONERS ESTIMATED 20 TO 30%.

AND THAT, THAT SEEMS TO BE ACROSS THE BOARD.

IS IT CORRECT THAT BOTH FOR SEATTLE AND FOR MINNEAPOLIS, AND I THINK YOU MENTIONED THIS FOR MINNEAPOLIS, THAT IT WAS AN INCREMENTAL, UM, REVISION.

THEY STARTED, I THINK WITH TRANSIT STATION AND AREA, UM, PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED OVERLAY DISTRICTS.

UM, THEN THEY MOVED INTO COMMERCIAL USES, THEN THEY STARTED LOOKING AT RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS.

UM, AND I, FULL DISCLOSURE, I ACTUALLY FOUND THEIR REPORT TO THEIR CITY PLAN COMMISSION THAT KIND OF OUTLINED THEIR REVIEW.

AND IT JUST SOUNDED LIKE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN TERMS OF TRANSIT CORRIDORS, MULTIMODAL CONSIDERATIONS BEFORE THEY GOT TO WHAT THEY HAVE TODAY, WHICH IS A MORE ROBUST, UM, AND SIMILAR TO, UM, SEATTLE, WHICH I UNDERSTAND WAS ALSO ORIENTED AROUND TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS AND AS YOU NOTED, IS NOT A, A CITYWIDE, IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT? I WOULD SAY IT'S FAIR.

AND I WOULD SAY THAT BOTH OF THOSE CITIES CAN ACT A LITTLE BIT AS TEST CASES FOR US TOO.

SO AS WE THINK FORWARD ABOUT US POTENTIALLY DOING SOMETHING MORE INCREMENTAL THAN WHAT'S PROPOSED, WE CAN DRAW ON WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE INCREMENTALLY AND DON'T HAVE TO BE BOUND TO EXACTLY THE SAME BABY STEPS THAT SOME OF THESE CITIES HAVE.

WE'VE, WE'VE ALSO SEEN, IT'S MORE WHAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN, THESE CITIES HAVEN'T DESCENDED INTO CHAOS.

YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, THEY'RE, UM, THE, THE EXPECTATIONS, THE CULTURAL EXPECTATIONS DO EVOLVE OF COURSE, BUT NEVERTHELESS, THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS HAS BEEN SLOW IN, IN SLOWISH IN THOSE CITIES.

I MEAN IT, UM, I THINK WE CAN USE THOSE AS EXAMPLES.

AND JUST ONE FOLLOW UP ON THAT, IS IT ALSO CORRECT, I THINK FROM WHAT I WAS READING AS I WAS TRYING TO DO SOME RESEARCH ONLINE THAT PREDOMINANTLY THE REDUCTIONS OCCURRED IN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.

UH, COMMISSIONER HARA, BEFORE I GO TO YOU SIR, I HAVE JUST ONE QUICK FOLLOW UP TO, UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON'S.

FIRST QUESTION, UH, MR. WADE, AS, AS COMMISSIONER HAMPTON MENTIONED, WE HAVE THE ZO IAC RECOMMENDATION, AND IF THIS BODY DECIDES TO MOVE, MOVE ON A HYBRID ON THAT, UH, WITH A SERIES OF ADJUSTMENTS, COULD ONE OF 'EM BE, UH, IN REGARDS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS, UH, LANGUAGE SUCH AS, YOU KNOW, A HISTORIC BUILDING THAT IS, AND OR, YOU KNOW, 50 YEARS, LET'S SAY 50 YEARS OR OLDER IS NOT SUBJECT TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS? WOULD THAT BE A POSSIBLE ADJUSTMENT? I BELIEVE SO, YEAH.

AND IT WAS DISCUSSED AT ZOAX, SO THERE'S, THERE'S DISCUSSION AROUND IT.

THERE'S PRECEDENT IN OTHER CITIES.

PERFECT.

UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT.

WELL, MY, I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON THIS SAME TOPIC 'CAUSE I THINK IT'S INTERESTING.

UM, AS YOU KNOW, MY TENURE ON ZO OAC IS FAIRLY BRIEF IN THE, IN THE PAST AT ZO OAC.

WAS THIS ISSUE DISCUSSED ABOUT PRESERVING HISTORIC BUILDING STOCK OR PRESERVING SMALLER, UH, BUILDINGS

[00:30:01]

IN OLDER AREAS? WAS THERE, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY DISCUSSION OF, OF ZAC ON THIS ISSUE? SURE.

AGAIN, THE, THE FRAMEWORK THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN 2020 AND 2021, WHILE, UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON WAS CHAIR ALSO DID, UM, BRING UP THE IDEA.

IT WASN'T A FORMAL PROPOSAL, BUT THE IDEA THAT BUILDINGS OLDER THAN BUILT IN 1967, JULY OF 1967, UH, WOULD HAVE NO MINIMUMS. AND THEN THOSE, UH, WHERE DID MY LIST GO? THOSE WITH SORT OF A FORMAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION, WHETHER IT'S, UM, NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK, ONE OF THOSE THAT ARE IN CITY OF DALLAS, HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT.

THERE ARE A FEW THAT COULD, UM, TRIGGER A NO NO MINIMUM SITUATION.

SO THAT WAS DISCUSSED THERE.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT OAC IS THAT THERE ARE, WHAT ABOUT THE BUILDING THAT WAS BUILT IN AUGUST OF 1967 INSTEAD OF JULY? UM, WE, WE HAVE A FEW GREAT AREAS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS THAT WE LOVE BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN OLDER BUILT FORM AND OLDER URBAN FABRIC, AND OUR STAFF RUN IN CIRCLES TO KEEP TRACK OF DELTA CREDITS OR SPECIAL PDS OR THAT KIND OF A THING.

AND SO, UM, WE WE'RE ALREADY ENGAGED IN TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE THE PRESERVATION OF THESE BUILDINGS, HOW THE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE ON THIS TODAY WILL MAKE THAT EASIER OR MAKE IT HARDER.

DETERMINES HISTORIC, I BELIEVE.

SO, UM, WHAT I UNDERSTAND ONE OF THE ISSUES TO BE IS THAT, UM, A BUSINESS OWNER PURCHASES A BUILDING THAT IS IDEAL FOR A SMALL RESTAURANT, A SMALL BAR, AND CAN'T MEET THE CITY'S PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

AND SO THAT BUYS THE STRUCTURE NEXT DOOR AND TEARS IT DOWN AND TURNS IT INTO A PARKING LOT.

UM, WOULD IT, WOULD WE PERHAPS ADDRESS THE PROBLEM JUST AS READILY AND MAYBE MORE SIMPLY BY, UM, EXEMPTING SMALLER STRUCTURES FROM PARKING MINIMUMS AS OPPOSED TO TRYING TO IDENTIFY A DATE THAT WE WORK WITH? I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE 1967 DATE WAS, WAS SELECTED.

I MEAN, IT, MAYBE IT'S FINE, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT, UM, I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE ARE THESE, THESE REALLY MORE ORGANIC, MORE NEIGHBORHOOD SCALED LAND USES THAT MAKE A NEIGHBORHOOD RICH AND INTERESTING AND SERVES ITS RESIDENTS WELL.

UM, YOU KNOW, I'D BE, I'D BE INTERESTED IN, IN LOOKING AT IT MAYBE THROUGH THE, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE LENS AS OPPOSED TO SOME DATE, BECAUSE WE'VE GOT, WE'VE GOT HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCES AND INCENTIVES AND THINGS ELSEWHERE.

UM, AND IT, UM, AS YOU POINT OUT, UM, I DO LIKE, YOU KNOW, I, I'M FINE WITH, UM, UM, USING EXISTING DEFINITIONS IF YOU, YOU KNOW, EXISTING DESIGNATIONS, I THINK THAT THAT'S FINE, BUT I DON'T, I, I WANT US TO AVOID COMING UP WITH SOME OTHER DESIGNATION HERE IN THIS THAT MIGHT RUN AFOUL OF THE OTHER.

SO I DUNNO IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE TO YOU.

IT DOES.

I I WOULD AGREE.

UM, THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR SORT OF A SQUARE FOOTAGE FLOOR LIKE THAT.

UM, I KNOW THAT, AGAIN, IN THE TWIN CITIES, I THINK IT'S 2,500.

I'VE ALSO SEEN 1500.

I KNOW THAT WE HAVE A VARIETY, AGAIN, IN OUR, THE OLDER PARTS OF TOWN, THERE ARE SOME REALLY NARROW SHOPS.

USED TO BE A SODA FOUNTAIN, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

IT'S 790 SQUARE FEET, UM, THERE JUST EIGHT AT A RESTAURANT THAT I THINK WAS ABOUT 1800 SQUARE FEET.

THESE ARE RESTAURANTS THAT ARE SMALL ENOUGH THAT THEY'RE SUPPORTED ON THE DOLLARS OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.

THEY'RE NOT REGIONAL DESTINATIONS, UH, WHERE PEOPLE ARE DRIVING FROM ADDISON TO EAT, EAT, OR, YOU KNOW, PATRONIZE THESE PLACES.

SO THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR IT.

I, I THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

AGAIN, THE, THE PRECEDENT TENDS TO BE BETWEEN 1,520 500 SQUARE FEET.

CAN I, CAN I JUMP IN? UM, SORRY.

WE HAVE A PLATE WITH BOTH.

SO THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION IS FOUR YEARS AGO HAD BOTH, UM, AN EXEMPTION FOR THE FIRST 5,000 FEET AND THE 1967, THE 1967, SO I CAN GIVE AN EXPLANATION, CAME FROM THAT WAS THE DATE WHEN WE INVENTED PARKING MINIMUMS PER USE PER CITY OF DALLAS.

SO WE SAID THE BUILDINGS THAT WERE BUILT UP TO THAT DATE ACTUALLY DIDN'T HAVE REQUIREMENTS.

WE WERE TRYING TO BE RESPECTFUL.

UM, AND THEN I WOULD SAY I WOULD MOVE IT EVEN MORE TO SAY THAT THERE ARE PDS THAT DO BOTH, BOTH EAR OF THE PD PASSING AND SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND DOWNTOWN HAS ALSO EXISTING BUILDINGS.

SO YOU CAN DO A COMBINATION OF THOSE.

IT'S NOT A NOVELTY.

WE DO IT FOR THE RECORD.

SOME OF US ARE OF AIDS AT 1967.

DOESN'T SOUND OLD.

, MY APOLOGIES.

[00:35:02]

COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, PLEASE.

WELL, COMMISSIONER HALL.

I HAVE A, I HAVE A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS.

UM, AND I'D LIKE TO START BY THANKING, UH, MICHAEL FRIS WORK ON THIS.

I KNOW YOU PUT A LOT INTO IT, AND THERE ARE DEFINITELY SOME THINGS ABOUT THIS PACKAGE THAT I LIKE, INCLUDING THE PEDESTRIAN PASS AND THE DESIGN ELEMENTS.

AND I ALSO BELIEVE THAT WE OVER PARK, UM, A NUMBER OF OUR USES AND, AND, AND IT IMPACTS A LOT OF THE WAY THAT WE LIVE.

UM, ARE THERE ANY USES THAT YOU'D THINK THAT WE DO NOT OVER PARK? THERE'S WHAT I THINK, AND THERE'S WHAT I HEAR, UM, I, WHAT I HEAR TENDS TO BE, UM, SOME BARS AND RESTAURANTS, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT ARE BUILT IN MORE SUBURBAN CONTEXTS THAT ARE BUILT TO RECEIVE INDIVIDUAL DRIVERS, ONE PER CAR COMING FROM ALL OVER THE METROPLEX.

UM, THIS IS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT'S GONE INTO USING RATIOS FROM THE ITE PARKING DEMAND MANUAL.

UM, THAT MANUAL IS BEING IMPROVED, BUT ONE OF THE BIG FLAWS WAS THAT THEY SORT OF GROUPED THE LAND USE INTO ONE PARKING RATIO REGARDLESS OF CONTEXT.

AND SO, UM, I HEAR FROM, UM, THE WORLD OF REALTORS REAL ESTATE ATTORNEYS, BARS AND RESTAURANTS ESPECIALLY, UM, RESTAURANTS, REGIONAL DESTINATIONS CAN, UM, SOMETIMES BE PARKED AT EXACTLY THE RIGHT RATIO.

UM, AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S REALLY HARD TO SEPARATE THE LAND USE FROM THE CONTEXT FROM THE URBAN FORM.

AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE ARE FOCUSING ON PARKING MINIMUMS, AT LEAST AS ASSIGNED TO A LAND USE BAR, NONE TODAY.

SO THE RESTAURANTS, REGIONAL RESTAURANTS ARE THE MAIN ONE THAT I'VE HEARD ABOUT.

SO I'M GONNA ASK SOME, SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS BASED ON USE, JUST BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THE CODE HAS TYPICALLY BEEN USED.

AND IN THE INTEREST OF ACHIEVING THE GOOD INSTEAD OF THE PERFECT.

UM, WHAT DATA DO YOU SUPPORT? ARE THERE ANY OTHER USES THAT YOU THINK WE ARE MORE OR LESS PARKING OR REQUIRE THE REQUIRED PARKING IS MORE OR LESS WHERE IT SHOULD BE? SO YOU'VE HIT BAR, RESTAURANT, ANYTHING ELSE? WHAT ABOUT COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT CHURCH? AGAIN, A A MEGA CHURCH IS DIFFERENT THAN A NEIGHBORHOOD CHURCH.

WILDLY DIFFERENT.

A MOVIE THEATER WITH 13 SCREENS IS DIFFERENT THAN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH ONE SCREEN.

AND SO I THINK SIZE IS JUST A MASSIVE, MASSIVE VARIABLE THERE.

WE KNOW THAT AS SMALL PLACES MAYBE GROUP INTO AN EN ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT, THEN THEY CHANGE FORM.

IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL LAND USE, BUT IT'S ABOUT THE DISTRICT AT THAT POINT.

UM, BUT IN THE END, BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT PROVIDING PARKING, ESPECIALLY FREE AND ABUNDANT PARKING CAUSES MORE PEOPLE TO DRIVE, WE KNOW THAT AS SOON AS SOMETHING IS PARKED CORRECTLY, THEN IT'S PARKED INADEQUATELY.

AND AS WE LOOK TO 2040 BEFORE DALLAS, AS WE LOOK AHEAD OF THAT, UM, I REALLY THINK THAT THE ARRIVING AT A PERFECT RATIO INCENTIVIZES MORE DRIVING AND IT'S NO LONGER THE PERFECT RATIO.

AND SO WE NEED TO SORT OF LEAN IN THE DIRECTION THAT, THAT WE WANT TO GO.

UM, THAT BEING SAID, BACK TO MY LAST ANSWER, THE ONLY REAL LAND USE THAT I'VE HEARD ABOUT FROM, UM, PEOPLE WHO ARE SORT OF JUDGING FROM THE MARKET PERSPECTIVE IS RESTAURANTS.

UM, , WHAT ARE THE USES YOU THINK THAT WE MOST OFTEN OVER PARK THE USES THAT WE MOST OFTEN OVER PARK? I, I'D LIKE TO TAKE A BEAT TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

I AM IMAGINING ALL OF MY GIS LAYERS AND ALL OF, UM, THE 365 SQUARE MILES OF LAND USES IN DALLAS.

I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SOME TIME TO PREPARE BETTER FOR THAT QUESTION.

I'LL COME BACK TO THAT.

I'M GONNA ASK YOU WHAT YOUR DATA IS TOO.

SO, UM, ONCE MINIMUM PARKING RESTRICTIONS ARE LIFTED, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE CITY CANNOT REIMPOSE THEM LEGALLY IF WE GET THIS WRONG? IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE SAY, OKAY, WE'RE GONNA ELIMINATE MINIMUM PARKING RESTRICTIONS EITHER ACROSS THE BOARD OR WITH CERTAIN USES OR IN CERTAIN AREAS, WE CAN'T TAKE A LOOK FIVE YEARS FROM NOW AND SAY, HMM, THAT'S NOT WORKING FOR

[00:40:01]

US.

WE NEED TO REIMPOSE SOME MINIMUM PARKING STANDARDS.

WE CAN'T DO THAT, CAN WE? UH, I WOULD NEED TO BRING UP THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

WAS THE CITY ATTORNEY PAYING ATTENTION? SO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE COULD BE AMENDED IN THE FUTURE TO REINSTATE, UH, PARKING MINIMUMS, UM, SAY IN A YEAR OR FIVE OR 10.

BUT SHOULD THAT HAPPEN, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE DELTA CREDITS ALL OVER THE CITY FOR USES ALL OVER THE CITY THAT DIDN'T HAVE TO PARK, BUT NOW ACCORDING TO THE CODE, DO HAVE TO PARK AND THEY WOULD BE GRANTED THOSE DELTA CREDITS.

SO WHEN WE ELIMINATE PARKING MINIMUMS, WE ARE ESSENTIALLY CREATING A VESTED RIGHT FOR ALL OF THOSE PARKING OWNER, ALL OF THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT CURRENTLY DO HAVE PARKING MINIMUMS. RIGHT.

AND THE ONLY WAY TO REIMPOSE NEW PARKING MINIMUMS FOR ANY USE IN ANY PART OF THE CITY IS TO DO WHAT WE DID BACK IN THE SIXTIES, WHICH WAS TO CREATE THIS FICTIONAL THEORY OF DELTA CREDITS.

AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THAT IS? SO A DELTA CREDIT IS CREDIT THAT A, A BUSINESS OR A, A LAND USE IN DALLAS GETS AN ESTABLISHMENT IN DALLAS GETS FOR NOT HAVING TO PARK IT BEFORE, BUT NOW THE CODE SAYS YOU HAVE TO PARK IT, BUT SINCE YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO PARK IT BEFORE YOU'RE CREDITED WITH THAT PARKING SPACE.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE TO KEEP TRACK OF ACROSS THE BOARD.

SO IF, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAD A RESTAURANT THAT WAS A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET AND THEY HAD TO HAVE ONE PARKING SPOT FOR EVERY 10, FOR EVERY 100 FEET, THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE 10 PARKING SPOTS.

AND IF THEY ONLY HAD FIVE, THEY COULD HAVE FIVE DELTA CREDITS TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE TO GET TO THEIR PARKING MINIMUM.

AND THEN THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE CITY, AND THEN MAYBE THE COMMUNITY HAS TO KEEP UP WITH ALL THOSE PARKING CREDITS.

HOW MANY AREAS IN THE CITY HAVE ANY KIND OF MECHANISM FOR REMOVING DELTA CREDITS? I GUESS MY, MY ANSWER WOULD BE THE, THE MD ONE DISTRICT.

I, I THINK JUST THE ONE LOWER GREENVILLE.

LOWER GREENVILLE.

JUST LOWER GREENVILLE, MM-HMM .

DOESN'T IT SEEM, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THOSE PARKING INCENTIVES INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR PROGRAM.

WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION, UM, IN DEVELOPING THIS PLAN FOR EITHER EXEMPTING OR HAVING SOME DIFFERENT RULES FOR AREAS THAT HAVE HISTORICALLY HAD A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF DELTA CREDITS OR ARE SUBJECT TO A MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY? THERE'S BEEN A VARIETY OF, OF OPINION, SHORT STORY, NOT IN DEPTH.

THERE'S BEEN A VARIETY OF OPINIONS THAT HAVE KIND OF KEPT US FROM GOING TOO DEEP ON THAT.

UM, THE TWO MAIN SORT OF CONFLICTING OPINIONS BEING, UH, IN THIS POTENTIAL WHERE WE ADD BACK LATER AFTERWARDS, IT WOULD CREATE A SITUATION LIKE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

ON THE OTHER HAND, THESE ARE EXACTLY THE AREAS THAT STAFF SPEND A LOT OF TIME TRACKING AND COUNTING AND WORKING ON SHARED USE, UH, OR SHARED PARKING AGREEMENTS, THAT KIND OF A THING.

AND SO, UM, THESE ARE SOME OF THE AREAS THAT WE, UH, COULD SEE SOME BENEFIT IN REMOVING OR REDUCING PARKING MINIMUMS EVEN MORE.

AND SO IN THE MIDDLE OF THOSE TWO, UH, WE HAVEN'T LOOKED AT USING A MECHANISM LIKE THE MD ONE, UM, AS, UH, REALLY A PIVOTAL PLACE TO, UM, PROTECT OR CUSTOMIZED PARKING MINIMUMS. WE WOULD ALSO BE INTERESTED IN THE, IN WHAT RATIONALLY MAKES SORT OF ONE UNIQUE PLACE LIKE THE AREA COVERED IN MD ONE DIFFERENT THAN SOME OTHER SIMILAR, UM, COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS, COMMERCIAL AREAS, BISHOP ARTS, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT DON'T HAVE THAT.

AND SO IT, THAT'S, THAT'S SORT OF A EXISTENTIAL QUESTION WE WOULD ASK, ASK OURSELVES AS WE DECIDE WHETHER TO USE THAT TOOL, WHAT CONSIDERATIONS WERE GIVEN TO THE IMPACTS THIS PROPOSAL HAS ON THE INCENTIVES WE JUST WROTE INTO OUR M-H-M-I-H-D-P PROGRAM.

THE PROPOSAL BEFORE US WOULD JUST MAKE THAT PARKING INCENTIVE IN M-I-H-D-B, UM, NO LONGER NECESSARY OR NO LONGER A NEGOTIATING TOOL.

IT WOULD, UH, SHIFT TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE IN, IN MY HT P.

YEAH, WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT

[00:45:01]

AND IF WE ELIMINATE THAT AS AN INCENTIVE, WE'RE ELIMINATING AN INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR PROGRAM AND, AND SPECIFICALLY DEED RESTRICT UNITS FOR A PERIOD OF TIME AT A, AT A DEFINED LOWER RENT RATE.

WHAT, WHAT FACTORS DID YOU CONSIDER OR HOW DID YOU BALANCE TAKING THAT NEGOTIATION TOOL AWAY FROM OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM? I WOULD SAY THERE WERE TWO OTHER SOFT AFFORDABLE HOUSING TOOLS THAT WOULD BE OPENED UP BY THIS.

ONE IS, UM, JUST SHEER QUANTITY OF UNITS THAT WE THINK ELIMINATION OF MINIMUMS WOULD CREATE.

SO THAT WOULD BE AT EVERY LEVEL, ESPECIALLY MARKET.

A LOT OF NEW ONES, UH, TEND TO BE, A LOT OF NEW UNITS TEND TO BE MARKET RATE THAT PRODUCES THE UPWARD FILTRATION RATE.

AND SO THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE, AND I THINK STUDIES IN MINNEAPOLIS, IN LONDON AND MAYBE SWEDEN OR LUXEMBOURG HAVE SHOWN AN UPWARD FILTRATION.

SO THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST LIVING, UM, BENEATH THEIR MEANS IN A SENSE.

THEY CAN'T AFFORD A, UH, A NICER, MORE EXPENSIVE APARTMENT.

THEY JUST DON'T EXIST.

AND SO BY PROVI PROVIDING THOSE, WE SEE A TRAIL OF FOLKS, UH, MOVING UP.

AND THAT INCLUDES AT THE BOTTOM END, EXISTING NATURALLY OCCURRING.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPENS UP WHEN PEOPLE WHO CAN'T AFFORD MORE MOVE UP INTO THOSE.

SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE PRIMARY THAT THAT'S, THAT'S ONE OF TWO THINGS THAT WOULD BE OPENED UP BY THIS PROPOSAL.

THE OTHER ONE, UM, JUST IN GENERAL, WE'RE NOT ONLY LOOKING FOR DEEPLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THAT'S ONE OF THE GOALS, SOMETHING THAT'S AFFORDABLE TO FOLKS AT 30% A MI, 50% A MI WE'RE ALSO JUST LOOKING FOR A STABILIZED HOUSING MARKET AND ATTAINABLE HOUSING.

AND SO BACK TO THE STUDIES WITH MINNEAPOLIS, UM, WHAT THEY SAW WAS THAT AFTER THEY HAD ELIMINATED MINIMUMS, THEY HAD A COUPLE OTHER ZONING CHANGES AT THE SAME TIME.

UM, WHILE THE REST OF THE HOUSING MARKET IN ACROSS THE STATE OF MINNESOTA CONTINUED TO INCREASE IN PRICE, THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS FLATLINED IT STABILIZED.

UM, AND THEIR CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR FAMOUSLY HAS ATTRIBUTED THAT SPECIFICALLY TO ELIMINATION OF MINIMUMS. AND SO THAT'S NOT A, A TOOL NECESSARILY FOR A 30% A MI UNIT, BUT IT MEANS HOUSING STABILITY AND HOUSING AT OBTAINABILITY.

IS THERE ANY OTHER DATA THAT YOU LOOKED AT IN SUPPORTING THAT ULTIMATE DECISION? I CAN'T THINK OF ANY BECAUSE THESE SEEM A LITTLE, AN ADO ADO TO ME.

WHEN I LOOK AT THE CITIES THAT YOU USE AS BENCHMARKS AND THEIR GEOGRAPHIC SIZE COMPARED TO DALLAS, THEIR CLIMATE COMPARED TO DALLAS, THE AVAILABILITY OF OTHER TRANSIT OPTIONS COMPARED TO DALLAS AND THE YEAR THAT THEY IMPLEMENTED THESE CHANGES AND THE AVAILABILITY OF ACTUAL DATA, IT CONCERNS ME.

SO IS THERE DATA THAT YOU CAN SHARE WITH US TO SUPPORT, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS QUESTION ABOUT GIVING UP THE INCENTIVES IN OUR MIHD PROGRAM WITH THE IDEA THAT IT'S JUST GOING TO CREATE ALL OF THIS OTHER HOUSING IN A CITY LIKE DALLAS? BECAUSE IN FAIRNESS, MINNEAPOLIS IS NOT DALLAS IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS.

AND THE MOST ANALOGOUS CITY YOU'VE POINTED OUT TO AND THE FOUR THAT YOU MENTIONED IS AUSTIN.

AND I KNOW THAT, THAT YOU'LL AGREE THAT THEIR CHANGES ARE SO RECENT THAT THERE'S NO REAL DATA TO SAY, YES, THIS IS WORKING, OR NO, IT'S NOT.

AND MAYBE IT SHOULD BE TWEAKED, BUT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES EVEN BETWEEN DALLAS AND AUSTIN, RIGHT? I MEAN, AUSTIN ALSO JUST VOTED TO, UM, PAY FOR OUT OF PUBLIC FUNDS, A LIGHT RAIL SYSTEM THAT DOVETAILS IN WITH THESE TRANSIT DECISIONS.

RIGHT? THAT'S MY, MY UNDERSTANDING ABOUT AUSTIN.

A CHANCE, THEY MOVE MONEY TO STREETS AWAY FROM THINGS LIKE HOUSING.

AND DALLAS JUST VOTED TO SUE OURSELVES AND PAY FOR COPS THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SAYS WE DON'T NEED.

RIGHT? SO WE'RE KIND OF GOING IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION AND WE CAN'T IGNORE WHAT THE VOTERS IN THIS COMMUNITY, WHAT, WHAT THEIR PRIORITIES ARE.

I MEAN, EVEN WHEN WE LOOK AT THE LAST BOND PACKAGE, EVERY TIME THEY GOT

[00:50:01]

RIGHT? I NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK THOSE PACKAGES.

I I'M JUST, I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT DATA WE'RE RELYING ON WHEN WE TAKE AWAY A TOOL LIKE THIS AT OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT PROGRAM BECAUSE I, I UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS AN IMPORTANT ONE, THAT IT WAS AN IMPORTANT INCENTIVE TO GET PEOPLE TO BUILD IN OUR MIHD PROGRAM.

AND IF IT'S WORTH GIVING UP, I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHY WITH SOME REAL DATA BEHIND IT.

SURE, THAT MAKES SENSE.

I CAN PROVIDE STUDIES AS FAR AS THE FILTRATION EFFECT.

I THINK, UM, IF WE ARE GOING TO SEARCH FOR CRITERIA ABOUT WHAT CITY IS TRULY LIKE DALLAS ENOUGH, THEN WE WOULD NEED TO SORT OF HAVE A PUBLIC CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT.

'CAUSE NO CITY IS EXACTLY THE SAME.

I KNOW THAT, UM, SOMETHING THAT MIGHT COME SOON.

ATLANTA, UH, ELIMINATED MINIMUMS FOR A MASSIVE SWATH OF THEIR CITY.

AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF DATA TRACKING THEY'RE DOING THAT WAS STILL RECENT.

LIKE AUSTIN, I WOULD CALL AUSTIN'S AFFORDABILITY ON LOCK PROGRAM, UM, REAL DATA.

BUT OUTSIDE OF SORT OF THESE SOFT CONSIDERATIONS, THERE'S, IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO LOOK FOR DATA BEHIND THESE POLICY MOVES.

WE ALSO NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHEN ENOUGH IS ENOUGH AND, UM, PULL THE TRIGGER ON SOMETHING.

BUT A LOT OF THESE CITIES HAVE JUST IMPLEMENTED THIS STUFF IN THE LAST, YOU KNOW, TWO TO THREE, TWO TO THREE YEARS.

SO IF THERE'S DATA, MAYBE YOU CAN PROVIDE IT TO US BECAUSE I'M NOT SEEING A LOT OF THAT ONLINE.

NEXT QUESTION.

UM, WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION TO GIVEN TO INCLUDING AN RER ANALYSIS TO ENSURE THE REDUCTIONS WILL NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT ESTABLISHED STABLE NEIGHBORHOODS, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO HIGH INTENSITY USES, LIKE BAR RESTAURANT, INDOOR OUTDOOR, AMUSEMENT, AMUSEMENT, CHURCH MORTUARY, CERTAIN TRUCKING INDUSTRIES, THAT KIND OF STUFF? I THINK THE, THE INTENT OF THE PROPOSAL THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS THAT THE TDMP WOULD ACT AS THE ENHANCED REVIEW.

AND I THINK, UM, I'D INVITE MY COLLEAGUES TO WEIGH IN.

BUT THE TDMP, HOWEVER THE THRESHOLDS ARE ARRANGED, THE LAND USES, ARE ARRANGED, IS INTENDED TO BE THAT, UM, MORE IN DEPTH LOOK AT WHAT ARE CARS DOING, HOW ARE PEOPLE TRANSPORTING THEMSELVES IN RELATIONSHIP TO THIS USE.

I THINK I MIGHT INVITE DR.

ANDREA TO, BUT CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IN THAT, THAT DIRECTLY UTILIZE THE TYPE OF ANALYSIS WE DO IN AN RAR REVIEW.

THOSE INTENSIVE USES OUT OF THE REDUCTION OR THE MINIMUM ELIMINATION? SURE.

AND SORRY, I HAVE TO INTERJECT.

OUR, OUR REVIEWS DOESN'T INVOLVE PARKING, SO IT DOES INVOLVE LOUD SPEAKERS AND OPERATIONAL THINGS, NOT PARKING.

AND TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, AND I THINK MICHAEL ALREADY DID OUR RECOMMENDATION AT SOME POINT OR DISCUSS BIG ROBUST DISCUSSION AT ZAC A FEW YEARS BACK, WAS TO HAVE A RES, AND I'M ASSUMING THAT'S WHAT YOU MEAN, A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY BUFFER.

UM, THAT PROPOSAL DID NOT WORK.

UM, AND STAFF IS NOT SUPPORTIVE.

IT'S NOT TRANSPARENT.

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE COMMU AND THE USERS, THE, THE LEASE OR THE PROPERTY OWNERS FOR COMMERCIALS DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE RATIOS OR NOT.

SO WE DECIDED TO ABANDON THAT.

WE TALKED TO FOR WORTH AS WELL.

THEY GAVE US THEIR, UM, OPINION.

IT SAYS THAT IT'S BARELY WORKING FOR THEIR CITY AS WELL.

AND ALSO IT DOESN'T COVER MUCH LAND IN THE CITY.

SO BASICALLY WE FALL BACK ON RATIOS EVERYWHERE.

WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO EXCLUDING THE MOST INTENSIVE USES FROM THE REDUCTIONS AND BY MOST INTENSIVE USES? I'M TALKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE BAR, RESTAURANT, UM, LET'S JUST TAKE THAT ONE FOR STARTS.

WE ALREADY DON'T PARK PATIOS, WE DON'T PARK ROOFTOPS THAT ARE UNCOVERED.

UM, WE DON'T PARK PARKLETS, WHICH IN FACT TAKE PARKING AWAY FROM AVAL AVAILABLE, YOU KNOW, AVAILABLE PARKING OUT OF THE MIX.

UM, AND MANY OF THESE PLACES ARE WHERE DELTA CREDITS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE AND THEY TEND TO BE ADJACENT TO TO NEIGHBORHOODS.

WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION TO TAKING

[00:55:01]

THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AT ZAC AT, UM, THE LAST, OR ONE OF THE LAST TWO ZAC MEETINGS.

AND I THINK IN A, IN A SITUATION, UM, LESS THAN THE PROPOSAL TODAY OR, OR MORE, UM, NUANCED THAN THE PROPOSAL TODAY, UM, THOSE WOULD PROBABLY BE THE FIRST BARS AND RESTAURANTS WOULD BE THE FIRST LAND USE THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT FOR MORE NUANCED MINIMUMS. ARE THERE OTHER INTENSIVE USE LAND USES THAT YOU WOULD WANNA TAKE A LOOK AT BESIDES BAR, RESTAURANT? PROBABLY COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT IN INDOOR AND OUTDOOR.

THOSE, THOSE AGAIN ARE VARIED, BUT ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY REACH ANY REAL SIZE, UH, THOSE WOULD BE THE FIRST THAT TO REVISIT IF WE WERE DIRECTED TO THAT.

AGAIN, SIZE DETERMINES A LOT.

SO, UM, CHURCHES HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP.

IT'S BEEN MEGA CHURCHES THAT HAVE SEEN THE PARKING ISSUES.

UM, SCHOOLS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP.

WE HAVE OUR SCHOOL TMP TO MANAGE QUEUING, THAT KIND OF A THING.

AND SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'D BE QUICK TO WANT TO REVISIT THAT, BUT PROBABLY COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT BARS AND RESTAURANTS, UM, PEOPLE HAVE BEEN, HAVE VOICED CONCERN ABOUT MULTIFAMILY.

BUT AGAIN, THERE'S SO MANY VARIABLES THERE, ESPECIALLY WHERE IT IS IN RELATION TO LOW DENSITY HOUSING AND, UM, THE SIZE AND SCALE.

SO, UM, THAT'S, BUT THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP AS A CONCERN.

WELL, I WOULD AGREE THAT SIZE PROBABLY DOES MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE IN SOME OF THESE DISCUSSIONS.

IS GUEST PARKING IN THE MULTIFAMILY AREA SOMETHING THAT YOU HEAR IS THE MOST COMMON COMPLAINT WE DO? UM, IT'S TOUGH TO VERIFY HOW PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT.

KIND OF KNOW, YOU KNOW, IN A MIXED USE AREA, KIND OF KNOW WHO'S DRIVING WHAT CAR AND WHO'S GOING TO WHICH PLACES, ESPECIALLY IN MIXED USE AREAS.

UM, THESE ARE PAR PARK ONCE DISTRICTS, THEY'RE, THEY'RE CALLED WHERE SOMEONE WILL PARK AND THEN GO GET AN ICE CREAM AND THEN VISIT THEIR FRIEND AND THEN, YOU KNOW, GO TO A FEW DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.

UM, WE'VE HEARD THAT CONCERN ABOUT KIND OF MULTIFAMILY, JUST, UM, IN RESIDENTIAL, PURELY RESIDENTIAL AREAS, WE'VE SORT OF GONE DOWN THE PATH OF, UM, WHAT IF WE HAD EITHER NO MINIMUMS OR REDUCED MINIMUMS AND CONTINUED TO REQUIRE GUESTS PARKING OPERATIONALIZING.

THAT IS DIFFICULT.

BUT WE THINK THAT SOME LANGUAGE KIND OF LIKE, UM, YOU NEED TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, 10% OF YOUR PARKING UNRESERVED TO WHERE IT'S STILL ATTACHED TO THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT THEY'RE PROVIDING.

UM, BUT IT'S AVAILABLE.

AND THEN OUR CITY INTERPRETATION RIGHT NOW IS THAT IF IT'S BEHIND A GATE, YOU NEED TO HAVE A CALL BOX SO THAT THE PERSON YOU'RE VISITING CAN LET YOU IN.

SO THERE, THERE ARE TOOLS TO DO THAT, UM, IF THAT'S WHERE WE WANT TO GO.

AND DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF MULTIFAMILY GUESTS COULD ALSO INCLUDE WORKERS, HOUSEKEEPING STAFF, THAT KIND OF STUFF TOO.

RIGHT? I MEAN, CONDOS CERTAINLY HAVE A HIGHER LEVEL OF GUEST INVITES.

SORT OF NUANCED PLAN WHERE LARGER PROJECTS HAVE TO COME TO STAFF AND WORK ON THIS POINT SYSTEM, COULD PART OF THAT INCLUDE POINTS FOR ADDRESSING EMPLOYEE PARKING? 'CAUSE EMPLOYEE PARKING TENDS TO BE STATIC PARKING.

AND THERE, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF GUEST, IF THE REGULATION WANTS TO GET THERE, I DON'T THINK WE WOULD WANT TO GO THERE, BUT WE CAN, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN PUT TIME LIMITS ON IT, YOU CAN ALLOW THEM TO CHARGE FOR THOSE SPACES, THAT KIND OF A THING.

AND YOUR CURB MANAGEMENT POLICY HAS A SPECIFIC CALL OUT FOR EMPLOYEE PARKING.

WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION TO, UM, GIVING POINTS OR, OR, OR TREATING EMPLOYEE PARKING DIFFERENTLY? UH, FOR EXAMPLE, IF PEOPLE PROVIDED OFFSITE EMPLOYEE PARKING, I THINK THAT THERE'S STRATEGIES, WE HAVEN'T EXPLORED THAT AS DEEPLY AS WE DID WITH GUEST PARKING OR SOME OF THE OTHERS, BUT WE KNOW THAT, UM, EMPLOYEE PARKING IS IMPORTANT.

WE, WE ALSO KNOW THAT THESE PROPERTY OWNERS, THEY HAVE CONTROL OF THEIR PARKING LOTS.

THEY CAN, UM, YOU KNOW, RESERVE SPACES RIGHT NOW FOR EMPLOYEES IF THEY WANT TO, YOU KNOW, UM, SO, UM, IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE LOOKED AT.

UM, BUT I THINK OVERALL THE TOOLS ARE ALREADY IN THE HANDS OF PROPERTY OWNERS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT.

AND VERY OFTEN WHAT I'VE HEARD JUST ANECDOTALLY FROM OUR ENGINEERING STAFF IS THAT IF THERE'S AN ODD BUSINESS, UM, IT'S PRODUCING A LITTLE OVERFLOW PARKING INTO A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, ONE OF OUR FIRST RESPONSES TO THEM WILL BE WHERE ARE YOUR EMPLOYEES PARKING? YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE YOUR EMPLOYEE PARKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BE A LOT EASIER TO ACCEPT FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD AND LESS LIKELY TO CAUSE NUISANCES, BLOCK DRIVEWAYS, THAT KIND OF A THING THAN THE ODD CUSTOMER OR VISITOR.

WELL, I'M JUST WONDERING, YOU KNOW, IF, IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, UM,

[01:00:01]

AND WHILE IT'S NICE TO THINK THAT EMPLOYERS GIVE A LOT OF THOUGHT TO THAT, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS OFTEN TRUE AND THEY TEND TO PARK THE MOST CONVENIENT PARKING AND THEN THEY'RE PARKING PIGS.

AND WHY WOULDN'T THEY BE, I DON'T BLAME THEM.

I'M JUST SAYING THAT THAT TENDS TO TAKE UP, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF AVAILABLE PARKING AND, AND MANY TIMES THEY DRIVE TO WORK.

UM, SO I JUST SOMETHING TO PUT IN THE BACK OF YOUR YES.

MIND AS YOU GO FORWARD.

AGREED.

SOMETHING WORTH FACTORING INTO THE TDMP.

UM, WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO LESSENING RESTRICTIONS FOR ONSITE PARKING AGREEMENTS, OR, I'M SORRY, OFFSITE PARKING AGREEMENTS TO MAKE IT EASIER TO UTILIZE ADJACENT OR NEARBY PARKING? YOU KNOW, CURRENTLY WE BASICALLY REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S THE DURATION OF THE LEASE.

AND SO ADJACENT BUILDINGS DON'T WANNA COMMIT THEMSELVES TO A LONG-TERM PARKING AGREEMENT.

IT WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION TO LESSENING THAT SOMEHOW SO THAT WE COULD OPEN UP SOME OF THAT PARKING AND MAYBE INSTEAD OF IF YOUR PARKING AGREEMENT GOES AWAY IMMEDIATELY PULLING YOUR CO HAVING SOME KIND OF PERIOD OF TIME, LIKE SIX MONTHS OR SOMETHING WHERE SOMEONE HAS THE ABILITY TO GO GET SUBSTITUTE PARKING BEFORE THEY LOSE THEIR CO, WE DIDN'T EXPLORE THAT.

UM, I'M CLANCY AND MY COLLEAGUES TO SEE INITIAL REACTIONS, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S ROOM FOR CREATIVITY AND ROOM FOR ANALYSIS IF SOMEONE CAN REALLY ARTICULATE SORT OF THE ISSUES, UH, THAT FOLKS ARE SEEING.

I'M, I'M TOLD BY A LOT OF BROKERS THAT IF WE HAD LESS STRINGENT STANDARDS IN THAT AREA, WE WOULD HAVE A LOT MORE PARKING AGREEMENTS AND WE'D HAVE A LOT MORE SPACES GO UNDERUTILIZED.

ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW, RESTAURANTS IN YOUR OFFICE WHERE YOU COULD HAVE A NATURAL DOUBLE USE OF YOUR, YOUR PARKING.

CAN I JUMP INTO THAT? I JUST, I JUST WANNA MAKE A COMMENT.

I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS TO, FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER, UH, FOR A NO MINIMUM REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T HAVE A REQUIREMENT, THAT TYPE OF AGREEMENT, IT BECOMES A CIVIL AGREEMENT AND THE SHARING WILL NATURALLY OCCUR.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE AND ALLOW THE SHARING TO NATURALLY OCCUR AND BE DRIVEN BY THE USERS.

AND WE DON'T WANT THE CITY TO BECOME, UM, SOME SORT OF A REFEREE IN THE WAY PARKING IS BEING SHARED BETWEEN PROPERTY OWNERS.

BUT BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS, UH, RATIOS RIGHT NOW, WE KIND OF ARE FORCED TO DO THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE UNREALISTIC AND NOT RESPONSIVE TO WHAT THE MARKET, HOW THE MARKET FUNCTIONS.

WELL, WE WOULD STILL HAVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS THOUGH THAT HAVE PARKING MINIMUMS. OKAY.

YES, YES.

THANK YOU FOR THAT.

WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO REQUIRING SHORT-TERM PARKING FOR THINGS LIKE UBER EATS AND AMAZON, PARTICULARLY FOR LARGER DEVELOPMENTS, GIVEN THE REALITY THAT IF YOU DON'T HAVE THOSE SPOTS ON SITE, THEY WILL USE THE STREET? IT WAS FACTORED INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE TDMP MM-HMM .

UM, I KNOW THAT THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS.

I WAS JUST SPEAKING TO A PLANNER IN MINNEAPOLIS TODAY, AND THEY HAVE SORT OF A, A MINIMUM OF ONE OF, UM, THESE SPACES REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN.

SO THERE'S, THERE'S PRECEDENT AND I THINK IT'S NOT OFF THE TABLE.

UM, SO ON THE SAME VEIN, WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION TO REQUIRING OFF STREET PASSENGER LOADING AND UNLOADING ON PROJECTS OF A CERTAIN SIZE? SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE RIDE SHARES COMING, THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE, OR YOUR VALET IS THERE, THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PULL IN OFF THE STREET AND NOT USE OUR STREETS.

HAS BEEN SHOW US LOADING ON THE PLAN.

SO AS FAR AS OUR LOADING REQUIREMENTS, THOSE ARE ENTIRELY STILL IN PLACE.

ACTUALLY, THIS PROPOSAL, THE XX ONE RECOMMENDATION REGARDING LOAD LOADING IN THIS PROPOSAL IS FOR MULTIFAMILY.

CURRENTLY MULTIFAMILY DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY OFF STREET LOADING.

UM, THIS WOULD INCLUDE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS YOU JUST NEED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE LOADING.

THAT IS KIND OF AMBIGUOUS, THAT WORD ADEQUATE.

AND WE'VE HEARD THAT.

AND SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDED REVISION

[01:05:01]

SO IT'S NOT THE SAME AS A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE IT, BUT VERY OFTEN WE'VE HEARD FROM OUR TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING REVIEW THAT DESIGNERS ARE, ARE FINE AND WILLING AND HAVE THE CAPACITY TO INCORPORATE IT INTO THEIR DESIGN.

UH, BUT THEY DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO ASK ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN OUR CODE.

AND SO THEY HAVE TO GO IN THROUGH THE REVIEW PROGRAM.

THEY'VE ALREADY, UH, SPENT MONEY AND TIME DESIGNING THESE.

AND THEN ONE OF OUR STAFF WILL SAY, YEAH, BUT WHAT ABOUT LOADING? OH, I DIDN'T THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS GOING TO MATTER.

BUT IF YOU HAD TOLD ME SIX MONTHS AGO, THEN IT WOULD'VE BEEN EASY.

SO, UM, REGARDING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A LOADING REQUIREMENT, A NEW LOADING REQUIREMENT FOR MULTIFAMILY, WE, WE REALLY THINK THAT JUST REQUIRING THEM TO SHOW IT ON THE PLAN WILL BE ENOUGH TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION AND HAVE DESIGNERS PREPARE FOR THAT.

THAT BEING SAID, THE, THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDED REVISION XX RECOMMENDATION IN THE PROPOSAL RIGHT HERE IS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE LOADING FOR MULTIFAMILY.

AND MAYBE I'M NOT BEING CLEAR, MY SPECIFIC QUESTION WAS PASSENGER LOADING AND UNLOADING, LIKE RIDESHARE THE, I THINK THAT WOULD FALL REALLY UNDER YOUR LAST QUESTION ABOUT SORT OF THE SHORT TERM SPACES.

UM, THE, AGAIN, WITH THE MINNEAPOLIS PLANNER I WAS SPEAKING WITH THIS MORNING, IT'S KIND OF ONE, ONE SPACE FOR ANY, UM, LOADING AND, UM, I DON'T SEE THEM AS THE SAME.

BECAUSE UBER EATS AMAZON, FEDEX, THEY COME IN, THEY GET OUTTA THEIR VEHICLE, THEY PARK, THEY GO IN AND DROP SOMETHING OFF.

RIDESHARE VALET IS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF OPERATION.

AND SO MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION FOR PROJECTS OF A CERTAIN SIZE TO REQUIRE OFF STREET PASSENGER LOADING AND UNLOADING? WE HAVEN'T REQUIRED IT AT THAT OR CONSIDERED IT AT THAT NUANCE LEVEL, BUT THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT UP.

UM, WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION TO BANNING DRIVE-THROUGHS IN DOWNTOWN AND MAYBE O SOME OTHER PARTS OF OUR URBAN CORE? THERE'S A STRONG HEART DESIRE ON THE PART OF EVERY PLANNER, BUT I THINK THAT FELL OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PARTICULAR ONE WITH ADDRESSING PARKING.

WHY? UM, IT WAS FELT THAT THAT HAD TO DO WITH THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS.

UM, WHEREAS PARKING WAS SORT OF AN ADDED CHARACTERISTIC ON TOP OF THAT.

AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T GET INTO DRIVE-THROUGHS.

IF WE WANTED TO BAN DRIVE-THROUGHS, COULD WE DO THAT AND GIVE IT A TIMEFRAME FOR WHEN IT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE? OR CAN WE SAY NO NEW DRIVE-THROUGHS? I HONESTLY WOULD WANT TO RUN THAT BY MY SUPERVISORS BEFORE ANSWERING THAT.

ARE YOU WRITING THAT DOWN? I SURE AM.

THAT'S ANOTHER VISION.

ZERO QUESTION.

UM, , WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO REQUIRING PARKING TO BE BELOW GRADE IN THE URBAN CORPS? THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AFTER THE ZO OAC RECOMMENDATION AND, UM, WE WOULD WANT TO SPEND QUITE A BIT MORE TIME SORT OF DOING STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND ANALYZING THE IMPACT OF THAT .

LIKE WE COULD JUST START WITH THE CBD FOR EXAMPLE.

DO WE REALLY NEED ANOTHER ABOVE GRADE PARKING GARAGE ANYWHERE IN THE CBD? NO.

I'LL ANSWER NO.

UM, IT LOOKED TO ME LIKE YOU WERE ENCOURAGING USE OF ALLEYS MORE.

DID I READ THAT CORRECTLY? THAT'S CORRECT.

UM, ARE WE DOING AWAY WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A 20 FOOT CLEARANCE IF THERE ARE ENCLOSED STRUCTURES LIKE GARAGES? YES.

