* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. SAME. [00:00:01] ARE YOU READY TO GO? ALRIGHT. PLEASE DON'T OFFER THE ROLL [BRIEFINGS] CALL. GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. DISTRICT ONE, COMMISSIONER SCHOCK. PRESENT. DISTRICT TWO, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. I THINK SHE, SHE MIGHT BE ALL LINE DISTRICT THREE. COMMISSIONER HERBERT. HE MIGHT BE ON LINE. DISTRICT FOUR. COMMISSIONER FORSYTH PRESENT. DISTRICT FIVE COMMISSIONER. UM, I'M SORRY. CHAIR SHAD. PRESENT. DISTRICT SIX. COMMISSIONER, UH, CARPENTER. PRESENT. DISTRICT SEVEN. COMMISSIONER WHEELER REAGAN. DISTRICT EIGHT. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN PRESENT. DISTRICT NINE. COMMISSIONER SLEEPER. HERE. DISTRICT 10. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. PRESENT. DISTRICT 11. UH, COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE HERE. DISTRICT 12. COMMISSIONER HAWK. DISTRICT 13. COMMISSIONER HALL HERE. DISTRICT 14. COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HERE AND PLACE 15 VICE CHAIR RUBIN, I'M HERE. YOU HAVE QUORUM, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. TODAY IS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13TH, 2025, 9:07 AM WELCOME TO, UH, THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION, SPECIALLY CALLED MEETING THIS MORNING. UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. WE'RE GONNA MOVE THEM AROUND A LITTLE BIT AND BEGIN WITH THE, THE PARK LANE DEDICATION PIECE, AND THEN GO TO THE PARKING PIECE. AND WE'LL ALSO, UH, FOLLOW THAT ORDER AT THE HEARING THIS AFTERNOON, AND I SEE OUR FOLKS ARE READY TO GO. GOOD MORNING. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. UH, GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. MY NAME IS RYAN O'CONNOR. I'M THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DALLAS PARK AND RECREATION. AS I MENTIONED, WHEN WE PRESENTED TO ZO OAC, UM, THIS IS REALLY ONE OF THE VERY FEW INTERSECTIONS OF, UM, THE DALLAS PARK SYSTEM, THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND, AND, UH, THE REASON OF COURSE WE'RE HERE TODAY IS, IS PARKLAND DEDICATION. SO WE'RE VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND PRESENT TO YOU ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT ORDINANCE THAT, UH, IS HIGHLY BENEFICIAL TO THE DALLAS PARK SYSTEM, UH, FOR THE CONTINUED, UH, GROWTH AND PROVIDING THE SERVICES THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO ALL THE RESIDENTS OF DALLAS. UM, YOU KNOW, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE A FEW REMARKS AND THEN I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE, MS. GARDNER, WHO'S GONNA RUN THROUGH A, A SLIDE DECK. UM, AND THEN OF COURSE, WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. BUT THE, THE REAL REASON WE'RE HERE, OF COURSE, IS, UH, THE STATE LAW HAS CHANGED. UH, HOUSE BILL 1526 WAS APPROVED IN THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION, AND IT, UH, GREATLY AFFECTED, UM, FIVE CITIES IN TEXAS. UH, OF COURSE, DALLAS IS ONE OF THEM. THESE ARE THE LARGEST CITIES IN TEXAS, FORT WORTH, DALLAS, SAN ANTONIO, AUSTIN, AND HOUSTON. AND THERE ARE NEW RULES RELATED TO PART DEDICATION. AND OF COURSE OUR ORDINANCE MUST CONFORM WITH STATE LAW. AND SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING OVER THE PAST YEAR TO BRING THAT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW. BUT IT WAS ALSO SOMEWHAT CONVENIENT BECAUSE, UM, THE ORDINANCE THAT WE'VE HAD ON THE BOOKS FOR SEVERAL YEARS, IN MY OPINION, UH, WAS VERY COLLABORATIVE, BUT IT WAS ALSO A LITTLE COMPLICATED. THERE WERE ALL SORTS OF MECHANISMS IN THE ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWED FOR CREDITS AND VARIOUS PERMUTATIONS THAT FRANKLY JUST HAVE NOT BEEN UTILIZED AT ALL BY ANYONE. AND SO WE HAVE TAKEN THIS OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE OF THE STATE LAW CHANGE TO GREATLY SIMPLIFY THE ORDINANCE TO THE POINT WHERE ANYONE CAN UNDERSTAND IT, WHETHER YOU'RE IN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY OR NOT. SO, UM, WITH THAT VERY BRIEF INTRODUCTION, I'M GONNA HAND IT OVER TO, TO MS. DER WHO'S GONNA RUN THROUGH THE SLIDE DECK. AND AGAIN, VERY APPRECIATIVE OF YOUR, UH, TIME AND ATTENTION TODAY, AND HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AFTER THE PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSIONER AND MR. CHAIR. MY NAME IS LAKEISHA GIER AND I'M A MANAGER IN PARK PLANNING. I'M WITH THE PARTNERSHIP AND STRATEGIC INITIATIVES DIVISION OF DALLAS PARK AND RECREATION. UH, BEFORE WE BEGIN, I JUST WANT TO GIVE A LIST OF STAFF WHO HAVE HELPED SUPPORT ME IN ACQUIRING THE INFORMATION TO AMEND THIS ORDINANCE. AND SO YOU HAVE RYAN O'CONNOR, WHO'S DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND ALSO MY BOSS, UH, ROBIN STEIN SCHNEIDER, WHO CANNOT BE HERE. SHE'S A SUPERINTENDENT AND LAWRENCE BERGER, WHO IS A GIS GIS THREE ANALYST AND WHO'S MADE MAPS AND ALSO PROVIDES SUPPORT IN MANAGING A PARKLAND DEDICATION FUNDS. ALRIGHT, THE PROPOSAL IS A CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 51 A, THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE DIVISION 51, A DASH FOUR [00:05:01] POINT ARTICLE FOUR 1000 PARKLAND DEDICATION AND RELATED SECTIONS. AND IT'S PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF TEXAS HOUSE BILL 1526. UM, NO. OKAY. ALRIGHT. LOCATION MAP, WHICH THIS ORDINANCE IS APPLICABLE TO EVERY PARCEL IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. THAT'S ARIEL. UH, THE MAP THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE REPORT IS, UM, EXHIBIT A. AND SO THIS SHOWS OUR CBD, WHICH IS IN GREEN, OUR URBAN AREA, WHICH IS IN BLUE. AND THEN THE ORANGE IS LAND THAT IS OWNED AND MANAGED BY DALLAS PARK AND RECREATION. WE HAD TO SUBMIT THIS MAP AS A PARTY REQUIREMENT FOR HB 1526. AND THIS WAS APPROVED BY COUNSEL LAST JANUARY. AND SO SOME BACKGROUND IN OUR ORIGINAL ORDINANCE, IT WAS APPROVED IN 2018. WE WENT INTO EFFECT IN 2019 AND WE HAD TWO TYPES OF FEES THAT PARKLAND DEDICATION COULD BE FULFILLED. WE HAD A FEE IN LIEU AND A PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE. AND THEN WE ALSO ESTABLISHED SEVEN NEXUS ZONES TO GENERATE FEES. AND THE EXPENDITURES OF THE CURRENT ORDINANCE ARE LIMITED TO LAND ACQUISITION AND PARK DEVELOPMENT. WE ONLY CHARGE, UM, PARKLAND DEDICATION FOR SINGLE FAMILY, MULTIFAMILY AND HOTEL AND MOTEL DEVELOPMENTS RIGHT NOW. THE CURRENT CODE ALSO ALLOWS US TO CHARGE FOR COLLEGE AND, UM, FRATERNITY DORMITORY FEES, BUT WE HAVE NEVER HAD ANYONE WITH THAT USE PAY PARK LAND DEDICATION. UH, WE ALSO OFFER CREDITS FOR CERTAIN AMENITIES AND FLEXIBILITY FOR DEDICATING LAND AND DEVELOPING PARKS WITHIN DEVELOPMENTS. THE ORDINANCE AS UM, MR. O'CONNOR STATED EARLIER WAS, UM, CREATED THROUGH ADVICE WITH PARK ADVOCATES AND OTHER REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY. AND SO TODAY'S UPDATE OF THE ORDINANCE IS A REFLECTION OF NOT ONLY THE STATE BILL THAT WAS PASSED IN 2023, BUT OUR EXPERIENCES WITH IMPLEMENTATION IN THE PAST SIX YEARS. AND SO WE ARE TRYING TO SIMPLIFY THE ORDINANCE AND FOR GOING FORWARD, WE WOULD LIKE TO ENFORCE, I MEAN, WELL, WE WOULD LIKE, WELL, WE WOULD PREFER THAT THE FEE IN LIEU IS COLLECTED OVER DOING LAND DEDICATION. AND SO THIS IS SOME BACKGROUND. ONCE AGAIN, THE ORDINANCE IMPACTS FIVE CITIES. AND SO ANY DALLAS, HOUSTON, SAN ANTONIO, AUSTIN, AND FORT WORTH. AND THEN HB 1526. THIS APPLIES TO ANY, UH, DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED AS OF JANUARY 1ST, 2024. SO THE, LET SEE. AND SO THIS IS THE TIMELINE. THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED IN THE REPORT, SO I WILL SKIP THIS PORTION AS I STATED BEFORE, UM, WELL THIS, IN TERMS OF HB 1526, THIS AFFECTS MULTIFAMILY AND HOTEL AND MOTEL DEVELOPMENTS. THE STATE LAW ACTUALLY DOES NOT HAVE ANY, UM, INFORMATION TELLING US THAT HOW WE HAVE TO CHANGE HOW WE REGULATE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS. AND THEN IT GIVES MUNICIPALITIES THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN REQUIRE A FEE IN LIEU LAND DEDICATION, OR BOTH. THE, THE STATE LAW ALSO GIVES US TWO WAYS WHERE WE CAN CALCULATE THE FEES. WE COULD USE SOMETHING THAT THEY CALL THE STANDARD CALCULATION, WHICH IS THIS COMPLEX FORMULA THAT INVOLVES AVERAGE ACRE, AVERAGE VALUE ACRE PER, I MEAN AVERAGE VALUE PER ACRE AND DENSITY AND DWELLING FACTORS. WE HAVE ADDED THIS INTO THE NEW ORDINANCE TO CONFORM WITH STATE LAW, BUT THIS IS NOT THE COURSE OF ACTION WE WOULD RECOMMEND. WE ACTUALLY WOULD PREFER THE FLAT PER UNIT COST, WHICH THE STATE GIVES US THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE TO DO THIS FEE CALCULATION. AND THAT IS NO MORE THAN 2% AND MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME. THE MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS IS $65,400 BASED ON A FIVE YEAR AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY AVERAGE. AND SO 2% OF THAT FEE IS $1,308. AND THAT'S HOW WE CAME UP WITH THAT CALCULATION. IT LIMITS THE CITY'S ABILITY TO NOT TO ACQUIRE LAND WHERE WE CANNOT TAKE MORE THAN 10% OF THE LAND. AND IF WE CHOOSE TO ACQUIRE DEDICATION, WE HAVE TO PURCHASE THE LAND AT FAIR MARKET VALUE [00:10:01] MINUS THE FEE CALCULATION FOR THE LAND THAT WE ACQUIRE. UH, THE FEES AND LAND DEDICATION MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR MULTIFAMILY AND CITY, UM, MULTIFAMILY AND HOTEL AND MOTEL USES. GOING FORWARD AT THE CURRENT TIME UNTIL THE STATE LAW WENT INTO EFFECT, WE WERE COLLECTING THESE FEES AT THE TIME, A PERMIT REGARDLESS OF USE. UM, THE LAW IS ALSO SILENT ON THE NEXUS PRINCIPLES, THE USE OF FEES, REIMBURSEMENTS AND EXEMPTIONS. AND THEN WE ALSO WERE ALREADY EXCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I MEAN AFFORDABLE UNITS. WE, THE DALLAS VOTING CODE CALLS THAT RESERVE DWELLING UNITS, BUT WE, THE STATE DOESN'T TOUCH ON THIS. AND YOU'LL SEE LATER ON IN THE UM, PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISIONS, WE ALREADY WERE NOT CHARGING AFFORDABLE UNITS AND WE ARE PROPOSING TO CONTINUE TO NOT CHARGE AFFORDABLE UNITS WITHIN THE CITY OF DALLAS. AND SO, UM, AS YOU, THIS IS ANOTHER SUMMARY OF STATE LAW. WE HAD TO COME UP WITH A SUBURBAN URBAN AND CBD AREA. WE DO NOT HAVE A SUBURBAN AREA AND THEN WE HAVE TO TURN OVER THESE APPRAISAL VALUES EVERY 10 YEARS. AND THEN YOU SEE THE DW UNIT FACTORS AND THE DWELLING UNIT AND DENSITY FACTORS. WE'RE NOT USING THIS INFORMATION, BUT WE'RE ADDING IN IN OUR ORDINANCE JUST TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW. AND SO OUR NEW RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE THAT WE UTILIZE THE ABILITY TO ACQUIRE LAND DEDICATIONS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS AND BASICALLY CHARGE YOUR FEE FOR ALL PARKLAND DEDICATION. WE WILL ONLY PURSUE LAND DEDICATION IN AREAS OF HIGH NEED OF PARK ACCESS. UH, WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING TO REDRAW THE PARK DEDICATION ZONES BY CRAFTING FIVE FROM NOW. WE HAVE SEVEN THAT RECRUIT CREATE LARGER GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS AND WE BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL ALLOW THE FUND TO ACCRUE UM, MONEY MORE QUICKLY SINCE WE HAVE LESS ZONES. WE ALSO RECOMMEND UTILIZING THE MAXIMUM TO 2% FLAT FEE METHODOLOGY. WE'RE PROPOSING TO CHARGE 2% FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY USES. SO ANY MULTI-FAMILY UNIT THAT'S TWO BEDROOMS OR MORE, WE WOULD LIKE TO CHARGE 2% AND 1% FOR MULTI-FAMILY USES. THERE ARE ONE BEDROOM AND 1% FOR HOTEL AND MOTEL USES. WE ALSO WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER OTHER USES FOR THE FUND BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE CAN ONLY USE IT FOR ACQUISITION AND PARK DEVELOPMENT. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO BUILD IN CALLS FOR OVERSIGHT AND INCREASED INDIRECT COSTS DEALING, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WE'VE HAD RISING ACQUISITION COSTS AND OTHER DUE DILIGENCE THAT NEEDS TO BE PERFORMED WHEN WE DECIDE TO ACQUIRE LAND. THIS IS THE CURRENT MAP AND THEN YOU SEE THE FIVE ZONES MAP THAT IS PROPOSED HERE. WE DECIDED TO HAVE MORE NATURAL BUFFERS THAT WERE BREAKING UP THE AREA, I MEAN THE ZONES BASED ON CERTAIN HIGHWAYS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. UH, RIGHT NOW YOU'RE LOOKING AT A MAP THAT SHOWS THE LOCATIONS WHERE PARKLAND DEDICATION HAVE BEEN COLLECTED. THE CITY HAS APPROXIMATELY 300,000 PARCELS TOTAL. WE'VE COLLECTED PARKLAND DEDICATION ON 4,300 PARCELS SINCE 2019. AND SO THE MAP RIGHT HERE IS OUR PREFERRED SCENARIO, ONE WITH THE FIVE ZONES. AND THEN ONCE AGAIN, THE DODGE JUST REPRESENT AND THEN THE OTHER TWO MOUNTS WERE PROVIDED AS A COURTESY BASED ON SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FROM ZAC. AND SO WE JUST WANTED TO SEE IF WE PLAYED AROUND WITH THE BORDERS A LITTLE BIT, HOW THAT WOULD CHANGE THE FUNDING FOR THE ZONES, WHICH IS LISTED AT THE BOTTOM. AND SO WE SAW THAT IT WAS PRETTY MUCH RELATIVELY THE SAME, BUT WE WOULD STILL PREFER MAP ONE. AND THEN THIS IS A TABLE OF OUR FEE CALCULATIONS THAT I TOUCHED UPON EARLIER WHERE I'M BREAKING DOWN HOW WE CAME UP WITH THE $1,308 PER DWELLING UNIT OR $654 PER DWELLING UNIT. THIS TABLE THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING SHOWN IS SHOWING WHAT ARE THE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES THAT HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY HB 1526 ARE CHARGING AUSTIN. AND AUSTIN HAS DECIDED TO NOT USE THE SIMPLE FEE OR THE FLAT FEE CALCULATION. THEY HAVE DECIDED TO GO THROUGH THE STANDARD CALCULATION, WHICH WE FELT WAS HONORS. WE KNOW THAT THAT FORT WORTH IS CHARGING 1800 PER UNIT AND HOUSTON HASN'T MADE ANY [00:15:01] CHANGES AT THEIR TIME. I DON'T HAVE A FEE FOR SAN ANTONIO BECAUSE SAN ANTONIO DOES NOT CHARGE PARKLAND ON HOTEL MOTEL USES AND MULTIFAMILY. ALSO, SAN ANTONIO HASN'T COLLECTED A PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE SINCE MARCH OF 2022. AND SO THE TABLE PROVIDED HERE ALSO SHOWS WHAT OTHER COMMUNITIES IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS ARE SHOWING. THERE ARE A TOTAL OF APPROXIMATELY 28 OTHER MUNICIPALITIES WITHIN THE METROPLEX THAT CHARGE A PARKLAND FEE. WE ACTUALLY ARE ONE OF THE CITIES WITH THE YOUNGEST PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE , BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, SOUTHLAKE CHARGES 6,500 PER DWELLING UNIT FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND 8,700 FOR MULTIFAMILY. WE CAN ALSO SEE THAT PLANO CHARGES 2,865 AND OTHER PLACES CHARGE A LITTLE BIT MORE. AND SO WHERE WE'RE PROPOSING TO CHARGE OUR FEES WILL PUT US IN THE MIDDLE OF WHERE OTHER, UM, MUNICIPALITIES WITHIN THE AREA WOULD CHARGE FOR THE FEES. AND SO OUR RATIONALE FOR THE LOW FEE CALCULATION IS THAT IT'S SIMPLER MATHEMATIC FORMULA. IT'S GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD THAT 2% OF A CERTAIN AMOUNT WOULD, IT IS ONLY ONE WAY TO FIGURE OUT THAT AMOUNT. UH, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS REMOVES THE POTENTIAL JUSTIFICATION FOR APPEALS BASED ON APPRAISAL DISTRICT VALUES. AND WE FEEL THAT IT IS FAIR THAT THE SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY TWO BEDROOM WOULD PAY THE SAME RATE. WE RECOGNIZE THAT HOTEL MOTEL USES WOULD PAY A LOWER RATE BECAUSE THEY ARE TEMPORARY BENEFICIARIES OF THE PARK SYSTEM. AND BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT MOST OF THE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOP MULTIFAMILY UNITS DEVELOP OUR ONE BEDROOM UNITS, WE FELT COMFORTABLE WITH CHARGING THEM 1% INSTEAD OF THE FULL TWO. AND THEN AS A RESULT OF THE STATE LAW, THIS SIMPLIFIES OUR FEE STRUCTURE. INSTEAD OF US CHARGING TWO FEES, WE WOULD ONLY JUST CHARGE ONE FEE. AND SO THE REST OF THESE SLIDES JUST SHOW THE DRAFT LANGUAGE THAT WAS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE ORDINANCE. UM, SO THESE ARE THE FEES OF $900. WE DECIDE TO CHARGE AN APPLICATION FEE BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT TAKES STAFF RESOURCES AT TIMES TO REVIEW AND PREPARE REPORTS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ABLE TO PRESENT TO THE BOARDS OF POP WHEN IF AN APPEAL COMES TO PARK AND RECREATION, UH, WE'RE SHOWING RIGHT NOW THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT COLLECTS THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE. THAT WAS WHAT WAS INITIALLY WORKED OUT IN 2019. WE WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE THAT. WE'RE GOING FORWARD. PARK AND RECREATION COLLECTS THAT FEE. AND THEN YOU ALSO SEE THAT THE FEE STRUCTURE WHERE WE HAD THE AMOUNTS BROKEN UP IS GOING TO JUST READ EITHER 2% OR 1% IMMEDIATE FAMILY INCOME. AND WE ARE PROPOSING TO REMOVE COLLEGE GER DORMITORY PATERNITY IS SORORITY HOUSE. YOU ALSO SEE ON THE CURRENT TEXT, WE WERE TRYING TO CALCULATE THE FEE ON OCTOBER. I MEAN INCREASE THE FEE ON OCTOBER ONE BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN THE FISCAL YEAR STARTS IN DALLAS. BUT WE RECOGNIZED THAT WE WOULD NOT KNOW WHAT THE NEW MFI WOULD BE UNTIL MID-SEPTEMBER, AND THAT ISN'T ENOUGH TIME FOR STAFF TO MAKE SURE THEY CAN DO THE INPUTS AND GIVE PROPER NOTICE AND INCREASE THE FEES. AND SO WE DECIDED TO MAKE THE FEE INCREASES TIED TO THE CALENDAR YEAR INSTEAD OF THE FISCAL YEAR. UH, OUR CURRENT, WE ALSO ARE PROPOSING LANGUAGE WHERE RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A DEFINITION FOR CPI. WE WANT TO GET RID OF THAT DEFINITION AND PUT MFI INSTEAD BECAUSE WE ANTICIPATE THAT MFI WILL GO UP EVERY YEAR AND SO OUR FEE WOULD INCREASE MORE LIKELY IF WE TIED IT TO MFI VERSUS CPI. AND WE ARE BASING OUR FEE ON MFI ANYWAY. SO CPEI IS NOT REALLY A RELEVANT FACTOR. UH, THESE ARE THE DEFINITIONS WE'RE PROPOSING TO ADD. SO THE DENSITY FACTOR AND THE DWELLING UNIT FACTOR, WHAT WE MEAN BY PLAN AND THE RESERVE DWELLING UNITS, WHICH IS BASICALLY DALLAS'S WAY OF SAYING AFFORDABLE UNITS. UH, THIS SLIDE, I'VE JUST ADDED THIS LAST MINUTE TO SHOW THAT INITIALLY STAFF DID RECOMMEND A MINIMUM LAND DEDICATION OF ONE ACRE, AND THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE. ZAC C'S RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT WE REDUCE THAT, UM, MINIMUM DEDICATION TO HALF AN ACRE. I DID NOT HIGHLIGHT THAT CHANGE IN THE REPORT, BUT UM, I ACCEPTED, I, I MEAN I ACCEPT ZAC C'S RECOMMENDATION [00:20:01] AND WE WOULD LIKE THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION TO ACCEPT ZAC RECOMMENDATION AS WELL. WHAT TERMS NEED TO BE DEFINED AND EVERYTHING. SO, UH, THIS IS JUST CONFRONTATION AND TIME. AND THEN INFORMATION REGARDING THE FEE IN LIEU. RIGHT NOW WHAT, WELL, THIS LANGUAGE SHOWS THAT WE CHANGED THE ZONE RIGHT NOW DOWNTOWN AND A PORTION AND UPTOWN PRETTY MUCH MAKE UP ZONE SEVEN. WE, SINCE WE'RE REDUCING DOWNTOWN TO WHERE WE FEEL THE CBD IS, WE CHANGED THE PARK ZONE FROM SEVEN TO ONE. AND THEN WE WANT TO USE FEES THAT ARE GENERATED WITHIN DOWNTOWN TO INCREASE CONNECTIVITY IN THE CITY'S TRAIL SYSTEM AND HELP USE THAT MONEY TO APPLY FOR OTHER ZONES. AND BECAUSE DOWNTOWN TOUCHES ALL OTHER ZONES, WE FEEL LIKE THAT'S AN APPLICABLE USE BECAUSE WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY MORE SPACE TO BUILD PARKS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. UH, STAFF IS ALSO RECOMMENDING CHANGES FOR HOW WE USE EXPENDITURES. AT THIS POINT, WE CANNOT USE PARKLAND FOR ANY STAFF OVERHEAD EXPENSES, AND WE HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 10% FOR INDIRECT COSTS. STAFF IS PROPOSING THAT WE INCREASE THAT TO 20% TOTAL FOR ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT COSTS RELATED TO INDIRECT COSTS. AND EVEN THOUGH THIS LANGUAGE IS NOT REFLECTED TODAY, WE WOULD LIKE TO USE NO MORE THAN 10% FOR STAFF OVERHEAD EXPENSES BECAUSE PROCESSING APPLICATIONS, REVIEWING THE ACCOUNT, MANAGING THE FUND, THE TRACKING, ALL OF THIS INFORMATION, BECAUSE WE HAVE 10 YEARS TO EXPEND THE FUNDS WE WOULD LIKE IF CPC WOULD PREFER, WE WOULD RECOMMEND ALSO THAT WE CAP THE STAFF OVERHEAD EXPENSES BECAUSE THAT IS TIME AND RESOURCES THAT STAFF HAS TO USE TO BANISH THE FUND. UH, LASTLY THIS IS, I MEAN, WELL ACTUALLY THIS IS ALSO SHOWING THAT RIGHT NOW WE WOULD STILL REQUIRE THAT ANYONE WITH A SINGLE FAMILY USE OR DUPLEX USE, THEY PAY THEIR PARKLAND FEE WHEN THEY APPLY FOR THEIR PERMIT. AND WE ARE SHOWING THE CHANGE LANGUAGE FOR THE PARKLAND DEDICATION DETERMINATION. THIS IS TO MAKE US IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW, AND THEN THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT WILL REVIEW THIS REQUEST. AND SO THAT'S JUST THE LANGUAGE. AND THEN THE STATE LAW MANDATES THAT WE HAVE 30 DAYS FROM WHEN A PROPERTY OWNER REQUEST A LETTER OF DETERMINATION THAT WE HAVE TO ISSUE THAT LETTER TO THEM. AND SO THESE ARE HOW THE TIMELINES ARE CALCULATED AND WHAT THE AND OF, UM, LETTER IS GOOD FOR TWO YEARS OR WHENEVER THE PERSON APPLIES FOR PERMITS, WHICHEVER IS LESS TIME. UH, THIS IS JUST A STANDARD LANGUAGE ABOUT THE CBD, SUBURBAN AND URBAN AREAS, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY SHOWN A MAP AND HOW THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE CALCULATED. THIS IS PRETTY MUCH LANGUAGE THAT'S SIMILAR TO HB 1526. AND THEN THIS IS ALSO THE INFORMATION FOR THE DWELLING UNIT FACTOR AND DENSITY FACTORS ESTABLISHED, WHICH WE'RE STATING WE'RE ADDING IT BECAUSE OF STATE LAW. WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF USING THIS TO CALCULATE FEES AS WE MOVE FORWARD. UH, WE ALSO HAVE, UH, AN APPEAL PROCESS THAT'S MANDATED BY THE STATE LAW, EVEN THOUGH A PERSON CAN APPEAL TO CPC BASED ON CPCS, UM, APPEAL PROCESS, THE, OR, WE DECIDED TO MODEL THE ORDINANCE BASED ON THAT. WE KNOW THAT IF SOMEONE DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE DECISION CPC, THEY CAN APPEAL TO COUNCIL AND THEN EVENTUALLY TO A COURT. AND SO WE DECIDE TO FOLLOW THAT PROCESS VERSUS MAKING WHATEVER APPEALS JUST STAND AT CPC AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD. AND SO THIS, THE LANGUAGE ON THE NEXT FLU SLIDES JUST REFLECTS THAT. UM, OUR NEXT STEPS IS THAT WE PLAN ON CONTINUE TO WORK WITH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT HOUSING AND ALL PRIVATE CITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF TO UPDATE THE PLAN APPLICATION PROCESS TO REFLECT THE NEW PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE. WE ALSO WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH, UM, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ON ACELA AND CARDIOGRAPH, WHICH WE ARE SCHEDULING TO MANAGE, I MEAN, LAUNCH THAT SOFTWARE IN 2025. WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND RESIDENTS ARE AWARE OF UPCOMING CHANGES AND WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING OUR WEBSITE AS WELL. AND SO THERE WILL BE A [00:25:01] PARK LAND DEDICATION LANDING PAGE ON A PARK AND RECREATION NEW WEBSITE WHEN WE LAUNCH IN SPRING OF 2025. OTHERWISE, WE JUST WANT TO CONTINUE SHARING THE DRAFT ORDINANCE WITH STAKEHOLDERS IN PUBLIC. AND WE WERE APPROVED BY ZAC IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR. AND NOW WE ARE BEFORE YOU ALL TODAY. AND IF I COULD JUST MAKE A FINAL COMMENT, YOU KNOW, OUR GENERAL APPROACH IN THE DALLAS PARK SYSTEM IS, IS COLLABORATION. AND I JUST WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU THAT WE HAVE, UH, BEEN WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY. UM, I'M VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THEIR TIME AND ENERGY THEY'VE PUT IN THIS AND THEIR THINKING. UM, I'M, I CAN'T TELL YOU WE AGREE ON EVERY SINGLE DETAIL OF THE ORDINANCE, BUT I JUST WANT TO, UH, PUBLICLY THANK, UH, OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY TO GETTING US TO THIS POINT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER'S. QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER HALL. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. UH, UH, A COUPLE THINGS THAT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I HAVE CLEAR IN MY MIND, 65,000 IS THE A MI IS THAT A FA WHAT FAMILY SIZE IS THAT? AND SO A MI AND MFI GET USED INTERCHANGEABLY, BUT IT'S USUALLY TYPICALLY FOR THE SIZE OF A FAMILY OF FOUR FOUR, YES. I WAS THINKING IT WAS MUCH HIGHER FOR A FAMILY OF LIKE 90,000 OR SOMETHING. AND SO ACTUALLY THE DALLAS MFI BASED, IF WE LOOKED AT IT FROM A YEARLY PERSPECTIVE, RIGHT NOW IT SITS AROUND 72,800. BUT THE STATE LAW MANDATES THAT WE USE THE FIVE YEAR AVERAGE. AND SO WE HAD TO TAKE THE MFI FROM 2020 TO 2024. AND SO THE AVERAGE OF THOSE FIVE YEARS IS 65,400. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THAT NUMBER. AND FOR PERSPECTIVE, FORT WORTH IS ABOUT 90,000 MM-HMM . WHICH IS CONSEQUENTLY WHY THEY'RE CHARGING $1,800 PER UNIT USING 2% OF 90,000. THANK YOU. NOW, THE PROCESS, I'M A DEVELOPER. I'M GOING TO BUILD A HUNDRED HOMES. UH, SUPPOSE THAT I DEDICATE, SUPPOSE THAT I SAY AS PART OF THE AMENITIES OF MY DEVELOPMENT, I'M GONNA PUT IN TWO ACRES OF, OF OPEN LAND FOR THE OWNERS. DOES THAT COUNT TOWARDS PARKLAND DEDICATION? IT DOES NOT. AND IT, IT DOES CURRENTLY TODAY. BUT I'LL TELL YOU THAT ALTHOUGH WE HAD THOSE CREDIT MECHANISMS BUILT INTO THE OLD ORDINANCE, I'M GOING TO REFER TO IT AS NOT A SINGLE TIME IN ALL THE YEARS THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS ORDINANCE HAS A DEVELOPER SOUGHT THAT OPPORTUNITY. SO AGAIN, AS UM, SEEING THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SIMPLIFY THINGS, WE'VE REMOVED THOSE CREDIT MECHANISMS BECAUSE THEY FRANKLY JUST HAVEN'T BEEN UTILIZED. THAT'S INTERESTING. OUR DAUGHTER LIVES DOWN IN MANSFIELD AND THEY'VE BUILT A LOT OF DEVELOPMENTS DOWN THERE WITH TRAILS AND PARKS AND LAKES. AND SO I'M, WHAT I'M USED TO SEEING IS NEW HOMES BEING BUILT AND THEY'RE BUILDING ALL THIS PARKLAND IN THERE, BUT IT IT'S NOT HAPPENING IN DALLAS. NO, SIR. AND I WOULD TELL YOU, AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, BEING IN THE, IN THE ROLE THAT YOU'RE IN, A LOT OF WHAT WE SEE IN DALLAS IS INFILL. YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T REALLY SEE THOSE TRADITIONAL SUBURBAN LARGE SUBDIVISIONS THAT ARE PUTTING IN LAKES AND ALL THESE SORT OF, YOU KNOW, AMENITIES IN THEIR SUBDIVISIONS. WE JUST DON'T REALLY SEE THAT HERE IN TOWN. AND SO IT'S PROBABLY, UH, I'M GUESSING WHAT I'M HEARING, IT'S CHEAPER FOR A DEVELOPER TO PAY A FEE IN LIEU OF THAN TO ACTUALLY ACQUIRE OR DEDICATE YES, SIR. EXISTING LAND IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. YES, SIR. ABSOLUTELY. I I'M SURE YOU CAN ASK ANY DEVELOPER AND THEY'LL TELL YOU WHAT'S, WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT TO US IS TIME AND BY, BY PAYING THE, THE PAYING THE RELATIVELY, UH, AFFORDABLE FEE THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO MOVE QUICKLY AND THE, THE PROCESS BY WHICH TAKES TO CONSIDER DEDICATING LAND AND THAT SORT OF THING. JUST, THAT'S BEEN THEIR, THAT HAS BEEN THEIR PREFERENCE OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS THAT WE'VE HAD THIS ORDINANCE IN PLACE. AND ONE FINAL QUESTION. THE FUNDS THAT GO INTO THIS CAN BE USED IN ANY PART OF THE CITY, IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, YOU HAVE TO APPLY THE NEXUS PRINCIPLE, AND SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THESE ZONES. SO THE, THE LOGIC THERE IS THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WHERE THE FEE IS GENERATED AND THE FEE IS EXPENDED. AND SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE HAVE CREATED THESE ZONES THAT LAKEISHA SHARED WITH Y'ALL THAT THE, THE FEES GENERATED IN THAT ZONE NEED TO BE SPENT IN THAT ZONE. THERE IS OUR, THERE ARE A COUPLE, UH, EXCEPTIONS TO THAT RULE, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, THAT'S IT. BUT THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY SPACE LEFT IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT OR, WELL, AS YOU MAY KNOW, WE HAVE IN THE DALLAS PARK SYSTEM, WE HAVE SPENT YEARS, UH, REALLY IMPROVING THE, THE PARK ENVIRONMENT DOWNTOWN RECENTLY WITH THE, THE MOST RECENT COMPLETION OF HARWOOD PARK. AND SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AS A PARK EXECUTIVE, WE HAVE REALLY, UM, [00:30:01] BUILT OUT THE, THE, THE PARK SPACE THAT WILL, UH, BE REQUIRED IN DOWNTOWN FOR YEARS TO COME. AND SO FOR THAT REASON, UH, WE HAVE RECOMMENDED THAT THE FEES THAT ARE GENERATED DOWNTOWN BE ABLE TO BE USED IN THE OTHER ZONES TO MAKE KEY TRAIL CONNECTIONS, WHICH DOWNTOWN IS KIND OF THE HUB OF THE SPOKE, SO TO SPEAK. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. UM, YEAH, I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS. WHAT'S THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO USE THIS, UH, TO REQUIRE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO PAY INTO THIS FUND? SO, AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE, THE HOUSE BILL WAS SILENT ON SINGLE FAMILY, UH, ANY SORT OF SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. AND SO I, I MAY ASK MY COLLEAGUES IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO CHIME IN, BUT THE, UM, THE LEGAL THINKING IS THAT, UM, SINCE THE LAW WAS SILENT, CITIES HAD THE DISCRETION ON HOW THEY WANT TO TREAT SINGLE FAMILY. AND WE'VE SEEN EVERY SINGLE CITY, UM, THAT IS SUBJECT TO THIS HOUSE BILL CONTINUE TO ASSESS A FEE OR A DEDICATION REQUIREMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY. HAS THERE BEEN A LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THAT? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. OH, GOOD. MR. MOORE IS HERE. 'CAUSE I'M, I'M AWARE OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THIS BILL AND THAT IT WAS INCLUDED AND THEN EXCLUDED. SO WHAT CAN YOU TELL ME? MORNING COMMISSIONER KINGSTON AND EVERYONE ELSE? UH, SO I WOULD, FOR THE LEGAL AUTHORITY, I WOULD POINT YOU TO TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION TWO 12.203, WHICH SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT CHAPTER, UM, THAT, THAT THE SUB-CHAPTER THAT THE PARKLAND DEDICATION IS IN THAT YOU SHOULD NOT INTERPRET THAT CHAPTER, TO PROHIBIT A CITY FROM REQUIRING A DEDICATION OF LAND OR FEE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SINGLE FAMILY OR TWO FAMILY USES IS WHAT THE, UH, STATUTE SAYS. SO SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX USES. SO CITIES CAN CONTINUE TO REQUIRE PARKLAND DEDICATION OR PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX USES. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, HOW MUCH MONEY DO WE HAVE IN THE FUND NOW AND ARE THERE PLANS TO USE IT CLOSE TO 13 MILLION APPROXIMATELY? AND WHAT ARE THE PLANS FOR THAT? WELL, YOU KNOW, WITH THAT IS, UH, THAT SOURCE OF FUNDS IS REALLY THE, WELL, FRANKLY, WE HAVEN'T, WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY, UM, LAND ACQUISITION FUNDING IN THE BOND PROGRAM, THE CURRENT 2024 BOND PROGRAM, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TWO KIND OF SIGNATURE INITIATIVES. SO THIS SOURCE OF FUNDS WILL BE, UM, THE WAY THAT WE ACQUIRE PARKLAND OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS. SO AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, THOSE OPPORTUNITIES KIND OF PRESENT THEMSELVES IN ORGANIC WAY. AND SO WHEN WE SEE AN OPPORTUNITY THAT, THAT MAKES SENSE FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT WE WOULD NORMALLY ACQUIRE PROPERTY, THIS WILL BE THE SOURCE OF FUNDS THAT WE UTILIZE. IF A DEVELOPER DEDICATES LIKE A TRAILHEAD OR TRAIL FACILITY, THAT DOESN'T COUNT, DOES IT? THAT IS CORRECT. WHY NOT? WELL, AGAIN, IS, IS WHAT I SAID WITH THE GENTLEMAN, UH, TO MY LEFT, YOU KNOW, THAT THOSE CREDIT MECHANISMS WERE IN PLACE IN THE OLD ORDINANCE, BUT WE FOUND OVER THE COURSE OF IMPLEMENTING THE ORDINANCE OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, THOSE MECHANISMS JUST SIMPLY WEREN'T USED. AND SO, AGAIN, IN AN EFFORT TO REALLY SIMPLIFY THIS THING SO EVERYONE CAN UNDERSTAND IT VERY CLEARLY AND NOT TRY TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE AND PRIVATELY ACCESSIBLE PARKLAND AND ALL THOSE SORTS OF THINGS, WE HAVE JUST SIMPLY SAID, WE WILL CHARGE A FEE OR REQUIRE, I I REFER TO IT AS AN ACQUISITION OR A COMBINATION OF THE TWO TO SATISFY THE ORDINANCE. DO YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION TO INCLUDING A PROVISION THAT IF A DEVELOPER, UM, PROVIDES KEY TRAIL AMENITIES AND DEDICATES THEM TO THE CITY, THAT THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL? I ENCOURAGE DEVELOPERS TO PROVIDE CONNECTIVITY FROM THEIR DEVELOPMENTS TO THE TRAIL NETWORK. WE WANT TO SEE THAT ALL OVER THE CITY. SHOULD THERE BE A CREDIT MECHANISM FOR THAT WHEN GENERALLY SPEAKING THAT TRAIL CONNECTIVITY IS AN AMENITY TO THAT DEVELOPMENT? THEY'RE PROBABLY BUILDING THAT DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF ITS ADJACENCY TO THE TRAIL NETWORK. UM, THAT IS, UH, THAT'S REALLY KIND OF A POLICY DECISION. UM, BUT AGAIN, I'LL GO BACK TO THE SAME THING. I'M GONNA BE A BIT OF A BROKEN RECORD ON THE RESPONSE TODAY IS THAT WE JUST HAVEN'T SEEN DEVELOPERS SEEK THOSE TYPES OF CREDITS THAT JUST SIMPLY WANT TO PAY THE FEE. WELL, WE'RE SEEING MORE DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE TRAIL, PARTICULARLY IN UPTOWN. ABSOLUTELY. AND SO IF WE PRECLUDE THAT AS AN OPTION, WE CERTAINLY WON'T [00:35:01] SEE IT IN THE FUTURE, WILL WE? I DON'T KNOW THAT I AGREE WITH THAT. I I WOULD, UH, I WOULD GUESS THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO SEE IT BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IS THAT THE RE UM, WHEN YOU HAVE A TRAIL AND IT'S HIGHLY USED DEVELOPMENT FOLLOWS IT, WE'RE SEEING THAT ALL OVER THE CITY. UM, I KNOW, UH, YOU REPRESENT DISTRICT 14 AND YOU'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE DENSITY THAT WE'RE SEEING AROUND OUR TRAIL NETWORKS AND THE, AND THE ACTIVITY THAT DEVELOPERS ARE, ARE PURSUING ON THE TRAIL NETWORKS. SO I'M, I'M NOT SURE I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT. YOU DON'T AGREE THAT DEVELOPERS MIGHT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO FILL THEIR PARKLAND DEDICATION BY DEDICATING TRAIL FACILITY AND AMENITIES? I, I DISAGREE THAT IF WE HAVE A CREDIT MECHANISM IN THE ORDINANCE, THAT DEVELOPERS WOULD STOP BUILDING TRAIL CONNECTIVITY IN CERTAIN PARTS OF TOWN. I THINK THEY WILL, I THINK REGARDLESS IF THERE'S A CREDIT MECHANISM, I THINK WE WILL CONTINUE TO SEE DENSITY AROUND THE TRAIL NETWORK. BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THEM DEDICATING IT TO THE CITY. AGAIN, WE VERY MUCH ENCOURAGE THAT. IT'S JUST SIMPLY A QUESTION OF DO THEY GET CREDIT FOR IT IN THE ORDINANCE OR NOT. UH, YEAH, THAT'S MY QUESTION. RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE, SIR. YEAH, AGAIN, UH, THAT'S, THAT WOULD VERY MUCH BE A, A POLICY DECISION. YEAH. AND WE'RE THE POLICY BOARD A HUNDRED PERCENT. GOT IT. OKAY. WE WELCOME YOUR, YOUR FEEDBACK. ABSOLUTELY. WHY DID THIS TAKE A YEAR TO GET TO US? UM, I WOULD SAY THAT GENERALLY SPEAKING, CODE AMENDMENTS ARE SOMEWHAT, UH, CHALLENGING PROCESSES AND IT REQUIRES COLLABORATION WITH ALL SORTS OF PARTIES. UM, AND IT, IT JUST TAKES TIME. THAT'S REALLY ALL, THAT'S ONLY THE WAY I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. DO YOU HAVE AN ESTIMATE OF HOW MANY, HOW MUCH PARK DEDICATION MONEY WE DIDN'T COLLECT IN THE YEAR IT TOOK TO GET TO US? I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE DONE THAT ANALYSIS. WHY NOT? WE'D BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO YOU. ABSOLUTELY. I'D LIKE TO SEE IT. I FEEL SURE SOMEONE ON COUNSEL'S GONNA ASK THAT QUESTION, SO YOU PROBABLY OUGHT TO KNOW IT. YES. THANK YOU FOR THAT. UM, CAN YOU GO OVER WITH ME AGAIN WHAT YOUR PROPOSAL IS ON HOW YOU WANT TO CHANGE HOW FUNDS WOULD BE USED? WELL, I WOULD SAY THAT WE LARGELY INTEND TO USE THEM IN THE SAME WAY, WHICH WOULD BE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AS WELL AS PARK DEVELOPMENT AND A, UM, RELATIVELY MODEST INCREASE IN THE, UM, IN THE EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH, UM, ACQUIRING THE LAND. AND THEN A, AGAIN, A MODEST INCREASE FOR THE STAFF TIME TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM. WELL, I DON'T CALL DOUBLE A MODEST INCREASE, I WANNA BE REAL SPECIFIC ON WHAT IT IS YOU WANT APPROVAL OF BECAUSE 10% IS PRETTY STANDARD AND YOU WANNA DOUBLE THAT. AND I WANNA UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE ASKING US TO IMPROVE, TO APPROVE, BECAUSE TAKING THE MONEY OUT OF THE, BUYING THE PARKLAND KITTY AND PUTTING IT INTO THE STAFF CAN USE IT HOWEVER THEY WANT. KITTY IS A BIG DECISION. WELL, AND I WANNA KNOW HOW EXACTLY YOU'RE PROPOSING TO USE THAT 20%. I THINK, I GUESS THE SIMPLEST WAY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION WOULD BE WE PROPOSE TO USE THE INCREASE TO COVER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF STAFF EXPENSES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH ADMINISTERING THE PROGRAM IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING EXPENSES THAT WE OCCUR WHEN WE DO ACQUIRE PARKLAND. OKAY. I'M GONNA OBJECT TO THAT AS BEING NONRESPONSIVE. I WANNA KNOW THE CATEGORY OF THINGS YOU WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY ON. HOW DO YOU WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY? WE WANNA SPEND THE MONEY ON THE, AGAIN, THE EXPENSES THAT ARE WE TYPICALLY, WE TYPICALLY SEE WHEN WE'RE ACQUIRING PARKLAND. THOSE ARE THINGS SUCH AS THE PREPARATION OF FIELD NOTES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT, ANY SORT OF OTHER DUE DILIGENCE THAT'S REQUIRED TO ACQUIRE A PROPERTY, WHICH IS A, A NORMAL CITY PROCESS. AND THE A PERCENTAGE WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO AFFORD FRANKLY, THE ENTIRE COST OF THE STAFF TIME TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM. BUT SOME PERCENTAGE OF THE STAFF COST TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM CA AT 20%. HOW MANY STAFF MEMBERS DO YOU HAVE CURRENTLY THAT ADMINISTER THE PARK DEDICATION PROGRAM? WE HAVE A, A MANAGER. WE HAVE [00:40:01] A GIS ANALYST AND A, AND A PERCENTAGE OF A FINANCIAL ANALYST. SO CALL IT TWO AND A HALF. AND ON AVERAGE, HOW MUCH PARKLAND DEDICATION FUNDS DO WE COLLECT AS A CITY? EVERY YEAR? ON AVERAGE, WE'VE COLLECTED APPROXIMATELY THREE AND A HALF MILLION. AND SO THE, UM, $12 MILLION THAT WE HAVE NOW, THAT'S NOT, WE HAVE 15 MILLION. WE ACTUALLY ACQUIRED PROPERTY ON 1 0 3 4 5 CHAPEL WEB CHAPEL ROAD. AND SO THAT'S WHY THE FUND BALANCE DECREASED. BUT ADDING THE SIX YEARS OF ITS EXISTENCE, WE'VE ONLY ACQUIRED ONE PROPERTY, BUT WE ALSO HAVE 10 YEARS TO EXPAND THE FUNDS. AND SO WE EVENTUALLY, ONCE WE GET THE ORDINANCE UPDATE, WE WOULD LIKE TO COME UP WITH A FUNDING PLAN ON HOW WE CAN SPEND THE MONEY, BUT ALSO GENERATE MORE FEES IN THE FUTURE. SO ON AVERAGE, YOUR 10% IS ABOUT $350,000 FOR STAFF FOR TWO AND A HALF STAFF MEMBERS? WELL, I SHOULD CLARIFY. WE'RE NOT CURRENTLY DOING THAT. WE'RE NOT, THE STAFF COST TODAY IS NOT BEING, IT'S NOT BEING, UM, CHARGED TO THE FUND. WHY NOT? BECAUSE THERE WAS GUIDANCE GIVEN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT STAFF COSTS WOULD BE AN EXPENSE THAT WOULD BE A BIT OF A GRAY AREA. SO BEING CONSERVATIVE, WE HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO, UH, HAVE THOSE COSTS REFLECTED AGAINST THE FUND. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. UH, TO TRY TO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT, 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW THE, UM, TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS SPENDING ANY OF THE PARKLAND IDENTIFICATION FEES ON STAFF. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S WHAT I'M READING HERE. THAT'S CORRECT. THIS SAYS THIS MAY NOT BE USED FOR CITY STAFF OVERHEAD EXPENSES AND THAT INDIRECT COSTS REASONABLY INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH PARK ACQUISITION IMPROVEMENT, LEGAL EXPENSE, ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL COSTS, AND ENGINEERING AND DESIGN COSTS ARE LIMITED TO 10%. BUT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING NOW IS FOR THE INDIRECT COSTS SPECIFICALLY TO BE INCREASED TO 20% PLUS, YOU'RE AT ADDING AN ADDI, IF I UNDERSTOOD THE, UH, AMENDMENT CORRECTLY, YOU'RE ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL 10% TO BE STAFF, SO THAT WOULD BE 30% OF THE AMOUNT? NO MA'AM. IT WOULD BE CAPPED AT 20% TOTAL. OKAY. WELL THEN IT SEEMS TO ME THE, RIGHT NOW, THE WAY THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS WORDED IS THERE'S NO CAP AT ALL ON THE AMOUNT THAT COULD BE USED FOR CITY STAFF OVERHEAD EXPENSES AND THE INDIRECT COST WOULD BE CAPPED AT 20%. SO I THINK THERE'D BE NEEDS TO BE A, A LANGUAGE CHANGE THERE IF THAT IS THE INTENTION. AND IF IT NEEDS TO BE BROKEN DOWN WITHIN THAT 20%, HOW MUCH OF THAT 20% COULD BE ALLOCATED TO STAFF? I THINK THAT THAT WOULD PROBABLY HELP IF IT WERE CLARIFIED. YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU FOR THAT. UM, WERE THERE OTHER, I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS, BUT I I PLEASE GO AHEAD OR OKAY, WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER. NO, COMMISSIONER, HOUSE COMMISSIONER, UH, CARPENTER AND COMMISSIONER KINGSTON CLEARED UP ALL MY QUESTIONS, SO THANK YOU. THAT'S HOW IT HAPPENS. COMMISSIONER CHERNOCK, THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO COMMISSIONER. UH, I HAVE A QUESTION MIGHT BE FOR STAFF, BUT I THINK YOU GUYS COULD PROBABLY ANSWER AS WELL. IT, UM, DOES THIS GET LOOKED AT, IS THERE SOMETHING INTO THE STATUTE THAT SAYS WE LOOK AT THIS EVERY FIVE YEARS OR TWO YEARS, OR, YES SIR, THERE IS. AND SO IT JUST SO HAPPENED THAT THE CHANGE IN STATE LAW COINCIDED WITH THAT TIME PERIOD, SO YES. WOULD IT, WHEN, WHEN WOULD WE LOOK, DEPENDING ON HOW WE, UH, VOTE TODAY, WHEN WOULD THIS BE LOOKED AT AGAIN? I I BELIEVE IT'S FIVE YEARS, CORRECT? YES. WE WOULD LOOK AT IT IN 2029 AGAIN. UH, SO WE ARE ACTUALLY IN PART IN LINE WITH OUR FIRST REVIEW OF THE ORDINANCE AND NEXT QUESTION IS THAT THE 2% IS A, IS A, IS A STATE MAXIMUM, BUT WE COULD TODAY LOOK AT A DIFFERENT PERCENTAGE, CORRECT? YES SIR. THAT'S CERTAINLY A POLICY DECISION, BUT AS YOU MAY RECALL FROM THE PRESENTATION, WE ARE, UH, RECOMMENDING A PERCENTAGE, LESS THAN 2% FOR HOTEL MOTEL UNIT AND MULTIFAMILY, ONE BED OR LESS. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT GO. YEAH. SORRY, THIS MAY BE A SLIGHTLY IGNORANT QUESTION, BUT THE $900 FEE THAT [00:45:01] PEOPLE HAVE TO PAY, UM, FOR THIS, DOES THAT $900 GO TO STAFF FOR THE REPORTS AND PREPARATION OF THE REPORTS? YOU COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? THE, YOU HAVE TO PAY A $900 FEE CORRECT. FOR AN APPEAL? SO THAT'S FOR AN APPEAL. RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE ANY FEES OR MECHANISMS TO HANDLE APPEALS IN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. AND SO THE APPEAL SECTION WAS MANDATED BY HB 1526 AND WE DECIDED AT $900 BECAUSE THAT'S IN LINE WITH WHAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SETS THEIR FEES. AND SO THAT'S, WE DID FEES THAT WERE SIMILAR TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS IN THE CITY. OKAY, SO THE ADDITIONAL 10% THAT'S BEING ASKED FOR STAFF, THAT GOES TOWARD THE INITIAL REPORTS AND RESEARCH AND FIELD WORK? YES, BECAUSE I, AS A STAFF PERSON, I HAVE TO FILL QUESTIONS ON WHETHER OR NOT SOMEBODY HA IS REQUIRED TO, UM, PAY DEDICATION. I ALSO HAVE TO DO HISTORICAL RESEARCH BECAUSE WE SOMETIMES PEOPLE HAVE PAID AND DEPENDING ON IF IT'S A SITUATION WHERE IT'S A ONE-TO-ONE REPLACEMENT OF A BUILDING OR TEAR DOWN, LIKE IF SOMEONE'S HOUSE CATCHES FIRE AND THEY PAY PARKLAND IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS, I WOULD NOT CHARGE THEM TO REBUILD THEIR HOUSE. AND IF IT'S A ONE-TO-ONE REPLACEMENT, NOW IF IT'S ONE PERSON COMING IN AND SAYING WE HAD 10 UNITS, WE TORE IT DOWN, WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD 50, THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE NET DENSITY BECAUSE IT'S AN INCREASE IN DENSITY THAT RESULTS IN THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE. OKAY, PERFECT. THANK YOU. I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT THERE'S NEVER BEEN AN APPEAL TO THE ORDINANCE SINCE IT'S BEEN IN PLACE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GO TO SECOND ROUND? SECOND ROUND. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. UM, WHILE THIS ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY, UM, ASSESSES THE FEE AGAINST SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX AND MULTI-FAMILY AND, UH, MOTELS AND HOTELS, UM, WAS THERE ANY, AM I MISUNDERSTANDING OR DOES IT NOT APPLY TO TOWN HOMES AND CLUSTERED HOUSING AND RETIREMENT HOUSING? I MEAN, IF WE'RE ADDING DENSER RESIDENTIAL AND UNDER THOSE CATEGORIES, IT, UM, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. WAS THERE A DECISION MADE TO EXCLUDE THOSE OR NO, THERE WASN'T. UM, I WOULD IT, THIS I MAY ASK FOR SOME LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO THIS QUESTION, BUT REALLY THE, THE, UM, MULTI-FAMILY FEE WAS, UH, MEANT TO, UH, BE A BIT OF A GENERIC TERM. OKAY. AND SO ANY SORT OF MULTIUNIT, OKAY, SO HOUSING WOULD BE, PEOPLE ARE ADDING HOUSING UNDER TH THREE ZONING THAT THAT'S BEING ASSESSED, THE FEE THAT IS CHARGED FOR MULTIFAMILY? CORRECT. OKAY. YES. IS THAT SOMETHING I GUESS I'D WANNA ASK, UH, MR. MOORE, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE APPEALABLE? I MEAN, IT, IT, UH, YOU KNOW, IT, IT SEEMS PRETTY CUT AND DRY TO WHAT THE, UM, I MEAN THERE'S NOT MUCH TO APPEAL, IT SEEMS TO ME ABOUT FEE IN LIEU IF YOU FALL INTO ONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES. BUT IF YOU'RE IN ONE OF THOSE OTHER CATEGORIES, COULD SOMEONE SAY, WELL, THIS ORDINANCE DOESN'T APPLY TO ME. I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER, I MISSED THE BEGINNING OF THE QUESTION. OH, OKAY. UH, CAN YOU SORT OF, IT STARTED WITH, YOU KNOW, THE REPORT AND THE ORDINANCE SEEMED TO SPECIFICALLY APPLY TO SINGLE FAMILY, DUPLEX, MULTIFAMILY AND HOTEL. MY QUESTION IS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE HOUSING THAT WE'RE ADDING UNDER TOWN HOMES, CLUSTERED HOUSING, RETIREMENT HOUSING, WERE, WAS THE DECISION MADE TO EXCLUDE THOSE OR ARE THOSE SOMEHOW ASSUMED TO BE, UH, ACCESSIBLE UNDER THOSE OTHER CATEGORIES? GOTCHA. SO THOSE, UH, MORE DENSE, ANYTHING MORE DENSE THAN A DUPLEX DISTRICT WOULD BE A MULTIFAMILY. AND THAT'S JUST BASED ON THE WAY, UH, THE LEGISLATURE DEFINED MULTIFAMILY IN THE BILL AND IT WAS DEFINED AS A RESIDENTIAL UNIT OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY OR TWO FAMILY DWELLING UNIT. OKAY. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS, PLEASE. OKAY, LET'S KEEP GOING. UM, WOULD FEE IN LIEU AND PARKLAND DEDICATION EVER BE ASSESSED AGAINST, UH, THE SAME PROJECT? SO THE, THE STATE LAW GIVES CITIES THE, THE FIVE CITIES, THE ABILITY TO ASSESS A FEE REQUIRE A DEDICATION, WHICH I'VE REALLY BEEN REFERRING TO IT AS AN ACQUISITION BECAUSE THE CITY WOULD BE OBLIGATED TO PAY, PAY FAIR MARKET VALUE, OR A COMBINATION OF THE TWO. UM, AS I'VE SAID MANY TIMES, UH, TO, TO ANYONE WHO ASKS, THE, THE CITY IS ONLY GOING TO BE ABLE TO REQUIRE THAT DEDICATION OR ACQUISITION IN PRETTY RARE INSTANCES BECAUSE IN A LOT OF CASES, UM, THE COST TO ACQUIRE THAT 10% IN CERTAIN PARTS OF TOWN, OF COURSE COULD BE VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE. AND IT REALLY WILL BECOME A FACTOR OF WHAT'S THE PRICE, WHAT'S THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY, WHERE IS IT EXACTLY WHAT IS THE ADJACENCY TO EXISTING PARKLAND? [00:50:01] IN OTHER WORDS, DO WE NEED IT? SO I WOULD, I WOULD BE VERY COMFORTABLE IN, IN TELLING ANYONE WHO ASKS THAT THE CITY IS ONLY GOING TO REQUIRE A DEDICATION OR AN ACQUISITION IN VERY LIMITED INSTANCES WHERE IN THE PARTS OF TOWN THAT WERE HIGHLY DEFICIENT IN PARKLAND, AND WE CERTAINLY HAVE SOME OF THOSE PARTS OF TOWN. SO IT'S REALLY GONNA BE KIND OF A CASE BY CASE BASIS. BUT IN VERY LIMITED INSTANCES, I'M READING THIS CORRECTLY, THEN THE CITY WOULD BE OBLIGATED TO PAY THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE 10% OF THE LAND, AND THEN THEY WOULD BE SUBTRACTING FROM THAT THE FEE IN LIEU THAT WOULD'VE BEEN ASSESSED OTHERWISE. SO THAT IS CORRECT. THEORETICALLY, THEY'RE BEING MADE WHOLE. ARE YOU ANTICIPATING IF THERE ARE ANY APPEALS? IT WOULD BE FROM DEVELOPERS WHO DON'T WANT TO GIVE UP THE LAND? ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. YEP. NOW, IS THERE ANY WAY THAT SOMEONE COULD APPEAL, WANTING TO GIVE LAND TO THE CITY, SAYING, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS LAND, HALF OF IT'S IN THE FLOOD PLAN OVER HERE, I WANT TO MAKE THE CITY TAKE IT IS. WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE KIND OF CAREFUL ABOUT THAT. SO OF, OF COURSE THERE'S MANY PARKS AROUND THE CITY THAT ARE ON THE FLOODPLAIN, BUT WE, WE TRY TO AVOID ACCEPTING LAND THAT IS GOING TO BE A MAINTENANCE ISSUE. UM, FLOODPLAIN LAND IS VERY CHALLENGING. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, ALTHOUGH WE WOULD BE OPEN TO THE CONVERSATION, WE WOULDN'T BE INTERESTED IN GIVING SOME SORT OF OUR RECOMMENDATION ANYWAY IS THAT WE WOULDN'T BE INTERESTED IN GIVING A CREDIT WITHIN THE ORDINANCE IN THOSE CASES WHERE SOMEONE DID WANT TO DEDICATE FLOODPLAIN, FOR INSTANCE. AND THE, IS IT 4,300 PARCELS THAT IT'S BEEN ASSESSED AGAINST SO FAR? HAS ANYONE WANTED TO DEDICATE LAND? WE AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE HASN'T BEEN A SINGLE INSTANCE. OKAY. UM, WHERE A DEVELOPER HAS SOUGHT A CREDIT MECHANISM IN THE ORDINANCE. IT'S JUST ALWAYS BEEN THEY'VE WANTED TO PAY THE FEE SO THEY CAN GET THEIR PERMIT. OKAY. LET'S SEE HERE. OKAY. THE, UM, ORDINANCE CURRENTLY SAYS THAT THE, THIS PROGRAM DOES NOT APPLY TO DEVELOPMENTS IN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS EXISTING ON JULY 1ST, 2019 WITH OPEN SPACE OR PARKLAND REQUIREMENTS. UM, THAT WOULD SEEM PRETTY BROAD, ESPECIALLY FOR AREAS OF TOWN WHERE WE'RE GETTING EXTREMELY DENSE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON, YOU KNOW, PRETTY SMALL PIECES OF LAND WHERE THE EXISTING OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT WOULD REALLY BE PRETTY SMALL AREAS OF GREEN SPACE. HAS THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSION OF SOME SORT OF, I DON'T KNOW, OFFSET OR SOMETHING? I DON'T KNOW. SO THAT, THAT IS, UH, THE CONTEXT THERE IS WHEN WE WERE CRAFTING THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE, THAT WAS, UM, AGAIN, IT WAS A VERY COLLABORATIVE PROCESS AND THAT WAS, UM, A CREDIT IF YOU WILL MM-HMM . YOU KNOW, DEVELOPERS FELT THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE ARE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS IN MY ZONING DISTRICT, MY PD MM-HMM . THAT IT WOULD BE SOMEWHAT OF A DOUBLE DIP. AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE FOUND THOUGH, TO YOUR POINT IS THAT IN A LOT OF CASES THESE, YOU KNOW, THESE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS CAN BE RELATIVELY SMALL AND MODEST AND DON'T REALLY FUNCTION AS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF EFFECTIVE RECREATIONAL SPACE. THEY MIGHT BE A, A PATIO OR A PLAZA OR SOMETHING, OR EVEN NOT AT GROUND LEVEL. CORRECT. AND SO, UM, THAT HAS REMAINED IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT LAKEISHA AND I HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT CONTINUING TO, TO THINK ABOUT THAT IF THAT, UM, IS IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO CONTINUE TO REMAIN EXPECT D 14, WHAT I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT, BUT, UM, ANYWAY, I I JUST WONDERED IF THERE HAD BEEN A, ANY ONGOING DISCUSSION OF, OF, OF MODIFYING THAT SOMEHOW THERE HAS BEEN AN ONGOING DISCUSSION, BUT AGAIN FROM, UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, BUT I'M QUITE SURE THEY WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A, THAT'S A DOUBLE ASSESSMENT OR SOMETHING. RIGHT. OKAY. I GOTCHA. UM, I UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE FOR EXEMPTING AFFORDABLE UNITS, BUT GIVEN THAT AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE, UH, TIME LIMITED, IS THE FEE ASSESSED OR AT THE TIME THESE AFFORDABLE UNITS, I MEAN I KNOW THE RESERVE UNITS BECOME AFFORDABLE UNITS DOWN THE ROAD. I MEAN, I KNOW THERE'S SOME MECHANISM IN HERE IF YOU ADD DENSITY, UM, OVER TIME YOU CAN BE ASSESSED. SO HOW DOES THAT WORK? YEAH, I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S AFFORDABLE FROM THE GET GO, THEN THEY WOULD BE EXEMPT. UM, IF IT'S AFFORDABLE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE AFTER THEY HAVE ALREADY SATISFIED THE ORDINANCE, THERE WOULDN'T BE A MECHANISM FOR THEM TO KIND OF CLAW BACK THAT IT WOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED ADDITIONAL DENSITY IF THEY WERE AS FAR AS MARKET RATE [00:55:01] DENSITY, IF THEY WERE TO ADD ADDITIONAL DENSITY TO AN EXISTING AFFORDABLE COMPLEX. NO, BUT WHAT I MEAN, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE, THE RESERVED UNITS THAT CAME COME OFF OF AFFORDABILITY ARE TECHNICALLY ADDING MORE AFFORDABLE DENSITY. I'M NOT SURE I FOLLOW THAT QUESTION. YOU BUILD A HUNDRED UNITS OF HOUSING MM-HMM . 80 OF THEM ARE MARKET RATES. SO YOU'RE COLLECTING THE FEE ON THE 80 CORRECT UNITS. OKAY. THE AFFORDABLE UNITS, THE RESERVE UNITS, LEMME USE THE CORRECT TERMINOLOGY, ONLY STAY THESE RESERVED UNITS FOR HALF 15 YEARS OR WHATEVER IT'S I SEE. AND SO AFTER THAT 15 YEARS IS EXPIRED, THEN, THEN THEY REALLY HAVE A HUNDRED UNITS, SO THERE'S AN INCREASE FROM 80 TO A HUNDRED IN, IN THAT SCENARIO WE WOULD NOT, UM, WE WOULD NOT RECOMMEND TO TRY TO ASSESS THOSE UNITS AFTER THE FACT. OKAY. LET'S SEE. I THINK THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. YEAH, I'VE GOT SOME MORE QUESTIONS. SO WHAT IS SECTION 4.1010? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THAT DESIGNATION OF CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, SUBURBAN AND URBAN AREAS? UH, WOULD YOU REPEAT THE SECTION? YEAH. 4.1010 DESIGNATION OF CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, SUBURBAN AND URBAN AREAS. AND SO THAT WAS LANGUAGE THAT WAS FROM HB 1526. HB 1526 MANDATED THAT WE CREATE A MAP THAT HAS SUBURBAN URBAN AND A CBD DESIGNATION. AND SO THAT'S THE MAP THAT I SHOWED AT THE BEGINNING, THAT'S EXHIBIT A THAT REFLECTS THE STATE LAW. WE ONLY DID IT BECAUSE THE STATE LAW REQUIRED US TO DO THAT, I MEAN TO CREATE THAT MAP. AND I WOULD ADD THAT, THAT THAT DESIGNATION IS A FACTOR IN THE STANDARD CALCULATION THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING NOT TO UTILIZE. RIGHT. OKAY. I UNDERSTOOD THAT. NOW IT'S YOUR ASSESSMENT THAT WHAT DOWNTOWN AND UPTOWN HAVE ENOUGH PARKS AND YOU WANNA TAKE THE MONEY FROM THAT NEW LITTLE, UH, UM, DISTRICT AND SPREAD IT AROUND. SO THE, THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, UM, SHOWS THE DOWNTOWN AREA FOLLOWING THE, THE DOWNTOWN 360 MAP. AND THE CURRENT ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR, I'M GONNA, SORRY, I SHOULD REFER TO IT AS THE OLD ORDINANCE. IT ALLOWED FOR FEES THAT WERE ACCUMULATED WITHIN THAT ZONE TO BE USED IN OTHER ZONES FOR TRAIL CONNECTIVITY. UM, SO WE ARE PROPOSING A, UH, A SIMILAR MECHANISM IN THIS ORDINANCE. OF COURSE, THE DOWNTOWN AREA HAS SHR INTO STRICTLY THE CBD, UM, BUT WE WOULD STILL RECOMMEND THAT SIMILAR TO THE CURRENT, THE OLD ORDINANCE THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO UTILIZE FUNDS GENERATED WITHIN THE CBD IN OTHER ZONES, UM, LARGELY BECAUSE OF WHAT I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE DON'T SEE A, UM, A CONTINUED, UH, NEED FOR, FOR MORE PARKS DOWNTOWN WITH A COMPLETION OF OUR MOST RECENT FOUR PARKS. HMM. WELL I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU. I CAN SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A LINEAR PARK ON HARWOOD. DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT? YOU WOULD BE HEADING EAST ON YOUNG STREET FROM HARWOOD PARK TOWARDS THE FARMER'S MARKET AND OVER TO CLYDE WARREN, UM, CONNECTING FARMERS MARKET. THERE'S CERTAINLY TO UPTOWN AND THIS ORDINANCE WOULDN'T REALLY PRECLUDE THAT FROM OCCURRING. THIS WOULD JUST BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO POTENTIALLY UTILIZE FEES THAT WERE GENERATED WITHIN THE CBD FOR TRAIL CONNECTIVITY IN OTHER AREAS. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT'S NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT WILL HAPPEN. THIS IS BASICALLY A ROBINHOOD PLAN. YOU WANNA TAKE THE MONEY FROM THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AREA AND USE IT IN THE REST OF THE CITY, PRETTY MUCH GUARANTEEING THAT IT DOESN'T GET USED IN THE AREA THAT'S GENERATING THE FUNDS. I WOULD JUST SAY THAT IT'S A CONTINUATION OF THE, OF THE METHODOLOGY THAT HAS EXISTED IN THE OLD ORDINANCE AND GIMME SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW THAT WOULD WORK. UM, IF THERE IS A, I MEAN, YOU COULD PICK REALLY ANY TRAIL PROJECT ANYWHERE. IF THERE IS A, UM, A SEGMENT OF A TRAIL THAT WOULD BE DESIRABLE TO CONNECT TO AN ADDITIONAL TRAIL, CONCEIVABLY YOU COULD IDENTIFY FUNDING WITHIN CURRENT ZONE SEVEN AND UTILIZE THOSE FUNDS [01:00:01] FOR THAT CONNECTION IN ANOTHER PART OF TOWN. IT HASN'T OCCURRED, BUT THAT IS POSSIBLE. SO YOU CAN'T GIVE ME A SINGLE EXAMPLE, REAL EXAMPLE, BUT YOU WANNA MAINTAIN THAT. I I ACTUALLY CAN GIVE YOU A REAL EXAMPLE. FOR EXAMPLE, THE SANTA FE TRAIL, IT STOPS IN ODS DALLAS, AND THERE'S A BIG GAP BETWEEN, UM, WHERE SANTA FE TRAIL STOPS CURRENTLY, WHICH IS WHERE, UH, I CAN'T THINK OF THAT INTERSECTION, BUT I'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH MY TRAIL PERSON IN PARK AND THEN WE KNOW THAT THERE'S A GAP THAT EXISTS BETWEEN SANTA FE TRAIL AND WHERE THE TRAIL NEAR RIVERFRONT AND WHERE CERTAIN PARTS THAT START TO PICK UP IN WEST DALLAS, THERE'S A GAP. AND WE WERE, WHEN WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS REQUEST, WE WERE SAYING, HEY, IF, BECAUSE THIS TRAIL PATH WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH DOWNTOWN TO GET TO WEST DALLAS, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE FLEXIBILITY TO USE THE FUNDS FROM THE DOWNTOWN ZONE TO HELP COMPLETE THAT GAP. BECAUSE ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE SEEN WITH IMPLEMENTING TRAILS, SOMEONE WILL COME IN AND IMPROVE THE STREET AND SAY, OH, WE NEED A TRAIL. BUT IF THE TRAIL CAN'T MAKE IT EASIER FOR SOMEBODY TO GO EAST AND WEST OR NORTH AND SOUTH, WE JUST KIND OF BUILD THE LITTLE WALKING PATH THAT'S NOT REALLY HELPING IN THE OVERALL BIKE NETWORK. AND SO THE EMPHASIS ON CONNECTIVITY IS BASED ON US HELPING TO ASPIRING TO COMPLETE THE CITY'S BIKING NETWORK. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE REQUESTED THAT MECHANISM. WE HAVEN'T DONE IT YET, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO COME UP WITH A SPENDING PLAN. BUT WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE HAVE WITH ACCESSIBILITY TO PARKS IS THAT TRAILS DEAD END AND IT MIGHT TAKE THEM TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD PARK OR A NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL, BUT IT, THEY WANNA BIKE DOWNTOWN. THEY HAVE TO GO ON A LOOP ALL THE WAY AROUND IT VERSUS GOING A STRAIGHT LINE. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING THAT, THAT FLEXIBILITY STAY IN THE NEW ORDINANCE, BUT IT ALSO CURRENTLY EXISTS IN THE OLD ORDINANCE. AND HOW MUCH OF THE FUNDS THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING HELD ARE IN CURRENT ZONE SEVEN RIGHT NOW IN ZONE SEVEN? LET ME GO TO THE MAP. SO ZONE SEVEN HAS APPROXIMATELY $1.7 MILLION IN IT. NOW I ALSO WANT TO EMPHASIZE THE STATEMENT BECAUSE WE HAD A QUESTION ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY ARE WE LOSING AS A RESULT OF NOT COLLECTING ON ORDINANCE BECAUSE UPTOWN HAS A CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF PD 1 93 AND PD 1 93 HAS BEEN EXEMPT. WE HAVE WHY? WELL, THAT WAS HOW THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE WAS CREATED. I DID STAY IN MY STAFF REPORT THAT I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE REMOVE THOSE EXEMPTIONS BECAUSE WE FOUND OUT WE DIDN'T MANAGE THE OPEN SPACE FUND. WE FEEL THAT ADDING, CHANGING SOME OF THE ZONES, WHICH WE WOULD WANNA PUT UPTOWN IN ZONE FIVE AND WE WOULD WANT TO GET RID OF THE EXEMPTION FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS. WE FEEL THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO CAPTURE MORE MONEY SINCE WE KNOW THAT DENSITY IS INCREASING IN UPTOWN, BUT WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO CAPITALIZE ON IT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CONNECT FUNDS FOR WHEN IT'S IN A P DARY. OKAY. AND THE SANTA FE TRAIL CONNECTOR THAT YOU'RE WANTING TO DO, WHAT ZONE IS THAT IN THE SANTA FE? UM, TRAIL RIGHT NOW IS IN ZONE TWO. AND HOW MUCH MONEY IS IT SITTING THERE IS IN ZONE TWO, WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY 1.4 MILLION. AND HOW MUCH IS NEEDED TO DO THAT CONNECTOR? WE HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH COST SPECS. WE WERE IDENTIFYING TARGET AREAS. WE HAVE NOT SUBMITTED BIGS AND CAME UP WITH PROJECT COSTS. AND SO IT WAS JUST WHEN WE WERE HAVING A GENERAL DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT ARE SOME POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE HAVE IN THE NEAR FUTURE THAT WAS IDENTIFIED AS ONE. OKAY, SO YOU WANNA TAKE MONEY OUTTA MY SECTION TO SPEND AT OTHER PLACES? BUT YOU CAN BARELY GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE. AND YOU DON'T HAVE A PRO, YOU DON'T HAVE A COST. I I MEAN I JUST WANT TO SAY IT'S A TWO-WAY STREET. WE'RE NOT ONLY PROPOSING TO TAKE MONEY OUT OF DOWNTOWN AND FARM IT TO THE OTHER SECTIONS, THE NEXUS PRINCIPLES WORK [01:05:01] THAT MONEY CAN FLOW BETWEEN ZONES THAT THEY TOUCH. AND SO JUST LIKE IF WE CAN SAY WE WANT TO TAKE MONEY FROM DOWNTOWN, AND IF IT'S ON THE PROXIMITY OF THE DOWNTOWN ZONE AND THE OLD EAST DALLAS ZONE, WE CAN TAKE MONEY FROM THAT ZONE CURRENTLY AND PUT IT IN DOWNTOWN. OR WE COULD TAKE THE MONEY FROM DOWNTOWN AND PUT IT IN THAT ZONE. IT'S A TWO WAY STREET. IT'S NOT DISPERSING THE FUNDS WHERE WE WOULD USE MONEY, WHERE IT WASN'T GENERATED, THAT WASN'T BENEFICIAL TO WHEREVER WE FLOWED THE MONEY TO. IT'S, IT IS NOT A ONE WAY IN, IT IS A TWO-WAY STREET. BUT WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS A SPECIAL RULE FOR THE DOWNTOWN ZONE WHERE YOU COULD TAKE MONEY OUTTA THAT FUND AND USE IT ANYWHERE IN THE CITY. YOU ARE, YOU'RE PROPOSING AN AN EXCEPTION TO THE NEXUS RULE, RIGHT? YES. BECAUSE IN YOUR ESTIMATION, DOWNTOWN'S GOOD ENOUGH. IT IS NOT THAT IT STANDS GOOD ENOUGH. WE RECOGNIZE THERE MIGHT BE CHALLENGES GOING FORWARD WITH ACQUIRING LAND BECAUSE MOST OF DOWNTOWN IS BUILT OUT. WE ALSO, LIKE I SAID, ALWAYS LOOKING AT THINGS AT THE CASE BY CASE. WE'RE NOT ASSUMING THAT NO ONE WOULD EVER ASK FOR ADDITIONAL PARK IN, UM, DOWNTOWN. WE ALSO RECOGNIZE, BECAUSE WE'VE HAD THIS ONE FOR APPROXIMATELY SIX YEARS, THERE ARE MONIES THAT ARE BEGINNING TO AGE. AND SO WE ARE JUST LOOKING FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO SPEND THE MONEY WITHIN THE 10 YEAR TIMEFRAME THAT WILL PROVIDE SOME TYPE OF BENEFIT TO WHEREVER IT WAS GENERATED IN THE OVERALL CITY. AND I WOULD JUST ALSO ADD TO THAT, I MEAN THAT I VERY MUCH UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT, BUT JUST FOR ADDITIONAL CONTEXT, YOU KNOW THAT THIS QUESTION OR THIS THIS ISSUE WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS REALLY, REALLY DISCUSSED TO, TO A, TO A GREAT EXTENT OF WHEN THE ORDINANCE, THE OLD ORDINANCE WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED AND IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS THOROUGHLY VETTED THROUGH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS SUPPORTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY. WELL, THINGS CHANGE AND DOWNTOWN IS BECOMING MORE HABITED BY RESIDENTS. MM-HMM . AND IF WE EXPECT DOWNTOWN TO THRIVE, WE HAVE TO STOP TREATING IT LIKE IT'S A SECOND CHOICE. LIKE IT'S GOOD ENOUGH OR IT'S JUST DOWNTOWN. SO WE EXPECT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF CRIME, WE EXPECT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THIS, THAT, AND THE OTHER. WE HAVE TO GIVE IT A FAIR CHANCE. YES, MA'AM. I, I FULLY UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THE CITY HAS MADE TREMENDOUS GAINS FROM A PARK PERSPECTIVE IN DOWNTOWN. UM, BETWEEN THE LAST BOND PROGRAM, I'VE PROBABLY SPENT NORTH OF A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS ON DEVELOPING NEW PARKS FOR DOWNTOWN. SO VERY MUCH UNDER SENIOR POINT. BUT I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE CITY HAS MADE A GREAT EFFORT IN IMPROVING THE, THE PARK SPACE DOWNTOWN OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS. AND YOU DON'T SEE ANY OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE CONNECTIVITY WITH DOWNTOWN AND OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY USING THESE PARK FUNDS. UM, I'M SURE THERE WILL BE, UH, MANY OPPORTUNITIES TO DO SO. AGAIN, THIS PROVISION IS JUST SIMPLY, UH, AN OPTION. BUT TO, TO YOUR POINT, YES, I, I, I, UH, I DO SEE OPPORTUNITIES IN THE FUTURE TO UTILIZE FUNDS FROM THAT ZONE TO CONTINUE TO INCREASE CONNECTIVITY TO OTHER PARTS OF TOWN. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR. RUBIN. YEAH, JUST, JUST FOLLOWING UP WITH THAT, THE CENTER FE TRAIL DEAD ENDS AT ELM STREET, RIGHT? UM, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I, I'M NOT SURE WHERE DEAD END, I BIKE IT FAIRLY, FAIRLY FREQUENTLY. AND ELM STREET DOES NOT HAVE A PROTECTED BIKE LANE, RIGHT? IT DOES NOT. AND THERE'S IN FACT NO TRAIL THAT GOES THROUGH DEEP ELLUM TO DOWNTOWN AND ACROSS DOWNTOWN, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. THERE EVENTUALLY WILL BE, BUT YOU ARE CORRECT. AND THAT TRAIL THAT WILL INCLUDE DOWNTOWN AND DEEP ELLUM AND PROBABLY GOING WEST AS WELL, WOULD, WOULD SERVE NOT ONLY PEOPLE COMING INTO DOWNTOWN, BUT ALSO DOWNTOWN RESIDENTS LOOKING TO GET OUT FOR ENTERTAINMENT JOBS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, RIGHT? CORRECT. SO IF WE HAVE, IF WE ALLOW THOSE DOWNTOWN ZONE SEVEN FUNDS TO BE USED FOR TECH, UH, CONNECTIVITY, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COULD BE USED FOR IS, IS THAT TRAIL THAT NOT ONLY INCLUDES DOWNTOWN, BUT ALSO PROVIDES NODES GOING OUTWARDS, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CHERNIK, PAGE THREE DASH 20 ON THE, UH, CASE REPORT HAS A TABLE. IT SAYS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW FEES ARE CALCULATED [01:10:01] AND IT GIVES, UM, COMPARISON BETWEEN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE AND WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING UNDER THE PROPOSAL, THERE WOULD BE A 42 OVER 42% INCREASE IN THIS IMPACT FEE. MY QUESTION IS, AT A TIME WHEN THIS AN IMPACT FEES DRIVE UP THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION GOES UP, THE COST OF LEASES GO UP. SO AT A TIME WHEN OUR CITY IS IN THE MIDST OF A HOUSING CRISIS, DON'T YOU THINK THE ASK TO INCREASE THE IMPACT FEE BY 42% IS EGREGIOUS? UM, I WOULD RESPOND. I UNDERSTAND THE SENSITIVITY AROUND THE ISSUE. I REALLY DO. UM, I WOULD SAY TWO THINGS. I WOULD SAY THERE HAVE BEEN NO INCREASES TO THESE FEES SINCE THEY WERE IMPLEMENTED, NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, AS WE SHARED PREVIOUSLY, THE FEE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE STILL VERY MUCH IN ALIGNMENT WITH OUR SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES, IN FACT ARE SIGNIFICANTLY CHEAPER THAN MANY SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES, UM, THAT WE ARE IN COMPETITION WITH. SO, AGAIN, UNDERSTAND THE SENSITIVITY AROUND THE ISSUE, UM, WE FELT AS THOUGH THE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE REASONABLE. BUT I UNDERSTAND THE, THE CONCERN. SECOND AROUND COMMISSIONER AL, SORRY, NOT TO KEEP COMING BACK TO THIS, BUT AS A DOWNTOWN RESIDENT, I, I APPRECIATE THE PARKS AND MY DOGS AND I USE THEM DAILY, AND WE APPRECIATE, UM, THAT THEY'RE THERE. I HOPE WE'RE NOT DONE. I I HOPE THERE'S MORE. UM, SO WITH WHAT'S BEING DISCUSSED WITH THE FUNDS BEING DIVERTED TO THESE CONNECTIONS AND TO THESE TRAILS, IS THERE, ARE WE SAYING THAT THOSE TRAILS AND THOSE CONNECTIONS DON'T HAVE TO TOUCH DOWNTOWN? THEY COULD BE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PART OF THE CITY. SO THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THEY'RE GOING THROUGH DOWNTOWN CON CONCEIVABLY, THEY, THEY DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO TOUCH DOWNTOWN, BUT YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE TRAILS ARE EVENTUALLY GOING TO FIND THEIR WAY TO DOWNTOWN. SO, AND THAT WAS REALLY THE, THAT WAS REALLY THE, UM, KIND OF ORIGINAL THOUGHT AROUND THE CONCEPT OF HAVING THE ABILITY TO UTILIZE THE FEEDS GENERATED DOWNTOWN. BECAUSE EVENTUALLY, AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, UM, THE TRAIL NETWORK THAT'S CURRENTLY 170, 180 MILES DEVELOPED, THE FULL BUILD OUT WILL BE TWO 50 TO 300. THOSE WILL ALL FIND THEIR WAY DOWNTOWN. BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION SPECIFICALLY, THERE WOULD NOT BE A REQUIREMENT THAT IT NECESSARILY CONNECT TO DOWNTOWN TODAY. WOULD THERE BE A WAY TO MAKE THAT A REQUIREMENT? UM, THAT IS A, A POLICY DECISION THAT CERTAINLY COULD BE, UM, CONTEMPLATED. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HALL. UH, DID I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, YOU CURRENTLY HAVE ABOUT $13 MILLION IN THIS FUND? YES, SIR. AND OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, YOU'VE ONLY USED MONIES TO FOR ONE, ONE PROJECT? YES, SIR. UH, UH, IS THERE A MINIMUM LOT SIZE THAT YOU CONSIDER WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT LAND ACQUISITION? YES, SIR. AND BEFORE I ANSWER THAT QUESTION, I'D LIKE TO GIVE A LITTLE CONTEXT TO THE, TO THE FIRST PART OF YOUR QUESTION. AND YOU KNOW, WHAT WE FOUND IS BY HAVING THE SEVEN ZONES, UM, AND GIVEN THE, THE ACQUISITION COST OF LAND IN, IN TOWN, UM, WE JUST HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO AGGREGATE THE FUNDING AS QUICKLY AS WE WOULD HAVE LIKED IN ORDER TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE IN ACQUIRING PROPERTY. SO THAT IS THE REASON THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING FIVE ZONES AS OPPOSED TO SEVEN TO HOPEFULLY AGGREGATE FUNDS MORE QUICKLY AND, AND PUT ENOUGH MONEY TOGETHER TO BE A LITTLE MORE AGGRESSIVE IN ACQUIRING PROPERTY. BUT, UM, THE, UH, I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE, THE SECOND PART, IS THERE A MINIMUM LIFE SIZE OR PARTIAL SIZE? SO, YOU KNOW, UM, WE, GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE TRY TO AVOID ACQUIRING PROPERTIES THAT ARE LESS THAN A HALF ACRE TO AN ACRE. UM, FROM A MAINTENANCE PERSPECTIVE, IT'S CHALLENGING TO, AND IT'S NOT AS FUNCTIONAL TO HAVE A 2,500 SQUARE FOOT GREEN SPACE OR A, OR A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT GREEN SPACE. SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, UM, A HALF ACRE TO AN ACRE, UM, IN CERTAIN PARTS OF TOWN CAN BE A MEANINGFUL PARK SPACE. THINK ABOUT UPTOWN. UM, BUT KIND OF THE, THE NORMAL STANDARD FOR US FOR A SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD PARK WOULD BE IN THAT RANGE. UH, KNOWING WHAT LITTLE I KNOW ABOUT THE COST OF REAL ESTATE IN MY DISTRICT, $13 MILLION, IT'S NOT GONNA BUY YOU A [01:15:01] LOT OF LAND . AND IF LAND DOES BECOME AVAILABLE, IT'S GONNA BE A SINGLE FAMILY LOT SIZE. AND SO I, I CAN'T IMAGINE YOU WOULD BUY SINGLE FAMILY LOT HERE, HERE, HERE. I MEAN, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, IT HAS TO HAVE SOME SIZE TO IT, TO, TO HAVE A MEANINGFUL IMPACT. OTHERWISE IT'S A POCKET PARK. YES, SIR. YOU KNOW, AT SOME, A WEIRD INTERSECTION. SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR THAT HALF ACRE TO ACRE PLUS. THOSE ARE THE, THE SIZE ACQUISITIONS WE TRY TO ACQUIRE. THE, THE ONE THAT WE HAVE ACQUIRED, UH, FROM THIS FUND WAS 4.2 ACRES. YEAH. AND I'M ALSO WONDERING IF, IF YOU COLLECT MANY OF MUCH OF THIS MONEY FROM MY DISTRICT 13, JUST BECAUSE THERE'S NO REAL ESTATE LEFT . WELL, YOU SAW THE DISTRIBUTION OF, OF THE MAP THERE, YOU CAN PRETTY CLEARLY SEE THAT THERE'S NOT A, THERE'S NOT A TON OF FEES THAT HAVE BEEN GENERATED FROM DISTRICT 13. YEAH, I, I UNDERSTAND. I'M NOT TOO CONCERNED ABOUT YOU, ROBIN HOODING MY FUNDS FROM MY DISTRICT. I, I JUST THINK THEY'RE NOT THERE. VERY INTERESTING. I I, TO ME IT SEEMS WHAT IT ALL COMES DOWN TO IS JUST, THERE'S JUST A LACK OF USABLE REAL ESTATE IN MUCH OF THE CITY. UH, IT'S, AND A LOT OF THAT REAL ESTATE IS VERY, VERY PRICEY. I VERY MUCH AGREE WITH YOU. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. HURT FOR SHRIMP. UM, YEAH, LOOKING AT THE MAP, LOOKING AT THE RESEARCH, RIGHT? UH, WOULD YOU SAY DISTRICT THREE IS PROBABLY MOST STARVED OF PARKS? UH, COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE, SIR? YEAH. UM, OR, OR THE SUB-DISTRICT FOUR? I BELIEVE IT IS ON, UH, I DON'T THINK THAT I WOULD SAY THAT. I MEAN, WE HAVE RECENTLY ACQUIRED, UM, BIG CEDAR WILDERNESS. OF COURSE WE HAVE CEDAR RIDGE PRESERVERS. I WAS GETTING TO THAT, BUT YEAH, . UM, SO I, I WOULD, I WOULD SAY THAT THERE ARE OTHER PARTS OF TOWN THAT PROBABLY HAVE A GREATER NEED FROM A, FROM A ADDITIONAL PART PERSPECTIVE THAN DISTRICT THREE. I KNOW THAT, UM, DISTRICT THREE REALLY HAS SOME, SOME LOVELY PARKS. UM, AND, AND THE QUESTION IS, RIGHT, WE HAVE LOVELY PARKS, BUT HOW CLOSE ARE THEY TO THE RESIDENTS? RIGHT? HOW MANY OF US ARE FURTHER THAN THAT 10 MINUTE WALK? YES, SIR. SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE A, UM, WE CAN ABSOLUTELY PROVIDE IT TO YOU TODAY. YEAH. BECAUSE WE HAVE THE, THE PARK ACCESS, UH, PERCENTAGE BY DISTRICT. AND I'D BE HAPPY TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU. I CAN'T, I JUST CAN'T REMEMBER OFF, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WHAT, WHAT THE DISTRICT THREE PARK ACCESS, UH, METRIC IS, BUT IT'S NOT ONE OF THE, IT'S NOT ONE OF THE LOWEST. GOTCHA. UM, NEXT QUESTION WE HAVE, FOR INSTANCE, RIGHT? BEING PRACTICAL, WE HAVE A PARK OR A PIECE OF LAND THAT'S THE ROC NLO MM-HMM . PARK. UM, MILLION DOLLAR RESTORATION WAS DONE. YES, SIR. UM, IT'S FENCED OFF. NOBODY CAN ACCESS IT. RIGHT. COULD THIS, THESE FUNDS BE USED FOR THAT? THEY CAN. SO THE FUNDS CAN BE USED FOR ACQUISITION OR PARK DEVELOPMENT, PARK IMPROVEMENT. SO, ABSOLUTELY. UM, AND, AND REALLY THE, THE ORIGINAL LOGIC THERE WAS WHEN YOU ACQUIRE A PARKLAND, A PIECE OF PARKLAND, YOU WANT TO HAVE FUNDS TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP IT AS WELL. AND SO THAT'S WHY THOSE TWO USES HAVE BEEN KIND OF ATTACHED TO THIS ORDINANCE ALL ALONG. GOTCHA. WELL, THE MASTER PLAN FOR THAT PARK IS ALREADY CREATED, SO I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT IMPLEMENTED. UM, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF INUNDATION OF WAREHOUSES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND AREAS. RIGHT. HOW, HOW ARE THESE CALCULATED IN REGARDS TO PARKLAND? SORRY IF I MISSED THAT EARLIER WAREHOUSES. YEAH. LARGE MILLION SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSES BEING BUILT IN DISTRICT THREE WHEN THEY, WELL, THIS ORDINANCE DOESN'T, UM, COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IS NOT AS, UH, SUBJECT TO THE ORDINANCE, SO THERE'S NOT REALLY A CONNECTION BETWEEN GOTCHA. SO POLICY WISE, HOW DO WE INTRODUCE THAT? OH, THE CONCEPT OF A COMMERCIAL FEE. I BELIEVE THERE'S ONLY ONE CITY IN TEXAS THAT ASSESSES, UM, A PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. I BELIEVE IT'S SOUTHLAKE. UM, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. UM, AND I SEE DANIEL, OH, CRAP, COMING TO THE TABLE. YEAH. I'M ALSO GONNA SAY ADDISON, BUT INSTEAD OF THE FLAT FEE THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO CHARGE BY STATE ADDISON CHARGES FOR RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL USES BY SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT, AND THEY ALSO RECENTLY HAVE PASSED THEIR ORDINANCE LAST YEAR. COMMISSIONER HERBERT, YOU CAN DALLAS CANNOT, BECAUSE DALLAS IS SUBJECT TO THE BILL. IT'S ONLY AUSTIN, SAN ANTONIO HOUSTON FOR POPULATION. YEAH. THE, THE BIG CITIES OF MORE THAN 800,000. THE BILL SAYS THAT CI THOSE CITIES CANNOT, UH, CREATE A FEE FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. I'M TOLD AUSTIN USED [01:20:01] TO, AND THAT WAS PART OF THE REASON FOR THIS BILL, WAS TO TELL AUSTIN NO, THAT IT CANNOT DO THAT. BUT IF YOU ARE A CITY OF 799,999, YOU CAN DO THAT, BUT THE BIG CITIES CANNOT. OKAY, THANK YOU. AND, AND LAST QUESTION. WE, WE HAVE ACQUIRED BIG BEND. UM, HOW, HOW COULD THESE FEES BE USED TO DEVELOP BIG BEND, IF THAT MAKES SENSE? UH, THE ANSWER TO THAT IS THEY CAN BE USED TO HELP DEVELOP THAT, THAT SPECIFIC PROJECT. I'M WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH TRUST REPUBLIC LAND, WHO IS PROVIDING A KIND OF AN INITIAL, UH, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THAT PARK. UM, THEY HAVE ALSO CONTRIBUTED $600,000 TOWARDS THAT SAL IMPLEMENTATION. BUT YES, WE CAN UTILIZE, UH, THE FEES THAT ARE GENERATED BY THIS ORDINANCE FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THAT PARK OR ANY PARK. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. MR. GARDNER, MR. O'CONNOR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL SEE YOU THIS AFTERNOON, UH, COMMISSIONERS 10 27. LET'S TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK BEFORE WE GET TO THE PARKING PIECE. ALRIGHT, I'VE GOT GO. WE'RE READY TO GO. UH, IT IS 10:47 AM WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD. UH, WE HAVE MR. WADE AND THE TEAM IS HERE. AND TO YOU, SIR. THANK YOU, CHAIR MICHAEL WADE, UH, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT. I'M HERE WITH ANDREA AUDREA AND SARAH MAY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT. THIS BRIEFING IS GONNA BE PRETTY SHORT. JUST A LITTLE BIT OF A SUMMARY TO CATCH EVERYONE UP, AND THEN WE'LL JUMP RIGHT IN. UM, WE'RE JUST GOING TO, AGAIN, DO A, A QUICK BACKGROUND OF THIS. REMIND OURSELVES WHAT THE ZO OAC PROPOSAL WAS. UH, REMIND OURSELVES OF THE JANUARY 16 CPC MEMO. UM, AND THEN SUMMARIZE A LITTLE BIT OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMENT THE STAFF RECEIVED. SINCE THEN. I DO WANT TO TAKE A POINT JUST TO, UM, NOT EULOGIZED, BUT REMEMBER, DONALD SCHOUP IS A VERY IMPORTANT CHARACTER IN THE WORLD OF, UH, CITY PLANNING. HE BROUGHT A LOT OF ATTENTION TO THE ISSUE OF OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS. HE WAS A TRAINED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER AND ECONOMIST WHO TURNED HIS ATTENTION TO THE ECONOMICS AND THE, ALL OF THE EXTERNALITIES OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. HE PASSED ON FEBRUARY 6TH AT THE AGE OF 86. AND SO, IN HIS HONOR, WE'VE SCHEDULED THIS MEETING TO TALK ABOUT PARKING A LOT. THE BACKGROUND OF THIS, UM, PARTICULAR PROPOSAL AUTHORIZED IN 2019 DISCUSSED AT ZAC QUITE A BIT. ZAC MADE THE RECOMMENDATION OF FULLY FLEXIBLE PARKING, TRANSPORTATION, DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND SOME DESIGN ELEMENTS IN 2024. AND THERE HAVE BEEN THREE CITY PLAN COMMISSION MEETINGS ON THIS TOPIC BRIEFLY, THE ZAC PROPOSAL, FULLY FLEXIBLE PARKING, THAT IS NO PARKING MINIMUMS FOR ANY LAND USE. CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, REQUIRING ANALYSIS AND INCENTIVES FOR THE USE OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT FOR QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENTS. AND THEN DESIGN ELEMENTS, UH, LIMITING ADDING LIMITATIONS TO CURB CUTS, UH, FOR LOTS WITH ONE TO FOUR UNIT DWELLINGS, ALLOWING THE USE OF ANY ALLEYWAYS FOR ENTRANCE TO PARKING LOTS 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 ON JANUARY 16TH. UH, AN ADDITIONAL LIST OF CONSIDERATIONS, UM, THAT WOULD BE MODIFICATIONS TO XX RECOMMENDATION WAS INTRODUCED. I'LL RUN THROUGH THOSE BULLET POINTS QUICKLY, KEEPING PARKING MINIMUMS FOR OUR D AND TH DISTRICTS, BUT REDUCING OUR RESIDENTIAL MINIMUMS TO ONE SPACE BRIDGE. ONE UNIT, AND I'LL, LET ME STOP REALLY QUICKLY AND SAY, THIS IS CLARIFIED THROUGH CONVERSATION WITH THE COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT WHO INTRODUCED THE MEMO, UM, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEARLY STATING THE INTENT OF THOSE BULLET POINTS. SECOND BULLET, UH, KEEP PARKING MINIMUMS FOR MULTIFAMILY LAND USES WITHIN 300 FEET OF OUR ZONE PROPERTIES. KEEP PARKING MINIMUMS FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS IN RESTAURANTS OR BARS AND RESTAURANTS WITH AND WITHOUT DRIVE THROUGH. UH, BUT REDUCING MINIMUMS FROM ONE TO 100 SQUARE FEET TO ONE PER 200 SQUARE FEET. ALSO EXCLUDING BARS AND RESTAURANTS, LESS THAN 2,500 SQUARE FEET AND FLOOR AREA, KEEPING PARKING MINIMUMS FOR SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES, KEEPING PARKING MINIMUMS FOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE AND OUTSIDE, EXCLUDING A RADIUS OF ONE HALF MILE AROUND RAIL AND STREETCAR STATIONS FROM ANY OF THE KEPT PARKING MINIMUMS. SO FULLY ELIMINATING ALL MINIMUMS IN THOSE AREAS, REDUCING THE MIH TO B PARKING MINIMUM BONUS FROM 0.5 SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT TO ZERO SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT. CHANGING THE [01:25:01] ZO OAC PROPOSED REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN PATHS THROUGH PARKING LOTS WITHIN 65 FEET OF ANY PARKING SPACE TO REQUIRING ONLY ONE PEDESTRIAN PATH DIRECTLY FROM THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE SIDEWALK ACROSS THE PARKING LOT AND DELETING THE PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENT. AND AGAIN, THESE ARE, UH, INTRODUCED AS MODIFICATIONS TO THE ZAC RECOMMENDATION. UM, SO IF A LAND USE DISTRICT, ET CETERA ARE NOT MENTIONED IN THAT LIST, THE INTENT WAS THAT ZAC, UH, ZAC C'S PROPOSAL OF NO MINIMUMS WOULD APPLY. WE RECEIVED ADDITIONAL COMMENT TOTAL OF SIX COMMISSIONERS, UM, SENT IN COMMENT TO STAFF JUST FOR A LITTLE BIT OF PREPARATION AND ANALYSIS. THOSE IDEAS WERE REMOVING MINIMUMS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX, ADUS, AND SMALL MULTIFAMILY REDUCING MINIMUMS FOR ANY MULTIFAMILY THAT WOULD STILL HAVE MINIMUMS UNDER THE MEMO, REMOVING OR REDUCING THE PROPOSED 300 FOOT BUFFER AROUND SINGLE FAMILY OR AROUND OUR DISTRICTS IN WHICH MULTIFAMILY KEEPS PARKING MINIMUMS REQUIRING VISITOR PARKING FOR MULTIFAMILY REQUIRING, UH, UH, REGARDLESS OF PARKING MINIMUMS, REQUIRING LOADING SPACES FOR MULTIFAMILY REGARDLESS OF PARKING MINIMUMS, ELIMINATING PARKING AROUND HIGH FREQUENCY BUS ROUTES SIMILAR TO RAIL, AND EITHER RAISING OR TOTALLY GETTING RID OF THE SIZE EXCLUSION FOR BARS AND RESTAURANTS OF 2,500 SQUARE FEET. SO, JUST A BLITZ SUMMARY OF WHERE WE ARE IN THE CONVERSATION. UH, AND WE ARE HERE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, SIR. BLITZ QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS FOR MR. WAITER, STAFF COMMISSIONER HALL. MR. WADE, WOULD, I HAD SOME QUESTIONS ON THE 300 FOOT THING, BUT IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD RATHER WAIT AND DISCUSS THIS AFTERNOON? I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE PREPARED TO ANSWER TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. I THINK, UM, MOSTLY STAFF IS ARRIVING TODAY READY FOR CPC MEMBERS TO DISCUSS SORT OF DIRECTION. SO WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER SORT OF TECHNICAL QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW. OKAY. SO LET ME ASK YOU, BACK IN 2021, WE DISCUSSED, I THINK WE SAID IT ON ZAC, AT THE TIME, WE WERE REVIEWING PARKING 330 FEET. AND I BELIEVE I HAD ASKED THE QUESTION, WHERE DID THIS NUMBER COME FROM? AND I HAD A FEELING IT HAD, IT WAS MAYBE THE LENGTH OF A BLOCK IN THE LOWER GREENVILLE M STREET AREA, . BUT, UH, BUT I, IT NEVER, I NEVER HAD A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE, WHAT, WHAT'S THE, UH, SIGNIFICANCE OF 300 FEET. I'LL START WITH THREE 30, UH, 300 WAS INTRODUCED BY A COMMISSIONER, AND THEN A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT. UM, THREE 30 I THINK IS, IS THAT A 16TH OF A MILE OR THAT, SO THAT'S RAR BUT IT ALSO EXISTS IN BROADER PLANNING. SO OUR, OUR RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW USES 330 FEET, UM, TO HAVE A, A LITTLE HIGHER CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPMENTS, UM, LIGHTING NOISE, THAT KIND OF A THING. SO THERE'S PRECEDENT IN OUR CODE, BROADER PLANNING. IT'S GENERALLY THE, THE RULE OF THUMB FOR A TRADITIONAL KIND OF CLASSIC MAIN STREET AMERICAN BLOCK, 3, 330, UM, 300 FEET. I LET COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT SPEAK TO THAT. UM, OTHER DISTANCES THAT WE'VE SEEN, FORT WORTH USES 250 FEET. I'M NOT SURE HOW THEY ARRIVED AT THAT CONCLUSION. UM, SO THAT'S WHERE 330 FEET CAME FROM ORIGINALLY IN, IN OUR 2021 CONVERSATION. SO THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN GETTING A LOT OF EMAILS FROM COALITIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT STUDY PARKING AND ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT PARKING. AND SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF THEM THINK THAT THAT NUMBER 300 IS ARBITRARY. I MEAN, 2 50, 300, UH, I'VE SEEN THE NUMBER 100 THROWN OUT THERE. UH, BUT FREQUENTLY PEOPLE ARE DEFAULTING TO ZERO FEET. SO DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT? I MEAN, 300. OKAY. I UNDERSTAND IT MAYBE IS IN THE CODE RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEWS, AND THAT'S A REASONABLE EXPLANATION IN MY MIND. UH, BUT ANY, ANY OTHER COMMENTS IF, IF I WOULD ADD ANY BREADTH TO THAT AT ALL? UM, WHEN YOU GET UP TO THE REALM OF 300, 330, UM, THEN YOU'RE STARTING TO SAY, GENERALLY IF SOMETHING IS IN THE BLOCK ADJACENT TO YOUR PROPERTY, THEN IT WILL HAVE PARKING MINIMUMS OR IT WILL BE REVIEWED. UM, AGAIN, THAT'S, THAT'S GENERAL BECAUSE NOT EVERY BLOCK IS EXACTLY 330 FEET, ET CETERA. SO, UM, OUR, I KNOW THAT OUR TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, SOMETIMES WHEN THEY'RE CALLED IN TO REVIEW THE OVER SPILL IMPACTS OF A PROPERTY, THEY WILL LOOK AT, UM, [01:30:01] 300. I THINK THEY'LL LOOK EVEN MORE THAN THAT. THEY'LL, THEY'LL GO UP TO A COUPLE OF BLOCKS IN DISTANCE JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE CAPTURING AN ENTIRE AREA. UM, THAT BEING SAID, WE KNOW THAT KIND OF ANY, ANY MEASUREMENT, UM, IS 330 DIFFERENT THAN 331, PROBABLY NOT. UM, BUT WE, WE CONSIDER THESE IN CATEGORIES. YEAH. OKAY. MAY I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION, MR. CHAIR? ABSOLUTELY. UH, WHEN YOU SAY THE WORD BICYCLE, WHAT DO YOU MEAN? IS IT STRICTLY A TWO WHEELED, UH, TRADITIONAL BICYCLE? THAT IS THE INTENT? YEAH. I'M NOT SURE IF WE'VE DEFINED IT IN OUR CODE, BUT, UM, THAT OUR INTENT IS TWO WHEEL AND MANUAL POWERED. UH, I THINK MAYBE OUR, OUR STOPS OUR, UM, UM, EXCUSE ME, OUR, OUR, WHY AM I FORGETTING THE NAME? WHERE DID YOU LIKE A BIKE TO ANYWAY, OUR, OUR BIKE PARKING SPACES, A BIKE RACK, EXCUSE ME, FORGETTING A BIKE RACK. UM, IF SOMEONE RIDES THEIR MANUAL POWERED THREE WHEELED VEHICLE THERE, IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO USE THAT BIKE RACK ALSO. BUT GENERALLY, I THINK, UH, THE WORLD OF ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION IS FOCUSED ON TWO WHEELED MANUAL POWERED VEHICLES. YEAH. WELL, I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP THE THREE WHEELER, BECAUSE I WAS GONNA ASK, WELL, WHAT ABOUT A THREE WHEEL RECUMBENT? YOU KNOW? AND, UH, ALSO TOO, THERE'S THREE WHEEL TRICYCLE TYPE BIKES THAT YOU SOMETIMES SEE OLDER PEOPLE DRIVING IN CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS. YOU KNOW, IT'S A SCOOTER, A BICYCLE, IT'S A TWO WHEELED. UH, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, SO, UH, JUST I WAS CURIOUS BECAUSE BICYCLE COULD MEAN SEVERAL DIFFERENT MODES OF TRANSPORTATION, NOT JUST A TWO WHEELER. YEAH. YEP. NON, IF THAT'S A QUESTION, NOT NON-MOTORIZED IS AN IMPORTANT PART. OF COURSE, THEY'RE NON-MOTORIZED SCOOTERS. BUT GENERALLY WHAT WE'VE WRITTEN AND WHAT'S PROPOSED, I THINK, IN ZAK'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO HIT THE, THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT A BIKE IS AND SOME OF THE OUTLIERS. IF WE NEED TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE IN CODE, WE CAN THANK YOU, MR. TURNOCK. PLEASE. UH, WHILE WE'RE ON THE, UM, THE 300 FOOT, SO, SO I UNDERSTAND IT CLEARLY, THE, IT'S TYPICALLY DONE AS THE CROW FLIES CORRECTLY, CORRECT? CORRECT. SO, SO, BUT THE INTENT IS IF YOU HAVE A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, YOU DON'T WANT SPILLOVER PARKING INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD. CORRECT. SO THE, THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS THAT THERE'S, THERE'S, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE VERY CREATIVE TO, TO THINK OF USE CASE SCENARIOS WHERE THAT JUST DOESN'T APPLY. I MEAN, YOU HAVE SIX LANE ROADS, SO PEOPLE AREN'T SPILLING OVER ACROSS A SIX LANE ROAD TO GO PARK THE CAR AND THEN WALK ACROSS. YOU HAVE THINGS LIKE CREEKS, YOU HAVE GREEN SPACES. UM, SO TO ME THAT REALLY DOES UNDERSCORE THE ARBITRARINESS OF USING A RADIUS. AND, AND REALLY, IF WE WERE GONNA USE A RADIUS, IF YOU WANTED TO DO IT CORRECTLY, IT SHOULD BE A PERCENTAGE, ALMOST LIKE THE NOTICING RADIUS. IF 25% SINGLE FAMILY WITHIN A 300 FOOT RADIUS MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE THAN IF ONE LITTLE TINY PARCEL OF LAND IS IN THAT 300 FOOT RADIUS AND THEN TRIGGERS A PARKING REQUIREMENT. DO, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING? I MEAN, THAT'S SORT OF A SEPARATE TOPIC IF WE WERE GOING INTO THE DISCUSSION, BUT THE 300 FOOT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE ON A MULTITUDE. AND THEN WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT, LIKE, A LOT OF OUR PARKLAND, OR I THINK ALL OF PARKLAND HAS THE, IS R SEVEN FIVE. SO IF YOU'RE UP AGAINST A CITY PARK, THAT'S GONNA TRIGGER A PARKING MINIMUM BECAUSE IT'S R SEVEN FIVE AND THERE'S NO SINGLE FAMILY BEING USED THERE. THAT'S THE SAME THING WITH PROXIMITY SLOPE. AND AGAIN, THERE'S A WHOLE, THAT'S A WHOLE SEPARATE TOPIC, BUT I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF WAYS THAT THIS, THAT RADIUS JUST REALLY STARTS TO BREAK DOWN ON ACHIEVING ITS INTENT. UM, SO I JUST WANNA THROW THAT OUT THERE FOR EVERYBODY TO THINK ON. MY QUESTION WOULD BE, DO, IS THERE ANY PRECEDENT OR MERIT TO JUST USING LIKE A SHARED PROPERTY BOUNDARY? SO IF A, A MULTIFAMILY SITE SHARES A PROPERTY BOUNDARY WITH SINGLE FAMILY, THEN THAT MAY TRIGGER IT, THAT THEN I CAN START TO SEE, OKAY, THAT MAKES A LITTLE MORE SENSE BECAUSE IT'S GONNA ACHIEVE ITS INTENT IN A MUCH HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF CASES. I, I CAN JUST SPEAK TO IT FROM A STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE. IT WOULD BE A LOT EASIER TO FACILITATE, TO ADMINISTER, UM, JUST USING THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. YES. I STILL, LIKE, I WILL BE EVEN FURTHER. YES. BUT IF YOU SHARE A PROPERTY LINE WITH [01:35:01] A PARK THAT'S ZONED, R SEVEN FIVE IS THE SAME. SO WE NEED TO KIND OF LIKE SPECIFY THE END IS OCCUPIED BY A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, AND THEN THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE MAY LEAVE AND IT MAY BE A CHURCH OR A DAYCARE, AND THEN THINGS CHANGE. SO I AM, AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN, LIKE PROBABLY I UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE AND WHY THIS IS A SOLUTION THAT IS WORTH CONSIDERING. HOWEVER, LIKE IN REALITY, IT MAY WARRANT THINGS THAT MAYBE WE DON'T WANT. YEAH, I, I, I AGREE WITH THAT. I MEAN, I, I'M NOT REALLY FOR THE RADIUS AT ALL. UM, I JUST DON'T THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. AND, YOU KNOW, SO, UH, I APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS AND I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH THEM. COMMISSIONER SLEEPER. YES. I, I, I WAS GLAD TO SEE THE, THE VISITOR PARKING REQUIREMENT MAKE, MAKE YOUR, UH, SHOPPING LIST OF ITEMS TO INCLUDE. UM, I, I JUST WONDER IF, AND, AND, AND CONCEPT, IF, IF YOU'VE CONSIDERED COUPLING THAT WITH MAKING THOSE SPACES ACTUALLY ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC OR ACCESSIBLE TO VISITORS, AS OPPOSED TO HAVING VISITOR SPACES WHICH ARE BURIED BEHIND A GATE SOMEWHERE THAT NO ONE CAN, UH, ACCESS. THANK YOU. YES. UM, I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO SAYING THAT THOSE SPACES AS VISITOR SPACES NEED TO BE OUTSIDE A GATE ARE CURRENT INTERPRETATION, OF COURSE, IS THAT, UM, YOU CAN PUT IT BEHIND A GATE IF THERE IS A REMOTE, UM, OPTION FOR RESIDENTS TO OPEN THE GATE. BUT OF COURSE, WE'RE NOT TRACKING THE QUALITY OF THOSE REMOTE OPENINGS, ET CETERA. SO I THINK, UM, WITH SOME OF THE, THE IDEAS THAT WE'VE HAD, FOR INSTANCE, 10% OF, UM, PROVIDED PARKING NEEDS TO BE ACCESSIBLE OR OUTSIDE A GATE, WE COULD SAY THAT AND CLEARLY SIGNED AT THE ENTRANCE. UM, THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR THAT WITH OTHER CITIES. YEAH. COMMISSIONER FORSYTH. SO, UM, DOES THIS, UH, PARKING ORDINANCE, ARE THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE PASSED, WILL THIS APPLY, UH, UH, PROSPECTIVELY TO ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT? OR DOES IT ALSO APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO ALL EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS? BOTH. IT WOULD, IT WOULD APPLY TO ANY, ANY PROPERTIES AS SPECIFIED IN THE ORDINANCE, YES, I WOULD. LET ME CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT YOU MEAN BY BOTH. OBVIOUSLY IT APPLIES TO NEW CONSTRUCTION, HOWEVER, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT USES, OTHER USES, UH, THAT REQUIRES CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, USUALLY IT'S CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, YOU WOULD, IF YOU CHANGE THE USE INTO ONE THAT REQUIRES PARKING, YOU WOULD APPLY THE REQUIRED RATIO. SO TO BE VERY CLEAR, IT APPLIES TO NEW CONSTRUCTION. BUT IF YOU WANNA USE AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR USE, THAT REQUIRES PARKING, YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOUR PARKING WHEN YOU CHANGE YOUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT IF A, LIKE A RESTAURANT THAT HAS A CURRENT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND THEY HAVE A CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF PARKING, THAT THEY'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO HAVE TO HAVE THOSE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AS LONG AS THEY CONTINUE TO, YOU KNOW, OPERATE UNDER THAT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, IS THAT RESTAURANT OR IF A RESTAURANT WANTS TO COME INTO A BUILDING, THEY NEED TO SHOW THEIR PARKING WHEN THEY INTO AN EXISTING BUILDING, THEY NEED TO SHOW THEIR PARKING WHEN THEY SUBMIT FOR THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, I WANNA MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN NEW CONSTRUCTION AND THE USE OF THE CONSTRUCTION. BECAUSE IF WE'RE PUTTING PARKING RATIOS PER USE, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY PER BUILDING, RIGHT? THE USE IS THE ONE THAT TRIGGERS THE PARKING REQUIREMENT, AND YOU CAN OCCUPY AN EXISTING BUILDING WITH A NEW USE. HENCE THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW WITH THE PARKING RATIOS, AND THAT'S WHY IT HINDERS, USES CHANGE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, UM, UM, A MIX OF, A HEALTHY MIX OF USES. IT DOESN'T RESPOND TO THE MARKET DEMAND AND ALL OF THAT. DOES, UH, THE CODE, UH, UH, AMENDMENT, OR ARE THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE PASS, UH, APPLY TO EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS? IT DEPENDS ON THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. SO THERE ARE, THERE'S A WHOLE ARRAY OF THEIR DEPENDENCIES. FOR EXAMPLE, PEOPLE HAVE ASKED ABOUT PD 1 93, PD 1 93 ENTIRELY ENCODES ITS OWN, UM, PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL OF ITS LAND USES. SO THAT WOULDN'T CHANGE AT ALL WITH ANYTHING THAT'S PASSED TODAY. THERE ARE PDS THAT FOR ALL OF THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENTS, THEY JUST SAY, LOOK AT CHAPTER 51 A AND DO THAT. BUT THEN THERE'S A WHOLE SUBSET IN THE MIDDLE WHERE, UH, CERTAIN LAND USES ARE CARVED OUT. FOR INSTANCE, IF THE PD WAS CREATED AT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOSPITAL, THEN THE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, ET CETERA, MIGHT HAVE SPECIFIC MODIFIED PARKING MINIMUMS [01:40:01] IN THE PD, THOSE REMAIN. AND THEN FOR ALL OTHER LAND USES, THE PD WOULD SAY, JUST LOOK AT CHAPTER 51 A. SO THERE'S A, A GOOD AMOUNT OF NUANCE IN THE MIDDLE, BUT ESPECIALLY AROUND THE CITY CENTER, SOME OF THE OLDER, BIGGER PDS ARE PRETTY INDEPENDENT, SO THEIR PARKING MINIMUMS WOULD REMAIN. WHAT ABOUT ANY ESTABLISHMENT WITH AN SUP? I THINK IT DEPENDS ON THE SUP, WHETHER THE SUP HAS PARKING MINIMUMS WRITTEN INTO IT DEPENDS ON HOW IT'S WRITTEN. UM, ON THE, UH, UH, UH, AMENDMENT TO, UH, THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSE WRIGHT IS PROPOSED, WHICH WOULD, UH, UH, ELIMINATE PARKING MINIMUMS FOR ANY BAR OR RESTAURANT THAT'S UNDER 2,500 SQUARE FEET. AM I STATING THAT CORRECTLY? OKAY. UH, HOW MANY BARS AND RESTAURANTS IN, IN DALLAS, OR WHAT IS THE AVERAGE, YOU KNOW, SQUARE FOOT OF, OF, OF MOST RESTAURANTS IN DALLAS? HOW MANY, UH, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF RESTAURANTS WOULD FALL UNDER THAT, UNDER 2,500 SQUARE FEET WHERE YOU'D BE EXEMPTING? I, I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. DO YOU THINK IT'S HALF? I I REALLY AM UNPREPARED TO ASK THAT WE COULD, WE COULD DO A SURVEY THAT WOULD TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME, BUT I DON'T KNOW. UM, THEN, UH, THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD IS, UM, A LOT OF FOLKS HAVE WRITTEN TO US WITH SUGGESTIONS. LIKE A ONE LADY WROTE WAS THE SUGGESTION THAT THE PARKING CODE FOR MEDICAL CLINICS CURRENTLY REQUIRES FIVE PARKING SPACES PER 1000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH MEANS THAT A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT CLINIC WOULD REQUIRE 50 PARKING SPACES. UH, AND THEN TREK, UH, WROTE IN A PROPOSAL THAT WE REDUCE THE MINIMUM FOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENTS TO A RATIO OF ONE FOR EVERY 200 SQUARE FEET. AND THEN I'VE ALSO HEARD, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE RECOMMENDATION ON REDUCING THE MINIMUM FOR BARS AND RESTAURANTS THAT ARE GREATER THAN 2,500 SQUARE FEET, UH, FROM, UH, 200 SQUARE ONE TO, FOR EVERY 200 SQUARE FEET TO ONE TO 1, 1 1 FOR ONE, EVERY 100 SQUARE FEET. SO MY, MY QUESTION IS, I MEAN, DOESN'T HAVE, HAVE Y'ALL CONSIDERED REDUCING THE MINIMUMS AND LOOKING AT EACH, UH, OF, OF THESE, UH, CASES IN THE ZONING CODE AND, AND, AND LOOKING AT REDUCING THE MINIMUMS AS OPPOSED TO GETTING RID OF THEM ALL TOGETHER? IT JUST SEEMS LIKE TO ME, WE'RE MAKING A REALLY DRACONIAN DECISION HERE IN TERMS OF CHANGING OUR PARKING CODE. SO I, I JUST KIND OF WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE, WE'RE DOING THIS ONE SIZE FITS ALL AS OPPOSED TO LOOKING AT IT SELECTIVELY. HOW ABOUT I START AND WE, CAN YOU START, I'LL GIVE A HISTORICAL NOTE, AND I THINK WE'LL SING IN HARMONY ON THIS ONE. UM, SO WE DID LOOK, ESPECIALLY AT REDUCTIONS 2020 AND 2021, UM, WE HAD A PRETTY EXTENSIVE FRAMEWORK. WE HAD A WHOLE NEW, UM, TABLE OF MINIMUMS THAT WERE BEING CONSIDERED. THE, UM, I THINK THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE COME UP, UM, THAT SORT OF ARE INSTIGATING THE COMMISSIONER'S MEMO AND KEEPING SOME MINIMUMS ARE ESPECIALLY PROTECTION OF SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS. THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY BEEN THE CHIEF CONCERN OF, OF CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. UM, AND THERE ARE SO MANY LAND USES, SO MANY DISTRICTS, UM, AND ONE OF THE MAPS THAT I SENT OUT HAS SOME PURPLE AND YELLOW, AND YOU SEE HOW MUCH PURPLE IS NOWHERE NEAR SINGLE FAMILY AT ALL. UM, WHAT WE WANT TO DO, A COUPLE OF THE ADDITIONAL GOALS ARE FRANKLY, SIMPLIFY STAFF'S LIFE. AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S A HUGE NUMBER OF SQUARE MILES WHERE STAFF WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE COUNTING PARKING SPACES, UM, UNTIL YOU GET CLOSE TO A SINGLE FAMILY AREA. ANOTHER, I FORGOT MY SECOND POINT, BUT, UM, WE, FOR 2020 AND 2021, WE DID LOOK, ESPECIALLY AT REDUCTIONS. UM, IN THE END, WE REALLY WANT TO FREE UP SPACE FOR QUALITY, WALKABLE, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS. AND SO WHETHER THAT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, TAKING SOMETHING INDUSTRIAL THAT'S NOWHERE NEAR A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD AND BUILDING A, A SPECTACULAR NEW DEVELOPMENT WITH A RESTAURANT AND WITH DWELLING UNITS AND WITH THE CLINIC, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, UM, WE JUST WOULDN'T NEED TO ADDRESS THE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION CONCERN WITH THAT. AND SO, BY, UM, REIGNING IN THE CONSIDERATIONS GEOGRAPHICALLY OR BY DISTRICT, UH, WE CAN PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE TARGETED, UH, RESPONSE TO THE CONCERN. SO YOU ASKED ABOUT FULL ELIMINATION. WHY WOULD WE CONSIDER FULL ELIMINATION INSTEAD OF SOME OF THESE NUANCES? WELL, THAT'S WHAT YOUR, YOUR AMENDMENT [01:45:01] IS, IS FULL ELIMINATION, RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT. THERE'S OAC ORDINANCE, RIGHT? RECOMMENDATION. UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS OX RECOMMENDATION AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. ALSO, WHILE IT LOOKS ON PAPER LIKE A ONE SIZE FITS ALL TREATMENT, WE KNOW THAT BUILDERS OF ANY GIVEN PROPERTY LOOK AT THE CONTEXT, THEY LOOK AT THEIR INTENT, THEY LOOK AT THE CUSTOMER BASE. UH, ARE THEY SELLING SANDWICHES TO THE TOWN HOME NEXT DOOR, OR ARE THEY DRAWING IN CUSTOMERS FROM ACROSS THE CITY ACROSS THE REGION, AND THEY, UH, PROVIDE PARKING THAT MEETS THE NEED OF THAT CONTEXT AND THAT DEVELOPMENT. AND SO, UM, WE REALLY DO BELIEVE THAT THE MARKET REGULATES ITSELF. WE SEE VERY OFTEN THAT IN SITUATIONS USING OUR M-I-H-T-B PROGRAM, OR IN OTHER CITIES, UH, WHERE DEVELOPERS CAN BUILD MUCH LESS PARKING, THEY MIGHT ONLY BUILD TWO FEWER SPACES OR THREE FEWER SPACES. THEY, THEY OFTEN ALSO BUILD A LOT MORE THAN REQUIRED, EVEN IN A SITUATION WITH NO MINIMUMS. AND SO, UM, I'VE RAMBLED A LITTLE BIT, ANDREA, UH, WELL, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I ALWAYS LOVE THIS QUESTION. SO, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO CHALLENGE US TO UNDERSTAND THAT A RATIO FOR A USE, REGARDLESS OF ITS LOCATION, IS A ONE SIZE FITS ALL A RATIO IN ITSELF. SO WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IN THE CODE IS A ONE SIZE FITS ALL. UH, WHEN WE SAY ELIMINATION IS NOT AN ELIMINATION OF PARKING, IT'S JUST ALLOWING FLEXIBILITY. SO YOU CAN HAVE NUANCES TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LOCATION AND CERTAIN TYPE OF USES. SO BASICALLY, I CAN EXPLAIN FOR INSTANCE, FOR MULTIFAMILY, A MULTIFAMILY IN DOWNTOWN IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN, AND A MULTIFAMILY IN DOWNTOWN IN A HIGH RISE IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN A FOURPLEX IN, UM, I DON'T KNOW, CLOSE TO BELTLINE, RIGHT? IT FUNCTIONS DIFFERENTLY, BUT IT HAS THE SAME REQUIREMENT. SO TO ME, THAT'S THE ONE SIZE FITS ALL. UM, RESTAURANT. A RESTAURANT MAY BE A DONUT SHOP, OR IT MAY BE A RESTAURANT, A SIT DOWN RESTAURANT. SO THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT USES, BUT THEY'RE UNDER THE SAME USE UMBRELLA, AND YOU PARK THEM THE SAME. UH, IT MAY BE A SMALL OPERATOR THAT IS HERE FOR A YEAR, OR IT MAY BE AN OPERATOR THAT IS HERE FOR A LONGER TIME. UM, GENERAL MERCHANDISE, YOU MAY HAVE A BIG GENERAL MERCHANDISE THAT HAS ITS OWN PARKING REQUIREMENTS BASED ON THEIR USE AND THEIR DEMAND DURING PEAK TIME, WHICH IS USUALLY, YOU KNOW, BLACK FRIDAY, THANKSGIVING OR, UM, CHRISTMAS, OR IT MAY BE JUST A SMALL, UH, UH, GENERAL MERCHANDISE THAT SELLS, I DON'T KNOW, BREAD. SO IT'S JUST TO PUT A BLANK ONE PER 200 FOR EVERY GENERAL MERCHANDISE. TO ME, THAT'S THE ONE SIZE FITS ALL, AND THAT'S WHAT DOESN'T WORK. UM, SO ELIMINATION OF MINIMUMS THAT I KEEP ON SAYING, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU PROHIBIT PARKING. IT MEANS THAT THEY WILL GET TO PROVIDE AS MUCH AS THEY NEED, UM, AND IT WILL BETTER SERVE THE MAR THE, THE CITY. AND IT, I ALWAYS LOVE TO GO BACK TO THIS, WHAT DO WE WANT FOR OUR CITY? WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT NOW THE CITY IS DEVELOPED AND THE, THE BEHAVIOR OF USERS AND OF PROVIDERS IS TOWARDS CARS. UM, THIS IS HOW INDUCED DEMAND WORKS. LIKE WE ALREADY INDUCE THE DEMAND FOR CARS. IT, THAT'S WHY IT'S VERY EASY TO TAKE THE TRAINING WHEELS OFF, AND YOU JUST SAY, OKAY, NOW YOU'RE GOOD TO RUN ON YOURSELF BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE THE BEHAVIOR. SO WE HAVE TO GO BACK, WHAT DO WE WANT FOR OUR CITY? DO WE WANT FOR OUR CITY TO CORRECT THIS CAR-CENTRIC BEHAVIOR AND MAKE IT SAFER, MORE WALKABLE, MORE PLEASANT, MORE BEAUTIFUL, OR DO WE WANNA CONTINUE TO INDUCE THIS DEMAND AND TO MAKE IT WIDER STREETS, HIGHER SPEEDS, NO TREES, NO SAFE SIDEWALKS. SO THAT'S THE QUESTION IN FRONT OF YOU. STAFF RECOMMENDED TO YOU THE VISION. AND AS LONG AS YOU CAN MAKE A RATIONALE AND EXPLAIN THAT THIS CODE WILL ACCOMPLISH THIS VISION AND THIS DIVISION FOR MY CITY, WE'RE FINE. AND THEN I'M GONNA GO BACK TO THE NUMBERS. YES, WE LOOKED AT REDUCTIONS, WE COULDN'T FIND ANY SCIENCE BETWEEN THEM BEHIND THE NUMBERS. WE LOOKED INTO IT, WHICH IS THE MANUAL OF ENGINEERS. UH, DAVID HERE, DAVID NEVAREZ IS, I THINK HE WAS THE CHAIR OF THE PARKING COMMITTEE OF THE, UH, INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, UM, ASSOCIATION. SO HE IS VERY WELL AWARE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING PARKING NATIONWIDE, AND THEY ARE BASICALLY THE ONES WHO ARE ESTABLISHING THE PARKING RATIOS THAT THE ENGINEERS RECOMMEND FOR THEIR DEVELOPERS. AND THERE IS NO SCIENCE, LIKE DAVID LOOKED AT THAT. HE LOOKED HISTORICALLY, THEIR PARKING COMMITTEE AT INTER AT NATIONAL LEVEL LOOKED AT WHAT IS A GOOD RATIO FOR RETAIL. AND THEY'RE [01:50:01] LIKE ANYWHERE BETWEEN, I DON'T KNOW, ONE PER 200 TO ONE PER THOUSAND. THERE ISN'T ANY SCIENCE BE BEHIND THE NUMBERS. AND THAT'S THE WHOLE PREMISE THAT PROFESSORSHIP SHOW SHOWED US AS WELL. SO I WOULD SAY, IF YOU WANNA CHOOSE A NUMBER, CHOOSE A NUMBER, WE COULDN'T PROFESSIONALLY BASED ON OUR, UH, EXPERTISE FROM A PLANNER AND FROM AN ENGINEER PERSPECTIVE, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR REDUCTION AND FOR A NUMBER, BECAUSE IT WOULD'VE BEEN BASICALLY US JUST RANDOMLY CHOOSING THINGS. I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION, OF COURSE, BUT YOU WANT ME TO OFF? OF COURSE. OKAY. NO, PLEASE GO AHEAD. MY, MY ONLY OTHER QUESTION WAS, UH, WHAT, UH, HOW, HOW, HOW DO YOU BACKTRACK IF, IF WE FIND THAT REMOVING THESE PARKING MINIMUMS HAVE HAD AN ADVERSE OR DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON THE QUALITY OF LIFE, AND PARTICULARLY, YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH REGARD TO THESE ISSUES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ON SINGLE FAMILY AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS? MULTIFAMILY, AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I WOULD ASK YOU TO DEFINE WHAT THE DETRIMENTAL EFFECT IS. WHAT WE HEARD FROM MOST OFTEN IS THE FACT THAT IT WILL BE TOO MUCH ON STREET PARKING. AND THE ON STREET PARKING DOES. AGAIN, WE HAVE A CURB MANAGEMENT, UM, PLAN. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. WE HAVE A DEPARTMENT THAT ENFORCES CURB MANAGEMENT. UM, AND I WILL SAY, I KNOW, PLEASE DON'T TAKE IT MORE THAN IT IS, THERE'S ONLY A LIMITED AMOUNT OF PARKING AT THE CURB. YOU CAN, IN FRONT OF A HOUSE, YOU CAN PARK TWO CARS. HOW MANY CARS DO YOU THINK YOU CAN PARK? YOU THINK YOU CAN PARK CARS ON THE ENTIRE RIGHT OF WAY AND NOBODY'S GONNA PASS. THAT'S ALSO NOT A REALITY, BECAUSE AGAIN, TALKING TO TRANSPORTATION, THEY EXPLAIN TO US WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC SAFETY, WHEN IT COMES TO AN AMBULANCE, A FIRE TRUCK, THEY WILL PUT A NO PARKING AND THEY WILL ENFORCE THAT BECAUSE THAT'S PUBLIC SAFETY IS THEIR DUTY. THAT'S NOT QUESTION, THAT'S NOT A QUESTION IF AN AMBULANCE CANNOT MAKE IT THROUGH, IF A FIRE TRUCK CANNOT MAKE IT THROUGH, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT USES THEIR POWER TO COME AND PUT NO PARKING SIGNS AND ENFORCE IT. SO I, AGAIN, WE ARE GONNA HAVE TO DEFINE WHAT IS THE DETRIMENTAL, AND THEN WE'RE GONNA FIND THE TOOLS TO ADDRESS IT. BUT JUST REQUIRING A ONE SIZE FITS ALL IN THE ENTIRE CITY, I THINK IT DOES WAY MORE HARM. GO BACK TO THE COST AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND THEN DECIDE BASED ON THAT. WELL, I, I WOULD CHALLENGE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THOSE ASSUMPTIONS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THERE ARE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE, UH, THEY HAVE OVERFLOW PARKING IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FROM NEARBY RESTAURANTS, UH, THAT DIDN'T HAVE ADEQUATE PARKING. THERE. THERE'S, UH, OVERFLOW PARKING IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD FROM APARTMENTS WHERE THE PEOPLE, UH, CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY FOR THE PARKING PERMIT. SO THEY JUST PARK IT ON THE STREET, UH, OVERFLOWING INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THERE ARE NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE WINDWOOD HEIGHTS WHERE YOU, YOU CAN'T GO THROUGH AND DRIVE WITH A A, A VEHICLE LIKE YOU DESCRIBED BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT, UH, PEOPLE ARE PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD. AND THE LANE IN THE ROAD IS VERY NARROW ROAD. AND, AND NO ONE'S, UH, OUT THERE TRYING TO, UH, ADDRESS THESE ISSUES AND PROBLEMS THAT THEY FACE. SO MY QUESTION, TO GO BACK TO THE FIRST PART OF MY QUESTION, WAS IT, HOW DO YOU BACKTRACK ON THIS ONCE YOU REMOVE THESE PARKING MINIMUMS AND, AND IN THE FUTURE, POLICY MAKERS DECIDE THIS ISN'T WORKING. WHAT DOES IT MEAN NOW THAT WE'VE GRANTED THIS, UH, UH, THESE EXCEPTIONS TO ALL THESE PEOPLE FOR THESE MANY YEARS? UH, HOW, HOW DO WE EVER, UH, YOU KNOW, GO BACK AND, AND, AND MAKE THIS RIGHT? IF THIS DOES, DOES TURN OUT TO BE A BAD POLICY DECISION? UH, YES. I, I STILL LIKE, WHAT I HEAR IS THAT THE DETRIMENT IS THAT PEOPLE WILL PARK ON THE STREET ON BOTH SIDES. AND I WOULD SAY THAT'S A CURB MANAGEMENT ALWAYS. AGAIN, 3 1 1. IF WE, IF IT TURNS OUT THAT WE NEED, THAT'S THE REACTION, NOT THE PROACTIVE, RIGHT? IF WE RE, IF WE REALIZE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE BETTER PARKING ENFORCEMENT IN THOSE AREAS, I WOULD SAY THAT'S THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY. AND THERE ARE MECHANISM, YOU CAN PUT NO STREET PARKING AND IT THAT CAN BE ENFORCED. I THINK THE USE OF THE CURB, WE ARE DEVIATING, BUT I DO LIKE THIS DEVIATION. THERE IS A CONCEPT THAT'S CALLED COMPETITION TO THE CURB. THE USE OF THE CURB HAS TO BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN JUST PARKING. UM, THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE YOUR BIKE LANES, THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE YOUR TRANSIT, THAT'S WHERE YOU CAN HAVE YOUR LANDSCAPING. SO I WOULD SAY IT'S IN OUR ALL BENEFIT TO ENFORCE TO NOT USE THE CURB JUST FOR PARKING CARS. SO, UM, I WOULD SAY IF THE, IF THE USE ITSELF REQUIRES MORE PARKING BECAUSE IT'S SO POPULAR, IT'S GONNA HAVE, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO FIND SOLUTIONS. THEY MAY DO SHARED AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER USES NEARBY AND PARK THERE. THEY MAY, UH, SIMPLY ENFORCE AND TELL THEIR PATRONS, WE DON'T HAVE PARKING SPOTS FOR YOU, SO PLEASE DON'T COME IN HERE. EVERYTHING [01:55:01] IS A MANAGEMENT ISSUE AND IT CAN BE ADDRESSED. THE INTENT IS, AGAIN, DO YOU WANT PEOPLE TO CONTINUE TO DRIVE THERE OR DO YOU WANT THE USE TO START MANAGING THE WAY THEY OPERATE? SO WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS THAT IF WE DO GET RID OF THESE PARKING MINIMUMS, THERE'S NO WAY TO GO BACK, GO BACK. THERE'S NO WAY TO, TO GO, TO GO BACK AND RECTIFY THE PROBLEM LATER. I DID NOT SAY THAT, AND I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT TO BE WELL, YOU DIDN'T ANSWER QUESTION MY QUESTION THOUGH. YOU NEVER, NEVER ANSWERED THAT PART OF THE QUESTION I EXPLAINED TO YOU. THERE IS ENFORCEMENT, IF THERE ARE, THERE ARE ISSUES. UM, AND THEN AGAIN, THAT'S WHERE THE MARKET DECIDES IF THE USE DOESN'T BELONG THERE, IT DOESN'T. IF THEY CAN FIND PARKING BECAUSE THEY NEED MORE PARKING TO OPERATE AT THAT LOCATION, FINE. IF NOT, THEY CANNOT PARK ON THE STREET. I, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S THE, THAT'S WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND. I DON'T UNDERSTAND A DIFFERENT QUESTION. I, IF WE GIVE A RESTAURANT THAT'S 2,500 SQUARE FEET OR LESS, UH, THE EXEMPTION FROM PARKING, AND LATER ON WE DECIDE THIS ISN'T WORKING, AND NOW WE NEED TO GO BACK AND TELL THAT RESTAURANT THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. HOW DO WE DO THAT? IF, IF LATER ON WE DECIDE AS A, AS A CITY THAT THIS ISN'T WORKING, HOW DO WE GO BACK AND, AND, AND TELL THESE BUSINESSES, HEY, BEFORE WE SAID YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE ANY PARKING, NOW WE'RE SAYING, HEY, WE MADE A MISTAKE AND, AND WE NEED TO HAVE CERTAIN MINIMUM PARKING FOR THIS RESTAURANT. SO THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF HISTORY, UH, WITH OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS. WE STARTED ADDING AND REQUIRING OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN 1947. AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT THAT 1947 WAS, WE HAD ALL THESE, YOU KNOW, OLD CARS SPEWING OUT, UM, LOTS OF SMOKE AND PEOPLE WERE DOUBLE PARKING AND THERE'S PEOPLE EVERYWHERE, JUST CHAOS. NOBODY HAD OFF STREET PARKING SPACES ANYWHERE. AND SO THAT'S WHEN WE STARTED TO ADD IT IN. AND OBVIOUSLY THERE'S PRECEDENT. WE HAVE, UM, INCREMENTALLY INCREASED OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS OVER TIME. AND YOU MIGHT ASSUME, OR, OR LIKE STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT INCREASING OUR PARKING REQUIREMENT, ENCOURAGING OFF STREET PARKING CREATES A MORE SPRAWLING CITY. IT SPACES OUT DEVELOPMENT. WE RELY ON OUR CARS. THERE'S MORE CARS, THERE'S MORE AIR POLLUTION, AND IT REALLY IS A DETRIMENT TO KEEP ENCOURAGING MORE AND MORE PARKING, MORE SURFACE SPACES. AND SO THE PROPOSAL IS TO HAVE A NEW IDEA EVOLVE OUT OF A BASIC NUMBER OF, NUMBER OF SPACES PER SQUARE FEET. AND THEN INSTEAD, I MEAN, THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL TO HAVE THE PR TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN IS TO TAKE THAT SITE IN ITS CONTEXT AND SEE WHAT KIND OF STRATEGIES WE CAN ENCOURAGE TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS APPROPRIATE, MEETS, MEETS ALL OF OUR GOALS. AND YOU KNOW, MICHAEL'S REALLY GREAT AT EXPLAINING THAT, BUT YOU KNOW, JUST LIKE WE DID IN 1947 AND WE, AND WE HAVE DONE EVER SINCE, THERE'S, THE CITY CAN ALWAYS ADD PARKING BACK INTO THE, THE PICTURE. THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS WE CANNOT DO IT. IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING ALL CITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAVE ADDED AND INCREASED OVER TIME. SO THERE'S NO PROHIBITION FOR US TO ELIMINATE IT AND ADD IT BACK IN LATER IF WE SUDDENLY DECIDE THAT WE WERE WRONG. BUT IF WE ADD ITS AVAILABLE, BUT ADD IT BACK AGAIN, HOW DOES THAT IMPACT THAT RESTAURANT THAT I JUST TALKED ABOUT? DOES THAT RESTAURANT NOW HAVE TO GO AND PROVIDE SPACES OR DO WE HAVE TO, BECAUSE WE GAVE THAT RESTAURANT THE ABILITY TO OPERATE WITHOUT SPACES? DO WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM SOME KIND OF CREDIT? YOU KNOW, I, I JUST, I, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. YEAH. OKAY. I WILL GO BACK TO MY ANSWER AND I WOULD SAY, UM, NO, THEY WILL HAVE TO, THEY WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THEIR NONCONFORMING CREDITS IF WE ADD IT BACK IN. BUT AGAIN, QUESTION, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE? SO THEY HAVE NONCONFORMING CREDITS. WE WE'RE NOT TELLING THE RESTAURANT THAT THEY NEED TO PROVIDE PARKING BECAUSE THEY WILL PROVIDE IT FOR THEIR PATRONS. WE TELL THE RESTAURANT, YOU CANNOT PARK ON OUR STREETS AND YOU CANNOT DISTURB THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND IT'S THEIR BUSINESS ON HOW TO DO IT. THAT'S THE FLEXIBILITY THAT'S EMBEDDED IN THIS. AS LONG AS WE SET THE RULES AND YOU, WE SAY YOU CANNOT PARK ON THE STREET BECAUSE IT'S DISTURBING ON THE NEIGHBORS, AND WE HAVE SO MANY COMPLAINTS, IT'S YOUR BUSINESS AND YOU CONDUCT IT IN A WAY THAT IS NOT DESTRUCTIVE. THAT'S THE FLEXIBILITY EMBEDDED IN IT. BECAUSE THEY CAN ADJUST THEIR HOURS, THEY CAN ADJUST, AGAIN, AS I SAID, THEIR OCCUPANCY. UM, IT'S ALL UP TO THEM. I CANNOT COME AS A CITY AND TELL AN A RESTAURANT, OH, YOU HAVE TO HAVE LESS TABLES BECAUSE I'M ASSUMING THAT EVERYBODY DRIVES HERE. WHAT IF PEOPLE COME BY BIKE? THAT'S US [02:00:01] GETTING INTERFERING TO THEIR OPERATION AND LEND DOESN'T DO THAT. MEGAN, DID YOU WANNA RESPOND ALSO? OKAY. OKAY. YEAH, I GUESS I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY TO, TO ANSWER YOUR, YOUR QUESTION DIRECTLY, COMMISSIONER FORSYTH WAS YEAH, WE CAN ALWAYS REVISIT THIS EXERCISE. THIS WOULD BE THE SAME, YOU KNOW, THE SAME PROCESS. IF FOR SOME REASON IT DOESN'T WORK AND WE NEED TO REVISIT, THERE'S ALWAYS THE OPPORTUNITIES TO AMEND IN THE FUTURE. BUT I THINK SARAH ANSWERED THAT QUESTION. SO, BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO END UP ISSUING CREDITS, NOT NONCONFORMING CREDITS, RIGHT. TO THESE EXISTING BUSINESSES THAT, THAT OPERATED UNDER THE OLD, THAT WHEN THE PARKING MINIMUMS WERE GONE. THAT'S CORRECT, YES. THEY WOULD BE RECOGNIZED AS, AND THAT'S GONNA BE AN EXTRA MANAGEMENT TYPE OF BURDEN, RIGHT, ON THE PART OF YOUR, YOUR DEPARTMENT. RIGHT. IT'S, IT'S THE COMPLICATION OF DELTA CREDITS THAT WE DEAL WITH TODAY. SO IT'S, IT'S A VERY TIME CONSUMING EXERCISE AND ELIMINATION, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE THE FLEXIBILITY WOULD ALSO VERY MUCH HELP US AT REVIEW. SO I, OKAY. UH, ONE QUICK FOLLOW UP. JUST, UH, A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION THAT YOUR MIC IS ON, COMMISSIONER FORSYTH. UM, JUST, JUST TO CLARIFY, I THINK COMMISSIONER FORSYTH ASKED AN IMPORTANT QUESTION THAT I THINK WE NEED TO GET THE ANSWER TO ON THE RECORD, WHICH IS, IF I HAVE A USE TODAY AND I HAVE A CEO WITH X AMOUNT OF NUMBER OF PARKINGS ATTACHED TO MY CO AND THAT THAT NUMBER GETS CHANGED WHEN WE FINALLY VOTE ON THIS ITEM, WHETHER IT'S TODAY OR ON THE ON THE SIXTH, UH, WHAT HAPPENS TO ME AND MY CO, DID I AUTOMATICALLY GET A DIFFERENT, UH, RIGHT SPRINKLED ON MY, MY CO? OR DOES THAT HAPPEN IF I HAPPEN TO GO BACK THROUGH THE SYSTEM AND COME BACK TO THE CITY? AND DOES IT WORK THE OTHER WAY WHERE IF IN FACT, THIS BODY MIGHT CHOOSE TO, TO RAISE A PARKING REQUIREMENT ON A CERTAIN USE, DOES THAT MEAN THAT I, THAT I HAVE A PROBLEM NOW WITH MY CO SO I'M GONNA ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION I THINK YOU MIGHT BE ASKING, BUT THEN PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M, IF I'M NOT INTERPRETING CORRECTLY. SO IF A RESTAURANT, I GUESS TO ADDRESS IT THIS WAY TO START, IF A RESTAURANT WAS ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF O OCCUPANCY UNDER TODAY'S PARKING REQUIREMENTS, AND THEY NEED 50 SPACES BASED ON THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS, AND THEN THE RE THE ELIMINATION OR THE PROPOSAL THAT LET'S SAY THEY'RE 2,500 SQUARE FEET, SO THEY'RE, THEY DON'T REQUIRE PARKING, I GUESS DOING THAT MATH, THEY WOULDN'T REQUIRE 50 SPACES. BUT , IF, IF IT'S LEGALLY EXIST EXISTING TODAY, PARKED UNDER THE CURRENT PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS GO AWAY, THEY NO LONGER ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE ALL THOSE SPACES ON SITE. WHETHER THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD REMAIN UNLESS THEY, THE RESTAURANT EXPANDS OR SOMETHING AND HAS MORE LAND AREA TO WORK WITH, NOW THAT THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED ALL THE PARKING SPACES, UM, THEN YEAH, THEY, THEY JUST, I MEAN, I GUESS, I'M SORRY, I'M RAMBLING NOW. WAS THE QUESTION, WELL, DO THEY NEED TO GET A NEW CO OR WAS THE QUEST, I MEAN, FOR CLEANUP PURPOSES YEAH, THEY COULD COME IN AND DO A RECORD CHANGE AND A GET A NEW CO THAT SAYS THEIR CURRENT PARKING REQUIREMENTS. UM, OR WAS THE QUESTION MORE LOOKING AT IT FROM THE OPPOSITE SIDE, LIKE IF BOTH WAYS. OKAY. YOU WANNA TRY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YEAH, I, I THINK IF I'M UNDERSTANDING IT RIGHT, YEAH. ARE, IS THE, THE RESTAURANT, THE HYPOTHETICAL RESTAURANT THAT REQUIRES SOME AMOUNT OF PARKING, ARE THEY LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO MAINTAIN THAT PARKING IF WE, YOU KNOW, UNDER THE CO THEY HAVE NOW IF THE PARKING, UH, MINIMUMS GET ELIMINATED OR REDUCED OR REDUCED OR REDUCED, THEY WOULD BE, ARE THEY TIED TO THAT AMOUNT THAT THEY HAD TO HAVE WHEN THEY ORIGINALLY GOT THEIR CO THAT'S THE QUESTION. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. AND I, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK THAT TECHNICALLY THEY WOULD BE, DO YOU WANNA ANSWER IT, SARAH? SURE. IF IT'S AN SU OKAY. YEP. SURE. LET'S, IF IT'S AN SUP, IT'S TIED TO A SITE PLAN, RIGHT? IF THERE'S, IF AN SUP SAYS 10 PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED, THEN TAR 10 PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THIS ORDINANCE ALSO GIVES US SEVERAL IN RUNS AROUND THAT, WHICH IS NEW RIGHT NOW IS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CANNOT TOUCH A PD OR AN SUP, BUT UNDER THIS NEW, UM, ORDINANCE THAT'S PROPOSED, THEY COULD REDUCE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT ON A PD OR AN SUP BY A HUNDRED PERCENT WITH A PUBLIC HEARING. YES. YES, EXACTLY. BUT I MEAN, THEY HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT. THAT'S WHAT, YEAH, I MEAN, THAT'S THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN. AND ALSO THERE'S A, A REQUIREMENT HERE OR A MODIFICATION THAT [02:05:01] A PARKING REDUCTION OR ELIMINATION CAN BE CONSIDERED A MINOR AMENDMENT. NO, WE TAKE IT ONE BY ONE. YES. 'CAUSE I DO LOVE ALL YOUR QUESTIONS. I LOVE ALL OF THEM FOR REAL. LIKE, I REALLY WANNA HEAR HER ABOUT THE WHAT HAPPENS TO A CO AND THEN I LOVE THE QUESTION ABOUT BDA, AND WE'LL ANSWER THAT. I, SO THE ANSWER TO THE CO QUESTION IS, IF OUR, IF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE IS CHANGED AND LESS OR NO PARKING IS REQUIRED, THEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. THE CITY'S NOT GOING TO FORCE THEM TO DO ANYTHING. BUT IF THEY WANT TO COME IN AND LET'S SAY THAT HALF OF THEIR PARKING WAS IN A PARKING AGREEMENT, THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO KEEP CLOUDING THE DEED AS THEY SAY, THEY CAN COME TERMINATE THAT PARKING AGREEMENT, FIX THEIR CO TO REFLECT WHAT THE CURRENT CODE SAYS, AND THEN THEY CAN BE ON THEIR MERRY WAY. AND THEN LATER, IF THE, IF THE CODE HAS CHANGED TO NOW REQUIRE MORE PARKING THAN THEY DID WHEN THEY TERMINATED THE PARKING AGREEMENT AND UPDATED THEIR CO, THEN THEY WOULD BE GRANTED DELTA CREDITS FOR THAT DIFFERENCE IN PARKING REQUIREMENT FROM WHAT THEY HAVE AND WHAT'S REQUIRED. NOW, IF THEY HAD, YOU KNOW, IF THE CODE SAYS THEY NEEDED 50 PARKING SPACES AND THEN IT WAS CHANGED TO NONE, THEN THEY CAN, UM, AND, BUT THEY HAD A HUNDRED, THEN, YOU KNOW, NONE OF THIS REALLY MATTERS. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ALWAYS GOING TO BE COMPLIANT IN ANY OF THESE SCENARIOS. SO, UM, THE CHANCES AND THE QUANTITY OF US HAVING THE SITUATION WHERE AN EXISTING PARK, AN EXISTING BUSINESS IS GONNA HAVE, IS SOMEHOW GOING TO DIVORCE ALL OF THEIR PARKING SPACES, I THINK IS, IT'S KIND OF THE EXCEPTION RATHER THAN THE NORMAL STANDARD OF WHAT WE EXPECT TO HAPPEN. CERTAINLY IT COULD HAPPEN, BUT IT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE EXPECTING TO BE A, A PROBLEMATIC SITUATION NOW FOR THE BDA AND CPC, UH, DO LIKE IT, AND I THINK IT CAN BECOME A VERY BIG CONVERSATION. IT'S NOT A TRANSFER OF POWER. IT IS AN ADDITION OF POWER THAT BDA MAY HAVE. BDA AND CPC ARE TWO DIFFERENT BOARDS. BDA IS QUASI-JUDICIAL. THEY DON'T HAVE THE DISCRETIONARY POWER. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT CPC WILL LOSE THEIR POWER TO ALLOW ZERO MINIMUMS IN PDS AND SUVS. IT JUST MEANS THAT PDA CAN EVALUATE BY THEIR LIMITATIONS AND BY THEIR CRITERIA. IF, AGAIN, IF WE WANNA HAVE A CONVERSATION JUST ABOUT THAT, FINE. I LOVE IT. I THINK IT'S A VERY INTERESTING ONE. WE THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD ALLOW A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY CONSIDERING THE FACT, AGAIN THAT BDA HAS VERY STRICT, UH, PURVIEW AND VERY RIGID CRITERIA THAT THEY HAVE TO CONSIDER FOR VARIANCES AND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. CPC IS WIDER AND IS DISCRETIONARY. SO WE SAID YOU MAY HAVE A, AN OPTION THAT IS NOT SO DISCRETIONARY AS LONG AS YOU HAVE FACTS AND DATA AND YOU CAN MEET THE, THAT CRITERIA. SO IT'S NOT A, I JUST WANNA SAY THIS, IT'S JUST AN ADDITIONAL OPTION THAT DEVELOPERS, OPERATORS HAVE TO MAKE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF ARGUMENT TO A DIFFERENT BODY IN A PUBLIC HEARING. AND, AND I WOULD ADD ON TO THAT, PART OF THEIR CRITERIA AT THE BOARD TO GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO REDUCE PARKING IS THAT THEY HAVE TO PROVE THAT IT'S NOT GONNA CAUSE A TRAFFIC HAZARD. SO THAT OFTEN ENTAILS A TRAFFIC ENGINEER TO WRITE A REPORT, TALK ABOUT THE DEMAND, AND THEY HAVE A VERY LENGTHY DISCUSSION AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IF THEY'RE GOING TO CONSIDER SOME REDUCTION IN PARKING. SO THAT'S WHY THE PROPOSAL DOES INCLUDE AN OPTION FOR THEM TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, MAKE SOME SORT OF TRAFFIC DEMAND ANALYSIS AND ARGUMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE THOUSAND 50 PARKING SPACES MIGHT BE BETTER AT A THOUSAND. SO, UM, SO THAT IS PART OF THE PROPOSAL AND HOW WE CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION. SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH CPC AND COUNSEL TO, TO CHANGE THAT IF THAT'S THE ONLY THING THEY NEED TO CHANGE. UM, AND AS FAR AS THE MINOR AMENDMENT, UM, CHANGE THAT WA FROM MY RECOLLECTION, THAT WAS REALLY JUST TO CLEAR UP ANY CONFUSION. UM, IF THERE, IF PARKING IS REDUCED TO NO REQUIRED PARKING, UM, TO, TO MAKE IT CLEAR IN THE MINOR AMENDMENT PROCEDURE, UM, WHAT TO DO, WHAT QUALIFIES WHAT DOESN'T. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S A LITTLE AMBIGUOUS. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT INTERNALLY IS DOES THIS QUALIFY FOR A MINOR OR NOT? SO IT WAS REALLY TO NOT TO CHANGE WHAT'S A MINOR AMENDMENT, WHAT'S NOT. IT WAS FOR CLARIFICATION, CAN YOU CLARIFY FOR ME WHAT THE CURRENT STANDARD IS IN MINOR AMENDMENTS, UH, REGARDING ANY CHANGE TO PARKING? I'LL READ IT IN A [02:10:01] SECOND. IT'S, IT SAYS THAT A MINOR AMENDMENT, UH, AGAIN, KEEP IN MIND THAT THE TEXT RULES, SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A MINOR AMENDMENT THAT WOULD CIRCUMVENT THE TEXT. IF THE TEXT OF THE PD REQUIRES PARKING, THAT STANDS, A MINOR AMENDMENT IS JUST A CHANGE TO THE PLAN. AND THAT'S IT. SO THE CRITERIA RIGHT NOW, LET ME READ IT TO YOU IN A SECOND. I'LL, I'LL SAY IT OFF TOP OF MY HEAD, IS BASICALLY SAYS, UM, REDUCTION. YOU DON'T QUALIFY FOR MINOR IF YOU HAVE A REDUCTION IN PARKING AS TO CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD. SO IT AGAIN, GOES BACK TO OUR TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FEW SPOTS AND STILL COMPLYING WITH YOUR RATIO. SO IT GOES BACK TO THE ENGINEER ASSESSING IF IT CREATES A TRAFFIC HAZARD OR NOT. SO IT DOES HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY. AND I'LL READ YOU THE, THE EXACT, UM, LANGUAGE IN A SEC. THIS WAS, WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE AT A LOT HIGHER LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING THAN I AM. I'M STILL NEW. SO IN THIS EXAMPLE OF THAT RESTAURANT THAT'S 2,500 SQUARE FEET THAT TODAY HAS TO HAVE 25 PARKING SPACES, LET'S SAY, RIGHT. ONE FOR EVERY 100 SQUARE FEET. UH, AND THEY'VE GOT A CO FOR THAT. AND NOW WE PASSED, UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHTS AMENDMENT THAT, UH, SAYS THAT THAT 2,500 SQUARE FEET, UH, RESTAURANT DOES, HAS TO HAVE, DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE ANY PARKING SPACES. ARE, AM I HEARING YOU CORRECTLY THAT THEY HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO GET A CHANGE IN THE CO OR AS LONG AS THEY'RE OPERATING UNDER THAT CO THEY THEY HAVE TO HAVE THOSE 25 PARKING SPACES AND THEY'LL CONTINUE TO HAVE TO HAVE THOSE 25 PARKING SPACES. OR DO THEY HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE CITY TO GET A DISPENSATION? SO THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. SURE. SO IF I CAN AGGREGATE A LOT OF THE RESPONSES NO, UM, TO A LOT OF THE SCENARIOS YOU JUST SAID. SO IF, YOU KNOW, REGARDLESS OF ANY SEP, SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT, PD, ANYTHING LIKE THAT, IT'S JUST A BASE ZONE, 25 SPACES REQUIRED UNDER THE NEW, UM, UH, MEMO OR AMENDMENT, THEY WOULD NO LONGER NEED TO PROVIDE THOSE. THE CEOI THINK IS JUST A RECORD OF THE CODE REQUIREMENT. SO IT'S NOT A, A UNIQUE AGREEMENT TO THE CODE. SO EVEN THOUGH ON THE DAY THAT IT'S ADOPTED, THAT CO WOULD STILL READ 25, IT'S JUST, IT WOULD NEED A RECORDS CLEANUP. SO THEY WOULD NO LONGER BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THOSE 25 SPACES. THE, THE CONVERSATION JUST MOVED AT LIGHT SPEED. SOME OF THE QUESTIONS, AND THEY GOT, WE GOT ON A DIFFERENT TOPIC ABOUT, UM, MINOR AMENDMENT IN PD, THAT KIND OF A THING. SO, SO BASICALLY THEY CAN, IF THEY'VE GOT FIVE PARKING SPACES IN FRONT OF THEIR, UH, THEIR BUILDING RIGHT NOW, THEY CAN GO AND, AND, AND, AND START PUTTING UP TABLES AND THOSE FIVE PARKING SPACES IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS, UH, THIS CODE CHANGE. CORRECT. RIGHT. OKAY. WITHOUT COMING BACK TO THE CITY. AND THEN, UH, IF WE CHANGE IT LATER ON TO GO BACK TO THE 25 PARKING SPACES, THEN WE'D HAVE TO GIVE THEM, YOU'RE SAYING 25, UH, DELTA CREDITS? SURE. IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE NON-CONFORMING PARKING, WHATEVER THAT DIFFERENCE IS. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTION. EXCELLENT. AND THANK YOU FOR BEING PATIENT WITH ME. OF COURSE. 'CAUSE I, AGAIN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND. IT WAS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, FOLLOWED BY VICE CHAIR RUBIN, THEN COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE AND OCK. SURE. UM, YOU KNOW, ON ON COMMISSIONER FORAYS POINT, DR. ANDREA, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN WE'RE ASKING QUESTIONS, WE WOULD APPRECIATE A DIRECT AND FORTHRIGHT ANSWER, DON'T YOU? ABSOLUTELY. BUT IT'S A BRIEFING. SURE. OKAY. AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE A FULL ANSWER, NOT A PARTIAL ANSWER. SURE. TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITIES. OKAY, BECAUSE COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT JUST MEANT THE LAST 30 MINUTES GETTING AN ANSWER THAT WOULD'VE BEEN NICE TO GET IN THREE MINUTES FOR YES OR NO QUESTIONS. YES. OKAY. NOW, NOW YOU SAY THAT MINIMUMS ARE ARBITRARY, BUT AREN'T THE ELIMINATION OF ALL OF THE MINIMUMS EQUALLY ARBITRARY? I THINK THERE IS ENOUGH PER, AS I SAID, PER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND JUDGMENT, THERE IS ENOUGH, UH, RECOMMENDATION FROM BOTH PROFESSIONS PLANNING AND ENGINEERING TO ACTUALLY SUPPORT THAT. UM, NO MINIMUMS, IT'S NOT ELIMINATION. NO MINIMUMS IS BETTER SUPPORTED BY PROFESSIONS. DID STAFF MAKE ANY EFFORT TO RIGHT SIZE PARKING FOR SPECIFIC AREAS OF THE CITY? WE THINK THAT A NO MINIMUM IS THE RIGHT SIZE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT, UH, IT IS, [02:15:01] UH, FLEXIBLE. SO THAT'S A NO, IT IS A NO, BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT YOU MEAN BY YOUR QUESTION WITH BRIGHT SIZING. SO IF YOU WANNA CLARIFY, I CAN CLARIFY TOO. WELL, THIS CAN BE FOR ANY STAFF MEMBER. WAS THERE ANY EFFORT TO LOOK AT VARIOUS PARTS OF THE CITY AND SAY, MAYBE THIS PART OF THE CITY DOES NEED PARKING MINIMUMS, WHEREAS OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY DON'T. SO I WOULD SAY THAT, YEAH, YOU SEE THE TDMP WAS THE INTENT OF THAT. UM, AND THEN AS FAR AS CODE, OTHER THAN VIA PDS, I DON'T KNOW, JUST TO LIKE, I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT JUST TO PICK AREAS OF THE CITY AND JUST MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON AREAS OF THE CITY TO BASICALLY JUST GO AND LOOK AT EACH, USE HOW IT FUNCTIONS IN EACH AREA OF THE CITY AND RECOMMEND AN ARBITRARY RATIO. NO, WE DID NOT DO THAT. A COMPLICATION FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW, LOOKING AT SOME OF THE STUDIES THAT HAD COME OUT ABOUT HOW THE PROVISION OF PARKING AND FURTHERMORE, THE REQUIREMENT OF PARKING INFLUENCES BEHAVIOR IS THAT IT, IT'S APPEARING IN SOME NEW STUDIES, UM, FROM SAN FRANCISCO, FROM UCLA. UH, I THINK BERKELEY HAS ONE TOO, THAT BASICALLY WHEN YOU GET TO YOUR RIGHT SIZE, YOU'RE INFLUENCING PEOPLE TO DRIVE AND YOU CREATE MORE DEMAND AND IT'S NO LONGER THE RIGHT SIZE. AND SO THAT CREATES A LOT OF AMBIGUITY. UM, IT CREATES A LOT OF THE, THE, UM, PSEUDOSCIENCE IS, IS, DONALD SCHU HAS CALLED IT THAT KIND OF A THING ABOUT EXACTLY HOW MANY SPACES ARE THE CORRECT SPACES. SO I THINK NO ONE IS TRYING TO GET AROUND THE QUESTION, SHOULD A, SHOULD A LAND USE BE CONSCIENTIOUS ABOUT THE PARKING DEMAND THAT THEY'RE CREATING? AND THAT WAS THE, THE THRUST BEHIND CREATING A TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN AND PROGRAM. AND THESE HAVE BEEN, UM, INSTATED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, EUROPE AND AMERICA ESPECIALLY. UM, BUT AGAIN, LANDING ON THE RIGHT NUMBER, HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S THE RIGHT NUMBER, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S CAUSING US TO DRIVE MORE AND NEED MORE PARKING? THAT'S TOUGH FOR US TO ANSWER. WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE HEARD YOU SAY REPEATEDLY IS THAT THE LANDOWNER HAS TO SOLVE FOR PARKING, AND THE CITY CAN FIND TOOLS TO ADDRESS IT, OR WE CAN ENFORCE PARKING. BUT IF WE'RE BEING HONEST, WE'RE NOT REALLY GONNA DO THAT. ARE WE? I THINK WE'RE DOING IT RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE THE ON STREET PARKING AND CURB MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT OUR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION AND OUR TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS WORKING ON BUILDING RIGHT NOW WITH PROTOTYPE PROGRAMS. YEAH. BUT WE DON'T ACTUALLY REALLY DO CODE ENFORCEMENT ON PARKING VERY WELL, DO WE? UM, I'LL LET, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE DO. I THINK WE DO. AND IT'S, IT'S HARD. LIKE, I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. WE DO. THE CITY HAS A CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT. THE CITY HAS A PARKING ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT. WE DO. I I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT IT'S A FALSE PROMISE TO THESE COMMUNITIES TO SAY, IF BUSINESSES DON'T PARK THEIR USES, THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO MAKE 'EM DO IT. THAT'S A FALSE PROMISE TO THESE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT, THAT THE CITY IS GONNA DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT IN A MEANINGFUL WAY BECAUSE WE NEVER HAVE. ISN'T THAT TRUE? UM, NO, IT'S NOT. WE'RE NOT PROMISING ANYTHING. AND IF I AM TO ARGUE THE OTHER, IT'S A FALSE PROMISE TO TELL THE COMMUNITIES THAT ONE PER 200 IS ADEQUATE PARKING AT THAT LOCATION WITHOUT GOING INTO OPERATIONS. WE'RE NOT THE OPERATOR. SO IT CAN BE ARGUE EITHER WAY. AND I WOULD SAY NO, THE CITY DOESN'T MAKE FALSE PROMISES. WELL, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF COMMUNITIES THAT WOULD BEG TO DIFFER. NOW, YOU KNOW, WE STARTED THIS DISCUSSION THIS MORNING WITH, UM, A RECOGNITION THAT DR. I'M, I'M SURE IF HE'S A DOCTOR, DONALD SCHU PASSED THIS WEEK. HE'S ONE OF THE MORE RESPECTED PARKING THEORISTS, RIGHT? CORRECT. YEAH. AND, UM, TODD LIPMAN IS ONE OF HIS PEERS. CORRECT. UM, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT MR. SCHU SUGGEST SUGGESTS REPLACING PARKING MINIMUMS WITH PARKING BENEFIT DISTRICTS? CORRECT. AND THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PROPOSAL, IS IT? IT'S INCLUDED IN THE ON STREET PARKING AND CURB MANAGEMENT PLAN. OKAY. UM, NOW BOTH MR. SHOUP AND MR. LIPMAN RECOMMEND IMPLEMENTING PARKING REFORM PIECEMEAL OVER TIME AND, AND NOT ALL AT ONCE. RIGHT. THEY RECOMMEND FULL ELIMINATION. AND IF, UH, FOR INSTANCE, THERE ARE SKEPTICAL CITY LEADERS THAT, UH, [02:20:01] DO BETTER IN A SITUATION OF DEAL MAKING AND NEGOTIATION, THEN MAYBE THOSE CITY LEADERS CAN BE WON OVER BY AN, UH, SLOWER APPROACH. NO, THEY SPECIFICALLY RECOMMEND DOING PILOT PROGRAMS IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT YOU GET IT RIGHT, DON'T THEY? WE REACHED OUT TO BOTH. I REMEMBER YOU ARE ALSO PART OF THE PANEL. WHEN DONORSHIP CAME TO DALLAS, UM, WE TALKED TO HIM, HE RECOMMENDED ELIMINATION. WE ALSO REACHED OUT TO TODD LIDMAN. HE ALSO RECOMMENDED ELIMINATION. SO EVERYTHING THAT MICHAEL JUST SAID IS CORRECT. THAT'S NOT WHAT'S IN THEIR WRITTEN MATERIAL THOUGH. IF YOU CAN SHOW US EXAMPLES, UM, WHERE, WHERE IT'S WRONG, AND I, I WILL, I HAVE IT. UM, NOW, MR. LIPMAN ALSO RECOMMENDS AGAINST ELIMINATING PARKING MINIMUMS FOR RESIDENTIAL, DOESN'T IT? DOESN'T HE? I DON'T KNOW. I HAVEN'T READ OR HEARD THAT FROM HIM. HE SAYS ON STREET PARKING USES LESS LAND PER SPACE THAN OFF STREET PARKING BECAUSE IT REQUIRES NO DRIVEWAY. BUT THE LAND IT USES OFTEN HAS A HIGHER OPPORTUNITY COST ROAD SPACE TO PARKING, DISPLACES TRAFFIC LANES, BICYCLE LANES, SIDEWALKS AND GREEN SPACES. AND FOR THAT REASON, HE RECOMMENDS IT AGAINST ELIMINATING MINIMUM PARKINGS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. WHEN WE INTERVIEWED HIM, HE WAS HIGHLY SUPPORTIVE OF ALL OF THE CURB SPACE THAT YOU CAN GET FOUR LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BY NOT INCLUDING THE DRIVEWAY AND NOT INCLUDING OFF STREET PARKING. SO I, I SHOULDN'T RELY ON HIS WRITTEN WORK. IS THAT YOUR SUGGESTION? I CAN GIVE YOU HIS EMAIL ADDRESS. OKAY. IS IS IT PERHAPS, DEPENDING ON WHO ASKED THEM THE QUESTION, WHAT ANSWER WE'RE GONNA GET? I KNOW I CAN'T ANSWER FOR HIM. WOULD YOU AGREE THAT BOTH OF THESE GENTLEMEN ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PAID MAN, UH, PARKING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SHIFT THE BURDEN FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS THAT PAID BARKING PROGRAMS SHIFT THE BURDEN FROM BUSINESS FOR TWO BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS? NO PARKING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS SHIFT THE BURDEN OF MANAGING THOSE FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO THE RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES RESIDENTS? I, I THINK, OH, THAT'S A VERY, VERY INTERESTING ANGLE. I THINK THE WAY THE PARKING BENEFITS DISTRICT WORK AND ALL THESE ARE BASICALLY WITH GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIP. SO IT'S NOT A SHIFTING OF THE BURDEN. IT'S BASICALLY A BETTER PARTNERSHIP. SO THE BUSINESSES OR WHOMEVER IS, UM, DISTURBING THE CURB SHARES A LITTLE BIT OF RESPONSIBILITY, EVEN JUST BY ACKNOWLEDGING. SO WE KNOW THAT THE PLAN, THE PARKING BENEFIT DISTRICTS THAT I LOOKED AT, THEY HAD LIKE A JOINT, UM, AUTHORITY FROM NEIGHBORS, BUSINESSES AND THE CITY, AND THEN THEY SPLIT THE REVENUE, AND THEN THE CITY HAD A RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN AND PROVIDE BENEFITS. THAT'S WHAT IS A BENEFIT. I I DIDN'T SAY PARKING BENEFIT DISTRICT, I SAID PARKING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN GENERAL. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. YES. STAFF DOESN'T HAVE TO COUNT PARKING SPACES ANYMORE, AND BUSINESSES DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE PARKING SPACES PER CODE. BUT NOW RESIDENTS HAVE TO DEAL WITH WHETHER THAT, THAT RESIDENTS HAVE TO DEAL WITH A FALLOUT FROM THAT, RIGHT? OH, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SUGGESTING. YEAH. OKAY. I WAS LOOKING IN, IN THE GREATER CONTEXT OF A PARKING BENEFIT OR A PARKING MANAGEMENT FOR THE AREA. THE BUSINESS ITSELF IS ALWAYS THE ONE THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING THEIR OPERATION. THE THE BURDEN IS NOT ON THE RESIDENTS MORE THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW. IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING, CALL 3 1 1, LET US KNOW WHEN WE ARE GONNA PARTNER TO ENFORCE. I DON'T THINK THE INTENT OR THE, THE PHILOSOPHY OF ANYTHING IS CHANGING THE BUSINESS ITSELF OR WHOMEVER OWNS THE PROPERTY AND OPERATES IT, IT'S STILL THE ONE RESPONSIBLE. THE CITY HAS THE SAME RESPONSIBILITY, THE NEIGHBOR'S THE SAME. WHAT DATA DO YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT THAT? A REDUCTION IN RESTAURANT BAR PA PARKING IS JUSTIFIED. I THINK IT WAS THE SAME PART. THE, IT, UM, I DON'T, NO. WHAT DATA DO YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT THAT REDUCTION IN BAR AND RESTAURANT PARKING IS JUSTIFIED? THAT'S PRETTY, PRETTY [02:25:01] TOUGH. QUESTION IS JUSTIFIED. I THINK THE BODY HERE IS, UM, DISCUSSING WHETHER IT'S JUSTIFIED OR NOT. IF YOU'RE ASKING WHETHER THERE'S DATA TO SUPPORT THAT, UM, BARS AND RESTAURANTS WOULD BUILD LESS PARKING OR SOMETHING, SOMETHING CONCRETE. BUT I THINK TO ASK WHETHER IT'S JUSTIFIED OR NOT, UM, WE'RE, WE'RE FOLLOWING OUR ARRAY OF PLANS THAT, UM, ENVISION A CITY OF MIXED USE, WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE, UH, BARS AND RESTAURANTS AREN'T SPACED OUT. THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE CONSOLIDATED INTO ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTS. NOT AS MANY PEOPLE ARE DRIVING ACROSS THE CITY TO GO TO THE ONE AREA THAT HAS A FANTASTIC, UM, BUILT FORM AND STREET PLAN BECAUSE IT WAS DESIGNED AND BUILT WITHOUT PARKING MINIMUMS. AND SO, UM, IN LIGHT OF OUR PLANS, OUR CITY PLANS, UH, WE THINK THAT FULL ELIMINATION IS JUSTIFIED. UM, THAT'S WHY WE MADE OUR RECOMMENDATION. LET ME ASK IT A DIFFERENT WAY. WHAT DATA DO YOU HAVE THAT SUPPORTS THAT WE CURRENTLY OVER PARK BARS AND RESTAURANTS? DAVID, GOOD MORNING, OR ALMOST AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS, DAVID NAVARRE, UM, ENGINEERING. WE, I'M LOOKING AT THE DATA THAT HAS BEEN COLLECTED ACROSS THE, THE STATES, UH, FOR, SPECIFICALLY FOR BARS AND RESTAURANTS. THE DATA RANGES FROM ONE SPACE PER 15 SQUARE FEET. THAT'S 10 TIMES MORE THAN THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT. UM, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO ONE SPACE PER 340. THAT'S A THIRD OF OUR CURRENT REQUIREMENT. THO THOSE ARE DATA POINTS FROM EXISTING BARS AND RESTAURANTS. AND GRANTED, UH, THE SIZE OF THE COLLECTED DATA POINTS ALSO RANGES FROM, UM, WELL WIDELY. UM, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER, THERE, THERE IS DATA THAT SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO ONE RATIO. UM, BARS AND RESTAURANTS VARY DRASTICALLY FROM A VERY HIGH DEMAND, MUCH HIGHER THAN OUR CURRENT REQUIREMENT, DOWN TO A VERY LOW REQUIREMENT, MUCH LOWER THAN WHAT WE CURRENTLY REQUIRE. UM, BUT, BUT I WOULD ARGUE THOUGH THAT TALKING ABOUT PARKING A BAR IN A RESTAURANT, IT SOUNDS TO ME, UM, AND I'M RUNNING OUT OF TIME AND WORDS, UH, WHY, WHY WOULD WE WANT TO DRINK AND DRIVE AND PARK? THAT'S PROBABLY ONE ITEM THAT I, I KEEP JUST RE KEEPS RESONATING WITH ME, THAT IF WE WANT TO ELIMINATE A LAND USE AT A SPECIFIC LOCATION, PERHAPS PARKING AND DRIVING IS NOT THE, THE RIGHT MECHANISM TO DO SO. I COMPLETELY AGREE. SOME BARS AND RESTAURANTS DON'T BELONG IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS. 100% USING PARKING TO REGULATE THEIR LOCATION, UH, PROBABLY IS MISSING AND FALLING SHORT OF WHERE WE WANT TO BE. WELL, I'D LOVE TO CHANGE STATE LAW, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY IN OUR PURVIEW. SO I'M FOCUSING ON THE THINGS WE DO HAVE CONTROL OVER, AND I'M NOT HEARING ANYBODY REALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION. FOR DALLAS, TEXAS, I RECOGNIZE THAT MANHATTAN PROBABLY DOESN'T NEED AS MUCH PARKING FOR BAR AND RESTAURANTS AS WE NEED IN DALLAS, TEXAS. AND SO WHILE IT'S INTERESTING THAT THERE'S A GAMUT OF PARKING REGULATIONS FOR BAR AND RESTAURANTS AROUND THE COUNTRY, I'M ASKING WHAT DATA DID YOU RELY ON TO RECOMMEND THE REDUCTION OF PARKING MINIMUMS FOR BAR AND RESTAURANT IN DALLAS, TEXAS, OR CITIES THAT ARE COMPARABLE TO DALLAS, TEXAS? AND I'M NOT REALLY HEARING YOU ANSWER IT, AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT, JUST TELL ME YOU DON'T HAVE IT AND I'LL MOVE ON. I THINK IT HAD MORE TO DO WITH THE LACK OF DATA SHOWING THAT WE NEED IT. OKAY. BECAUSE I WAS ABLE TO GET AT LEAST EMPIRICAL DATA FROM OWNERS OF PROPERTY, FROM OPERATORS, EXPERIENCED OPERATORS, FROM LEASING AGENTS BY CALLING THESE PEOPLE AND ASKING THE QUESTION. AND THE OVERWHELMING RESULT THAT I GOT WAS THAT THEY THINK WE GOT IT ABOUT RIGHT AS WE HAVE IT TODAY. IN FACT, SEVERAL OF THEM THINK WE PROBABLY UNDER PARK IT. DOES THAT SURPRISE YOU? I DON'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. I THINK IT'S A COMBINATION AS I TRIED TO EXPLAIN EARLY, IT'S A COMBINATION OF VISION, DATA, PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, WHAT DO WE WANT [02:30:01] FOR THE CITY? AND THEN AGAIN, A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH. DO WE THINK THAT MINIMUMS WORK? IF YOU WANNA CHOOSE NUMBERS, BY ALL MEANS DO AND FIND A JUSTIFICATION. WE CAN FIND ONE. AND THAT'S OUR ANSWER. YEAH. AND, AND I WOULD ADD THAT UNDER THIS FLEXIBLE PROPOSAL, THE OWNERS, OPERATORS, LEASING AGENTS CAN MAKE THAT DETERMINATION OF HOW MANY SPACES THE USE NEEDS AND CAN CERTAINLY PROVIDE THAT SINCE WE'RE NOT PROPOSING MAXIMUMS. I UNDERSTAND THAT. WOULD YOU ALL AGREE THAT LOWER GREENVILLE IS A SUCCESS STORY? UH, WHICH METRICS? AS FAR AS ECONOMIC SUCCESS? ABSOLUTELY. AS FAR AS A WALKABLE ENTERTAINMENT DESTINATION? ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE AVERAGE SIZE OF A BAR OR RESTAURANT ON LOWER GREENVILLE IS? NOT THE AVERAGE. I'VE SEEN THE RANGE. I KNOW THAT THEY GET DOWN TO AS SMALL AS 768 SQUARE FEET. UM, UP TO, I THINK, WHAT DID I SEE? IT GETS UP TO 2,500. I DON'T KNOW IF IT GETS TO 30. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW THE AVERAGE. SO UNDER COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHTS CURRENT PROPOSAL, WE WOULD ELIMINATE ALL PARKING FOR ALL BARS AND RESTAURANTS IN LOWER GREENVILLE. JUST THE ONES UNDER 2,500 SQUARE FEET? I BELIEVE SO. ALMOST ALL OF THEM. I DON'T KNOW THE AVERAGE OR THE RANGE, SO I CAN'T SAY ALMOST ALL. DIDN'T HE JUST SAY THOUGH THAT THE RANGE IS COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT 7 68, COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT? WE'RE ON COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HERE. DO YOU HAVE A FOLLOW UP? YEAH. DO YOU KNOW HOW LOWER GREENVILLE GOT TO BE THE SUCCESS STORY? IT IS. DO YOU KNOW THE HISTORY OF THAT? OUR ZAC MEMBER COMMISSIONER REEFS HAS SHARED A WHOLE LOT OF, UH, ARTICLES AND WE'VE HAD SOME GOOD CONVERSATIONS AND EVEN A TOUR. I KNOW THAT YOUR NAME CAME UP IN THAT STORY. UM, SO I'VE, I'VE TRIED TO LEARN THE NARRATIVE AS, AS BEST AS POSSIBLE. YOU KNOW THAT IT'S NOT BY ACCIDENT THAT LOWER GREENVILLE IS THE SUCCESS THAT IT IS TODAY, RIGHT? YES. IN FACT, YOU KNOW, THAT IT TOOK THE COOPERATION OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS, THE CITY, THE OPERATORS, THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS, AND THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF WORK TO GET TO WHERE IT IS TODAY, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. I'D EVEN THROW IN THE ARCHITECTS OF THE BUILDINGS IN THE FIRST PLACE IN THE 1920S TO DESIGN THAT LAND FORM IN SUCH A WAY. AND YOU KNOW, AT ONE POINT WE HAD THE INTERURBAN LINE THAT WE NO LONGER HAVE, YOU KNOW, THAT IT TAKES THE COMMUNITY HUNDREDS OF HOURS EVERY YEAR TO MAINTAIN THAT BALANCE. RIGHT. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. OKAY. I'D BE INTERESTED IN HEARING THE DETAILS OF THAT ACTIVITY. UM, SUFFICE IT TO SAY IT'S A CURATED PROCESS, NOT SOME CITYWIDE, UH, POLICY THAT HAS CREATED AND MAINTAINS THE SUCCESS. THAT'S LOWER GREENVILLE, RIGHT? I BELIEVE IT. YEAH. HOW DOES WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING UNDER THIS PARKING MANAGEMENT GOING TO CHANGE LOWER GREENVILLE? MY, MY, MY EXPECTATION, I'M GONNA START THIS OFF, AND THEN I THINK THERE ARE OTHER ANSWERS. MY EXPECTATION IS THAT, UM, IN, I THINK IT'LL BE SLOW, AND THIS IS, UM, CONJECTURE. I THINK IT'LL BE SLOW. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF, UM, STOREFRONTS THAT MAY CAN BECOME A RESTAURANT OR MAY COME BEFORE YOU FOR AN SUP FOR A BAR, WHICH YOU CAN, UM, APPROVE OR DENY OR APPROVE OF CONDITIONS. OVERALL, IT'S, IT'S A REGIONAL COMMERCIAL DESTINATION THAT MOST RECENTLY HAS SEEN, UH, HIGHER DENSITY MULTIFAMILY COMING IN. I THINK IT'S THE, THE L UM, AND REALLY AS IT FILLS OUT A, AS AN INCREASINGLY MATURE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S ONE WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT WE THINK WILL BE, UM, THE ANY REAL ADDITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH ITS HISTORY IN THE 2008, 2009, 2010 ERA? IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THAT'S WHEN THERE WAS A GOOD AMOUNT OF UNREST AND VIOLENCE AND, UM, I THINK THERE WERE A COUPLE OF BARS THAT ARE NO LONGER THERE ANYMORE. RIGHT. AND THE CITY WAS SPENDING OVER HALF A MILLION DOLLARS IN POLICE RESOURCES AND NOT CONTROLLING THE CRIME. ARE [02:35:01] FAMILIAR WITH THAT, I BELIEVE? YEAH. THAT'S WHEN WE PUT IN PD 8 42. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT HISTORY? UH, I BELIEVE THAT I KNEW IT WAS IN THE AREA. YEAH. MY POINT IN ALL OF THIS IS THAT BY ELIMINATING THE PARKING MINIMUMS IN THAT AREA, IT OPENS UP THAT AREA TO A REPEAT OF WHAT WE'VE SPENT THE LAST 15 YEARS CORRECTING. AND THAT'S GONNA IMPACT THAT COMMUNITY. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING. COULD I INTERJECT REAL QUICK? ALSO, I THINK ONE THING THAT WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT IS THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE HAD WHERE THEY'RE SHARING THEIR PARKING, PROVIDING VALET SERVICES. AND I THINK THAT HAS ALSO MADE A TREMENDOUS IMPACT TO THE LOWER GREEN, THE LOWEST LOWER GREENVILLE, UM, PARKING OPERATIONS. ALSO, THERE WAS A MAJOR REINVESTMENT IN THE STREETSCAPE, AND I THINK THAT ENCOURAGED MORE WALKING THE TREES HAVE BEEN VERY NICE. UM, BUT I JUST WANTED TO INTERJECT THAT REAL QUICK JUST TO WELL, I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP. YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SEVERAL BUILDINGS DOWN THERE THAT DON'T HAVE ANY PARKING. AND WITH THIS PROPOSAL, THE OWNERS OF THE PARKING LOTS WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE SUBSIDIZING ALL OF THOSE BUILDINGS THAT DON'T HAVE PARKING. RIGHT. THAT, YEAH. THAT'S THE MARKET. TAKING CARE OF THEIR OWN NEEDS. AND THAT'S WHAT WE PROPOSAL. WELL, SO THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THE PARKING, WHO BOUGHT THE LOTS, WHO INSURE THE LOTS, WHO MAINTAIN THE LOTS, WHO MAY OCCASIONALLY GET SUED FOR INCIDENTS ON THE LOTS ARE, WILL NOW BE SUBSIDIZING THE BUILDINGS THAT HAVE NO PARKING AND WILL SUDDENLY, WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF REQUIRED PARKING, BE ABLE TO OPEN BARS AND RESTAURANTS THAT WILL COMPETE WITH THE TENANTS OF THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THE PARKING UNDER THIS SCENARIO. RIGHT. I WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS THE SAME SCENARIO FOR EVERY OLD AREA IN THE CITY THAT WAS BUILT TO DIFFERENT STANDARDS. IT'S THE SAME IN DOWNTOWN, IT'S THE SAME IN , IT'S THE SAME IN BISHOP ARTS. WHATEVER IS LEFT OF IT, IT'S THE SAME SCENARIO. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SAY. LIKE, UNLESS WE ALLOW THOSE, THAT BUILT FORM THAT WAS BUILT AT THAT, THAT POINT TO SURVIVE, JUST ALLOW IT TO SURVIVE AND IT'S GONNA TAKE ITS OWN LIFE, OR IF WE WANNA CONTINUE PARKING IT, WE ARE GONNA PROBABLY END UP WITH EVEN MORE PARKING LOTS. IT'S A QUESTION OF VISION, AND THAT'S OUR QUESTION FOR THE BODY. WHAT IS YOUR VISION FOR THE CITY AND THESE OLD AREAS? I I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR ANSWER, BUT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE PEOPLE, THE OPERATORS AND OWNERS DOWN THERE THAT OWN THE PARKING DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO SEE PARKING MINIMUMS GO AWAY BECAUSE THEN THEY ARE SUBSIDIZING ALL OF THE OWNERS WHO DON'T HAVE PARKING. THEN THEY CAN MAINTAIN THEIR PARKING LOTS. WE'RE NOT SAYING MAXIMUMS, WE'RE NOT SAYING PARKING LOTS SHOULD DISAPPEAR. THAT'S WHERE IT'S THEIR DECISION. AND THEY CAN OF COURSE LIMIT WHO PARKS IN THEIR PARKING LOTS TOO. CAN THEY NOT POSSIBLY. SO I WANNA TOUCH ON SOMETHING ELSE. UM, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF FOCUS ON SINGLE FAMILY IN THIS DISCUSSION. WHAT ABOUT RENTERS? THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THE SAME ATTITUDE ABOUT PROTECTING MULTIFAMILY AND RENTERS. WHY? UH, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION REGARDING RENTERS. I, I'M SORRY. I THINK OUR, OUR RESPONSES FOR SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, WHETHER THEY'RE OCCUPIED BY OWNERS OR RENTERS, HAS BEEN IN RESPONSE TO FOLKS FOCUSING ON THAT LAND USE TYPE AND THAT NEIGHBORHOOD TYPE. SO IF WE HAVEN'T HEARD CONCERNS FOR RENTERS, I THINK, UM, FROM OUR SIDE, THE, THE, UH, ATTENTION TO RENTERS HAS MOSTLY BEEN ON COST. AND THAT, UM, MULTIFAMILY, WHETHER IT'S MAINTAINING OR IN FACT BUILDING NEW PARKING SPACES, THOSE COSTS GET PASSED DOWN TO RENTERS. SO THAT'S BEEN OUR CONSIDERATION OF RENTERS. UM, BUT AS FAR AS OVER SPILL IMPACTS, PEOPLE HAVE MOSTLY JUST BROUGHT UP THE, THE LAND FORM OF SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. THE OVER SPILL AND, AND HOW IT MIGHT IMPACT RENTERS. THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE MUCH FOCUS ON THAT. WHY I'M SORT OF STRAINING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE WOULD DIFFERENTIATE THE, THE IMPACT ON OWNER OCCUPANTS VERSUS [02:40:01] RENTER OCCUPANTS IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS. IT'S NOT JUST SINGLE FAMILY. I YOU'RE JUST FOCUSING ON SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS. WHAT ABOUT MULTI-FAMILY COMMUNITIES? WELL, I GUESS, SURE. I BROUGHT UP SINGLE FAMILY 'CAUSE THAT WAS THE CONCERN THAT WAS, UM, BROUGHT TO US AS FAR AS THE RENTERS AND MULTI-FAMILY. AGAIN, UM, WE'VE CONSIDERED THAT IN TERMS OF THE COST BURDEN FOR THEM, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, A RENTER'S INABILITY TO HAVE A PARKING SPACE IN A, WHAT, WHAT'S THE CONCERN THAT NO, IT'S HARD TO RESPOND TO THIS. NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT AREAS THAT ARE MORE DEVELOPED WITH MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO USES WHERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ELIMINATING PARKING AND HOW THAT MIGHT IMPACT THEIR, THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE. THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE MUCH DISCUSSION ON THAT OR ANY FOCUS ON THOSE FOLKS, AND I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY. OH, OKAY. LET, I THINK I'M STARTING TO UNDERSTAND. SO, UM, I THINK IT'S THE CONCEPT OF MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOODS AND HIGHER DENSITY MIXED USE. UM, EXACTLY THAT ACTUALLY INVITES SHARED. SO WE SAY IF THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT PER CODE, THEN PARKING CAN BE SHARED BETWEEN THESE USES. THAT'S ONE. AND THEN WE ALSO, WHEN YOU GET ADDED DENSITY NEAR THIS USES, WHICH IS MIXED USE, THE USERS ARE KIND OF THERE. SO WE, THAT'S HOW USUALLY THESE TYPE OF AREAS WORK. AND THAT'S A, THAT'S A BIG PILLAR OF, IN GENERAL OF MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOODS AND AREAS. OKAY. SHIFTING GEARS AGAIN, IS THERE A SPECIFIC PROPOSAL FOR HISTORIC BUILDINGS THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED? AND IF SO, WHAT IS IT? I CAN TELL YOU WHAT WAS PROPOSED IN, UH, 2021 AND WHAT I'VE HEARD, UM, RUMBLINGS ABOUT, IF I HAVE THE LANGUAGE HERE. UM, ONE IS TO USE SORT OF HISTORIC DESIGNATIONS AND ONE IS TO USE EITHER A DATE OR A TIME PERIOD. SO FOR A DATE OR TIME PERIOD. UH, WHAT WAS PROPOSED IN 2021 AND DISCUSSED ON JANUARY 16TH WAS JULY 26TH, 1967, THAT ANY BUILDINGS BEFORE THAT WOULD HAVE NO MINIMUMS. UM, ALSO SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN RECOMMENDED IS JUST SAYING 50 YEARS PRIOR. UM, AND I THINK WE COULD SORT OF FINE TUNE THAT PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OR PRIOR TO SOMETHING. UM, AND THEN ON THE DESIGNATION SIDE, UM, I'M NOT SURE IF I HAVE THE DOCUMENT HERE WITH ME, BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL DESIGNATIONS FOR TEXAS LANDMARKS NATIONAL REGISTRY, THAT KIND OF A THING. UM, AND SO BOTH OF THOSE CATEGORIES HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED. I DON'T KNOW THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S MEMO HAD ONE OF THOSE, AND WE DIDN'T IN OUR, IN, UH, THE STAFF OR ZAC RECOMMENDATION. BUT WHAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION? THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO, TO NOT HAVE ANY MINIMUM. SO THAT WILL CAPTURE THE HISTORICAL AND OLDER BUILDINGS AS WELL. IS HAS THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT, UM, INCLUDING AN SUP REQUIREMENT FOR THAT IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT IF THERE ARE NO MINIMUMS OR AN SUP REQUIREMENT FOR CERTAIN USES TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S NOT AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON ADJACENT COMMUNITIES? YEAH, IT'S A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE OF THE PURVIEW OF THE CODE, THE, THE WAY IT'S AUTHORIZED. BUT WE DO CONS. WE DID CONSIDER, FOR INSTANCE, BARS, THEY DO REQUIRE SUVS. AND I, I KNOW SOME RESTAURANTS I, I KNOW ALL OF THAT. SO THERE ARE USES THAT REQUIRE SUVS. AND WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE SUP CAN ESTABLISH AND CAN ACTUALLY BE A, A GOOD, UH, TOOL TO REQUIRE PARKING. HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONSIDERATION TO REQUIRE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW FOR CERTAIN OF THESE CERTAIN USES THAT ARE NEAR RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES? WE'LL GO BACK TO MY SONG. I'M A BROKEN RECORD. TDMP, THE, THE RATIONALE BETWEEN BEHIND REQUIRING OR, UH, REQUIRING A TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING RIGHT NOW. LET'S ASSUME THAT THIS BODY DOESN'T WANT THAT, THEN IS THERE A CONSIDERATION FOR REQUIRING RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW? IT'S WHATEVER THIS BODY CAN PROPOSE IN LEO. WE WILL BE HAPPY TO, UH, PROVIDE ANY KIND OF ASSISTANCE IF THE BODY NEEDS ONE. BUT FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW, WE DIALED IT DOWN, WE ADJUSTED IT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. IF YOU WANT, IF YOU DON'T WANNA CALL IT TDMP AND WANNA CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE, PLEASE DO AND TELL US AND WE'LL WORK WITH YOU. CAN, CAN I CLARIFY, UH, ASK CLARITY? [02:45:01] UM, SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, FOR EXAMPLE, A BUILDING BUILT BEFORE 1967, ESTABLISHING AN SUP OR RER FOR THAT BEFORE NOT ALLOW OR BEFORE ELIMINATING OR REDUCING PARKING MINIMUMS. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? WELL, I'M, I'M, I'M ALL FOR PRESERVING HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND I UNDERSTAND THAT A LOT OF 'EM HAVE LAND USE LANDLOCKED CHALLENGES, BUT I'M ALSO SENSITIVE TO, THEY'RE OFTEN LOCATED IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS. AND SO IF WE SAID THAT THEY HAVE REDUCTION IN PARKING OR NO PARKING FOR CERTAIN HIGH INTENSITY USES, IT MIGHT BE RESPONSIBLE OF US TO REQUIRE EITHER AN SUP OR A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW BEFORE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WAS OFFERED. I JUST, YES, I, I UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT BETTER NOW, AND THANK YOU FOR THAT. UH, A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IS FOR USE ITSELF, WE CANNOT ADD SUP. SO I WOULD SAY LET'S RELY ON WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW. IF WE WANNA OPEN UP A CODE AMENDMENT, I WOULDN'T TIE AN SUP TO THE HOW OLD THE BUILDING IT IS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW, LIKE WE'D NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT. UH, AS I SAID, IF YOU WANNA, IT'S KIND OF LIKE, I THINK THE SAME WITH THE RAR. LET, LET US THINK ABOUT IT BECAUSE I DON'T WANNA, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE STILL FALL UNDER WHAT WAS AUTHORIZED. THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE CODE AMENDMENT IS WRITTEN TO ONLY LOOK INTO THESE CHAPTERS AND NOT GO INTO LIKE REDEFINING SUVS, ADDING SUVS TO USES. THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S, THAT'S MY CONCERN. THAT'S IT. OKAY. UM, I HEARD YOU SAY EARLIER THAT, UM, PDS LIKE 1 93 WITH THEIR OWN PARKING SCHEMATICS WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY THIS CODE AMENDMENT, CORRECT? YEAH. UM, DO YOU HAVE A LIST OF DISTRICTS THAT FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY? WE'VE DONE SOME ANALYSIS OF ABOUT 116 PDS GENERALLY CLOSE TO THE CENTRAL CITY. IT, IT WAS, UM, THERE, I CAN LOOK AT THAT NUMBER. I DON'T HAVE IT WITH ME RIGHT NOW. IT'S NOT MANY. IT'S A COUPLE OF BIG ONES. GENERALLY, THERE ARE A LOT MORE, AND I'M SORRY, THIS IS VAGUE. I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS. THERE ARE MORE THAT SORT OF ARE SPECIALIZED. SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE, THE HOSPITAL EXAMPLE I BROUGHT UP EARLIER, IT'S CREATED FOR A CERTAIN TYPE OF LAND USE AND, YOU KNOW, 100% OF THE LAND USE WITHIN THAT PD WOULD KEEP ITS MINIMUMS. UM, BUT NONE OF THE REST WOULD, BUT NONE OF THE OTHER LAND USES ARE IN THAT. SO THERE ARE MORE OF THOSE, YOU KNOW, MIXED PDS. UM, BUT I CAN, I CAN FIND SOME NUMBERS OF WHAT WE'VE ANALYZED. WE HAVEN'T DONE ALL 1100. OKAY. AND WHEN YOU SAY PD 1 93, THAT INCLUDES ALL OF ITS SUBDISTRICTS? CORRECT. DOES THAT INCLUDE AN AREA THAT'S SUBJECT TO A MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY? IF THERE ARE PARKING MINIMUMS SPECIFIED IN THE PD, IT SHOULD, WELL, IT'S NOT A PD RIGHT? IT'S A MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY. RIGHT. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE OVERLAY ON TOP OF A PD? IS IT, OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE ONE LOCATION FOR AN OVERLAY THAT WE HAVE THAT'S ON TOP OF A PD THAT REFERENCES CR, WHICH I THINK 8 42 DOES. 8 42 COVERS PART OF LOWER GREENVILLE. THE MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY COVERS ALL OF LOWER GREENVILLE. MM-HMM . IT WHERE IT COVERS IT. MM-HMM . UM, MY QUESTION IS A MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY IS A CHANGE TO THE BASE CODE, RIGHT? YES. SO IS THAT ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A DIFFERENT PARKING SCHEMATIC THAT WOULD TAKE IT OUT OF 51 A? I THINK IF I'M TRYING TO CATCH UP, THAT'S IN THE OVERLAY SECTION. IT WASN'T ESPECIALLY OPENED WITH THIS CODE AMENDMENT. IF YOU WANNA DO AN AUTHORIZATION TO OPEN THAT UP AND REWRITE IT, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO. HOWEVER, LIKE IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, I THINK IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF WHAT HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED WITH THIS CODE AMENDMENT. KEEP IN MIND, WE, THIS IS NOT INITIATED BY STAFF. THE CODE AMENDMENT THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU RIGHT NOW, IT WAS AUTHORIZED BY THIS BODY WITH A SPECIFIC LANGUAGE. WE WORKED WITH THE BODY AT THAT POINT TO HAVE THE LANGUAGE WIDE ENOUGH, BUT I DON'T THINK WE CAPTURED [02:50:01] THE MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY. WELL, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT AMENDING THE MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY. I'M SAYING IF, IF YOUR POSITION IS THAT CHANGES TO 51 A ONLY APPLY TO DISTRICTS THAT ARE GOVERNED BY 51 A AND IF YOU HAVE SOME SORT OF OVERLAY, LIKE A PD THAT CHANGED THAT, DOES THAT INCLUDE AN AREA COVERED BY A MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY? YES. BECAUSE THAT'S THE CHANGE YOU'RE ASKING. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. SO YOU'RE ASKING IF WE'RE CHANGING THE 51 A PARKING REQUIREMENTS, WHAT IS THAT IMPACT ON THE MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY? MM-HMM . LET ME THINK ABOUT THAT. AND JUST, I WANNA, AND YEAH, LET SARAH, I JUST WANNA ADD IN HERE, PDS ARE NOT OVERLAYS, THOSE ARE REGULATIONS. OKAY. I, THE MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY, THE, THE ONE AND ONLY ONE WE HAVE IN IN DALLAS, I'M LAURA GREENVILLE, MODIFIES ABOUT SIX THINGS. THERE'S THREE WAYS TO LOSE DELTA CREDITS AND THREE OTHER THINGS LIKE EXTENSION OF WALKING DISTANCE, WAYS TO RE AND STATE DELTA CREDITS IF THEY WERE LOST. AND I THINK THE ADDING PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR OUTDOOR DINING WAS ANOTHER, UM, ITEM THAT THE MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY MODIFIED. AND, AND SO IT DIDN'T DIRECTLY RELATE TO THE EXACT RATIOS OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS. SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY, UM, TIE IN TO WHAT THE PROPOSAL CURRENTLY HAS. AND, AND LIKE DR. RE SAID, IT'S, IT'S NOT REALLY PART OF OUR AUTHORIZED AREAS IN THE CODE. SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE, BUT MAYBE IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK INTO IN THE FUTURE AND MAYBE WITH CODE REFORM THAT THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES IN THE FUTURE. I JUST DON'T THINK IT TIES IN WITH THIS PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZATION. AND SORRY IF WE, I'M, WE'RE LOOKING INTO THAT. LIKE I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION WAY, WAY BETTER NOW. AND LET ME, LET US REVISIT A LITTLE BIT THE MD OVER LAT TO SEE, WE DON'T THINK THAT CHANGES TO 51 WILL IMPACT THAT, BUT LET US' LOOK AT IT AGAIN. OKAY. YOU WANNA CIRCLE BACK TO THAT LATER? COMMISSIONER KEYSTON? UM, YES, I HAVE ABOUT FIVE OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE WANT TO TALK NOW. ALL RIGHT, WELL, I COME BACK TO YOU. YEAH, YOU CAN COME BACK. OKAY. COME BACK. LAST CHAIR, RUBEN. THERE WE GO. MAYBE IT'S WARNING ME, BUT I SHOULDN'T SPEAK, BUT I'M, I'M NOT GONNA HATE THAT WARNING. UM, WE, WE'VE BEEN OVER A LOT, UM, THIS MORNING AND I GUESS NOW EARLY AFTERNOON THAT I COULD ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT A BUNCH OF IT, BUT I JUST WANNA HONE IN ON A FEW DIFFERENT THINGS. ONE, UM, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT MINOR AMENDMENTS TO, UM, PARKING REDUCTIONS THROUGH, THROUGH MINOR AMENDMENTS. AND RIGHT NOW MOST MINOR AMENDMENTS THAT WE SEE ARE MINISTERIAL. CORRECT. IF THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PD OR THE, YOU KNOW, SUP THE DEFINITION. YEAH. THEN IF IT MEETS THE DEFINITION AND IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PD, THEN WE HAVE TO APPROVE IT. CORRECT. ALL OF THEM ARE MINISTERIAL. YEAH. WOULD THERE BE A WAY THAT CPC COULD CONSIDER MINOR AMENDMENTS, UM, FOR PARKING REDUCTIONS FOR PD OR AN SUP SITE PLAN? THAT WOULD GIVE US THE DISCRETION, LET'S JUST SAY OUT UPON A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE THE PLAN COMMISSION COULD REDUCE PARKING THROUGH A MINOR AMENDMENT, MINOR AMENDMENT TO IS TO THE PLAN, NOT TO THE TEXT. OKAY. BECAUSE IF IT'S AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT, SO LET ME READ YOU THE LANGUAGE EXACTLY, BECAUSE I THINK IT HAS A LITTLE BIT OF DISCRETION HERE. UM, IT SAYS MINOR AMENDMENT PROCESS ALLOWS FLEXIBILITY IS NECESSARY TO MEET CONTINGENCIES OF DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENTS THAT DO NOT QUALIFY MUST BE A ZONING AMENDMENT. THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION SHALL AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING AUTHORIZED MINOR CHANGES IN THE SITE PLAN OTHERWISE THAT OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE, IS THE SAME FOR SUP AND UM, DEVELOPMENT PLANS. AND ONE OF THE CRITERIA IS DECREASE THE NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES SHOWN ON THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN IS TO CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD OR TRAFFIC CONGESTION OR FAIL TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PARKING. SO I WOULD SAY THAT CPC HAS THAT AUTHORITY RIGHT NOW, IF THE MINOR AMENDMENT IS NOT ADMINISTRATIVE AND IT COMES IN FRONT OF YOU AS LONG AS IT STILL COMPLIES WITH THE TEXT AND THE TEXT, WOULD, FOR EXAMPLE, SET A RATIO RIGHT NOW OF ONE TO 200 OR, OR, OR SOMETHING? YES. AND IF THEY ARE OVER PARKED AND THEY WANNA TAKE OUT SOME OF THE PARKING SPOTS, AS LONG AS IT STILL COMPLIES WITH THE TEXT, THAT'S THE SITUATION WE HAVE RIGHT NOW. [02:55:01] OKAY. AND AND UNDER THE NEW PROPOSAL, IT WOULD BE THE SAME OR THE SAME. OKAY. UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE PARKING BENEFIT DISTRICT PIECE. SO THAT IS NOT CHANGES TO CHAPTER 51 OR CHAPTER 51 A, RIGHT? I DON'T BELIEVE IT WOULD BE SUE. I GUESS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PARKING BENEFIT DISTRICTS? YES. IN, UM, THE CURB MANAGEMENT PLAN OFF ON STREET PARKING AND CURB MANAGEMENT PLAN, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WOULD MANIFEST IN CHAPTER 51 A YET. I MEAN, UM, AM I WRONG THERE WOULDN'T BE A ZONING THERE PORTION TO THAT? YES, ABSOLUTELY, BECAUSE IT, IT, IT DOESN'T KEEP IN MIND I THINK A GOOD DISTINCTION IS 51 AND 51 A IS PRIVATE PRIVATE PROPERTY AS OPPOSED TO LIKE PARKING BENEFITS DISTRICT AND STUFF THAT INVOLVES THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY. ZONING DOESN'T HAVE A PURVIEW ON THAT. AND, AND JUST, SO IT'S NOT UNUSUAL FOR US TO SEE, YOU KNOW, CODE AMENDMENTS WHERE WE TOUCH THE 51 A OR 51 A PIECE AND THERE ARE OTHER BODIES OR, OR DEPARTMENTS THAT, THAT DEAL WITH IT. I CAN THINK OF, UM, WHAT WAS IT, MIXED INCOME HOUSING. WE ONLY DEALT WITH A PART OF THAT. AND ANOTHER PART OF THAT WAS WAS THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT. IS THAT RIGHT? YES. YES. AND CHANGES TO LIKE, WHAT, WHAT WAS IT? 28 WENT THROUGH THE HOUSING COMMITTEE AND THEN UP TO COUNCIL AS OPPOSED TO US, RIGHT? YES. SO NOT AT ALL UNUSUAL TO HAVE US WORKING ON A PIECE OF THINGS AND, AND OTHERS WORKING ON OTHER PIECES AS WE ALL, AND IT ALL COMES TOGETHER IN HARMONY AT COUNCIL, CORRECT, CORRECT. HARMONY IN EVERY CASE. YES. . I HOPE SO. UM, WE'VE SPENT, YOU KNOW, A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT LOWER GREENVILLE, UM, THIS MORNING AND, AND I THINK LOWER GREENVILLE IS, IS WONDERFUL AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE OF THEM, UM, THROUGHOUT THE CITY. UM, DO YOU THINK THAT OUR CURRENT PARKING REGULATIONS PREVENT MORE DEVELOPMENT IN THE MOLD OF, OF LOWER GREENVILLE AND OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY? IT DOES, AND I WOULD, I'LL GIVE TWO LEVELS OF ANSWERS. SO LOWER GREENVILLE IS, UH, I THINK UNIQUE IN HOW EXTENSIVE IT IS. I MEAN, THE, THE SIZE OF IT IS VERY CLEARLY BECOMING A A, AN ENTERTAINMENT DESTINATION. MOST CLASSIC NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND THE COUNTRY, YOU'LL HAVE A BLOCK THAT'S LIKE THAT. YOU'LL HAVE ONE BLOCK, TWO BLOCKS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND IT FUNCTIONS AS MAYBE A TOWN CENTER, MAYBE A NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT DOESN'T DRAW CROSS TRAFFIC, UH, FROM ACROSS THE CITY, ESPECIALLY WHEN EVERYONE HAS ONE THAT'S CLOSER TO THEM. YOU HAVE YOUR BURGER PLACE, YOU HAVE YOUR THEATER, AND YOU HAVE YOUR, UH, LAWYER AND YOU HAVE YOUR DENTIST. UM, AND SO YES, UH, IT, IT IS A, UM, A POPULAR AREA AND IT'S BECOME, IT'S, UM, PARKING MINIMUMS DO PREVENT AREAS LIKE THAT, WHETHER IT'S AT A LARGE SCALE OR JUST A SMALL MORE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORTED SCALE FROM BEING BUILT AROUND THE CITY. I WANNA JUST LIKE PUT OUT UNDER YOUR RADAR YET, FOR INSTANCE, WE JUST HAD AN AUTHORIZED HEARING ON DOWNTOWN ELMWOOD. THERE WAS A CR AND THEY COULDN'T USE THOSE BUILDINGS BECAUSE OF PARKING RATIOS. AND THIS BODY RECOMMENDED, I THINK, TO GET RID OF THOSE. OH NO, WE RECOMMENDED FORM BASE AND WE'RE WAITING TO GET RID SO WE CAN ENABLE THAT AREA TO FLOURISH. GREAT, THANK YOU. AND THEN JUST ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION, I WANNA MAKE SURE I AM NOT THE PD 8 42 EXPERT AT THIS HORSESHOE, I THINK COMMISSIONER KINGSTON IS, AND YOU KNOW, THERE WAS REFERENCE TO PD 8 42, UM, ADDRESSING A LOT OF THE CHALLENGES THAT, THAT LOWER GREENVILLE OR THAT PART OF LOWER GREENVILLE SAW, UM, BACK 2008, 2009, 2010. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT PD 8 42 DEPLOYED MULTIPLE STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CHALLENGES IN THE AREA. I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME PEOPLE SAY THAT THAT PARKING IS A, ONE OF THE STRATEGIES THAT 8 42 DEPLOYS. WHAT OTHER THINGS DOES 8 42 DEPLOY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE PAST HISTORIC CHALLENGES THAT LOWER GREENVILLE SAW? UH, THE ORIGINAL PD 8 42 WAS LITERALLY ITS CR ZONED, WHICH WAS THE EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT, AND IT ADDED AN SUP REQUIREMENT FOR LATE ESTABLISHMENTS, LATE HOUR ESTABLISHMENTS. AND, UM, OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, UM, AND US WOULD LIKE US NOT TO REPEAT THAT. UM, AND IT REQUIRED S'S AND, UM, PROHIBITED OR DID NOT ALLOW PROPERTIES THAT WERE OPERATING AFTER MIDNIGHT TO CARRY FORWARD THEIR NONCONFORMING RIGHTS. SO THAT WAS [03:00:01] THE MAJOR SLEDGEHAMMER THAT PD 8 42 USED, UM, IN ORDER TO, UH, GET SOME MORE ENFORCEMENT ON SOME OF THOSE LATE NIGHT OPERATING BUSINESSES. UM, AND MAN, I WAS ONE MORE THING. YES. ANYWAY, MA MAINLY THE LATE HOURS WAS, WAS THE, THE MAJOR THING, UH, ONE THING THAT I THINK STAFF OFFERED AND IT WAS DECLINED, WAS TO, UM, KIND OF ADD IN SOME MORE LIKE URBAN DESIGN, UM, ELEMENTS TO PD 8 42. UM, FROM THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE, WHICH IS WHERE I WAS IN BUILDING INSPECTION WHEN IT WAS FIRST CREATED, THERE WAS A LOT OF PROBLEMS. UM, WHEN THE STREET SCAPE IMPROVEMENTS WERE GOING ON, THEY HAD TO TAKE DOWN SOME FIRE ACCESS STAIRS AND CANOPIES, AND THEN LO AND BEHOLD, THE CR DISTRICT REQUIRES A 15 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. SO THERE WAS A LOT OF ISSUES WITH THAT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE PD, BUT IT WAS REALLY JUST CR AND THEN PROHIBITING LATE HOURS ESTABLISHMENTS AND SET BY SUP. ALRIGHT, I'M DONE. OKAY. THERE WE GO. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. UH, WE HAVE COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE, SCHOCK, FRANKLIN WHEELER, COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE. THANK YOU. UM, OKAY, GOING BACK TO THE VERY BEGINNING, TALKING ABOUT WHAT IS A BICYCLE, YOU MENTIONED NON-MOTORIZED. WHERE DO E-BIKES FALL IN THAT? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. REALLY WASN'T PREPARED TO SPEAK TO WHAT IS A BICYCLE AND WHAT'S NOT. OKAY. UM, AND THEN CURIOUS, I THINK IT WAS MENTIONED SOMEWHERE, HOW MUCH TIME DOES STAFF SPEND REVIEWING PARKING AS PART OF THE PROCESS THAT, YOU KNOW, FOLKS GO THROUGH WITH PERMITTING? CURRENTLY? A LOT WE SAID IN, IS IT SARAH, UH, WAS INVOLVED WITH THAT TEAM AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT TEAM RIGHT NOW TOO. MORE, WE SAID MORE THAN 50%, 70% OF THEIR TIME. BUT I JUST WANNA, SORRY FOR GIVING LONG, LONG-WINDED ANSWERS. I JUST WANNA EXPLAIN, IT'S JUST MEASURING, UH, GOING BACK TO SEE HOW MANY AGREEMENTS DO YOU HAVE? WHAT IS YOUR, DO YOU, DO YOU CALL, DO YOU NEED A REDUCTION IN ONE SPACE? WHERE CAN YOU FIND THAT? LIKE IT'S A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH. AND EVEN FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE CURRENT PROPOSAL AS IT IS, HOW MUCH TIME WILL BE SAVED REVIEWING THOSE PLANS? THE BIG SAVE WILL BE WITH THE NUMBERS, BUT STAFF WILL STILL REVIEW TO ENSURE THAT YOUR PARKING IS CORRECT, YOUR IT'S DIMENSIONALLY CORRECT. IT'S LOCATED WHERE IT'S ACCESSIBLE. SO WE WILL STILL REVIEW IT, IT'S JUST THAT WE WON'T GO BACK AND FORTH TO KIND OF LIKE HUNT ONE PARKING SPACE OR, OH, NOW YOU NEED TO REDRAW YOUR CYCLING TO DO SMALLER PARKING SPOTS SO YOU CAN SQUEEZE TWO MORE AND NOW GO BACK AND REDRAW IT SO YOU CAN SQUEEZE TWO MORE. SO IT WILL, I THINK IT WILL SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE STAFF'S TIME, BUT ALSO TRANSPARENCY TO THE PUBLIC. OKAY. AND, AND I WOULD ADD ON THE, THE TIME ASPECT. JUST GETTING A PROPERTY OWNER, YOU KNOW, THAT MAYBE WANTS TO OPEN UP A DONUT SHOP AND MAYBE IT WAS PREVIOUSLY USED FOR A RETAIL STORE, BUT THAT'S A CHANGE IN USE FROM RETAIL TO RESTAURANT. UM, HAVING TO TELL THOSE, THOSE OPERATORS, HEY, I NEED YOU TO FIND OR PROVIDE A PARKING ANALYSIS OF THE ENTIRE SHOPPING CENTER, THEN WE WILL GOING, WE'RE GONNA CHECK EVERY SINGLE SUITE AND MAKE SURE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE PRO PROVIDED IS CORRECT AND THE LAND USE IS CORRECT AND THE RATIOS AND YOUR NUMBERS AND COUNTING UP ALL YOUR SPACES AND JUST HAVING TO GO THROUGH THAT EXERCISE OF EXPLAINING TO THAT PERSON THAT IS GONNA OPEN UP A USE THAT IS ONLY OPEN IN THE MORNINGS WHEN THERE'S A SEA OF PARKING. YOU KNOW, JUST GETTING THEM ON BOARD AND EXPLAINING THAT, I'M SORRY, IT IS REQUIRED, YOU'RE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO THIS. UM, THAT, THAT WOULD IS A HUGE TIME OKAY. DEMAND. UM, I GUESS IN DEFENSE OF ON STREET PARKING, CAN YOU ALL TALK ABOUT HOW, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'VE GOT CARS ON A STREET, THEY SHRINK IN THE WIDTH OF THE LANE AND THEN HOW THAT LEADS TO SAFER NEIGHBORHOODS? I'M SORRY, YOU ASKED IF WE COULD DESCRIBE THAT? YEAH, IF YOU CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT PHILOSOPHY THERE WHERE WHEN YOU HAVE LESS LANE WIDTH, CARS ARE GONNA GO AND YOU HAVE SOME FRICTION, CARS ARE GONNA GO SLOWER, SO IT'S SAFER FOR THE COMMUNITY. YEAH, THAT'S PROBABLY THE, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, THE SAFETY ASPECT. YOU CAN ADDRESS IT IN MANY WAYS AND YOU CAN DO IT BY DESIGN. UH, WE'VE SAID THIS MULTIPLE TIMES. THERE ARE STUDIES OUT THERE, DON'T ASK ME TO QUOTE THEM. UH, EVEN ON STREET PARKING SLOWS THE, THE SPEED. AND WE KNOW FROM OUR TRANSPORTATION PLAN THAT SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN THAT IN DALLAS, WE DO [03:05:01] HAVE A, UH, PROBABLY DALLAS IS THE CITY THAT HAS, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY IT, MORE EDUCATED. WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PEDESTRIAN DEATHS AND THEY ARE USUALLY MOSTLY BECAUSE OF SPEED. SO YES, UH, WIDTHS OF LANES, UM, ON STREET PARKING, UH, LANDSCAPING BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND, AND THE, AND THE CURB. ALL OF THESE, OR EVEN SHE CANES OF, OF THE DRIVEWAYS. ALL OF THESE ARE DESIGN ASPECTS TO DECREASE SPEED AND MAKE IT SAFER FOR BOTH THE CAR AND THE PEDESTRIANS. WONDERFUL, THANK YOU. UM, I KNOW BARS AND RESTAURANTS WERE BROUGHT UP AND THERE WASN'T DATA NECESSARILY TO SAY WHY, UM, BUT YOU MENTIONED, UM, DRUNK DRIVING AND KIND OF TALKING ABOUT THAT. I WAS CURIOUS IF Y'ALL HAD SEEN THE, UM, TDOT CRASH REPORTING REPORT FROM LAST YEAR AT ALL? IF WE DID, WE CAN'T BRING IT TO MIND. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING FROM IT GOT SOME DATA ON IT. I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN, UM, SYNTHESIZE IT WELL. UM, BUT BASICALLY IT'S SAYING, YOU KNOW, LAST YEAR 76 PEOPLE DIED IN CRASHES, 57 SUFFERED LIFE CHANGING SERIOUS INJURIES. UM, THE ESTIMATED ECONOMIC IMPACT WAS 178 MILLION. WHEN YOU ADD IN LIKE FUTURE YEARS OF LIFE LOST, THAT'S 1.2 MILLION. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, JUST KIND OF TALKING TO DRUNK DRIVING AND SHOULD WE BE PROVIDING PARKING SPOTS FOR BARS? SO I'M JUST CURIOUS YOUR ALL'S THOUGHTS ON THAT OR IF THAT'S A A POINT THAT YOU'VE LOOKED AT BEFORE. YES, AS DAVID SAID, AND SORRY MICHAEL, YOU CAN TAKE IT AFTER ME. UM, YES, FROM A, FROM A PLANNER'S POINT OF VIEW, WE ALSO CONSIDER THAT NOT JUST THE RATIO ITSELF. BASICALLY WE ARE REQUIRING PEOPLE WHO USED BARS, MEANING, UM, YOU GO TO THE BAR TO CON TO TO DRINK ALCOHOL, TO DRIVE. AND THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE FOR ALL OF US IS LIKE, WHAT IS MORE DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, DRUNK DRIVER OR A CAR PARKED ON, ON ON THE CURB. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH, COMMISSIONERS. I THINK WE HAVE SOME, SOME HUNGRY COLLEAGUES AND SOME FOLKS THAT WANT TO TAKE A BREAK. LET'S JUST GO AHEAD AND END THE BRIEFING HERE. WE'LL TAKE A, A QUICK 20 MINUTE LUNCH BREAK AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK, UH, WITH THE HEARING AND UH, START BACK TO QUESTIONS. WE'LL BEGIN WITH. COMMISSIONER SCHOCK, IT'S 1234, WE'LL TAKE A 20 MINUTE LUNCH BREAK. JORGE, ARE WE RECORDING, SIR? OKAY, LET'S [CALL TO ORDER] START OFF WITH THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. DISTRICT ONE COMMISSIONER SCHOCK, DISTRICT TWO, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, PRESENT DISTRICT THREE. COMMISSIONER HERBERT AND ALL LINE 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 SLEEPER HERE, DISTRICT 10, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT PRESENT DISTRICT 11. COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE HERE. DISTRICT 12, COMMISSIONER HAWK DISTRICT 13. COMMISSIONER HALL HERE, DISTRICT 14, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HERE AND PLACE 15 VICE CHAIR RUBIN. YOU HAVE QUORUM, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. TODAY IS THURSDAY, UH, FEBRUARY 13TH, 2025 1:19 PM WELCOME TO THE SPECIALLY CALLED MEETING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION. UM, WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TODAY, UH, BUT COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE GONNA HEAD BACK TO QUESTIONS. OUR SPEAKER GUIDELINES ARE THOSE, UH, THAT WE ALWAYS HAVE. EACH SPEAKER WILL RECEIVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. WE'LL ASK ALL SPEAKERS TO PLEASE BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. WE DO HAVE SOME REGISTERED SPEAKERS ONLINE. UH, FOR OUR FOLKS ONLINE, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOUR CAMERA IS ON AND WORKING AS STATE LAW REQUIRES US TO SEE YOU IN ORDER TO HEAR FROM YOU. UH, AND WITH THAT COMMISSIONERS, WE'LL GO RIGHT BACK TO QUESTIONS. AND I THINK COMMISSIONER CHERNOCK IS NEXT, FOLLOWED BY, UH, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN WHEELER WHO WAS ONLINE. I THINK SHE, SHE WILL BE BACK ONLINE HERE SHORTLY. AND THEN COMMISSIONER CARPENTER AND HAMPTON. I HAD A COUPLE OF MY QUESTIONS WERE WORKED OUT AT THE BREAK. I JUST HAD, UM, BUT ONE I WANNA CIRCLE BACK ON. WE HAD TALKED A LITTLE BIT EARLIER OR TALKED A LOT EARLIER, ABOUT 2,500 SQUARE FEET. I'M LOOKING AT, UM, A LIST, UH, HERE THAT LOOKS LIKE THAT COULD BE 3,500 SQUARE FEET. UM, AND I LIKE THE WAY IT'S [03:10:01] BEEN CHANGED FROM TWO WEEKS AGO. UM, I KNOW IN OUR DISTRICT WE'VE GOT A LOT OF BARS THAT HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, ACQUIRED ADJACENT LOTS AND THEN, UH, TORN DOWN INFRASTRUCTURE AND THEN TURNED THOSE INTO PARKING LOTS. THAT HAPPENED YEARS AGO AT THE GLORIOUS SITE HAPPENED BEFORE 10 BELLS WAS DEMOED. THAT WAS THE CASE THERE. GRILL 400 TACOS IN VINO. IT'S, IT'S A, A PATTERN WHERE WE'RE SEEING A LOT OF OUR BILL INFRASTRUCTURE BE TORN DOWN. SO I DO LIKE THAT, THAT, THAT WE ARE, UM, MAKING SOME MODIFICATIONS FOR SMALL BARS AND RESTAURANTS. AND THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN BEFORE, IT SEEMED LIKE IF IT WERE 2500, 25 10 WOULD STILL HAVE TO PARK IT. I, I'D LIKE TO SEE, I'M, I'M GLAD TO SEE, TO SEE THE CHANGE, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE CHANGE. THE CHANGE, UM, CURRENTLY IS, UH, ALL, UM, PARKING DOESN'T KICK IN UNTIL 3,500 SQUARE FEET. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. SO TO BE CLEAR, A PAGE THAT SOME OF YOU FOUND IN FRONT OF YOU, THIS IS AN UPDATED LIST FROM COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT OF HIS JANUARY 16TH MEMO. AND SO I I READ THAT THE SAME, I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ITEM NUMBER FOUR THERE. UM, AND I, I READ THAT AS, UM, FOR THE FIRST 3,500 NO PARKING REQUIRED FOR THE 3501ST SQUARE FOOT, THEN YOU START COUNTING. SO YOU'RE STILL NOT COUNTING THAT 3,500. YEAH, THAT'S HOW I READ THAT. THAT'S GREAT. UH, I THINK IT'S A, UM, AN APPROPRIATE CHANGE. IT MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE TO ME NOW. THAT'S IT. I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND FORGIVE ME IF MY VOICE GOES IN AND OUT AND IF YOU NEED ME, NEED FOR ME TO SAY IT AGAIN, RE REPEAT MY QUESTION. I WILL DO THAT. UH, SINCE I, I'M NEW, UH, TO THIS, UH, PARKING DISCUSSION AND I DON'T WANNA PRESUME ANYTHING. AND SO FAR, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, UH, THE INTENT OF THIS AMENDMENT IS TO RIGHTSIZE PARKING IN DALLAS. IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT? YES, YES. UH, BUT THERE IS ALSO AN ANCILLARY GOAL OF, UH, REDUCING CAR USE WITHIN THE CITY OF DALLAS. IS THAT ALSO CORRECT THAT NO, NO. SO THE, THE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN PORTION WAS INTENDED TO INCENTIVIZE FOLKS TO TAKE TRIPS, UM, BEYOND JUST A SINGLE OCCUPANT VEHICLE TRIP. UM, THIS, THE CODE AROUND PARKING MINIMUMS IS NOT DIRECTLY EXPECTED TO INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO STOP DRIVING THAT KIND OF A THING. SO THAT'S, THAT'S NAUTICAL GOAL. OKAY. SO SORRY TO, TO GET INTO THAT. I JUST WANNA ENSURE THAT NO, THIS IS JUST A REGULATION TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ACHIEVE OUR OTHER POLICIES. NO, THIS IS NOT SAYING YOU CANNOT DRIVE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. IT'S JUST SAYING, UH, PEOPLE WHO WANNA USE OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION MUST BE RECOGNIZED BY HAVING THEIR AMENITIES PROVIDED AT SITE. AND THAT'S IT. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. BECAUSE MOST OF THE CONVERSATIONS WE'VE BEEN HAVING HAS CENTERED AROUND THE DEVELOPERS AND BEING FLEXIBLE FOR THE DEVELOPERS, BUT NOT A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THEIR RESIDENTS OUTSIDE OF ENSURING THAT WE HAVE PROTECTIONS OF OFF STREET PARKING FOR RESIDENTS. UH, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU ALL CONSIDERED, OR HAVE YOU CONSIDERED, I KNOW I'M SUPPOSED TO ASK THE QUESTION THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT POPULATION OF THE CITY WHO ARE DEPENDENT ON VEHICLES NOW, I'LL SAY THAT AGAIN. THEY ARE DEPENDENT, NOT THAT THEY WANT TO, SO ANY AMOUNT OF INFLUENCE OF, YOU KNOW, CHANGING THE CODE IS NOT GONNA CHANGE THE DYNAMIC AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF WHY THEY NEED A VEHICLE. AND I GIVE A A PERFECT EXAMPLE. UM, AS A PART OF DISTRICT EIGHT, WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, CLAYBROOK RILEY, UH, WHICH THERE ISN'T MUCH IF ALL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION THAT WAY. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 30, CLOSE TO 30,000 RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA ALONE, UM, THAT DEPEND ON THEIR VEHICLES AND ON THE WEEKENDS THEY COME UP TO NORTH DALLAS OR OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY IN ORDER TO DO THEIR BUSINESS. NOW THE REDUCTION OF, OF PARKING WILL LIKELY HAVE SOME IMPACT ON THOSE WHO DEPEND ON, ON THEIR CARS. AND YOU MAY HAVE CONSIDERED THAT AND, AND LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THERE MAY BE A UNINTENDED [03:15:01] CONSEQUENCE IN THAT IF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CAR DEPENDENT, UH, CANNOT PARK IN CERTAIN AREAS BECAUSE OF, I MEAN THEY'VE REACHED MATCH CAPACITY FOR WHATEVER THE REDUCTION MAY BE, THAT THEY'LL TAKE THEIR DOLLARS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF DALLAS TO DO THEIR SHOPPING. SO HAS THAT BEEN CONSIDERED AS A COMPONENT WHEN WE'VE, WE'VE BEEN DEVELOPING THIS AMENDMENT HISTORICALLY? SURE. I'LL START OFF AND THEN I THINK ANDREA HAS SOMETHING AS WELL. UM, YEP. IT WAS CONSIDERED IN TWO WAYS. ONE, THE, THE TIME SPAN OF DEVELOPMENT AND THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE EXPECTED TO BE DEVELOPED EVEN FIRSTHAND. IT'S, IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG TERM CHANGE. AND SO, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEONE, UM, BEGINS A, A DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL SOMETIME THIS YEAR, IF, IF SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS ADOPTED, IT'S GOING TO BE A MATTER OF YEARS BEFORE A SINGLE BUILDING IS BUILT WITH, UM, MAYBE 20% LESS PARKING, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND SO THE SHOPS THAT PEOPLE SHOP AT, UH, WILL NOT SEE WHEREVER THEY'RE COMING FROM AT THE CITY BY CAR ARE NOT EXPECTED TO SEE A RADICAL TURNOVER. I MEAN, WE, WE REALLY SEE THIS ON A, A GENERATIONAL, UM, CHANGE WHEN IT AFFECTS THE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK. THAT'S, THAT'S ONE, UM, GENERAL ANSWER. I MEAN, THIS IS NOT GONNA BE A QUICK THING, QUICK, QUICK RESULTS. THE OTHER GENERAL ANSWER IS THAT PEOPLE ARE DRIVING TO ANOTHER PART OF THE CITY BECAUSE OF HOW WE ZONE. AND VERY OFTEN OUR LOW DENSITY AREAS ARE ZONED THROUGH PARKING REGULATIONS AND OTHERS THAT AREN'T A PART OF THIS, TO WHERE THEY, THEY NEED TO DRIVE FAR AWAY BECAUSE THE LOCAL GROCERY STORE, THE LOCAL SPOTS AREN'T WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE, AREN'T WITHIN BIKING DISTANCE. AND THAT'S A DIRECT RESULT OF HOW WE ZONE. AND SO FOR PARKING, UM, A LOT OF THE, UM, I'M TRYING TO THINK OF SOME EXAMPLES THAT WE LOOKED AT IN 2021, AND THEN AGAIN IN 2023, WE LOOK AT THESE GROCERY STORES THAT ARE JUST SEAS OF PARKING LOTS. EVEN THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE CLOSEST WOULDN'T BE CAUGHT DEAD WALKING ACROSS THAT PARKING LOT OR DOWN THAT STREET TO THAT GROCERY STORE BECAUSE OF THE PARKING REGULATION. AND SO WE'VE, IN THAT MICROCOSM EXAMPLE, WE'VE MADE THAT PERSON EVEN MORE AUTO DEPENDENT. UM, AND SO THOSE ARE JUST A, A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT HOW OUR, OUR ZONING CAUSES PEOPLE TO BE MORE, UM, AUTO DEPENDENT. AND FOR THOSE THAT TRULY ARE RIGHT NOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE RADICAL CHANGE OR CATASTROPHIC CHANGE. YES. THANK YOU. UH, APOLOGIES. I NEED TO ADD A FEW THINGS. UH, ONE IS, UM, THIS IS, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPERS. I JUST WANNA CORRECT THIS ON THE RECORD. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT URBAN FOREIGN USERS. THE DEVELOPERS HAPPEN TO BE THE ONES WHO DEVELOP SOME OF THESE USES OR BUILDINGS. SO THIS IS NOT ABOUT DEVELOPERS. THIS IS ABOUT WHAT DO WE WANT OUR CITY TO LOOK LIKE AND HOW DO WE WANT THE USERS OF THE CITY, NOT JUST THE RESIDENTS, DAYTIME POPULATION, ANY USER OF THE CITY TO ACTUALLY BEHAVE OR HAVE OPPORTUNITIES OR OPTIONS WITHIN THE CITY. SO I JUST WANNA CORRECT THAT SECOND, UM, ALLOWING AND MAKING IT EASIER FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT DEPEND ON CARS AND HAVE OPTIONS TO CHOOSE. THAT'S WHAT IS THIS ABOUT? IT'S NOT ABOUT NOT PROVIDING OR DOING AWAY WITH EXISTING OR EVEN PROVIDED PARKING. THIS IS, IT WORKS ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IF PEOPLE WANNA HAVE A DIFFERENT CHOICE, THEY CAN. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WANNA TAKE TRANSIT, BUT THEY CANNOT BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IS SO CAR-CENTRIC THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO TRANSIT. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WANNA BIKE, BUT IT'S NOT SAFE TO BIKE BECAUSE AGAIN, THERE ARE SO MANY CARS ON THE STREET. THE ASSUMPTION IS ALWAYS, IF THE PEOPLE COULD, WHO CAN MAKE A CHOICE TO USE OTHER MEANS OF TRANSIT, THEY HAVE A VIABLE OPTION TO DO THAT. IT MEANS THAT THEY WILL LEAVE MORE PARKING AND MORE ROOM ON THE ROAD FOR THE PEOPLE WHO TRULY NEED IT. SO THIS WILL BENEFIT THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY DEPEND ON CARS BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO COMPETE WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE FORCED TO USE THE CARS BE, ALTHOUGH THEY DON'T WANT TO. I HAVE TONS OF EXAMPLES OF WHY, AGAIN, IT'S NOT SAFE, IT'S NOT VIABLE, AND PEOPLE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE TO USE SOMETHING OTHER THAN CARS. AND THEN THE THIRD IS, UM, IF PEOPLE DEPEND ON CARS, IT MEANS THAT THE MARKET WILL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE IT, WHICH IS EXACTLY THE THESIS OF THIS TYPE OF APPROACH, IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING, RIGHT? SIZING. IF, IF YOU KNOW THAT YOUR USER ARRIVES HERE BY CAR IN ORDER FOR ANYTHING THAT YOU DO, A HOUSE, UH, ANY TYPE OF HOUSE, A BUSINESS, UH, A RETAIL, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO PROVIDE PARKING BECAUSE [03:20:01] THAT'S YOUR USER. THAT'S THE MARKET BASICALLY TAKING CARE OF IT. IF YOU DON'T, IT MEANS THAT YOUR USE IS NOT GONNA SUR SURVIVE, SURVIVE, BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO IT. SO THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN. LET'S NOT GET INTO LIKE TELLING RESTAURANTS HOW BIG THEY CAN BE, OR THEY CANNOT BE ON HOW THEY OPERATE THEIR, THEIR BUSINESS BECAUSE THEY WILL DO IT ANYWAY IF THEY DON'T HAVE CUSTOMERS BECAUSE THE CUSTOMERS CAN'T PARK. THEY WON'T, THEY WILL SEE HIS OPERATION. I HAVE ONE LITTLE THING TO ADD. UM, DURING ZAC, UM, ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS OR ONE OF THE MEMBERS, UM, BROUGHT UP THAT, UH, THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THIS, THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT RIGHT SIZING PARKING REQUIREMENTS IS SOMETHING THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY. MANY CITIES, MANY SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES. AND THERE WE DO HAVE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DALLAS CITY LIMITS THAT ARE ALSO CONSIDERING ELIMINATING PARKING REQUIREMENTS. AND, UM, THIS, THIS MEMBER POINTED OUT THAT IF WE STILL HAVE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN DALLAS, BUT WE DON'T, IN MESQUITE OR DUNCANVILLE OR ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES, IT DEVALUES THE PROPERTY IN DALLAS BECAUSE WE REQUIRE MORE PARKING THAN OUR SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES. SO IT IN HIS, IN HIS COMMENTS, I THOUGHT THAT WAS A VERY INTERESTING THING TO POINT OUT. AND I DO APPRECIATE, UM, COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT'S QUESTIONS EARLIER BECAUSE, UM, THERE MAY BE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND REEVALUATE AND LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE DOING. UM, YOU KNOW, AND TAKING IT, TAKING THE APPROACH FOR THE ENTIRE CITY MAY PROVE THAT WE MAY NOT BE DOING THE RIGHT THING. BUT CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BASED ON YOUR STATEMENT EARLIER, THERE IS A MECHANISM FOR US TO GO BACK AND EVALUATE AND CHANGE WHATEVER DETRIMENTAL, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE THAT MAY HAVE, MAY OCCUR AFTER WE MAKE THIS AMENDMENT. CAN I GET AN ORAL VERBAL, YEAH. I SAY CITY COUNCIL AND CPC HAVE THE ZONING POWER, SO THE SAME, WE OPENED UP THIS CODE AMENDMENT, IT CAN BE OPENED UP AT A LATER DAY IF IT HAS ISSUES. AND AGAIN, CITY COUNCIL ALSO HAS PURVIEW OF ALL THE FUNCTIONS OF THE CITY. SO IF THERE ARE ISSUES WITH OTHER TYPE OF ENFORCEMENT, IF COUNCIL NEEDS TO OPEN UP OTHER CODES, THEY CAN. OKAY. AND THEN, UH, I HAVE MORE OF A, A TECHNICAL QUESTION ON ONE OF THE ITEMS ON COMMISSIONER HOUSE WRIGHT'S, UH, MEMO, SINCE I KNOW THAT YOU'VE ALL DISCUSSED IT, BUT IN PARTICULAR, UH, ITEM EIGHT, UM, WHICH SAYS, ELIMINATE ALL MINIMUMS FOR ALL USES WITHIN A HALF MILE RADIUS OF R AND TOD STATIONS. AND I WAS WONDERING WHAT THE RATIONALE FOR, UM, FOR HAVING IT BE A ONE AND A HALF MILE RADIUS. I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, TOD HIGH DENSITY, SO WE, THERE'D BE AN EXPECTATION THAT THERE WILL BE, UH, HIGHER DENSITY, UH, DEVELOPMENTS AND MAYBE A WALK AROUND DISTRICT. SO WHILE YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT WHAT THE RATIONALE IS, AND LET ME ALSO GIVE SOME ADDITIONAL CONTEXT OF WHY I'M THINKING ABOUT THIS. IN DISTRICT A, WE HAVE A, THE LIGHT RAIL THAT COMES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO UNT DALLAS STATION, AND THEN WE HAVE, UH, THE SINKING HILLS, UH, STATION. SO THOSE ARE THE LAST TWO STOPS, UH, GOING SOUTH. AND I MEAN, THERE'S REALLY NOTHING AROUND THERE. IF YOU STOP IN THERE, YOU'RE EITHER GOING TO UNT DALLAS OR YOU'RE GOING TO, UM, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND SINKING THE HILLS. SO FOR THE, THE HALF MILE RADIUS, WHAT DO, WHAT WOULD THAT ACCOMPLISH BY TAKING OUT THE MINIMUMS FROM THAT AREA? SURE. GENERALLY, A HALF MILE IS ACCEPTED AS THE, UM, THE DISTANCE THAT SOMEONE WILL BIKE, UH, TO GO USE TRANSIT, TRANSIT AND THEN, UM, ESPECIALLY WALK. BUT I THINK THAT'S SORT OF THE, THE BIKE IN 15 MINUTES. UM, DISTANCE, IT'S, IT'S A RULE OF THUMB. IS IT A HALF MILE OR IS IT FIVE, UH, YOU KNOW, SEVEN 16TH OF A MILE. IT'S, IT'S VERY GENERAL. BUT, UM, REMOVING PARKING MINIMUMS WITHIN THAT AREA WOULDN'T CHANGE THE ZONING. UM, DISTRICTS, OF COURSE, IT, IT WOULDN'T, YOU KNOW, REZONE A SINGLE FAMILY IN OUR DISTRICT TO AN MF DISTRICT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND SO THE IDEA WAS THAT, UM, TOD AND THE CONCEPT OF TOD IS GRADUAL. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WORKING ON DART RIGHT NOW, UH, ON PROPERTIES IMMEDIATELY [03:25:01] ADJACENT TO STATIONS FOR HIGHER DENSITY, MULTIFAMILY. UM, BUT AS YOU EXTEND OUT OVER THE COURSE OF THAT HALF MILE RADIUS, YOU MIGHT, UM, HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT FITS ON A LOT THAT IT WOULD'VE JUST BEEN EED OUT OF, UH, WITH PARKING MINIMUMS. UM, OR YOU MIGHT HAVE A, UM, A LIBRARY OR A CHURCH OR SOMETHING THAT COULD FIT ON A LOT STILL A NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING INSTITUTION. UH, BUT NOW IT CAN SERVE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IN A WAY THAT IT COULDN'T HAVE BEFORE BECAUSE IT HAD A PARKING REQUIREMENT. AND SO THE IDEA OF TOD ISN'T THAT THIS WOULD BE A HALF MILE IN ANY DIRECTION WITH TOWERS BY ANY MEANS. UM, AND IN ONE OF MY VERY FIRST PRESENTATIONS, I SHOWED A BUNCH OF DUPLEXES AND I CALL THEM TINY TOD. AND, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY WHAT THEY ARE, JUST, UH, ADDING SOME EXTRA HOUSING UNITS THAT MIGHT BE PRECLUDED BECAUSE A PARKING SPACE IS GETTING IN THE WAY. ALSO, I WANTED TO ADD, UH, THAT THE CONVERSATION AROUND WHAT A TOD IS, UM, HAPPENED WITH FOUR DALLAS. WE HAVE A CHAPTER IN FOUR DALLAS, AND I'M READING FROM IT. TOD CAN BE FOCUSED AROUND HALF A MILE OF MAJOR TRANSIT NODES SUCH AS DARK RAIL STATIONS AND BUS TRANS TRANSFER STATIONS. HOWEVER, TOD AROUND BIKE, BUS AND TRAIL INFRASTRUCTURE IS GENERALLY DEVELOPED AT LOWER INTENSITIES. AND IT GOES BACK TO SAY IT'S, UM, A QUARTER MILE OF DISCONNECTIONS. SO, UM, THE COMMISSION, IF IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT THESE WORDS IN FOUR DALLAS WERE VOTED AND HIGHLY DEBATED THAT THIS BODY, UM, INCLUDING THE DISTANCE, UM, IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO CHANGE IT, OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE, UM, UM, FREE TO DO SO. WE RECOMMEND HALF A MILE IS PRETTY, ANYTHING BETWEEN HALF A MILE AND A MILE IS ACCEPTABLE. THINK ABOUT LIKE A COMFORTABLE DISTANCE TO WALK. THE, THE MAJOR THESIS OF A TOD IS MEANS IN ALLOWING A CHA UH, BASICALLY A CHOICE. IF I WANNA LEAVE MY CAR ALONE AND JUST, UH, AT HOME AND I JUST WANNA USE TRANSIT, WHAT IS COMFORTABLE FOR ME TO WALK OR BIKE? OKAY. AND THIS WAS PROBABLY NOT A QUESTION, BUT MORE OF A COMMENT. I'LL FRAME IT AS A QUESTION THOUGH. OKAY. UH, IS, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED, THAT'S THE PART OF THE QUESTION THAT AROUND SOME OF THESE TODS, I MEAN, THERE ARE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS THAT'S VERY, VERY CLOSE BY. SO AS YOU ARE CONSIDERING THE LANGUAGE AROUND, UH, THIS AMENDMENT, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, PROTECTIONS FOR, UH, KEEPING THE MINIMUMS FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS, THAT THERE COULD BE OVERLAP IN BETWEEN THE TODS AND THE LANGUAGE HERE. AND THEN WHAT WE ESPECIALLY ARE TRYING TO PROTECT AT THE SAME TIME. SO THERE'S COULD BE A CONFLICT IN, IN LAW AND, AND LANGUAGE. WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S CLEAR. YEAH. I WILL MAKE A COMMENT TO SAY THE SINGLE FAMILY CAN ALSO BE A LITTLE BIT OF HIGHER DENSITY. UM, AND YES, PEOPLE WHO OWN OR LIVE IN A SINGLE FAMILY MAY ALSO NEED AN OPTION TO ACTUALLY BE NEAR A TRANSIT STATION AND WALK. I HAVE A SAFE WALK THERE. AND, UM, SINGLE FAMILY ALSO KIND OF HAS STRUGGLES SOMETIMES ACTUALLY USING THEIR REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING SPACES FOR PARKING VEHICLES. SOMETIMES THEY DON'T EVEN USE THEIR GARAGE, THEY JUST PARK ON THE STREET ANYWAY. SO THAT'S, I ALWAYS FIND THAT INTERESTING. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, IS COMMISSIONER WHEELER ONLINE? OKAY. WE'LL CIRCLE BACK TO HER. SO WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT HOW THE HALF MILE RADIUS OR RAIL, TOD AND THE QUARTER MILE RADIUS OF HIGH, HIGH FREQUENCY BUS ROUTES, THE ELIMINATION OF MINIMUMS, UM, INTERACTS WITH, UH, PDS. IF, IF THE AREA AROUND A HIGH FREQUENCY BUS ROUTE OR A TOD IS IN A PD THAT DICTATES A PARKING MINIMUM, IS THE PD GONNA CONTROL? YES, THE PD WOULD CONTROL. OKAY. AND, UH, QUESTION ABOUT GUEST PARKING. UH, 10% OF PROVIDED PARKING MUST BE ACCESSIBLE TO VISITORS OUTSIDE A GATE AND CLEARLY MARKED AT THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE. UM, WE ALREADY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENTS, LARGE SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 0.25, YOU KNOW, GUEST BASES BEING INADEQUATE. AND THIS LOOKS AS IF IT WOULD TAKE THAT DOWN TO 10% AND REQUIRE THAT IT BE OUTSIDE A GATE. HOW, WAS THERE [03:30:01] ANY THOUGHT GIVEN TO THESE GUEST MINIMUMS AND THEIR LOCATION FOR SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENTS? THE, THE 0.25, THE FIVE YOU, YOU'RE SAYING THAT 20 10% IS NOT ENOUGH? I, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY. MAKE IT A HUNDRED. I, I HONESTLY, I DUNNO WHAT TO SAY MEAN. WELL, I MEAN, UM, THE SMALL SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENTS ARE WORKING OKAY WITH 0.25. THE LARGER, I'VE GOT SOME LARGER SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE APPROVED BEFORE MY TIME, UM, THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW, ONE PARKING SPACE PER UNIT IN THE GARAGE, AND THEN THEY HAVE 0.25 GUEST SPACES. AND BY THE TIME THE FIRST 15, 20 UNITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT WERE BUILT OUT, PEOPLE WERE ALREADY COMPLAINING THAT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH, YOU KNOW, GUEST PARKING AND THESE PARKING SPACES ARE ALSO BEHIND GATES, WHICH IS IRRELEVANT RIGHT NOW, BUT IF, IF THIS HAS CHANGED, IT WOULD, IT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE. UM, AND WE ALSO HAVE PROBLEMS GOING BACK TO, UH, THE, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES OF THESE SHARED ACCESS DRIVES. YOU KNOW, PEOPLE FOR WHATEVER REASON, DON'T WANT TO PARK IN THEIR GARAGE, GO IN AND OUT EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY COME AND GO. SO ANYTIME I DRIVE THROUGH THESE, EACH AND EVERY SHARED EXCESS DRIVE IS, IS BLOCKED OR, OR OBSTRUCTED, I'LL SAY, WITH MULTIPLE CARS KIND OF PARKED AS A SLAM. 'CAUSE THE PEOPLE PRESUMABLY THINK, I'M JUST GONNA BE HERE FOR A MINUTE. AND SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF, IF THIS RULE IS GOING TO MAKE IT WORSE FOR THOSE, I MEAN, AT THE VERY LEAST, I WOULD WANT IT TO BE REQUIRED TO STAY 0.25 GUEST PARKING FOR SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENTS. BUT I'M WELL, THANK YOU. I, OH, SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN NO, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY I DEFER TO OTHER, UH, COMMISSIONERS FOR INPUT, BUT THAT, THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM IN MY DISTRICT. I JUST WANNA MAKE A LITTLE DISTINCTION. SHARED ACCESS IS SINGLE FAMILY. MM-HMM . AND I DON'T THINK THAT IT ISN'T THIS FOR MULTIFAMILY, AND MAYBE THAT'S THE CLARIFICATION. NO, NO. IT JUST SAYS 10% ARE PROVIDED PARKING. AND I WOULD ALSO MAKE ANOTHER COMMENT TO SAY THAT THE SHARED ACCESS CAN BE ANYWHERE BETWEEN LIKE SIX UNITS. IT'S A GATED, COMPLETELY GATED, OR 6, 8, 10 UNITS COMPLETELY GATED. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DRIVE THERE OR SOMETHING THAT'S A LITTLE BIT BIGGER. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE, I I, I THINK I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THAT BIG ONE IN DISTRICT SIX THAT ACTUALLY IS SUPPOSED TO BE A SUBDIVISION AND IT ENDED UP TO BE A SHARED ACCESS. SO I'M HOPING THAT'S A ONE OFF. UM, YEAH, I, I WILL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT. THE INTENT OF SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENTS ARE TO BE SINGLE FAMILY, AND I WOULD SAY THAT FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, IT IS HARD TO REQUIRE 10% VISITORS PARKING FOR SINGLE FAMILY CHAIR. CAN I, UH, INTERRUPT WITH THE QUESTION PLEASE? BECAUSE THIS ISN'T STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OR ZO X'S RECOMMENDATION. UM, I THINK WE'RE MOST PREPARED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, SO TOPICAL QUESTIONS AND THAT'S FINE. UM, AND THEN ABOUT XX RECOMMENDATION, THAT'S FINE, BUT I WONDER IF THIS IS BEST DISCUSSED AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING, DURING THE DISCUSSION PORTION. YEAH, THAT'S, IT'S AN INTERESTING POINT 'CAUSE WE, WE ARE KIND OF HEADING INTO THE, YOU KNOW, POSITIONS, AND THIS IS JUST A TIME FOR QUESTIONS. SO IF WE COULD JUST, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A GOOD COMMENTARY HERE, BUT I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE KIND OF GETTING INTO THE HEARING PART OF THE, THE SESSION, WHICH IS FINE, BUT LET'S HOLD OFF ON THAT UNTIL WE HEAR FROM FOLKS AND THEN WE START THAT, AND THEN WE ALL TAKE OUR POSITIONS AND, AND VOTE. UH, SO LET'S JUST STICK WITH, WITH QUESTIONS NOW. AND AT THAT TIME WE'RE, WE'RE HAPPY TO PROVIDE STEPH'S OPINION. PERFECT. DEFINITELY. UM, I'M SORRY, I'M, I'M NOT FOLLOWING, UH, YOU THINK MY QUESTION ABOUT, UM, GUEST PARKING FOR SHARED ACCESS ISN'T APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME. NOT NECESSARILY THE THE QUESTION, BUT, UM, I THINK FROM WHAT, WHAT I'M HEARING, NOT ONLY FROM, FROM YOU AND FROM OTHERS, IS, YOU KNOW, OUR CONCERNS AND KIND OF OUR POSITIONS ON THINGS, WHICH IS FINE. BUT LET'S WAIT TILL WE ACTUALLY WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA TAKE ALL THESE LINE BY LINE COMMISSIONER AND, AND, UH, WE WILL HAVE TO REPEAT IT AGAIN LATER. SO LET'S JUST HOLD IT OFF TO LATER. ARE YOU SUGGESTING WE CONFINE OUR QUESTIONS TO THIS, THESE PARTICULAR ITEMS? THE LIST? NOT NECESSARILY. NO. NO. CHAIRMAN ADE, AREN'T WE STILL ABLE TO ASK STAFF QUESTIONS LATER AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING? ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. WE'LL GO THROUGH THE PROCESS HERE IN A MINUTE, BUT YES, IT'S, IT'S GONNA BE A FLUID PROCESS WHERE THEY'RE GONNA BE THERE. AND IF THERE'S SOMETHING YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT ONE PARTICULAR NUMBER, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CAN ASK. WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT GONNA BE VERY RIGID ON THAT. CAN I ASK IF IT'S APPROPRIATE TO MOVE THE QUESTION AND, AND, AND CLOSE THIS BRIEFING AT THIS POINT AND MOVE TO THE PUBLIC HEARING SO WE CAN HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC? BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE HERE WHO HAVE TO BE LEAVING AT THREE O'CLOCK TODAY, AND I WANNA MAKE SURE WE GET TO HEAR FROM THEM. I, I AGREE WITH YOU, BUT [03:35:01] YOU KNOW, I DO HAVE FOUR OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS, SO I, I'LL DEFER TO THAT. STILL HAVE COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, HAMPTON, KINGSTON, AND WHEELER. PLEASE CONTINUE. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT A SUBJECT THAT HAS NOT REALLY COME UP YET, WHICH IS ABOUT PARKING, UM, FOR CERTAIN HEAVY COMMERCIAL USES THAT ARE, WELL, PRIMARILY CLOSE TO RESIDENTIAL, BUT IT'S, IT'S BEEN A PROBLEM ACROSS THE DISTRICT AND IT LOOKS LIKE NUMBER 15 HERE WAS ATTEMPTING TO ADDRESS THAT, WHERE IT SAYS AUTO SERVICE CENTER, ALL CUSTOMER VEHICLES MUST BE PARKED ON SITE BECAUSE I, UM, HOW TO MAKE THIS A QUESTION. OKAY. UM, ARE YOU AWARE THAT WE'RE HAVING EXTREME U EXTREME ISSUES IN THESE DISTRICTS WHERE WE HAVE BEEN BURDENED WITH INDUSTRIAL AND HEAVY COMMERCIAL USES ADJACENT TO, OR EVEN IN THE MIDDLE OF AREAS THAT ARE EITHER ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL OR WERE DEVELOPED OUT AS RESIDENTIAL, BUT GOT OVERLAID WITH, UM, COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL? COMMERCIAL OR, UM, INDUSTRIAL AT A CERTAIN TIME. AND, UM, SPECIFIC, ARE YOU AWARE THAT SPECIFICALLY THE VEHICLE OR ENGINE REPAIR OR MAINTENANCE MACHINERY OR HEAVY EQUIPMENT SALES AND SERVICE AND VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE ARE CAUSING GREAT PROBLEMS WITH THEIR, USING THE PUBLIC REALM TO PARK AND STORE VEHICLES THAT THEY ARE TRUCKS, UM, CEMENT MIXERS, HEAVY EQUIPMENT THAT THEY'RE AWAITING TO REPAIR, OR IN SOME CASES THE LIMO SERVICES AND THE U-HAUL, UM, RENTAL SERVICES THAT OPERATE UNDER VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE ARE USING THE PUBLIC REALM TO STORE AND MAKE AVAILABLE THEIR EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES FOR RENT. AND HAVE YOU CONSIDERED, WHICH IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE ADDING SOMETHING THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, ALL CUSTOMER VEHICLES MUST BE PARKED ON SITE. THE AUTO SERVICE CENTER, UM, I THINK WAS A STAB AT IT, BUT DIDN'T QUITE GET THE USES. CORRECT. SO WOULD YOU BE AMENABLE TO CONSIDERING ADDING THE THREE USES THAT I JUST DISCUSSED, VEHICLE ENGINE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE, MACHINERY, HEAVY EQUIPMENT OR TRUCK SALES AND SERVICE, VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE TO THAT ITEM AND JUST SAY, UH, RATHER THAN AUTO SERVICE CENTER FOR THOSE USES, ALL CUSTOMER VEHICLES MUST BE PARKED ON SITE OR, UM, VEHICLES OR EQUIPMENT MADE AVAILABLE FOR RENTAL. I I THINK I ALSO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR, UM, ITEM. UM, CURRENTLY IF AN OPERATOR IS STORING VEHICLES OR CUSTOMERS ARE PARKING SOMEWHERE, OTHER THAN THE LOT THAT THE MAIN USE IS OCCUPYING, IT'S A DIFFERENT USE AT THAT POINT, IT'S VEHICLE STORAGE, SURFACE PARKING. SO I DON'T REALLY KNOW IF I HAVE A GOOD GRASP OF WHAT THE, I THINK MR. NAVAREZ WOULD, AND I HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATING ABOUT THIS AND I SENT HIM SOME ADDRESSES. HE MAY BE, IF HE'S HERE, HE MAY BE ABLE TO, TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE. IT'S JUST THAT THE SPILLOVER PROBLEM THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH REQUIRED PARKING, THESE PARTICULAR USES ARE ROUTINELY OFFLOADING THEIR RESPONSIBILITY FOR HAVING ENOUGH SPACES ON SITE INTO THE PUBLIC REALM. AND IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL. NO, I DEFINITELY DO NOT WANNA GO IN THE DIRECTION OF NO PARKING MINIMUMS FOR THESE PARTICULAR USES. AND IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL TO HAVE SOMETHING SOME LANGUAGE ADDED THAT WAS, UH, ATTEMPTED AT IN 15 TO, TO MAKE THE, TO, TO SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE SPACE ON SITE FOR YOUR, UH, EITHER YOUR CUSTOMER'S VEHICLES OR THE VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT THAT YOU'RE MAKING AVAILABLE FOR RENT. I JUST WANNA MAKE A DISTINCTION. OKAY. I THINK WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO THAT STORAGE DOES NOT PARKING. SO THE, THAT'S THE STORAGE, THE STORAGE OF VEHICLES WAITING TO BE REPAIRED IS THE USE ITSELF. AND THAT'S NOT A PARKING, THE PARKING REQUIREMENT IS DIFFERENT THAN THAT. SO THE FACT THAT THEY'RE STORING WRECKED VEHICLES ON PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IS BASICALLY THE, THEY'RE NOT STORAGE IS THE ONE THAT'S OVER SPILLING. OKAY. I'M SORRY, I MAY HAVE MISSPOKE. I MEAN, PARKING IS A PERFECTLY OKAY WORD. I MEAN, IT'S SO THAT THEY LEAVE THE PARKED IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF TIME THEY SHOULD BE PARKING, BUT SOMETIMES IT'S VEHICLES [03:40:01] THAT ARE DRIVABLE AND SOMETIMES IT'S A, IT'S VEHICLES THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR RENT. SO IT STILL IS LIKE IF YOU HAVE A CAR RENTAL PLACE THAT'S NOT REGULATED, THE PARKING REQUIREMENT IS FOR THE EMPLOYEES OR USERS, NOT FOR THE VEHICLES THAT ARE PARKED THERE, BECAUSE THE USE ITSELF IS CAR STORAGE. MM-HMM . IT'S LIKE A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT. YOU DON'T PARK A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT BECAUSE THE PARKING ITSELF IS THE USE. SO THAT'S HOW, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, WHAT YOU'RE, UH, WHAT THE ISSUES ARE WITH THESE TYPE OF USES, THEY'RE OVER SPILLING THEIR OPERATION BASICALLY ONTO THE RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH IS ILLEGAL. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT CAN'T BE ADDRESSED THROUGH REQUIRING THAT THEY PROVIDE SPACE ON THERE, BUT YES, BUT IT'S NOT DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER USE. IT'S CALLED OFF STREET PARKING. THAT'S THE NAME OF THE CHAPTER. SO IN ITSELF IT SAYS THAT YOU MUST PROVIDE PARKING ON YOUR PROPERTY, NOT ON THE STREET. SO EVEN LIKE 15 THE WAYS WRITTEN HERE, IT'S, THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO PER CODE FOR ANY USE. MR. CHAIR, IF I COULD JUST INTERRUPT FOR A MOMENT, PLEASE. IN, IN, IN SORT OF IN DEFENSE OF STAFF, THE MEMO BEFORE YOU WAS A MEMO THAT I WROTE IN MY CAPACITY AS CHAIR OF ZAC TO AID IN OUR CONVERSATION. STAFF RECEIVED IT MINUTES AGO. THEY DID NOT WRITE THIS AND THEY'RE NOT REALLY PREPARED TO DEFEND IT. OKAY. I THINK THESE ARE ALL EXCELLENT QUESTIONS. THIS, THIS MEMO IS A RESULT OF INPUT FROM AS MANY COMMISSIONERS AS I COULD GET STAFF, ET CETERA. SO THAT, THAT'S OKAY. THAT'S ALL IT IS. WELL, I MISUNDERSTOOD IT BECAUSE I HAVE HAD, UH, A LINK THE, UH, EXCHANGE WITH MR. NAVAREZ, WHICH I THOUGHT THIS RESULTED FROM. OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. AND, AND IF I CAN PLEASE ADD, UM, UH, THERE WAS ALSO A CODE AMENDMENT AUTHORIZED FOR, I, MY, MY, UH, MY SHORT HAND WAY OF REFERRING TO IT IS LIKE TRUCK RELATED USES. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WAS LIKE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR OR SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, UM, OF LAST YEAR MAYBE, UM, WE, THERE WAS ANOTHER CODE AMENDMENT AUTHORIZED TO, TO LOOK AT A LOT OF THESE TRUCK RELATED USES WITH LOTS OF TRUCKS. SO THERE, THERE, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE CAN MAKE SOME PROGRESS AND GET SOME THINGS OFF THE, THE MENU, THEN, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO FOCUS ON, YOU KNOW, THOSE INDUSTRIAL TRUCK RELATED USES AND ALL THE LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS THAT GO WITH THOSE. WOULD IT BE ACCEPTABLE TO, OR WOULD YOU CONSIDER AT LEAST, UM, EXEMPTING THE, I MEAN, FOR THESE PARTICULAR USES TO NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR NO PARKING MINIMUMS? I I DON'T THINK STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT, BUT THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL CAN DISCUSS IF, IF THAT COMES UP IN YOUR DISCUSSION. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE MASSIVE PROBLEMS, BUT WE CAN WEIGH IN ON THAT AS Y'ALL ARE DISCUSSING YOUR, YOUR PROPOSAL. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. I I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE CHANGE ALLOWING THE, UM, PARKING, UH, TO BE ALLOWING, UH, SAY MULTIFAMILY TO CHARGE FOR PARKING SPACES. HOW DOES THAT IMPACT AFFORDABILITY? BECAUSE WHAT I'M SEEING IS IT COULD BE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON AFFORDABILITY IN THAT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE STRUGGLING TO PAY THEIR RENT AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY'RE BEING ASKED TO, UH, COME UP WITH AN EXTRA FEE FOR PARKING. ARE YOU ASSUMING THAT THE APARTMENT COMPLEX IS GOING TO DISCOUNT THE RENT FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE CARS? I MEAN, IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT WE'RE, IT'S GOING IN THE NEGATIVE DIRECTION FROM TRYING TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SURE. I GUESS OUR UNDERSTANDING, I MEAN, IF, IF A MULTIFAMILY BUILDING HAS A PARKING LOT, THEY'RE ALREADY CHARGING FOR THAT IN SOME WAY, EVEN IF IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE AN HOURLY RATE, THEY'RE WRAPPING THE COST OF MAINTENANCE AND MAYBE CONSTRUCTION AND EVERYTHING ELSE INTO THEIR, INTO THE LEASE FOR THE RENTERS. SO THEY'RE IN A SENSE, ALREADY BEING CHARGED. I THINK THE IDEA OF EXPANDING PAID PARKING TO OTHER AREAS IS THAT WHILE RESIDENTS AREN'T USING THOSE, MAYBE THEY'RE AWAY AT WORK OR SOMETHING, YOU CAN, UH, A VISITOR TO THE AREA CAN PARK IN THAT SPACE FOR AN HOURLY CHARGE OR A DAILY CHARGE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S, THAT'S, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING. I ALSO WANNA MAKE A DISTINCTION, UH, THE MULTIFAMILY USE RIGHT NOW, I NEED TO FIND IT IN THE CODE. ANY USE RIGHT NOW CAN CHARGE MONTHLY. THE, THE PROHIBITION OF PAID PARKING IS PER HOURLY PARKING. AND TO MICHAEL'S POINT, YES, THIS WOULD ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE, ESPECIALLY THAT VISITOR'S PARKING TO BE SHARED WITH SOME RETAIL AND IT WOULD INCENTIVIZE IF THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO CHARGE FOR IT AT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE HOURS. [03:45:04] THANK YOU. UM, WHERE IT SAYS KEEP THE EXISTING PARKING MINIMUMS FOR SCHOOLS IS, IS IT THE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE HAVE A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF, UH, WHERE THE PD OR SUP CASES WHERE SCHOOLS COME IN AND, AND IT'S CLEAR THAT THEY DON'T NEED THE, THE PARKING THAT THEY HAVE NOW, DO WE CONSIDER THAT THE, WELL, I, I KNOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS NO PARKING MINIMUM FOR ANYTHING, BUT, UM, ESPECIALLY HIGH SCHOOLS WHERE WE'RE HAVING, IS IT NINE AND A HALF SPACES, UH, FOR CLASSROOM, ARE THOSE NUMBERS STILL DEFENSIBLE? ARE THOSE A A STARTING PLACE? I WOULD, I HAVE A LOT OF THOUGHTS ON PARKING FOR SCHOOLS. UH, FIRST OF ALL, WHEN YES, SCHOOLS ARE ALLOWED BY SUP IN DISTRICTS, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. SO THE SUP IS A GOOD MECHANISM TO BASICALLY REGULATE THEIR PARKING AND THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENT. AS YOU KNOW, FOR A LOT OF YEARS, ALL SCHOOLS, UM, ARE ALSO BY TMP, SO WE LOOK AT THEIR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS AS WELL. UM, SO WE KIND OF LIKE REGULATE THEM ANYWAY OR THEIR TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS. AND MY OTHER THOUGHT IS, UM, NO MATTER HOW WE LOOK AT IT, A PARKING RATIO IS AN INDIRECT CAP ON ENROLLMENT. IT IS PER CLASSROOM. THEY DO HAVE SOME STATE, UH, CAPS ON OR STATE REGULATIONS ON HOW MANY KIDS PER CLASSROOMS AND ALL OF THAT. BUT FROM MY, OUR PROFESSIONAL POINT OF VIEW PARKING IS, UNLESS IT'S, AGAIN, WE ESTIMATE THAT THAT'S FOR TEACHERS, I THINK IT COMES DANGER DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO PUT A CAP ON ENROLLMENT. UM, MOVING ON WHERE IT SAYS ELIMINATING MINIMUMS NUMBER TWO, A ELIMINATE MINIMUMS FOR ALL MULTI-FAMILY USES EXCEPT MAINTAIN A MINIMUM ONE SPACE PER UNIT WHEN CONTIGUOUS WITH SINGLE FAMILY USES. SO THIS IS A CHANGE FROM THE PREVIOUS, UM, DISTANCE CONTIGUOUS WOULD MEAN SHARING A PROPERTY LINE. CORRECT. WOULD, WOULD SHARING AN ALLEY MEAN ON THE UPSIDE OF AN ALLEY, WOULD THAT BE CONTIGUOUS AS WELL? YES, WE HAVE SOME, UM, PARTS OF OUR CODE SUCH AS, UH, FRONT YARD CONTINUITY AND IT SAYS THAT IF YOU'RE SEPARATED BY AN ALLEY, YOU ARE STILL CONSIDERED CONTIGUOUS, UM, FOR CALCULATING YOUR FRONT YARD SETBACK. UM, BUT IF YOU'RE ACROSS THE STREET, YOU'RE NOT CONTIGUOUS. THANK YOU. UM, ABOUT PARKING MINIMUMS FOR BARS AND RESTAURANTS WHERE IT HAS, UH, 201 PER 200 SQUARE FEET OF COVERED AREA, I KNOW NOW IT'S ONE PER 100 SQUARE FOOT OF COVERED AREA. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN, UM, CONFUSING TO ME WHY THAT RATIO IS BASED ON COVERED AREA WHEN SO MANY OF THE, UH, THAT SEEMS TO INCENTIVIZE, YOU KNOW, LARGE PATIOS, ROOFTOP DECKS, THAT SORT OF THING. UM, IS IT MORE, UM, UH, REFLECTIVE OF REALITY TO BASE THAT RATIO ON DINING AREA, WHETHER IT'S COVERED OR NOT? I, I THINK WHENEVER THE CITY OF DALLAS, WHATEVER, WHATEVER DECADE ERA THIS WAS THAT THEY, UM, UM, PARKING RATIOS WERE BASED ON FLOOR AREA AND FLOOR AREA IS AN AREA OF A BUILDING COVERED WITH A ROOF. UM, I THINK THEY WERE PROBABLY MORE FOCUSED ON, UM, AREAS THAT DIDN'T CHANGE EASILY WITHOUT A PERMIT. MM-HMM SO WE, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF NEBULOUS WHAT REQUIRES A PERMIT. YOU KNOW, IF YOU MOVE A MOVE A RAILING, IF IT'S UNDER FOUR FEET, THAT'S JUST MOVING A FENCE AND THEY MAY NOT, MAY NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT. AND SO I THINK THERE WAS SOME, I SUSPECT MY THEORY IS THAT THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ON LET'S PICK SOMETHING THAT'S NOT GONNA CHANGE WITHOUT A PERMIT SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE THINGS CHANGING OVERNIGHT REGULATIONS CHANGING PEOPLE BEING OUT OF COMPLIANCE. AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHY A LOT OF THESE REGULATIONS ARE BASED IN FLOOR AREA, WHICH IS AN AREA OF A BUILDING COVERED BY A ROOF AND IS CALCULATED TO THE EXTERIOR WALLS OR EMITTED WALL LINES. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE A, A BUILDING, I MEAN I CAN THINK OF A NUMBER OF RESTAURANTS WHERE THE INDOOR AREA IS FAIRLY SMALL, BUT THEN THE PATIOS, THE OUTSIDE UNCOVERED PATIOS AND THE LAWN AREAS, YOU KNOW, GET LARGER AND LARGER AND LARGER AND UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT THE KITCHEN AREA AND THE BATHROOMS AND ALL THAT THAT'S DRIVING THE, THE MECHANICAL ROOMS THAT'S DRIVING A NEED FOR PARKING. IT'S THE NUMBER, SHEER [03:50:01] NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE, WHO ARE EATING OR DRINKING THERE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY'RE SITTING UNCOVERED OR COVERED. SO, UM, I MEAN IF WE'RE DOING A COMPREHENSIVE REDO OF, I MEAN IF WE'RE LITERALLY LOOKING AT THE PARKING CODE, WOULD IT NOT MAKE MORE SENSE? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WHEN RESTAURANTS, UH, BARS COME IN FOR PERMITS, THEY HAVE TO CLEARLY DELINEATE WHERE, UH, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE DINING AND SITTING BECAUSE THE, BECAUSE OF THE FIRE CODE. SO THE INFORMATION'S ALREADY OUT THERE. I WOULD SAY THAT AN EXPLANATION I CAN OFFER, THE WAY WE LOOK AT IT IS IT'S, IT'S STILL TEMPORARY BECAUSE IF IT RAINS, IF IT'S TOO COLD, IF IT'S SOMETHING HAPPENS, THEN THE AREA IS NOT USABLE. SO THAT WOULD BE THE WAY I WOULD LOOK AT IT. BUT THE, AGAIN, THE CODE RIGHT NOW IS PER FLOOR AREA AND THIS IS HOW WE, HOW WHAT FLOOR AREA MEANS. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. AND I WAS GONNA ADD ONE MORE THING ABOUT OCCUPANCY LOADS AND THERE'S A LOT MORE ARCHITECTS HERE THAT CAN ANSWER THIS A LOT BETTER, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS IF YOU REARRANGE YOUR FURNITURE AND YOUR ACCESS AISLES, YOUR, YOUR OCCUPANCY RATE CHANGES. AND SO I THINK THAT WAS ANOTHER REASON WHY THEY WERE WANTING TO BASE EVERYTHING OFF OF FLOOR AREA BECAUSE IT DIDN'T MATTER HOW YOU ARRANGE YOUR FURNITURE, YOUR REQUIREMENT WOULD REMAIN UNCHANGE, YOU KNOW, USE TO USE. AND SO I DUNNO IF THAT HELPS. I WAS TOLD I DID SOME QUESTIONING THAT WHEN THEY TURN IN FOR PERMITS THEY HAVE TO SHOW WHERE THE TABLES AND THINGS ARE. OH YES THEY DO, BUT I'M JUST SAYING IT, YOU KNOW, ONE PERSON MIGHT PUT MORE TABLES IN THE OTHER AND IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, THANK YOU. I HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS AND A NUMBER OF FOLLOW UP. I WANT TO TRY TO BE EFFICIENT 'CAUSE I KNOW WE'VE NEED TO GET TO THE HEARING. UM, TWO KIND OF HIGH LEVEL THINGS THAT I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE TOUCHED ON IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT THE ORIGINAL MEMO, IT WAS STRUCTURED AROUND A HANDFUL OF USES STAFF'S EVALUATION LED TO, UM, WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO ZO OAC AND MOVE FORWARD TO THIS BODY. UM, BUT YOU KNOW, IN IN THINKING THROUGH THE QUESTIONS ON INCREMENTAL APPROACHES AND HOW WE LOOK AT THIS, WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION OF PILOT PROGRAMS OR OTHER TYPES OF STRUCTURES? AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'VE ASKED THE QUESTION FOR MY OWN EDIFICATION, WAS THAT ANYTHING THAT WAS LOOKED AT, UM, GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION ABOUT VESTED RIGHTS, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON, ON HOW THAT WAS OR WASN'T MAYBE EVALUATED. I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPHRASE? WAS THERE A PILOT PROGRAM ROLLING IT OUT IN A DIFFERENT FASHION THAN WHAT IS BEFORE US? I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE WERE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS GOING FROM WHAT WAS A MORE MODEST START TO NO PARKING MINIMUMS. WAS THERE ANYTHING IN BETWEEN THAT WAS EVALUATED? UM, I, I WOULD ARGUE THAT WE HAVE LOTS OF PDS IN THE, IN THE CITY AND MANY OF THEM HAVE LITTLE TO NO PARKING REQUIREMENTS. WE HAVE THE CA DISTRICT DOWNTOWN, IT'S PRACTICALLY NO PARKING. WE'VE GOT DEEP ELLUM IF YOU'RE UNDER 2,500 SQUARE FEET FOR BARS AND RESTAURANTS, THERE'S NO PARKING. WE'VE GOT LEGACY. IT'S LOCATED IN ORIGINAL BUILDING IF I MAY. YEAH. LEGACY BUILDINGS IN, UM, BISHOP ARTS DISTRICT PD EIGHT 30. UM, AND WE HAVE FARMER'S MARKET, WE'VE GOT, UH, ANYWAY, SO THERE'S THERE I WOULD SAY ALL OF OUR PDS THAT WE'VE TESTED OUT, ALL THESE REDUCED OR ELIMINATED PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER A PILOT PROGRAM FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC AREAS, UM, THAT SEEM TO HAVE BEEN BENEFICIAL FOR THOSE AREAS. UM, AND I FEEL LIKE THERE WAS ANOTHER QUE PILOT PROGRAMS. WELL, I I THINK THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. OKAY. AND AGAIN, THIS WAS SOMETHING LIKE MANY OF US, I'VE DONE A LOT OF READING IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS. UM, I THINK THERE'S OTHER MODELS THAT HAVE PERHAPS BEEN UTILIZED, BUT I APPRECIATE HAVING THAT CONTEXT. I, I KNOW OBVIOUSLY SOME OF THOSE PDS ARE IN MY DISTRICT, SO I'M FAMILIAR WITH THEM AND HAVE SOME, UM, OTHER RELATED STANDARDS, WHETHER IT'S THROUGH LEGACY BUILDINGS, WHETHER IT'S THROUGH ADDRESSING THE PUBLIC REALM, SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE LAYERED IN HERE, AND I KNOW THIS BODY WILL LIKELY HAVE MORE ROBUST CONVERSATIONS ABOUT DURING THE HEARING. UM, IN THINKING ABOUT THE TDMP, AND I KNOW THERE'S A SUGGESTION THAT WE ELIMINATE IT, THERE WAS A MEMO THAT CAME TO US THAT MAYBE THOUGHT ABOUT A MORE, UM, STREAMLINED VERSION, MAYBE THERE'S EVEN MORE STREAMLINING TO OCCUR, BUT IS CONSIDERING THE PUBLIC REALM AS WE ARE TRYING TO SHIFT OUR THINKING TO A NO PARKING FUTURE, WHATEVER THAT MAY LOOK LIKE, UM, OUR, EXCUSE ME, I SHOULDN'T SAY NO PARKING FUTURE, A FUTURE THAT LOOKS AT OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION BEYOND SIMPLY PARKING. UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION IS, IS WHAT WE'VE GOT OR RECEIVED, UM, VIA EMAIL, UM, FROM MR. WAITE EARLIER THIS WEEK? IS THAT KIND OF THE MOST REFINED VERSION THIS BODY HAS CURRENTLY BEFORE IT? [03:55:01] I WOULD SAY THAT'S THE MOST REFINED VERSION. WE'VE WORKED WITH TREK ON THAT AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE RECOMMENDED NO, NO TDMP, UM, BUT THEY, THEY BROUGHT IT DOWN IN PARTNERSHIP WITH STAFF TO SOMETHING THAT IS, UM, I THINK NOT NOT JUST TOLERABLE, BUT THAT WE ALSO ACCEPT AS STILL EFFECTIVE AT BEGINNING THE CHANGE OF CULTURE AND, AND CHANGE OF EXPECTATIONS. OKAY. AND, AND AND OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE ARE CHARGED WITH, THE TRAFFIC BENEFIT DISTRICTS ARE INTEGRATED IN THE CURB MANAGEMENT PLAN, WHICH AGAIN, THEY'RE ONLY ABOUT A YEAR OLD, SO WE DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW THOSE ARE GONNA ROLL OUT, BUT THOSE IN THEORY WOULD WORK HAND IN HAND AS WE START THINKING ABOUT HOW WE'RE ADDRESSING THE PUBLIC GROUND. IS THAT CORRECT? ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. UM, WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT, UM, HISTORIC, UM, I WON'T REPEAT COMMISSIONER CARPENTERS ON OUTDOOR AREAS. I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ON THAT. UM, ACCESSIBLE PARKING WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS, I THINK TALKED ABOUT BRIEFLY AT OUR LAST MEETING. UM, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT THE WAY THAT THE, OUR STATE CODE REGARDING ACCESSIBILITY IS BASED ON PARKING PROVIDED AS WE ARE CONSIDERING A NUMBER OF USES THAT WOULD NOT HAVE A REQUIRED MINIMUM AND PRESUMING WE'LL HAVE SOME OLDER BUILDINGS THAT WILL NOT HAVE PROVIDED PARKING, WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER A PROVISION THAT, UM, ACCESSIBILITY SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING? SIMILAR TO SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WITH INDICATE THE LOADING ZONE A MULTI-FAMILY AT PERMIT SO THAT THAT ACCESSIBILITY COMPONENT IS BUILT INTO A REVIEW PROCESS? UH, YES. I JUST WANNA ADD IN HERE THAT DO NOT FORGET THAT WE HAVE AREAS IN THE CITY THAT WERE BUILT WITHOUT PARKING LIKE DOWNTOWN IN OLDER PARTS OF THE CITY. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO ACKNOWLEDGE. SO I WOULD SAY THAT THE, THE BASIS OF A DA ACCESSIBILITY IS THAT, UH, EVERYBODY HAS TO HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO THE BUILDING. AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE PARKING, YOU HAVE THE SIDEWALK. SO THE SIDEWALK, IT'S ITSELF IS THE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO YOUR NEAR NEAREST PARKING SPOT OR HOWEVER YOU GOT IN THERE. UM, I, I DON'T KNOW, THERE ARE WAYS YOU CAN DO IT, BUT I THINK IT'S FAIRLY REGULATED. IT MUST BE PROVIDED AND I THINK YOU HAVE TO SHOW IT ANYWAY. AND IT'S FEDERALLY ENFORCED AS WELL IF YOU WANNA DOUBLE DOWN AND MOVE THE ENFORCEABILITY AT LOCAL LEVEL. I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT BASICALLY ADDS ON TO CITY LEVEL THAT ACTUALLY BELONGS TO FEDERAL LEVEL. AND JUST TO ADD ONTO THAT, I THINK IT COULD BE A SIMILAR LANGUAGE TO WHAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED WITH LOADING WHERE JUST SHOW US, UH, WHAT YOU'RE DOING, WHETHER IT'S A DIFFERENT PROPERTY OR CURB OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SHOW US THAT YOU'VE CONSIDERED IT. UM, THAT'S NOT DIFFICULT TO INCORPORATE. UM, I, I NOTED THIS BEFORE, BUT JUST TO BE CLEAR ON THE RECORD, FOR ANYONE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS WE'RE REGULATED BY THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATION, SO IT'S ACTUALLY STATE FOR US. UM, BUT YES, IT IS REVIEWED AND IT'S PART OF ANY PERMIT SUBMITTAL PROCESS, UM, THAT WE GO THROUGH. UM, I THINK WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE BUFFER, UM, QUESTION. I GUESS THE ONLY THING JUST FOR COMMISSIONERS TO MAYBE AS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT DISTANCE IN AREAS, UM, A HALF BLOCK MEASUREMENT IS A MEASUREMENT TOOL THAT WE'VE USED IN FORM-BASED CODE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT BECOMES A MORE, UM, RECOGNIZABLE OPTION, UM, VERSUS DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS. AGAIN, I THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE MORE DISCUSSION ON THAT, BUT JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT. UM, IF WE ELIMINATE, UM, M-I-H-D-B AS, UM, ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IS, UM, DO I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT GOES HAND IN HAND WITH THE SUGGESTION THAT IF THERE'S ONE SPACE PER UNIT FOR A TYPICAL MULTIFAMILY AND I'M PROJECTING WHAT'S BEFORE US, NOT WHAT HAS BEEN A RECOMMENDATION FROM THIS BODY THAT THEN THE INCENTIVE AT THAT POINT IS IT REMOVES THE HALF SPACE THAT WE HAVE IN THE CURRENT M-I-H-D-B. SO THAT'S, THAT'S TRYING TO SPEAK TO THE INCENTIVE PORTION OF M-I-H-D-B. DO I NEED TO SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME? IF WE GO FROM SPACE PER BEDROOM TO ONE SPACE PER UNIT, SO THAT'S A STRAIGHT REDUCTION ACROSS THE CITY, TRYING TO LOOK AHEAD TO HOUSING CURRENT. M-I-H-D-B IS A HALF A SPACE PER UNIT. SO IF WE REMOVE THAT, THAT EFFECTIVELY THE, THE INCENTIVE AT THAT POINT IS I DON'T HAVE TO BUILD ONE SPACE, I DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE ANY FOR THE FULL PROJECT. CORRECT. OKAY. AND THEN THE CURRENT STANDARDS REMOVE OR THE CURRENT, UM, DRAFT ORDINANCE REMOVES THE DESIGN STANDARDS. IS THAT STILL APPROPRIATE? WOULDN'T WE NEED TO KEEP DESIGN STANDARDS RELATIVE TO M-I-H-D-B? AND IT MAY BE THAT THE WAY IT GOT CONDENSED IN OUR SYSTEM, BUT IT'S OUR, IN OUR DRAFT IT'S 4 11 0 7, IT APPEARED STRUCK ALL THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND I DIDN'T [04:00:01] THINK THAT WOULD BE THE INTENT. THAT IS NOT THE INTENT. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, WE TALKED TO TOD RADIUS, UM, I'LL SAVE THAT FOR OUR HEARING, UM, PAID PARKING, UM, AND I THINK ONE OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS TOUCHED ON THIS, IF THAT'S REMOVED UNIVERSALLY, UM, DOESN'T THAT POTENTIALLY IMPACT OUR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES PRIMARILY? I'M THINKING OF, UM, MULTIFAMILY IN WHATEVER FORM THAT MIGHT BE. UM, BUT WAS THAT ANY CONSIDERATION, UM, IN, IN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON WHETHER OR NOT RESIDENTIAL SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE ABILITY TO HAVE PAID PARKING? AND A FOLLOW UP TO THAT IS SHOULD THERE BE ANY CONSIDERATION OF A, OF MAYBE FOCUSING IT ON EXISTING PARKING IN OTHER, IF WE'RE TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE REDEVELOPMENT WHERE WE ALREADY HAVE EXCESS PARKING FOR OTHER USES, IS THAT ANYTHING THAT SHOULD BE A CONSIDERATION? I DON'T KNOW HOW TO, UH, DEFINE EXCESS PARKING BECAUSE SAY LIKE, WELL, EXISTING PARKING, OH, BECAUSE AGAIN, IF IT GOES TO ZERO PARKING, I DON'T REQUIRE, I'VE SHOWED WHATEVER I'VE SHOWED OR I'VE MET WHATEVER NEW STANDARDS OUT THERE, I SUDDENLY HAVE 50 SPACES, WHATEVER, PICK YOUR NUMBER OF SPACES THAT I WANTED TO PUT A PROJECT ON, THEN I WANTED TO REALLOCATE HOW THAT MIX IS WORKING. THAT THAT COULD BE A COMPONENT OF MY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IS, YOU KNOW, MY, MY RESTAURANT CAN CHARGE FOR, YOU KNOW, THE SPACES THAT ARE IN THE MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING THAT NO LONGER NEEDS THEM. IT SOUNDS LIKE IT HASN'T BEEN THOUGHT ABOUT. NO, BECAUSE YOU SEE THAT THAT'S WHERE THE CONFUSION COMES. THESE ARE VERY, VERY OPERATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT OPERATION BASED THAT, THAT WILL, THAT'S WHAT WE WANNA ENABLE ANY OPERATOR TO START FINDING THOSE CREATIVE SOLUTIONS THAT WORKS BEST FOR THEIR OPERATION. SO WE WOULD LIKE FOR THEM BECAUSE IT'S HARD FOR STAFF, LIKE, I DON'T OPERATE THOSE, HOW WOULD I KNOW, I'M JUST GONNA RANDOMLY PICK SOME NUMBERS. THAT'S, THAT'S FINE. NO, I, WELL, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO GIVE A NUMBER, I'M TRYING TO THINK ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF USES AND IN TERMS OF, AND AGAIN, AN INCENTIVE FOR REDEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS I THINK PART OF WHAT A LOT OF US ARE TRYING TO THINK ABOUT. SO, UM, THANK YOU. I THINK I TALKED ABOUT DESIGN STANDARDS. UM, I'LL, I'VE GOT COMMENTS ON SUVS AND THAT I'LL SAVE THAT. LAST ITEM. THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT ALLEY ACCESS. UM, IN CONSIDERING ALLOWING ALLIE ACCESS, UM, FOR MANEUVERING, WAS THERE CONSIDERATION OF THE ADJACENCIES TO SINGLE FAMILY OR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS PRIMARILY? YEAH, THERE WAS CONSIDERATION OF IT IN TERMS OF HOW MANY CURB CUTS IT PRODUCES, UM, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE PARKING FOR THOSE NEW MULTIFAMILY OR NEW MIXED USE BUILDINGS THAT ARE ACROSS AN ALLEYWAY FROM SINGLE FAMILY. AND SO I THINK IN LINE WITH, UM, STAFF AND XX RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAKING IT EASIER TO, TO BUILD EASIER TO PROVIDE INFILL HOUSING, THAT KIND OF A THING, UM, THAT PROVISION OR STRIKING THE PROHIBITION ON USING THOSE ALLEYWAYS ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY FOR ENTRANCES WAS SOMETHING WE WENT TO FIRST. ACTUALLY, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HEAR FROM DEVELOPERS AND ARCHITECTS AS, UM, JUST PRODUCING MANY MORE CURB CUTS THAT INTERRUPT THE SIDEWALK AND THE PEDESTRIAN WAY. BUT IS THAT APPLICABLE TO ALL USES? AND I'LL GO BACK TO MY IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE IS A BAR WITH A DUMPSTER THAT'S IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING HOUSE. THE PARKING UTILIZES THE ALLEY. IT HAS TO, IT'S THE ONLY FUNCTIONAL WAY THAT THE PARKING WORKS. IT'S TWO BARS. UM, THERE'S A RETAIL SHOP AND THE ONLY THING THAT SEPARATES THOSE FOLKS FROM THAT ALLEY IS A WOOD FENCE. AND SO I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS, AND AND I FULLY SUPPORT THE IDEA OF TRYING TO UTILIZE 'EM, THEY'RE PART OF OUR STREET NETWORK, I GET THAT, BUT HOW DO WE THINK ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT BUFFERING, WE TALK ABOUT A LOT OF OTHER PROVISIONS THAT WE UTILIZE, SO IT'S NOT JUST STRAIGHT HEADLIGHTS AND FOLKS NAVIGATING COMING OUT OF THE BAR AT 2:00 AM YEAH. UH, I WAS JUST GONNA RESPOND TO ONE THING THAT YOU MENTIONED, WHICH IS THE GARBAGE DUMPSTERS, LIKE GARBAGE PICKUP OPERATION IS NOT PARKING. SO THEY, THEY HAVE, THERE ARE DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CODE THAT DO REGULATE WHERE YOU CAN PICK UP, UH, ALLEY, UH, PICK UP THE TRASH. AND I THINK, AND SARAH CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THAT DO SHARE AN ALLEY WITH THE RESIDENTIAL, THEY CANNOT DO TRASH PICKUP FROM THE ALLEY. UH, BUT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT YEAH, ALLOWING THE PATRONS OF A COMMERCIAL USE TO USE THE SAME ALLEY AS RESIDENTS, I WOULD SAY THAT WOULD BE ENCOURAGEABLE, BUT IT'S, [04:05:01] IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW. I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF WE TOUCHED ON WHAT'S IN OUR PROPOSAL, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT IT, IT IS HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO MAKE BETTER USE OF THOSE ALLEYS AT CITY COUNCIL LEVEL. THERE ARE OTHER DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THOSE ALLEYS, BUT I WOULD SAY IF WE HAVE IT THERE AND WE CAN MAKE BETTER USE OF THEM TO MAKE THE SIDEWALK SAFER, WE WOULD, WE, WE'VE CONVERTED THEM TO TRAILS. WE'VE DONE A LOT OF THINGS AND I CERTAINLY THINK WE'VE GOT AN OPPORTUNITY. LAST HIGH LEVEL ITEM, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT COMMISSIONER CARPENTER TO TOUCHED ON, UM, IN CONSIDERING COMMERCIAL, UM, AND INDUSTRIAL USES. UM, THE ONES THAT ARE CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE THE AUTO ORIENTED, UM, MACHINERY HEAVY TRUCK, UH, VEHICLE AND ENGINE REPAIR. UM, I'VE GOT ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE MANUFACTURING. A LOT OF THOSE HAVE, THEY FUNCTION AS RESTAURANTS TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. UM, THOSE WOULD BE SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT AND I'LL ASK STAFF IF YOU JUST WANT TO THINK ABOUT THAT. I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO GET INTO A PUBLIC HEARING. UM, I THINK HOTEL IS SOMETHING, UM, I KNOW THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT LOADING. DO WE TALK ABOUT LOADING? DO WE TALK ABOUT STORAGE OF VEHICLES? I THINK IT'S SECTION 4, 3 0 3 HAS THE LOADING PROVISIONS AS A PART OF WHAT'S BEFORE US AND A LOT OF IT SAYS PARKING AND OFF STREET LOADING. AND SO IF WE NEED TO HAVE LANGUAGE THAT ADDRESSES LOADING FOR SOME OF THESE USES, UM, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT NEEDS TO BE PART OF WHAT WE TALK ABOUT AS WE THINK ABOUT MOVING THIS FORWARD. UM, I'M PROBABLY MISSING ABOUT FIVE THINGS, BUT I THANK MY COMMISSIONERS FOR THEIR PATIENCE AS I TRY TO GET THROUGH THOSE IN A SOMEWHAT EXPEDITIOUS FASHION. THANK YOU MR. WADE. DR. ANDREA, MS. MAY. THANK YOU. UH, IS COMMISSIONER WHEELER ONLINE? YEP. OKAY. MR. KINGSTON, BACK TO YOU. YES. I'M, I'M GONNA GO OVER SOMETHING I KNOW THAT WE'VE GONE OVER BEFORE, BUT I'VE GOTTEN A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC AND I KNOW WE HAVE A COUPLE NEW COMMISSIONERS AND I WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYBODY REALLY UNDERSTANDS THIS 'CAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN CLEARLY EXPLAINED TODAY. IF WE ELIMINATE PARKING MINIMUMS FOR A CATEGORY, WE ARE GIVING THAT PROPERTY OWNER A VESTED, RIGHT? CORRECT. I MEAN, IF YOU MEAN DELTA CREDITS, IF WE WERE TO ADD PARKING REQUIREMENTS BACK IN YES. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE DONE. I'M GONNA TAKE, I'M GONNA TAKE THIS ONE AT A TIME. OKAY. WHEN WE ELIMINATE A PARK A, A REQUIREMENT THAT A PROPERTY OWNER HAS TO PROVIDE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PARKING FOR A USE, WE ARE GIVING THEM A VESTED RIGHT IN THEIR PROPERTY. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF A PROPERTY OWNER HAS A BUILDING THAT THEY USE AS A RESTAURANT AND WE SAY YOU NO LONGER HAVE TO PROVIDE PARKING FOR THAT RESTAURANT UNDER OUR CODE, THAT BECOMES A VESTED RIGHT WHEN THAT CHANGE IN THE CODE PASSES THE CITY COUNCIL, CORRECT? YES. UNLESS OUR ATTORNEY WANTS TO CORRECT ME ON THAT. OKAY. SO IF WE DECIDE THREE YEARS FROM NOW THAT WAS A BAD POLICY DECISION AND WE WANT TO GO BACK AND REQUIRE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PARKING FOR THAT USE, THEN THE ONLY WAY THAT WE COULD DO IT IS TO, IN ESSENCE SAY, YES, YOU RESTAURANT HAVE TO PROVIDE WHATEVER AMOUNT OF PARKING WE'RE NOW GONNA PROVIDE UNDER OUR NEW CODE. SAY WE GO BACK TO WHAT WE ALREADY HAD ONE PER 100 SQUARE FEET, BUT BECAUSE THEY HAVE A VESTED RIGHT, WE CAN'T ACTUALLY REQUIRE THEM TO PROVIDE THOSE PARKING SPACES, CAN WE? UH, SO I'M SORRY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND. I'M, I I WAS WANTING TO SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH IT. I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW WITH DELTA CREDITS. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS HOW DELTA CREDIT WORKS AND I, I DON'T KNOW THE FULL EXTENT AND THE, UH, THAT'S WHY I AM LOOKING AT THE ATTORNEYS. I AM MORE COMFORTABLE USING NONCONFORMING RATHER THAN A VESTED RIGHT. I DON'T THINK A VESTED RIGHT IS SOMETHING THAT IS WRITTEN IN A ZONING CODE. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING, AND I WANT THE ATTORNEYS TO REALLY CHIME IN IN HERE BECAUSE I DON'T [04:10:01] THINK THAT WE AS A ZONING CODE, LIKE WE DO VESTED RIGHTS, BUT WE DO RECOGNIZE NONCONFORMITIES. I DON'T CARE WHO ANSWERS THE QUESTION. YEAH, I THINK WHAT'S THROWING US UH, GO AHEAD LAURA. COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, I THINK I CAN HELP OUT. YEAH. FOR ZONING IT IS NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS. THAT'S WHAT THE STATE, UH, RECOGNIZES. SO IF A USE WAS REQUIRED, UM, TO PROVIDE ZERO PARKING AND THEN LATER ON THAT SAME USE IN OUR CODE HAS TO NOW REQUIRE PARKING, THAT USE THAT HAS BEEN EXISTING WITH NO PARKING REQUIREMENT WOULD BE NON-CONFORMING AS TO THEIR PARKING. THEY WOULD HAVE NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE NO PARKING BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE AT BEFORE THE CODE CHANGED. CAN I ASK A CLARIFICATION QUESTION? MM-HMM . THAT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. SO EVEN IF THE SAME PARKING THAT FORMALLY MET THE REQUIREMENTS STILL EXISTED, NOTHING ACTUALLY CHANGED ON THE PROPERTY AND THEN THERE WERE NO MORE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED AND THEN IT WAS REINSTATED, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE IT, IT WOULD ALL BE NON-CONFORMING. IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? RIGHT, BECAUSE ANY PARKING THAT THEY CONTINUED TO HAVE ON THEIR LOT WOULD NOW BE EXCESS PARKING BECAUSE THEIR PARKING IS, THEIR REQUIRED PARKING IS NOW ZERO. WELL, BUT WE WOULD, IN ORDER FOR THEM TO BECOME COMPLIANT, WE WOULD AWARD THEM DELTA CREDITS. THEY WOULD HAVE DELTA CREDITS ONCE THE CODE CHANGED AGAIN LATER TO THEN REQUIRE PARKING. CORRECT. YEAH. AND THOSE DELTA CREDITS ARE IMAGINARY PARKING SPOTS. YES. THAT'S A GOOD WAY OF LOOKING AT IT. SO WHEN, IF WE WERE TO CHANGE THE CODE IN THE FUTURE, IF WE WERE TO DECIDE THAT WE MADE A MISTAKE IN ELIMINATING PARKING MINIMUMS FOR SOME CATEGORY OF USE AND THAT WE WANTED TO REINSTATE PARKING, WE COULDN'T REQUIRE THEM TO ACTUALLY PROVIDE THE PARKING. ALL WE COULD DO WAS GIVE THEM DELTA CREDITS, WHICH ARE IMAGINARY PARKING SPACES FOR VERY REAL CARS. UM, I, I WOULD INTERJECT THAT THE, THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF EQUATING DELTA CREDITS TO IMAGINARY PARKING SPACES IS JUST A FALSE PREMISE. IT IS NOT IMAGINARY FLOATING PARKING SPACES SOMEWHERE IN THE ETHER. IT IS JUST A NUMBER TO ACCOUNT FOR HOW MUCH PARKING IS REQUIRED, HOW MUCH PARKING IS PROVIDED, AND THE DEFICIT BETWEEN THOSE TWO. IT'S NOT SOME IMAGINARY PARKING SPACE, IT'S JUST THE DEFICIT OF WHAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED TO THE CURRENT PARKING REQUIREMENT. BUT THE POINT IS, WE CAN'T REQUIRE THEM TO PROVIDE REAL PARKING SPACES TO GET UP TO THE NEW CODE. IF THEY REDEVELOPED THEIR PARKING LOT INTO SOME OTHER USE, WE CANNOT GO BACK AND SAY, YOU GOTTA TEAR DOWN THAT DEVELOPMENT. THAT IS TRUE. RIGHT. SO IF WE DECIDE IN THE FUTURE THAT WE ELIMINATED THAT, THAT WE MADE A MISTAKE IN ELIMINATING PARKING MINIMUMS AND WE WANT TO REQUIRE MINIMUMS IN THE FUTURE, ANYBODY WHO HAD THEIR MINIMUMS ELIMINATED, THEY'RE GOOD. UNLESS IN THE FUTURE, AT SOME POINT THEY REDEVELOP THE SITE AS SOME NEW USE. THEY COME IN FOR ALL NEW CO OR SOMETHING, BUT IF THEY CONTINUE TO OPERATE, THEY HAVE THOSE NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS AND WE CAN'T FORCE THEM TO PROVIDE MORE PARKING IN THE FUTURE. THAT'S THE ESSENCE OF IT. YOU'RE RIGHT. YES. LIKE ANY OTHER NON-CONFORMING FOR ANYTHING, I UNDERSTAND THAT. I JUST AM MAKING THE POINT SO PEOPLE UNDERSTAND PRACTICALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. YES. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. JUST WANTED TO ASK ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION. IS IT CORRECT THAT IT'S REALLY, AND PRIMARILY I THINK GREENVILLE AVENUE, BUT IT'S ONLY OUR OLDER PARTS OF THE CITY WHO ARE MOST FAMILIAR WITH HAVING TO NAVIGATE DELTA CREDITS AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY OR, AND WHATEVER ACTION MAY ULTIMATELY BE TAKING, COULD CREATE THIS AS A POTENTIAL CITYWIDE CONSIDERATION? AGAIN, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE OUTCOME OF THESE DELIBERATIONS, I, I WOULD HONESTLY LIKE TO REFLECT THAT TO LAURA. I MEAN, IS THIS AS DESCRIBED, WOULD THIS BECOME CITYWIDE EVERY PROPERTY? CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, WOULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? YES. SO THE QUESTION WAS, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT ALSO CREDITS, HOW THEY'VE BEEN HISTORICALLY IMPLEMENTED. AGAIN, WE HAD A CODE THAT HAD NO PARKING, WE ADDED PARKING. [04:15:01] THE BODY IS DELIBERATING REVISING OUR PARKING MINIMUMS IN SOME CASES TO ZERO. IF AT A LATER DATE WE DETERMINE WE NEEDED TO ADD A NUMBER BACK, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE, THERE'S A CHANGE IN USE THEREBY CREATING DELTA CREDITS. THE QUESTION WOULD BE, OR THE QUESTION I WAS ASKING THAT HAS BEEN IN OUR OLDER PARTS OF TOWN FOR CURRENT NAVIGATING OF THE DELTA CREDIT PROCESS, PRIMARILY I THINK GREENVILLE AVENUE AND BISHOP ARTS, AGAIN, EAST DALLAS, AGAIN, ALL OF OUR OLDER PARTS OF TOWN, THIS IS A CITYWIDE ORDINANCE. AND SO MY QUESTION TO STAFF WAS THIS WOULD POTENTIALLY BECOME CITYWIDE IF THERE WAS A FUTURE ANALYSIS THAT DETERMINED WE NEEDED TO PUT PARKING BACK. YES. SINCE THIS IS A, AN AMENDMENT TO THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT CODE, THESE ARE USES THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED CITYWIDE THE PARKING FOR THESE USES THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED CITYWIDE. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL. I WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE HAD CLEARLY YEAH. DEFINED. AND I THINK IT'S A GREAT QUESTION. I WANTED TO JUST, UM, ADD TO IT THAT THIS, YOU KNOW, THE CONCEPT OF NONCONFORMING RIGHTS DELTA CREDITS, REMEMBER IT'S A DEFICIT. SO IF OUR ASSUMPTION IS THAT IF WE ELIMINATE PARKING EVERY SINGLE PARKING SPACE IN THE CITY GOES AWAY, THEN THAT MIGHT BE A MAJOR CITYWIDE PROBLEM. BUT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY, WELL, AT LEAST NOT ON STAFF SIDE, EXPECTS PARKING TO JUST DISAPPEAR OVERNIGHT. LIKE THERE NEEDS TO BE A FINANCIAL REASON FOR A PROPERTY OWNER TO GET RID OF PARKING. AND SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT DELTA CREDITS OR ADDING PARKING BACK IN, WE WOULD STILL BE LOOKING AT A DEFICIT TO WHAT'S REQUIRED TO WHAT'S BEEN PROVIDED. AND THAT WOULD BE OUR DELTA CREDIT CALCULATION. AND UNDERSTOOD AND UNDERSTOOD. WE'VE GOT A VARIETY TOOLS ON HOW THAT MIGHT GET SOLVED. I THINK WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THERE'S A SHARED UNDERSTANDING. THANK YOU. OR FOR ME ANYWAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONERS SAID THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS AND THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET THE, UH, THE PARKLAND PIECE. LET'S GET THAT RIGHT INTO THE RECORD. POINT OF CLARIFICATION, WE'RE NOT GOING INTO THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PARKING AMENDMENT RIGHT AFTER THIS ONE. YES. YEAH. WE'RE GONNA DISPOSE OF PARKLAND AND THEN WE'LL GO RIGHT BACK TO PARKING. YOU JUST NEED US TO READ IT IN, RIGHT? PARDON ME? YOU NEED US TO READ IN THE YES ITEM? YES. . I GET TO THE RIGHT ONE. [3. Consideration of amending Chapters 51 and 51A of the Dallas City Code regarding park land dedication, including Divisions 51-4.900, “Park Land Dedication,” Section 51A-1.105, “Fees”, and Division 51A-4.1000, “Park Land Dedication,” and related sections to update development standards and bring park land dedication requirements into conformity with the requirements of Texas House Bill 1526, 88th Legislature. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee Recommendation: Approval. Planner: La’Kisha Girder Council District: All DCA234-002(LG)] YOU PARK PARKLAND FIRST. OKAY. UM, ITEM NUMBER THREE IS DCA 2 3 4 0 0 2. CONSIDERATION OF EMITTING CHAPTERS 51 AND 51 A OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT, UH, DALLAS CITY CODE REGARDING PARKLAND DEDICATION, INCLUDING DIVISIONS 51 4 POINT 900 PARKLAND DEDICATION, SECTION 51 A 1.105, FEES AND DIVISION 51, A 4,100 PARKLAND DEDICATION AND RELATED SECTIONS TO UPDATE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND BRING PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS INTO CONFORMITY WITH A REQUIREMENT OF TEXAS HOUSE BILL 15 26 88 LEGISLATURE, UH, ZONING ORDINANCE, UH, ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? MS. MS. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. JAMIE JOLLY PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL. UM, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TODAY TO ADDRESS YOU ON PARKLAND DEDICATION. TREK HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THE CONVERSATION WITH CITY STAFF ON THE REVISIONS TO THE PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE SINCE THE BILL PASSED IN THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION IN 2023, WE'RE VERY GRATEFUL TO STAFF IN THE PARK DEPARTMENT AND THE LEADERSHIP OF ZAC FOR MAKING THOUGHTFUL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU TODAY. FOR EXAMPLE, WE APPRECIATE THE FLAT FEE STRUCTURE CONSOLIDATING THE TWO PRIOR [04:20:01] FEES. WE SUPPORT MOVING FROM SEVEN TO FIVE NEXUS ZONES TO IMPROVE GREATER LIKELIHOOD THAT THE COLLECTED FEES CAN BE DEPLOYED WITHIN 10 YEARS. AND LASTLY, WE APPRECIATE THAT ALL AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE FEE CALCULATION. TREK DOES HAVE SOME OUTSTANDING CONCERNS ABOUT TWO ITEMS. UM, WE'RE SENSITIVE ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE RISE IN PERMIT RELATED FEES IN THE LAST TWO YEARS ALONE, WHICH CAN TAKE A TOLL ON DEVELOPMENT COSTS AND THE FEASIBILITY OF CERTAIN PROJECTS IN OUR CITY. BECAUSE THE PARKLAND FEE STRUCTURE IS SET TO RISE ANNUALLY WITH CPI, THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME VALUES, AND WITH THE AREA MEDIAN MEDIAN INCOME VALUES, WE'D LIKE TO SEE THE FEE INITIALLY SET TO A MODEST INCREASE OVER THE PRIOR RATE, AND THEN ALLOW FOR IT TO GROW WITH THE ECONOMY OVER TIME. TREK REMAINS CONCERNED ABOUT THE PARK DIRECTOR'S ABILITY TO REQUIRE ONSITE LAND DEDICATION. WE KNOW THIS IS ALLOWED IN THE STATE STATUTE AND THAT THE STATE LAW ALSO REQUIRES THE CITY PURCHASE ANY LAND AT FAIR MARKET VALUE. HOWEVER, IT CREATES A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS THAT WILL BE DIFFICULT FOR BOTH PARTIES. OUR PREFERENCE IS TO RETAIN THE DEVELOPER OPTION TO PAY A FEE IN LIEU OR TO DEDICATE PARKLAND AT THE PROJECT SITE FROM THE PREVIOUS LOCAL ORDINANCE. SO AGAIN, LETTING THEM HAVE THAT DECISION BASED ON THE DEVELOPMENT, THE SIZE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING TREK COMMENT TODAY AND FOR BEING PART OF THE PROCESS. WE UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL GREEN SPACE, UM, INVESTMENT. UH, TREK WAS THE INITIAL INVESTOR IN CLYDE WARREN PARK, SO WE VALUE GREEN SPACE GREATLY. AND AGAIN, WE APPRECIATE, UH, THE TIME TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKER? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I SEE NONE. COMMISSIONER HOUSER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I, UH, YES. AND, UM, I MIGHT HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS AFTERWARDS. BUT, UH, IN THE MATTER OF, UM, DCA 2 34 DASH 0 0 2, I MOVE THAT WE, UH, FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND ZAC RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH, UH, ONE, UH, CHANGE. AND THAT IS TO IN, UM, SECTION 4.1006, ITEM B, THAT WE MAINTAIN CURRENT TEXT REFERENCING 10% ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT COST, RATHER THAN THE, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF 20. UH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR YOUR MOTION, AND VICE CHAIR RUBIN FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER HOUSER. UM, I WANNA THANK STAFF, UH, AND ZAK FOR DOING, I THINK GOOD WORK ON THIS. UH, UH, THE, THE SIMPLICITY APPEALS TO ME, UH, AT A TIME WHEN WE'RE, WE'RE HEADED INTO, UM, UH, A REWORK OF ALL OF OUR DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES. UM, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK SIMPLICITY SHOULD BE SORT OF OUR, OUR, UH, OUR, OUR TOUCHSTONE, OUR, OUR OUR WATCH WORD. AND, UH, THAT'S WHAT THIS DOES. UH, THE, UH, UH, I APPLAUD STAFF'S, UH, USE OF THESE, UH, UH, FLAT FEES RATHER THAN THE DENSITY AND, UH, AND UNIT, UH, FACTORS THAT IS A, A MORE COMPLICATED, HARDER TO UNDERSTAND, UM, SORT OF A IDEA. THE, UM, IDEA OF A, OF A PARKLAND DEDICATION OR, OR A PARKLAND, UH, REQUIREMENT, UH, IS, IS ONE THAT, UM, DOES GIVE YOU PAUSE TO THINK ABOUT FOR A MOMENT. BUT, UH, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS IT'S, I DON'T THINK IT'S EVER BEEN, UH, UTILIZED AND IT'S ALWAYS, WE'RE ALWAYS, PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS, UH, PAYING IN, UH, PAYING THESE FEES. SO I, I THINK WE'VE, WE'VE GOT A, A GOOD ORDINANCE HERE AND, UM, I HOPE THAT, UH, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU. THAT'S TRUE. BUT YEAH, AM HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE MOTION, UM, MADE BY COMMISSIONER KARE. I JUST DID WANT TO ADDRESS ONE THING, WHICH ALSO CAME UP AT ZAC, WHICH IS WHAT SHOULD THE, PHOEBE AND I, I HAD VERY SIMILAR COMMENTS AT ZAC. YOU KNOW, WE ARE NOT A BODY THAT'S REGULARLY IN THE BUSINESS OF FIGURING OUT WHAT APPROPRIATE FEES OR, OR TAXES ARE FOR THE CITY TO CHARGE. AND I THINK IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION THAT, THAT I THINK PRIMARILY COUNCIL IS PROBABLY THE BEST, BEST BODY TO, UM, EVALUATE AND, AND SET THAT. SO, UM, I'M NOT INCLINED TO TINKER WITH THE, THE FEE HERE TODAY, BUT THINK IT'S SUPER [04:25:01] IMPORTANT FOR WHEN WE PASS THIS ALONG TO COUNSEL, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. COULD I GET A CLARIFICATION AS TO WHETHER THAT, UH, MOTION SHOULD BE AS BRIEFED? 