FOR SCOOTERS OR ANY OTHER MICRO MOBILITY IN THE CODE.

UM, WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR OTHER MICRO MOBILITY AND MANY MOBILITY FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION AND CHARGING OF SAME, OTHER THAN BICYCLES NOT IN THE CODE TEXT.

AGAIN, THE TDMP IS BUILT TO INCENTIVIZE IT, BUT NOT IN THE CODE TEXT AS FAR AS, UM, RE REQUIREMENTS RATIOS, THAT KIND OF A THING.

I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU JUST SAID.

SO THE, IN THE PROPOSED CODE, WE RAISE THE BAR FOR BICYCLE REQUIRED BICYCLE PARKING SPACES, AND WE CLARIFY A LOT OF THE DIMENSIONS, UM, DESIGN ASPECTS.

WE DON'T DO THAT FOR ANY OTHER, UH,

[01:10:01]

HOWEVER, IN THE STRATEGIES OF THE TDMP GUIDE, UM, MEMBERSHIPS OF OR DESIGN FOR MICRO MOBILITY WOULD BE SOME STRATEGIES THAT A DEVELOPMENT TEAM COULD CHOOSE TO FULFILL THEIR POINT TARGET.

WHY DON'T WE INCLUDE IT IN THE CODE? ARE WE JUST GONNA LET THE HATERS WIN? I'M A HATER.

NO, I, I THINK, UM, UH, WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT.

I THINK, AGAIN, THIS IS CPC LEVEL AND THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD TAKE US BACK TO ZAC, WHICH, UH, WOULD BE A WHOLE OTHER CONVERSATION.

UM, WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO EXCLUDING HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND CONSERVATION DISTRICTS? THERE WAS CONVERSATION.

THERE WAS, UH, NONE EXPLICITLY AT ZAC, UM, ZAC CONVERSATION, ESPECIALLY THE 2021 FRAMEWORK FOCUSED ON RD AND TH.

SO A LOT OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS DO REFER TO OUR DISTRICTS.

UM, AND YOU COULD, YOU COULD SEE THAT AS THAT SAME DISCUSSION ALMOST.

SO THERE WAS DISCUSSION AND JUST FELL OFF.

YOU KNOW, THE, THE FRAMEWORK WAS, UM, THAT FRAMEWORK WAS DISCUSSED.

2020 TO 2021 ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES STUDY WAS PAUSED.

WE PICKED IT BACK UP IN 2023 WITH, UM, A NEW DIRECTOR, NEW LEADERSHIP, AND, UH, A NEW DIRECTION.

AND SO, UM, THESE ARE, THESE ARE ALL POTENTIAL PATHS TO GO DOWN.

OTHER THAN BISHOP HAR, IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS? I'M NOT SURE I WOULD'VE TO GET BACK TO YOU.

UM, ALMOST EVERY PD IN THE CORPS HAS A PROVISION ALLOWING FOR HELLA PORTS.

I DON'T SEE ANY LANGUAGE IN HERE ABOUT HEA TRANSPORT TRAVEL.

ARE YOU ANTICIPATING THAT IN ANY NEAR FUTURE? I DO NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO COMMENT ON HELICOPTER TRAVEL.

WELL, THERE'S CERTAINLY SOME PEOPLE OUT THERE DEVELOPING, LIKE, ALMOST LIKE PERSONAL DRONE SIZE TRAVEL DEVICES.

ARE WE LOOKING AT THAT AT ALL? NOT IN MY CORNER OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.

NOT YET.

I THINK, UH, WE MIGHT NEED A LITTLE MORE EXPLICIT DIRECTION IN TERMS OF A CODE AMENDMENT FOR US TO LOOK AT THAT.

AND GIVEN THAT THIS IS TEXAS, I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING FOR HORSE PARKING, A GLARING OVERSIGHT ON OUR PART.

THERE IS, THERE'S A HINGE, I'M NOT AWARE OF STUDIES THAT CONNECT THAT WHOLE, THAT WHOLE LOGIC.

I HAVE ONE MORE SERIOUS QUESTION FOR YOU.

ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT THE ADVOCATES FOR THIS SAY ALL THE TIME IS ELIMINATE PARKING AND YOU'LL GET CHEAPER HOUSING.

WHAT'S THE DATA FOR THAT? BECAUSE HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THE UNDERPANTS? NO.

EPISODE OF SOUTH PARK.

IT'S BEEN A LITTLE WHILE SINCE I'VE WATCHED SOUTH PARK.

I BROUGHT A GRAPHIC COLLECT UNDERPANTS PROPHET, AND THIS IS WHAT I ALWAYS THINK ABOUT WHEN PEOPLE SAY THIS, BECAUSE I CAN THINK ABOUT, I CAN THINK OF INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLES, BUT AS A CITY, THE SIZE OF OURS HOLISTICALLY, HOW DOES, HOW DO YOU QUANTIFY WITH DATA THAT ELIMINATING ALL OF OUR PARKING MINIMUMS REALLY DOES NET SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN ATTAINABLE HOUSING? BECAUSE HOUSING DEVELOPERS I'VE TALKED TO THINK IT'S GREAT 'CAUSE THEY'LL JUST NET THAT, OR THEY'RE GONNA BUILD THE SAME PARKING THEY ALWAYS WERE GONNA BUILD.

SO WHEN PEOPLE SAY THAT, AND I ASK FOR MORE DATA, I USUALLY GET BLANK LOOKS.

WHAT DATA DO WE HAVE TO SUPPORT THE THEORY THAT IF WE ELIMINATE PARKING MINIMUMS, WE ARE GOING TO NET ANY MEANINGFUL AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL ATTAINABLE HOUSING? IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SORT OF ADDRESSING THAT THE TWO PARK LOGIC THERE OF, UM, WHAT HAPPENS BETWEEN, UH, NOT HAVING PARKING MINIMUMS, NOT EVEN NOT HAVING PARKING, BUT NOT HAVING PARKING MINIMUMS AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY.

AND

[01:15:01]

MOST OF THE STUDIES THAT I'VE SEEN INVOLVE IF WE BUILD MORE HOUSING, THEN THAT WILL IMPACT THE MARKET.

UM, AGAIN, THE FILTRATION EFFECT I TALKED ABOUT, ET CETERA.

SO THERE'S A SUPPLY SIDE ARGUMENT.

THE FIRST PART OF THAT LOGIC IS THAT, UM, THEORETICALLY PEOPLE WILL BUILD LESS PARKING, THEY CAN BUILD MORE HOUSING ON MORE LOTS, ET CETERA, UH, BUILD MORE UNITS BECAUSE THEY WON'T NEED AS MUCH LAND AND THEY WON'T HAVE TO PAY AS MUCH FOR, UH, NEW PARKING SPACES, NEW PARKING GARAGES, THAT KIND OF A THING.

AND SO THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED MORE IN THEORY.

I THINK THERE'S ECONOMIC STUDIES ON THOSE.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT DONALD CHU FOCUSES ON IN HIS, UM, HIGH COST OF FREE PARKING.

BUT THERE HASN'T BEEN ONE STUDY TO MY AWARENESS THAT'S CONNECTED BOTH PARTS OF THAT LOGIC.

YEAH, I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT EITHER.

IT'S INTERESTING YOU BROUGHT UP CHU BECAUSE DOESN'T HE ADVISE THAT YOU SHOULD IMPLEMENT THESE TYPE OF PARKING REFORMS IN A PHASED APPROACH? HE SAYS YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE PARKING MINIMUMS, AND IF THERE'S POLITICAL PUSHBACK, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO WIN FRIENDS BY DOING IT INCREMENTALLY.

HMM.

YOU THINK THERE'S GONNA BE POLITICAL PUSHBACK HERE? SUCH A SMALL TOPIC.

I DON'T KNOW WHY.

ALL RIGHT.

I PROBABLY HAVE SOME MORE STUFF, BUT I'M GONNA PASS FOR NOW.

WE'LL CIRCLE BACK.

UH, BEFORE WE, WE MOVE ON.

WE DO HAVE SOME NEW COMMISSIONERS AND, UH, THE DELTA CREDIT DISCUSSION IS AN IMPORTANT ONE.

AND IT WAS, YOU KNOW, AS A NEW COMMISSIONER FOR ME, IT WAS A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND IN, IN THE BEGINNING.

SO YOU COULD, COULD YOU PLEASE RE-EXPLAIN THOSE AND THEN INCLUDE THE PIECE ABOUT HOW, HOW YOU CAN LOSE YOUR DELTA CREDITS? ABSOLUTELY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT, MR. CHAIR.

SO DELTA CREDITS, UM, JUST TO PUT IT VERY SIMPLY, THEY'RE NON-CONFORMING PARKING RIGHTS.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE A FIVE THOU.

WE HAVE A BUILDING THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE 1920S PRIOR TO THE CITY HAVING PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT IS RECOGNIZED AS BEING NON-CONFORMING AS TO PARKING RIGHTS.

SO IT WAS BUILT AS A RETAIL BUILDING.

UM, IT'S CONSISTENTLY BEEN USED AS A RETAIL BUILDING.

UM, ANY NEW OWNER OR OPERATOR CAME WHO CAME IN AND MAINTAINED THE BUILDING FOR A RETAIL USE WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PARKING BECAUSE IT'S CONSIDERED NON-CONFORMING AS TO PARKING RIGHTS.

LIKE UNDER TODAY'S CODE, A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING WOULD REQUIRE 25 PARKING SPACES.

THAT'S 1 1 2, UM, 200 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA.

SO A NEW, NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING WOULD REQUIRE 25 SPACES.

SO WE WOULD SAY AN EXISTING BUILDING THAT DOESN'T HAVE THAT PARKING, BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT BEFORE, THOSE REQUIREMENTS WOULD HAVE 25 DELTA CREDITS.

SO SAY THE BUILDING, UH, USED AS A RETAIL HAS 25 DELTA CREDITS, AND A NEW OPERATOR, A NEW OWNER COMES IN AND WANTS TO UTILIZE THE BUILDING AS OFFICE.

THE OFFICE REQUIRES LESS PARKING ONE TO 333 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA.

SO IN THAT INSTANCE, THIS, THE BUILDING WOULD LOSE DELTA CREDITS BECAUSE THEY'RE CHANGING THE USE TO A USE THAT REQUIRES LESS PARKING.

PARKING.

SO YOU DON'T GET TO KEEP THE NON-CONFORMING PARKING RIGHTS THAT YOU DON'T NEED TO FULFILL YOUR REQUIREMENTS.

SO THEY ARE AT THAT POINT, THEY'RE GONE FOR, THEY'RE GONE FOREVER.

SO GOING FORWARD, THAT BUILDING WOULD JUST HAVE THE CREDITS FOR THE OFFICE USE, WHICH THAT COMES UP TO 15.

SO, YOU KNOW, ANYTIME A, A BUILDING WITH DELTA CREDITS IS, IS GETS A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR A USE THAT REQUIRES LESS PARKING, DELTA CREDITS ARE LOST.

SO HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS EXPLAIN.

IT'S VERY HELPFUL.

COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, DO YOU HAVE FOLLOW ON THAT NATURALLY HAPPEN OVER TIME? THEY CAN ALSO USE THEM BY, UH, LEAVING IT VACANT TOO LONG, OR THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OTHER WAYS.

AND THAT'S ACTUALLY ONLY IN THE, UM, MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY.

YES, CORRECT.

WHAT COULD YOU, WE KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

YEAH, PLEASE.

THE, THE MODIFIED DELTA CREDIT OVERLAY IS SOMETHING THAT COMMISSIONER KINGSTON REFERRED TO EARLIER.

UM, THERE IS ONE AREA OF THE CITY THAT HAS THAT OVERLAY, AND THROUGH THAT OVERLAY, DELTA CREDITS CAN BE LOST.

AND I THINK THERE ARE THREE WAYS.

UM, LIKE YOU SAID, IF THE BUILDINGS REMAINS VACANT IT FOR A YEAR, IT CAN LOSE DELTA CREDITS.

THERE IS A PROCESS TO, UM, TO GET THOSE DELTA CREDITS BACK THROUGH A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS IF THEY CAN, UM, PROVE THAT THERE WAS NOT AN INTENT TO, UH, TO,

[01:20:01]

TO ABANDON THE USE.

UM, AND THEN IF A USE IN THAT OVERLAY EXPANDS, UH, FLOOR AREA, ALL DELTA CREDITS ARE LOST.

SO THERE ARE WAYS, UM, THAT DON'T EXIST UNDER THE BASIC DELTA THEORY.

THAT WAS KIND OF THE REASON FOR THE DELTA OVERLAY TO, TO PHASE OUT DELTA CREDITS OVER, OVER TIME THROUGH EXPANSIONS OR, UM, ABANDONMENT OF USES.

UH, COMMISSIONER HALL, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER HERBERT.

I, I THINK I'M GONNA BE EMBARRASSED BY THE SIMPLICITY OF MY STATEMENTS.

THANK YOU MR. WADE.

VERY DETAILED REPORT.

UH, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT NORTH PARK IS SPELLED WITH A CAPITAL P .

THERE YOU GO.

IT'S IN MY DISTRICT AND IT'S A PLACE WE'RE AT FREQUENTLY, BUT IT, YES.

UM, SECOND, I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I READ YOUR BOOK, WHICH I FOUND TO BE VERY INTERESTING, UH, PAVED PARADI, UH, PAVED PARADISE.

AND TO BE CLEAR, I I DIDN'T WRITE THAT, OR OH, I HAVEN'T READ IT YET.

I I UNDERSTAND THAT .

VERY INTERESTING BOOK.

AND IT, IT REALLY REINFORCED A LOT WHAT WE HEARD, UH, IN ZAC IN 2000, UH, 20 AND 21.

AND THEN FINALLY IN 23, I THOUGHT IT ADDED SOME THINGS THAT WAS INTERESTING ABOUT THE FACT THAT BECAUSE OF THE COST, HIGH COST OF HOUSING, A LOT OF PEOPLE IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONVERT THEIR GARAGES INTO LIVING QUARTERS, AND THAT FORCES THE CARS ONTO THE STREET.

AND WE ALSO KNOW THEY USE THEIR GARAGES FOR STORAGE, FORCING THEIR CARS INTO THE STREET AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO IT'S JUST HUMAN BEHAVIOR THAT IMPACTS SOME OF THESE THINGS, AND IT'S, THAT'S HARD TO LEGISLATE.

UM, THIRD, AND MAYBE THIS IS BETTER FOR THE OPEN MEETING, BUT, UH, THE, UH, DALLAS BUILDERS ASSOCIATION SUBMITTED A LETTER BACK IN DECEMBER, I BELIEVE YOU TOOK THAT INTO ACCOUNT.

THEY WERE MAKING SOME COMMENTS ABOUT CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE, THE TMP, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

IF I REMEMBER THE, THE MAIN POINT OF THAT LETTER IS THAT THEY WERE CONCERNED THAT IT WOULD APPLY TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, AND WE'VE CLEARED UP THAT, UH, THE RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS WOULD JUST BE FOR MULTI-FAMILY UNITS.

ALSO, TOO, THEY WENT INTO A DISCUSSION, UH, YOU BROUGHT UP THE CONCEPT OF, UH, REQUIRING, UH, REQUIRING BICYCLES, REQUIRING BICYCLE REPAIR STATIONS, UH, CERTAIN KINDS OF BICYCLE STORAGE VERSUS OTHERS, UH, UH, EVEN GOING AS FAR AS, UM, UH, OR PROVIDING FREE, FREE DART BUS PASSES TO EMPLOYEES AND, AND EVEN HAVING, UH, SHOWERS FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES IN THEIR BUILDINGS.

AND I WASN'T REAL THRILLED ABOUT ANY OF THAT ONE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT A BICYCLE REPAIR STATION IS.

COULD, COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT TO ME? SURE.

AND IF I WERE PREPARED, I COULD SHOW YOU PHOTOS.

UM, YOU'LL SEE THEM SOMETIMES IN PARKS.

I, THEY'RE AT A MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY HAVE ONE ON THE STREET CORNER.

THEY TEND TO BE STANCHIONS, EITHER, YOU KNOW, THREE FEET HIGH OR SOMETIMES THEY'RE MUCH BIGGER, LARGE ENOUGH TO HANG A BIKE ON.

THEY HAVE TOOLS TO AIR YOUR TIRE UP TO CHANGE A LINK ON THE CHAIN.

THEY TEND TO BE ATTACHED BY A CHAIN OR BY A TUBE.

AND SO BASICALLY IT'S A SELF-CONTAINED UNIT WITH THE BASIC TOOLS TO REPAIR OR, OR REALLY JUST REPAIR YOUR BIKE.

UM, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE ADEQUATE FOR TUNING UP A BIKE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, OR, OR DOING ELECTRICAL WORK ON AN E-BIKE.

UH, I WONDERED ABOUT THAT.

DO, DO THOSE THINGS ACTUALLY SUR SURVIVE THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT? I MEAN, DO PEOPLE STEAL THE TOOLS OR, OR BREAK THE COMPRESSOR, OR, I, I CAN ONLY SPEAK ANECDOTALLY.

I'VE NEVER SEEN ANY THAT HAVE BEEN SUPER DAMAGED.

UM, BUT I, I HAVEN'T LOOKED INTO THE LONGEVITY OF THOSE.

IF THEY WERE TO CHOOSE SOMETHING PHYSICAL, THERE'S SORT OF TWO CATEGORIES.

UH, AND OF COURSE, SHOWERS, I, I THINK THAT GETS, THAT GETS PRETTY FAR OUT THERE AS FAR AS EMPLOYEE PERKS.

I'VE ONLY WORKED ONE PLACE IN MY LIFE THAT PROVIDED US WITH SHOWERS.

SO I JUST WONDERED ABOUT THE WISDOM OF REQUIRING MAKING THOSE MANDATORY.

BUT ALSO, IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, SAY, A DEVELOPER COMES IN AND BUILD A BUILDING, HE'S GOING, LET'S SAY HE'S GOING TO LEASE SPACES TO SMALL BUSINESSES.

HOW, HOW DO YOU, DOES THE DEVELOPER HAVE TO PUT IN THESE, THE BICYCLE STATIONS, OR, OR DO THE SMALL BUSINESSES HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT? OR, OR THE BUS PASSES? WHO, HOW, HOW DOES THAT WORK? SURE.

SO YOU, UM, YOU'RE KIND OF BRINGING UP TWO DIFFERENT TYPE OF, OF THESE STRATEGIES.

AND TO BE CLEAR, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TDMP STRATEGIES MM-HMM .

AND SO IN THE SPAN OF THAT PROGRAM, ANY GIVEN DEVELOPER OR PROPERTY OWNER CAN CHOOSE WHICH STRATEGY WORKS BEST FOR THEM.

SO THESE AREN'T ALL, UM, INCLUSIVE STRATEGIES.

[01:25:02]

WE'D CALL 'EM PHYSICAL AND PROGRAMMATIC.

SOMETHING PHYSICAL LIKE INSTALLING A BIKE STATION.

UM, IT'S EASIEST, BEST DONE, UH, JUST RIGHT UP AT THE BEGINNING.

IT'S DESIGNED ON THE SITE PLAN.

SHOW US WHERE IT IS, SHOW US WHY IT MAKES SENSE WITH YOUR BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE.

UM, IF, IF THERE IS ANY, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT COULD JUST BE THE WRONG STRATEGY ENTIRELY FOR YOUR LOCATION.

BUT IF YOU'RE CHOOSING TO DO IT, UM, IT'S, IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN, YOU KNOW, ADDING THE BIKE RACK OR THAT KIND OF A THING.

A LOT OF THESE PRODUCTS ARE WIDESPREAD.

YOU COULD PROBABLY GO ON GOOGLE RIGHT NOW ON YOUR COMPUTER AND TYPE IN BIKE REPAIR STATION, OR BIKE LOCKER.

UM, AND SO FOR PHYSICAL STRATEGIES, CONSTRUCTING THEM RIGHT UP FRONT MAKES SENSE, SIGN OFF ON THEM.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, UH, WITHIN THE TDMP COMPLIANCE PORTION, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO COME AND INSPECT THEM, UM, HOW THEY'RE DOING.

BUT OTHERWISE, THEY'RE JUST THERE.

UM, THEN THE PROGRAMMATIC STRATEGY, SO THAT'S THE TRANSIT SUBSIDY, THAT'S ANY OF THE FINANCING, UM, SCHEMES THAT ARE KIND OF LISTED IN THAT 90% GUIDE THAT I SENT OUT.

THOSE WOULD NEED TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE NEW OWNER, UH, THROUGH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THROUGH USING CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, THAT KIND OF A THING.

AND SO THERE ARE TOOLS, UM, IN THE TDMP PRECEDENTS THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT AROUND THE COUNTRY, MOST OF THEM INCLUDE BOTH PHYSICAL AND PROGRAMMATIC.

UM, THAT BEING SAID, MOST OF THESE STRATEGIES WERE, EXCEPT FOR IN THE NORTHEAST, MASSACHUSETTS HAS OLDER TDMP PROGRAMS, BUT GENERALLY SIMILAR TO ELIMINATING PARKING MINIMUMS. A LOT OF THESE TDMP PROGRAMS WERE ENACTED IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, TWO YEARS, AND THEY HAVE A WHOLE VARIETY OF COMPLIANCE OR CHECKING IN AUDITS, THAT KIND OF A THING.

AND SO THERE'S, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF, UM, VERY PUBLIC DATA.

WE'VE CHECKED IN ON SOME PLANNERS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNERS THAT FACILITATE THESE.

AND, UM, OVERALL THEY'RE JUST HAPPY TO GET A DEVELOPER TO COMPLY WITH IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

AND THERE'S NOT ALWAYS, UM, THE COMPLIANCE ACTIVITY, HONESTLY, FOR A LOT OF CITIES THAT HAVE DONE THAT.

AND SO DISCUSSION OF SOMETHING PROGRAMMATIC ADDS NEW LAYERS, UM, NEW LAYERS OF IMPACT FOR A MULTIMODAL NETWORK, BUT ALSO NEW LAYERS OF COMPLEXITY.

THE PHYSICAL ONES, JUST BUILDING SOMETHING RIGHT UP FRONT ARE A LOT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND AND, UH, IMPLEMENT.

STILL FUZZY TO ME ABOUT HOW, WHO, WHO PAYS FOR THIS AND, AND SO FORTH.

BUT I GUESS THAT COULD BE HAMMERED OUT, HAMMERED OUT LATER.

I, I THINK THE IDEA IS THAT IT WOULD BE PAID FOR AT THE TIME THAT IT'S IMPLEMENTED.

AND IF THAT CAUSES A DEVELOPER TO INCREASE THE SALE PRICE, IF THEY SELL IT TO A NEW OWNER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN THEY WOULD FACTOR THAT INTO THEIR, THEIR BOOKS.

IT SEEMS VERY VISIONARY.

I MEAN, I, I, I APPLAUD THE IDEA OF TRYING TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE NOT TO DRIVE, BUT TO RIDE BIKES OR TAKE BUSES OR THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT I THINK WE'RE A LONG WAY FROM FIXING DART , YOU KNOW, OR PROVIDING THE SCALE OF MASS TRANSIT THAT SOME CITIES AND OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY HAVE, YOU KNOW, SO, UH, THESE, THESE SEEM TO ME MAYBE NICE TO HAVE THINGS RATHER THAN MUST HAVE THINGS, BUT MAYBE WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT LATER.

UH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HERBERT, PLEASE, SIR.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

UM, I DON'T HAVE AS MANY QUESTIONS OF MAYBE SECOND OR THIRD ROUND, BUT, UM, I NOTICED THAT WE HAD SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FROM TREK, COMMUNICATIONS FROM TREK.

UH, ARE THERE ANY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AT THE TABLE LIKE DART, UM, LIKE THE TAA RIGHT, WHO REPRESENT, UH, UH, MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS? ARE THEY AT THE TABLE? UH, DO THEY HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS? UM, IN REGARDS TO WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY? SOME OF THE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT WE'VE TALKED TO ARE THE GREATER DALLAS PLANNING COUNCIL.

UM, WE'VE TALKED TO THE DALLAS CHAPTER OF THE TEXAS RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION.

UH, WE'VE TALKED TO THE DALLAS BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS JUST, UH, 2023 FORWARD.

WE TALKED TO A HOST OF FOLKS BEFORE THEN AS WELL.

UM, GENERALLY SPEAKING, UM, GROUPS THAT ARE REPRESENTING SORT OF SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS OKAY.

ARE CONCERNED, UM, ABOUT SOME OF THESE THINGS.

AND AGAIN, THOSE ARE, TEND TO BE SMALL GROUPS.

UH, IT DOESN'T REPRESENT EVERYONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

BUT THEN WHEN IT COMES TO INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS, INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS TEND TO, UM, UNDERSTAND THE UTILITY OF AN AMENDMENT LIKE THIS.

OF 30 HAVE BEEN NOT, UM, WELL TAKEN CARE OF BY THOSE TWO ORGANIZATIONS.

UM, LOOKING AT THIS FROM A EQUITY LENS, WE'VE TRADITIONALLY, FROM THE TWO ORGANIZATIONS I MENTIONED, DART AND TAA, UM, SOUTH

[01:30:01]

UM, WITHOUT TRANSIT.

THIS DOESN'T WORK FOR MY AREA.

UM, FOR INSTANCE, FOR ME TO GO FROM THE VETERAN'S HOSPITAL OR 24 19 WIL HURT AVENUE TO GET TO BISHOP ARTS, WHICH IS ALL OAK CLIFF, THERE'S NO WAY TO DO THAT WITHOUT A 25 MINUTE WALK TO A TRANSIT STATION OR CATCHING A BUS THAT TAKES ME ALL THE WAY TO MEDICAL CITY, UH, UM, THE MEDICAL DISTRICT BACK TO OAK CLIFF, UM, IN AN HOUR AND 45 MINUTE RIDE.

HOW DO WE IMPLEMENT SUCH A WIDE VARIANCE OF PARKING WITHOUT HAVING DART MAKING CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN NEEDED FOR DECADES? UM, CAN YOU HELP EXPLAIN THAT TO ME AND MY RESIDENTS WHO ARE EXTREMELY CONCERNED? YEP.

I CAN, I'VE GOT A NOTE AND A CLARIFYING QUESTION.

UM, MY NOTE OVERALL IS THAT WHAT WE, ON THE PLANNING SIDE HEAR FROM DART CONSISTENTLY IS THAT THEY NEED GREATER DENSITY IN ORDER TO RUN LINES, BECAUSE THEY NEED RIDERSHIP.

AND SO, HOUSING DENSITY, BUSINESS DESTINATION DENSITY, THEY, UM, THEY DON'T JUST GO TO A PLACE BECAUSE THERE IS A PERSON THERE.

THEY NEED TO PAY THEIR RIDERS.

UH, THEIR DRIVERS, EXCUSE ME.

THEY NEED TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR BUSES, ET CETERA.

UM, HIGH FREQUENCY BUS LINES REALLY ARE THE, THE BACKBONE OF DART.

AND SO WHAT THEY HAVE ASKED US FOR, SORT OF ON THE ZONING SIDE AT LEAST, IS, UH, DENSITY AND DENSITY ALONG CORRIDORS.

CORRIDORS IS REALLY THEIR FOCUS.

'CAUSE THAT'S HOW BUSES DRIVE.

AND SO, UM, THE RAIL, WE'RE, WE'RE BLESSED WITH A, A REALLY EXPANSIVE RAIL NETWORK AS FAR AS BANG FOR THE BUCK.

IT'S ABOUT BUSES.

AND BUSES NEED TO GO WHERE DENSITY IS.

AND SO THEIR MESSAGE TO US HAS BEEN, IN ADDITION TO ADDRESSING AREAS AROUND RAIL STATIONS, SORT OF ZONING THEM APPROPRIATELY FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, UM, JUST SOME OF THE, ESPECIALLY SOME OF THESE HIGH FREQUENCY BUS NETWORKS NEED TO BUMP UP THEIR INCRE AT LEAST INCREMENTALLY THEIR RESIDENTIAL DENSITY.

AND SO THESE ARE NETWORKS THAT HAVE PROVEN THEMSELVES.

UM, I THINK IT'S ROUTES, WHAT IS IT, ONE THROUGH 21, 1 THROUGH 22.

UM, BUT, UH, THEY CAN'T EXPAND BUS RAPID TRANSIT.

THEY CAN'T TURN OTHER LOWER FREQUENCY BUS ROUTES INTO HIGHER FREQUENCY BUS ROUTES WITHOUT DENSITY.

AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT OUR CONVERSATION WITH DART ON AN ONGOING BASIS IS.

UM, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THEM, BUT THAT'S OUR EXPERIENCE OF THAT.

AND I THINK MY, THAT BRINGS ME TO MY CLARIFYING QUESTION, WHICH IS WE HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT A PROPOSAL LIKE THIS ONE IS GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE DRIVING CONDITIONS IN, UM, MUCH OF THE CITY, AND DEFINITELY NOT SOON, IF IT DOES.

AND SO WE, WE UNDERSTAND THAT HEARING SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WE CAN IMAGINE ALL THE SPACES WILL DISAPPEAR, PARKING SPACES WILL DISAPPEAR.

LAND BUILDING AND REBUILDING LAND IS A LONG TERM PROCESS.

AND SO, UM, ESPECIALLY WITH ZONING CONTROLS, REZONING, SPECIAL USE, PERMITTING, ALL OF THIS, UM, MOST PEOPLE WON'T SEE AN IMPACT IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR A GENERATION OR TWO.

WE REALLY THINK SO.

AND SO, UM, AT THE SAME TIME AS WE UNDERSTAND, UNDERSTAND THAT NOT BEING ABLE TO DRIVE SOMEWHERE CONVENIENTLY DOESN'T WORK FOR EVERYBODY.

AND WE AGREE, UM, WE DON'T THINK THIS WILL PRODUCE THOSE CONDITIONS IN MOST OF THE CITY.

PROCESS THAT YOU HAVE IN PLACE FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT, RIGHT? THERE'S A LOT THERE THAT WORKS.

UM, TO THAT POINT, IF, IF, IF THE TRANSIT FIRST QUESTION IS WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF DENSITY? AND THE REASON I ASK THAT QUESTION IS, THE HOMES I MENTIONED ARE 5,000 SQUARE FEET AT THE MOST, THE LARGEST SIDE YARDS OF FIVE TO 10 FEET.

UM, THEY'RE NOT LIKE THE NORTHERN SECTOR WITH HUGE SIDE YARDS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, RIGHT? I CONSIDER IT PRETTY DENSE TODAY.

UM, THE AREA AROUND THE VA HOSPITAL, UM, AREAS LIKE AROUND, UH, BIG T BAZAAR, RIGHT? THESE HOMES ARE PACKED IN PRETTY TIGHTLY WITH A LARGE POPULATION.

UM, TO YOUR POINT, AND DART, DART HAS LOST THE TRUST OF THE COMMUNITY, RIGHT? SO EVEN IF THE DENSITY WAS HIGH, NO ONE TRUSTS DART ANYMORE AND WON'T.

SO WE HAVE MY MY, TO THAT POINT, IF WE DON'T HAVE A TOTAL COMMUNITY APPROACH, HAVING A TOTAL ELIMINATION OF PARKING WILL BE HARD TO GET AGAIN, UH, GET ACROSS TO MY CONSTITUENTS, UM, AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

UH, THERE'S AREAS, YES, WE'RE OVER PARKED.

UM, I LIKE SOME OF THE CHANGES IN MAKING PARKING LOTS SMALLER QUAINTER, UH, MORE GREEN.

UM, THERE'S A LOT THERE, ESPECIALLY IN THE URBAN CORE, UH, CBDS.

UM, I LIKE THE, THE

[01:35:01]

UM, BUT I JUST CAN'T FIND HOW COMMISSIONER, ESPECIALLY, I'M, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT AT, AT THIS POINT IN THE BRIEFING, IT'S, THESE ARE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

I'M GETTING THERE.

BEGIN THE HEARING, PLEASE.

UM, WHAT SUGGESTIONS DO YOU HAVE FOR RESIDENTS WHO ARE BEING INUNDATED WITH NEW BILLS TODAY? UM, BECAUSE OF SEVERAL REASONS IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR THAT ARE FEARFUL THAT REMOVING PARKING WILL HURT THEM FASTER THAN OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY, BECAUSE WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT A, A SCENARIO IN THE FUTURE, IT'S, IT'S HARD TO, UM, PINPOINT A NEIGHBORHOOD AND SAY, OH, NO PROBLEM.

YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY FOR THESE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT ARE SEEN NEW BUILDS AROUND THEM.

I THINK, UM, WHAT YOU BROUGHT UP BEFORE WITH COORDINATION, COORDINATION WITH DART AND ESPECIALLY TRUST BUILDING, IS VITAL FOR A WELL-PLANNED CITY.

IT'S EASIER IN A CONDITION WHERE WE DON'T HAVE SOME OF THE ZONING RULES FROM THE 1960S TYING OUR HANDS BEHIND OUR BACK.

AND I THINK FROM A STAFF LEVEL AND FROM FROM DART'S PERSPECTIVE, WHAT THEY'VE VOICED TO US IS THAT PARKING MINIMUMS, UM, GET RESTRICTIVE ON TOP OF THEIR UTILITY.

SO IT'S NOT ONLY ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT PARKING SPACES EXIST, BUT DEALING WITH THE BUREAUCRACY IS HURTING US AS WE TRY TO COORDINATE WELL FOR SOME OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO THERE WILL BE MESSAGES LIKE WHAT I JUST SAID, HOWEVER, WE'RE LIVING IN THE YEAR 2040 IN THIS ROOM.

WE'RE LIVING IN THE YEAR 2060.

AND I THINK, UM, FOR ANYONE TO CARRY AN EXPECTATION THAT WE CAN DRAW TO THE UTMOST DETAIL, WHAT THE YEAR 2030 EVEN IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE, WOULD BE, UM, WE, WE WILL END UP BEING OVER ZONED KIND OF LIKE WE ARE NOW IF WE TRY TO REALLY GET THE ZONING TO THAT LEVEL OF, OF DETAIL.

SO, UM, THAT BEING SAID THERE, THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH THAT A TECHNICAL EXPERT CAN SAY TO A COMMUNITY HEART.

GOTCHA.

BACK TO THAT COMMUNITY COLLABORATION, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE HAVE HISTORICAL TRENDS THAT TELLS US THAT THINGS HAVEN'T WORKED RIGHT.

SO WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE A PREVIEW OF THE FUTURE A LITTLE BIT.

BUT THANK YOU FOR ADDRESSING, UM, THOSE ISSUES.

LIKE I SAID, THOSE ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO THE RESIDENTS HERE.

AND AS WE MOVE FORWARD, I THINK IT, WE HAVE TO BE CLEAR ABOUT, UM, HOW DO WE PROTECT THEIR CURRENT NATURE OF LIFE AND MOVE FORWARD FOR THE FUTURE.

UM, SO THANK, THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER HERBERT, UH, COMMISSION'S BEEN ASKED FOR A, A BREAK, A LUNCH BREAK.

SO WE WILL, UH, END THE BRIEFING PORTION HERE, THE OFFICIAL BRIEFING PORTION, THEN WE'LL BEGIN THE HEARING, AND THEN WE'LL CONTINUE WITH QUESTIONS, UH, FOR STAFF.

AND THEN WE'LL TAKE OUR PUBLIC SPEAKER.

SO IT IS 1246.

THAT CONCLUDES THE BRIEFING OF THE ALICE CITY PLAN COMMISSION.

WE'LL TAKE A ROLL CALL AND

[3. 25-100A Consideration of amending Chapters 51 and 51A of the Dallas City Code regarding off-street parking and loading requirements, including Sections 51A-1.102 and 51A-1.101, “Applicability and Purpose”; Section 51A-2.102 and 51-2.102, “Definitions”; Division 51A-4.110, “Residential Zoning Districts”; Division 51A-4.120, “Nonresidential Zoning Districts”; Division 51A-4.200 and 51-4.200, “Use Regulations”; Division 51A-4.300, “Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations”; Division 51A-4.320, “Special Parking Regulations”; Division 51A-4.330, “Bicycle Parking Regulations”; Section 51A-4.505, “Conservation Districts”; Section 51A-4.702, “Planned Development (PD) District Regulations”; Division 51A-4.800 and 51-4.800, “Development Impact Review”; Section 51A-4.1106, “Development Regulations” and 51A-4.1107, “Design Standards”; Division 51A-13.300, “District Regulations”; Division 51A-13.400, “Parking Regulations”; Division 51A-13.700, “Administration”, and related sections regarding minimum off-street parking and loading requirements, including establishing a Transportation Demand Management Plan and off-street parking design standards. Staff Recommendation: Approval of staff’s recommended amendments. Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee Recommendation: Approval of ZOAC’s recommended amendments. Planner: Michael T. Wade U/A From: December 5, 2024. Council District: All DCA190-002(MTW)]

AFTER, YEAH, AFTER WE STOP.

DISTRICT ONE, COMMISSIONER SCHOCK, DISTRICT TWO, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.

PRESENT, DISTRICT THREE.

COMMISSIONER HERBERT PRESENT, DISTRICT FOUR.

COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, DISTRICT FIVE.

CHAIR SHA DID PRESENT DISTRICT SIX.

COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.

PRESENT.

DISTRICT SEVEN.

COMMISSIONER WHEELER, REAGAN.

DISTRICT EIGHT.

COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN PRESENT.

DISTRICT NINE.

COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT HERE.

DISTRICT 10.

DISTRICT 11.

UH, COMMISSIONER NI NIGHTINGALE.

COMMISSIONER HALL HERE.

DISTRICT 14.

COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HERE.

AND, UH, DISTRICT 15 COMMISSIONER, VICE CHAIR RUBIN.

I'M HERE.

YOU HAVE QUORUM, SIR.

BEGINNING WITH COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.

UH, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM.

UH, IT IS 1247 COMMISSIONERS.

LET'S TAKE A 30 MINUTE LUNCH BREAK, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK RIGHT TO, FOR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

WE DO HAVE A QUORUM.

UH, LADIES AND GENERAL IS 1 23.

WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD.

WE'LL GO BACK TO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

MR. WADE, UM, THIS IS SORT OF QUESTION 1 0 1.

IF NO PARKING MINIMUMS ARE ADOPTED, CAN STAFF EVER IMPOSE AN ENFORCEABLE REQUIREMENT FOR PARKING AT ANY POINT IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, I MEAN, READING THROUGH ALL THESE DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS, THE TDMP TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, THE, UH, THE ORDINANCE I SEE AT VARIOUS TIMES SITE PLANS ARE REQUIRED.

S REQUIRE SITE PLANS, WE HAVE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT REVIEW, WE HAVE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW,

[01:40:01]

TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR SCHOOLS.

BUT I DON'T SEE ANYWHERE THAT PARKING, IF IT, EVEN IF IT SHOWS UP ON A SITE PLAN OR AN SUP SITE PLAN OR ATM P, THERE ARE WAYS IN THIS NEW ORDINANCE FOR THE APPLICANTS TO, YOU KNOW, GO TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OR JUST DECLARE THAT PARKING REDUCTION IS A MINOR AMENDMENT.

THEREFORE, WE'D HAVE TO, I MEAN, WHERE IN THE PROCESS WOULD A PARKING REQUIREMENT EVER BE ENFORCEABLE OUTSIDE OF, WHOOP, EXCUSE ME, OUTSIDE OF A ZONING TOOL LIKE A PD OR SEP OR CD? UM, IT'S NOT, AND THAT'S, THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

SO THERE WOULD BE ALL OF THAT IS TO CREATE A DISCUSSION BETWEEN OUR TRANSPORTATION REVIEWERS FOR A SMALLER PROJECT OR ZONING REVIEWERS AND THE, UM, THE APPLICANT.

BUT THIS, THESE MINIMUMS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING ARE THE TOOL, UM, THAT CREATES THAT FUNDAMENTAL ABILITY FOR US TO IMPOSE A MINIMUM.

UM, AND I'M LOOKING TO, MEGAN, DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT TO YOU? YEAH, AND I I I'M SORRY, COULD YOU CLARIFY THE QUESTION? WAS IT ABOUT PERMITTING? WHAT, WHAT WAS THE IT'S, I MEAN, I THINK WE ALL REALIZE, I MEAN, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT MEGA CHURCHES, BIG HOTELS, DENSE, MULTIFAMILY.

I MEAN, THE CURB MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SAYS EXPLICITLY THAT FOR HOTELS, FOR DENSE, MULTIFAMILY, FOR BARS AND RESTAURANTS, IF WE, IF THE CITY DECIDES TO REDUCE PARKING MINIMUMS OR GO TO NO PARKING REQUIRED, THAT THERE WILL BE BIG PROBLEMS SURROUNDING THESE, THESE, THESE USES, UM, WITH CONGESTION AND LOADING AND, AND ALL THAT SORT OF THING.

AND, AND SO MY, I MEAN, WE, WE REALIZED THAT THERE, THERE ARE USES THAT NEED PARKING, UH, BUT THE WAY I'M SEEING ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS WORKING TOGETHER, I DON'T SEE ANY MEANS WHERE STAFF COULD EVER IMPOSE A REQUIREMENT FOR PARKING AT PERMITTING.

YOU KNOW, LIKE RIGHT NOW, THE CODE DOES NOT REQUIRE LOADING FOR MULTIFAMILY.

THE STAFF REPORT WAS, WAS VERY UPFRONT AND SAID, WELL, WHAT'S HAPPENING AT PERMITTING NOW? IS APPLICANTS SHOW UP? AND I BELIEVE THE ADJECTIVES WERE SURPRISED AND RESENTFUL THAT THEY'RE ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT LOADING.

AND I'M ASSUMING THAT STAFF, WELL, I GUESS THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

WHAT DOES STAFF DO NOW UNDER THAT RULE? CAN THEY REQUIRE MULTIFAMILY TO DO LOADING? IF THEY DEC DECIDE, IF STAFF DECIDES THAT LOADING IS REQUIRED, CAN THEY ENFORCE IT BECAUSE THE STATUTE DOESN'T SAY, DOESN'T REQUIRE IT? SO THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING WITH PARKING.

IF THE STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE PARKING, AT SOME POINT, CAN, CAN STAFF SAY DURING PERMITTING, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME PARKING? GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONER DAVID NEVAREZ TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

OUR TEAM ACTUALLY REVIEWS, CURRENTLY, UH, HANDLES THE REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT.

UM, VERY SPECIFICALLY.

WE, WE COME ACROSS MANY, MANY, MANY INSTANCES WHERE A DEVELOPER MAY NOT PROVIDE LOADING SPACES FOR MULTIFAMILY, UM, STRUCTURES, UM, AND APARTMENT COMP.

THERE, THERE ARE NO LOADING REQUIREMENTS FOR APARTMENT COMPLEXES FOR AS LONG AS I KNOW.

UM, AND SO WE HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO REVIEW THE IMPACT OF THOSE APARTMENT COMPLEXES WHEN THEY COME IN WITHOUT ANY LOADING, UM, PROVISIONS.

WE, OR WE, WE ASK THE APPLICANT, WHERE, WHERE ARE YOU ANTICIPATING YOUR, YOUR LOADING NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE? UM, MANY TIMES, AND I'M SPEAKING OF LARGER DEVELOPMENTS, THEY WILL BE VERY SURPRISED THAT WE ARE THAT, THAT WE ARE ASKING THAT, THAT QUESTION.

AND I BLAME OUR CODE FOR SURPRISING THOSE APPLICANTS.

UH, THOUGH THEY SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

YOU WOULD THINK, YOU KNOW, AS AN ARCHITECT, YOU SHOULD THINK OF WHERE THE LOADING WILL TAKE PLACE FOR A MULTI-FAMILY SPACE.

SOMETIMES WE GET AN ANSWER OF, WELL, DAVID, DON'T YOU KNOW THAT THERE ARE NO LOADING REQUIREMENTS? WE STILL WANT TO KNOW WHERE THEY'RE GONNA BE LOADING.

WHERE IS THAT U-HAUL TRUCK GONNA SHOW UP? AND WHERE ARE THEY GONNA PARK THEIR, THEIR LOADING NEEDS? AND SO THIS BECOMES THEN A CONVERSATION, UH, REGRETFULLY AT A MUCH LATER TIME.

WE WISH THAT IT HAD BEEN CONTEMPLATED FROM THE DESIGN.

AND SO WHAT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING NOW IS HAVING A CHECKLIST.

THIS WOULD BE AN ITEM THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS, THOUGH NOT REQUIRING A LOADING SPACE.

WE WOULD BE ABLE TO, UH, BRING THAT UP TO A CONVERSATION AND THEM HELPING US UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A SPACE WITHIN THE BUILDING, OR THAT THERE PROGRAMMING THE PUBLIC STREETS TO BECOME THE PLACE WHERE PEOPLE UNLOAD.

IT'S HAPPENED.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE DO TODAY.

WE FIGURE OUT A WAY FOR THOSE SPACES TO, FOR, FOR THOSE NEEDS TO COEXIST.

UM, TO YOUR QUESTION, MA'AM, THOUGH, UM, THE

[01:45:01]

STAFF, STAFF HAS ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY TO REVIEW DEVELOPMENT IMPACT AND THE ABILITY TO DENY THOSE, THOSE APPLICATIONS, WHICH IS WHAT WE DO TODAY.

THERE WAS A, UM, FAIRLY RECENTLY A REQUEST FOR A DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT, FOR EXAMPLE, AT A MAJOR, UH, LOCATION IN DALLAS, UH, WHERE STAFF DID NOT FEEL IT WAS OF AN APPROPRIATE USE OF A DRIVE THROUGH.

UH, IT WAS ALLOWED BY RIDE WITH BY MEANS OF AN A DIR.

WE DENIED THEIR REQUEST, AND THEY SURPRISINGLY ASKED US, SO WHAT'S OUR AVENUE, DAVID? WE DISAGREE WITH, UH, YOUR STAFF.

HOW CAN WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS DRIVE THROUGH, UH, PRESTON CENTER? AND WE, UH, OFFERED THE, THE PATH FOR AN APPEAL.

THEY COME TO YOU, THEY COME TO YOU ASKING FOR AN APPEAL PROCESS, LETTING THEM, LETTING YOU KNOW, UH, CITY STAFF ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT THEY DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE IMPACT THAT MY DRIVE THROUGH FACILITY WILL HAVE IN THIS LOCATION.

WE HAVE A PLAN THOUGH.

AND THIS BECOMES A PUBLIC HEARING.

NEIGHBORS N NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES BECOME PART OF THE CONVERSATION.

AND, AND WE OFFER THE APPLICANT A PATH.

UH, THEY HAD MEETINGS WITH THE COMMISSIONER AND COUNCILWOMAN AT THAT TIME, AND THEY NEVER CAME BACK TO SEE US, UM, IN MY OPINION, FOR GOOD REASONS.

BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S, THAT'S THE PATH MEANT THAT, MA'AM, THAT WE CAN OFFER, UH, AND, AND, AND DENY.

TO CLARIFY, AT, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IF, UM, YOU KNOW, A LARGE MULTIFAMILY PROJECT COMES IN AND THEY SAY THEY DON'T WANT TO PROVIDE LOADING, DO, DO YOU AS STAFF HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SAY, THEN YOUR PROJECT IS DEAD? WELL, I, I MEAN, YOU DON'T SAY IT LIKE THAT, BUT I MEAN, CAN YOU, THAT NEVER HAPPENS TO ME.

CAN YOU REFUSE TO ISSUE PERMITS BASED ON THEIR NOT WILLING TO HAVE A PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATION ABOUT LOADING? HOW'S THAT? THIS OPENS UP AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A PRODUCTIVE COMMUNICATION.

SOMETIMES THEY MAY BE MISCONSTRUED AS A DELAY ON THE PROJECTS.

UM, REGRETFULLY IT, IT BECOMES A DELAY, REGRETFULLY, BECAUSE THE ARCHITECTURES DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AND THAT, UM, WE WOULD BE ASKING FOR WHERE THEIR, THEIR MOVING TRUCKS ARE GOING TO BE SHOWING UP.

WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IF AND WHEN ANOTHER DEPARTMENT COMES TO US AND SAYS, DAVID, THERE, THERE'S U-HAUL TRUCKS THAT ARE SHOWING UP ON LIVE OAK AND CANAL.

OH, YES.

AND THEY'RE PARKING, YOU'RE AWARE OF THIS.

THEY'RE PARKING WHERE THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO.

WE HAD TO INSTALL A 6,000, 600,000 MILLION DOLLARS, $600,000 TRAFFIC SIGNAL IN ORDER TO, UM, UH, MITIGATE LOADING, UH, UH, A LOADING ISSUE.

UM, SO NO MA'AM, IT WOULD NEVER BECOME A POINT WHERE WE STOP THE PROJECT FROM MOVING FORWARD.

WE, IT'S JUST AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO HAVE, ENGAGE WITH THE DESIGNER AND FIGURE OUT A SOLUTION.

I'M TRYING TO THINK OF HOW TO ADD.

I GUESS MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO, TO TAKE THAT OFF.

ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE IN THE REVISED ORDINANCE THAT JUST SAYS THERE HAS TO BE A CONVERSATION ABOUT LOADING? I MEAN, COULD LANGUAGE NOT BE STRENGTHENED TO SAY THAT LOADING HAS TO BE PROVIDED TO SATISFIED, YOU KNOW, STAFF OR, BECAUSE I, I DON'T SEE ANY PROGRESS IN THIS DIRECTION, IN THIS ORDINANCE REVISION.

IT JUST SEEMS TO ME, I MEAN, GIVEN, WELL, THE STAFF REPORT SEEMS TO MAKE IT PRETTY CLEAR THAT WE'RE MOVING TO AN ERA OF MORE PACKAGE DELIVERY, HUMAN BEING DELIVERY, YOU KNOW, THAT WE NEED TO GIVE LOADING MORE CONSIDERATION THAT THERE ARE USES THAT HAVE REALLY HIGH LOADING, UM, REQUIREMENTS.

BUT IN OUR TDMP IN THE POINT SYSTEM, YOU GET TWO POINTS FOR PROVIDING, I THINK, TWO OFF STREET LOADING.

UM, YES.

YOU KNOW, WHATEVER BAYS OR WHATEVER IT IS.

I MEAN, YOU GET FIVE POINTS FOR 150% OF BIKE PARKING, WHICH COULD BE ONE SPACE.

BUT I MEAN, TWO POINTS FOR LIKE, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE, THE, UM, THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH LOADING AND THE, UM, PROJECTED INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF LOADING THAT'S GONNA BE REQUIRED SHOULD REALLY REQUIRE, SOME REQUIRE, SHOULD REQUIRE OFF STREET LOADING PROVISIONS.

THA THANK YOU FOR THIS TOPIC, BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT ALREADY DOES NOT EXIST.

WE ALREADY DON'T, WE, WE DO NOT HAVE LOADING OFF STREET LOADING REQUIREMENTS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS.

WE ARE OFFERING THOUGH A VER VERBIAGE THAT THE SENTENCE THAT READS THAT WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT THE, THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, BUT IT SAYS, ADEQUATE OFF STREET LOADING MUST BE PROVIDED FOR THE, UH, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

UM, YES, STAFF BELIEVES THAT THIS IS SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO HELP ARCHITECTS KNOW THAT THIS WILL BE A TOPIC OF CONVERSATION.

WE DON'T WANT THEM TO BE CAUGHT OFF GUARD THE WAY WE DO SOMETIMES.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE, YOU KNOW, IMPORTANCE OF IT IS UNDERCUT BY THE POINTS ASSIGNED IN THAT TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT.

I MEAN, TWO POINTS FOR SOMETHING THAT, I MEAN, IT'S TOO LOW AND IT SHOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN, UM, PROVIDED ANYWAY.

[01:50:01]

BUT I MEAN, IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE'S NOT NEARLY ENOUGH, UH, ENFORCEABILITY IN THE LANGUAGE HERE ABOUT OFF STREET, UM, LOADING.

'CAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE PUBLIC REALM SHOULD BE SACRIFICED TO, UM, SOME PRIVATE DEVELOPERS NEED FOR ON STREET LOADING.

'CAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PROVIDE IT OFF STREET.

IT'S THE ONE SIZE FITS ALL.

AND I'LL FINISH MY COMMENTS WITH JUST, IT, IT'S THE FACT THAT IMPOSING A REGULATION ACROSS THE BOARD WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THAT, YOU KNOW, THE SIZE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE LOCATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THE, UM, TYPE AND STYLE OF ROADS ADJACENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE.

AND, AND SO KNOWING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM IS TAKING THAT INTO ACCOUNT BEFORE THEY SUBMIT THEIR PERMITS, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE SUFFICIENT FOR US TO, UH, ENGAGE IN THAT, IN THAT CONVERSATION AT PERMITTING.

IN YOUR OPINION, ARE THERE SPECIFIC USES OR, OR SIZES OF SPECIFIC USES THAT, UM, CREATE THESE KINDS OF LOADING DIFFICULTIES ON A PREDICTABLE BASIS, WHICH MIGHT NEED MORE? NO, I THINK IT'S, UH, MULTI-FAMILY IN GENERAL.

MULTI-FAMILY, YES.

UM, UM, NO, BUT ALSO, UM, UH, RETAIL ALSO THERE, THERE'S ALSO NO, NO OFF STREET LOADING REQUIREMENTS FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF RETAIL THAT WE KNOW GETS RECURRING DELIVERIES OF GOODS AND SERVICES.

UM, IT'S IT AND INCIDENT THE CITY GETS BEING BUILT.

UM, THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE GET THEM SURPRISED THAT WE SURPRISED THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM WITH THE QUESTION WHERE, WHERE ARE YOU? DID YOU TAKE, DID YOU CONSIDER YOUR YOUR OFF STREET LOADING? AN ENGINEER WILL COME IN AND SAY, WELL, DAVID, IT'S ON, THIS HAPPENED ON SYLVAN, ACTUALLY.

OH YEAH, IT CAN HAPPEN ON THIS SIDE OF THE STREET.

AND THEN WE ASK, WELL, WHERE, WHERE'S YOUR FREIGHT ELEVATOR? IT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BLOCK.

AND SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE ARCHITECT IS TAKING THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE THEY'RE DOING THE DESIGN AND KNOW THAT THE QUESTION WILL COME UP.

WHAT WOULD AN APPROPRIATE TRAJECTORY BE FOR US TO BE REDUCING PARKING MINIMUMS AND BEING MORE EXPLICIT IN REQUIRING MORE LOADING? YES AND NO.

UM, UM, YES TO BEING EXPLICIT ON WHAT CITY STAFF WILL BE REQUESTING, UM, AT PERMITTING.

UM, AND THE NO AS TO REDUCING PARKING.

I MEAN, WE WE'RE OPEN TO A CONVERSATION ON WHAT REDUCING MEANS.

BUT J JUST, I I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS THOUGH.

I MEAN, REDUCING PARKING MINI MINIMUMS AS IN REDUCING THE RATIO OR ELIMINATING FOR SOME LAND USES.

WELL, YOU KNOW, UH, THIS, UM, ISSUE SORT OF, UH, CAME TO FOCUS WITH ME WHEN I READ CURB MANAGEMENT.

AND IT WAS TALKING VERY EXPLICITLY ABOUT JUST THAT STAFF AND THIS ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED, THAT THE CITY REALIZES STAFF REALIZES THAT WITH CERTAIN USES IN PARTICULAR THE HOTELS, THE BIG MULTIFAMILY, THE RETAIL, THE, I MEAN THE RESTAURANTS, THE BARS THERE JUST ARE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO REDUCE PARKING MINIMUMS, THERE ARE JUST ACCOMPANYING LOADING PROBLEMS THAT ARE GOING TO BE SHIFTED OUT ONTO THE, THAT, THAT IT, THAT IT'S A PROBLEM ALREADY.

SO I WAS, IF WE'RE GOING TO BE OVERHAULING THIS, THE PARKING AND THE LOADING REGULATIONS, IT JUST SEEMED TO ME THAT IT MIGHT BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO, TO, UH, BE A LITTLE MORE EXPLICIT THAN JUST SAY, WE'RE GONNA HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT.

WELL, I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENT THAT WE DE STAFF, THE, THE ORDINANCE NEEDS TO BE VERY EXPLICIT IN WHAT WE, WE ARE EXPECTING A DEVELOPMENT TO LOOK LIKE OR TO, OR WHAT TYPE OF AMENITIES TO HAVE.

IS THE, UH, IMPACT ON TRAFFIC, UM, DOES THAT EVER REACH A LEVEL WHERE YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SAY YOU NEED TO HAVE MORE PARKING SPACES? BECAUSE ONE OF THE REASONS I'M ASKING THIS IS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE HEARING, WELL, NO PARKING MINIMUM CAN MEAN I DON'T HAVE TO DO PARKING EVER FOR ANY USE ANYWHERE AT ANY TIME.

AND, AND THEN GOING BACK TO MY ORIGINAL QUESTION, OR THE, THE FIRST PART OF MY ORIGINAL QUESTION, IF, YOU KNOW, IF NO PARKING MINIMUMS ARE ADOPTED, IS STAFF EVER GOING TO IMPOSE A REQUIREMENT FOR PARKING AT ANY, ANY PHASE OF PERMITTING? YOU KNOW, ONCE YOU'VE SEEN THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, YOU KNOW WHAT THE USE IS.

YOU KNOW, THE MEGA CHURCH IS GONNA HAVE ALL THESE PEOPLE ON SUNDAY.

DO YOU EVER SAY THIS SITE PLAN ISN'T GOING TO WORK? YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME PARKING? I'M GOING TO REPHRASE, REPHRASE THE QUESTION, ACTUALLY KIND OF TURN TO DAVID AGAIN.

UM, THE ONLY, THE ONLY THING THAT I CAN IMAGINE AND TELL ME IF THIS IS TRUE, IS THE SITUATION WITH TRAFFIC IMPACTS.

SO, NOT, NOT IN THE, EXCUSE ME, NOT IN THE MINIMUM REGULATION STYLE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT DAVID, WOULD YOU MIND CHIMING IN ON THIS POINT TO, IF, IF SOMEONE COMES IN AND THEY HAVE RADICALLY FEWER PARKING SPACES MAYBE THAN YOU THINK IS NEEDED, IS,

[01:55:01]

SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO CLARIFY IS THEY'RE AT SOME POINT AT SOMEWHERE IN THE REVIEW PROCESS THROUGH ONE OF THESE DIFFERENT PROGRAMS OR ANALYSIS, ARE THEY GOING TO BE CONFRONTED NOT UNLIKE THE WAY THEY'RE, THEY'RE SURPRISED IN WITH THE, UH, LOADING CONVERSATION.

IS STAFF EVER GOING TO SAY WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS NOT GONNA WORK BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PARKING? UM, AND OBVIOUSLY THE PREMISE OF YOUR QUESTION IS THAT THERE'S AN ASSUMPTION THAT AT ONE POINT A DEVELOPMENT WILL COME IN WITH, WITH NO PARKING OR LESS PARKING THAN THEIR OWN NEEDS.

UM, OUR OFFICE WORKS IN A WAY THAT WE, EVERYTHING WE DO IS NOTING THAT ONE, THAT SOMEONE WILL ASK US, DID YOU, DID YOU REVIEW THIS PROJECT? BECAUSE IT'S NOT OPERATING THE WAY THAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO.

THAT COULD BE DRAFTED OR CODIFIED TO HELP, UM, ENSURE THAT, THAT THERE'S NO NEGATIVE IMPACT FROM A, FROM ONE SINGLE TENANT.

THAT'S, THAT'S HOW WE RUN EVERY DAY BUSINESS.

WE, WE, WHEN WE REVIEW DEVELOPMENTS, WE, WE UNDERSTAND THAT AT ONE POINT IT WILL, IN, IF SOMEONE MAY ASK A QUESTION ABOUT HOW WE REVIEWED THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT.

UM, AND SO WE RELY ON, UM, STANDARD PRACTICE.

WE, WE RELY ON THE ENGINEER OF RECORD PRIMARILY TO HELP US UNDERSTAND, UH, THAT'S THE FIRST ITEM IN OUR CHECKLIST.

AND THE, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, THAT, THAT THERE'S A DESCRIPTION OF THE OPERATIONS OF HOW THE PROJECT WILL OPERATE, WILL, WILL FUNCTION, INCLUDING PARKING.

WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THEY LET, THEY'RE LETTING US KNOW THAT THEY'RE PARKING OR QUEUING WILL.

SO WE NEED TO KNOW THE CAPACITY.

WE, IT'S A FOUR POINT CAPACITY, THEIR ANTICIPATED DEMANDS.

AND WE TYPICALLY DO THAT BASED ON EXISTING CONDITIONS FROM ANOTHER, UH, OPERATOR OR THEIR OPERATOR AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION.

NUMBER THREE, UM, THE LIKELIHOOD THAT, THAT THEIR DEMAND WILL EXCEED THE CAPACITY.

AND THEN NUMBER THREE, A MITIGATION PLAN FOR IF AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS.

UM, SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE WHAT, WHAT, WHAT CAN WE GIVE ANOTHER DEPARTMENT IF THERE IS A COMPLAINT BECAUSE THE OPERATIONS OF THIS BUSINESS JUST BLOOM, UH, JUST BOOMED AND, AND SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEEDED THE, THE PLANNED EXPECTATIONS.

UH, THAT'S THE TOOL THAT WE HAVE.

UM, WE, WE ARE READY TO HELP OTHER DEPARTMENTS WHEN THAT HAPPENS TO BRING AN OPERATOR, A A STORE MANAGER WHO DOESN'T UNDERSTAND DEMAND OR THEY'RE JUST HAPPY TO SEE THE, THE SUCCESS OF THEIR, OF THEIR BUSINESS.

AND SO WE, WE WORK WITH THEM, UM, TO FIGURE OUT A MITIGATION PLAN THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED TO US FROM OUR REVIEW PROCESS.

WHAT MITIGATION IS POSS IF, IF SOMEONE BUILT A, A NEW BUILDING AND THEY JUST DIDN'T BUILD A PARKING AND THEY'RE CAUSING SIGNIFICANT OVERFLOW, WHAT MITIGATION STRATEGIES ARE EVEN POSSIBLE? THAT'S EXACTLY THE QUESTION PROVIDED.

BY THAT, I MEAN, I I, I'VE GOT LOTS OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE IN HERE, THERE'S A SENTENCE IN THE STAFF BOX IN THE TDMP SECTION SAYING THAT THE OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKING WITH THE CITY TO MITIGATE ANY SIGNIFICANT ON-STREET DISRUPTIONS FROM OVERFLOW PARKING.

AND, UH, SO IT DOESN'T APPLY TO USES THAT DON'T GO THROUGH THE TM TDMP, WHICH, WHICH STILL COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT DISRUPTIONS.

SO WHAT EXACTLY DOES THAT SENTENCE MEAN? WHERE'S THE ENFORCEMENT? CAN THE CITY AT THAT POINT IMPOSE A PARKING REQUIREMENT? WHAT OPTIONS ARE THERE? WELL, KEEP IN MIND THAT, UM, WE, WE ASKED THAT QUESTION EVEN TODAY FOR BUSINESSES THAT BUILD PER CODE.

UM, THERE ARE RESTAURANTS, BAR AND RESTAURANTS THAT GENERATE MORE THAN ONE PER 100 SQUARE FEET, FOR EXAMPLE.

AND WE ASKED THE QUESTION, HOW, HOW WILL YOU MANAGE OVERFLOW PARKING? AND SO THE, THE ANSWER WOULD COME UP IN DIFFERENT WAYS, PERHAPS A REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT, UM, ON STREET PARKING, IF WE ARE ABLE TO COORDINATE WITH, UM, WITH THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, MAKING SURE THAT THE, THE, THOSE SPACES ARE AVAILABLE, THAT THERE ARE NO CURRENT PLANS FOR A, UH, BIKE LANE FACILITY, FOR EXAMPLE, UM, WHICH COULD CHANGE TOMORROW.

AND, AND WE MAKE THAT NOTE LETTING THE APPLICANT KNOW THAT THOSE SPACES MAY NOT BE THERE FOREVER.

SO THOSE ARE, THAT'S JUST THE WAY WE, WE PRESENT THOSE MITIGATION PLANS.

THERE IS NO ONE MITIGATION PLAN THAT WOULD,

[02:00:01]

UH, WHAT'S THE, UH, STANDARD OR THE METRIC FOR DETERMINING THAT THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT ON STREET DISRUPTION, A COMPLAINT TO 3 1 1 OR A NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS, OR THE COUNCILMAN PERSON CALLS? MA'AM, WHAT IS THE STANDARD FOR YEAH, IT SAYS TO MITIGATE ANY SIGNIFICANT ON-STREET DISRUPTIONS FROM OVERFLOW PARKING.

HOW DOES, HOW DOES THIS STAFF KNOW THAT'S HAPPENING? WHAT, WHAT'S THE STANDARD? I THINK THOSE, THOSE WOULD BE COMPLAINTS THAT COME IN FROM THROUGH A THREE ONE ONE CALL OR TO A COMPLAINT THAT COMES TO THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, LETTING US KNOW THAT AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, FOR EXAMPLE, MAY BE, UH, PERCEIVED AS UNDER PARKED BECAUSE INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT PARKING WHERE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO, UH, WHEN WE KNOW THERE'S AN AMPLE PARKING INSIDE, BUT THEY'RE NOT LETTING THE INDIVIDUALS PARK BECAUSE THEY'RE, THEY DON'T HAVE, UH, THE RIGHT STICKER OR DECAL TO PARK WITHIN THEIR PREMISES.

UH, WE, THOSE, THOSE ARE TELE TELEPHONE CALLS THAT WE GET FROM, UH, CALLS THAT WE GET FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OR COUNCIL MEMBERS' OFFICES.

'CAUSE IN ANOTHER SECTION OF THE DOCUMENT, IT SAYS, IF A NUISANCE COMES ABOUT FROM THE OVERFLOW, IT'S UP TO THE NEIGHBORING BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS TO FIND A SOLUTION, EITHER THROUGH METERED PARKING, SHARED PARKING, AN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, RESIDENT ONLY PARKING, ET CETERA.

SO COULD, WOULD, WOULD YOU MIND REFERENCING THE SECTION THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO RIGHT NOW? OH MY GOODNESS.

I DON'T HAVE THE PAGE REFERENCE RIGHT NOW.

I WAS, I I CAN GET IT BACK TO YOU.

I WOULD GIVE CITY STAFF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OKAY.

FINDING A, A SOLUTION IN COLLABORATION WITH, WITH THE NEIGHBORS, BY ALL MEANS.

BUT I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE READING THAT FROM, MA'AM.

OKAY, WELL, I'M SORRY I DIDN'T WRITE IT DOWN.

I WAS DOING THIS LATE LAST NIGHT.

UM, JU I, WHAT I HEARD WAS THAT GIVING THE RESPONSIBILITY TO, UM, UH, I THINK CD STAFF HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO MITIGATE FINDING MITIGATION FROM, OKAY.

WELL THEN I, I WILL DEFINITELY FIND THE REFERENCE AND PREVIOUSLY TO DOCUMENT THE REVIEW AND MITIGATION PLAN.

IT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.

BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO BE CONTRADICTORY THAT IN ONE AREA, YOU KNOW, THE OWNER WOULD HAVE TO COME IN AND TALK TO THE STAFF.

AND THEN ANOTHER PLACE IT WAS, WELL, THE, THE NEIGHBORS AND THE, YOU KNOW, THE OFFENDING BUSINESS WOULD BE, WOULD HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY, WOULD BE UP TO THE NEIGHBORS TO, TO FIGURE OUT A WAY AND TO BEAR THE BURDEN OF FIGURING OUT SOME WAY TO, TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE.

UM, I ACTUALLY, UM, SCOTT, DID YOU WANT TO COME UP AND, UM, UNDER WORD FOR THIS, I, GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME'S SCOTT WALTON.

I'M AN ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS.

UM, ONE OF THE WORK GROUPS I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR IS PARKING ENFORCEMENT.

AND I BELIEVE I CAN ANSWER A LOT OF YOUR QUESTION BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY GET ALL THE SRSS FOR PARKING COMPLAINTS.

UH, AND ONE OF THE SRSS THAT PEOPLE CAN SUBMIT IS FOR RESIDENT PARKING ONLY IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

NOW, THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT, UH, ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THAT STANDARD, BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE RECEIVE THOSE, IT ACTUALLY GOES TO A TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER.

THEY GO OUT A MINIMUM OF THREE TIMES, UH, DURING THE HOURS THAT IT'S REPORTED THAT IT'S A PROBLEM.

AND SO THERE IS A STANDARD, AND IT'S BASICALLY 60% OF THE ON-STREET AVAILABLE PARKING HAS TO BE FILLED.

AND OF THAT 60%, 20% HAS TO BE FROM GENERATED FROM THE BUSINESS THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO THERE, THERE IS A PROCESS FOR THAT.

DOES THAT HELP? IT DOES, BUT, UM, WHERE I'M GOING, I GUESS THE BASE OF THE QUESTION IS, IS IF SOME, IF A BUSINESS A USE IS CAUSING OVERFLOW PROBLEM, IS IT THAT BUSINESS'S RESPONSIBILITY TO FIX IT? OR DO THE NEIGHBORS HAVE TO, TO SCRAMBLE AND FI AND, AND, YOU KNOW, POSSIBLE INCONVENIENCE THEMSELVES TO FIX THE PROBLEM? IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THEM WITH A RIGHTFUL PLACE WOULD BE TO GO TO THE ORIGIN OF THE, OF THE PROBLEM.

THE, THE BUSINESS OPERATION, ASSUMING, AND I'M ASSUMING IT'D BE BUSINESS OPERATION CAUSING THE OVERFLOW TO, TO GET THEM TO COME UP WITH SOME STRATEGIES, WHETHER IT'S SHARED PARKING OR AN AGREEMENT WITH SOMEONE, THAT SORT OF THING.

YES, MA'AM.

AND I THINK IT IS A TWO PART QUESTION.

ONE IS WHAT YEAH, THE GENERATOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR, AND TWO, WHAT RESIDENTS CAN DO IF THEY FEEL LIKE IT'S NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED.

THERE'S TOOLS FROM BOTH SIDES.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

AND I, I WOULD ADD ONTO THAT, THAT THE INTENT OF THE PROPOSAL IS THAT THE BUSINESS OR THE PROPERTY OWNER REALLY BEARS THAT.

UH, DO YOU WANT ME TO KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS OR DO YOU WANNA MOVE ON TO SOMEONE ELSE? 'CAUSE I'VE, YEAH.

LET SOMEONE ELSE ASK.

UP ON COMMISSIONER KINGSTON'S QUESTION ABOUT WHAT ARE THE MOST OVER PARKED USES? I CAN GIVE YOU A COUPLE THAT I'M PRETTY SURE YOU WOULD FIND WOULD BE CORRECT IF YOU DON'T KNOW THIS ALREADY.

FELLOW COMMISSIONER TURNOCK, I HAVE A COUPLE OF FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS.

UH, FIRST OF ALL, UH, MR. WADE AND REGARDING, UH, FOLLOWING

[02:05:01]

UM, MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS, PARTICULARLY IN URBAN AREAS AND WALKABLE MIXED USE AREAS ARE GROSSLY OVER PARKED BY REQUIREMENT.

I COULD TAKE YOU OUT WITHOUT EVEN THINKING MUCH ABOUT IT TO THREE OR FOUR PROJECTS RIGHT NOW THAT HAVE, UM, PROBABLY ANYWHERE FROM 30 TO 50% OF THEIR PARKING THAT NEVER GETS USED.

UH, AND TELL YOU ABOUT OWNERS THAT ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT ELSE THEY COULD DO WITH THAT SPACE.

'CAUSE IT'S NEVER NEEDED FOR PARKING.

SO CLEARLY MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS, PARTICULARLY LARGE ONES IN URBAN AREAS AND IN MIXED USE AREAS ARE GROSSLY OVER PARKED BY REQUIREMENT.

I THINK IT'S ALSO TRUE OF OFFICE BUILDINGS.

UM, OFFICE BUILDINGS ARE OFTEN OVER PARKED, NOT BECAUSE, I MEAN, NOT JUST BECAUSE OF CODE, BUT BECAUSE THEY'RE, UM, UH, BECAUSE OF PRESSURE, WHETHER THE BROKERAGE COMMUNITY TO ADD MORE PARKING BECAUSE THEY SAY THE TENANTS WANT 'EM, THEN THEY NEVER NEED ALL THAT PARKING.

SO THAT, THAT'S ALL CHANGED.

BUT THO BUT THOSE, BUT OFFICE AND MULTIFAMILY ARE GROSSLY OVER PARKED RIGHT NOW.

AND, AND, AND I CAN, AGAIN, I'M, I'M, I'M TALKING ABOUT REAL EXAMPLES.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S TRUE AT ALL IN THE SUBURBAN COMPLEXES, THAT THAT PROBABLY REQUIRES SOMEBODY WITH KNOWLEDGE AS BEYOND MINE.

BUT DEFINITELY IN THE URBAN AREAS, IN THE WALKABLE URBAN AREAS, THAT IS THE CASE.

UM, THE QUESTION CAME UP ABOUT GUEST PARKING.

UM, GUEST PARKING IS I THINK, GROSSLY UNDER PROVIDED, AND PART OF THE REASON FOR THAT IS THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THAT'S PROBABLY ADEQUATE FOR GUEST PARKING, BUT BY PRACTICE, UH, MANY, I WOULD PROBABLY SAY MOST DEVELOPERS END UP COOKING, PUTTING A BIG PART OF THAT GUEST PARKING BEHIND THE CONTROL GATE.

SO IT'S THERE, BUT GUESTS CAN'T GET TO IT.

AND WHAT GOOD DOES THAT DO TO HAVE GUEST PARKING THAT'S BEHIND A CONTROL GATE? BUT, BUT IT, BUT IT'S A VERY COMMON PRACTICE, AND OFTEN GUEST PARKING IS PUT IN A PLACE THAT'S THE LEAST ACCESSIBLE, AND A GUEST WOULD, WOULD NEED A ROADMAP TO FIND IT.

SO GETTING THE WHAT MRS, UH, WHAT COMMISSIONER CARPENTER WAS SAYING, UM, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME LIKE IT WOULD MAKE A LOT OF SENSE IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REDUCING PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND MULTI-FAMILY, WHICH WE SHOULD, AND REDUCING REQUIREMENTS IN OFFICE, WHICH WE SHOULD, WE SHOULD ACCOMPANY THAT WITH A REQUIREMENT TO DO MORE IN THE WAY OF, OF VISITOR PARKING.

MORE IN THE WAY OF LOADING, PARTICULARLY LOADING IS, I WOULD SAY GROSSLY UNDER PROVIDED BECAUSE IT'S NOT REQUIRED.

AND I MEAN, IF YOU'RE GONNA DO, IF YOU'RE GONNA DO ONE, WHY NOT DO BOTH AT THE SAME TIME? I, I MEAN, I I, I AGREE WITH, UH, WHAT I THINK MR. CARPENTER WAS SUGGESTING IS THAT IF YOU, IF YOU DO AWAY WITH THE REQUIREMENT FOR PARKING OR SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE IT OR REDUCE IT OR, OR DO AWAY WITH IT ALL TOGETHER AND THEN DECIDE YOU WANT TO COME BACK LATER AND ADD REQUIREMENTS FOR, UH, VISITOR PARKING OR LOADING, I MEAN, IT, THEN YOU'RE GONNA, YOU'RE, IT'S GONNA BE A VERY DIFFICULT THING TO EVER GET PAST.

SO WHAT I DO IT ALL AT THE SAME TIME, UH, IT JUST SEEMS TO BE LIKE, IT WOULD BE REALLY MISSING AN OPPORTUNITY NOT TO DO THAT.

UM, SAME IS TRUE FOR, UM, WHAT SHOULD BE A REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE PARKING AREAS FOR, UH, AMAZON AND FEDEX.

UH, UBER EATS, ALL, ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT AREAS.

THEY, THEY, THEY DO IN FACT TAKE UP A LOT OF PARKING WITHIN, UH, BOTH, UH, MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS AND MIXED USE PROJECTS, AND THEY JUST PARK WHEREVER THEY WANT TO.

THEY COULD, YOU COULD HAVE YOUR PARKING LABELED.

IT'S, YOU KNOW, WITH TOWING SIGNS FOR, FOR VISITOR PARKING.

YOU, YOU, IF YOU THINK THAT DISCOURAGES AN AMAZON DRIVER, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, YOU'RE LIVING IN AN ALTERNATE REALITY BECAUSE THEY PARK WHEREVER THEY WANT TO.

BUT IF YOU GIVE THEM, IF YOU REQUIRE SPACES FOR THAT WHICH OUGHT TO BE DONE, THEN YOU'RE, YOU'RE ACTUALLY SOLVING ANOTHER PROBLEM AT THE SAME TIME.

AND TO LEAVE THAT OUT OF THIS, I THINK WOULD BE A HUGE MISTAKE, BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS THEY, IF, IF IT'S A MIXED USE PROJECT, UH,

[02:10:01]

ALL THOSE USES TAKE UP YOUR RETAIL PARKING SPACES.

IF IT'S NOT A MIXED USE PROJECT, IT'S A MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT, PLEASE SPILL OVER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I'M SO SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT THIS IS THE TIME FOR STA QUESTION.

LET'S, LET'S, YEP.

I'M SORRY.

IF YOU COULD JUST, UH, WE'RE GONNA DO QUESTIONS NOW.

WE'LL, OH YEAH, PLEASE.

YOU'RE SAYING THAT I'M SOUNDING A LITTLE BIT LESS LIKE A QUESTION OR MORE LIKE A MORE LIKE, YOU KNOW HOW IT IS AT THE END, YOU HAVE TO SAY, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? YES.

AND, AND, AND, AND ALL OF THAT IS TO SAY, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? WOULD THAT NOT MAKE SENSE TO CONSIDER THE TWO AT THE SAME TIME? YOU KNOW, THE, I JUST HADN'T GOTTEN THERE YET.

I REALLY, I REALLY WAS ON MY WAY.

THE QUESTION THAT YOU DIDN'T EVEN ASK, I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO ANSWER, BUT I'M GONNA ANSWER ONE THAT YOU DIDN'T ASK, WHICH WAS YOUR, YOUR LIST OF OFFICE, UM, SOME MULTIFAMILY, I WOULD SAY INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSING KIND OF, A LOT OF THESE USES ARE THE ONES THAT I HAD WRITTEN DOWN TOO, AS BEING, UM, GENERALLY OVER PARKED.

SO, YES.

SO I'LL, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL END MY QUESTIONS AT, AT THAT .

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER.

COMMISSIONER TURNOCK, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER WHEELER.

UH, I HAVE MORE MULTIFAMILY QUESTIONS.

UM, MINE ARE PERTAINING TO SMALLER MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS.

UM, MY UNDERSTANDING, UM, IS THAT MULTI SMALL MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS CAN, THE PARKING CANNOT BE ACCESSED FROM AN ALLEY THAT HAS A COMMERCIAL ALLEY DESIGNATION.

AND I GUESS THE FIRST QUESTION IS, UH, DO DO ALLEYS HAVE A COMMERCIAL AND A RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION? AND IF THEY ARE NOT, CAN A SMALL MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING HAVE PARKING ACCESS FROM A RESIDENTIAL ALLEY? MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE CODE, AND THEN I MIGHT PASS THIS OFF TO A COLLEAGUE TOO, IT'S ABOUT ADJACENCY TO A ZONING DISTRICT.

SO I'M NOT SURE IF WE CALL A, AN ALLEY A CERTAIN TYPE OF NAME, RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL.

BUT IF A SMALL MULTIFAMILY WANTS TO BUILD ON A LOT AND ACROSS THE ALLEY IS SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, FOR EXAMPLE, THEN CURRENTLY THEY CANNOT USE THE ALLEY FOR AN ENTRANCE TO THE MULTIFAMILY PARKING.

UM, EXCUSE ME, ANDREA, IT'S, OR, OR, UM, SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT.

SO MAYBE THAT'S WHERE THE TERMS DO, DO WE DESIGNATE ALLIE'S, RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL? UH, THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE CODE THAT SAYS THAT IF YOU HAVE DIRECT ACCESS FOR SINGLE FAMILY, THEN IT'S, UH, IT, YOU CANNOT HAVE ACCESS FOR COMMERCIAL.

AND I QUOTE THIS FROM MEMORY.

SO YES, THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER CHERLOCK, IS YES.

SO, UM, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

IT'S, IT'S, UH, AND SIMILAR TO THIS, AND IT WAS TRIGGERED, MY THINKING ON THIS WAS TRIGGERED BY SOMETHING COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, IT SAID, UH, LAST YEAR, AND SHE HAD EXPRESSED A KIND OF A GROWING FRUSTRATION WITH URBAN INFILL, VACANT LOTS, WHERE THERE WAS A TYPICAL PLAYBOOK THAT WAS A DUPLEX WOULD BE BUILT, AND THEN THERE WOULD BE $2 MILLION DUPLEXES.

AND I STARTED THINKING MORE ABOUT THAT AND ALSO THINKING ABOUT OUR NEED FOR, UH, MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UM, SO MY QUESTION IS ON THE 20 FOOT DRIVE VILE THAT'S REQUIRED, IS IT TRUE THAT A MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A 20 FOOT DRIVE AISLE? YES.

AND THAT'S THREE OR MORE UNITS.

UM, I WOULD NEED TO ASK A, A, A COLLEAGUE FROM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ON THE SPECIFIC POINT THERE, BUT, UM, SARAH, MAY, ANDREA, UM, YEAH, YEAH.

COMMISSIONER WHEELER, IF NOBODY ELSE.

DAVID CHERNOCK COMMISSIONER.

UM, UH, ANDREA ASKING ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR A 20 FOOT DRIVE AISLE FOR A MULTIFAMILY BUILDING.

DO YOU KNOW AT WHAT DWELLING UNIT COUNT THAT BEGINS? IS IT THREE? WE HAVE DAVID HERE.

SO I THINK JUST THE WAY, WHAT, WHAT MY COLLEAGUES EXPLAINED IS CORRECT THAT JUST YOU ASKED WHETHER A MULTIFAMILY WOULD BE GRANTED ACCESS FROM A COMMERCIAL ALLEY.

UM, IS THAT RIGHT? WE'RE ON A NEW QUESTION.

AND THE NEW QUESTION IS ABOUT 20 FOOT DRIVE ISS.

AND, UM, YEAH, NO, IT'S OKAY.

EXCUSE ME.

UH, IN, UM, THREE UNITS OR MORE, A TRIPLEX WOULD, WOULD TRIGGER A 20 FOOT DRIVE AISLE.

RE REPEAT YOUR QUESTION AGAIN.

IT'S, IT'S, MY UNDERSTANDING WHAT WAS JUST ANSWERED WAS THAT MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS REQUIRE A 2020 FOOT DRIVE AISLE.

AND I JUST WANTED TO GET CLARITY THAT ANYTHING THREE UNITS AND ABOVE REQUIRES A 20 FOOT DRIVE AISLE.

SIR, THAT'S MULTI, THAT'S MULTI-FAMILY.

THAT'S

[02:15:01]

A MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING.

UM, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

AND FOR THAT, WE, WE RELY ON THE STREET DESIGN MANUAL AS FAR AS THE WIDTH OF A DRIVEWAY.

AS, AS OF TODAY, A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE CONSIDERED COMMERCIAL.

AND IF IT HITS A CERTAIN HEIGHT, IT'S GOTTA BE EVEN WIDER THAN 20 FEET.

NO, SIR.

NO HEIGHT HAS, WHAT'S THE TRIGGER FOR A 24 FOOT? UM, THERE IS NO TRIGGER FOR ANYTHING EXCEEDING 20, UH, 20 IS THE DIMENSION THAT WE, UH, REQUIRE FOR A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, MEANING A PROPERTY WHERE YOU HAVE GUESTS OR WHERE, UM, THAT IS NOT RESIDENTIAL.

WE'RE GONNA BRING UP SARAH MAY FOR THIS.

DON'T WORRY.

I THINK I NEED TO, ONCE I SEE IT, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FIRE LANES.

WHEN FIRE LANES HAVE TO GO FROM 20 TO 24, I THINK THAT'S 30 FEET WHEN THE BUILDING HEIGHTS.

IS THAT RIGHT? YES.

UM, 26, WHEN THE BUILDING EXCEEDS, EXCEEDS 30.

26 FEET WHEN THE BUILDING EXCEEDS 30.

PLEASE EXCUSE ME.

WE WERE HAVING A CONVERSATION ON A PREVIOUS QUESTION.

MY MY NEXT QUESTION, UH, FOR MR. WADE IS, COULD YOU SEE IF THAT REQUIREMENT WAS REDUCED TO 10 IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR ACCESSING A SMALL MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING WAS ALLOWED FROM A RESIDENTIAL ALLEY? COULD THAT PROMOTE MORE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING, WHAT WE CALL SMALL SMALL COM, YOU KNOW, SMALL RESI, UM, MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, MAYBE 10 UNITS AND UNDER? YES, IT WOULD PROMOTE THAT.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE FEASIBILITY OF DOING THAT, BUT YES, IT WOULD, IT WOULD FREE UP SPACE.

WHY, WHY WOULDN'T IT BE FEASIBLE? I'M JUST UNPREPARED TO ANSWER WHETHER IT IS OR NOT.

YEAH, IT'S, UH, WE HAVEN'T LOOKED INTO IT.

CAN NO COMMENTS.

CAN I MAKE COMMENT? I WOULD, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY, I'D LIKE TO SEE THIS, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT IT'S ABSOLUTELY FEASIBLE AND I'M STARTING TO PAY MORE ATTENTION.

THIS IS, ESPECIALLY SINCE, UM, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON KIND OF BROUGHT THIS UP, THAT SHE'S EXPERIENCING SIMILAR THINGS IN HER DISTRICT.

UH, IT IS ABSOLUTELY TOP OF LIST THAT IT'S WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT A SMALL INFILL SITE AND YOU LOOK AT THAT 20 FOOT DRIVE AISLE, AND THEN YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR A FIVE FOOT SETBACK, YOU'RE LEFT WITH A 25 FOOT WIDE BUILDING AND IT, AND DOING A MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING BECOMES NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE.

AND SO THEN THERE IS, THE ONLY OPTION IS TWO DUPLEXES AND THEN THE MARKET CONDITIONS THAT OFTEN MEANS VERY EXPENSIVE UNITS.

SO I'D, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT ADDED TO THIS.

AND I WOULD ALSO, UM, LOVE TO SEE THAT WE COULD ACCESS OUR SMALLER MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS FROM ALLEYS.

I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE DISRUPTIVE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WHEN WE HAVE A SMALL PLEX.

NOW, IF IT WAS A 200 UNIT BUILDING OR A HUNDRED UNIT BUILDING, I FEEL VERY DIFFERENTLY ABOUT IT.

THANK YOU FOR THAT.

AND I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY ON BOTH OF THOSE POINTS.

SO THIS IS, THIS IS A FIRE CODE REQUIREMENT.

AND SO WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT FEASIBILITY, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WHETHER YOU CAN DESIGN, IT'S WHETHER WE CAN MAKE THAT CHANGE.

UM, ADDITIONALLY, IN THE PROPOSAL TODAY, WE ARE PROPOSING TO REMOVE THE PROHIBITION ON PUTTING, FOR INSTANCE, YOUR MULTIFAMILY PARKING ON THE ALLEY.

SO THAT'S PROPOSED TO BE GONE.

COMMISSIONER WHEELER, EXCUSE ME, FOR MY TARDINESS.

I WAS AT SCHOOL.

UM, SO, UM, I I KNOW I DON'T AGREE WITH A BLANKET APPROACH.

UM, WHAT ARE, WHAT, WHAT ARE, ARE YOUR PROPOSALS IN THE AREAS? UM, ESPECIALLY IN SOME OF OUR MORE HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE PARKING, PRETTY MUCH ANY ADDITIONAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

AND SOME OF THE CURRENT PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE LIMITING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

UM, WE HAVE, UM, BUILDINGS WHO HAVE HAD VACANT FOR YEARS FOR PRETTY MUCH NO OTHER REASON, BUT THEY CANNOT MEET PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND THEY DO NOT, AND THEY ALSO DON'T HAVE ROOM TO HAVE, UM, SHIRT BECAUSE THE BUILDING NEXT TO THEM IS JUST AT CAPACITY.

AND YOU'RE ASKING HOW OUR PROPOSAL ADDRESSES SITUATION LIKE THAT? YES.

AND, AND, AND, UM, ALSO OUR, OUR, OUR CONCERN IS TWOFOLD, IS WE NEED TO, WE, WE, WE WANNA KNOW HOW THAT'S GONNA BE ADDRESSED.

AND ALSO THERE'S DISTRICTS THAT'S ALSO WITHIN THAT, THAT WE KNOW THAT HAVE BUSINESSES THAT SHOULD HAVE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

BUT A CONVENIENCE STORE, 1500, SELL 1500, UM, SQUARE FOOT UNDER 3000 WITH THE 200 RATIO.

WHEN PEOPLE ARE COMING IN AND OUT CONSTANTLY, THEY MIGHT ONLY USE THE FRONT PARKING, BUT THEY HAVE LAND THAT'S SITTING IN THE BACK FOR THE NO ONE'S IN THE, IN THE CONVENIENCE STORE FOR TWO HOURS.

I HOPE NOT ANYWAY.

SO THE PROPOSAL AS IT IS, IF I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, IT WOULD BE NO MINIMUMS AT ALL.

[02:20:01]

SO IF SOMEONE WANTED TO REUSE ONE OF THESE BUILDINGS THAT, UM, MAYBE THERE'S PARKING THERE, BUT IT'S NOT ENOUGH, AND SO THEY CAN'T ESTABLISH THEIR BUSINESS, THEN AT LEAST THAT BARRIER WOULD BE OUT OF THE WAY FOR THESE SMALL BUSINESSES TO COME ONLINE, THESE BUILDINGS TO BE REUSED.

UM, AND THEN IN THE SECOND SITUATION, EXCUSE ME, WHERE THERE'S A, A CONVENIENCE STORE, AGAIN, THIS, WE'RE IN A NO MINIMUM SCENARIO IN THIS PROPOSAL.

AND SO, UM, IF, I GUESS IF THE CONVENIENCE STORE HAD ALL THIS EXTRA PARKING AND THEY WANTED TO USE IT, THEY WANTED TO DIVIDE IT UP AND SELL IT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN THEY WOULD'VE THAT OPPORTUNITY.

IS THAT ADDRESSING YOUR QUESTION? AND SOMEWHAT.

SO, UM, MY BRAIN IS STILL FOG UP.

I BEEN ON THE FREEWAY.

UM, SO I THINK THAT ALSO WHAT I'M ASKING IS IN ARE WE, ARE WE, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE IT WHERE CERTAIN TYPE OF BUSINESSES THAT WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT HAVE LONGER TIME, THEY NEED LONGER PARKING TIMES AND WOULD HAVE AN INCREASED AMOUNT OF PEOPLE COMPARED TO BUSINESSES SUCH AS, UM, A CONVENIENCE STORE, TAKEOUT RESTAURANT, MAYBE? UH, SOME, SOME SOMEWHAT LIKE WHAT THEY HAVE IN DEEP EL WHERE PER, IF IT REACHES THIS AMOUNT.

BUT YOU KNOW, LIKE IF I'M ON MALCOLM X AND I, I, I HAVE A CLUB, I NEED THAT CLUB TO HAVE MORE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT IT SPILLED OVER INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMPARED TO A, A STORE OR, OR IS THERE ANY WAY THAT WE'RE DOING IT PER BUSINESS TYPE OR A PLACE IN THE CURRENT PROPOSAL? NO, I THINK A LOT OF COMMISSIONERS ARE THINKING ABOUT LAND USE BY LAND USE, WHAT THEY'D PREFER IN THE CURRENT PROPOSAL.

IT'S NOT DIVIDED UP BY LAND USE IN ANY WAY.

AND AND WHY IS THAT? BECAUSE WE, WE KIND OF PRETTY MUCH KNOW THAT WE'RE DOING LAND USE, WE'RE DOING ZONING THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT CERTAIN BUSINESSES WE NEED TO MAKE SURE, ESPECIALLY IN PROXIMITY TO, LET ME SAY IF IT'S IN PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL, UM, UM, BECAUSE WE KNOW AS, AS FAR AS SAY, AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, AN APARTMENT COMPLEX CAN BE BUILT TO WHEN BUILT HAS ENOUGH PARKING, UM, BUT CAN CHANGE AND, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT RUNS OUTTA PARKING.

DIXON CIRCLE HAD CAPACITY PARKING NEVER HAD A PROBLEM.

UM, DEMOGRAPHICS CHANGED.

AND BECAUSE THAT DEMOGRAPHIC HAS MORE CARS, MORE TRUCKS, AND INCLUDING HOW THEY MAKE A LIVING NOW, THE WHOLE DIXON CIRCLE IS FILLED WITH CARS UP AND DOWN, AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE THEY CAN'T PARK IN THERE.

THE DEMOGRAPHICS CHANGED AND THE DEMOGRAPHIC THAT CHANGED HAS MORE VEHICLES.

SO I MEAN, UM, YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT WHY THE CURRENT PROPOSAL DOESN'T HAVE MORE NUANCE LAND USE BY LAND USE, I THINK, UM, THAT'S MUCH OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AT ZO IN 2021.

THERE WAS THE BUFFER IDEA AROUND SINGLE FAMILY ZONING, SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX TOWN HOME.

THERE WAS THE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT SIZES, THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING, THE HISTORICITY OF IT, AND I THINK IT REALLY HAS TO DO ABOUT WHAT THE, WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD BE AS FAR AS ACHIEVING SOME OF THE GOALS FROM CCAP AND, UM, UH, FORWARD DALLAS 2040.

AND SO, UM, THIS IS WHAT ZAC RECOMMENDED.

UM, SO ONE, JUST ONE LAST QUESTION.

WILL, WILL PD STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO, UM, I'M CURRENTLY MY PD, I PD, PD 5 9 5, REVERSE BACK TO 51 A, BUT WILL THE PD STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO BUILD IN PARKING, PARKING REQUIRES A RESTRICTION, OR WILL THAT, WILL THIS LIMIT THAT ALSO? NO, A, A PD IS TOTALLY CAPABLE OF BUILDING THAT IN THROUGH THAT AUTHORIZED HEARING PROCESS.

ABSOLUTELY.

ANALYSIS OR IMPACT ANALYSIS ON THE ACTUAL RESIDENCE, UH, FOR THESE PARTICULAR CITIES? AS ANECDOTALLY, UM, AS A RESIDENT OF THE CITY, I, IF THERE'S NO PARKING SOMEWHERE, I'M NOT GOING, I'M, I'M, I'M JUST NOT.

WE'RE GONNA GO COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN AND WE'LL COME BACK.

COMMISSIONER PO PLEASE.

UH, FIRST OFF, THANK YOU MR. WADE FOR YOUR PRESENTATION EARLIER AND YOUR EFFORTS OVER THE YEARS.

UH, AS I'M A NEW COMMISSIONER, I'M STILL GETTING UP TO SPEED ON THE NUANCES IN, IN THE, UH, THE ISSUE THAT'S WAS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE.

AND SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HAVE BROUGHT UP HAS HELPED ME KIND OF FORM WHAT THE, UH, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE HERE.

BUT THE QUESTION I HAVE IS MORE FUNDAMENTAL.

UM, YOU TALKED EARLIER ABOUT THESE CASE STUDIES THAT YOU'VE DONE OVER LIKE FOUR DIFFERENT CITIES, MINNEAPOLIS, BUFFALO, AUSTIN, AND SEATTLE, AND WE'VE DISCUSSED THE IMPACT ON THE DEVELOPERS BUSINESS AND COMMERCE AND HOUSING STOCK IN THE CITY.

UH, BUT FUNDAMENTALLY, UH, HAS THERE BEEN ANY

[02:25:01]

AND I'VE NEVER BEEN IN THE SITUATION WHERE I FELT LIKE, WAIT, THIS IS WAY TOO MUCH PARKING HERE, UH, THAT I DON'T WANNA COME BACK HERE.

AND SO I WOULD THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME QUALITATIVE, IF NOT QUANTITATIVE DATA FROM THESE PARTICULAR CITIES OF HOW THE RESIDENTS HA HAVE FELT ABOUT THESE SPECIFIC REDUCTION IN PARKING.

AND IF SO, UH, COULD YOU SHARE THAT WITH US? WE DON'T HAVE THAT.

SO THESE, THESE CASE STUDIES, WE DIDN'T PERFORM THEM.

THEY'RE DONE BY DIFFERENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES OR NONPROFITS, AND WE'VE AGGREGATED THEM AND NO, TO DATE, UH, WE'VE BEEN UNABLE TO FIND SORT OF THESE QUALITATIVE STUDIES, UM, THAT THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

I THINK IT'D BE A, A BIG LIFT FOR WHATEVER THE INSTITUTE IS, UM, TO DO THESE SURVEYS.

I THINK IT WOULD INFORM THE CONVERSATION, BUT NO, THEY, WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

SO, SO, MR. WADE, SO AT, AT THIS POINT, THE BENEFITS TO THE RESIDENTS ARE PURELY THEORETICAL AT THIS POINT.

I'LL TURN THAT OVER TO DR.

RE UH, SORRY, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A LITTLE CLARIFICATION AND THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

UM, THE CODE REQUIRES PARKING MINIMUMS, NO PARKING MAXIMUMS. THE DISCUSSION TODAY IS NOT ABOUT HOW MUCH PARKING WILL BE PROVIDED OR US SAYING, NO, YOU SHOULD NOT PROVIDE, AND YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO PROVIDE PARKING AT ALL.

THE CONVERSATION IS, SHOULD THE CODE RE REQUIRE AND DICTATE A MINIMUM NUMBER? SO PARKING, WE'RE ALL WORKING UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE MARKET ALREADY IS SET TO PROVIDE PARKING, BECAUSE THAT'S THE NEED, AND THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING.

EXACTLY.

AS YOU NOTED IN YOUR COMMENT, IF THERE'S NO PARKING THERE, I WON'T GO.

SO THEREFORE, THE PARKING NEED THAT THE MARKET NEEDS TO ADDRESS YOU.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A SMALL COMMENT THAT JUST BY THE CODE BEING SILENT AND NOT REQUIRING IT, DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT WILL NOT BE PROVIDED.

UH, UNDERSTOOD.

I, I MIGHT ADD ON TO THAT, THE, THE RESEARCH BEING SILENT ALSO, UM, CAN'T JUDGE WHETHER, WHETHER IT'S GOOD OR BAD.

I DON'T WANNA AUTOMATICALLY JUST JUMP TO A, NO NEWS IS GOOD NEWS KIND OF SITUATION, BUT WE DO, WE DO MONITOR WHAT HAPPENS IN THESE OTHER CITIES.

AND VERY FREQUENTLY, UM, PUBLIC OUTCRY OF A CERTAIN SIZE WILL REACH THE CITY LEADERS, AND THERE WILL BE CONTINUED CONVERSATIONS.

SO THAT'S A, THAT'S A REACTIVE REVIEW ON OUR PART.

IT'S NOT THE SAME AS SOMEONE GOING AND DOING A STUDY.

UM, AT THE SAME TIME, IF EVERYTHING'S WORKING FINE, THAT MAY ALSO JUST NOT SHOW UP IN, UH, IN THE NEWS, THAT KIND OF A THING.

COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT, PLEASE, COULD YOU CLARIFY, COULD YOU CLARIFY THE, UH, PROPOSAL AS FOR ELIMINATING ALL PARKING MINIMUMS E EVERYWHERE IN THE CITY IN THE DIRE CODE, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.

AND THAT INCLUDES RESIDENTIAL AREAS? CORRECT.

I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE'S SOME EMAILS THAT A LOT OF THE EMAILS THAT HAVE COME IN HAVE BEEN FOR PEOPLE, UH, MAKING IT VERY CLEAR THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD RETAIN PARKING MINIMUMS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

AND I SAW, UH, A RESPONSE, UH, TO ONE OF THESE EMAILS WERE A COUNCIL PERSON SAID THAT, UH, THAT, UH, THAT'S A SCARE TACTIC THAT, UH, THAT THIS, UH, PROPOSAL DOESN'T IMPACT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THIS, THIS PROPOSAL DOES APPLY TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF THE CITY.

IT, IT WOULD REDUCE, IT WOULD ELIMINATE MINIMUMS FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.

AND, YOU KNOW, TO KIND OF FOLLOW UP ON, ON, ON COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN'S QUESTION, YOU KNOW, UH, TALKING ABOUT STUDIES, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, UH, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT, UH, THERE'S NOT A, A CITY SIMILAR IN SIZE TO DALLAS THAT HAS IMPLEMENTED THIS, UH, UH, BLANKET, UH, NO PARKING MINIMUMS, UH, YOU KNOW, POLICY.

SO WHAT, WHAT IMPACT, UH, HAVE Y'ALL CONSIDERED THE IMPACT THAT, UH, ELIMINATING THESE MINIMUMS WILL HAVE ON RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF THE CITY? I MEAN, YOU KNOW, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT LIKE FOR INSTANCE, NOW THEY CAN BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE PARKING ON, ON THE LOT FOR THAT RESIDENCE, AND WHAT IS THE IMPACT GOING TO BE ON THE NEIGHBORHOODS? SURE.

THIS IS GONNA BE A MULTI-PART ANSWER TO THAT.

SO, MEXICO CITY, WHICH IS THREE TIMES THE SIZE, HAS ELIMINATED MINIMUMS. TORONTO, WOULD YOU SPEAK UP, PLEASE? SURE.

HAS ELIMINATED MINIMUMS. TORONTO AND EDMONTON AND CANADA ALSO ARE THE, THE BIGGER ONES THAN DALLAS THAT HAVE DONE THIS.

UM, MEXICO CITY, UH, THREE TIMES, TWICE THE SIZE OF DALLAS

[02:30:01]

SO THERE'S, THERE'S, WE HOPE THAT THERE WILL BE DATA FROM THERE SOON.

IT'S STILL RELATIVELY RECENT, BUT, UM, WHEN IT COMES TO THE IMPACT ON THE IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, THERE IS LEGALLY, UH, THERE WOULD BE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO, UH, BE BUILT WITHOUT A DRIVEWAY.

THE, WHAT WE'RE HEARING FROM THE DALLAS BUILDERS ASSOCIATION ESPECIALLY, IS THAT THEY'RE EXTREMELY CONCERNED ABOUT ANYTHING IN THIS THAT WOULD EVER KEEP THEM FROM BUILDING OFF STREET PARKING BECAUSE IT'S VITAL TO THEIR PRODUCTS WHEN IT COMES TO BUILDING IT FOR SINGLE FAMILY.

SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT, UM, LETTING, LETTING THE MARKET DETERMINE, I KNOW THERE'S A CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT IN MULTIFAMILY AND RETAIL AND THAT KIND OF A THING, BUT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE SORT OF THE PRODUCT THAT WE COUNT ON THE MOST.

WE'LL BE PRODUCING TWO CAR GARAGES, THREE CAR GARAGES, A LOT OF CONCRETE.

SO FROM A MARKET PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S, THAT'S THE EXPECTATION.

UM, IF THERE'S AN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE'S A SMALL INFILL LOT, UH, BUT THAT STILL MEETS, UM, PAR PARKING MINIMUMS, UH, OR I'M SORRY, UH, LOT AREA MINIMUMS. UM, IT COULD BE THAT THAT'S, THAT'S THE PLACE WHERE IT'S ONE LOT.

UM, THE PERSON THAT THE HOME IS BEING BUILT FOR, WANTS TO LIVE A MORE URBAN LIFESTYLE, THEY LEGALLY THEY CAN BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, UH, WITHOUT A, AN OFF STREET PARKING SPACE.

UM, SOUNDS LIKE THAT WOULD PRODUCE ONE, TWO CARS ADDITIONAL ON THE CURB.

UM, AND OVERALL, OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ARE VASTLY BUILT OUT.

UM, SO AS FAR AS CURB PARKING GENERATED BY A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME, WE, WE JUST HAVEN'T SEEN, UM, NUISANCES AND DISRUPT DISRUPTIONS FROM THE PARK, CURB PARKING THAT THAT'S PRODUCING.

AS FAR AS IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD, I, I HAVEN'T SEEN THE CONVERSATION THAT YOU ALLUDED TO.

SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE IT'S TALKING ABOUT SPILLOVER PARKING FROM NEARBY RETAIL OR, UH, NEARBY, MAYBE MULTIFAMILY, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

UM, AND I, I REALLY CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, WAS TALKING ABOUT, BUT, UM, I WONDER IF, UH, DR.

JE, ANYTHING TO ADD? NO, THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD IS WE HAVE TO ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT, UM, THERE ISN'T ANY, THERE ISN'T MUCH ZONING IN THE CITY THAT ALLOWS A HUNDRED PERCENT LOT COVERAGE AND BUILDING BEING BUILT A HUNDRED PERCENT LOT COVERAGE.

SO THERE IS, LIKE, THERE IS ROOM BUILT IN, ESPECIALLY FOR SINGLE FAMILY TO ALLOW A CAR TO, TO FIT ON THE LOT.

SO I WOULD, I WOULD KEEP THAT IN MIND AS WELL, IN ADDITION TO, AGAIN, WHAT THE MARKET AND WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE BUYER ARE TO BASICALLY PURCHASE A PARKING LOT PARKING SPOT.

WELL, I GUESS MY QUESTION THEN, UH, BASED ON YOUR ANSWER IS IF THE MARKET ISN'T ASKING FOR THIS, THEN WHY ARE WE PROPOSING THIS? I MEAN, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF BUILDERS ARE TELLING YOU THAT THEY HAVE TO BUILD THE, THE, THIS PARKING ON SITE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT RESIDENTS WANT, WHICH IS TRUE, THEN WHY AS A CITY DO WE REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT? IT SOUNDS LIKE WE DON'T, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, UH, WE NEED, THAT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, PLEASE GO ON IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE IF THAT'S WHAT THE FOLKS WANT, THEN THERE'S NO NEED FOR THE REQUIREMENT.

I THINK WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN APPLYING MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS, WHETHER UNNEEDED, AND SO IF THEY, UH, IF FOLKS ARE WANTING THIS FOR THEIR HOMES, IT'S GOING TO BE BUILT, UM, REMOVING IT FROM THE CODE RELIEVING OUR, UH, REVIEW STAFF FROM NEEDING TO TAKE THE TIME TO COUNT PARKING SPACES, ET CETERA, UH, WHEN IT'S ALREADY GOING TO BE BUILT, UM, IS A BENEFIT WE'RE WE SHOOT ALL OUR SPEED EQUAL FOR SUCCINCT CODE, UH, ONE THAT WORKS SUFFICIENTLY AND PROVIDES FOR AN EFFICIENT PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS AS WELL.

COMMISSIONER KNIGHT? YEP.

GREAT.

UM, THANK YOU MR. WADE, FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE ON THIS.

AND THANK YOU TO ALL THE COMMISSIONERS FOR THE GREAT QUESTIONS.

I JUST HAVE ONE QUICK ONE TO FOLLOW UP ON.

COMMISSIONER KINGSTON'S QUESTION ABOUT HOW DOES REDUCING PARKING MINIMUMS, UM, RELATE TO MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING? IN THEORY, THE IDEA WOULD BE THAT WE COULD DECOUPLE THE COST OF PARKING FROM MULTI-FAMILY UNITS AND IN ESSENCE, MAKE RENT CHEAPER.

ARE, IS THERE, ARE THERE ANY TOOLS THAT YOU'VE SEEN WHERE OTHER CITIES HAVE DONE THAT, UM, OR INCENTIVIZED IT OR ENFORCED IT IN ANY KIND OF WAY? THANK YOU.

I'VE, I'VE SEEN TOOLS.

I HAVEN'T SEEN OUTCOMES.

UH, UM, SO I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE, UM, YOU KNOW, IN THE FORM OF A STUDY

[02:35:01]

OR SOMETHING, WHAT THIS WOULD, WHAT THIS HAS LOOKED LIKE.

BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, A REQUIREMENT TO UNBUNDLE PARKING, THEY CALL IT, UH, WHERE YOU HAVE TO, I THINK YOU HAVE TO SHOW ON YOUR, UM, LEASE, UH, THE PRICE OF THE UNIT WITHOUT PARKING, AND THEN THE PRICE OF THE UNIT IF THE LE LESSEE, UH, OPTS INTO HAVING A PARKING SPACE AND THOSE TWO DIFFERENT PRICES BASED ON THOSE OPTIONS.

SO IT HAS TO BE TRANSPARENT.

IT HAS TO BE, UM, VERY CLEAR.

I THINK THE IDEA IS TO LIMIT A PROPERTY OWNER OR DEVELOPER OR A PROPERTY MANAGER FROM SAYING THAT THEY'RE UNBUNDLING PARKING AND THEN JUST CHARGING THE SAME PRICE.

SO THAT'S REALLY THE, THE KEY MECHANISM THERE.

SO CITIES ARE DOING THIS.

MOST RECENTLY, I, IN MY RESEARCH, I WAS LOOKING AT SAN FRANCISCO AND MINNEAPOLIS, BUT, UM, I THINK SEATTLE IS, I THINK, AGAIN, A FEW CITIES IN, IN MINNESOTA AND MASSACHUSETTS ARE DOING THIS.

SO IT'S, IT IS A KNOWN TOOL.

VICTORIA TRANSPORT, UM, INSTITUTE RECOMMENDS THIS.

TODD LIPMAN, UM, DONALD SCHOUP AND SOME OTHER FOLKS WHO HAVE WEIGHED IN RECOMMEND THAT AS A TOOL.

AGAIN, I HAVEN'T SEEN STUDIES ON OUTCOMES FROM THAT IN MINNEAPOLIS, UM, WHICH I KNOW IS NOT AN APPLE TO APPLE CITY TO DALLAS, UM, BUT ALSO CAR CENTRIC CITY, UM, BUILT IN MUCH THE SAME WAY THAT A LOT OF OUR CAR CENTRIC CITIES HAVE BEEN.

UM, THEY HAVE SEEN MAYBE NOT LOWER PRICING, BUT IT, THE HOUSING HAS AT LEAST STAYED, UM, WHEREAS IN MOST CITIES IT'S SKYROCKETED.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

UM, THANK YOU, MR. WADE.

I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN THERE A WHILE ALREADY, SO I WILL, WE WILL TRY TO BE BRIEF, UM, IN, IN MY QUESTIONS.

UM, WE GOT AN EMAIL FROM A, A GROUP OF ADVOCATES THAT HAS CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSAL AND, UM, THEY RAISED TWO, I THINK, CONCERNS ABOUT SPILLOVER PARKING OR, OR ON STREET PARKING.

ONE IS JUST THE GENERAL HASSLE OR UN UNPLEASANTNESS OF HAVING THE, THE CURB FULL OF CARS, BUT THEY ALSO RAISED THE CONCERN, UM, RELATING TO THE SAFETY IF THERE'S, UH, YOU KNOW, OF, OF PEDESTRIANS, OF CYCLISTS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

IF THERE IS, I GUESS, IN THEIR VIEW, TOO MUCH ON STREET PARKING, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE, THE SAFETY CONCERNS THAT, THAT PEOPLE HAVE RAISED ABOUT ON-STREET PARKING? SURE.

THOSE ARE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS.

THIS HAS COME UP TO US IN A COUPLE OF, A COUPLE OF LENSES, I GUESS.

ONE IS, UM, DURING A COUNCIL BRIEFING IN 2024, THERE'S THE QUESTION, CAN PEOPLE HIDE BEHIND A CAR AND JUMP OUT AND, AND GET YOU, UM, AND IS THAT HAPPENING? THE CHIEF OF POLICE AT THE TIME, AND I THINK CHIEF OF FIRE OR ONE OF THE, UM, HIGHER UP AND FIRE WERE BROUGHT UP AND ASKED THAT, AND, UM, CHIEF GARCIA AT THE TIME SAID, WE, WE DON'T, UM, WE DON'T SEE ADDITIONAL ON STREET PARKING AS A HINDRANCE TO DO OUR JOB OR A, A SAFETY IMPACT FROM A, A POLICE PERSPECTIVE.

WE ALSO WORKED WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S, UM, DATA TEAM TO TRY TO ANALYZE THEIR OWN CRIME REPORTS, UH, ABOUT RELATIONS TO PARKING.

AND SHORT STORY ON THAT, IT WAS VERY DISAPPOINTING THAT THEY DON'T KEEP THEIR REPORTS BASED ON WHETHER THERE'S PARKING NEARBY.

SO, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S, IF SOMETHING HAPPENED IN A TRADER JOE'S PARKING LOT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN THEY WOULD SAY IT HAPPENED AT TRADER JOE'S, OR IF IT HAPPENED IN FRONT OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THEN THEY'D SAY IT HAPPENED AT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, NOT NECESSARILY THE RELATIONSHIP THAT CARS AND PARKING PLAN TO IT.

SO IT WAS DIFFICULT FOR US TO FIND ANYTHING REALLY USABLE IN THAT ENDEAVOR.

UM, THE, THERE IS THE IMPACT OF ON STREET PARKING BLOCKING PEDESTRIANS FROM THE DANGERS OF THE ON STREET DRIVING PARKING.

AND SO WE, THAT'S A SAFETY BENEFIT.

UM, GENERALLY SPEAKING, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT COMPLETE BUILDING, COMPLETE STREETS AND THAT KIND OF THING, WE'RE LOOKING FOR, UM, UH, BOLLARDS, WE'RE LOOKING FOR TREES, WE'RE LOOKING FOR ANY HARD OBJECTS LIKE A CAR TO PUT BETWEEN, UM, THE PEDESTRIAN ON THE SIDEWALK AND THE VEHICLES THAT ARE DRIVING.

AND SO THAT IS A SAFETY BENEFIT FROM CURB PARKING.

UM, SO THOSE ARE, THERE'S THE SORT OF DESIGN SIDE AND THE CRIME REPORT SIDE.

THANK YOU, MR. WADE.

THAT SAME EMAIL ALSO RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT, UM, A DA PARKING.

DOES ANY OF THIS, YOU KNOW, PROPOSAL AS IT STANDS NOW OR AS WE COULD MODIFY IT, WOULD ANY OF THIS PRE, PRE PREEMPT THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AND ITS REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO DISABLED PARKING? NO, IT WOULDN'T.

SO AS SOON AS YOU BUILD

[02:40:01]

YOUR FIRST PARKING SPACE, IT HAS TO BE VAN ACCESSIBLE, WHICH IS AN EVEN HIGHER TIER OF A DA, UM, AND THEN THE SAME RATIO, I THINK IT'S ONE PER SEVEN, AND THERE'S A, THERE'S A TABLE.

NO, NOTHING THAT WE WOULD, WOULD DO HERE, UM, CAN, UH, UH, BLOCKS THE A DA REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE PARKING.

I WOULD ALSO NOTE WHAT I'VE NOTED BEFORE, THAT, UH, IT'S A LITTLE KNOWN CITY POLICY THAT FOLKS WITH THE, THE HANGAR OR APPROPRIATE LICENSE PLATE LICENSE DECAL INDICATING THEIR A DA, UM, STATUS, CAN USE ANY OF THE METERED ON STREET SPOTS FOR FREE.

MR. WADE, COMMISSIONER HALL, MR. WADE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

HA ARE, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY CITY SIMILAR TO DALLAS WHERE A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN BUILT WITHOUT GARAGES OR WITHOUT PARKING? NO, SIR.

I, I, I MEAN, I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT, AND IT CERTAINLY WASN'T MENTIONED IN THE BOOK PAID PARADISE OR, OR ANYTHING, ANY OF THE OTHER LITERATURE I'VE READ.

IT SEEMS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT WE WOULD DO THAT.

BUT EVEN, UH, EVEN SO LET'S SAY EVERY HOUSE IS BUILT WITH A TWO CAR GARAGE.

WE DON'T HAVE LAWS THAT GOVERN WHAT PEOPLE DO WITH THOSE GARAGES, DO WE? AND WE DON'T HAVE LAWS THAT GOVERN HOW MANY CARS A, A, A SINGLE FAMILY CAN BUY OR PARK.

SO I, I'M WONDERING IF, IF THE FEARS ARE GROUNDED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, LIKE PASSING, GETTING RID OF PARKING MINIMUMS IS GOING TO DAMAGE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

PEOPLE USE THEIR GARAGES FOR STORAGE AND PARK IN THE STREET, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE CONVERT 'EM TO BEDROOMS OR GAME ROOMS. UM, AND SO PEOPLE HAVE A TWO CAR GARAGE, BUT HAVE FOUR CARS, , YOU KNOW, SO I MEAN, WE, WE DON'T MANDATE THAT KIND OF BEHAVIOR.

SO I, I'M NOT PART PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT THI ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THIS ON SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

I, I THINK IT'S A VALID QUESTION TO ASK, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME THAT THERE'S, THERE'S A REAL THREAT TO SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS BY REDUCING PARKING MINIMUMS. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER WHEELER.

AND I JUST WANTED TO, UM, MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION.

UM, AND ONE QUESTION, UM, IS STAFF AWARE THAT PER THE, UM, TEXAS ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS, THAT ACCESSIBLE SPACES ARE BASED ON THE, UM, REQUIRED REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES? MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THEY'RE BASED ON THE PROVIDED PARKING SPACES, THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IS REQUIRED.

AND SO IT JUST, AGAIN, IT MAY BE SOMETHING TO, UM, LOOK AT JUST TO ENSURE THAT THAT IS ACTUALLY, I'M GONNA CORRECT MYSELF, TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES PROVIDED IN THE PARKING FACILITY, I STAND CORRECTED, AND THEN THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF SPACES BASED ON THAT PERCENTAGE.

SO YES, YOU, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME LOOK AT THAT ONE MORE TIME.

UM, SECOND QUESTION I WANTED TO ASK, I WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON COMMISSIONER CHER'S QUESTION ABOUT THE ALLEY ACCESS.

UM, LIVING IN A COMMUNITY THAT HAS BOTH, UM, MULTI-FAMILY ADJACENCY AND COMMERCIAL ADJACENCIES, AS I UNDERSTAND, UM, THE PROVISIONS BEFORE US, WE ARE REMOVING THE SECTION THAT SPOKE ABOUT THE TYPES OF USES THAT COULD UTILIZE AN ALLEY AND I FULLY SUPPORT.

UM, WHAT I THINK I HEARD COMMISSIONER CHERLOCK SAY IS THAT FOR SMALLER INFILL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAYBE RETHINK THE DESIGNS THAT WE ARE SEEING TODAY, BUT IT ALSO APPEARS THAT IT IS ALLOWING FOR COMMERCIAL USES TO ALSO UTILIZE THOSE ALLEYS WHEN ADJACENT TO ANY OTHER USE.

AM AM I READING THAT CORRECTLY? THAT'S CORRECT.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WHEELER.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

UM, TO FOLLOW UP ON COMMISSIONER HALL'S QUESTION, IF A, IF A IS A, IF A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD IS FACING AN ISSUE WHERE THEY BELIEVE THERE'S OVER PARKING AND THERE IS HARD FOR THEM TO GET DOWN TO THE STREET THAT THEY CAN GO, THEY CAN ASK FOR, UM, FOR THAT PARKING ON THE STREET TO BE, UM, EVALUATED AND REQUEST MAYBE ONE SIDE OF THE STREET NOT HAVING PARKING, UM, AND THOSE SIGNS BEING PLACED UP.

AM I CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

GOING AWAY WITH THIS, WITH THIS, UH, WITH THE PARKING? CORRECT.

COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOWLER.

COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT, UM, PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN SUVS AND PDS.

[02:45:01]

YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW, THE, THE CURRENT, UM, CODE SAYS THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CANNOT UNDO THE ANY SPECIAL PARKING REQUIREMENT THAT'S IN A PD, BUT THE REVISION SAYS THAT THEY CAN UNDO NOW 100% OF THE PARKING REQUIRED OF, OF REQUIRED PARKING, AND THE ONLY PLACE WHERE REQUIRED PARKING IS GOING TO EXIST IS IN SUVS AND PDS.

SO, AM I CORRECT IN READING THIS, THAT EVEN THOUGH TECHNICALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS TRUE, THAT THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT GO INTO THE OLD PDS AND SUVS AND RESET THE NUMBERS TO ZERO? THERE'S A MECHANISM WRITTEN IN HERE WHERE IT CAN BYPASS CPC AND BYPASS COUNSEL GO TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND THEY CAN GET A HUNDRED PERCENT ELIMINATION OF THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

WE'VE HAD AN UPDATE FROM CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

SO, UM, WITH, IN THE, THE PROVISIONS ABOUT THE DUTIES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, SOMETHING THIS, UH, REDUCTION, THIS EXCEPTION WOULD NEED TO BE WRITTEN INTO THE PD, THAT THAT'S A RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN ORDER FOR THAT TO BE USED ON PD PARKING.

AND SO YOU'RE RIGHT THAT IT IS STRUCK OUT IN 51 A SINCE THEN WE'VE COME TO THIS UNDERSTANDING.

AND SO I THINK THE TEXT THAT'S IN 51 A, UM, IS CLARIFYING TEXT AT BEST.

AND SO, UH, IT DOESN'T, DOESN'T NEED TO BE THERE.

IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE STRUCK OUT.

PROBABLY AS GOOD AS CLARIFYING TEXT, GIVEN WHAT I'M SAYING RIGHT NOW.

AND FOR SUVS, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW AN SUP HAS A SITE PLAN AND IF, UM, THE SITE PLAN SHOWS THE PARKING AND IF, UM, THE APPLICANT AT SOME LATER DATE DECIDES THAT THEY NEED TO, YOU KNOW, REJIGGER THE PARKING OR ELIMINATE A LITTLE PARKING, THEY HAVE TO COME BACK THROUGH CPC.

IF I'M READING THE, THE REVISED ORDINANCE CORRECTLY OF REDUCTION OR ELIMINATION OF PARKING IN THE SUP CAN NOW BE CONSIDERED A MINOR AMENDMENT.

AND WITH MINOR AMENDMENTS, WE JUST HAVE TO SAY, YES, THIS IS A MINOR AMENDMENT.

WE CAN'T SAY WE AGREE WITH THE CHANGE, OR WE DON'T AGREE WITH THE CHANGE.

IF THE CODE IS WRITTEN TO SAY THAT THE REDUCTION OR ELIMINATION OF PARKING AND AN SUP IS A MINOR AMENDMENT, THEN IT WOULD COME TO US AND IT WOULD JUST BE OKAY, FINE.

AM I READING THAT CORRECTLY? I'D LIKE TO ASK FOR A SECTION REFERENCE IF YOU HAVE THAT ON HAND.

OH, I'M SORRY.

YOU GOT IT.

WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IT, I'LL KEEP TALKING .

UH, BECAUSE SCHOOLS, RIGHT NOW, WE'RE DOING SCPS A LOT, AND, YOU KNOW, WE GO THROUGH THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND THERE'S ALWAYS A LOT OF, USUALLY THERE'S A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH QUEUING IN SCHOOLS FOR AROUND SCHOOLS, AND THEY USE THE PARKING LOT AND THE DRIVES AND ALL TO SNAKE THEIR, THEIR TRAFFIC AROUND.

AND SO I WAS JUST WONDERING HOW, IF, YOU KNOW, THE, THE SCHOOL TD TMP IS TIED TO THE SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS PARKING, BUT WE HAVE A PROVISION WHERE, IN THE CODE WHERE YOU CAN UNDO THE PARKING IN A SUP THROUGH A MINOR AMENDMENT.

HOW IS ALL THAT GOING TO HANG TOGETHER? I'M SORRY, WHERE IS IT? IT'S, UM, 51 A DASH 4.219 SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

UM, I'M GOING TO LOOK UP THE QUESTION TO THAT ANSWER OR THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION FIRST, AND THEN TAKE ON YOUR SECOND 1 39.

PAGE 39.

BECAUSE THE WAY I'M READING THAT IS IT'S SAYING THAT A MINOR AMENDMENT CAN BE THE REDUCTION OR ELIMINATION OF PARKING IN AN SUP.

DO YOU, I MEAN, THE, UM, SO THE, ONE OF THE RESULTS, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME HERE NEGOTIATING S AND PDS WITH APPLICANTS AND NEIGHBORS AND BUSINESSES AND ALL, AND WE SET REQUIREMENTS, AND SOMETIMES IT'S PARKING.

SO GOING FORWARD, IF WE DID THAT, THERE WOULD BE A MECHANISM IN THE CODE FOR THE, FOR THIS, WHOEVER WANTING TO DO A DEVELOPMENT TO IMMEDIATELY UNDO ALL OF THAT BY JUST SAYING, OKAY, I'M GOING TO PURSUE A MINOR AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE THIS PARKING REQUIREMENT.

ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO RIDE INTO NEW PDS AND SUVS PROVISIONS THAT SAY THIS PROPO THIS PROJECT CANNOT GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THE DIRECTOR, OR THROUGH ANY, ANYTHING OTHER THAN A FULL ZONING PROCESS TO ALTER THE THE REQUIRED PARKING? MY, I WOULD NEED TO LOOK BACK AT THE FULL CODE.

I JUST HAVE MY PROPOSAL HERE.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, UH, FOR THESE MINOR AMENDMENTS, IT'S A PERCENTAGE CHANGE.

IT DOESN'T SAY THAT

[02:50:01]

HERE.

IF IT DOESN'T SAY THAT, THEN, BUT THERE, THERE MAY, I MEAN, THIS ISN'T THE FULL CODE.

THEY'RE, THEY'RE EXCERPTS, SO THERE MAY BE SOMETHING ELSE.

I, BUT THE WAY IT READS TO ME RIGHT NOW, IT LOOKS THAT IT WOULD CHANGE JUST BE MINOR AND THAT WOULD BE IT.

YEAH, I THINK THERE'S, THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR PERCENT CHANGE, BUT I THINK YOU'RE READING IT CORRECTLY.

I KNOW SARAH MAY WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING.

SO I WOULD SAY, UM, IF I CAN RECALL, THIS IS THE SECTION, RIGHT? OKAY.

RIGHT THERE.

UM, YES.

SO THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE, OH, SORRY, THAT WAS NOT WHAT I THOUGHT I WAS GONNA READ.

UM, YES.

SO IF AN SUP HAS A SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT, I THINK THE PROPOSAL IS THAT IS TO ADD AN OPTION FOR THEM TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WHERE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WOULD CONSIDER IF THE PROPOSED REDUCTION THAT WOULD BE BENEATH WHATEVER WAS REQUIRED BY THE SUP OR THE PD, UM, WOULD BE, WOULD CAUSE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.

AND, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE TRAFFIC STUDIES AND THERE THERE'S A LITANY OF THINGS.

THEY HAVE TO, THEY HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF PRO PROVING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

IT'S NOT JUST, WELL, WE DON'T WANNA DO IT ANYMORE.

THEY HAVE TO SHOW WHY THEY CAN'T OR WHY IT WOULD BE, I SEE NOT BE A PROBLEM.

I SEE THAT UNDER THE SECTION ON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

BUT THIS EXCERPT SEEMS TO JUST BE ADDRESSING MINOR AMENDMENTS, WHICH COME TO US.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I DON'T, PARDON IF I MAY, THE LANGUAGE STATES, THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION SHALL AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING, AUTHORIZE MINOR CHANGES IN THE SITE PLAN THAT OTHERWISE COMPLY WITH THE SUP ORDINANCE AND THE UNDERLYING ZONING, AND THAT DO NOT, AND THEN WHAT STRUCK IS THE REFERENCE TO PARKING.

SO THAT, I THINK COMMISSIONER CARPENTER AND I HAD THE SAME QUESTION.

I APPRECIATE HER ASKING IT, IT APPEARS TO SAY THEY SUBMIT A MINOR AMENDMENT, IT COMES BEFORE THIS BODY, WE SHALL APPROVE BECAUSE WELL, AND AGAIN, THEY DO HAVE TO STATE THAT IT DOESN'T CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD OR TRAFFIC CONGESTION, BUT THERE'S NO STANDARD, IT DOESN'T, IT'S 50% REDUCTION.

IT COULD GO TO ZERO AS THIS IS WRITTEN AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

AND, AND I THINK THEY WOULD STILL HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF SHOWING HOW IT DOESN'T CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.

AND, UM, I, I THINK I HAVE AN ANSWER ON THE PD UH, CLARIFICATION ON THE PD QUESTION TOO, BUT WE CAN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE ON THE SUP QUESTION BEFORE I TRY TO CLARIFY.

DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS ON THE SUP PART? NO, THE, THE, THE PD QUESTION SPECIFICALLY HAD TO DO? WELL, I GUESS I DO BECAUSE, UM, THERE'S ANOTHER PART, AND I'M SORRY I DIDN'T PUT THESE, THESE CODE REFERENCES, BUT I'LL, I'LL DEPEND ON COMMISSIONER HAMPTON TO FIND THEM IF WE NEED THEM.

BUT, UM, RIGHT AFTER IT SAYS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN, CAN DO A HUNDRED PERCENT ELIMINATION OF ANY REQUIRED PARKING, AND THAT MEANS S SUVS AND PDS, UM, SAYS THE DIRECTOR CAN DO THE SAME THING, A HUNDRED PERCENT REDUCTION IN REQUIRED PARKING, BUT ONLY FOR INDUSTRIAL.

AND I WONDER HERE, HOW MUCH CONSIDERATION WILL THAT BE GIVEN, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'RE IN PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE EXCLUDING RESTAURANTS AND ABE'S WITHIN 1200 FEET OF A RAIL STATION, TRADE CENTERS, WAREHOUSES GREATER THAN A HUNDRED THOUSAND SQUARE FEET AND MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES.

NOW, TO ME, THAT'S A VERY BIZARRE LIST OF USES.

I KNOW IT'S IN THE CODE RIGHT NOW WITH A, A MUCH SMALLER REDUCTION THAT THE DIRECTOR CAN DO, BUT DO YOU THINK THAT THIS IS GOOD POLICY GOING FORWARD? I, I DON'T, I DON'T SEE WHY THE DIRECTOR, ONE PERSON, YOU KNOW, OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC PROCESS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO A HUNDRED PERCENT REDUCTION IN REQUIRED PARKING THAT MAY HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATED THROUGH A PD OR AN SUP.

IT, WA WAS ANY THOUGHT GIVEN TO THIS, OR WAS IT JUST ZOO JUST MAKING IT CONFORM TO NO PARKING REQUIRED, JUST GOING THROUGH THE CODE? AND I, I THINK A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH.

IT WAS, YES, WANTING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSAL, UHHUH , UM, BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF THOUGHT PUT INTO, UM, THE ADMINISTRATIVE PARKING REDUCTION.

I THINK THAT WAS ADDED IN 2012.

AND, UM, BUT IT WASN'T A HUNDRED PERCENT.

IT WAS NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT.

YOU'D SAY, WELL, THE DIRECTOR CAN ELIMINATE A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE PARKING REQUIRED FOR ANYTHING.

SO I MEAN, TALKING ABOUT IT NOW, I GUESS, I MEAN, BRINGING IT TO THE LIGHT, I MEAN, IS IT, IS IT GOOD POLICY FOR ONE PERSON, THE DIRECTOR, TO AUTHORIZE A HUNDRED PERCENT REDUCTION IN PARKING WITH NO PUBLIC PROCESS FOR, FOR THIS PARTICULAR BUNCH OF USES? I, I THINK IT'S CONSISTENT WITH OUR PROPOSAL FOR THE CITYWIDE, UH, PARKING CHANGES.

UM, I MEAN D BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA BE CONSISTENT DIFFERENT,

[02:55:01]

I MEAN, IF WE, I MEAN, I WOULD NOT BE OF THAT , BUT BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THIS, BUT, BUT I JUST, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS AT ALL.

I'M GONNA, IS THERE ANY EXPLANATION? THANK YOU.

UM, OVERALL IT WAS MORE CONSISTENCY AND SO THERE, THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR THIS.

THERE'S MORE PRECEDENT FOR A CERTAIN PERCENT.

AND SO THIS TABLE THAT WE HAVE HERE IS EXTREMELY NUANCED COMPARED TO WHAT I'VE SEEN, BUT SOMETIMES, UH, ESPECIALLY MAYBE COMPARED OR, OR COMBINED WITH SORT OF THE MINOR AMENDMENT IDEA, UM, ADMINISTRATIVE REDUCTION OF 10%, 15%, AND I KNOW THAT THERE ARE DEEPER ONES FOR INDUSTRIAL HERE AND THAT KIND OF THING.

UM, BUT PERCENTAGES, THERE'S A LOT OF PRECEDENT FOR IT.

WOULD IT SEEM TO YOU THAT IT MIGHT BE MORE PALATABLE IF IT WERE A MUCH SMALLER PERCENTAGE FOR A DIRECTOR APPROVAL? I MEAN, IF THERE WERE, BECAUSE I'M GETTING THE IMPRESSION THAT THERE REALLY WASN'T A GREAT DEAL OF ANALYSIS OF THIS.

IT WAS JUST MORE MAKING IT CONSISTENT.

SO NOT UNLIKE THE LOADING DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD BEFORE, I'M JUST THINKING THAT PERHAPS MORE THOUGHT NEEDS TO BE GIVEN TO THAT.

IS THAT NOT SO, AND, AND I WOULD SAY HONESTLY THAT THIS, THIS PORTION, THE ADMINISTRATIVE REDUCTION WASN'T NOT WORKING.

IT'S, UH, AN IMPORTANT TOOL.

WE KNOW THAT SOMETIMES WE AS STAFF, UM, WILL SEE SOMETHING, ESPECIALLY DOWN THE LINE IF A CERTAIN PD IS BEING UPDATED AND SCP, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

UM, HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE WHITE KNUCKLED GRASP TO.

BECAUSE I, WELL, CAN YOU SEE THAT IT CAN BE A CONCERN, ESPECIALLY IN AREAS LIKE DISTRICT SIX AND SOME OF THE OTHER DISTRICTS WHERE WE HAVE A LOT OF INDUSTRIAL AND CLOSE PROXIMITY TO, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL, THAT IT WOULD BE A WORRISOME THING FOR RESIDENTS TO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, ONE PERSON COULD JUST SAY, OH, OKAY, I DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR, I CAN ELIMINATE ALL THIS PARKING FOR INDUSTRIAL, UM, WITHOUT ANY NOTICE OR ENGAGEMENT BY THE PUBLIC WHATSOEVER WITH, WITH RESPECT TO THE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE OF OUR STAFF.

YEAH, I CAN SEE THAT AS A CONCERN.

UH, UM, DR.

RE WERE YOU WANTING TO MAKE A REMARK? YEAH, I WOULD SAY THAT IT IS THE SAME CONSIDERATION AND THOUGHT THAT WE PUT INTO WHEN WE, AND TOGETHER WITH ZAC, THE RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR NO MINIMUM FOR ALL USES ACROSS BOARD.

I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS MAY BE A CONCERN WHEN IT COMES TO PDS.

UH, AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH STAFF EXPERTS.

WE CAN ALWAYS, YOU CAN ALWAYS AUTHORIZE A HEARING IF YOU THINK THAT IT DOESN'T WORK, AND WE CAN ALWAYS, UH, UH, RE-LOOK AT IT IF STAFF MADE AN ADMIN DECISION.

SO I WOULD SAY THE PARTNERSHIP CONTINUES.

CPC STILL HAS THE, AND CITY COUNCIL STILL HAS THE, UH, REZONING POWERS THAT THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW.

MOVING ON TO SOME MORE MINOR QUESTIONS.

UM, WHY ARE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS THE ONLY USE IN THE NEW CODE TO HAVE A SPECIFIC LOAD, A SPECIFIED LOADING REQUIREMENT? WHY ARE PUBLIC PRIVATE SCHOOLS, PUBLIC PRIVATE SCHOOLS THE ONLY ONES TO HAVE A LOADING REQUIREMENT? UHHUH.

IT SAYS THAT THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, LOADING SPACE REQUIRED.

WAS THAT JUST AN OVERSIGHT? IS IT CHANGED TOO? IT SHOULDN'T, IT SHOULDN'T BE CHANGED.

IT SHOULDN'T BE THERE ANYMORE, RIGHT? CORRECT.

IT SHOULDN'T BE THERE ANYMORE.

AND I THINK THE IDEA WITH SCHOOLS ANYWAY IS THAT THE TDMP AND SCHOOL TMP PROCESS WILL STILL BE THE PLACE WHERE SCHOOL, UM, FUNCTIONS, TRAFFIC FUNCTIONS ARE ANALYZED.

RIGHT? I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST AN EDITING OVERSIGHT, JUST LIKE IT, IT SAYS NOW THAT DRY CLEANING ESTABLISHMENTS, HANDICAPPED PARKING MUST BE PROVIDED IF MORE THAN 10 PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED.

BUT THAT'S, THAT'S NOT TRUE ANYMORE.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT IN THE TDMP WHERE IT SAYS, IF THIS, UH, STAFF SAYS, WANTS TO SAY THAT IF PARKING IS LOCATED BEHIND THE BUILDING, THEN ENCROACHMENT NOT MORE THAN FOUR FEET HIGH MAY BE ALLOWED IN THE FRONT YARD.

UM, WHAT IS THE EXTENT OF THE DEPTH OF THAT ENCROACHMENT, AND HOW WOULD THAT INTERACT WITH THE PUBLIC SIDEWALKS? AND WHAT'S REALLY THE, THE THINKING BEHIND, BEHIND THAT CAN ANSWER THE SECOND QUESTION BETTER THAN THE FIRST.

THE, THE SECOND QUESTION REALLY IS REMOVING PARKING AREAS, REMOVING DRY VIALS FROM THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE FRONT DOOR, TRYING TO MAKE THAT, I DON'T KNOW, A SACRED SPACE, A A SAFE SPACE AND AN ENJOYABLE SPACE.

SO THE IDEA, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS A REQUIREMENT TO PARK IN THE BACK MM-HMM .

REQUIREMENT TO PARK ON THE SIDE.

THE IDEA IS THAT, UM, IF, IF WE CAN HELP A DESIGNER MOVE THE BUILDING FORWARD A LITTLE BIT AND REALLY MAKE FOR A GREAT FRONT PEDESTRIAN AREA, THAT'S, THAT'S THE PURPOSE.

UM, THAT WE'VE HEARD NUMEROUS ANECDOTES FROM DEVELOPERS AND DESIGNERS THAT THAT'S A NO-GO.

UM, SO WE WANTED TO TURN IT INTO AN INCENTIVE BASED OPTION.

UM, AND SO, UH, I THINK THE, THE DETAIL OF HOW DEEP A, A PORCH COULD GO INTO THE FRONT SETBACK HASN'T BEEN TALKED ABOUT.

UM, BUT JUST

[03:00:01]

UNDERSTAND THAT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE HEIGHT WAS SPECIFIED THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME, SOMETHING ABOUT DEPTH WOULD BE APPROPRIATE ALSO.

UH, IN ANOTHER PLACE IT SAYS, EXCEPT FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX, IF PARKING SPACES A BUT ADJOINING PROPERTIES, THEN WHEEL GUARDS OR OTHER KINDS OF PERMANENT BARRIERS, AT LEAST SIX INCHES HIGH MUST BE INSTALLED AT LEAST THREE FEET AWAY FROM THE, THE LINE AND NO PART OF THE CAR EXTENDED TO THAT AREA.

SO WHAT I'M VISUALIZING HERE IS IF YOU HAVE A, A COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR WHERE YOU HAVE NUMEROUS RESTAURANTS OR, YOU KNOW, DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS, WHATEVER, ARE YOU SAYING THAT AT THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE PROPERTIES, THERE HAVE TO BE WHEEL GUARDS SO THAT CARS COULD NOT DRIVE? IT'S NOT LIKE IT WOULD CAUSE A CONFLICT WITH THE TRYING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF, UM, INGRESS AND EGRESS POINTS ON A STREET? AM I READING THIS WRONG? N NOT AT ALL.

UM, IT'S INTENDED SIMPLY TO MAKE SURE THAT AT THE POINT OF THE PARKING SPACE, UM, YOU DON'T HAVE CARS.

WE HAVE A LOT OF BIG TRUCKS THESE DAYS.

YOU DON'T HAVE THEM JUST PULLING INTO THE SIDEWALK.

SO IF THE PARKING SPACE IS IMMEDIATELY AT A SIDEWALK OR A PEDESTRIAN PATH, THE POINT IS THAT THERE'S A WHEEL GUARD THAT'S GOING TO KEEP THE CAR FROM BLOCKING A FUNCTIONAL PEDESTRIAN PATH.

I UNDERSTAND WHERE THE, WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE FRONT YARD, WHERE WITH THE SIDEWALK, BUT IS IT ALSO TALKING IF YOU HAVE A, YOU KNOW, A RESTAURANT AND IT HAS PARKING, UM, RUNNING PARALLEL TO THE STREET, YOU KNOW, AND IT ABUTS AND ADJOINING PROPERTY, WOULD YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE WHEEL GUARDS THERE ALSO ON THE SIDES THAT WOULD PREVENT CARS FROM GOING IN BETWEEN THE PARKING LOTS? THAT'S NOT THE INTENT.

THAT'S NOT THE INTENT.

BUT IS THAT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN? IF, LET ME LOOK BACK AT WHAT I WROTE A YEAR AND A HALF AGO.

SO I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, EXCUSE ME, 51, THE PROPOSED 51 A 4.301 A, UM, PARKING LOT.

SORRY, YOU TALKING ABOUT AC AC ABOUT THE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS, OR IS IT ON PAGE 44? E SEVEN.

I SEE.

EXCEPT FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX USES WHEN OFF STREET PARKING SPACES ARE MANEUVERING AREAS ABOVE A PUBLIC SIDEWALK, PEDESTRIAN PATH, AND ADJOINING PROPERTY REQUIRED LANDSCAPING OR REQUIRED SCREENING.

SO YOU'RE BRINGING UP THE, AN ADJOINING PROPERTY? YES.

UM, THAT'S, THAT'S THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN.

I THINK, UM, GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE EXPECT PEOPLE TO DEVELOP AND DESIGN THEIR SITE SO THAT ANY VEHICLE MANEUVERING HAPPENS ON THEIR SITE.

UM, AND SO IT'S, WE, IF THERE NEEDS FURTHER ANALYSIS, WE CAN DO THAT.

I'M HAVING TROUBLE, I THINK CONCEIVING OF THE ISSUE.

WELL, IT JUST SEEMS, I MEAN, STREETS WHERE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A BANK AND YOU HAVE A DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT AND YOU KNOW, WHATEVER PAD SITES AND, AND THEY'RE SEAMLESS, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN DRIVE BETWEEN ONE AND THE OTHER.

IT SEEMS TO ME, WITH THIS REQUIREMENT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO PUT, UH, THOSE WHEEL BARRIERS BETWEEN EVERY SINGLE, UM, PROPERTY AND THAT WOULD DRIVE TRAFFIC BACK OUT ONTO THE STREET AND HAVE TO HAVE MORE DRIVES AND THAT SORT OF THING.

THE, THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO HAVE WHEEL BARRIERS BETWEEN THE PEDESTRIAN PATH.

AND SO IF WE WOULD MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S NOT INTERPRETED TO WHERE YOU JUST SUDDENLY COULDN'T USE DRY VIALS, AND IF THIS LANGUAGE REALLY DOES DO THAT, WE WOULD WANNA CHANGE THE LANGUAGE.

AND, UM, IT ALSO SAYS IN HERE THAT THE PARKING GARAGES AND THE CBD HAVE TO HAVE WHEEL GUARDS.

IF THAT'S THE CASE, WHY NOT ALL PARKING GARAGES? IT SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT CODE AMENDMENT.

LIKE WE MIGHT BE TRYING TO, UM, UH, REACH DIFFERENT GOALS WITH THE SAME DOCUMENT.

AND, UH, THEN WHAT IS THE CITY ACTUALLY TRYING TO REDUCE? BECAUSE WHEN I READ THE TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, IT GOES BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN SAYING VEHICLE MILES DRIVEN SINGLE OCCUPANCY VEHICLE TRIPS, OR GAS POWERED SINGLE OCCUPANCY TRIPS.

WHAT'S, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT SECTIONS REFER TO TRYING TO REDUCE DIFFERENT THINGS.

IT WOULD SEEM LIKE IT WOULD BE BETTER TO BE MORE CONSISTENT.

[03:05:01]

YES, WE'RE TRYING TO REACH MANY GOALS WITH ONE DOCUMENT.

I THINK, UH, IT'S A GOOD TOOL FOR SOME THINGS.

IT'S NOT A TOOL FOR ANOTHER THING.

I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT DRIVE-THROUGHS, TDMP REALLY, THAT'S, THAT'S A LAND USE CHARACTERISTIC THING.

AND SO T DMPS REALLY HAVE, AREN'T THE RIGHT TOOL FOR SOMETHING LIKE DRIVE-THROUGHS, UM, WHEN IT COMES TO VEHICLE MILES DRIVEN.

JUST ARE THERE CARS OUT ON THE ROAD YES.

THAT'S CAUSING CONGESTION? ARE THEY GASOLINE POWERED? THOSE ARE CAUSING EMISSIONS.

UM, ARE THEY A SINGLE OCCUPANT? WELL, THOSE ARE LOW HANGING FRUIT FOR FOLKS WHO WANT A CARPOOL OR USE A SUSTAINABLE MODE.

SO YOU, YOU SAID IT EXACTLY RIGHT, THIS IS ONE TOOL THAT MAY BE A GOOD TOOL FOR MULTIPLE GOALS, BUT WOULD IT NOT BE PREFERABLE TO, BECAUSE SOMETIMES IN HERE IT'S SAYING THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, COMPANIES HAVE TO ANALYZE, YOU KNOW, GIVE SURVEYS AS TO THE REDUCTION IN VEHICLE MILES DRIVEN AND OTHER PLACES, YOU KNOW, IT TALKS ABOUT THE METRIC BEING THE SINGLE OCCUPANCY VEHICLE TRIPS JUST SEEMS LIKE IT NEEDS TO BE CONSISTENT.

IF YOU'RE GONNA MEASURE SOMETHING, GET THEM TO MEASURE THE SAME THING, WE CAN ANALYZE IT FOR CONSISTENCY, CONSISTENCY.

I THINK IT, UH, THIS MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT TAKES IN ALL THE DIFFERENT MEASUREMENTS THAT TRANSPORTATION IS INVOLVED WITH.

I MEAN, IT'S REALLY THE, THE HUB OF SO MANY DIFFERENT ISSUES.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, UH, THE TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM NOW IS GONNA APPLY TO DRIVE THROUGH BUSINESSES.

JUST WHAT MOTIVATION AS A, A DRIVE THROUGH BUSINESS OWNER DO YOU HAVE TO TRY TO REDUCE VEHICLE TRIPS TO YOUR BUSINESS? SURE.

SO THAT'S A GOOD EXISTENTIAL QUESTION THAT WE ASKED OURSELVES TO, UM, A LOT OF DRIVE THROUGH BUSINESSES AREN'T ONLY DRIVE THROUGH BUSINESSES OR, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD EVEN EXPAND THAT TO VEHICLE ORIENTED BUSINESSES.

THE, A BIG ONE THAT GDPC REVIEWERS BROUGHT UP AT A CERTAIN POINT WAS GAS STATIONS.

HOW DO YOU, UM, REDUCE VEHICLE MILE TRIPS, UM, TO GAS STATIONS? WELL, A LOT OF GAS STATIONS DOUBLE AS, UM, CONVENIENCE STORES.

AND YOU HAVE FOLKS DRIVING FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD JUST TO BUY THE PACK OF CIGARETTES OR THE BANANA AND GO BACK HOME.

AND SO, UM, FOR INSTANCE, THERE'S THE STRATEGY IN THE RECOMMENDED GUIDE RIGHT NOW HAVE A WALKUP WINDOW OR HAVE A PRICING PROGRAM WHERE YOU SHOW THAT YOU ROAD YOUR BIKE AND YOU GET A REDUCTION, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

UM, THOSE ARE IN THE GUIDE.

THOSE ARE STILL IN PLAY.

AND WHETHER A PROGRAMMATIC THING, LIKE A PRICING, UM, INCENTIVE REALLY MAKES SENSE.

WE CAN DEFINITELY TALK ABOUT, UM, THERE ARE, THERE ARE OTHER LAND USES A COFFEE SHOP WITH ONLY A TO GO WINDOW.

AND, AND ALL YOU HAVE IS SOMETHING THAT WHERE YOU'RE HANDING OUT YOUR COFFEE TO SOMEONE IN THE CAR THAT'S A, THAT'S A BIGGER, COULD BE A BIGGER HINDRANCE TO TELL, TELL SOMEONE WHO'S GOING TO BUILD ONE OF THOSE.

NOW YOU ALSO NEED A WALK UP WINDOW, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

IT'S NOT UNREALISTIC THOUGH.

IT'S, UM, WHETHER IT'S THE RIGHT ONE FOR DALLAS.

NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S THE RIGHT EXPECTATION FOR AN URBAN, URBAN CORE AND AN URBANIZING CITY, AT LEAST ON THE STAFF LEVEL.

WE THINK.

SO, UH, LOOKING AT THE, UM, CHART THAT GAVE DIFFERENT VALUES OF POINTS FOR VARIOUS STRATEGIES, IT SEEMED TO ME THAT THE AMOUNT OF POINTS GIVEN, UH, WERE NOT, WASN'T ALWAYS PROPORTIONATE TO THE DEGREE OF DIFFICULTY IN REACHING THE STANDARD.

I MEAN, FOR A, A WALK-UP WINDOW AT A DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT, YOU GOT FIVE POINTS.

BUT TO GET 10 POINTS, ONE WAY TO DO IT IS TO GIVE A, UH, A SUBSIDIZED TRANSIT PASS TO EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE AND EVERY RESIDENT IN A MULTI-FAMILY UNIT.

I MEAN, THE, THE PRICE DISPARITY BETWEEN THOSE TWO THINGS IS TREMENDOUS.

BUT THE, THE ONLY FIVE POINTS DIFFERENCE, AND I THINK YOU ALSO GET FIVE POINTS FOR 150% OF BIKE PARKING, WHICH COULD BE AS LITTLE AS ONE PARKING SPACE.

SO HAS THERE BEEN MUCH, IT IS JUST LIKE, THERE'S SOME GLARING INEQUITIES THERE.

SO HOW FAR ALONG HA IS THE, I KNOW THIS ISN'T COMPLETELY A HUNDRED PERCENT I, IS IT 90% SUPPOSEDLY SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THAT THERE, THERE WON'T BE A LIGHT THAT COMES ON THAT SAYS YOU'VE GOT THE CALCULATION.

BUT WHERE, WHERE ARE YOU WITH, WITH RECONCILING THESE? SURE.

THESE DISPARATE AMOUNTS.

SO WE, WE'VE GOT TWO ANSWERS TO THAT.

AS FAR AS THE PROCESS.

THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY PLANNING STAFF.

IT'S BEEN REVIEWED BY THE GREATER DALLAS PLANNING COUNCIL PARKING SUBCOMMITTEE.

UM, IT'S BEEN REVIEWED BY TREK REAL ESTATE COUNCIL.

AND UH, HOWEVER, THE TREK HASN'T LOOKED IN DEPTH AT THOSE, UH, STRATEGY POINTS.

I THINK THEY'RE SAVING THAT FOR ANOTHER POINT IN THE PROCESS.

SO THERE HAVE BEEN EYES ON IT.

THE TOUGH THING IS THAT WITH ANY GROUP OF STRATEGIES IN ANY GIVEN SITUATION, IT'S NOT JUST THE FINANCIAL COST, BUT IT'S THE, UM, LIKELIHOOD THAT IT WILL ACTUALLY INCENTIVIZE SOMEONE TO, UH, USE A CERTAIN KIND OF TRANSPORTATION.

IT'S THE, UM, ALIGNMENT WITH LAND USES.

AND SO WHAT I'M REALLY TALKING AROUND IS

[03:10:01]

AND WHEN WE'VE TALKED TO, UH, THE TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER WHO WROTE AUSTIN'S, I TALKED TO GENTLEMAN DENVER, UH, ST.

PAUL, SAN FRANCISCO, THE BIGGEST QUESTION IS ALIGNMENT OF THE POINTS.

AND GENERALLY WHAT THEY'VE BEEN LEARNING SO FAR HAS MORE TO DO WITH STRATEGY TYPES THAN STRATEGY POINTS.

UM, SO DEVELOPERS LOVE THE PHYSICAL STRATEGIES, PERIOD.

THEY CAN DO IT IN THE BEGINNING, BE DONE WITH IT.

UM, THE, SO THE, THE POINT TOTALS ARE IN PLAY, THE, I THINK YOU KNOW THIS, THE THRESHOLDS ARE IN THE CODE PORTION AND THOSE WE TRIED TO SET AS FAR AS IMPORTANCE LEVEL OF LAND USES AND AREAS, IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE PERFECT.

PROBABLY NEED TO REVISE THAT IN THE FUTURE.

THE STRATEGIES, THE REASON THAT THAT'S NOT IN THE CODE, BUT WOULD BE ADOPTED AT COUNCIL, UH, RESOLUTION LEVEL IS SO THAT WE CAN UPDATE IT MOVING FORWARD BASED ON WHAT WE LEARNED.

SO I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT TALKING AROUND THE ANSWER THAT IT PROBABLY IS NOT A PERFECT ALIGNMENT AND WE'RE OPEN TO FINE TUNING IT.

YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE EXAMPLES WAS, YOU KNOW, TO AWARD 13 POINTS FOR BUILDING A TIER ONE USE.

AND I MEAN, THEY HAVE TIER ONE, TIER TWO, TIER THREE, AND IT'S LIKE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE A MUCH MORE EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF USES THAN, THAN JUST THE SAMPLES THAT ARE, ARE IN THE DOCUMENT RIGHT NOW.

BUT YOU GET 13 POINTS IF YOU BUILD A GROCERY STORE IN AN AREA THAT DOESN'T HAVE, HAVE, HAVE ONE WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE.

I, I'M, I'M TRYING, I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT BEING AN ECONOMIC DE DEVELOPMENT GOAL AND A DESIRABLE GOAL, BUT WHY IS IT WORTH 13 POINTS IN A TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT? I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S GONNA CAUSE MORE VEHICLE TRIPS.

I MEAN, IT MIGHT BE FEWER VEHICLE MILES 'CAUSE THEY USED TO HAVE TO DRIVE FARTHER TO A GROCERY STORE THAN THEY DO NOW.

BUT THERE, THERE MIGHT BE FINE TUNING AS FAR AS THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GROCERY STORE, FOR EXAMPLE MM-HMM .

UM, BUT THE IDEA IS THAT AS YOU LOWER PROXIMITY, YOU INCREASE ACCESS AND YOU INCREASE THE ABILITY TO USE SUSTAINABLE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION TO DESTINATIONS WHEN THEY'RE CLOSER.

AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE THINKING BEHIND THAT.

AND THEN THE TIER TWO AND TIER THREE, THE IDEA IS THAT, UM, WE ARE AIMING FOR COMPLETE COMMUNITIES WITH CLOSE PROXIMITY SO THAT WE, WE DON'T HAVE TO DRIVE AS FAR AND MAYBE WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO DRIVE AT ALL.

A GROCERY STORE IS ONE THING.

YOU'LL PROBABLY BE, UH, CARRYING BAGS, A DENTIST OFFICE IS ANOTHER THING.

IT'S IMPORTANT YOU NEED TO GO, BUT EASIER TO TAKE THE BUS TO THAT, FOR EXAMPLE.

SO THAT WAS THE THINKING BEHIND THOSE, THAT GROUP OF STRATEGIES.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY FOR, YOU KNOW, THE LACK OF GROCERY STORES IN THE, IN THE FOOD DESERTS, THESE AREAS ALSO TEND TO NOT HAVE GOOD TRANSIT GOOD SIDEWALKS OR ANYTHING.

SO IT'S, I THINK, VERY DIFFICULT TO, TO REALLY MAKE A COMPELLING ARGUMENT THAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE MULTIMODAL, YOU KNOW, ACCESS TO THOSE.

BUT ANYWAY, UM, MOVING ON, THE SUSTAINABLE MODES ANALYSIS, WHICH IS GONNA BE REQUIRED OF ANYBODY WHO FALLS INTO THE TDMP.

SO MULTIFAMILY OF A CERTAIN SIZE, C AIS, C COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT, OUTSIDE DRIVE-THROUGHS, UH, NON-RESIDENTIAL OF A CERTAIN SIZE.

THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO SOMETHING CALLED A SUSTAINABLE MODES ANALYSIS.

AND IT SEEMS LIKE A VERY TIME CONSUMING AND EXPENSIVE BARRIER TO DEVELOPMENT 'CAUSE WHO IS EQUIPPED TO EVALUATE PEDESTRIAN AND TRANSIT CONNECTIVITY WITHIN A QUARTER MILE OF THE SITE.

INVENTORY, PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE INFRASTRUCTURE, IDENTIFY GAPS IN PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS, IDENTIFY SIGNIFICANT PEST PEDESTRIAN GENERATORS, STRUCTURAL AND NON-STRUCTURAL TRANSIT ROUTES AND FACILITIES AND MAJOR PHYSICAL BARRIERS TO SUSTAINABLE MODES.

PROVIDE EXCERPTS AND VISUAL DEPICTIONS FROM ADOPTED MOBILITY PLANS, SHOW SIDEWALKS, BIKE AND PLAN NETWORKS WITHIN A QUARTER MILE.

INCLUDE CURRENT D DART ROUTES.

DESCRIBE THE TDMP AND HOW IT CONTRIBUTES TO REDUCING SINGLE OCCUPANCY MOTOR TRIPS.

NOTHING ABOUT GASOLINE THERE AND INCREASES IN VIKING WALKING AND USAGE OF TRANSIT INCLUDE THE RELEVANCE OF THE STRATEGIES TO THE CONTEXT.

UH, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT A, A TRAFFIC ENGINEER IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO DO, AND THEN THE, THEY HAVE TO, UH, UH, POINT A MOBILITY COORDINATOR AND SUBMIT ANNUAL REPORTS FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE YEARS TO SHOW HOW THE TDMP IS REDUCING VEHICLE MILES HERE, OR SINGLE OCCUPANCY VEHICLE MODE SHARE OF EMPLOYEES AND RESIDENTS WHO, WHO CAN DO THIS.

AND THEY HAVE TO DO THIS FOR, THEY HAVE TO UPDATE IT ANNUALLY FOR TWO YEARS, AND IT JUST SOUNDS LIKE CONSIDERABLE STAFF TIME IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO GET THESE REPORTS, REVIEW THEM, UPDATE THEM.

IT JUST, IT JUST, IT SEEMS LIKE A TREMENDOUS BARRIER TO DEVELOPMENT TO ME.

IS IT? I I CREATED A, AN EXAMPLE OF SUSTAINABLE MODES ANALYSIS IN ABOUT THREE HOURS, UM, SHORT

[03:15:01]

OF A, A SITE TRIP.

SO WORKING WITH, UM, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS IN AUSTIN, UH, PRIVATE ONES ON DEVELOPMENTS, USUALLY THEY'LL TAKE ONE SITE TRIP, THEY'LL WALK THE AREA, THEY DRAW SOME LINES AND THEY MAKE THEIR NOTES.

WHAT THEY SUBMIT IS A PDF THAT HAS SCREENSHOTS OF EITHER THEIR GIS, UM, MAPS WITH SOME RELEVANT LINES SHOWN.

HERE'S WHERE THIS SIDEWALK IS MISSING.

HERE'S A QUARTER MILE BUFFER.

UM, WHAT WE'RE WANTING TO SET UP, UH, WE'VE MENTIONED THIS IN THE PAST, IS AN ALL-IN-ONE STOP TO WHERE ALL OF THE RELEVANT PLANS ARE LISTED.

SO YOU CLICK ON IT, YOU SEE, OKAY, THE SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN HAS AN INTENDED, UM, REPAIR HERE, SCREENSHOT, COPY PASTE.

IT'S IN THERE, PARAGRAPH ABOUT HERE'S THE STREET, AND THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.

SO IT'S, IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE SOMETHING THAT THEY SUBMIT AND STAFF GOES BACK AND ANALYZES EVERY SQUARE FOOT OF SIDEWALK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THIS IS JUST, BUT THIS IS GETTING A, A DEVELOPER THINKING ABOUT WHAT'S AROUND THEM.

AND SO IT'S, IT'S A REPORT.

I WOULD CALL IT A HIGH MIDDLE SCHOOL, HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL REPORT THAT YOU TURN IN.

UM, IT JUST INVOLVES A SITE VISIT GOING TO SOME ONLINE WEB MAPS THAT'S FOR THE SUSTAINABLE MODES ANALYSIS, BUT IT'S SOMETHING A TRAFFIC ENGINEER DOES.

I MEAN, THE AVERAGE OWNER OF A, OF A DRIVE THROUGH TACO STAND IS NOT GOING TO DO THIS.

OR IT'S, IT WOULD BE EVERYONE WHO QUALIFIES.

AND SO, AGAIN, I, I WAS NOT A TRAFFIC ENGINEER.

I CAN GO TO THE SITE, I CAN SAY, HERE'S AN AREA OF SIDEWALK, BUT IS BROKEN, PUT AN X ON IT.

IF, IF A MIXED INCOME PROJECT WAS GIVEN BONUSES BASED SOLELY ON A PARKING REDUCTION, WHAT EFFECT DOES ELIMINATING THE PARKING REDUCTION HAVE? DO THEY NO LONGER HAVE TO PROVIDE THE MIXED INCOME HOUSING THEY PROMISED TO PROVIDE IF THEY GOT NO OTHER BONUS? WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT? I WAS THINKING ABOUT THE LAST QUESTION FOR THE FIRST HALF OF THAT QUESTION.

TO CHANGE SUBJECTS ABRUPTLY, UH, MIXED INCOME HOUSING.

IF A MIXED INCOME HOUSING PROJECT WAS GIVEN A BONUS, THEY SOLELY ON A PARKING REDUCTION, WHAT EFFECT DOES ELIMINATING THE PARKING REDUCTION HAVE? DOES THE PROJECT STILL HAVE TO PROVIDE THE MIXED INCOME HOUSING? IF THEY GOT NO OTHER BONUS, I WOULD THINK THEY WOULD STILL BE BOUND TO EVERYTHING THAT THEY HAD AGREED TO AT THE BEGINNING.

WE, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'VE ASKED.

I I THINK NO ONE HAS SAID, WELL, THIS IS GONNA BLOW UP AN EXISTING M-I-H-T-B AGREEMENT AND CHANGING THE SUBJECT AGAIN.

SORRY, I'VE GOT TWO MORE QUESTIONS.

UH, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE CURRENT PARKING AGREEMENTS THAT RUN WITH THE PROPERTY IF, IF THE, IF THERE'S NO LONGER A PARKING REQUIREMENT, I IMAGINE THAT THEY WOULD STILL BE IN EFFECT, THEY JUST WOULDN'T BE NEEDED TO SATISFY A PARKING REQUIREMENT.

SO THEY COULD GO THROUGH WHATEVER PROCESS THEY NEEDED.

THEY REMOVED TO NULLIFY, REMOVED, REMOVED THEM, YEP.

AND WHY ARE SCHOOLS COVERED UNDER THE TDMP WHEN THERE'S A SEPARATE TMP PROGRAM FOR SCHOOLS? I THINK THE IDEA IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SUSTAINABILITY MODES ANALYSIS APPLIES TO IT ALSO.

SO WE'RE NOT JUST THINKING ABOUT, UH, THE PARENTS AND PROBABLY THE MAJORITY OF THE PARENTS WHO ARE DRIVING THEIR KIDS TO SCHOOL, BUT ALSO THE KIDS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IS A SIDEWALK ADEQUATE FOR KIDS TO WALK DOWN? UM, IS THERE A BIKE RACK? THAT KIND OF A THING.

COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, YOU'RE UP NEXT.

IF YOU WANT ME TO SKIP TO, I THINK COMMISSIONER CARPENTER ASKED SOME OF MY QUESTIONS.

LET'S SEE IF I CAN PICK IT UP.

UM, WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO REQUIRING A DA PARKING? GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE WERE ADVISED BY OUR TRANSPORTATION STAFF AND TRANSPORTATION REVIEW STAFF NOT TO INTRODUCE CODE THAT WOULD MIX OURSELVES UP IN THAT.

WHY? UM, I'M GONNA SAY LEGAL COMPLEXITIES AND ASK DAVID NAVAREZ TO COME UP.

I THINK THAT WAS A, A CHIEF VOICE IN THAT.

DAVID, DO YOU WANNA COMMENT WHILE HE COMES TO THE PODIUM? I UNDERSTAND THAT SOMEONE MAY WANT A QUICK, UM, PERSONAL BREAK.

SO LET'S, AFTER THIS QUESTION, LET'S TAKE 10.

YOU CAN TAKE IT NOW.

YEAH, LET'S DO THAT NOW.

UM, IT'S 3:03 PM UH, WE WILL GO ON BREAK AND BE BACK AT THREE 13.

THANKS.

WAS THAT AADA A KINGSTON, PLEASE.

REQUIRING SOME AMOUNT OF AADA? A JUST IF, IF YOU ARE REQUIRED, IF YOU'RE RELIANT ON A DA PARKING AADA IS A GOOD LUCK TO YOU.

I THINK WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A DA REQUIREMENTS.

I SEE THAT AS PART OF WHAT AUSTIN'S PARKING REDUCTION.

THEY HAVE A SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT THAT A DA SPACES HAVE TO BE CONSTRUCTED.

AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, A DA, UH, PARKING IS TRIGGERED BY, IF YOU BUILD IT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SO MUCH.

SO IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOT REQUIRING IT TO BE BUILT, WHY ARE WE NOT

[03:20:01]

YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN, MA'AM.

A DA IS A FEDERAL REGULATION.

NOT A, A MUNICIPALITY CANNOT WAIVE.

UM, AND I DO HAVE TO SAY THOUGH, THERE'S A PREMISE TO THIS.

PD 1 93 HAS A DA REQUIREMENTS AND THE ABILITY TO DEVIATE FROM THEM, THEY, THEY, AN APPLICANT WOULD BE ALLOWED, WOULD'VE BEEN ALLOWED TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO GET AN EXCEPTION FROM A DA REQUIREMENTS.

THIS HAPPENED IN THE 1980S.

UH, NOT SURPRISINGLY, THE CITY OF DALLAS WAS CHAMPIONING THE REGULATIONS FOR, UM, ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES.

IT WASN'T A FEDERAL REGULATION BACK THEN.

UH, BUT NOW IT IS, AND WE RELY ON A FEDERAL REGULATION THAT IS DICTATED BY THE D, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

THEY'RE THE ONES THAT REGULATE A DA.

IN FACT, BACK WHEN I WAS A CONSULTANT, UH, WE WOULD HAVE ATTORNEYS COME TO US TO HELP THEM FIGURE OUT WHETHER OR NOT A, A SPARKY FACILITY COMPLIED WITH A DA BECAUSE THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, GOING AFTER THAT PROPERTY OWNER.

NO, WE DO NOT HAVE A DA CONTEMPLATED IN OUR, UH, AMENDMENT.

AND THAT'S SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE LAURA, I'M, I'M, I'M MS. MORRIS, I'M, THAT'S SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE A DA IS A FEDERAL REGULATION AND A MUNICIPALITY CANNOT WAIVE OR DEVIATE FROM THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

UM, CAN WE ADD, GO AHEAD, PLEASE.

WELL, AND MAYBE COMMISSIONER HAMPTON CAN WEIGH IN ON THIS, BUT I THOUGHT THAT THERE, THE TRIGGERING OF HAVING THE SPACES IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS WHETHER YOU HAD PARKING.

THAT IS CORRECT.

SO, UM, HAVING A DA IS NOT A REQUIREMENT UNTIL YOU CONSTRUCT THE FIRST PARKING SPACE.

IF YOU BUILD ONE PARKING SPACE, IT MUST BE A DA ACCESSIBLE, RIGHT.

IT'S NOT UNTIL YOU BUILD THE FIFTH SPACE THAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO RESERVE IT FOR A DA, UM, HANDICAP IS NOT THE RIGHT WORD.

UM, FOR, FOR ACCESSIBILITY FOR ACCESSIBLE AS AN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE, AND IT MUST BE A VAN SPACE.

UM, IT'S NOT REALLY COMPLICATED AND TRYING TO MAKE IT SOUND LIKE IT ISN'T.

SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS WE ELIMINATE ALL REQUIRED PARKING, AND WE ARE NOT, AND YOU'RE NOT RECOMMENDING THAT THERE BE ANY REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE PARKING THAT AS A COMPONENT OF THAT, THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD BE CONFLICT WITH, UH, A FEDERAL REGULATION? NO, SIR.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT.

BUT WELL, WE, THE CITY CANNOT ELIMINATE AADA OR WAIVE THE A DA REQUIREMENT FROM A PARKING FACILITY.

BUT IT'S NOT, BUT IT'S NOT TRIGGERED UNTIL SOMEONE BUILDS PARKING AND WE'RE NOT REQUIRING 'EM TO BUILD PARKING.

CORRECT.

BUT, BUT A DA IS REQUIRED, IS TRIGGERED BY A FACILITY, NOT, NOT A PARKING REQUIREMENT.

SO IF I, IF, IF I HAVE A ZERO PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENT, BUT I BUILD 10 SPACES, 25 SPACES, ONE OF THOSE MUST BE VAN ACCESSIBLE BECAUSE I PROVIDED 25 PARKING SPACES, 26 THAT I'M, I NEED TWO A DA SPACES, BUT WE'RE NOT.

BUT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE DON'T REQUIRE SPOT NUMBER ONE, RIGHT? I, I DON'T THINK SO.

AND I WOULD ADVISE THEN MAKE SURE WE ARE NOT GO AHEAD.

AND IF I CAN DESCRIBE AUSTIN'S, I THINK THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, IT'S, IT'S A SIMILAR TABLE TO THE A DA, BUT IT'S MORE RESTRICTIVE.

SO I DON'T THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WAIVING, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE SAYING WE SHOULDN'T DO A DA, BUT MAYBE THAT WE SHOULD DO MORE AADA A AND THAT WE, WE SHOULD ENFORCE THAT WE ARE DOING IT.

UM, YEP.

SO THAT'S, UM, I, IF I REMEMBER AUSTIN'S TABLE CORRECTLY, I WOULD SAY IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN FEDERAL A DA, UM, MR. CHAIRMAN MAY, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.

WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T LEAVE THAT IN.

SORRY, I JUST WANNA MAKE ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION FOR THOSE.

UM, I KNOW WE'RE REFERENCING FAIR FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS, HOWEVER, IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, IT'S THE TEXAS ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS THAT CONTROL, IT'S A NOMENCLATURE, BUT JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE USING THE CORRECT LANGUAGE.

I, I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, UH, HELPING ME ON THIS.

'CAUSE I KNOW ARCHITECTS HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS STUFF, AND, AND I AM NOT A SPECIALIST IN THIS AREA.

UM, AND I AM TRYING TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE BEING MORE INCLUSIVE, NOT LESS INCLUSIVE IN TERMS OF PROVIDING FACILITIES FOR FOLKS WHO NEED IT.

UM, YOU MIGHT REMEMBER NOT TOO LONG AGO, I WAS A FOLK WHO NEEDED IT, AND I VERY MUCH APPRECIATED HAVING ACCESS TO THAT.

AND I WANNA ENSURE THAT WE HAVE THAT FOR FOLKS WHO DO NEED IT IN THE FUTURE.

AND I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE THAT THAT'S BEEN ADDRESSED, IS MY POINT.

YOU, YOU MADE REFERENCE TO MEXICO CITY AND TORONTO BEING CITIES THAT HAD ADOPTED THIS.

I'M GONNA MOVE ON.

UM,

[03:25:03]

THAT MIGHT BE MORE ANALOGOUS TO DALLAS IN TERMS OF SIZE OR MAYBE EVEN LARGER.

BOTH OF THOSE CITIES HAVE SUBWAYS THOUGH, RIGHT? IN OTHER WORDS, THEY MORE ROBUST PUBLIC TO LOOK, THEY PROBABLY HAVE BETTER TRANSIT SYSTEMS. YEAH.

UM, HOW MUCH, IF, IF WE WERE TO PASS WHAT STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED, HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL STAFF WOULD NEED TO BE HIRED IN ORDER TO, UM, MANAGE IT? ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE TDNP SPECIFICALLY OR ANY OTHER PART? THE CODE, ALL THE, THE, I CAN DESCRIBE EXAMPLES FROM OTHER CITIES TO APPROXIMATE US.

SO, UM, IN SOME OTHER CITIES, NO ADDITIONAL STAFF WERE HIRED.

UM, THE ONES I'M THINKING OF NOW ARE TWO MIDWESTERN CITIES THAT ARE SMALLER THAN US.

UM, I THINK DENVER HAS A HALF, OR IT'S A QUARTER OF A FULL-TIME POSITION DEDICATED TO TDMP ADMINISTRATION.

UM, THE WAY THAT WE'VE PROPOSED OURS AND, AND TRIED TO STRUCTURE IT, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO INCREASE STAFF WORKLOADS.

SO IT'S, THERE ARE MORE DOCUMENTS THAT SOMEONE WOULD NEED TO SUBMIT.

UM, BUT AS FAR AS WHAT WOULD GO TO TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING REVIEW, WE'RE STILL JUST TRYING TO ALIGN IT AT WHAT WE ALREADY DO, WHICH IS APPROXIMATING THE 1000 TRIPS DAILY, OR 100 TRIPS PER PEAK HOUR.

SO AS FAR AS WHAT MAKES IT TO, UH, TRANSPORTATION REVIEW, IT WOULD BE THE SAME PROJECTS THAT ARE GOING THERE RIGHT NOW.

IT WOULD JUST BE A MATTER OF EXTRA DOCUMENTS GOING TO OUR ZONING REVIEW.

SO HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL STAFF WOULD ZONING NEED TO HIRE? WE, WE TRIED TO STRUCTURE IT SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO HIRE ANYONE ELSE.

HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL TIME WOULD BE ADDED TO ZONING CASES? WE'D HAVE TO SEE.

I DON'T KNOW.

IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT THIS PROCESS IS BEING PROPOSED WOULD AT A MINIMUM ADD TIME TO THE ZONING CASES THAT ARE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF DALLAS? YES, WITH AN ASTERISK, I WOULD SAY THAT THE SMALL PROJECTS, YOU'VE GOT YOUR SUSTAINABLE MODES ANALYSIS THAT WE DISCUSSED.

SO THE ZONING REVIEWER LOOKS AT IT, THEY SAY, YEP, YOU DID IT.

YOU'VE GOT YOUR SIDEWALKS, YOUR TRANSIT, AND A TABLE OF WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T STAMP.

THAT'S GREAT.

YOU'VE GOT YOUR, LET'S SEE ON YOUR PLAN, YOU CHOSE LET'S STRATEGIES A, B, AND C.

I SEE THOSE ON THE SITE PLAN.

SO WE REALLY DON'T EXPECT IT TO, TO GO BEYOND THAT.

FOR PHYSICAL STRATEGIES, FOR PROGRAMMATIC STRATEGIES, THERE WOULD BE MORE OF A COMPLIANCE, UH, PORTION THAT WE WOULD NEED TO, UM, MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE RECEIVING THOSE AUDITS.

AND AGAIN, PART OF SOME OF THE DOCUMENT PREPARATION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS A FORM THAT WE GIVE TO THEM RIGHT OFF THE BAT, PUT ON OUR WEBSITE, HEY, UM, HERE'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU NEED TO FILL OUT, TURN IT BACK INTO US.

CHECK, CHECK, CHECK.

SO I THINK IF, IF THERE'S AN ADDITION TO WORKLOAD, IT'S IN VISITING AND SEEING THAT A DEVELOPER IS NOT DOING WHAT THEY SAID THAT THEY WOULD AND WORKING WITH THEM TO SHIFT OR IMPLEMENT DIFFERENT STRATEGIES.

AND HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL WORKLOAD ARE YOU REALISTIC EXPECTING PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY TO DO IN ORDER TO MANAGE THIS? AS FAR AS NON-PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS, UHHUH, DON'T KNOW.

MEGAN, OR I DON'T THINK WE HAVE S HERE TODAY TO ANSWER THAT, UM, BACKLOG ON AUTHORIZED HEARINGS.

UM, HOW DO YOU ENVISION THE DOCUMENTATION BEING SUBMITTED? IS THIS MORE STUFF THAT GOES THROUGH PROJECT DOCS OR CORRECT, BECAUSE IT WOULD, IT WOULD JUST BE KIND OF PART AND PARCEL WITH A SITE PLAN.

AND SO, UM, IT'S A PDF, IT'S SENDING IT IN.

AND SO PROJECT DOCS OR, UM, I THINK WE'RE WORKING ON, UH, DALLAS NOW, UM, USING AELA.

AND SO IT'S INTENDED TO BE FULLY INTEGRATED INTO THAT PROCESS.

AND I BELIEVE EARLIER SOMEONE REFERENCED THAT, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEONE GOT SOMETHING FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THEY DIDN'T LIKE THAT YOU COULD ALWAYS INITIATED AN AUTHORIZED HEARING.

ANY IDEA WHAT THE BACKLOG FOR AUTHORIZED HEARINGS IS? WE'RE HAPPY TO BE STAFFED UP AND IT'S MOVING FORWARD, BUT I DON'T, I MIGHT LOOK TO

[03:30:01]

UH, UM, THE BACKLOG ON UPPER STEERINGS.

I MEAN, WE HAVE SEVERAL IN THE QUEUE RIGHT NOW.

UM, AND, AND I APOLOGIZE.

WHAT WAS THE CONNECTION TO THE PARKING QUESTION? YEP.

EARLIER SOMEONE SAID THAT IF SOMEONE GOT, FOR EXAMPLE, A VARIANCE FROM THE BDA AND CPC OR COUNSEL DIDN'T LIKE IT, THEY COULD INITIATE AN AUTHORIZED HEARING TO CLOSE THE LOOPHOLE.

WHAT'S YOUR BACKLOG ON AUTHORIZED HEARINGS? I MEAN, WE ALWAYS HAVE AUTHORIZED HEARINGS IN THE QUEUE, AND PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE IT IS SO EASY TO AUTHORIZE A HEARING.

I MEAN, BASICALLY IT TAKES THREE OF YOUR SIGNATURES, AND CPC CAN GET SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION.

SO, UM, YEAH, WE'VE GOT MAYBE NO 15 OR SOMETHING IN THE QUEUE RIGHT NOW.

AND IF SOMEONE WERE TO SEEK TO AUTHORIZE A HEARING THIS MONTH, WHEN COULD THEY REASONABLY EXPECT STAFF TO BEGIN HOLDING PUBLIC HEARINGS WITH REGARD TO THAT AUTHORIZED HEARING? YEAH, TO BE HONEST, IT WOULDN'T BE ANYTIME SOON.

AS CHAIR RUBIN, I HAVE A FOLLOW UP THERE.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE ARE TWO SORTS OF, OF AUTHORIZED HEARINGS.

THERE IS AN AUTHORIZED HEARING FOR A LARGE AREA, LIKE A BASELINE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, BUT I CAN THINK OF AN AUTHORIZED HEARING THAT WE DID ON LOWER GREENVILLE RELATING TO A MAYBE A DRIVE THROUGH OR LATE HOURS SUP THAT WAS ACTUALLY PRETTY QUICK, RIGHT? AREN'T THERE TWO QUEUES THERE, ? WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.

CAN I, I THINK THERE WAS, WHAT, THE, THE TACO CABANA ON LOWER GREENVILLE, RIGHT? WE DID THAT THROUGH AN AUTHORIZED HEARING.

IT'S A SINGLE PROPERTY AUTHORIZED HEARING, CORRECT? I, I'M, WAS THAT ANYTIME RECENTLY? IT'S NOT THE ONE THAT WAS RECENTLY AUTHORIZED.

TWO YEARS AGO, MAYBE THREE YEARS AGO, TWO THREE.

I MEAN, IT, IT'S ALL, IT'S ALL THE SAME PROCESS AND WELL, THERE'S A PRIORITIZATION CHECKLIST CHART, AND SO THERE'S CRITERIA TO CONSIDER ON WHAT GETS MOVED UP IN THE QUEUE, BUT I, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT ONE SPECIFICALLY.

I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.

I JUST KNOW THAT WE HAVE SEVERAL SINGLE PROPERTY AUTHORIZED HEARINGS, WHICH I ALWAYS THOUGHT STOOD KIND OF IN A SEPARATE QUEUE OR COULD WEREN'T STUCK BEHIND THE IMPLEMENTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR AREA PLAN.

AM I RIGHT? WELL, I DON'T KNOW.

I GUESS I, I, THIS IS PROBABLY NEITHER HERE NOR THERE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY THE INTENT OF AN AUTHORIZED HEARING.

TYPICALLY, IT'S A CITY INITIATED PROCESS TO LOOK AT A LARGE AREA, BUT YES, WE DO SOMETIMES SEE SINGLE PROPERTIES THAT COULD PROBABLY BE ADDRESSED MORE QUICKLY THROUGH A PRIVATE ZONING APPLICATION, UM, ON SINGLE PROPERTIES.

BUT I'M GETTING OFF TOPIC HERE, SO I'M GONNA STOP .

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

TAKE US HOME, SIR.

UH, NOT TO BARGE IN ON YOUR CONVERSATION, BUT, UH, I, I, I JUST, IF, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THERE'S AT LEAST ONE AUTHORIZED HEARING THAT I'M AWARE OF THAT'S BEEN IN THE QUEUE NOW FOR OVER THREE YEARS AND DOESN'T HAVE ANY SIGN OF COMING UP ANYTIME SOON.

SO I, I, I DON'T THINK WE WANNA UNDERSELL THE DIFFICULTY OF, OF GOING THROUGH THAT AUTHORIZED HEARING PROCESS BECAUSE IT'S A, IT'S A LONG ROAD AND SOMEWHAT OF A BEATING.

UH, I'M, THAT'S MY IMPRESSION.

IS THAT NOT CORRECT? YEAH, IT, IT'S NOT A QUICK PROCESS.

AND IT DOES INVOLVE, EACH AUTHORIZED HEARING DOES INVOLVE A SERIES OF COMMUNITY MEETINGS.

SO IT'S, YEAH, IT'S NOT A TYPICALLY A QUICK OR EASY PROCESS, BUT IT IS A PROCESS THAT EXISTS AS A TOOL.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, BEFORE WE GO TO OUR SPEAKERS? OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. WADE.

ABSOLUTELY.

WONDERFUL JOB.

UH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE NOW READY TO HEAR FROM YOU.

UH, WE'RE GONNA GO WITH, WITH TWO MINUTES PER SPEAKER.

UH, MS. LOPEZ, WE'LL KEEP TIME AND WE'LL LET YOU KNOW.

I WILL PLEASE ASK YOU TO PLEASE BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

AND, UH, PLEASE COME ON DOWN.

THANK YOU FOR STAYING WITH US.

I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE CODE AMENDMENT PROPOSED, ESPECIALLY ON THE PART ABOUT ELIMINATING ALL PARKING MINIMUMS FROM THE BASE ZONING COMMENTS TO THE STAFF.

GOOD AFTERNOON, HEEL, COLORADO 15 0 9 DALLAS DISTRICT 14.

[03:35:01]

I WANNA SAY THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK.

PLEASE HOLD THE LINE, HOLD EACH OTHER, HOLD THE LINE ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS ONCE IN A LIFETIME CHANCE TO BUILD THE CITY THAT WE WANT, THAT WE DESERVE AND RESTORE WHAT WE HAVE LOST.

AND IT'S ON THIS TOPIC OF LOSS THAT I WANNA SPEAK TO THIS COMMISSION.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S THIS FEAR ABOUT LOSING, UH, PARKING SPACES, BUT IF, IF YOU THINK, IF YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT IS, IF YOU ARE, IF YOU ARE, IF YOU'RE IN A PARKING LOT THAT IS FULL, AND IT'S GETTING ABSOLUTELY USED BY EMPLOYEES AND CUSTOMERS, DON'T WORRY THAT'S NOT GONNA GO AWAY BECAUSE THOSE ARE PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY.

THEY HAVE A CHOICE.

AND THAT'S THE THING THAT WE HAVE LOCKED OUT OF THIS CITY, IS GIVING PEOPLE THAT CHOICE.

THERE SEEMS TO BE A MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT HOW THIS WORKS.

PARKING MINIMUMS. THEY DON'T CREATE A SITUATION WHERE IF YOU DON'T MEET THAT MINIMUM, YOU'RE JUST MAGICALLY ABLE TO PRODUCE IT.

IF YOU'RE A BUSINESS, IF YOU'RE A DAYCARE CENTER, IF YOU'RE A GROCER, IF YOU WANNA HAVE A CORNER BAKERY, IF YOU CANNOT PROVIDE THAT PARKING, YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO EXIST.

THAT IS THE SITUATION THAT WE HAVE CREATED.

AND WE HAVE A SITUATION TODAY WHERE THERE ARE FOOD DESERTS IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR AND ACROSS THE CITY.

WE HAVE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT TODAY.

WE HAVE BUSINESSES THAT ARE CLOSING TODAY BECAUSE, DIRECTLY BECAUSE OF THESE PARKING MINIMUMS, WE HAVE BUSINESSES IN OAK CLIFF THAT WANT TO GET STARTED, BUT THE DELAYED BY MONTHS OR NOT ALLOWED TO START AT ALL BECAUSE OF PARKING MINIMUMS. THESE ARE A PROBLEM TODAY.

WE CAN CHANGE THAT.

AND THIS IS NOT HOW THE CITY HAS ALWAYS BEEN.

THERE'S PEOPLE ALIVE TODAY WHO REMEMBER A TIME WHEN DALLAS WAS WALKABLE, THANK YOU.

WAS TRANSIT ORIENTED.

LET'S GET BACK TO THAT.

UH, MY NAME'S NATE MBY, AND I RESIDE AT 3 3 6 BECKLEY WOOD BOULEVARD IN DISTRICT FOUR.

THANKS FOR ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY.

UM, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF DALLAS NEIGHBORS FOR HOUSING AND THE DALLAS BIKE COALITION, UH, SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE OFF STREET PARKING CODE AMENDMENTS.

LISTEN, EVERYONE LOVES TO HATE ON DALLAS TRAFFIC.

IT'S LOUD.

DRIVERS ARE AGGRESSIVE, AND OUR ROADS, THEY'RE DOWNRIGHT DANGEROUS.

I TOOK I 35 FROM OAK CLIFF TO GET HERE.

IT'S CONSTANTLY NAMED ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS STRETCHES OF HIGHWAY IN THE COUNTRY, .

BUT DON'T GET ME WRONG, IN SPITE OF ALL THIS, I, I STILL ENJOY DRIVING MY CAR.

IT'S QUICK, IT'S CONVENIENT, AND IT'S RELIABLE BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THE CITY HAS BEEN BUILT.

BUT AS DALLAS CONTINUES TO GROW, WE NEED BETTER TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS THAN THE PREVIOUS GENERATION.

WE CAN'T SIMPLY BUILD BIGGER ROADS OR BUILD MORE CAR PARKING TO GET OUT OF OUR TRAFFIC PROBLEMS. ACCORDING TO THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS, NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, WE DON'T HAVE THE FUNDING OR THE SPACE TO MAKE OUR ROADS ANY BIGGER.

AND I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU TRAFFIC'S ALREADY A PROBLEM, RIGHT? AND WE'VE GOT 2 MILLION MORE RESIDENTS THAT ARE EXPECTED TO MOVE HERE IN THE NEXT TWO DECADES.

AND IF THAT'S GONNA BE THE CASE, WE'VE GOTTA CHANGE THE WAY PEOPLE ARE GETTING AROUND OUR CITY.

NOW, I KNOW THAT AN IMPROVEMENT TO PARKING MANDATES ISN'T A PANACEA.

IT'S NOT GONNA SOLVE ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS, BUT IT IS AN IMPORTANT NEXT STEP, AND IT HAS TO GO HAND IN HAND WITH INCREASING INVESTMENT IN DART BIKE INFRASTRUCTURE AND SIDEWALKS SO THAT EVENTUALLY SLOWLY OVER TIME, TRANSIT, BIKING, AND WALKING BECOME A SAFE AND CONVENIENT ALTERNATIVE TO DRIVING.

I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THESE AMENDMENTS AND HELP PAVE THE WAY FOR A MORE AFFORDABLE, SUSTAINABLE, AND LIVABLE.

DALLAS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.

UNSCIENTIFIC AND FRANKLY, ARBITRARY REGULATIONS AS THE BURDENS ON BUSINESSES AND HOUSING THAT THEY ARE.

HI THERE.

UH, MY NAME IS ALEXANDER DUNN.

UH, I LIVE IN DISTRICT NINE, UH, 55 55 AMESBURY DRIVE.

UH, I'M SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE AMENDMENTS AS PROPOSED BY ZAC TO ELIMINATE, UH, PARKING MINIMUMS. UM, UH, AND I WANNA THANK THE STAFF FOR THEIR DILIGENT WORK ON THIS REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE.

UH, I JUST WANT TO KIND OF, UH, YOU KNOW, ADDRESS SOME, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I HEARD, UH, TODAY AS Y'ALL WERE, UM, YOU KNOW, INQUIRING ABOUT, ABOUT THESE CHANGES.

UM, AND THROUGHOUT THIS COMMENT, YOU MIGHT NOTE MY USE OF THE PHRASE PARKING MANDATE RATHER THAN MINIMUM.

UH, THIS IS BECAUSE I WISH TO MORE ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THESE ANTIQUATED,

[03:40:01]

SO, UH, ON THE TOPIC OF, OF HOUSING AFFORDABILITY, PARKING MANDATES REDUCE HOUSING SUPPLY BY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF THE PARCEL THAT CAN BE USED FOR HOUSING.

UM, SO THIS, YOU KNOW, NATURALLY, YOU KNOW, SUPPLY AND DEMAND, WE ALL LEARNED IT AT ECONOMICS 1 0 1.

IT DOESN'T GO AWAY JUST IN HOUSING.

UM, IF YOU CAN'T BUILD AS MUCH HOUSING, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE LESS HOUSING.

THE, THE AMOUNT OF HOUSING THAT'S DEMANDED IS STILL HIGH, AND SO THE PRICES ARE GONNA GO UP.

UM, THIS DISPORT DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTS LOW INCOME HOUSING, HOUSING HOUSEHOLDS, UM, ESPECIALLY THE ONES WHO ARE CAR FREE, BECAUSE THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY HAVING TO PAY FOR PARKING THAT THEY'RE NOT USING, UH, IN THEIR, IN THEIR RENT.

UM, THIS CAN REALLY BE THOUGHT OF ESSENTIALLY AS A ANYWHERE FROM BETWEEN LIKE A FIVE TO A 20% TAX ON, ON THESE HOUSEHOLDS.

UM, UH, PARKING MANDATES DO NOT IMPROVE ACCESSIBILITY.

UH, ON THE CONTRARY, CAR DEPENDENT INFRASTRUCTURE IS THE LEAST ACCESSIBLE OF ALL IN INFRASTRUCTURES.

UH, AND ELIMINATING PARKING MANDATES IS A NECESSARY FIRST STEP TO BUILDING A BETTER, GREENER, MORE TRANSIT FRIENDLY, BIKE FRIENDLY, AND ULTIMATELY HUMAN FRIENDLY CITY.

UM, AND THAT'S WHAT I REALLY WANNA BRING THIS BACK TO IS WHO ARE WE BUILDING DALLAS FOR? ARE WE BUILDING DALLAS FOR FORD MOTOR COMPANY, GGMC? ARE WE BUILDING IT FOR, FOR SUBARU? ARE WE BUILDING IT FOR, FOR CHEVY, OR ARE WE BUILDING IT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE? UH, WE DEVOTE SO MUCH SPACE TO STORING PRIVATE VEHICLES.

WE SHOULD BE USING THAT SPACE FOR US.

IT IS NOT, IT DOESN'T OH, PERFECT.

UH, HI.

I AM ZACH BURKE FROM DISTRICT 12, AND I WANTED TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF REMOVING THESE, UH, PARKING MANDATES.

UM, I LIVE IN AN AREA THAT IS, UH, FAIRLY CLOSE.

WELL, FIRST OFF, I THINK MOST PEOPLE THINK OF SUBURBS, LIKE PEOPLE DON'T WANNA WALK AROUND OR WALK TO THE LOCATIONS THEY GET TO.

PEOPLE WALK AROUND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I LIVE IN, UM, EVERYWHERE EXCEPT TO BUSINESSES ACROSS THE STREET FROM THESE, UH, ACROSS THIS HIGH SPEED TRAFFIC, PRESTON GOING ACROSS THESE STRIP MALLS, WALKING THESE CRAZY LONG DISTANCES TO GET TO THESE DIFFERENT BUSINESSES.

THESE BUSINESSES DIDN'T HAVE A, HAVE A CHOICE IN HOW THEY WANTED TO MAKE THE PARKING, UM, THEIR CURRENT PARKING SITUATION.

IT WASN'T UP TO THE MARKET TO DECIDE THAT THE, UH, THE LAW THESE MANDATES FORCED THEM INTO THAT POSITION.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE DO.

AND NOW WE'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE TO DRIVE, UM, WHAT, LIKE A THOUSAND, UH, A THOUSAND FEET TO GET TO YOUR DESTINATION TO GO PICK SOMETHING UP.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NATURALLY LEADS TO HEAVY CONGESTION AND SOMETHING THAT I'D LIKE TO SEE POTENTIALLY REDUCED.

UM, I THINK WE'VE HEARD ENOUGH ABOUT HOW PARKING MINIMUMS INCREASE THE HOUSING PRICES.

UM, THEY, THEY COST AN ADDITIONAL THREE TO $6,000 PER SPACE, AND THAT'S A TAX ON THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING, UH, GOING WITHOUT A CAR.

UM, I THINK IN A, UH, WITH DALLAS HAVING A SHORTAGE OF, WHAT IS IT, 60,000 HOUSES SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE, THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT COULD EASILY GIVE US ROOM TO, UH, HELP WITH THAT.

AND THAT'S EVERYTHING I GOT.

HELLO.

UH, MY NAME IS GARRETT PINNELL.

UM, ADDRESS IS 1 0 6 4 0 STEPTON DRIVE IN NORTH DALLAS, DISTRICT 11.

UM, I WANNA THANK THE CITY STAFF AND THE COMMISSION FOR ALL THE HARD WORK THAT YOU ARE ALL DOING.

UH, IT'S AN IMPORTANT ISSUE.

UM, SO I'M A RESIDENT AND I'M SOMEONE WHO DRIVES AND RELIES ON PARKING TO BE AVAILABLE.

UM, BUT I FULLY SUPPORT THIS CODE AMENDMENT AND I ALSO, UH, TAKE TRANSIT.

I BIKE TO GET PLACES, AND I WANNA HAVE MORE CHOICE IN HOW I MOVE AROUND MY CITY.

UM, I APPRECIATED THE DISCUSSION EARLIER, UM, ABOUT THE QUALITATIVE IMPACT OF BUSINESS.

WE ARE LOSING BUSINESS, UM, IN SOME CASES BECAUSE THERE'S TOO MUCH PARKING.

I'M THINKING ABOUT, UH, PARK LANE STATION, WALNUT HILL STATION, FOREST LANE STATION, TRAIN STATIONS WHERE, YOU KNOW, YOU GET OFF AND YOU HAVE TO WALK ACROSS A HALF MILE OF PARKING JUST TO GET TO THE NEAREST BUSINESS.

UM, I WOULD LOVE IT IF I DIDN'T HAVE TO DO THAT.

UM, REDUCING THE LAND DEDICATED TO PARKING IS A REQUIREMENT TO INCREASE OUR TAX BASE.

OUR CITY IS FACING EXTREME FINANCIAL CHALLENGES.

UM, IN MY OPINION, WE CAN'T AFFORD TO DEDICATE TOO MUCH, UH, THIS MUCH LAND TO SUCH AN UNPRODUCTIVE LAND USE.

AND FINALLY, THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT TRANSIT BEING ABLE TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE.

ONE OF THE PRIMARY REASONS THAT DALLAS RESIDENTS DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO QUALITY PUBLIC TRANSIT IS BECAUSE THE PARKING MANDATES RESULT IN LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT THAT CAN'T BE FEASIBLY SERVED BY TRANSIT.

SO ELIMINATING THESE PARKING MINI, UH, PARKING MANDATES IS A CRITICAL STEP TO IMPROVING ACCESS TO TRANSIT IN DALLAS.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH.

[03:45:01]

MY NAME IS ADAM MURPHY.

UH, ADDRESS IS 3 4 3 5 DICKSON AVENUE IN DALLAS.

I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE OAKLAWN COMMITTEE, AND THE OAKLAWN COMMITTEE RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATING OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING IN OUR CITY, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OF CHAPTER 51, A CHAPTER 51 AND 51 A OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND THE INTRODUCTION OF A TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND AN AN OFF STREET PARKING DESIGN STANDARDS UPDATE UP OFF STREET PARKING DESIGN STANDARDS.

WE ARE GRATEFUL IN PD 1 93 THAT WE ARE EXCLUDED CURRENTLY FROM THE PROPOSED CHANGES.

PD 1 93 IS A VIBRANT AND THRIVING AREA, ATTRACTING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF INVESTMENT AND PROJECTS, UH, THAT COME BEFORE THIS BODY.

AND, UM, WE, WE, WE THINK THAT IS DUE TO THE EXCEPT EXCEPTIONAL QUALITY OF LIFE AND THE CAREFULLY CURATED, UH, URBAN ENVIRONMENT.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT PD, PD 1 93 ALREADY OPERATES WITH REDUCED PARKING MINIMUMS. AND, UH, MAKING THESE REGULATIONS EVEN MORE CRITICAL TO MAINTAINING A BALANCE BETWEEN ACCESSIBILITY AND PRESERVING THE UNIQUE CHARACTER, UM, IN PD 1 93 WITH THESE ALREADY REDUCED PARKING SPACES AT A PREMIUM, THESE STANDARDS ARE ESSENTIAL TO MEETING THE NEEDS OF OUR RESIDENTS, UH, BUSINESSES AND VISITORS ALIKE ALIKE.

BY UPHOLDING THESE REGULATIONS IN PD 1 93, WE CAN CONTINUE TO PROMOTE RESPONSIBLE GROWTH, REDUCE CONGESTION, AND PROTECT THE UNIQUE QUALITY OF LIFE THAT MAKES PD 1 93 1 OF DALLAS'S MOST DESIRED NEIGHBORHOODS.

WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE WITH THE CITY CPC AND STAFF ON THESE CRITICAL ISSUES AND LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUED COLLABORATION TO ENSURE A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

ALRIGHT, GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS ANDY BARTLES AT 3 8 1 6 ROSELAND AVENUE.

UH, I'M HERE SPEAKING TODAY BECAUSE I HAVE SIGNED A LEASE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IN GAS GASTON AVENUE, UH, FOR A GENERAL MERCHANDISE SPORTING GOODS STORE.

AND I AM UNABLE TO OPEN BECAUSE OF CURRENT PARKING REQUIREMENTS, EVEN THOUGH MY BUILDING HAS, UH, 18 SPACES, WHICH WOULD BE MORE THAN ENOUGH TO SERVICE MY BUSINESS.

UH, THIS BUILDING WAS BUILT IN 1970 AND AGAIN, WITH 18 SPACES, AND I'VE BEEN TRYING FOR MONTHS TO GET A PARKING AGREEMENT WITH NEIGHBORS, BUT HAVE BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL.

SO LIFTING THIS PARKING REQUIREMENT WILL ALLOW PEOPLE LIKE ME TO OPEN BUSINESSES AND USE EXISTING BUILDINGS AS THEY STAND AND LIFTING THE PARKING, UH, REQUIREMENT WILL HAVE AN IMMEDIATE AND POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE AREA FROM THE SMALL BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE AS WELL AS, UH, TAX REVENUE STANDPOINT.

MY NAME IS MARK ISHMAEL.

I LIVE AT 1655 GRIGSBY AVENUE IN DISTRICT TWO.

AND I'D LIKE TO THANK Y'ALL AND STAFF FOR THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE TOWARDS MAKING DALLAS A BETTER CITY THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND SHARE WITH YOU MY THOUGHTS ON THE PROPOSED PARKING CODE AMENDMENTS.

I'M ENCOURAGED BY THE UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO PROPOSE THE REDUCTION OF ALL REQUIRED PARKING MINIMUMS IN CHAPTERS 51 A AND 51 TO NONE WHILE REMOVING PARKING MINIMUMS WON'T GET RID OF OUR ALREADY OVERBUILT PARKING.

AND IT'S NOT A, UH, PANACEA FOR ALL OF DALLAS'S ISSUES.

IT WILL WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER CITY POLICIES TO MOVE THE NEEDLE ON A WIDE RANGE OF DALLAS'S STATED GOALS REGARDING TRANSPORTATION, CLIMATE, STREET SAFETY, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND HOUSING.

REMOVING PARKING MINIMUMS WILL OVER TIME YIELD A MORE WALKABLE, UH, HUMAN SCALED URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND IMPROVE, UH, THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL RESIDENTS.

REDUCED PAVEMENT WILL REDUCE THE URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT MAKING A HOT CITY MORE LIVABLE YEAR ROUND.

BUSINESSES WILL NO LONGER FACE UNWORKABLE PARKING BURDENS WHEN TRYING TO OCCUPY SMALLER, OLDER BUILDINGS, WHICH HAS BEEN A WELL DOCUMENTED ISSUE IN DALLAS AND HOUSING DEVELOP WILL BE ABLE TO DELIVER UNITS AT A LOWER COST BASIS, HELPING TO BOOST SUPPLY AND AFFORDABILITY FOR RESIDENTS.

UH, THIS ADDITIONAL DENSITY AND THIS IN ADDITIONAL DENSITY OF HOUSING AND COMMERCE CAN CREATE A POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP IN THE CITY, UH, WHICH WOULD BE A FAR CRY FROM THE PROSPECT OF AUSTERITY INTEGRATED SERVICES DALLAS FACES.

DUE TO OUR UNFUNDED PENSION OBLIGATIONS, OUR INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE, UH, BILLS, AND OUR STAFFING OBLIGATIONS, UH, MORE PRODUCTIVE LAND USE WILL YIELD HIGHER TAX REVENUES, ALLOWING BETTER CITY SERVICES ACROSS THE BOARD, INCLUDING FOR DART, UH, WHICH RELIES ON SALES TAX REVENUE.

UH, IT COULD EVEN LONG TERM HELP DART SECURE FEDERAL GRANTS FOR, UH, TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH TAKE INTO ACCOUNT RIDERSHIP ALONG ROUTES.

LIKE SOMEONE ELSE SAID, WE HAVE A LOW DENSITY BUILT ENVIRONMENT, AND

[03:50:01]

THAT IS WHY WE HAVE.

YOUR TIME IS UP IN INADEQUATE TRANSIT.

MY NAME IS JANUARY FOX.

MY ADDRESS IS 3 9 0 0 JUTH STREET, AND TODAY I'M REPRESENTING PRISM HEALTH NORTH TEXAS.

UH, PRISM HEALTH NORTH TEXAS IS A SYSTEM OF NONPROFIT COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS WITH FIVE MEDICAL CLINICS, THREE DENTAL CLINICS, AND THREE PHARMACIES ACROSS DALLAS, INCLUDING OAK CLIFF, SOUTH DALLAS, OAK LAWN, OLD EAST DALLAS, AND FARMER'S BRANCH.

ON AUGUST FOUR, FIRST, 2024, PH NTX BECAME A FEDERALLY QUALIFIED HEALTHCARE CENTER, WHICH ALLOWS US TO EXPAND PRIMARY CARE SERVICES TO A BROADER POPULATION IN TRADITIONALLY UNDERSERVED AREAS.

THE CURRENT PARKING CODE REQUIRES MEDICAL CLINICS TO HAVE FIVE PARKING SPACES PER 1000 SQUARE FEET.

A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT CLINIC WOULD NEED TO HAVE 50 PARKING SPACES, WHICH LIMITS OUR REAL ESTATE OPTIONS.

OUR CLIENTS RELY HEAVILY ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND PROXIMITY TO A BUS OR RAIL STOP IS PARAMOUNT.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE ALSO MUST CONSIDER EXCESSIVE PARKING THAT GOES LARGELY UNUSED AND CREATES AN, AND CREATES AN UNNECESSARY FINANCIAL BURDEN THAT COULD OTHERWISE BE PUT BACK INTO PATIENT CARE.

FOR EXAMPLE, OUR OAK CLIFF CLINIC SAW 2,451 UNDUPLICATED CLIENTS LAST YEAR WITH A TOTAL OF 8,012 VISITS.

THE BUILDING IS APPROXIMATELY 20,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH MEANS WE HAVE A PARKING LOT ACROSS THE STREET WITH OVER 50 SPACES THAT ARE RARELY IF EVER USED.

WE HAVE BEEN FORCED INTO THE PARKING LOT BUSINESS OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS.

WE HAVE HAD TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INSURANCE SECURITY AND MAINTENANCE TO THE TUNE OF $728 PER MONTH AT ONE LOCATION, WHICH ONCE AGAIN COULD HAVE BEEN PUT BACK INTO PATIENT CARE AND PROGRAMS. IN A WORLD WHERE HEALTHCARE COSTS ARE INCREASINGLY EXPENSIVE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE SEARCHING FOR HIGH QUALITY, AFFORDABLE OPTIONS, THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS CREATE AN UNNECESSARY BURDEN.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU TO FIND A SOLUTION THAT SERVES EVERYONE, AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE.

GOOD AFTERNOON, JOSHUA.

I'M WITH SUNRISE MOVEMENT DALLAS.

UH, MY ADDRESS IS 31 14 BUCK NORTH STREET.

UM, AND ONE OF THE REASONS WANTED TO COME HERE AND SPEAK IN FAVOR OF ELIMINATING PARKING MANDATES IS A PART OF OUR MANDATE AS THE SUNRISE MOVEMENT OF THINKING ABOUT ACCESSIBLE, WALKABLE, AFFORDABLE GREEN CITIES.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE HEARD MENTIONED MULTIPLE TIMES IS WHEN WE THINK ABOUT EVEN BUSINESSES, IF YOU ELIMINATE THE IDEA OF THINKING ABOUT PARKING AND PUT THE BUSINESS FIRST, AND PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS THAT PEOPLE CAN GET TO THE BUSINESS WITHOUT NEEDING A PARKING LOT, WITHOUT A PARKING STRUCTURE.

AND IN ADDITION TO THE ADDITIONAL CONCRETE BEING BUILT, WE'RE CREATING ADDITIONAL HEALTH CRISIS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, WHICH YOU'VE HEARD EARLIER PEOPLE TALK ABOUT IS GONNA BE AN ADDITIONAL 2 MILLION PEOPLE.

WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO GO? NOT ONLY WHERE ARE THEY GONNA GO, WHAT ARE THEY GONNA BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO DO? SO WHEN WE THINK ABOUT ELIMINATING PARKING MANDATES AND WE THINKING ABOUT THAT ADDITIONAL CONCRETE, WHAT COULD BE THAT? OR WE THINK ABOUT LAND USE, IS THIS A HOME, IS THIS AN INCREASE OF PUBLIC TRANSIT? LIKE WHAT'S MENTIONED EARLIER? THEN PEOPLE STILL HAVE ACCESS TO THE THINGS THAT THEY NEED, THINGS BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO DRIVE SOMEWHERE, THEN THAT FORCES YOUR LOCAL AREA TO PROVIDE THE BUSINESS THAT MEETS YOUR NEED.

SO IF WE CAN START TO THINK LESS ABOUT THE NEED OR USE FOR CARS AND ELIMINATE THIS PARKING MANDATES, THEN WE CAN START TO THINK ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE FIRST NEED AND HAVE OUR NEEDS MET IN A WALKABLE, MORE ACCESSIBLE CITY.

BUT WE AS THE YOUTH OF THE CITY, NEED YOU TO BE BRAVE AND NEED YOU TO ENVISION A BETTER DALLAS THAT'S ACTUALLY ABLE TO KEEP UP WITH THE NEEDS OF ITS PEOPLE.

UM, HI, MY NAME IS IMAN.

I LIVE AT 3 48 WATERVIEW DRIVE.

I'M WITH THE SUNRISE MOVEMENT DALLAS.

UM, AND I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF LITTLE BUREAUCRATIC THINGS YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER WITH THIS PROPOSAL.

I JUST WANNA ZOOM OUT FOR A SECOND.

THE CITY OF DALLAS IS FACING, YOU KNOW, I GREW UP HERE AND IT'S FACING REALLY CRUSHING EXISTENTIAL FUTURE ISSUES.

UM, I THINK JUST TODAY WE WERE KICKED OFF OF THE LIST OF TOP THREE ECONOMIES IN THE NATION BECAUSE OF OUR HOUSING CRISIS.

WE'RE FACING INCREASING HEAT WAVES THAT ARE GETTING WORSE YEAR AFTER YEAR.

AND THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT OF HAVING A QUARTER OF DOWNTOWN DALLAS BE PARKING IS NOT HELPING WITH THOSE HEAT WAVES.

WE'RE ALSO FACING A REALLY, UM, SPARSE AND, UH, INADEQUATE TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR THE RATE THAT OUR CITY IS GROWING AT.

SO IT'S ALWAYS, UM, DIFFICULT TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE VOTES AND MAKE CHOICES THAT CHANGE IN EXISTING SYSTEM,

[03:55:01]

HI, MY NAME IS MADDIE CALDWELL AND I LIVE AT 51 40 AMESBURY DRIVE, 7 5 2 0 6.

RIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS THIS YEAR, MY GRANDFATHER DIED UNEXPECTEDLY OR AS UNEXPECTEDLY AS AN 80 SOMETHING LIFELONG SMOKER CAN DIE.

MY GRANDFATHER WAS NEVER A PARTICULARLY MOBILE MAN.

TECHNICALLY HE WAS SIX FOOT THREE, BUT I ONLY EVER SAW HIM HUNCHED OVER A WALKER OR A CANE.

HE WAS DRAFTED INTO VIETNAM AT 18.

THERE HE WAS SHOT IN THE ELBOW OF THE KNEE.

AND LASTLY, THE HEART.

THE BULLET WAS STOPPED BY A ZIPPO LIGHTER IN HIS BREAST POCKET.

WHEN I ASKED HIM WHAT HE THOUGHT IN THAT MOMENT, HE SAID, I DON'T THINK I'LL EVER QUIT SMOKING.

A YEAR AGO, MY MOM MADE THE HEARTBREAKING DECISION TO MOVE MY GRANDPARENTS OUT OF THEIR HOUSE AND INTO A MORE WALKABLE AREA OF THEIR SMALL TOWN.

THEY HAD BEEN ROTTING IN THEIR SUBURBAN HOME.

THEY COULD NOT DRIVE, SO THEY DID NOT HAVE A SOCIAL LIFE.

THEIR LIFE WAS CONFINED AND DEFINED BY MO MILES OF EMPTY PARKING SPACES IN THEIR NEW HOME.

THERE WERE NO EMPTY LOTS BETWEEN THEM AND THEIR NEIGHBORS.

THEY PLAYED CARDS WITH FRIENDS REGULARLY.

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES, THEY STOPPED SPENDING ALL DAY IN FRONT OF A TELEVISION SCREEN.

AND ON MY GRANDFATHER'S LAST DAY ON THIS EARTH, HE HOBBLED OUTSIDE TO SHARE A SMOKE WITH A NEIGHBOR.

HE MADE BROWNIES, HE HELPED HIS FRIENDS, WATER PLANTS, AND THERE WERE NO EMPTY PARKING SPOTS BETWEEN HIM AND THE BENCH WHERE HE SPENT HIS LAST HOURS THE NEXT MORNING.

THERE WERE NO EMPTY PARKING SPOTS BETWEEN HIM AND THE NEIGHBOR WHO GAVE HIM CPR UNTIL HIS HEART RESTARTED.

AND NOW NO SPACES STAND BETWEEN MY GRANDMOTHER AND HER FRIENDS AT THE DOG PARK WHO HOLD HER THROUGH THIS LOSS.

IT IS EASY TO IMAGINE THIS CITY AS A COLLECTION OF CONVENIENT PARKING SPOTS OF PEOPLE, NOT OF PEOPLE, BUT OF STATISTICS.

BUT WE ARE ALL PEOPLE IN THIS CITY, AND IF WE ARE LUCKY, WE WILL LEAVE LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO BE OLD ENOUGH AND CROTTY ENOUGH TO NOT BE ABLE TO DRIVE.

AND WE WILL NEED A WALKABLE, DENSE CITY TO HOLD US THEN TO GIVE US COMMUNITY AND DENSITY TO THRIVE.

BUILD A CITY FOR PEOPLE, NOT PAVEMENT AND PARKING MANDATES.

HI, MY NAME IS CHANCE.

I'M WITH, UH, SUNRISE MOVEMENT.

UH, AND I JUST WANT TO SHARE A LITTLE PERSONAL STORY ABOUT A FRIEND OF MINE NAMED CAESAR.

UH, I MET HIM, UH, AT, UH, SPECIFICALLY ELM AND LAMAR.

WE WERE BASICALLY GOING TO OPPOSITE ENDS OF DOWNTOWN DALLAS FOR WORK.

I, AS A TOUR GUIDE HIM AS A LINE COOK, AND, UH, BOTH OF US FOUND OUT BOTH NEITHER OF US COULD DRIVE, UH, FOR MEDICAL REASONS, ME EPILEPSY HIM, UH, DUE TO BEING PARTIALLY BLIND.

AND SO WE KIND OF CONNECTED OVER THAT.

UH, HE WOULD ALWAYS HAVE A TIN OF SALT AND LIME PEANUTS WITH HIM THAT HE LOVED TO SHARE WITH ME, AND VERY TASTY, REALLY ENJOYED IT.

UH, HE ALSO HAD A REALLY, UH, VERY SMOOTH BARET TONE VOICE, AND I HEARD HIM SINGING ONE TIME.

I WAS LIKE, WE GOTTA GO TO KARAOKE.

WE GOTTA GO TO KARAOKE TOGETHER.

AND WE DID.

WE SUNG, UH, UH, WITH ARMS WIDE OPEN BY CREED.

IT'S FANTASTIC.

I LOVED IT.

AND, UH, WE BOTH LOVED SHARING STORIES ABOUT DALLAS HISTORY.

AGAIN, I WAS TOUR GUIDE, SO THAT WAS SOMETHING I WAS A LITTLE FLU IN.

WE, AMONG MANY, UH, STORIES THAT WE WOULD SHARE, WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE VERY RELEVANT TODAY.

WE TALKED ABOUT THE TREES OF DALLAS THAT WE USED TO SEE, THE COMMUNITIES WE USED TO HAVE, AND OF COURSE, LESS TRAFFIC.

UH, HIS HEALTH BEGAN DETERIORATE, DETERIORATING ABOUT 10 MONTHS AGO AS, UH, I WOULD FIND OUT RENT WAS GOING UP IN OAK CLIFF WHERE HE OWNED A SMALL HOME.

HE COULD NOT KEEP A CONSISTENT JOB, UNFORTUNATELY, DUE TO THE STRESS, AND, UH, UNFORTUNATELY HAD TO START BUYING JUST REGULAR SALTED PEANUTS, WHICH WERE NOT AS GOOD.

UH, HE EVENTUALLY, EIGHT MONTHS AGO, WOULD LOSE HIS SMALL HOME, UH, WHEN THE LOAN LAND LANDOWNER EVICTED HIM AS HE COULD NO LONGER AFFORD TO LIVE THERE.

THEY WERE BUILDING MORE HOMES AND APARTMENTS NEARBY, DRIVING UP RENT, AND HE WOULD EVENTUALLY LEARN FROM A NEARBY NEIGHBOR WHO WAS ALSO LOSING THEIR HOUSE, THAT THEIR HOUSES WERE GONNA BE REPLACED WITH PARKING LOTS.

HE GAVE ME A LETTER AS A GOODBYE, AND I WOULD, UH, SEE HIM TAKING THE LAST BUS THE LAST TIME I SAW HIM TO A GRAY HOUSE NEARBY.

WHOLLY BY PARKING DESIGN RATHER THAN THE PROJECT'S TRUE INTENDED.

MY NAME'S SAMUEL MORTIMER.

UM, I'M AN ARCHITECT OPERATE A SMALL PRACTICE HERE IN TOWN.

I'VE BEEN DESIGNING SITE PLANS FOR CITY OF DALLAS PARKING AND LOADING APPLIANCE SINCE I MOVED TO THE CITY IN 2013.

UH, I'VE BEEN HERE WITH YOU ALL AFTERNOON, SITTING UP THERE DRAWING A PARKING LOT ON MY COMPUTER.

WHILE I LISTEN TO THIS DISCUSSION.

UH, I WORK WITH THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE NEARLY EVERY DAY.

I REGULARLY SEE PROJECTS SHAPED ALMOST

[04:00:01]

USE PLACES TO LIVE, PLACES TO RECREATE NEAT PLACE TO WORSHIP, TO CARE FOR EACH OTHER, FOR RESIDENTS TO GROW THEIR BUSINESSES AND THEIR FUTURE IN THE CITY.

I'M SUPPORTIVE OF REFORMS THAT AIM TO MODERNIZE OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS.

EXCESSIVE PARKING MINIMUMS ARE AN IMPEDIMENT TO DEVELOPMENT.

THEY DRIVE UP COSTS, THEY CONSUME VALUABLE LAND AND OVERALL DISCOURAGE DIVERSE HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

AS NOTED IN THE STAFF BRIEFING, THE PROPOSAL IS NOT A SILVER BULLET.

UH, IT WILL NOT CHANGE OUR URBAN FABRIC.

OVERNIGHT CONTEXT MATTERS.

THE PROPOSAL IS NOT PERFECT, AND INCREMENTAL CHANGE TAKES TIME, BUT LEANING THE DIRECTION WE WANT TO GO, DALLAS WILL BE BETTER POSITIONED TO MEET ITS LONG-TERM GOALS.

I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT STRONG FORWARD THINKING REFORMS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

CODE, AND YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SET US FREE.

MY NAME IS JENNIFER.

HI MOTO, 1 0 4 6 5 SINCLAIR AVENUE.

I'M HERE TODAY AS A RESIDENT.

UH, I WAS ON CITY STAFF THE LAST TIME THERE WAS A PARKING CODE AMENDMENT IN 2012.

THE IDEA OF ELIMINATING PARKING MINIMUMS WAS FLOATED FOR A BRIEF MOMENT IN ZAC, BUT WE WERE NOT READY FOR THAT YET.

THE BIKE PLAN WAS ONLY A YEAR OLD AT THAT POINT IN TIME, AND RIDESHARE WAS NOT AN ESTABLISHED INDUSTRY YET.

THE IDEA OF ELIMINATING PARKING MINIMUMS THEN WAS BOLD, BOLD, LIKE DALLAS'S LEADERSHIP AS THE FIRST MAJOR CITY IN 2008 TO ADOPT A GREEN BUILDING CODE AND CAP IN 2020.

THE IDEA OF LIMITING PARKING MINIMUMS TODAY IS NO LONGER BOLD.

THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING PARKING REGULATIONS IS TO LEAVE THE TRANSITION OF PRIORITIES FROM OUR BUILT ENVIRONMENT AWAY FROM THE ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF LAND THAT CARS REQUIRE.

THIS IS A SUPPORTIVE TOOL TOWARDS EFFORTS IN OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS AND ADOPTED CITY PLANS TO RESHAPE OUR COMMUNITIES, TO PRIORITIZE PEOPLE, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THE ENVIRONMENT INSTEAD OF CARS.

PARKING MINIMUMS ARE A STRONG FACTOR AND THE ABILITY TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OCCUPANCY.

OLDER BUILDINGS WITH DELTA CREDITS CAN BE MISMANAGED AND END UP WITHOUT VIABLE USES DUE TO PARKING.

THERE ARE MORE FURNITURE STORES ON PAPER THAN IN REALITY, AS A NECESSITY SOMETIMES TO MAKE PARKING PENCIL OUT.

VACANT STOREFRONTS THREATEN NEIGHBORHOOD STABILITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY.

CURRENT PARKING MINIMUMS CAUSE THE DEMO DEMOLITION OF OTHER STRUCTURES TO CREATE REMOTE PARKING SPACES ERODING THE NEIGHBORHOOD FABRIC.

NATIONAL DEVELOPERS HAVE PASSED ON NEW PROJECTS HERE BECAUSE DALLAS HAS CHOSEN NOT TO KEEP UP WITH NATIONAL TRENDS TO SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE OR ELIMINATE PARKING MINIMUMS. PLEASE SUPPORT THE, THE ELIMINATION OF PARKING MINIMUMS. THE SIMPLIFICATION OF THE TDMP PROGRAM.

I DO NOT ADVOCATE FOR THE DRIVEWAY OR PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY DESIGN STANDARDS, AND I SEE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

I ALSO CAUTION USING THE BUILDING AGE CRITERIA FOR PARKING REDUCTIONS, UM, BECAUSE IT'LL BE A BURDEN AT PERMITTING.

BRIAN TONY, 1500 PECOS STREET ON BEHALF OF THE DALLAS HOUSING COALITION.

ON OUR 291 MEMBERS REFLECTING THE ATTAINABLE HOUSING COMMUNITY HAVE GOT SOME GOOD NEWS AND SOME BAD NEWS.

THE BAD NEWS IS, LIKE A PREVIOUS SPEAKER MENTIONED, IN THE LAST THREE YEARS, WE'VE DROPPED FROM SIX TO EIGHT TO 19 STRONGEST ECONOMY IN THE COUNTRY.

WHY? BECAUSE OF OUR RISING HOUSING COSTS.

THE GOOD NEWS IS WE'VE GOTTEN ANTIDOTE.

A 2024 STUDY FOUND THAT PARKING REFORM ALONE CAN BOOST HOME BUILDING BY 40 TO 70% MORE THAN ANY OTHER LAND USE CHANGE COMBINED MORE THAN 80, MORE THAN ALLOWING MUL LARGER MULTIFAMILY BY TRANSIT WHEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAXIMIZE HOUSING INSTEAD OF PARKING BUILDINGS GET MORE HOMES BUILT, ARE MORE FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE AND HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF ACTUALLY GETTING BUILT.

WE UNDERSTAND THERE ARE CONCERNS, AND DALLAS IS NOT ALONE IN FACING THESE DOWN.

FIRST, THERE ARE MORE CARS ON THE ROAD BECAUSE WE INCENTIVIZE DRIVING, WHICH LEADS TO MORE TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CRASHES.

SECOND, WE SHOULD NOT BE HOARDING PUBLIC GOODS, WHICH ARE OUR ROADS, AND FOR ONLY CLASSES OF PEOPLE WHO CAN AFFORD TO DRIVE WHILE DEMONIZING OTHERS WHO CAN'T OR DON'T OWN A CAR LIKE I DO.

WE ALSO KNOW PARKING REQUIREMENTS HURT SMALL BUSINESSES AND DECREASE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY.

SOME ARGUE PARKING MINIMUMS SPREAD ACROSS EQUALLY, UH, DALLAS DRIVERS, BUT OF A CITY OF 1.2 MILLION.

NOT ALL DRIVE, AND THE COST OF PARKING IS BAKED INTO ALL OF OUR GOODS AND SERVICES SUFFERING UNDER THESE AUTHORITARIAN MANDATES ARE BLUNT INDU INSTRUMENTS IN DALLAS' DEVELOPMENT

[04:05:01]

THE MERCATUS CENTER AT GEORGE MASON KNOWS THAT PARKING MANDATES ADD TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO THE COST OF EACH DWELLING UNIT.

WHEN OPPONENTS SAY LOW INCOME PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR PARKING, THEY'RE MISSING THE CRUCIAL PART OF THAT PARKING BEING PASSED ALONG TO THE CONSUMER WHO HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO PAY FOR THE PARKING, EVEN IF THERE AREN'T USING IT.

WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF DOING AWAY WITH PARKING MANDATES CITYWIDE.

THERE ARE NARROW INTERVENTIONS THAT CAN BE FOUND IN TRANSIT, RICH, MULTIFAMILY, AND MIXED USE AREAS.

SERIOUSLY, PLEASE CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT WE CONTINUE TO REQUIRE THIS LESS THAN OPTIMAL USE OF MONEY OR SPACE WHEN WE CAN BE PROVIDING MORE AFFORDABILITY FOR ALL.

ARE, WE'RE REALLY GONNA LOOK AT OUR DATA.

DOLORES LEE ROKA, 48 22 SWISS AVENUE IN PEAK SUBURBAN EDITION, HISTORIC DISTRICT AND DALLAS PARKING MINIMUMS MAY INDEED BE OUTDATED, BUT THAT'S NO REASON TO ELIMINATE THEM ENTIRELY REDUCED PARKING REQUIREMENTS INCREMENTALLY AND IN AREAS THAT HAVE MORE THAN AMPLE TRANSIT, RATHER THAN TAKING A CITYWIDE APPROACH.

LET'S FACE IT.

DALLAS IS A CAR-CENTRIC CITY.

DALLAS DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

I'VE LIVED IN CITIES THAT DID, AND GUESS WHAT? I DID NOT DRIVE A VEHICLE.

I DID HAVE A MOTORCYCLE, BUT THAT WAS ONLY WHEN I WANTED TO GO OUTTA TOWN.

ELIMINATING PARKING MINIMUMS WILL NOT REDUCE DEPENDENCIES ON AUTOMOBILES DESPITE CLAIMS. TO THE CONTRARY, DALLASITE DEPEND ON THEIR CARS FOR MANY REASONS AND ENJOY THE MOBILITY FREEDOM VEHICLES PROVIDE.

RIGHT NOW, THE ONLY THING I CAN POSSIBLY DO FOR MY HOME IS GO DOWNTOWN.

AND I DON'T HAVE BUSINESS DOWNTOWN.

MY BUSINESS IS OUT.

IT'S IN RICHARDSON, IT'S IN PLANO.

PLACES THAT I NEED TO GO ARE NOT DOWNTOWN.

MY NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS ARE ALREADY CONGESTED.

PLUS, WE SUFFER FROM OVERFLOW, OVERFLOW PARKING FROM COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES ON GASTON AVENUE, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE.

I HAVE TO PUT A CAR ON THE STREET TO PRESERVE SPACE FOR TRASH AND RECYCLE PICKUP EVERY WEEK.

WE ARE ALWAYS DEALING WITH TRAFFIC.

AND IF I HAVE A VISITOR, I HAVE TO PUT MY CAR ON THE STREET AND HAVE 'EM TELL ME, HEY, I'M COMING TO SEE YOU, SO I WILL PULL IN THE DRIVEWAY WHEN THEY SHOW UP.

PLEASE DEVELOP AN INCREMENTAL APPROACH THAT CAREFULLY CONSIDERS APPROPRIATE PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE MOBILITY AND A QUALITY OF LIFE YOUNG AND OLD DALLASITE DESERVE.

WE'VE BEEN LISTENING TO YOU HEAR THE PRESENTATIONS ON.

ALAN TAFT.

79 24 GLEN WAY DRIVE DALLAS.

AND THIS AFTERNOON, I'M REPRESENTING THE VERY SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE CITY OF DALLAS.

WE HAVE NO TRANSIT.

WE HAVE NO BUS SERVICE.

WE HAVE NO DART SERVICE.

THE CLOSEST GROCERY STORE IS FOUR MILES AWAY, SO YOU CAN PEDAL YOUR BIKE THERE, BUT IT'S ALL UPHILL.

GRANTED, COMING HOME IS EASIER DOWNHILL, BUT IT'S STILL IN ACCEPTABLE TO SAY THAT WE CAN DO WITHOUT ANY PARKING REGULATIONS.

ONE SIZE DOESN'T FIT THE WHOLE CITY OF DALLAS.

WE NEEDED IN INCREMENTS, OR WE NEEDED IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN MY PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF US IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD LAST YEAR ALONE, WE GOT AN, WE GOT 900 NEW APARTMENT UNITS BUILT IN OUR NECK OF THE WOODS.

THEY HAVE NO TRANSIT, NO BUS SERVICE.

THEY DON'T HAVE A CHOICE.

THEY HAVE TO DRIVE OR THEY DON'T GET OUT.

WE ALSO HAVE THE GREAT EXPERIENCE OF HAVING A RENTER, OR I HAVE A GREAT EXPERIENCE OF HAVING A RENTER WHO LIVES NEXT DOOR IN A THREE BEDROOM HOUSE, AND THEY HAVE SIX VEHICLES BECAUSE EACH OF THEIR HIGH SCHOOL BOYS HAVE A TRUCK.

SO WE FIGHT THAT BATTLE EVERY DAY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS TOO, THAT IF YOU, YOU ALLOW FOR ONE PARKING IN THE, IN THE DRIVEWAY AND ONE ON THE STREET, THE OTHER FOUR, WHICH WE FIGHT WITH OUR NEIGHBORS EVERY DAY IS WHERE THEY PARK THOSE OTHER FOUR VEHICLES.

SO ONE SIZE IS A GOOD FIT ALL.

AND I KNOW THAT'S A BATTLE YOU'VE BEEN FACING ALL DAY, AND

[04:10:01]

WE KNOW THIS IS NOT AN EASY ISSUE, BUT PLEASE DON'T PAINT ALL OF DALLAS WITH ONE BRUSH.

AFTERNOON.

UH, RONNIE MEUS, 32 15 RUSH STREET, LOSA WEST DALLAS, TEXAS.

UM, THERE'S THE TECHNICAL PART OF THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED EXPERTLY, UH, BY ONE OF OUR, OUR, UH, COMMISSIONERS.

AND, UH, THIS, THIS PARKING ISSUE IS GONNA HAVE AN UN UN, UH, AN EFFECT ON NEIGHBORS, UM, BATTLING EACH OTHER FOR PARKING SPACES.

UH, WE'VE BEEN COMPARED TO, UH, SEATTLE, THAT I HEARD THE, THE LITTLE BIT THAT I COULD MAKE OF WHAT I, BECAUSE I COULDN'T HEAR HALF OF WHAT THE OTHER GENTLEMAN WAS SAYING.

UM, CHICAGO.

I LIVED IN CHICAGO A LONG TIME.

UH, TRANSIT WAS EXCELLENT.

YOU COULD GET FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER WINTER TIME, YOU HAD TO PUT A PATIO FURNITURE OR SOME KIND OF CHAIR OR SOMETHING TO RESERVE YOUR PARKING SPACE.

SO THAT WOULD TRANSLATE TO TEXAS.

THAT'S THE SAME THING.

YOU'RE GONNA END UP TRYING TO FIGHT FOR A PARKING SPACE.

UH, I'M A 72-YEAR-OLD DISABLED VETERAN.

I'M NOT GONNA RIDE MY BIKE UP HAMPTON ABOUT FIVE OR SIX MILES TO THE TOM THUMB OR THE OTHER DIRECTION TO KROGER.

YOU KNOW, JUST MY BIKE'S WERE SAILED IF ANYBODY'S INTERESTED.

BUT IT IS JUST, IT'S NOT FEASIBLE.

IT'S NOT.

AND I'M REALLY, THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE NEW YEAR, BUT THIS IS A CARRY OVER FROM THE LAST TWO OR THREE YEARS.

IT'S, IT'S PUTTING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS IN, IN, UH, IN DANGER.

AND, AND I, I GET SICK AND TIRED OF HEARING THAT WE'RE TOO OLD TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE THAT, THAT, UH, GOSH, UH, WE'RE JUST NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND OR COMPREHEND.

AND, AND IT'S, IT'S JUST SICKENING TO HEAR THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT STEREOTYPE THAT.

AND, AND IN THE, THIS NEW YEAR, WE'RE STARTING OVER AGAIN.

THE SAME THING.

NOW HERE WE ARE, YOU KNOW, BATTLING AN ISSUE THAT, THAT'S ABOUT NEIGHBORHOODS.

IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT PROGRESS.

WE'RE NOT AGAINST PRO IN WEST DALLAS.

WE'RE NOT AGAINST PROGRESS OR DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT'S GOTTA INCLUDE THE COMMUNITY.

IT'S GOTTA INCLUDE OUR NEIGHBORS.

HI, MY NAME IS LAURA PALMER, NINE 11 NORTH MADISON AVENUE, DISTRICT ONE.

I KNOW I'VE SPOKEN TO YOU BEFORE ABOUT THE ISSUES THAT HAPPEN IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

KIDS SPRINGS.

UM, WE ALREADY HAVE PDS SURROUNDING US THAT HAVE REDUCED PARKING.

THESE WERE PUT INTO PLACE THE REDUCED PARKING MINIMUMS TO PROTECT OUR HISTORIC BUILDINGS.

REMOVING THOSE PARKING MINIMUMS COMPLETELY IS GOING TO FIRST ENCOURAGE DEMOLITION OF OUR HISTORIC BUILDINGS.

WITH THAT SAID, WITH REDUCED PARKING MINIMUMS, WE AT LEAST STILL AS A NEIGHBORHOOD, HAVE A TOOL TO HELP US GET A BETTER DISTRIBUTION OF USES THROUGHOUT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE HAVE A STRONG, OUR LANDLORDS WANT TO PUT RESTAURANTS INTO EVERY ONE OF OUR BUILDINGS.

THEY DON'T NECESSARILY WANT IT TO BE OFFICE OR LOW RETAIL.

THEY WANT RESTAURANTS THAT REQUIRES HIGHER PARKING.

WHAT HAPPENS TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD? ONE OF THE EXAMPLES I SHARED WITH YOU IN THE LETTER IN DECEMBER, COME DOWN, THEY PARK ON THE SIDEWALK, THEY PARK CROSSING THE SIDEWALK.

THEY PARK ALL UP AND DOWN THE STREETS MAKING IT ONE LANE ONLY.

I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF A FIRE TRUCK COULD GET DOWN THAT STREET.

THERE ARE ISSUES THAT DO ARISE WHEN YOU REDUCE OR ELIMINATE PARKING MINIMUMS THAT WILL FLOW OVER INTO THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU NOT TO ELIMINATE ACROSS THIS ENTIRE CITY, 'CAUSE YOU ARE JUST SETTING IT UP FOR PROBLEMS EVERYWHERE.

FOR A JOB THAT IS MINIMUM WAGE AND DEALING WITH THE PUBLIC.

I'M KAREN ROBERTS, 5 0 2 CAMERON AVENUE, DISTRICT 14.

THIS ORDINANCE IS BACKWARDS.

YOU NEED TO START WITH DARK.

WE NEED TO START WITH IMPROVING OUR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.

I WAS AT THE GROCERY STORE ON HENDERSON AND ROSS RECENTLY, AND THE YOUNG MAN THAT WAITED ON ME HAD DR.

SPENT TWO HOURS RIDING THE BUS FROM WEST DALLAS TO HENDERSON AND AND ROSS AVENUE

[04:15:01]

THIS IS WHAT WE'RE FACING IN DALLAS.

UM, MY NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET SHOWED ME THEIR FANCY NEW ELECTRIC MOTOR, UH, BICYCLES.

AND THEY WERE SO PLEASED, EXCEPT WHEN THEY RODE IT TO OUR LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, SHOPPING CENTER.

THERE WAS NO PLACE TO PARK THE BICYCLE EXCEPT AT THE GROCERY STORE AT THE WHOLE FOODS, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, PRETTY TRENDY.

UM, THIS DOES NOT PRO THIS.

IF YOU CHANGE THIS, I THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE MORE DEMOLITION OF OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

I KNOW THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED.

I THINK THE FACT THAT THE QUESTIONS THAT THIS STAT THAT THIS COMMISSION HAS ASKED POINTS OUT THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THIS ORDINANCE, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN.

I AGREE WITH SOME OF THE COMMENTS WE NEED CHANGE, BUT THIS IS NOT IT.

THIS THING NEEDS A LOT MORE STUDY STAFF IS NOT PREPARED EVEN TO MONITOR THE, THE, UH, PARKING REGULATIONS WE HAVE NOW.

AND I DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE STAFF COULDN'T MEET WITH THE COMMUNITY.

MY NAME IS MARY LOU PAREZ, UH, DISTRICT ONE.

UH, I AM HERE IN, UH, TODAY IN OPPOSITION OF, UH, THIS, UH, DOING AWAY WITH THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

UM, I WAS HERE AND I WAS LISTENING TO ALL THE COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS, TO THE GENTLEMAN THAT WAS ANSWERING.

UH, BUT I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T GET A SENSE OF CONFIDENCE THAT THEY EVEN KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

UH, THERE WAS JUST SO MUCH, UM, IT'S JUST NOT, NOT CONFIDENCE.

UM, BUT I AM CONCERNED BECAUSE I, SOMETIMES I HAVE TO, 'CAUSE I HURT MY BACK, SO I CAN'T OPEN MY GATE, SO I HAVE TO PARK IN FRONT OF MY HOME.

UM, BUT THEN AGAIN, I HAVE TO, WITH MY NEIGHBORS, THEY HAVE MANY CARS, YOU KNOW? SO SOMETIMES I HAVE, WHEN THEY HAVE GATHERINGS AND THAT I HAVE TO PUT SOMETHING THERE OR KEEP AN EYE SO THAT WHEN I LEAVE, I CAN HAVE MY, MY SPACE.

UH, I AM CONCERNED, UH, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE NEEDS THERE.

WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT NEEDS WITH WITHIN THE CITY OF DALLAS, BUT THIS PLAN IS NOT A ONE SIZE FITS ALL.

AND I THINK YOU'VE BEEN HEARING THAT.

AND IT, THAT IS EXACTLY HOW I FEEL.

AND I KNOW THAT THE BUSINESSES WITH THE YOUNG PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED, AND I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST THAT, BUT DON'T COME AND DISARRAY OUR RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES.

THAT'S MY CONCERN.

UH, AND I, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT IT, WE NEED TO GO BACK.

WE NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THIS AND FIGURE OUT A WAY TO NOT MAKE IT, UH, YOU KNOW, ASSUME THAT THIS IS GONNA FIT THIS, THE WHOLE CITY OF DALLAS, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T, THAT IS NOT EVEN ANYWHERE CLOSE.

UH, WE HAVE DIFFERENT NEEDS.

WE HAVE, UH, DIFFERENT, UM, DEMOGRAPHICS, UH, DIFFERENT USES, AND OUR TRANSPORTATION IS HORRIBLE.

AND NO, YOU'VE HEARD THAT.

THANK YOU FOR, AND I HOPE YOU REALLY LOOK AT THIS.

EMERGENCY ACCESS ON OLDER STREETS.

MELANIE VAN LANDINGHAM.

DISTRICT 14 REDUCTIONS MAY BE APPROPRIATE IN SOME AREAS.

MUCH OF THIS PROPOSAL IS BASED ON ANECDOTAL STORIES, HOWEVER, BUT THERE IS ACTUALLY MORE DATA, THE DATA THAT YOU'VE ASKED FOR.

PLANNERS HAVE STUDIED OVER 3000 CITY CODES.

80% FOCUS ON REDUCTIONS ON SPECIFIC AREAS, CORRIDORS, LARGE, UH, PROPERTIES, UH, SIZES OF PROPERTIES, USES, UH, OF NEW DEVELOPMENTS.

THEY'VE DELIBERATELY HAVE ASKED, UH, THEY'VE DELIBERATELY AVOIDED, UH, APPLYING, UH, REDUCTIONS TO EXISTING PARKING.

UH, THIS PLAN APPLIES, UH, FOR INSTANCE, IN SAN JOSE, WHICH IS THE ONLY, UH, EXAMPLE CLOSE TO THE SIZE OF DALLAS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S 75% SMALLER, IT APPLIED ITS PLANS TO DOWNTOWNS.

UH, IT'S DOWNTOWN PROJECTS WITH ACTUAL AFFORDABLE UNITS, UH, HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND MAJOR BUS ROUTES, TRAIN STATIONS.

UM, MANY OF THESE COMMUNITIES PROTECT EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS AND THEIR AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO AVOID INCENTIVIZING TEAR DOWNS AND DISPLACEMENT AND ENSURE

[04:20:01]

YOU AND STAFF, UH, HAVE MENTIONED DEVELOPERS REDUCING PARKING BY ONLY, UH, NEEDING TO ONLY REDUCE PARKING BY 21 TO 25% TO MAKE SURE THEIR PROJECTS WORK.

DALLAS ALREADY ALLOWS 25, UH, PERCENT REDUCTION THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

WHY NOT LIMIT REDUCTION TO 25%? STAFF ADMITS THEY NEED MORE RESEARCH AND DATA.

THEY HAVE NO ANSWER OR TO IRREVERSIBLE VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS OR THE NEED FOR DART TO IMPROVE TO MAKE THIS WORK.

OR THE FACT THAT AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE NOT GUARANTEED.

THEY DEFINE NO WAY TO MEASURE OR ADDRESS IMPACTS.

THEY IGNORE PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES.

THERE ARE GLARING DISCREPANCIES AND INACCURACIES.

A HUNDRED PERCENT ELIMINATION.

PLEASE DO NOT PASS.

GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.

ONE SIDE CHAMPIONING HOUSING AFFORDABILITY, THE OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION.

MY NAME IS BILLY LANE.

I RESIDE AT 28 31 WHITEWOOD, UH, DRIVE IN DISTRICT THREE, DISTRICT THREE.

UH, I ALSO, UH, HAVE THE PLEASURE OF SERVING AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK, INNER CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IN DISTRICT SEVEN.

UH, AND AS A NONPROFIT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, UH, WE ARE SEEKING TO DO OUR PART IN ADDRESSING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS, UH, HERE IN THE CITY.

AND WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT, UH, WE NEED MORE FLEXIBILITY.

I THINK THAT IS THE KEY WORD.

I WOULD SAY.

WE NEED MORE FLEXIBILITY AS IT RELATES TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

OUR GOAL IS TO CREATE THE DIVERSE HOUSING OPTIONS, COMPACT HOUSING OPTIONS THAT ARE AFFORDABLE LONG TERM TO RESIDENTS WHO ARE AT 60 TO 80% OF A MI.

AND WHEN WE HAVE THE TYPE OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT EXIST RIGHT NOW, THAT MAKES IT VERY, VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO DELIVER ON THOSE.

SO WHAT WE SIMPLY ASK, AND AS MEMBERS OF THE DALLAS HOUSING COALITION, IS THAT WE GET SOME, GET MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

MY NAME IS STEPHANIE CHAMPION.

I LIVE IN WEST DALLAS IN DISTRICT SIX.

I ALSO SERVE AS THE CHIEF OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND POLICY FOR BUILDERS OF HOPE, CDC.

WE RECENTLY PUBLISHED AND RELEASED A CITYWIDE ANTI DISPLACEMENT TOOLKIT TO HELP THE CITY OF DALLAS CONTEMPLATE AND ADOPT MORE EQUITABLE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES IN ORDER TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE OUR MOST VULNERABLE RESIDENTS AND COMMUNITIES.

YOU'VE HEARD TODAY FROM PASSIONATE ADVOCATES ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE.

AND ONCE AGAIN, JUST LIKE WITH THE FORWARD DALLAS DEBATE, I FIND MYSELF SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN BECAUSE WE DO NEED PARKING REFORM.

DALLAS'S PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE ARBITRARY AND OUTDATED, CAUSING OUR CITY TO BE OVER PARKED.

AND PARKING IS A SIGNIFICANT IMPEDIMENT TO BOTH PROJECT FEASIBILITY AND AFFORDABILITY.

BUT IF YOU ELIMINATE PARKING MINIMUMS ALTOGETHER AND LEAVE IT UP TO THE DEVELOPERS TO DECIDE HOW MUCH PARKING IS NEEDED FOR ANY PARTICULAR PROJECT, THEY'RE ONLY GONNA CONSIDER ONE THING IN DOING SO, AND THAT IS THEIR BOTTOM LINE.

THEY'RE NOT GONNA CARE ABOUT HOUSING AFFORDABILITY, THEY'RE NOT GONNA CARE ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS.

THEY'RE NOT GONNA CARE ABOUT TRAFFIC CONGESTION.

THEY'RE GONNA CARE ABOUT THEIR BOTTOM LINE.

AND THAT IS NOT A DIG AT DEVELOPERS.

WE ARE A DEVELOPER OURSELVES.

THIS IS JUST RECOGNIZING WHAT ANY PROFIT DRIVEN BODY IS GOING TO DO.

AND IF WE ELIMINATE PARKING MINIMUMS, WE ARE ESSENTIALLY GRANTING ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR FREE AND WAIVING OUR POWER AS A CITY TO NEGOTIATE ANY TYPE OF COMMUNITY BENEFIT IN EXCHANGE, WHETHER THAT BE DEED RESTRICTED, AFFORDABILITY, ADDITIONAL GREEN SPACE, WALKABLE INFRASTRUCTURE, WHAT HAVE YOU.

KEEPING PARKING MINIMUMS ON THE BOOKS AFFORDS US THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEVERAGE THE REDUCTION OF THOSE MINIMUMS FOR ANY GIVEN PROJECT, BUT ONLY IN EXCHANGE FOR SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD VETTED COMMUNITY BENEFITS.

THIS IDEA THAT ELIMINATING PARKING MINIMUMS ALONE THAT I HEARD EARLIER, WILL LEAD TO UPWARD, UM, UPWARD FILTRATION, EXCUSE ME, AND MORE ATTAINABLE HOUSING ACROSS THE CITY, UM, IS UNFORTUNATELY UNFOUNDED IN DATA AND NOT NEARLY A STRONG ENOUGH ASSERTION FOR US TO HANG THIS HAT ON.

IF WE TRULY CARE ABOUT HOUSING AFFORDABILITY, THEN LET'S MAKE THIS ABOUT HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND TIE IT TO COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND RESTRICTED AFFORDABILITY.

GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSION CHAIR, VICE CHAIR.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

MY NAME IS AAND.

I LIVE AT 1 0 3 0 CEDAR HILL AVENUE.

THAT'S DISTRICT ONE IN OAK CLIFF, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 8.

UH, I, I, I'M LUCKY TO LIVE IN A VERY WALKABLE

[04:25:01]

NEIGHBORHOOD.

UM, THE POSITIVE EXTERNALITIES, UH, IN TERMS OF QUALITY OF LIFE, UH, HAVE BEEN TREMENDOUS.

UM, I WALK A LOT.

UM, I'VE LOST A LOT OF WEIGHT.

SO I, I, I, I THINK MY POINT IS, UH, IF IF THERE EXISTS A NEGATIVE EXTERNALITY BECAUSE, I'M SORRY, A POSITIVE EXTERNALITY BECAUSE OF A POLICY DECISION, THEN REALLY CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, ADOPTING IT.

UM, THE, THE BYPRODUCT OF HAVING LESS PARKING MEANS JUST MORE WALKING.

COOL.

YOU KNOW, YOU GOTTA WALK A BLOCK OR TWO, THAT'S NOT GONNA HELP.

THAT'S NOT GONNA HURT YOU.

IT'S ONLY GONNA HELP YOU.

UH, AND LAST TIME I CHECKED, I THINK, UH, HEART DISEASE WAS THE LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH IN THE UNITED STATES.

SO, UM, LET'S TRY TO MAKE THIS CITY, UH, HEALTHIER.

UM, UH, ANOTHER QUALITY OF LIFE POINT THAT I WILL MAKE IS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, I USE MY MICRO MOBILITY, UH, TO GET AROUND.

AND THE ONLY TIMES I'VE BEEN IN ACCIDENTS WERE, UM, AT DRIVING, UH, THROUGH THE INTERSECTION OF A PARKING LOT ENTRANCE.

SO, UM, THANK YOU STAFF FOR WORKING ON MINIMIZING THOSE.

UM, BECAUSE AS THIS CITY HOPEFULLY WILL BECOME MORE, UH, SORT OF, I'M SORRY, LESS CAR DEPENDENT, UH, HOPEFULLY INHERENTLY, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WILL BE SAFER, UH, BECAUSE OF, OF, OF THESE, OF THESE, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS.

UM, ALSO, I JUST WANNA SAY, UM, THE DART, UH, LIGHT RAIL SYSTEM IS THE LARGEST IN THE US.

UM, IT'S NOT PERFECT, BUT IT'S FINE.

AND I GET AROUND IT, UH, JUST FINE.

SO, UM, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THOSE POINTS.

THANK YOU GUYS.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK BEFORE WE GO TO OUR SPEAKERS ONLINE? OKAY.

LET'S BEGIN WITH MR. NORTHUP.

I MIND ABOUT, UH, MS. HIDALGO.

I MIND, UH, ANDREW WARREN.

NEIL, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.

HI, I'M ANDREW WARREN.

I LIVE AT 8 6 2 9 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD, OR FIVE FOUR WITHOUT HOUSING.

AND I'M SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND STATE A GOAL TO REDUCE SINGLE OCCUPANT VEHICLE TRIPS WHILE INCENTIVIZING ALTERNATE TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS.

I THINK IT'S A VISIONARY CHANGE THAT DALLAS NEEDS TO ADOPT IF WE WANNA MOVE FORWARD, WHERE OUR CITY IS WALKABLE, BIKEABLE, AND ACCESSIBLE THROUGH MEANS OTHER THAN OWNING A CAR.

CAR DEPENDENCY IN OUR CITY CODE HAS BUILT A CITY THAT'S STRANGLED BY MASSIVE HIGHWAYS, ENDLESS PARKING LOTS, POOR AIR QUALITY, AND HIGH HOUSING COSTS.

I THINK CITY STAFF AND OTHER SPEAKERS HAVE GIVEN MANY COMPELLING REASONS FOR THE RECOMMENDATION OF WHOLESALE REMOVAL OF PARKING MINIMUMS. UH, I ESPECIALLY RE SUPPORT THE REMOVAL OF PARKING MINIMUMS FROM MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, UH, RESEARCHERS AT UCLA IN 2017 FOUND THAT THE AVERAGE AMERICAN RENTER WITH A PARKING GARAGE SPENDS AN ADDITIONAL 17% ON THAT PARKING GARAGE.

AND FURTHERMORE, THEY FOUND THAT THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 700,000 RENTING HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT CARS WHO ARE PAYING AN ADDITIONAL 13% FOR GARAGE PARKING THAT THEY NEVER USE.

UH, SO THAT STUDY ADDRESSES HIGH DENSITY HOUSING.

BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT SMALLER BUILDINGS SUCH AS DUPLEXES, QUADPLEXES, AND OTHER MULTIPLEXES.

THESE TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, WHEN THEY'RE ALLOWED TO AGE IN PLACE, BECOME SOME OF THE MO, SOME OF THE MOST NATURALLY ATTAINABLE HOUSING STOCK, BOTH FOR RENT AND FOR OWNERSHIP.

AND I, I'VE TALKED TO A HANDFUL OF SMALL SCALE LOCAL DEVELOPERS WHO SPECIALIZE IN THESE, THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS, AND THEY'VE OFTEN FOUND THAT OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS ADD TO THE DIFFICULTY OF INFILL MULTIPLEXES.

'CAUSE THE SITE PLANTS JUST DON'T WORK.

SO THIS IS ONE OF THE MANY REASONS THAT THESE BUILDINGS ARE COMMONLY CALLED MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING.

UM, SO I THINK WE SHOULD REMOVE BARRIERS TO THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION BY GETTING RID OF THEIR CURRENT PARKING MINIMUMS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. WARREN.

UM, NEXT UP WE HAVE MEL CAMPOS.

MEL CAMPOS ON.

HI, CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YEP.

[04:30:01]

WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.

HI, YES.

HI.

MY NAME IS MEL CAMPOS.

I AM A RESIDENT AT 3 3 2 6 BURLING AVENUE IN DALLAS COUNTY.

UM, I AM A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL COUNSELOR ASSOCIATE, AND I SERVE THE DALLAS-FORT WORTH AREA.

AND ONE OF THE MORE PERVASIVE CONCERNS I HAVE AMONG THE ADOLESCENTS AND YOUNG ADULTS THAT I WORK WITH ARE REACHING DEVELOPMENTAL MILESTONES, INCLUDING BUYING THEIR OWN HOME, OWNING A BUSINESS, UM, NOT LIMITED TO THOSE THINGS, BUT CERTAINLY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT COMES UP A LOT IN THERAPY.

UM, ELIMINATING THESE PARKING MINIMUMS, UM, I THINK WE SHOULD EMPHASIZE DOES NOT MEAN TAKING AWAY YOUR PARKING, BUT RATHER DOING AWAY WITH THESE COSTLY PARKING MANDATES, UM, THAT ARE IMPOSED ON EVERYONE TO MORE, UM, EFFECTIVELY UTILIZE DALLAS, DALLAS' URBAN SPACE, UM, TO CREATE MORE GREEN, AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, UM, ROOM FOR COMMUNITY SPACES.

LOT OF FLOWERS REDUCE THE NEED FOR CARS AND OVERALL CREATE MORE WALKABLE AREAS.

UM, I THINK THAT, UM, INVESTING IN SOME OF THESE CHANGES ARE NECESSARY FOR SERVING THE DIVERSITY OF ITS PEOPLE.

NEXT UP, SHELLY POTTER ONLINE.

WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, MA'AM.

WHEN MS. MS. POTTER, I, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE BEGUN SPEAKING, BUT WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES.

PERFECT.

OKAY, GREAT.

HELLO, COMMISSIONERS.

THIS IS, UH, SHELLY POTTER, 4 4 3 7 COLE AVENUE IN KNOX.

AND TODAY I'M ACTUALLY SPEAKING IN A DIFFERENT ROLE, AND THAT IS AS A NEIGHBOR AND A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.

AND I'VE BEEN ON THE CALL ALL DAY LISTENING TO THE BRIEFING BECAUSE THIS IS SUCH A CRITICAL ISSUE FOR DALLAS.

AND THERE DOES SEEM TO BE SOME GENERAL AGREEMENT THAT PARKING IS A PROBLEM THAT IS SEEKING SOLUTIONS.

HOWEVER, WE KNOW IT'S IN THE DETAILS THAT MAKE ALL THE DIFFERENCE.

AND REALLY, WE ALSO KNOW THAT PARKING AFFECTS QUALITY OF LIFE.

UH, AS I HEARD IN THE BRIEFING, THERE WERE A LOT OF CHALLENGES STILL THAT I DON'T THINK ARE RESOLVED.

AND IT SEEMED TO ME LIKE THERE ARE NOW MORE QUESTIONS THAN THERE WERE ANSWERS.

AND OF COURSE, WITH DALLAS'S UNIQUENESS, SPECIFIC LAND USES AND OTHER EXCELLENT SUGGESTION, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A LOT MORE WORK TO BE DONE.

UM, ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO BRING UP, AND YOU WON'T BE SURPRISED, IS THAT ON PAGE FIVE, IT SAYS THAT PARKING MINIMUMS AND PD WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT, YET I'VE ALSO HEARD STAFF PUBLICLY ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS SAYING THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO BUST THE PDS.

AND AS YOU KNOW, FOR OVER 40 YEARS, PD 1 93 WAS CRAFTED TO INCLUDE PARKING MINIMUMS. AND I WANNA GO ON RECORD OPPOSING ANY ATTEMPT TO BUST THE PDS OR TO SKIRT THEM WITH THIS AS THE INITIAL GATEWAY.

AND I'D APPRECIATE IF THE COUNSEL WOULD CERTAINLY GIVE ASSURANCE THAT THAT IS NOT THE PLAN.

UM, I ALSO HEARD THAT, UM, MR. WAY SAY THAT THE PROVISION ABOUT THE THE BOA IS NO LONGER ON THE TABLE.

AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING.

JUST A COUPLE OTHER KEY POINTS.

UH, LOADING IS A MAJOR ISSUE.

COMMISSIONER SLEEPER TALKED A LOT ABOUT IT.

IT'S NUTS.

UBER EATS UBER, AMAZON IDLING IN PLACE.

THEY'VE TAKEN OVER OUR STREETS, AND WE'VE GOTTA KEEP THAT IN MIND.

IT'S, IT'S THE NEW NORMAL COMPLIANCE.

HOW ON EARTH IS ALL THIS GOING TO BE MANAGED AFTER IMPLEMENTATION? BECAUSE 3 1 1 IS, IS NOT FAST ENOUGH FOR PARKING SITUATIONS DALLAS DOESN'T INVEST IN.

I BELIEVE MARI ALGO IS ONLINE.

SHARE WITH YOU THAT BEING SO CLOSE TO THE DISTRICT, HANS, LIKE MANY OTHER STREETS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, AND FORGIVE ME, I SHOULD MENTION THAT HAYNES IS PART OF KID SPRINGS NEIGHBORHOOD.

HELLO, CAN YOU HEAR ME? UH, YES.

WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.

THANK YOU EVERYBODY.

HELLO, COMMISSIONERS.

UM, MY NAME IS MARIA IGO KING, AND I LIVE IN THE 600 BLOCK OF HAYES.

UM, I'VE LIVED HERE FOR THE PAST 15 YEARS, UM, JUST 300 FEET FROM BISHOP ARTS DISTRICT.

AND, UM, I MOVED HERE FROM NEW YORK CITY.

AND, UM, I LOVE THE WALKABILITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

HOWEVER, UM, OBSERVING HOW, UM, THE BISHOP ARTS DISTRICT HAS GROWN AND HOW THE, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS NOT, UM, ENJOYED COORDINATED PROTECTIONS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT.

UM, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT ANY MODEL THAT, UM, WOULD REMOVE, UM, THE PROTECTION OF RESIDENTIAL ZONED AREAS, UM, AND MAINTAIN, BECAUSE OUR FOCUS IS TO MAINTAIN OUR CURRENT PARKING, UH, REQUIREMENTS.

UM, I'LL

[04:35:01]

SO D ONE JUST NORTH OF BISHOP ARTS DISTRICT.

UM, AND SO LIKE MANY OF, UH, THE OTHER STREETS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABUTTING THIS COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, WE BEAR THE MAJORITY OF THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE ESCALATING CASES OF DRINKING AND DRIVING.

SO WE'VE HAD INCREASED HIT AND RUNS, CAR BREAK-INS, BLOCKED DRIVEWAYS, INCREASED SPEEDING.

AND SO, AS YOU CAN TELL, LIKE THOSE THINGS ARE NOT INCREASING OUR QUALITY OF LIFE.

AND, UH, WE'VE HAD A BEAUTIFUL QUALITY OF LIFE HERE, AND IT'S GETTING ENCROACHED ON AS WE CONTINUE TO SUPPLEMENT DENSITY, UM, AND CALL THAT AS, UM, AND USE THAT AS A BLANKET APPROACH, UM, FOR FIXING EVERYTHING AND CREATING SOLUTIONS IN DALLAS.

AND SO I REALLY THINK THAT YOU ALL NEED TO, UM, PLAN AHEAD OF MAKING ANY CHANGES LIKE THIS AND REALLY LEAN ON THE RESIDENTS, UM, WHO KNOW THEIR AREAS AND WHO'VE REALLY ADVOCATED FOR THEM, UM, SO THAT WE CAN BUILD THE DALLAS THAT WE'RE PROUD OF.

UH, NEXT UP IS RYAN GARCIA.

CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? UH, YEAH.

WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO SEE YOU THROUGH YOUR CAMERA IN ORDER TO HEAR FROM YOU.

BUTTON JUST SHOWED UP.

ALL GOOD.

CAN YOU HEAR ME ANSWERING? YES.

I'M A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT 14, LIVE AT 30 TO 50 NORTH HALL STREET.

AND TODAY I'M SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF BOTH PARKING ROOMS AND IN PARTICULAR, THE ELIMINATION OF MINIMUM PARKING MANDATES.

SO WE'VE HEARD ABOUT THE STATS, YOU KNOW, UH, MORE THAN A QUARTER OF DALLAS TO DOWNTOWN COURT, DEDICATED HALL STREET PARKING, AND A LOT OF IT'S UNUSED.

AND YOU TAKE A WALK AROUND OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS AND YOU SEE THE SITUATIONS MOST THE SAME AND A LOT OF TIMES WORSE.

UH, EVEN BUILDINGS RIGHT NEXT TO TRANSIT STATIONS ARE JUST OVERFLOWING WITH EMPTY PARKING SPOTS.

THEY GO TO INWOOD STATION LIKE EVERY DAY, AND THEY SEE LIKE FIVE CARS.

UM, IF YOU CAN IMAGINE AT AN ALTERNATIVE, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN IMAGINE SHOPS OR COMMUNITY SPACES OR, YOU KNOW, VERY IMPORTANTLY, HOMES.

UH, WHICH DO YOU THINK MAKES A NEIGHBORHOOD RICHER? MORE, UH, EMPTY ASPHALT OR MORE PLACES TO CONNECT WITH FRIENDS, FAMILY, AND NEIGHBORS? UH, BY ELIMINATING PARKING MANDATES, WE CAN REPLACE PARKING SPACES WITH SPACES FOR PEOPLE, UH, BEYOND DIVIDING COMMUNITIES.

UH, THESE OWNERS PARKING MANDATES ARE JUST INEFFICIENT.

YOU KNOW, PARKING'S NOT FREE.

EACH BASE CAN COST THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO CONSTRUCT, AND EVEN MORE IF IT'S IN A GARAGE.

AND THESE EXPENSES GET PASSED ON, YOU KNOW, TO COMMERCIAL LEASE HOLDERS AND THEY PASS 'EM ON TO CUSTOMERS.

SO PAYING MORE FOR A PARKING SPOT THAT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE NEEDED.

IT'S JUST A BAD DEAL.

AND WORSE, A LOT OF LOTS IN STOREFRONTS JUST STAY VACANT BECAUSE OF INFLATED COSTS OR PROHIBITIVE REGULATION.

UH, THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS DON'T TAKE AWAY PARKING.

THEY GRANT MORE FREEDOM TO BUILD THE TYPES OF BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES THAT MAKE COMMUNITIES RICHER PLACES.

UM, LOOSENING AND ELIMINATING PARKING MANDATES WOULD CONNECT OUR COMMUNITIES, INVIGORATE OUR LOCAL BUSINESSES, AND MAKE DALLAS A NICER PLACE TO LIVE.

LET'S TAKE STEPS TO TRANSFORM OUR CITY FROM ONE OVERWHELMED BY PARKING TO ONE ENRICH FOR PEOPLE.

URGE YOU TO NOT ONLY ADVANCE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PARKING CODE, BUT TO LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN FOR FURTHER REFORM.

INVASION OF ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS.

FIDEL NORIO, ED ZARA.

ALL RIGHT.

ONLINE.

WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.

MR. ZARA, I DON'T THINK WE, YOUR, YOUR SOUND IS COMING THROUGH.

YOU MAY BE MUTED.

GOOD.

NOW WE CAN HEAR YOU.

ED ZARA, 1003 VALENCIA DALLAS.

PLEASE DO NOT PASS THE ELIMINATION OF ALL MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

THIS ALL OR NOTHING APPROACH IS NOT REALISTIC FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.

WHEN USERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE SPECIFIC OFF STREET PARKING MINIMUMS, THEIR CUSTOMERS WILL INVADE NEIGHBORHOODS WITH INCREASED TRAFFIC, NOISE, TRASH, AND PARKING CONGESTION.

ENCOURAGING MORE CARS TO PARK ON THE STREET IS OPPOSITE OF EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD CRIME.

WATCH, WHICH STATES TO AVOID BMVS DON'T PARK ON THE STREETS.

STATS SHOW THAT 37% OF BMVS HAPPEN TO CARS PARKED ON THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE OWNER'S HOUSE.

TWO, YOUR COMPETITION DETERMINES HOW MUCH PARKING YOU NEED.

NOT RINGS OF DATA STUDIES PREPARED WITHOUT BOOTS ON

[04:40:01]

THE GROUND KNOWLEDGE.

THE NUMBER ONE RULE IN REAL ESTATE IS LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION.

THE NUMBER TWO RULE IS WITHOUT PARKING, YOU HAVE NOTHING.

WE ARE A CAR-CENTRIC SOCIETY BECAUSE DALLAS HAS NO LANDLOCKED BOUNDARIES LIKE EAST COAST CITIES PLUS, OR 90 DEGREE PLUS.

CLIMATE IS THE BIGGEST DETERRENT TO USING NON-AIR CONDITIONED TRANSPORTATION.

SURFACE PARKING LOTS ARE NOT THE ENEMY.

THEY PROVIDE AN ECONOMICAL OPTION FOR THE WORKFORCE THAT CA CAN'T AFFORD THE EXPENSIVE PARKING GARAGES.

ALL CUSTOMERS VOTE WITH THEIR WALLET.

FRUSTRATING PARKING OPTIONS ARE THE DEAL KILLERS.

PERCEPTION OF PUBLIC TRANSIT NEEDS A CHANGE.

UNLESS DART MAKES MAJOR, MAJOR CHANGES IN THE SERVICE THEY PROVIDE, RIDERSHIP WILL KEEP DROPPING.

EVEN THOUGH POPULATION KEEPS RISING.

I BELIEVE THE LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES OF ELIMINATING ALL PARKING MINIMUMS ARE NOT UNDERSTOOD WELL ENOUGH TO IMPLEMENT.

TAKING THE TIME NEEDED TO REVIEW RESULTS FOR SOME TEST CASES SPREAD ACROSS DALLAS IS A BETTER COURSE OF ACTION.

NEXT SPEAKER.

JAMIE JOLLY NOT ONLINE.

UM, ELIMINATE LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO TD, MPS.

UH, I THINK MR. MORTIMER ALREADY SPOKE.

SO THAT CONCLUDES OUR REGISTERED SPEAKERS LIST.

UH, SO I THINK WE'RE READY TO THANK YOU, SIR.

QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF OUR SPEAKERS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.

UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, SIR? YES, I DO.

AND WITH, UM, SOME APOLOGIES.

WE'RE HAVING SOME PRINTING ISSUES AND I REALIZE THAT WHAT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO YOU THAT I'M GOING TO BE READING FROM, UM, IS A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO READ BECAUSE OF SOME RANDOM SYMBOLS IN IT, BUT I'M GONNA, OH, YOU THINK THEY'RE BRINGING A NEW COPY? OKAY.

WELL, UM, MR. CHAIR SHALL PROCEED.

AND IF WE GET CLEANER COPIES OF THIS, THEN YES, WE'LL HAVE THAT.

UH, WE ALSO RECEIVED A VERSION, UH, THROUGH EMAIL.

OH, OKAY.

THAT MAYBE IS A LITTLE CLEANER.

UM, IF I, IF I MAY AS A, WELL, MAYBE I'LL MAKE THE MOTION AND THEN MAKE A, JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS AND, 'CAUSE I THINK THE MOTION'S SOMEWHAT SELF-EXPLANATORY IN, UM, IN THE ISSUE OF DCA 1 9 0 DASH 0 0 2, UH, I MOVE TO ADOPT THE, UM, PROPOSED ORDINANCE AS APPROVED BY ZO OAC WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES, UH, CHANGES, UH, ONE THROUGH SIX ARE STRATEGIES TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS.

NUMBER ONE, KEEP PARKING MINIMUMS IN RD AND TH DISTRICTS.

REDUCE THE PARKING MINIMUMS IN D DISTRICTS TO ONE SPACE PER UNIT TO MATCH OUR DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS.

NUMBER TWO, KEEP MULTI-FAMILY PARKING MINIMUMS ONLY WITHIN 300 FEET OF SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS.

ELIMINATE MULTIFAMILY PARKING MINIMUMS IN ALL OTHER AREAS.

NUMBER THREE, KEEP PARKING MINIMUMS FOR BARS AND RESTAURANTS.

REDUCE THE PARKING MINIMUMS FOR THESE USES TO ONE SPACE PER 200 SQUARE FEET OF ENCLOSED AREA IN LIEU OF THE CURRENT ONE SPACE PER 100 SQUARE FEET.

ELIMINATE MINIMUMS FOR BARS, RESTAURANTS, AND RETAIL LESS THAN 2,500 SQUARE FEET IN AREA.

KEEP EXISTING PARKING MINIMUMS FOR SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES.

KEEP CO, KEEP PARKING MINIMUMS ON COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT USES.

THANK YOU, LILIANA.

THE FOLLOWING CHANGES ARE MORE GENERAL IN NATURE.

UH, NUMBER SEVEN, ELIMINATE MINIMUMS FOR ALL USES IN EXISTING CA DISTRICTS.

EIGHT.

ELIMINATE MINIMUMS FOR ALL USES WITHIN ONE HALF MILE RADIUS OF RAIL OR TOD STATIONS.

NUMBER NINE, ELIMINATE M-I-H-D-B PARKING MINIMUMS 10.

STRIKE 51 A DASH 4.301 A THREE B.

THIS LANGUAGE PROHIBITS PARKING IN FRONT OF A BUILDING.

11.

AMEND 51 A DASH 4.3014 C.

THIS LANGUAGE REQUIRES DEDICATED PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY THROUGH A PARKING LOT.

CLARIFY THAT THE, THE LANGUAGE TO REQUIRE THE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY.

CONNECT THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE BUILDING TO THE NEAREST PUBLIC, RIGHT OF WAY.

12, ALLOW PAID PARKING THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

13.

[04:45:01]

AND 14, REQUIRE LOADING SPACES IN ALL MULTIFAMILY.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT.

I WILL SECOND THAT COMMENTS.

COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT.

UM, I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF CONSENSUS THAT, UH, AN ORDINANCE THAT ORIGINATED IN 19 67, 58 YEARS AGO NEEDS SOME ATTENTION.

UH, I THINK EVERYONE AGREES ON THAT, UH, ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE, I THINK EVERYONE AGREES THAT EXCESS PARKING HAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.

UM, I HOPE EVERYONE AGREES THAT THE MOST POPULAR, MOST VIBRANT, MOST INTERESTING, RICHEST AREAS OF OUR CITY ARE AREAS WHERE THERE'S PROBABLY NOT ABUNDANT PARKING.

THAT THERE, THAT IT, THAT'S EXACTLY WHY YOU WANT TO BE THERE.

UM, SO, UM, I THINK IT'S TIME TO, UM, MOVE FORWARD WITH ELIMINATING MINIMUMS WHEREVER POSSIBLE.

UM, MY, UM, MOTION WAS AN ATTEMPT TO, UM, FIRST, UH, RECOGNIZE CONCERNS FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND OUR HOMEOWNERS, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, UH, REAPING SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS IN, UH, COMMERCIALLY ZONED AREAS AND AREAS THAT DO NOT HAVE, UM, IMMEDIATE, UH, OR ADJACENT IMPACT ON, ON A SINGLE FAMILY.

UM, I FEEL STRONGLY THAT WE NEED TO KEEP THIS SIMPLE.

I FEEL STRONGLY THAT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE CARVE OUTS.

UM, YOU MAY HAVE SEEN A QUOTE ABOUT THE TAIL WAGON, THE DOG, AND I FEEL LIKE THAT WE CANNOT DO THAT.

UM, I CAN, UH, I HAVE A LOT MORE COMMENTS AND THOUGHTS ON ALL OF THESE, UH, UM, AMENDMENTS OR ADJUSTMENTS TO THE, TO THE, UH, RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT.

BUT I'LL, UH, SAVE MY TIME FOR, UH, LATER AND FOR THE DISCUSSION.

BUT, UH, THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THESE THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOUSE.

UM, AND I ALSO WANNA GIVE A LITTLE MORE THOUGHT TO WHAT USES WE CONTINUE TO HAVE PARKING MINIMUMS ON, AND WHETHER THE MINIMUMS WE REQUIRE TODAY ARE APPROPRIATE.

UH, COMMERS, BEFORE WE GO TO, UH, COMMENTS, IT'S JUST THE, THE, THE GOAL WITH THIS IS NOT TO VOTE ON IT TODAY.

YOU GOT IT.

UH, IT'S JUST TO, TO KIND OF HEAR FROM THE BODY.

UH, MAYBE TAKE SOME TIME TO THINK IT OVER.

YOU KNOW, I, I KNOW FROM, BECAUSE I KNOW ALL OF YOU, YOU GOT ALL THIS IN ALL ABOUT 30 SECONDS.

UH, AND SO, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR IS JUST KIND OF TAKE THE TEMPERATURE WHERE WE ARE.

YOU KNOW, WHEN WE COME BACK AND VOTE ON THESE, WE CAN VOTE ON AS A PACKAGE INDIVIDUALLY.

MAYBE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A NUMBER HERE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADJUST TO SOMETHING ELSE, AND WE CAN DISCUSS THAT.

UH, BUT JUST FOR TODAY, WE JUST KIND OF SEE WHERE WE ARE.

UH, COMMISSIONER, CAN YOU STAND INSIDE YOUR LIGHT ON FIRST? UM, WELL, FIRST I'D LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO, TO MICHAEL.

I THINK HE'S DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB, UM, WITH AN INITIAL DRAFT.

AND I KNOW THAT HE TOOK A LOT OF HIS IDEAS FROM WHAT A LOT OF OTHER CITIES HAVE DONE, AND IT'S DIFFICULT TO PIGEONHOLE A CITY LIKE DALLAS INTO WHAT OTHER CITIES DO AND DON'T DO.

UM, AND I LIKE SOME OF THE IDEAS THAT ARE INCORPORATED INTO THE PLAN.

SECOND, I'D LIKE TO THANK COMMISSIONER HOUSE WRIGHT FOR PARING IT DOWN.

I THINK THERE'S A LOT IN HIS MOTION THAT I COULD GET BEHIND.

UM, I DO APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THINK ABOUT THIS AND TO SEE A NEW DRAFT BEFORE WE VOTE ON IT.

UM, AND GIVE THE PUBLIC AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE A NEW DRAFT BEFORE WE VOTE ON IT.

UM, BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF DETAIL IN HERE THAT WE SHOULD TRY TO GET RIGHT AND NOT SEND IT TO COUNCIL AND LET THEM HAVE TO MESS WITH THAT.

UM, AND JUST FROM A, A BROAD BRUSH, UM, I THINK I STILL THINK THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER, UM, HOW WE DEAL WITH SHORT-TERM DELIVERIES LIKE UBER AND LYFT, AND HOW WE DEAL WITH RIDESHARE.

UM, BECAUSE I THINK THOSE ARE THINGS THAT ARE ONLY GOING TO BECOME, UH, AN IN INCREASINGLY PREVALENT PART OF OUR LIVES.

UM, CERTAINLY IN THE URBAN CORE, WE DEAL WITH IT ON EVERY PROJECT WE LOOK AT.

UH, THAT COMES TO US WITH ZONING BECAUSE THEY DO TRULY USE THE STREET IF WE LET THEM .

AND SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO LOOK AT.

UM, I ALSO, UM, WANNA GIVE SOME MORE THOUGHT TO HOW THIS IMPACTS EXISTING, UM, SPECIALIZED DISTRICTS AND, AND THINK THROUGH THAT BECAUSE THOSE COMMUNITIES HAVE DONE THE HARD WORK OF BECOMING SPECIALIZED IN.

AND MAYBE SOME OF THOSE AREN'T REALLY IMPACTED BY WHAT WE'RE DOING AT ALL, AND IT DOESN'T MATTER, AND MAYBE SOME OF THEM ARE.

AND SO I THINK THAT THAT DESERVES A LITTLE MORE THOUGHT THAN THIS NEW FRAMEWORK I'VE HAD TIME TO LOOK AT.

[04:50:01]

ONE OF THE AREAS I DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH EXPERIENCE ABOUT, BUT WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT IS, UM, LARGE TRUCKS AND HOW THAT IMPACTS CERTAIN COMMUNITIES.

NOT REALLY MINE, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE TALK ABOUT IN CERTAIN PARTS OF THE CITY.

AND, AND, AND THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT DESERVES A LITTLE MORE ATTENTION.

UM, BUT WITH THAT, I'M, I'M GONNA SAVE THE REST OF MY THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS UNTIL WE GET A NEW DRAFT AND CAN REALLY LOOK AT IT ON PAPER.

UH, COMMISSIONER HERBERT.

I THOUGHT SURE.

OTHER PEOPLE WOULD'VE BEEN AHEAD OF ME.

UM, I, I APPRECIATE, UM, THIS EFFORT, THE 300, UH, SQUARE FEET, UM, FROM EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY, I MEAN, RESIDENCES AND MULTI-FAMILY, I THINK HELPS MY RESIDENTS AS WELL.

UM, I, I, I KIND OF APPRECIATED SOME OF THE TMP LANGUAGE, UM, ONLY BECAUSE WHEN THINGS LIKE THIS PASS THE SOUTHERN SECTOR SEEMS TO BE THE PLACE WHERE PEOPLE TRY TO GET OVER, UM, WE ARE A WORKING CLASS SECTION OF THE CITY, AND HAVING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT OF PAYING ATTENTION TO THESE THINGS WHEN THEY COME IS SOMETIMES HARD.

SO HAVING A TD, TDMP KIND OF HELPED US WITH SOME TYPE OF SECURITY.

SO I, I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THAT OFFLINE TO, TO A FEW OF MY, UM, PEOPLE HERE, STAFF AND STUFF TO WRAP AROUND WHILE WE'RE GETTING RID OF IT.

BUT BESIDES THAT, I THINK THESE ARE GREAT, UH, COMPROMISES TO GET US CLOSER TO A, UM, MORE WALKABLE, UM, CORE, UM, AND, AND MORE WALKABLE AREAS THAT, UM, THAT EXIST TODAY THAT ARE RETAIL, UM, COMMERCIAL LIKE, AND SO ON.

SO, UM, SO FAR SO GOOD.

COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, PLEASE? UH, YES.

UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSE GRANT, I APPRECIATE THIS VERY MUCH AS A, AS A STARTING POINT.

UM, I, I WOULD CERTAINLY, UH, LIKE MORE TIME TO, UM, GIVE IT CLOSER CONSIDERATION.

UM, SOME THINGS THAT JUMP OUT AT ME WHERE IT SAYS, KEEPING PARKING MINIMUMS ON COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT, THAT'S ONE OF THE PLACES WHERE THE CURRENT CODE FALLS SHORT BECAUSE IT ONLY SPECIFIES PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THINGS LIKE BINGO PARLORS AND, AND CHILDREN'S ARCADES.

AND, UH, ONE OF THE PROLIFERATIONS UNDER THAT PARTICULAR CLASSIFICATION OF THE CITY HAS BEEN EVENT CENTERS.

AND THE CODE IS, IS PRETTY SILENT ON THOSE.

SO I, I THINK THAT PARTICULAR AREA NEEDS A CLOSER, CLOSER SCRUTINY.

UM, UH, I NEED TO THINK THROUGH THE REDUCING THE PARKING MINIMUMS FOR, UH, BARS AND RESTAURANTS TO ONE SPACE PER, UH, 200 ENCLOSED AREA.

UM, I KNOW RIGHT NOW COVERED, COVERED AREAS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE UN ENCLOSED, SO THIS WOULD BE TAKING ALL ROOFS AND PATIOS.

SO I NEED TO THINK THROUGH THE IMPLICATIONS ON THAT.

UM, AND, UH, ELIMINATING ALL MINIMUMS FOR ALL USES WITHIN A HALF MILE RADIUS OF RAIL TO D STATIONS.

UM, THINKING THROUGH THE IMPLICATIONS OF HOW THAT, UM, GOES ALONG WITH THE STRATEGIES PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THE FIRST, YOU KNOW, THE KEEPING THE PARKING MINIMUMS IN SOME OF THESE RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND THE PROXIMITY TO MULTIFAMILY TO SINGLE FAMILY.

UM, LET'S SEE, ALLOWING PAID PARKING THROUGH THE CITY.

UM, I KNOW ONE OF THE STRATEG ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT THE REPORT POINTED OUT WAS WITH THE STRUCTURED PARKING, UH, GARAGES DOWNTOWN, IS THAT OWNERS CURRENTLY AREN'T ALLOWED TO, UM, RENT OUT THEIR SPACES, LEASE THEIR SPACES FOR LESS THAN A CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT, OR, OR MONTHLY, I THINK.

SO IS THERE ANY, WAS THAT SUPPOSED TO, UM, CONSIDERING PAID PARKING, WAS THAT SUPPOSED TO ALSO INCLUDE ALLOWING SOME OF THOSE, YOU KNOW, MOSTLY OFFICE USES THAT ARE, I MEAN, PARKING SPACES THAT EXISTS FOR OFFICES THAT HAVE HIGH DAYTIME USES, BUT, YOU KNOW, DON'T HAVE, UH, WEEKEND AND NIGHT USES? OR ARE WE LOOKING AT SOMETHING TO FREE UP THOSE SPACES AS WELL? WELL, I GUESS THE, THE THRUST OF THE, OF THE MOTION WAS, WAS SHORT-TERM PARKING AS OPPOSED TO LONG-TERM LEASES.

IS THAT, YES.

NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, MOVING VANS AND FREIGHT, BUT DELIVERY OF PEOPLE DROP OFF AND PICK UP OF PEOPLE AND DROP OFF OF, UH, OF FOOD DELIVERIES AND THAT SORT OF THING.

YOUR QUESTION TO, TO ALLOW THAT.

ALRIGHT.

AND, UH, I DEFINITELY AGREE WITH THE, UM, AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE LOADING SPACES FOR ALL MULTIFAMILY.

I WOULD, I WOULD, UH, MY FIRST INCLINATION WOULD BE TO ADD HOTELS TO THAT BECAUSE I KNOW THE CURB MANAGEMENT, UH, PROGRAM, UH, POLICY THAT'S ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED, POINTED OUT HOTEL SPECIFICALLY IN ADDITION TO MULTIFAMILY AND BARS AND RESTAURANTS AS, AS, AS, UH, A LOADING PROBLEM.

AND WHEN WE SAY LOADING, UH,

[04:55:01]

UM, LET'S SEE, WHAT ELSE? UM, I'M INTERESTED IN GETTING A CLARIFICATION 'CAUSE I ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO, UM, TO ADJUST.

AND, UM, ONE OF THE ANSWERS, THE ANSWER I GOT WAS THAT, UH, LEGAL HAD SAID NO, THAT WASN'T GOING TO, TO, UH, HAPPEN.

BUT I, I WOULD LIKE TO GET A CLARIFICATION ON EXACTLY WHAT WOULD BE REMAINING IN THE ORDINANCE, UM, UNDER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

AND I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT, UM, REMOVING ALL PARKING AND A, UM, AN SUP THROUGH THE MINOR AMENDMENT PROCESS.

I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THAT.

AND ALSO THE A HUNDRED PERCENT DIRECTOR EXCEPTION FOR THE, THE, UH, USES THAT WE HAD EARLIER.

BUT I THINK THAT'S A PLACE TO START THERE.

THANK YOU, MR. RUBIN.

I'D LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE MORE NUANCE THERE ON LOADING FOR MULTIFAMILY, FOR LARGER MULTIFAMILY, THAT MAY MAKE A LOT OF SENSE, BUT FOR A QUADPLEX THAT MAY MAKE IT INFEASIBLE.

UM, FIRST, UH, SEVERAL THANK YOUS.

UM, THANK YOU MR. WADE, FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK.

I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN AT THE CITY FOR WHAT, ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF NOW, SO THERE ARE ALSO SEVERAL PREDECESSORS THAT YOU HAD THAT WORKED VERY HARD ON THIS TOO.

SO, DR.

ANDREA, UM, THANK YOU AS WELL, AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR HARD WORK AS OUR ZAC CHAIR.

UM, IN, IN PUTTING THIS TOGETHER.

UM, THERE ARE THINGS I LIKE IN THIS COMPROMISE PROPOSAL THAT, THAT COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT HAS FLOATED.

THERE ARE THINGS THAT I THINK, UM, MAYBE PAIR THIS BACK TOO FAR IN SOME WAYS.

UM, KEEPING PARKING MINIMUMS AND RD AND TH DISTRICTS, UM, I THINK MAY GO TOO FAR AS, AS COMMISSIONER FORTH, I SAID, THE MARKET GENERALLY PROVIDES FOR, UM, PARTICULARLY IN OUR, OUR DISTRICTS FOR, FOR OFF STREET PARKING FOR SINGLE FAMILY USES.

SO, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK THE FACT THAT, THAT WE REQUIRE IT MAYBE IS A MISTAKE.

IF SOMEONE WANTS TO DO SOMETHING INNOVATIVE FOR A SINGLE, YOU KNOW, SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND NOT PROVIDE PARKING UNDER, YOU KNOW, COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES, I WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, STRONGLY CONSIDERING ALLOWING THAT FLEXIBILITY.

I UNDERSTAND THAT WE MAY WANNA BAKE IN SOME CONCERNS OR SOME SAFEGUARDS FOR, FOR NEARBY NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT I WORRY ABOUT JUST A BLANKET KEEPING MULTIFAMILY PARKING ANIMALS WITHIN 300 FEET OF SINGLE FAMILY DOESN'T ALLOW FOR THE, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT OF SOME MISSING MIDDLE, THAT THAT MIGHT BE REALLY BENEFICIAL TO NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE KEEP SOME SORT OF PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THE LARGER MULTIFAMILY, LIKE AN MF THREE, BUT FOR SMALLER MULTIFAMILY, WE GET A LITTLE MORE NUANCED OR NOT REQUIRE IT THERE.

I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHERE I LAND, BUT I THINK A THREE, THE FOOTBALL FIELD, UM, YOU KNOW, SORT OF WHAT WE'VE GOT THERE RIGHT NOW, 300 FEET IS, IS PROBABLY NOT WHERE I'M ULTIMATELY COMFORTABLE WITH LANDING, UM, BARS.

IT, IT SEEMS REALLY PERVERSE TO ME THAT WE, WE CONTROL BARS BY, UH, IN PARTICULAR AREAS BY IMPOSING PARKING REQUIREMENTS, CONSIDERING THE ACTIVITY THAT TYPICALLY GOES ON AT BARS, UH, IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH DRIVING.

UH, THERE MAY BE SOME VERY PRACTICAL REASONS TO CONTINUE TO KEEP PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR BARS, BUT I ALSO SEE A STRONG ARGUMENT AGAINST, UH, IN FAVOR OF LIMITING PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR BARS.

UM, IF THERE IS ONE AREA THAT I THINK, UM, MAYBE WE DO KEEP MINIMUMS, I'M GETTING MORE COMFORTABLE ABOUT RESTAURANTS IN PARTICULAR, I THINK THERE, THERE ARE PARTICULAR CHALLENGES WITH THAT USE.

UM, CHURCHES, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE FLEXIBILITY.

I THINK WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH, WITH THE MEGA CHURCH THAT THAT OVERFLOWS AND THAT THAT'S AN ISSUE.

BUT THEY'RE ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT HOUSES OF WORSHIP.

I KNOW WE USE CHURCHES THAT JUST GENERIC TERM IS ON THE SIDE.

WE SHOULD PROBABLY UPDATE THAT IN OUR CODE WHEN WE DO CODE REFORM.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE STOREFRONT CHURCH, THE SMALLER HOUSE OF WORSHIP, I, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE GREATER FLEXIBILITY THERE, PARTICULARLY THOSE, THOSE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING HOUSES OF WORSHIP, I DON'T THINK NEED TO BE HEMMED IN WITH OUR EXISTING PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

UM, FINAL, UH, A COUPLE MORE COMMENTS.

UH, THE LOADING PIECE, I THINK IT'S, IT'S GREAT THAT WE'RE GONNA ADDRESS THAT.

[05:00:01]

SO I, I THINK WE NEED TO DIG IN THERE AND THINK REALLY HARD ABOUT WHAT LEVEL OF MULTIFAMILY WE REQUIRE, UM, LOADING FOR.

UM, FINALLY, I, I, UH, AGREE WITH, WITH COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, THE, THE MINOR AMENDMENT PIECE AS WRITTEN FOR A, A PARKING REDUCTION MAY NOT MAKE THE MOST SENSE, AND WE SHOULD LOOK AT OTHER, UM, BECAUSE I THINK OUR HANDS ARE TIED TO A SIGNIFICANT DEGREE ON, UM, MINOR AMENDMENTS.

I I THINK A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURE OR EVEN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE IS THE WAY TO GO ON, UM, SORT OF CASE BY CASE REDUCTIONS OR MAYBE SOMETHING INNOVATIVE THAT DOES COME THROUGH US, ALTHOUGH, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT ANYWAY, I, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD START AND A GOOD COMPROMISE.

WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT, YOU KNOW, BE MORE AMBITIOUS IN OTHER AREAS.

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING IT OUT WITH ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

UH, FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO COMPLIMENT, UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR TAKING AN IMMENSELY COMPLICATED TOPIC AND BOILING IT DOWN TO A, A ONE PAGER.

I, UH, IT EXCEEDED MY EXPECTATIONS IN THAT RESPECT.

SO, GOOD GOING, UM, I'M, I'M ON BOARD WITH ALMOST EVERYTHING YOU'VE GOT HERE.

A COUPLE OF THINGS I, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, UM, UH, MAYBE A LITTLE MORE THOUGHT GIVEN TO ONE WOULD BE, UH, THE CONCEPT OF VISITOR PARKING AND APARTMENT PROJECTS.

UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO RAISE THE REQUIREMENT.

THEY MAY, THE REQUIREMENT MAY BE FINE THE WAY IT IS, BUT HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT REQUIRED THAT MOST OF THOSE SPACES MAY BE FREE FORCE OF THOSE SPACES BE OUTSIDE OF CONTROL GATES NOT BEHIND THE GATE WHERE VISITORS CAN'T GET TO IT.

I THINK THAT THAT DOES HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS.

I, UM, AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER KINGSTON'S COMMENTS THAT, UH, UH, WE NEED, WE NEED TO BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT SHORT TERM DELIVERIES AND, UH, THE WAY WE HANDLE ALL THAT AND RIDE SHARE.

BUT THAT'S BECOME A BIG FACTOR OF THESE PROJECTS.

AND IF YOU DON'T ADDRESS THEM IN THE REQUIREMENTS, THEN THEY'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO GET ABUSED AND NOT WORK WELL.

SO, I, I HOPE WE CAN DO THAT.

BUT, UM, BY, BY AND LARGE, I THINK THIS IS A REALLY, UH, THIS IS A REALLY GREAT START TO BOILING THIS DOWN TO SOMETHING WE CAN DEAL WITH.

SO THANK YOU, PLEASE.

COMMISSIONER HALL? YEAH.

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, PLEASE.

EVER SINCE I WAS ON ZAC BACK IN 2020 21, I'VE BEEN IN FAVOR OF SOME SORT OF ELIMINATION OF PARKING MINIMUMS. UH, I THINK, UH, THAT HASN'T CHANGED.

I THINK STAFF'S DONE A GREAT JOB HERE, AND I, BUT I THINK THE THINGS WE LEARNED BACK THEN STILL APPLIES TODAY.

IT'S, IT'S A VERY COMPLEX PROJECT, UH, UH, THING TO DO.

AND I THINK WE'VE HEARD ENOUGH TESTIMONY FROM BOTH SIDES TODAY TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE, THERE ARE SOME ADJUSTMENTS THAT IT'S, IT'S NOT ONE SIZE FIT ALL.

WE JUST CAN'T BLANKET ELIMINATE 'EM.

SO I THINK THIS IS A GREAT APPROACH, A GREAT START.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

I ALSO WANNA THANK MICHAEL WADE.

I THINK WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TOGETHER OVER THE HOLIDAY TRYING TO, UM, THINK ABOUT THIS AND COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, WHO CLEARLY LISTENED TO ALL OF US AND LISTENED TO THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD HERE TODAY.

UM, I DON'T THINK ANY OF US THINK THAT OUR CURRENT PARKING CODE IS SERVING OUR CITY WELL.

UM, I THINK UNDERSTANDING HOW WE HAVE A NUANCED APPROACH IS APPROPRIATE, AND I THINK WHAT'S BEFORE US BEGINS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, AS WE'VE HEARD AND, UM, FROM SPEAKERS, YOU KNOW, ONE SIZE FITS ALL IS, IS NOT THE, THE RIGHT SOLUTION FOR US.

BUT I ALSO VERY STRONGLY AGREE THAT THIS HAS TO BE CITYWIDE.

I DON'T THINK WE DO OURSELVES ANY FAVOR BY TRYING TO NOT GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY THAT I THINK THIS CAN PROVIDE TO ALL AREAS OF OUR CITY.

THAT BEING SAID, I THINK IT ALSO HAS TO REFLECT THE FACT THAT ALL OF OUR AREAS OF OUR CITY ARE NOT SERVED IN THE SAME WAY IN TERMS OF MOBILITY OPTIONS.

AND THAT HAS TO BE REFLECTED, UM, AS, AS WE'RE CONSIDERING THIS, I THINK WHAT'S BEFORE US STARTS TO, TO THINK ABOUT THAT ALSO AGREE.

COMMISSIONER HERBERT'S COMMENT THAT THE T-D-M-P-I RECOGNIZE THE CHALLENGE OF IT.

I DIDN'T EVEN ASK ALL MY QUESTIONS THAT I HAD ON THAT SECTION OF IT.

UM, BUT THERE ARE SOME PIECES OF IT THAT MAY BE WORTH CONSIDERING.

AND I WANT TO TAKE WHAT'S BEFORE US AND MAYBE GIVE THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAILED THOUGHT.

UM, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MENTIONED, UM, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I'M GONNA BE TAKING A CLOSER LOOK AT.

UM, I GUESS ONE OTHER CLARIFICATION I WILL ASK, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT, ARE WE REFERRING TO COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE AND

[05:05:01]

AND THAT WAS A YES.

UM, I THINK THERE MAY BE A HANDFUL OF OTHER USES.

UM, COMMISSIONER SLEEPER TALKED ABOUT, UM, GUEST PARKING FOR MULTI-FAMILY THAT I, I THINK WE'VE HEARD CAN BE A CHALLENGE.

UM, I THINK ALSO HOW WE THINK ABOUT PASSENGER DROP OFF AND IF THERE'S OTHERS THAT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER, JUST AS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT LOADING.

UM, I HAVE TOOK SOME TIME AND WENT BACK THROUGH SOME OF OUR OTHER, UM, OLDER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT MIGHT GIVE US SOME CLUES ON WHAT'S BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN WORKING AND SERVING OUR CITY.

NOT SAYING WE PUT IT EVERYWHERE, BUT WHERE IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE AND WHERE WE'VE SEEN IT BE SUCCESSFUL AND FOSTER GOOD DEVELOPMENT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE.

UM, I THINK THE OTHER TWO THINGS, I KNOW COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I'M TRYING NOT TO REPEAT THINGS WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT, BUT I DO THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME CONSIDERATION OF OUR HISTORIC FABRIC AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS.

UM, I THINK THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, UM, THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THINKING ABOUT BARS AND RESTAURANT AND RETAIL IS TRYING TO LOOK TOWARDS THAT.

BUT I ALSO WANNA TAKE A LOOK AND SEE AGAIN, WHAT SOME OF OUR OTHER TOOLS MAYBE THAT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE, AS WELL AS HOW WE'RE CONSIDERING HISTORIC DISTRICTS, UM, CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, OUR OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND JUST WHAT THOSE IMPLICATIONS ARE.

UM, I WOULD ALSO HOPE THAT WE MIGHT LOOK AT A COUPLE OF THE PROVISIONS REGARDING ACCESS.

I AGREE WE NEED TO BE MORE FLEXIBLE.

I THINK IT HAS HARMED SOME OF OUR OLDER AREAS OF TOWN, UM, WHERE WE USED TO HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE ACCESS.

BUT, UM, I ALSO LIVE IN ONE OF THOSE OLDER AREAS OF TOWN AND KNOW WHERE SOME OF THOSE PINCH POINTS HAVE BEEN.

UM, THAT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO THINK ABOUT.

UM, ONE THING I DON'T THINK I HEARD, AND I THINK MAY, UM, SPEAK TO THE IDEA OF AS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT PAID PARKING AND WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK AT IS GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN OUR SHARED PARKING.

UM, YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR NON-STANDARD PARKING AGREEMENTS THAT WILL UNLOCK SOME OF THE PARKING THAT'S ALREADY BUILT AND HELP SUPPORT THIS IDEA ABOUT WHERE WE DO BUILD IN FLEXIBILITY.

SO, UM, I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING THIS CONVERSATION, BUT, UM, THANK ALL MY COLLEAGUES FOR THE GREAT DISCUSSION TODAY AND LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING IT.

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, PLEASE.

COMMISSIONER FORSIGHT.

MY QUESTION IS, MY QUESTION IS, WILL, HOW WILL THIS, UH, RESOLUTION FROM COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC SO THAT WE CAN ALSO SECURE INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC? I DON'T KNOW HOW WE TYPICALLY DO THAT.

I THINK, UH, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, THIS IS ALL OPEN.

I MEAN, WE GOT THIS THROUGH OUR CITY EMAILS.

I'M HAPPY TO, TO FORWARD IT TO ANYONE.

AND THAT'S A, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

HOW WOULD WE MAYBE PUT ON THE WEBSITE? OR SHOULD WE, CAN WE DO THAT? WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A VERSION OF THIS, UM, PROPOSAL PAIRED DOWN TO MORE ACCURATE REFLECT THIS MOTION, SO I CAN SEE WHAT THE DOCUMENT WOULD LOOK LIKE, A RED LINE CREATED BY STAFF.

AND THAT CAN BE THAT THAT IS COMING.

YEAH, YEAH.

WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT, SO THAT WOULD BE MADE AS WELL.

AND THEN DOCKET FOR THE, YEAH, THAT, THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT STEP.

AND, AND MICHAEL HAS BEEN GRACIOUS ENOUGH TO ALMOST COMMIT TO HAVING THAT READY HERE BY, UH, SOMETIME MID NEXT WEEK, MID OR LATE.

UH, ANDREA URE IS SPEAKING TO THE CITY ATTORNEY ABOUT HOW EXACTLY WE WOULD RELEASE THAT, BUT WE CAN TURN IT AROUND TO REFLECT THIS RELATIVELY QUICKLY.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE TO HONESTLY MONOPOLIZE THE TIME OF THE CITY ATTORNEY JUST TO MAKE SURE IT'S AS GREAT AS POSSIBLE, BUT ALL WRITE CODE IN MY SLEEP.

I'M HAPPY TO DO IT QUICKLY.

SO MY NEXT QUESTION THEN IS, IT SOUNDS LIKE THEN THIS, THIS WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE IN THE NEXT DOCKET.

IS, IS, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT FOR THE MEETING ON NO, NO, NO.

THAT'S A, THAT'S A GREAT POINT, COMMISSIONER FOR THAT BECAUSE, UH, I HAVE HEARD OVERWHELMINGLY FROM MY COLLEAGUES THAT WE DON'T WANT THIS AT THE, ON THE 23RD.

SO, UH, THAT WAS GONNA BE THE NEXT THING I WAS GONNA OPEN UP, BUT IF YOU HAVE OTHER COMMENTS, WE COULD LOOK SEARCH FOR A, A NEXT LY CALLED HEARING, MAYBE THE WEEK AFTER.

WELL, I, I, I THINK THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE, WE SHOULD GIVE AT LEAST A MONTH.

I, I, YOU KNOW, BEFORE WE GET SOME, SOMETIMES THE LATTER PART OF FEBRUARY BEFORE WE GET BACK TO THIS, UH, MID TO JULY CER, CERTAINLY AFTER THE MIDDLE PART OF FEBRUARY.

IT SHOULDN'T BE ANY EARLIER THAN THAT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? UM, I THINK THAT HAS TO BE AN, UH, OPEN DISCUSSION HERE AT THE, THE OR U, BUT, UH, BEFORE WE TALK ABOUT THE DATE, YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE MOTION? I MEAN, I JUST, UH, JUST GONNA MAKE A GO.

GO AHEAD.

YEAH, SORRY.

JUST, UH,

[05:10:01]

PLEASE, COMMISSIONER.

AWESOME.

DALE, FIRST OF ALL, I DO WANNA THANK ALL THE SPEAKERS FOR COMING OUT, UM, YOU KNOW, ONLINE IN PERSON, THE EMAILS THAT YOU'VE SENT.

REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

I USED TO BE ON THAT SIDE UP UNTIL A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, SO I KNOW THAT IT TAKES A COMMITMENT AND REALLY APPRECIATE Y'ALL COMING OUT HERE AND BEING A PART OF IT.

UM, THANK YOU TO EVERYONE FOR THE CONVERSATION.

THANK YOU TO MICHAEL FOR ALL THE WORK YOU'VE PUT INTO THIS.

AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR PUTTING THIS IN FRONT OF US.

AND, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M WITH COMMISSIONER RUBIN.

THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN HERE THAT I THINK ARE GOOD AS FAR AS A COMPROMISE AND WHERE WE NEED TO GO.

I THINK THERE ARE A FEW PLACES WE COULD MAYBE BE, UM, PUSH A LITTLE BIT MORE, UM, AND, AND BE A LITTLE BIT MORE AGGRESSIVE.

UH, I KNOW YOU DON'T WANNA DO CARVE OUTS, I HEAR THAT.

UM, I STILL STRUGGLE A BIT WITH CHURCHES.

UH, I KNOW A MEGA CHURCHES IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD CHURCH.

UM, THERE ARE THREE AROUND MY OFFICE AND THEY HAVE GIANT PARKING LOTS THAT ARE VERY RARELY USED, JUST A COUPLE HOURS EVERY WEEK, AND IT'S A BIG DETRIMENT TO THE COMMUNITY.

SO CHURCHES ARE, ARE BIG ON MY MIND IN WHAT WE'RE REQUIRING THEM TO DO AND WHAT THAT MEANS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

UM, ONE CLARIFICATION, I I WANTED TO ASK, UM, WITH RAIL AND TOD STATIONS, WOULD THAT ALSO INCLUDE STREETCAR? OKAY.

OKAY, GREAT.

YEAH, I THINK THAT WOULD BE, UM, A GOOD THING AS WELL.

UM, SO THOSE ARE KIND OF MY THOUGHTS AT THIS POINT.

UH, PLEASE COMMISSIONER CHAR, AND THEN WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER SLEEPER.

UH, YEAH, I WON'T REITERATE A LOT OF THE THINGS I ALREADY SAID.

I THINK IN SOME WAYS THIS, UH, I CAN GET BEHIND SOME OF THIS STUFF IN, IN A LOT OF WAYS.

I THINK IT CUTS OFF A LITTLE BIT TOO MUCH.

UM, THE ONE THING THAT HASN'T BEEN BROUGHT UP TOO MUCH IS TO T DMPS.

THE ONE THING I LIKED ABOUT THIS, THAT IT WAS FOR THE FIRST TIME, IT WAS REQUIRING THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO JUST TO HAVE A COMPLETE PHILOSOPHICAL SHIFT ON HOW THEY LOOKED AT THEIR PROJECTS AND THEIR SITES AND NOT BE SO CAR-CENTRIC, BUT ACTUALLY START CONSIDERING HOW ALL FORMS OF MODALITIES, WHETHER YOU'RE ON FOOT OR BIKES OR UBERS, UM, HOW YOU COME INTO THE SITE, HOW YOU LEAVE THE SITE.

UH, I LIKE THAT.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE LOST.

UM, I ALSO SAY I, I, I DO SUPPORT AND LIKE THE IDEAS OF SOME KIND OF DROP OFF MANAGEMENT FOR UBERS AND DELIVERIES.

I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.

THE ONE THING I'D LIKE TO ALSO JUST HIGHLIGHT IS THAT THAT'S, IT'S NOT ZERO SUM.

EVERY TIME AN UBER SHOWS UP, THAT'S ONE LESS TRIP THAT SOMEBODY WENT AND HAD TO GO PARK AT A RESTAURANT.

SO THERE'S A, THERE'S A FLIP SIDE TO THAT THAT HASN'T BEEN BROUGHT UP TODAY.

SAME THING WHEN YOU ORDER SOMETHING ON AMAZON, THAT'S ONE LESS TRIP.

YOU WENT TO THE STORE TO BUY AN ITEM.

UH, SO OBVIOUSLY VERY QUICKLY YOU START TO SEE THE RIPPLE EFFECT OF HOW COMPLEX AND ALL THIS STUFF STARTS TO TIE TOGETHER.

UH, WITH REGARDS TO MULTIFAMILY, ONE OF THE THINGS I DON'T LIKE, I JUST BY OUR ZONING CODE IN GENERAL, IS THAT THREE UNITS AND 300 UNITS ARE BOTH CALLED MULTIFAMILY WITH SUCH HIGH PRIORITY OF MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING.

UM, THAT WAS FRONT AND CENTER IN THE DISCUSSION AT THE FORWARD DALLAS PROCESS.

UM, I THINK WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO, UM, MAYBE MAKE SOME POLICY TO PROMOTE MORE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING.

AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, BROAD STROKES LIKE, OR BOUNDARIES I GET THAT MAKES ME A LITTLE UNEASY.

YOU KNOW, I'M WE TALKING ABOUT ZONING MULTI OR SINGLE FAMILY.

ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A SINGLE FAMILY USE? WE HAVE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, UH, PROPERTIES THAT ALREADY EXIST ON MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY, AND THAT ALWAYS CREATES A LITTLE BIT OF AN ISSUE.

WE HAVE SINGLE FAMILY USES THAT EXIST ON DUPLEX PROPERTY.

WE HAVE ISOLATED ONE-OFF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES THAT EXIST IN ISOLATION, AND THEN ALL AROUND THAT IS MORE URBAN AND DEVELOPED.

NOW WITH THIS IDEA OF A 300 FOOT RADIUS, IF THAT PARTICULAR ONE-OFF OUTLIER FELL WITHIN THE 300 FOOT, IT REALLY UNDERMINES THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF WHAT I THINK WE'RE AFTER HERE.

SO IT'S NOT QUITE AS EASY AS JUST PUTTING A SIMPLE BOUNDARY AND THINKING THAT THAT SOLVES ALL THE, ALL THE ISSUES.

UM, SO, UH, THAT'S, I'LL CUT DOWN MY COMMENTS THERE.

OR FROM A ORDINANCE, IT'S, IT'S MUCH HARDER TO WRITE IT.

SECOND ROUND VICE CHAIR RUBEN FILED BY COMMISSIONER SLEEPER.

YEAH, JUST ONE OTHER THING THAT I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT AS, AS WE DO THIS, I KNOW THAT CITY STAFF AND SOME STAKEHOLDERS WORKED REALLY HARD ON SORT OF A-T-D-M-P COMPROMISE MAYBE, OR, OR A, OR A MAYBE A LITTLE BIT LESS ONEROUS VERSION OF THE TDMP IF, AND I HEAR STATEMENTS FROM AT LEAST A COUPLE OF MY COLLEAGUES SAYING MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T THROW OUT THIS HE DMP COMPLETELY.

IF WE ARE SEEING A REVISED ORDINANCE IN OUR NEXT DOCKET, IT WOULD BE GREAT.

I, I THINK AT LEAST FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES, TO HAVE THE REVISED ORDINANCE, AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMINATION DISCUSSION PURPOSES, TOUCH THE TDMP PIECE AS WELL, SO WE CAN CONSIDER IT.

UM, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S REALLY EASY JUST TO STRIKE SOMETHING FROM A MOTION THAT'S MUCH HARDER TO,

[05:15:01]

SO RATHER THAN BE STUCK AT A FUTURE MEETING WITH AN UNDRAFTED TDMP PIECE, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE TDMP VERSION TWO OR WHATEVER WE CALL IT, UM, DRAFTED.

WOULD THAT BE FEASIBLE, MR. WADE? TOTALLY.

IT IS, IT IS FEASIBLE.

I WAS ACTUALLY EXPECTING TREK, WHO'S THE MAIN GROUP THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH TO COME AND ADVOCATE FOR THAT TODAY.

AND, UH, WE DIDN'T SEE THAT, BUT, SO IT IS DRAFTED.

I WOULD WANNA CIRCLE UP WITH THEM AND SEE IF THEY'RE PREPARED, YOU KNOW, IF, IF IT'S SORT OF GOTTEN THEIR FINAL STAMP OF APPROVAL, THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL TO SEE THEM AND, AND HEAR FROM THEM, BECAUSE I KNOW THEY'VE BEEN AT THE TABLE FOR A WHILE ON THE TDMP PIECE, SO HOPEFULLY NEXT TIME THEY'RE, THEY'RE HERE.

I KNOW I SAW THE REPRESENTATIVE HERE EARLIER, BUT I GUESS SINCE WE RAN VAN SO LONG, THEY HAD TO LEAVE.

WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, BUT YES, THEY, THEY DO HAVE LANGUAGE THAT THEY'RE GONNA PROPOSE.

COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, UH, THANK YOU.

I I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER FORSYTH THAT, UH, DISTRIBUTING THE PRODUCT OF THIS DISCUSSION TO THE PUBLIC IS, IS AN IMPORTANT THING TO DO.

I, I GUESS MY ONLY QUESTION IS AT, AT WHAT POINT DO WE DO THAT? DO WE DO THE, IS IT THE INITIAL FORM? IS IT, IS IT THE FORM I I, I KNOW, UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT IS BUSY JOTTING DOWN, TAKING NOTES.

DO DO WE, DO WE LET THIS GO THROUGH ONE ROUND OF AT LEAST FEELING THOSE COMMENTS BEFORE WE DISTRIBUTE IT? OR, OR, OR WHEN ARE WE TALKING ABOUT DISTRIBUTING SOMETHING TO THE PUBLIC? I GUESS THAT'S MY QUESTION.

UH, WELL, UNLESS STAFF WANTS TO CHIME IN, I THINK THE, THE PLAN IS TO TAKE, UH, THIS MOTION TO PUT IT INTO THE, THE NORMAL LEGAL LANGUAGE THAT WE, THAT SOME OF US HAVE A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING OCCASIONALLY, AND THEN THAT, THAT WILL COME OUT TO US.

AND THEN THAT IS PUBLIC.

YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW WHAT COMMISSIONER HOUSER READ TODAY IS PUBLIC AS WELL.

BUT, AND THEN WE TAKE THAT AND AT OUR NEXT MEETING WE COME BACK AND MAKE ADJUSTMENTS.

UH, MAYBE YOU HAVE A PARTICULAR NUMBER, UH, THAT YOU'RE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING THAT SHE WANTS TO ADJUST.

UH, BUT I THINK WE, WE COULD HAVE A PRETTY QUICK TURNAROUND ON WHAT WE ACTUALLY GET A, SOMETHING BACK TO CONSIDER THAT TURNS COMMISSIONER HOUSE WRIGHT'S, UH, MOTION INTO, UH, PARTICULAR LANGUAGE.

WOULD THAT NOT BE POSTED AS A NOTE WITH THE NOTICE FOR OUR NEXT MEETING? YES.

SO IT'S JUST GOING TO OUT THERE JUST LIKE, JUST LIKE EVERYTHING TODAY'S LOOK, IT NORMALLY HAPPENS.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING SPECIAL BEYOND WHAT WE NORMALLY DO.

WE'LL POST THE NOTICE OF THE NEXT MEETING.

UM, STAFF TO PRODUCE A CPC FOR STAFF TO DRAFT A-A-C-P-C RECOMMENDED, UM, AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE, UM, BASED ON THE, THE HOUSE RIGHT MOTION MADE TODAY AS WELL AS THE, UM, UPDATED T-T-D-M-P LANGUAGE VERSION TWO THAT WAS CIRCULATED TO US.

THAT WE'LL HAVE THE NEXT DRAFT ATTACHED TO IT.

WHEN, WHEN WE RECEIVE IT, THE PUBLIC RECEIVES IT.

SORRY, I NEED TO INTERJECT A LITTLE BIT AND I WILL LET THE ATTORNEY CHIME IN AS WELL.

THIS IS A CODE AMENDMENT, THIS IS CODE LANGUAGE.

THIS IS NOT PLAN AND POLICY UNLESS WE HAVE A MOTION FROM YOU AND YOU VOTE ON IT.

THERE ARE NO DRAFT CHANGES THAT WE CAN MAKE BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING OFFICIAL.

SO IF YOU WANNA MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, BY ALL MEANS, UH, BUT I MEAN, WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THIS.

WE CAN RECOMMEND ADJUSTMENTS TO, TO LOOK MORE LEGAL, BUT WE CANNOT MAKE DRAFT CHANGES OF SOMETHING THAT THIS, THIS BODY DIDN'T VOTE ON, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THIS IS CODE.

AND I WILL LET THE ATTORNEY CHIME IN.

I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I, I UNDERSTAND THIS BECAUSE I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH, WITH CODE AMENDMENTS FOR SOME TIME.

I'M NOT A LAWYER IN, IN THIS CONTEXT, BUT REGULARLY WE SEE DRAFT ORDINANCES, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR PDS OR EVEN CODE AMENDMENTS.

I THINK THIS ONE WHERE AFTER SOMETHING COMES OUT OF ZAC OR, OR YOU KNOW, BETWEEN CPC AND COUNCIL, THE ORDINANCES IS UPDATED WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDED, YOU KNOW, CHANGES.

SO ARE WE ABLE TO SEE AN UPDATED DRAFT OF THE ORDINANCE BASED ON THE SUGGESTIONS MADE TODAY? I WOULD SAY THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WILL NOT CHANGE.

I'M, I'M TALKING ABOUT WE, WE'VE DRAFTED, I THINK EVEN ON, ON OTHER THINGS LIKE A CPC, YOU KNOW, VERSION OF THE ORDINANCE BASED ON THE DIRECTION OF CPC, VICE CHAIR RUBEN.

I, I THINK, AND THAT WAS GONNA BE MY QUESTION AS WELL, AND I'LL USE THE EXAMPLES OF THE CEDARS, IS THAT WE HAD CPC CONSIDERATION AND IT WAS OUR REQUEST FOR STAFF TO PRODUCE THE REVISED AMENDMENT, OUR CPC CONSIDERATION, NOT STAFF.

SO WOULD THIS NOT JUST BE, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, ANOTHER BOX IN THE AMENDMENT? YES.

SORRY TO SPEAK OVER YOU, VICE CHAIR.

I REMEMBER A LITTLE BIT OF THAT, AND I THINK CPC VOTED ON EACH OF THOSE.

ULTIMATELY, YES.

BUT THE DRAFT WAS CIRCULATED SO THAT THE FULL BODY COULD SEE THE AMENDMENTS PRIOR TO OUR TAKING ACTION.

ON IT, MR. CHAIR, CAN I MAKE A MOTION FOR,

[05:20:01]

YOU, YOU CAN MS THAT MR. CHAIR PLEASE.

I, I HAVE TO WEIGH IN ON THIS.

THERE, THERE IS NO CPC RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS BECAUSE CPC HASN'T VOTED ON A MOTION.

MR. CHAIR, WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO MAKE A MOTION? I JUST THAT, THAT WE, UH, PUT THIS LANGUAGE, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, UH, IN A, IN A PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

I, I THINK THAT'S WHAT VICE CHAIR HAS TRIED TO DO.

AND, AND WE'RE RUNNING INTO, UH, A ROADBLOCK HERE.

UM, MS. MS. MORRISON, CAN THE DRAFT, CAN THE, CAN THE BODY NOT SEE DRAFT LANGUAGE FOR AN ORDINANCE THAT WE REQUEST TO EVALUATE AT A FUTURE MEETING AND HAVE THAT INCLUDED IN OUR, YOU CAN ASK STAFF TO DRAFT CONDITIONS THAT REFLECT THIS MOTION, BUT THAT WOULD NOT BE A CPC RECOMMENDATION.

OH, OKAY.

AND I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT SEMANTICS HERE.

I JUST WANNA GET THE WORK PRODUCT FROM CITY STAFF BEFORE OUR RECOMMENDATION NEXT MEETING.

YOU KNOW, WE DON'T NEED TO LABEL IT A CPC RECOMMENDATION IF THAT GIVES YOU HEARTBURN.

THAT'S THE LANGUAGE, RIGHT? WE CPC.

THE CPC RECOMMENDATION IS WHAT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION.

WELL, SO IF THIS BODY WANTS STAFF TO WORK ON A DRAFT THAT REFLECTS, UM, THE MOTION THAT WAS READ INTO THE RECORD TODAY, I MEAN, YOU CAN ASK STAFF TO DO THAT, AND THAT WOULD BE UP TO STAFF.

DID YOU JUST REVISE YOUR MOTION BY CHAIR RUBIN? I WILL REVISE MY MOTION TO REFLECT THE, UH, ADVICE THAT I WAS GIVEN BY, BY MS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MORRISON.

UM, AND ONE OTHER, UM, POINT JUST ON, YOU KNOW, THE GOOD NEWS IS THIS IS A CODE AMENDMENT AND WE HAVE DEDICATED WEB PAGES ON THE PAGES, ON THE, UM, NOT THE PUD, WHATEVER WE CALL OUR DEPARTMENT ANYMORE WEBSITE DEDICATED TO EACH CODE AMENDMENT.

SO I WOULD SUGGEST AS SOON AS IT'S READY, WE PUBLISH THAT, UM, FOR THE PUBLIC'S CONSIDERATION ON THE WEBSITE.

THERE'S NO REASON, I THINK, TO WAIT UNTIL OUR, OUR NEXT OR WHATEVER DOCKET THIS IS GONNA ULTIMATELY END UP TO, TO START CIRCULATING THIS.

AND OUR CITY WEBSITE SEEMS LIKE THE IDEAL FORUM FOR THAT.

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, YOU OKAY WITH THE ADJUSTMENT IN THE MOTION? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT COMMISSIONER? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE.

THE OPPOSED MOTION PASSES.

WE GO BACK TO THE, I, UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON SECOND IT.

NOT SURE WHAT, WHAT, HOW THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN THAT.

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

ANY FURTHER? COMMISSIONER SLEEPER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? I GUESS THIS IS A QUE THIS IS A QUESTION.

UH, WE, WE, THERE WERE SEVERAL CHANGES THAT WERE, OR, OR MODIFICATIONS THAT WERE RECOMMENDED.

ARE THOSE, ARE, ARE WE GOING TO VOTE ON ANY OF THOSE OR ARE THEY GONNA BE NOT INCLUDED IN THE MOTION? ARE THEY GONNA BE INCLUDED IN THE MOTION? UH, WHAT'S GONNA BE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS WHAT'S GONNA BE INCLUDED IN THIS DRAFT IS THE MOTION THAT COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT MADE.

AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK AND, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S GONNA HAVE ADJUSTMENTS, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, YOU KNOW, ALL OF US CAN.

AND IN FACT, UH, IN LEADING UP TO THAT, YOU COULD REACH OUT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE KIND OF THINGS THAT ARE INTERESTING TO ME.

HOW CAN I, YOU KNOW, WERE THESE CHANGES AND THEN WE CAN CONSIDER THOSE.

NOW WHAT, WHAT I DON'T KNOW IS, YOU KNOW, I'M ASSUMING WE CANNOT CIRCULATE THOSE AHEAD OF TIME WE HAD BEFORE, RIGHT? DIDN'T WE CIRCULATE OUR CHANGES FOR BEFORE WE DOWN, CAN WE CIRCULATE OUR, OUR, UH, POTENTIAL ADJUSTMENTS AHEAD OF OUR NEXT HEARING ON THIS? IN OTHER WORDS, IF COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, YOU KNOW, HAS SIX CHANGES SHE WANTS TO MAKE, CAN SHE EMAIL, UH, THE SECRETARY AND THEN DISTRIBUTE THAT TO US AHEAD OF, AHEAD OF TIME? OH, YEAH.

IF IT'S COMMISSIONER, SURE OR NOT, IT'S ASSUMING IT'S READY.

MR. CHAIR? YEAH.

SO I'M NOT CLEAR, I'M NOT CLEAR HOW ARE THESE, UH, POINTS ANY DIFFERENT THAN ANY OF THE OTHER ONES THAT WERE SPOKEN TODAY? AND MICHAEL WROTE DOWN AND TOOK IN WHY CAN'T, WHY CAN'T HE JUST PASS THIS TO MICHAEL AND SAY, THESE ARE ADDITIONAL TALKING POINTS, JUST LIKE ALL OF US HAD ADDITIONAL HAD, I MEAN, I'M ASSUMING YOU WERE WRITING THOSE DOWN, MR. WADE, SORRY, MR. WADE TO, UM, INCORPORATE THOSE INTO A FUTURE DRAFT, OR WERE THEY JUST WRITTEN DOWN AS DOCUMENTATION OF THE, OF WHAT HAPPENED HERE TODAY? I'M

[05:25:01]

UM, I'M GONNA, OR DIFFERENT THAN WHAT, UH, CHAIR SHE DID JUST SAID THAT SOMEBODY COULD REACH OUT IN THE COMING DAYS OR WEEKS AND ALSO SUBMIT MORE IDEAS.

UH, I'LL TELL YOU JUST I GUESS FROM THE WORK WORKHORSE SIDE OF IT, WHAT I CAN PRODUCE, AND MAYBE Y'ALL CAN SAY WHETHER THIS IS THE WAY YOU WANT TO VIEW IT OR NOT, I CAN PRODUCE SOMETHING THAT HAS NUMBERS ONE THROUGH 13 REFLECTED IN LANGUAGE, AND THEN ALSO ELEMENTS THAT REFLECT OTHER COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.

I DON'T TRUST THAT I'VE CAPTURED 100% OF SPOKEN COMMENTS.

A LOT OF THEM ARE VAGUE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO MAY MAYBE IF WE CAN CIRCULATE APPROPRIATELY COMMENTS THAT FOLKS ARE WANTING TO HAVE SOME DRAFT LANGUAGE FOR, THEN WE CAN SORT OF HAVE A, A MAIN BODY AND THEN A MENU OF OTHER ITEMS TO TALK ABOUT NEXT TIME.

MR. MR MR, I THINK WHAT MR. WADE SAID MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

I JUST WANNA TALK PROCESS AND PROCEDURE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

SO WE WILL SEE AN ORDINANCE THAT REFLECTS COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHTS ONE THROUGH 14.

AND THEN IF, IF, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, I MAY SAY I DON'T WANT MINIMUMS FOR CHURCHES, CHURCHES, AND I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT AT OUR NEXT MEETING TO STRIKE MINIMUMS FOR CHURCHES.

WHAT I COULD DO IS I COULD EMAIL MR. WADE AND SAY, CAN YOU DRAFT THAT LANGUAGE SO I CAN MAKE IT INTO AN AMENDMENT? AND I, I THINK ONE THING TO, TO FLAG THERE IS OBVIOUSLY ALL OF US ARE DRAFTS PEOPLE TO, TO SOME CAPABLE DEGREES, BUT TO SOME DEGREE, BUT MR. WAY AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DO THIS PROFESSIONALLY.

SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN HAVE OUR IDEAS OUT IN FRONT AND COMMUNICATE IT TO, TO STAFF, TO WORK OUT REALLY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, SINCE THIS IS AN ORDINANCE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL.

RATHER THAN, YOU KNOW, JUST HAVE BRENT AT OUR NEXT MEETING SAYING, OH, LET'S STRIKE CHURCHES.

WHAT WE WOULD REALLY WANT IS THE PARTICULAR LANGUAGE, YOU KNOW, ADDRESSING THE, THE SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF THE CODE, HOPEFULLY DRAFTED WITH THE, THE HELP OF, OF STAFF, PLEASE.

PERHAPS IF PEOPLE HAVE THINGS THAT THEY'RE WANTING TO SEE, IF THEY JUST ALL SEND THEM TO MICHAEL, HE COULD KIND OF FILTER IT.

AND IF HE STARTS TO SEE CONSENSUS FORMING AROUND SOME OF IT, HE CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND INCLUDE IT IN THE NEXT DRAFT.

AND THEN IF THERE ARE THINGS THAT HE DOESN'T SEE CONSENSUS ABOUT, HE CAN START TO PULL TOGETHER LANGUAGE.

AND THOSE COULD BE THINGS THAT MAYBE WE SPEND A LITTLE MORE TIME TALKING ABOUT.

PERFECT.

MUCH BETTER STATED THAN WHAT I TRIED TO SAY.

AND THAT HELPS ME.

COMMISSIONER CHAIR, NOT MR. CHAIR.

UM, CAN I JUST ADD, I I WOULD LOVE TO MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE TO ASSIST WITH ANY, UH, MOTION DRAFTING THAT ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS, UM, MIGHT NEED.

UM, THAT INCLUDES JUST DRAFTING A MOTION AHEAD OF TIME TO STRIKE SOMETHING OR TO ADD SOMETHING.

UM, I, I WOULD LOVE TO HELP OUT WITH THAT.

BE ADDED, UH, BY OUR CITY ATTORNEY, UH, FROM THE HORSESHOE, I THINK.

UH, FOLLOW UP, COMMISSIONER CHAIR.

NOT, UH, JUST, SO HOW WILL WILL THIS LOOK SIMILAR AT THE VERY END TO FORD DALLAS, WHERE WE WERE MAKING MOTIONS AND VOTING? I MEAN, WE HAD A HUNDRED PLUS THERE, OR IS IT, WILL IT JUST BE A DIFFERENT PROCESS? I'M TRYING TO GET MY MIND WRAPPED AROUND EXACTLY THE ROAD TO THE FINISH LINE FROM HERE THAT, THAT'S HARD TO PREDICT, BUT I, I DON'T THINK THIS WILL BE THAT JUST BECAUSE IT'S JUST, THIS DOESN'T HAVE AS MANY VARIABLES AS FORWARD AS IT, I DON'T THINK.

AND, UH, AND THESE ARE FRANKLY, MORE INTUITIVE.

UM, AND I THINK THE, THE CONSEQUENCES AND POTENTIAL UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES ARE EASILY EASIER TO UNDERSTAND WITH THESE.

AND, YOU KNOW, I COULD TELL AS SOON AS SOME, THE, MY COLLEAGUES READ THIS PAGE FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT THEY GOT, THEY UNDERSTOOD MOST OF IT IN THE SPLIT SECOND.

UM, SO I THINK THE, THAT CONTEXT IS, IS IMPORTANT.

UH, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER SERT? SO, PARDON ME FOR BEING A SLOW LEARNER, BUT, UM, I JUST WANT, I, I, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY IF, IF, IF THE, IF THE, IF MICHAEL IS GOING TO DRAFT, UH, SOMETHING BASED ON COMMISSIONER HOUSE WRIGHT'S COMMENTS.

AND WE HAVE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE EXPRESSED HERE, BUT HAVEN'T, THAT WEREN'T INCLUDED IN THERE INITIALLY.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE, THE, THE LOADING SPACE REQUIREMENT AND MULTIFAMILY THE, UH, UH, ADDRESSING VISITOR PARKING SPACES AND SO FORTH.

SO THE THING WE SHOULD DO IS SUBMIT THOSE TO MICHAEL OR SUBMIT THOSE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, OR EITHER WAY, HAVE 'EM END UP IN, IN MICHAEL'S HANDS, AND THEN HE'LL BRING IT BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING.

IS THAT THE IDEA? UH, AHEAD OF THE NEXT MEETING? YES.

AHEAD OF, AHEAD OF THE NEXT MEETING, THE NEXT PARKING MEETING.

BUT THAT, BY THE WAY, THEY JUST, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT AT THE HEARING, YOU CAN'T, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE AN EPIPHANY OR AN IDEA OR AN ADJUSTMENT THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE ON THE, ON THE SPOT.

YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY MAKE THAT EVEN THEN, AND THAT LANGUAGE CAN

[05:30:01]

COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT.

YEAH, I KNOW OUR, OUR DISCUSSION HERE IS FOCUSING ON PROCESS, AND I WANNA RESPECT THAT, BUT I'M GONNA TALK ABOUT, UH, CONTENT, UH, JUST FOR A MOMENT, PLEASE.

UH, MY, MY MOTION, UM, ELIMINATED T DMPS.

CLEARLY, I DON'T LIKE T DMPS .

UM, AND THE THINGS WE DON'T LIKE, OR THINGS WE'RE AFRAID OF ARE THINGS THAT WE DON'T UNDERSTAND OR WE'VE PERHAPS NEVER SEEN BEFORE.

SO I WILL, I'LL SAY MY PIECE ON T DMPS, I THINK THEY'RE VAGUE.

I THINK IT'S SUBJECTIVE.

I THINK, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IS NOT GOING TO LIKE A LONGER MORE EXPENSIVE PERMIT PROCESS, WHICH I THINK TDMP WILL, WILL REQUIRE.

UM, SO THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE ALL THE REASONS I DON'T LIKE IT.

ANOTHER REASON I DON'T LIKE IT IS IN MY DECADES OF ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE, I HAVE NEVER SEEN ONE.

SO MY HUMBLE REQUEST WOULD BE THREE EXAMPLES OF A-T-D-M-P FROM SOMEWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES, OR AT A MINIMUM NORTH AMERICA THAT I, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT IS.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN IT.

UM, MAYBE I COULD GET BEHIND IT IF I SAW ONE.

BUT, UH, IT'S ALL VERY THEORETICAL AND ABSTRACT, SO THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HERBERT.

THANK YOU, UM, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR RECOGNIZING, FOR EXPRESSING YOUR, YOUR DISLIKE.

UM, THERE ARE THINGS THERE THAT I, I SEE BEING A PROBLEM.

UM, BUT IT, IT GOES BACK TO WHAT, UM, COMMISSIONER RUBIN SAID, AND THE SIZE OF THESE, UH, MULTI-FAMILIES THAT WE GET, RIGHT? AND IN MY MIND, SKILLMAN AND ELIA NORTHWEST HIGHWAY, AND THEN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER, OUR, THESE ARE 300 TO 400 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEXES THAT TAKE UP MASSIVE, UM, SPACE IN THESE AREAS.

WE ARE THE LAST REMAINING, UM, AREAS THAT HAVE THIS MUCH LAND THAT WILL COME IN.

UM, SO IF THERE IS A WAY IN YOUR RESEARCH, MR. WADE, UM, THAT A-T-D-M-P OF SOME TYPE COULD WORK, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.

I'LL DO SOME RESEARCH MYSELF.

UM, SOME TYPE OF CONSTRAINTS AROUND THESE MASTROS THAT ARE COMING INTO OUR COMMUNITIES AND CHANGING THE WHOLE DYNAMIC OF THE WAY WE LIVE.

IF I CAN RESPOND TO THAT FOR JUST A MINUTE, UM, DRAFTING THIS WILL BE ONE THING THAT I CAN DO BY MID OR LATE NEXT WEEK, RESEARCH ON THAT SCALE WILL TAKE LONGER.

UM, SO I, I CAN'T GIVE AN OUTLOOK, BUT I WILL DEFINITELY TRY TO, LET'S ACTUALLY GET TOGETHER SO I CAN TRULY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.

AND ONCE AGAIN, TO COMMISSIONER RUBIN'S POINT, THE LARGER MFS I'M IS, IS MY CONCERN, RIGHT? I THINK MY NEIGHBORS WOULD, WOULD BE WILLING TO TALK ABOUT VERSUS WE DON'T GET THE GARDEN SIZES APARTMENT COMPLEXES, BUT THOSE LARGER ONES, UM, ARE THE CONCERN.

SO THANK YOU.

OUR CITY, THAT WE DO SELL RESPONSIBLY, NOT ONLY FOR THE FUTURE, BUT HOW THINGS EXIST TODAY.

COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, UH, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

UH, I JUST WANTED, UH, MR. WADE TO KNOW THAT IT'S NOT LOST ON US ON HOW MUCH WORK AND EFFORT THAT THIS ALL TAKES IN GETTING COMMENTARY AND FEEDBACK FROM THIS BODY.

IT, IT'S A LOT TO TRY TO SYNTHESIZE AND PUT INTO SOMETHING THAT WE CAN FIND, UH, USEFUL.

UM, I ALSO WANNA THANK YOU FOR STANDING UP THERE FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS AND FILLING ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU, THAT YOU COULD.

AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK, UM, A COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR THE ADDITIONAL HOMEWORK THAT I HAVE TO DO AS AN, AS A, A NEW COMMISSIONER.

UH, BUT THANKFULLY IT IS TARGETED AND I WILL FIGURE OUT WHAT SOME OF THESE ACRONYMS ARE BEFORE OUR NEXT MEETING.

UM, AND, UM, IT, IT, IT'S A COUPLE THINGS I WANT US TO KEEP IN MIND AS A BODY.

AND WE, WE'VE ALL, UH, COME TO US, SOMEONE OF A CONSENSUS THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE, THAT PARKING DOLLARS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED SOME WAY THAT WHAT HA WHAT WAS SET BACK IN 67 IS NOT WORKING TODAY.

AND IN FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR CITY, WE NEED TO MAKE CHANGES, BUT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING IT IN, IN THE RIGHT WAY WITHOUT, UH, CREATING UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

AND, UH, ME LIVING IN, IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR, I'VE LIVED IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR FOR, FOR 40 YEARS, AND SOME OF YOU MAY NOT REALIZE THAT.

I MEAN, YOU DO REALIZE IT, THAT IT'S, IT'S UNDERSERVED AND SOMETIMES THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION DOES NOT WORK AS DESIGNED.

AND, UH, SOME OF THE, THE COMMENTARY WE'VE HAD TODAY, UH, AROUND, YOU KNOW, THE WAY THINGS ARE WORKING WITH, WITH UBER, UBER EATS SOME OF THESE AREAS IN, IN DISTRICT EIGHT, WE DON'T GET UBERS.

THERE'S BEEN MANY TIMES WHERE I'VE TRIED TO, TRIED TO CALL UBER TO COME GET ME TO GO TO THE AIRPORT.

THEY'RE JUST NOT ANY AROUND.

SO WE JUST NEED TO BE SENSITIVE THAT WHAT'S GONNA WORK NORTH OF NORTH OF 30 IS NOT GONNA WORK EVERYWHERE ELSE.

AND SO, UH, AS WE DEVELOP THIS, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE DO HAVE THE APPROPRIATE GUARDRAILS AND, AND, AND SAFETY MECHANISMS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN, AS WE DEVELOP

[05:35:01]

AND SO I JUST WANTED TO HAVE THAT COMMENTARY AS WE THINK ABOUT ADDING AMENDMENTS, THAT WE ARE A WHOLE CITY AND WE WANT THE ENTIRE CITY TO BE SUCCESSFUL, BUT JUST ALSO RECOGNIZING CURRENT STATE THAT WE'RE NOT ALL, ALL DEVELOPED THE SAME WAY.

COMMISSIONER JUST STARTING.

THE HOMEWORK NEVER ENDS.

UH, I, I GUESS JUST LASTLY, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH ALL THE COMMENTS, UH, MADE BY MY COLLEAGUES.

ALSO WANT TO THANK STAFF, UH, MR. WADE KINAN EFFORT, SIR.

UM, LOTS OF TEXTS, LOTS OF LATE NIGHTS.

UH, I APPRECIATE ALL THE HARD WORK, UH, YOU'VE PUT IN AND ALL THE STAFF ALSO, ZAC, PAST AND PRESENT AND ALL OF, UH, UH, OUR COMMISSIONERS HERE.

THIS IS A, A DIFFICULT TOPIC.

AND, UM, THIS IS A COMPROMISE.

AND IT IS BASED ON A, A ZOIC RECOMMENDATION, UH, THAT MAYBE PUTS A FRAMEWORK ABOUT HOW THINGS COULD BE AND MAYBE EVEN SHOULD BE IN THE FUTURE.

AND THIS COMPROMISE IS SOMETHING I THINK THAT CAN BE TODAY.

AND I THINK THAT IT IS A, IS A STEP FORWARD AND IT'S AN IMPORTANT STEP FORWARD.

UH, AND I, I FULLY SUPPORT THE FRAMEWORK HERE THAT COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT HAS, HAS PUT FORTH.

UM, BUT NOW WE NEED A, WE NEED A DATE.

COMMISSIONERS .

THIS IS THE YES, SIR.

COMMISSIONER HALL MOTION.

YEAH, WE DO, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A DATE TO HOLD IT, SO I DON'T, YOU KNOW, UH, YEAH, HE, HE'S GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO HOLD IT.

COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT IS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A DATE YET, AND THAT'S WHERE WE KINDA, I THINK COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, DID YOU HAVE A, A DATE TO PROPOSE, SIR? UM, TUESDAY THE 28TH OF JANUARY.

IS THAT A MOTION TO HOLD UNDER ADVISEMENT WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING KEPT OPEN? I'M PREPARED TO MAKE THAT MOTION.

I, I WAS OKAY, JUST HAVING A FRIENDLY CONVERSATION WITH THE CHAIR.

WE'RE, UH, FOR CITY ATTORNEY, WE HAVE TO KIND OF, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE DISCUSS NOW THAT DATE? WE, WE HAVE TO COME TO, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T WANNA CALL A DATE, AND THEN THERE'S TWO PEOPLE THAT SHOW UP.

IS THAT POSSIBLE AT THIS POINT? YEAH.

LET'S, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DISCUSS AVAILABILITY FOR THAT DATE, AND THEN IF THAT LOOKS GOOD, THEN WE'LL GET A MOTION, UH, TO HOLD FOR THAT DATE.

COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, PLEASE.

SO WE, WE DISCUSSED THAT DATE, COMMISSIONER PORT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I, I, I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THAT DATE, THAT'S LESS THAN TWO WEEKS FROM NOW.

AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO GET, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THIS INFORMATION SYNTHESIZED, YOU KNOW, PUT TOGETHER BY, YOU KNOW, BY MICHAEL AND THEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.

I, I CAN'T UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, HAVING OUR NEXT MEETING ON THIS IN, IN LESS THAN TWO WEEKS, I MEAN, THERE, THERE SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS INFORMATION SHOULD BE, UH, OUT SO THE PUBLIC HAS ACCESS TO IT, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST FOR TWO WEEKS BEFORE WE MEET MR. RUBIN.

SETTING ASIDE THAT THE QUESTION OF AVAILABILITY, I MEAN, COMMISSIONER HOUSE WRIGHT'S MOTION IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND, AND ELEGANT HERE, EVEN IF, YOU KNOW, REGARDLESS OF, YOU KNOW, WANTING TO, TO TINKER WITH IT.

SO I, I DON'T SEE THIS AS THE, THE FORWARD DALLAS SITUATION WHERE WE HAD HUNDREDS OF TWEAKS.

THIS IS WHAT 14 CHANGES HERE.

UM, SO I, I UNDERSTAND IF IT WERE A MUCH MORE LONG AND COMPLICATED DOCUMENT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE NEEDING TO, TO WAIT A LITTLE BIT LONGER.

BUT I THINK THIS IS NICELY SUMMARIZED IN, IN WHERE WE'RE GOING.

AND I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE THE, THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SOME, SOME CREDIT IN BEING ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'VE GOT, BUT WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS TO BE ABLE TO WORK WITH THE ATTORNEY TO, UH, YOU KNOW, COME UP WITH THE RESOLUTIONS, UH, IN, IN WITH LANGUAGE THAT'S APPROPRIATE TO SUBMIT THAT TO MICHAEL, FOR HIM TO BE ABLE TO INCORPORATE ALL THIS AND THEN TO SYNTHESIZE IT, PUT IT TOGETHER IN A, IN, IN A DRAFT THAT THEN MADE AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE AS HE SUGGESTED EARLIER, COMMISSIONER RUBIN.

UH, SO THAT THE PUBLIC ACCESS TO IT.

AND, AND, AND, AND, AND WE, WE SHOULD, UH, MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME FOR THE COMMISSIONERS TO SUBMIT THESE IDEAS, UH, FOR MICHAEL TO BE ABLE TO SYNTHESIZE THEM AND TO A DRAFT, AND THEN FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET.

UH, YOU KNOW, UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S DERELICT FOR US TO TRY TO RUSH THIS THROUGH AND, AND TRY TO DO THIS ANY SOONER THAN, THAN 30 DAYS FROM NOW.

I, UH, COMMISSIONER HEMPTON, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER, UH, CARPENTER.

WELL, AND I'M JUST GONNA SPEAK MUCH MORE LOGISTICALLY.

I HAVE A CONFLICT ON TUESDAYS , SO I, I WOULD JUST SIMPLY AM GONNA HAVE A CHALLENGE GETTING HERE ON A TUESDAY.

[05:40:01]

WELL, AND I HAVE JURY DUTY THAT DAY, 'CAUSE I PICKED A TUESDAY BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T EVER HAVE MEETINGS ON TUESDAYS.

AND ALSO WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT TOMORROW IN OUR EMAIL, WE'RE GONNA HAVE PLOPPED A DOCKET FOR NEXT WEEK'S, UM, YOU KNOW, REGULAR ZONING HEARING.

AND IT'S PRETTY EXTENSIVE.

AND SO I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO HAVE TIME TO GET THROUGH THAT DOCKET AND BE, DO EVERYTHING I WANNA DO, YOU KNOW, THOUGHTFULLY FOR PARKING BY THE, BY THE 28TH, WHICH I COULDN'T ATTEND ANYWAY, .

SO ANYWAY, DID WE, DID WE DISCUSS THE 30TH, TONY? I'M OUTTA TOWN THAT WHOLE WEEK.

SO LET'S GO TO, UH, THE NEXT WEEK, THIRD THROUGH SEVENTH.

WE HAVE A HEARING ON THE SIXTH, FEBRUARY 3RD THROUGH SEVENTH, THE FOLLOWING.

COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.

13TH, 13TH.

THURSDAY THE 13TH.

THURSDAY 13TH, THURSDAY THE 13TH.

I, I, I WILL GO ALONG WITH HER.

LET'S DO THAT IN DEFERENCE TO COMMISSIONER FORSIGHT.

GO TO FEBRUARY.

JUST MAKE SURE I HAVE MY CALENDAR RIGHT.

WE HAVE CPC SIX AND 20TH.

CORRECT.

UH, SO COMMISSIONER HUS WRIGHT, THE, THE MOTION WOULD BE TO HOLD HER UNDER ADVISEMENT WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN TO FEBRUARY 13TH.

I THINK WE HAVE ONE OTHER ITEM IN THE AGENDA.

TIME.

OKAY, PLEASE.

I'M READY IN THE MATTER IN THE MATTER OF DCA 1 9 0 DASH 0 0 2, I MOVE THAT WE HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL THURSDAY, FEBRUARY THE 13TH, 2025.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HAUSER FOR YOUR MOTION.

AND COMMISSIONER, VICE CHAIR, RUBEN, FOR YOUR SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION PLEASE? UM, JUST IN TERMS OF STARTING TIME, MAY NOT BE BAD TO GET, GET HERE AT NINE AND ROLL OUR SLEEVES UP.

UM, 11 TODAY WAS FINE, BUT WE MAY HAVE A, A LONGER, HOPEFULLY WE'RE, WE'RE EFFICIENT AND, AND GET DONE QUICKLY.

BUT JUST, UH, OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION AT 9:00 AM 9:00 AM START MIGHT BE THE WAY TO GO.

COMMISSIONER HERBERT PROMISED WE'D BE OUT BY NOON.

NOON.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEE YOU NONE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY, AYE.

AND YOU OPPOSE.

AYES HAVE IT.

UH, COMMISSIONERS.

[4. 25-101A FY 2023-24 Annual Report]

JUST ARRIVED YESTERDAY AND I HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO LOOK AT IT.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO PUT THE ANNUAL REPORT UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL, UH, JANUARY THE 23RD.