'CAUSE I BELIEVE MS. GIER SAID THAT THERE WOULD BE ONE CHANGE IN THAT, UM, FROM WHAT WAS IN OUR, UM, OUR MATERIAL, THAT THEY'D BE WILLING TO, UM, ACCEPT A PARK AS SMALL AS HALF AN ACRE RATHER THAN AN ACRE. SO THAT, THAT'S NOT WRITTEN. AND THAT WAS JUST A RECOMMENDATION. MS. GIRDER, THE CURRENT DRAFT HAS STILL HAS ONE ACRE, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, YES. THE CURRENT ORDINANCE STILL HAS IT AS ONE ACRE. AND ZAC C'S RECOMMENDATION WAS HALF AN ACRE. WE WERE JUST SAYING AS STAFF, WE AGREE WITH ZAC C'S RECOMMENDATION, AND WE DO NOT OBJECT TO THE HALF AN ACRE AS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. OKAY. YEAH, I'M FINE WITH THAT. I APOLOGIZE. I I THOUGHT WE HAD ALREADY CROSSED THAT BRIDGE. THANKS, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. YEAH, I HAVE TWO THINGS. UM, ONE, AND I THINK, UH, I, I'D LIKE TO OFFER THIS AS AN AMENDMENT, IF YOU'LL TAKE IT. UH, I THINK THIS PROBABLY BELONGS IN SECTION 4.1004 AS AN ADDITIONAL SECTION, UM, REQUIRING THE DIRECTOR TO GRANT A 50% CREDIT FOR THE TOTAL DEDICATION REQUIRED UNDER THIS DIVISION. IF THE PROPERTY OWNER ALLOWS FOR THE PUBLIC TO ACCESS THE DEVELOPMENT FROM A CITY TRAIL VIA AN ACCESSIBLE TRAIL HEAD TO, TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS CREDIT, A, THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE TRAILHEAD MUST BE DOCUMENTED ON A PUBLIC INSTRUMENT APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC AT ALL TIMES. SO THE TRAILHEAD IS ACCESSIBLE TO THE DEVELOPMENTS RESIDENCE, AND B, THE DEVELOPMENT MUST INCLUDE TRAIL SERVING AMENITIES SUCH AS OPEN SPACE, ARCH SPACE, EVENT SPACE, EXERCISE EQUIPMENT, RESTROOMS, GARDENS, AND PET AMENITIES. UM, THAT IS, UH, ONE OF MY AMENDMENTS IS OFFERS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, COULD YOU MAYBE TALK US THROUGH WHAT IT MEANS? UH, WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE GOAL? YEAH, MY SPECIFIC QUESTION IS CREDIT. HOW, 'CAUSE I MEAN, ALL WE'RE, ALL THIS ORDINANCE SEEMS TO BE DOING RIGHT NOW IS, IS ASKING FOR OR REQUIRING FEES IN LIE. SO WE'RE NOT, THEY, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT WE, WE DON'T HAVE THE CREDITS AND DEDUCTIONS THAT, THAT WERE IN THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE. WELL, THE, IT'S A DEDICATION ORDINANCE, SO THEY CAN EITHER DEDICATE LAND OR THEY CAN DEDICATE FEE IN LIEU. YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT THAT TRAILHEAD DEDICATION WOULD THE SUBSTITUTE FOR FEES IN LIEU YEAH. OR DEDICATION OF THE LAND. OKAY. YEAH, IT'S JUST A THIRD OPTION TO MEET THE PARKLAND IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT AT THIS POINT. UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSE SIDE, IT'S A, IT'S A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT YOU CAN ACCEPT OR NOT. UM, I'D RATHER NOT MAKE THAT DECISION ON MY OWN. I THINK I'D LIKE TO HEAR THAT. OKAY. THE, THE COMMISSIONER THEN, THEN IF, THEN IT WAS A MOTION COMMISSIONER HAD SECOND IT. UH, SO THEN THAT'S THE DISCUSSION THEN. COULD YOU READ IT ONE MORE TIME? SURE. PLEASE. COMMISSIONER, PLEASE. UM, IT, IT WOULD REQUIRE THE DIRECTOR TO GRANT A 50% CREDIT FOR THE TOTAL DEDICATION REQUIRED UNDER THIS DIVISION. IF THE PROPERTY OWNER ALLOWS THE PUBLIC TO ACCESS THE DEVELOPMENT FROM A CITY TRAIL VIA AN ACCESSIBLE TRAILHEAD TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS CREDIT. A, THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE TRAILHEAD MUST BE DOCUMENTED ON A PUBLIC INSTRUMENT APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC AT ALL TIMES THAT THE TRAILHEAD DEVELOPMENT IS ACCESSIBLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT'S RESIDENTS. AND B, THE DEVELOPMENT MUST INCLUDE TRAIL SERVING AMENITIES SUCH AS OPEN SPACE, ART SPACE, EVENT SPACE, EXERCISE, EQUIPMENT, RESTROOMS, GARDENS, AND PET AMENITIES. THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? THANK YOU. I SECONDED THE MOTION BECAUSE I'VE SEEN HOW THE KATY TRAIL HAS DEVELOPED, AND I THINK IT'S A, A SUCCESS STORY FOR A CITY. I THINK AT THIS POINT, MANY OF THE THINGS THAT COMMISSIONER, UM, KINGSTON IS, IS INCLUDING IN HER MOTION OR THINGS THAT DEVELOPERS WOULD LIKELY, UM, UH, CONSIDER. I THINK FOR ME, UM, THE SANTA FE TRAIL IS A SIGNIFICANT ASSET WITHIN MY DISTRICT. IT IS NOT AT THAT SAME LEVEL AS THE KATY TRAIL. WE ARE STARTING TO SEE NEW DEVELOPMENT COME, BUT MOST OF WHAT WE SEE AS ACCESS IS A GATE. IT'S USUALLY THROUGH A PARKING LOT. AND I THINK THE OPPORTUNITY, AS WE SEE NEW DEVELOPMENT COME TO THINK ABOUT EXPANDING OUR TRAIL SYSTEM AS A PART OF OUR PARK FACILITIES, IS SIMPLY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANOTHER MECHANISM. AGAIN, THERE'S NOW THREE OPTIONS INSTEAD OF TWO. AND THAT'S WHERE I SEE THE OPPORTUNITY THROUGHOUT OUR CITY AS OUR TRAILS CONTINUE TO DEVELOP, AND WE SEE NEW DEVELOPMENT COMING IN TO HELP [04:30:01] LEVERAGE THAT, TO HELP STRENGTHEN OUR PARK SYSTEM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. YEAH, I CAN, I COULD SORT OF SEE THIS BOTH WAYS. I MEAN, OUR REAL ESTATE COMMUNITY IN THIS, IN, IN THIS CITY, I THINK UNDERSTANDS THE VALUES OF THESE TRAILS. AND THEY'RE DOING, I THINK, A PRETTY GOOD JOB CONNECTING TO THEM. AND SO THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES, OKAY, WELL THANK YOU, MR. DEVELOPER. WE'RE GONNA CREDIT YOU HALF OF THE PARKLAND FEES BECAUSE YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING YOU WERE GOING TO DO ALREADY, AND MAYBE THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO. BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHAT THE HURDLE I'M TRYING TO GET OVER HERE. I MEAN, CLEARLY I WANNA SUPPORT THE TRAILS. THE TRAILS ARE, AND I THINK THE TRAILS ARE EVERY BIT AS IMPORTANT AS A ONE ACRE PARK, MAYBE MORE. BUT, UM, I DON'T, I DON'T, I GUESS ANOTHER WAY TO SAY ALL THIS, I DON'T SEE, UH, A PROBLEM WITH HOW OUR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IS RELATING TO OUR TRAILS. I DON'T, I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED THERE. WELL, OH, COME BACK. YEAH. COMMISSIONER CHERLOCK FOLLOWED BY VICE RUBIN. I WON'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. UM, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON'S, UH, AMENDMENT GETS MAIL A LITTLE BIT CLOSER, BUT THE THING THAT I'M HUNG UP WITH IS THE FEE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A HOUSING CRISIS, AND AS A PLANT COMMISSIONER, I TAKE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR CREATING POLICY THAT PUTS, PUTS US IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO SOLVING THAT. AND WE HEARD FROM THIS MORNING, PARDON ME, COMM COMMISSIONER SHERLOCK, HOLD THAT THOUGHT. WE'RE, WE'RE ONLY DISCUSSING THIS PARTICULAR, UH, AMENDMENT, BUT YOU CAN ACTUALLY BRING UP THE FEE HERE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT HERE AFTER WE DISPOSE OF THIS ITEM. JUST THE, THE AMENDMENT, UH, UH, FOR COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, THANK YOU, ACTUALLY, THE, THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION VICE CHAIR. RUBIN, DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS ON THAT, COMMISSIONER TURN? I DON'T. OKAY. VICE CHAIR RUBIN. YEAH, I DEFINITELY LIKE THE, THE, THE SPIRIT OF THIS AMENDMENT, UM, ECHOING, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, I THINK THE SANTA FE TRAIL LOOKS MARKEDLY DIFFERENT THAN THE, THE KATY TRAIL. UM, MAYBE A, A NUDGE THROUGH A, A CREDIT ON THE SANTA FE WOULD GO A LONG WAY INTO IMPROVING TRAIL ACCESS AND AMENITIES. THERE. I JUST, WHAT I WONDER ABOUT IS, IS THE 50%, THERE MAY BE SOME INSTANCES WHERE SOMEONE IS DEVELOPING ALONG A TRAIL WHERE THEY WERE PROVIDING SUCH GREAT TRAIL AMENITIES THAT THEY MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, A A HUNDRED PERCENT, YOU KNOW, CREDIT MIGHT BE WORTHWHILE. AND THERE MIGHT BE CASES WHERE THEY'RE DOING KIND OF A MEDIOCRE JOB OF TRAIL ACCESS, MAYBE 10% OR 25%. SO DO WE WANNA BAKE IN SOME ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION THERE TO ALLOW THE, YOU KNOW, DIRECTOR TO AGREE TO CREDITS FOR PROVIDING TRAIL ACCESS, YOU KNOW, AND AMENITIES AS OPPOSED TO JUST SIMPLY HAVING A ONE SIZE FITS ALL SOLUTION? YES, MR. KINGSTON, I STRUGGLED WITH THAT. I MEAN, I, I ULTIMATELY KINDA LANDED ON 50% AND I THOUGHT, WELL, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S NOT WORKING, WE CAN AMEND IT. I, I'M OPEN TO SUGGESTED LANGUAGE. I HAVE NEGOTIATED SOME OF THESE AMENITIES ON THE KATY TRAIL. AND WHY I THINK THIS WORKS IS BECAUSE WITHOUT NEGOTIATING THE ACCESS AS PART OF A GREATER PLANNING A, A GREATER ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGE, DEVELOPERS MIGHT NOT BE SO WILLING TO DO EVERYTHING THEY'RE DOING OR GRANT THE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THEIR PACKAGE. AND SO I THINK OFFERING THIS AS A WAY TO MEET THE PARKLAND DEDICATION COMPONENT OF THEIR REQUIREMENTS, GIVES THEM AN INCENTIVE TO PROVIDE THEIR RESIDENTS SOMETHING THAT THEY WANT TO DO ANYWAY, WHILE ALSO PROVIDING THE GREATER COMMUNITY AND AMENITY THAT WE ARE GONNA BE SLOW TO BE ABLE TO DO, IF EVER. AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SEEING MORE OF THAT ON THE KATY TRAIL, BECAUSE THEY'RE DOING IT AS PART OF ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGES. AND THIS IS SORT OF THE SAME THING. MAYBE IT DOESN'T WORK, WE'LL NOT KNOW UNLESS WE GIVE PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF IT. BUT IF SOMEBODY HAS SOME, UH, LANGUAGE THEY WANNA PROPOSE, I JUST, IN MY EXPERIENCE, WHEN YOU GIVE STAFF THE OPPORTUNITY TO EITHER TAKE THE MONEY OR ALLOW FOR A CREDIT, I THINK A LOT OF TIMES THEY ERR ON THE SIDE OF TAKING THE MONEY BECAUSE THEN THEY GET TO CONTROL HOW IT'S SPENT. BUT IF YOU SAY, HERE'S A WAY TO GET IT, AND HERE'S THE PERCENTAGE YOU GET, THEN YOU'RE MORE LIKELY TO GET [04:35:01] THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT, THE HARD INVESTMENT, MR. RUBIN. AND I GUESS MY FEAR IS ON THE FLIP SIDE, THAT IT MIGHT BE THAT SOMEONE PUTS IN A BENCH AND A TRASH CAN THAT GOES TO THE CITY FOR THE, UH, 50% CREDIT. AND BASED ON, ON THIS LANGUAGE RIGHT NOW, IS THEY GET THAT 50% CREDIT FOR REALLY NOT DOING ANYTHING MEANINGFUL AT ALL. SO I THINK I ERR ON THE SIDE OF GIVING ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION, AND I MAY NEED JUST A MINUTE TO COME UP WITH SOME LANGUAGE. UM, SO PERHAPS WE COULD TABLE THIS AMENDMENT AND, AND WORK ON SOME LANGUAGE. AND THEN, BECAUSE I KNOW SOME OF OUR COLLEAGUES HAVE OTHER AMENDMENTS, LET'S DO THAT. WE DO HAVE A SECOND AMENDMENT. UM, DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER ONE? DO YOU HAVE A SECOND AMENDMENT TURN? UH, COMMISSIONER TURNOCK, YOU HAVE ANOTHER AMENDMENT, SIR? YES. SO I, SO BEFORE I MAKE MY COMMENTS ON, ON THE AMENDMENT, I, I DON'T HAVE AN AMENDMENT WRITTEN OUT, AND SO I WANTED TO SUGGEST A 50% REDUCTION IN FEES AND PERCENTAGES AS THEY WERE PRESENTED IN THE CASE FILE. UM, AND I COULD SPEAK TO WHY I BELIEVE THAT'S JUSTIFIED, BUT IF THE CITY ATTORNEY COULD HELP ME PUT THAT TOGETHER, THAT CONCEPT INTO AN AMENDMENT, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE ESSENCE OF WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE. AND IF I COULD GET SUPPORT FOR THAT, I, I THINK I COULD GET ON BOARD. UM, AND AS I MENTIONED, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON'S, UM, COMMENTS, YOU DO HAVE A SECOND, SO, OKAY. PLEASE, SIR. SO, YEAH, SO JUST, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, SO THAT WAS JUST TO CUT ALL THE FEES IN HALF EVERYTHING IN HALF FEES, AND THEN THE PERCENTAGES AS THEY WERE PRESENTED. OKAY. MAX IS 2% BY STATE, AND I THINK WE HAD A 2%, 1%, 2%, 1% ON THE, SO WE COULD REDUCE THOSE BY 50%. AND SO MY THINKING ON THIS, YEAH, I, I SUPPORT PARS PARKS. I WANT THEM TO THRIVE, BUT THIS BODY IS CHARGED WITH SOLVING PROBLEMS AND TOP OF LIST IS AN AFFORDABILITY ISSUE. AND I FEEL LIKE THE TAIL IS WAGGING THE DOG A LITTLE BIT HERE AS SOMETIMES HAPPENS WHERE WE'RE LOSING SIGHT OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEMS. AND THERE'S JUST SO MANY, THERE'S SO LITTLE OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY MOVE THE NEEDLE ON AFFORDABILITY FOR THIS BODY. AFFORDABILITY STANDS ON THREE BIG PILLARS. THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION, THE COST OF FINANCING AND POLICY, MAINLY ZONING. TWO OF THOSE ARE MACRO TRENDS. WE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH AND CAN INFLUENCE, BUT WE CAN INFLUENCE POLICY. AND TODAY WHAT'S BEING ASKED OF US IS A 42% INCREASE ON AN IMPACT FEE THAT'S GOING TO INCREASE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION THAT GETS PASSED THROUGH TO THE, TO A, A, A RENTER AND POTENTIALLY BUYER, BUT MOST LIKELY A RENTER. 'CAUSE THAT'S, MOST OF OUR MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS IN THE CITY ARE, ARE LEASING. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR US TO BE MOVING THE NEEDLE IN THAT DIRECTION. YOU KNOW, OFTEN THE TALKING POINT AGAINST THAT IS, OH, IT'S JUST NOT THAT MUCH MONEY. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS, IT MOVES THE NEEDLE IN THE WRONG DIRECTION ON THE BACKS OF RENTERS WHO ARE ALREADY SQUEEZED TO THE LIMITS. AND WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW. AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU READ THIS CASE FILE, YOU'RE LIKE, THIS IS A GOOD THING, WE SHOULD SUPPORT IT. BUT WHEN YOU REALLY KIND OF GET INTO IT AND YOU DECONSTRUCT IT, IT'S NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO, ESPECIALLY FOR THIS BODY. SO I I, I, I CAN'T, I CAN'T SUPPORT IT WITHOUT AT LEAST WHAT I BELIEVE IS A MORE APPROPRIATE FEE STRUCTURE. AND YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT IN A PARKS FUNDING CRISIS. WE ARE IN A HOUSING CRISIS. THE REASON THAT MY FIRST QUESTION THIS MORNING WAS WHEN, CAN WE LOOK AT THIS AGAIN, IS BECAUSE I WANTED TO KNOW THAT WE COULD LOOK AT THIS AGAIN AND, AND THE ANSWER TO THAT WAS FIVE YEARS. AND IF WE WERE IN A DIFFERENT HOUSING CLIMATE, I WOULD FEEL DIFFERENTLY ABOUT THIS. BUT THE FACT THAT WE ARE IN A CRISIS, NOT A HOUSING CHALLENGE, A CRISIS, JUST DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR US TO BE DOING A 42% INCREASE ON AN IMPACT FEE. COMMISSIONER KINGSTON? YEAH, I SECONDED THE MOTION. AND IN, WHILE I UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER RUBIN'S POINT, THAT WE ARE NOT TYPICALLY A BODY THAT SETS FEES. CITY COUNCIL CAN OVERRIDE US. AND I GET THAT, AND MY FEELINGS WON'T BE HEARD IF THEY DO, BUT I [04:40:01] ECHO EVERYTHING THAT COMMISSIONER SCHOCK SAID, AND I ALSO LOOK AT IT NOT JUST FROM A DALLAS PERSPECTIVE, BUT FROM THE WORLD WE'RE LIVING IN. I MEAN, THE US HOUSE JUST PASSED THEIR BUDGET, THAT GUTS MEDICARE. SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE PEOPLE IN THIS CITY THAT AREN'T GOING TO, THEY'RE GONNA BE MAKING SOME HARD CHOICES, AND I THINK IT'S A REAL BAD LOOK FOR THE CITY TO BE PASSING IMPACT FEES FOR PARKS ON THE HEELS OF A BOND PACKAGE THAT JUST GAVE THE PARKS $350 MILLION WHEN WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE GONNA BE MAKING REALLY DIFFICULT CHOICES, WHO ARE ALREADY MAKING REALLY DIFFICULT CHOICES. AND WE TALK A LOT ABOUT HOW TO CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND I PROBABLY SPEND AS MUCH TIME AS ANYBODY TALKING TO DEVELOPERS ABOUT HOW THEY'RE GONNA HELP US PAY FOR THIS, THAT, AND THE OTHER ON PROJECTS IN ORDER TO GET COMMUNITY BENEFIT TOWARDS THAT GOAL. AND, YOU KNOW, THESE IMPACT FEES PILED ON ONE ANOTHER, START TO MAKE PROJECTS DIFFICULT TO GET ACROSS THE FINISH LINE. AND, YOU KNOW, OUR INTEREST RATES AREN'T GOING DOWN AND THE COST OF LAND ISN'T GOING DOWN. AND ALL OF THE THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, IMPACT GETTING A PROJECT DONE AND GETTING HOUSING BUILT AND GETTING IT BUILT TIMELY, IT MATTERS AND A 42% INCREASE IN THIS IMPACT FEE ON TOP OF EVERYTHING ELSE THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE PROJECTS ARE STARTING TO HAVE TO CONSIDER. I JUST THINK WE HAVE TO BE MORE THOUGHTFUL, PARTICULARLY TODAY IN THE ENVIRONMENT, LOCALLY, NATIONALLY, GLOBALLY THAT WE'RE IN. AND SO I, I THINK THAT, THAT BEING MORE JUDICIOUS WITH THE IMPACT FEES IS THE RIGHT CALL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, ARE WE TABLING FOR NOW THE DISCUSSION OF COMMISSIONER KINGSTON'S AMENDMENT AND, AND WE'RE GONNA PICK THAT UP LATER? I HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT, BUT YES. IN JUST LIKE 30 SECONDS. WOULD YOU HAVE LANGUAGE NOW? OKAY, THANKS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE IMPACT FEE? OKAY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED TO? AND OPPOSITION MOTION PASSES THREE IN OPPOSITION, MOTION PASSES. WE'LL GO BACK TO, UH, THE ORIGINAL, UH, THE FIRST AMENDMENT. UH, VICE RUBEN, YOU HAVE LANGUAGE, SIR. UM, AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, I DON'T THINK I'M GONNA BE ABLE TO PREPARE THIS IN A WAY THAT'S SATISFACTORY TO ME, SO I AM NOT GOING TO TWEAK THE LANGUAGE. OKAY. THEN, UH, WE HAVE A MOTION ABOUT COMMISSIONER KINGSTON SECOND ABOUT COMMISSIONER, UH, HAMPTON. I'M SORRY. OH, PARDON ME? YES. COMMISSIONER SLEEPER COMMENTS ON, ON THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON'S AMENDMENT. SO WE'RE NOW DISCUSSING THE AMENDMENT, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. UM, I, I WOULD, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT, UH, I'M GONNA INVITE COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT TO, UH, STROLL DOWN THE TRAIL WITH ME. I DO THAT ON A REGULAR BASIS, BUT, UH, I HAVE A DIFFERENT IMPRESSION THAT HE DOES. I THINK MORE, THERE ARE MORE PROJECTS ADJACENT TO THE TRAIL THAT DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB OF ADDRESSING THE TRAIL. IN FACT, IN SOME CASES THEY JUST TURNED THEIR BACK ON THE, ON THE TRAIL AND DID AND ACTED LIKE IT WASN'T THERE. AND, UM, I THINK THAT COMMISSIONER KINGSTON'S MOTION IS TRYING TO GET TO THE SPIRIT WHERE IF YOU'RE GONNA BE ASSESSED AN IMPACT FEE, THAT YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THAT TO ADDRESS YOUR IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THAT, AND THAT NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS IT, AND THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS DENSE AS IT'S BECOMING. IT NEEDS MORE AND MORE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, PUBLIC ACCESS TO INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE THE KATY TRAIL. SO I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO, UM, UH, ALLOW THAT FLEXIBILITY THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON IS, IS SUGGESTING. SO, UM, I HOPE OTHERS MIGHT FEEL THE SAME WAY. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE FILED BY A SECOND ROOM. WOULD THERE BE ANY CONSIDERATION TO EXPANDING IT, SO NOT JUST TRAIL AMENITIES, BUT MAYBE FOR THOSE DEVELOPMENTS NOT ALONG TRAILS TO DO PARK AMENITIES? OR IS THAT DILUTING IT TOO FAR FROM YOUR, FROM THE PURPOSE, OR IS THAT THE SAME? OKAY. [04:45:07] COULD YOU RESTATE COMMISSIONER MIKE GALL THE QUESTION JUST BEING, RATHER THAN JUST TRAIL AMENITIES, JUST DEVELOPMENTS, LONG TRAILS DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHERE AND LOOKING AT PARK AMENITIES SO THEY COULD GET THE 50% CREDIT IF THEY HAVE A PARK ADJACENT, THEY DID SOME AMENITIES FOR A PARK AS WELL. YEAH, IF THEY'RE PARK ADJACENT, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. I MEAN, I, I DON'T, IF I, IF I MAY, THE FEES IN LIEBE JUST THE FEES RIGHT NOW, THE, THE BASE FEES CAN BE USED FOR PARK AMENITIES. YEAH. SO I DON'T SEE GIVING THEM A 50% REDUCTION FOR SOMETHING THAT THE FULL AMOUNT COULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE SAME, FOR THE SAME TYPE OF THING. IT'S 'CAUSE IT'S NOT JUST ACQUISITIONS OF LAND, IT'S ALSO MAKING IMPROVEMENTS AT EXISTING PARKS AND PROVIDING AMENITIES. THANKS. CHAIR . YEAH, I'M GOING TO DEFINITELY SUPPORT THE MOTION. I LIKE THE DIRECTION IN WHICH THIS IS HEADING. UM, BASICALLY MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE JUST CAN'T GIVE, YOU KNOW, DISCRETION TO THE, THE DIRECTOR TO FIGURE THIS ONE OUT. WE DO NEED TO PUT SOME SORT OF GUIDE RAILS ON ON THIS. IF WE WERE TO GIVE, UM, YOU KNOW, DISCRETION TO FIGURE OUT WHAT AMENITIES TRANSLATE INTO WHAT, YOU KNOW, CREDIT TOWARDS THE FEES. UM, I DON'T THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN COME UP WITH HERE ON THE, THE FLY TODAY, BUT AS THIS WORKS ITS WAY OUTTA COUNCIL, SINCE THIS IS NOW GOING TO BE TAXED INTO THE ORDINANCE, I WOULD HOPE THAT THAT STAFF, THE DIRECTOR AND AND COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THIS ROLL UP THEIR SLEEVES AND TRY TO FIND A WAY THAT MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE SENSITIVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE GETTING BANGED FOR OUR BUCK HERE AND WE'RE NOT JUST ENDING UP WITH A, A TRASH CAN IN A BENCH RESULTING IN A 50% REDUCTION, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS THE SPIRIT OF THIS AMENDMENT IN ANY WAY, BUT WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE AVOIDING UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES HERE, HERE. COMMISSIONER TURNER, I'LL BE, UH, SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENT AND JUST ECHO THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN SAID. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER, CNN? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? WARNING AND OPPOSITION? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, UH, ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS? THEN WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT AND SECOND OF ADVICE BAN. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THAT? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? NOTING AS AMENDED AS, AS AMENDED BY THE TWO, UH, AMENDMENTS? ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? SEE NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ER, UH, COMMISSIONERS, I'VE BEEN ASKED FOR A QUICK BREAK. LET'S JUST TAKE A QUICK FIVE MINUTE BREAK, GO GET SOME COFFEE AND COME RIGHT BACK. UH, TO BEGIN THE, UH, THE PUBLIC SESSION FOR, UH, PARKING. JORGE, WE'RE RECORDING SIR. ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS. IT IS 3:07 PM WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD. UH, LET'S GET IT RIGHT IN. PLEASE [2. 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 Wade U/A From: December 5, 2024, January 16, 2025. Council District: All DCA190-002(MTW) 25-6] TO READ IN THE ITEM FOR TODAY. THIS IS, UH, DCA 1 9 0 0 0 2 OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING CHAPTERS 51 AND 51 A OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE REGARDING OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING SECTIONS 51 A, 1.102, AND 51 A 1.101 APPLICABILITY AND PURPOSE SECTION 51 A 2.102 AND 51 2 0.102 DEFINITIONS. DIVISION 51 A 4.110. RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS DIVISION 51 A 4.120 NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS DIVISION 51 A FOUR POINT 251 DASH 4.2 HUNDRED, USE REGULATIONS DIVISION 51 A 4.3 HUNDRED OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS. DIVISION 51, A 4.3 20, SPECIAL PARKING REGULATIONS DIVISION 51 A 4.330. BICYCLE PARKING REGULATIONS SECTION 51 A 4.505 CON CONSERVATION DISTRICTS SECTION 51 A 4.702, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD, DISTRICT REGULATIONS DIVISION 51 A FOUR POINT EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY ONE FOUR POINT 800. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT REVIEW SECTION 51 A 4.106 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND 51 A 4.1107 DESIGN STANDARDS DIVISION 51 A 13.3 HUNDRED, DISTRICT REGULATIONS DIVISION 51 A 13.4 HUNDRED, PARKING REGULATIONS DIVISION 51 A 13.7 HUNDRED ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED SECTIONS REGARDING MINIMUM OFF STREET PARKING, UNLOADING REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING ESTABLISHING [04:50:01] A TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN AND OFF STREET PARKING DESIGN STANDARDS. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS APPROVAL OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS, ZONING ORDINANCE, ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S. RECOMMENDATION WAS APPROVAL OF ZO X'S RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU SIR. UH, LADIES AND GENERAL READY FOR YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE COME ON DOWN. ALRIGHT, ALWAYS GOOD TO BE FIRST. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIRMAN ETTE AND UH, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS. AGAIN, I'M JAMIE JOLLY WITH THE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL. TREK HAS BEEN REVIEWING OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND BEST PRACTICES FOR ALMOST 10 YEARS NOW, AND WE'VE WORKED CLOSELY WITH STAFF AS THE CURRENT PROPOSAL WAS BEING DEVELOPED. UM, COUPLE OF QUICK POINTS. PARKING SPACES ARE EXPENSIVE. A CHEAP STRUCTURED STALL COSTS $20,000 AND IN DALLAS, $50,000 PER STALL IS COMMON. IF YOU GO UNDERGROUND PARKING, YOU CAN EASILY DOUBLE THAT COST. AS A GENERAL RULE, $10,000 IN CONSTRUCTION COSTS ADDS ANOTHER A HUNDRED DOLLARS IN RENTS. CONVENTIONAL PARKING MINIMUMS CAN INCREASE THE RENT OR MORTGAGE REQUIRED FOR AN APARTMENT BY 200 TO $500 PER MONTH. CAR PARKING ALSO TAKES UP A LOT OF SPACE. THE, THE PARKING SPOTS. A PARKING SPACE ITSELF TAKES UP ABOUT 180 SQUARE FEET. BUT WHEN RAMPS, DRIVEWAYS AND ACCESS PATHS ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, IT'S CLOSER TO 300 SQUARE FEET PER STALL. YOU CAN DO SO MUCH MORE WITH THAT LAND HERE IN DALLAS. ALSO, TO ADDRESS ONE OF THE CONCERNS, UM, DEVELOPMENTS WILL NOT GET FUNDED IF THEY'RE NOT PARKED ADEQUATELY WHEN THEY GO FOR FUNDING. SO I THINK THAT'S BEEN A BIG CONCERN THAT ALL PARKING GOES AWAY. BUT AGAIN, A PROJECT WILL NOT BE BUILT UNLESS IT'S ADEQUATELY PARKED. TREK SUPPORTS COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHTS MOTION AND REQUEST A FEW ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS TODAY. FIRST, THE REMOVAL OF PARKING MINIMUMS IN ALL MULTIFAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS. THIS WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT STEP FORWARD FOR DALLAS, REMOVING ARBITRARY PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT LIMIT THE AVAILABLE LAND FOR HOUSING. REMOVE THE DIR THRESHOLD SO THAT WE CAN EVALUATE AND UPDATE T DMPS AND THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT REVIEW PROCESS HOLISTICALLY AT ONE TIME. WE WANT TO AVOID CREATING A NEW BURDEN FOR SMALL AND MID-SIZE BUSINESSES AND DEVELOPMENTS, AND WE WANT TO MAINTAIN OUR PROGRESS AS A CITY IN IMPROVING THE PERMIT PROCESS, WHICH WE'RE HAPPY TO REPORT IS, IS HAPPENING. ADD STAFF'S RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE, ACKNOWLEDGING MULTI MULTIFAMILY LOADING PLANS IN AN INITIAL PERMIT APPLICATION. TREK BELIEVES THIS O OVERARCHING CODE AMENDMENT IS CRUCIAL TO ENSURING DALLAS'S CONTINUED ECONOMIC GROWTH AND SUCCESS. WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIRMAN SHAAD, THE ENTIRE CPC JI BUS WITH DART REGIONAL AND LOCAL RELATIONS. I HAVE A LETTER ON BEHALF OF DELE, OUR EVP AND OUR ENTIRE EXECUTIVE TEAM. I BELIEVE CHAIRMAN SHAAD HAS THE ENTIRE LETTER, SO I WILL SPARE YOU THAT AS YOU'VE BEEN HERE A WHILE ALREADY. BUT I WILL READ A PORTION OF IT. DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE CITY'S EFFORTS TO AMEN CHAPTER 51 AND 51 A OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS. THE CHANGES BEING CONSIDERED WILL BE BETTER ALIGNED WITH ADOPTED CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND LAND USE POLICIES BY REDUCING PRIORITY OF SINGLE OCCUPANT VEHICLE TRIPS AND INCREASING OPPORTUNITY FOR HOUSING, BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS, INCLUDING TRANSIT WHILE PARKING MAXIMUMS WOULD BE AN IMPACTFUL CHANGE. REMOVING MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS ALLOWS FOR CONTEXT SENSITIVE RIGHT SIZE PARKING AND NEW PARKING DESIGN STANDARDS WILL ALIGN WITH BEST PRACTICES WHILE WORKING TO PRIORITIZE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. REDUCED PARKING AVAILABILITY IS AN INCENTIVE THAT CAN PROMOTE WALKABILITY AND BETTER LEVERAGE TRANSIT, WHICH IS IMPORTANT IN OUR RAPIDLY GROWING REGION. IN ADDITION TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, DART ENCOURAGES THE CITY OF DALLAS TO EXPLORE USING PARKING MINIMUMS IN AREAS TARGETED FOR HIGHER DENSITY TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY GIVEN MANY THAT TODS HAVE EXCESSIVE PARKING. AGAIN, UM, I BELIEVE CHAIRMAN SCHAD HAS THE ENTIRE LETTER AND IF NOT, I'M HAPPY TO SEND IT OUT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. [04:55:08] MELANIE VAN INGHAM, 63 11 LAKESHORE STAFF ADMITS THAT THERE'S NO ACTUAL DATA THAT SUPPORTS ELIMINATING PARKING REQUIREMENTS EVERYWHERE OR ITS IMPACTS. THEY WANT TO IGNORE THE LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF VESTING RIGHTS OR WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A USE CHANGES PARKING METERS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. PLACE A NEW TAX ON RESIDENTS WHO MUST DEPEND ON CARS. WHY ARE RESIDENTIAL AREAS THE PUBLIC AND THE PUBLIC REALM BURDENED WITH THE BUSINESS PARKING NEEDS? WHY IS THIS BOOSTING MORE BARS AND RESTAURANTS WHEN IT SHOULD BE INCENTIVIZING AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEAR TRANSIT AND RAIL STATIONS. EVEN SMART GROWTH URBANISTS HAVE STATED QUOTE, YOU DON'T START WITH PARKING, YOU START WITH NEW SIDEWALKS, TREES, DOWNTOWN INFILL, DOWNTOWN JOBS, BETTER TRANSIT, BIKEABILITY AND HOUSING ADJACENT TO LIGHT RAIL. UNFORTUNATELY, FAR TOO MANY CITIES START WITH PARKING AND GET HUNG UP. THAT'S WHERE DALLAS IS HUNG UP ON ELIMINATING PARKING. DAMN THE CONSEQUENCES FOR WHAT DATA THERE IS. IT SHOWS PARKING REFORM SUCCESS IS TIED DIRECTLY TO THREE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS. EMPHASIS ON DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS JOB CENTERS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO LIGHT RAIL STATIONS. THIS BLANKET PROPOSAL DOESN'T DO THAT. IT ALSO ELIMINATES THE CITY'S BEST NEGOTIATING TOOL TO INCENTIVIZE STRONGER TRANSIT, MOBILITY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH, SPECIFICALLY NEAR STATIONS. AND OUR MOST PRESSING CRISIS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. FOR A CITY AS LARGE AND DIVERSE AS DALLAS BLANKET REDUCTIONS ARE NOT THE SOLUTION. RATHER, IT MUST DIRECTLY INCENTIVIZE THE TWO BEST PRACTICES AND ACTUAL RESULTS WE NEED MOST TO ACTUALLY REDUCE CAR USE AND MEET LOGISTIC LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS. IT MUST ALLOW REDUCTIONS ONLY FOR PROJECTS WITHIN HALF A MILE OF LIGHT RAIL STATIONS TO ADDRESS OUR HOUSING CRISIS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THEN IT MUST ALLOW PARKING REDUCTIONS ONLY TO AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT ARE ACTUALLY BUILT. NOT ALL MULTIFAMILY. ANY PARKING REDUCTION BEYOND THESE TWO OBJECTIVES IS BASED ON UNFOUNDED ASSUMPTIONS, UNNECESSARY AND QUESTIONABLE MOTIVES, AND ABSOLUTELY NEGATES HOUSING POLICY INCENTIVES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. HI, ELLEN TAF, 79 24 GLEN WAY DRIVE DALLAS. I LIVE IN THE VERY SOUTHWEST PART OF THE CITY OF DALLAS AND YES, WE ARE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, BUT IN OUR CORNER OF THE WORLD WE HAVE NO BUS SERVICE, NO RAIL SERVICE, WE DON'T HAVE SIDEWALKS. THE REST OF THE CITY OF DALLAS IN YOUR BUILDING CO REQUIRES THAT WHEN A FAM MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING IS BUILT, THEY HAVE TO PUT IN SIDEWALKS. WE GOT THREE NEW APARTMENT COMPLEXES IN OUR AREA LAST YEAR. NOT A ONE OF THEM PUT IN A SIDEWALK. I LIVE IN A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION. WE'VE BEEN THERE 20 YEARS. WE'RE STILL WAITING FOR OUR SIDEWALK THAT WE WERE PROMISED. I KNOW IT'S NOT IN WRITING. WE WERE PROMISED THE CITY WAS GONNA BUILD US SIDEWALKS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE SIDEWALKS. SO OUR KIDS HAVE TO WALK FROM SCHOOL TO HOME OR TO THE LIBRARY THROUGH THE REEDS, THROUGH THE RATTLESNAKES, THROUGH THE GARBAGE, THROW OUT PEOPLE'S WINDOWS. WE ARE NOT ESTABLISHED LIKE THE DOWNTOWN. SO IF YOU, IF YOU DO A CARTE BLANC PROPOSAL THAT SAYS YOU'RE GOING TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING, THAT'S GREAT, BUT IT'S NOT GONNA WORK IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO IF YOU PAINT THE WHOLE CITY WITH ONE BIG BRUSH STROKE, OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ARE GOING TO SUFFER EVEN MORE. WE NEED YOU TO LOOK AT EACH SECTION OF THE TOWN. I KNOW YOU CAN'T DO IT LIKE FORWARD DALLAS BROKE IT UP, BUT WE HAVE SPECIAL NEEDS IN OUR AREA. AND YES, I'VE SPOKEN WITH DART JUST NOW AND WE'RE HOPING TO GET SOME OF THAT DONE. BUT WE NEED YOU TO STAND UP TO DEVELOPERS TO TELL 'EM THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THROUGH, NOT JUST PROMISES, NOT JUST 'CAUSE IT'S IN THE CODE OR 'CAUSE YOU HOPE THEY'LL DO IT BECAUSE THEY DON'T DO IT IN THE SOUTHWEST PART OF DALLAS. THANK YOU FOR THINKING ABOUT IT CAREFULLY. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MATT BACH. ONE FIVE SEVEN, FOUR, SIX. OH, THE MICROPHONE WOULD CIRCLE. THE MICROPHONE'S NOT ON MR. BACH. I'M SORRY. YEAH, YOU [05:00:01] NEED TO GET A LITTLE CLOSER SO OUR FOLKS ON LINE CAN HEAR YOU CERTAINLY. AND YOU CAN RAISE THE THE TABLE IF YOU NEED TO. THERE'S A LITTLE BUTTON DOWN THERE. PERFECT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MATT BACH, 1 5 7, 4, 6 COVID CIRCLE, DALLAS, TEXAS. UM, REMOVING PARKING MINIMUMS IN, UH, THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES OF DALLAS WILL HURT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. UM, I DO APPRECIATE THIS EXERCISE. CERTAINLY THERE ARE AREAS OF DALLAS WHERE PARKING MINIMUMS NEED TO BE REEVALUATED, BUT A ONE SIZE FITS ALL IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A CITY THE SIZE OF DALLAS AND AS DIVERSE AS DALLAS IS, I HOPE THAT YOU WILL ADOPT, UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHTS AMENDMENTS. BUT EVEN I WOULD GO FURTHER FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE IN THE COIT SPRING VALLEY AREA OF DALLAS, UH, WHERE MULTIFAMILY PARKING MINIMUMS NEED TO BE MAINTAINED. I'VE SEEN STREETS CHOKED WITH CARS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD TO WHERE EVEN A EMERGENCY VEHICLE COULD NOT GET DOWN THAT STREET IF IT HAD TO. BUT I DO APPRECIATE THE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION YOU ARE GIVING TO THIS TOPIC. AND AGAIN, I HOPE YOU'LL CONSIDER THE IMPACT THIS WOULD HAVE ON THE SUBURBS OF DALLAS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER. THANK YOU, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON. HI THERE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. AND, UM, MY NAME IS LISA MARSHALL. I LIVE IN DISTRICT 13. UM, PARKING MANDATE MANDATES MAKE HOUSING LESS AFFORDABLE BY REQUIRING DEVELOPERS TO SPEND TIME AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS PER PARKING, PARKING SPACES COSTS THAT GET PASSED ON TO RENTERS AND HOME BUYERS. A SINGLE PARKING SPACE CAN ADD $200 A MONTH TO, TO MONTHLY RENT. REMOVING THESE MANDATES WILL OPEN THE DOORS TO MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS FOR FAMILIES, SENIORS, YOUTH AND YOUNG PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE BEING PLACED OUT OF DALLAS. AND I RUN A NONPROFIT FIGHTING HOMELESSNESS. I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE DALLAS HOUSING COALITION. I'M IN THE PROCESS OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AND, AND BUILDING A MULTI-GENERATIONAL, UM, HOUSING UNIT FOR KIDS AGING OUT OF FOSTER CARE AND SENIORS IN DISTRICT 11. AND, UM, WE'RE TRYING TO, TO, UH, BUILD 28 UNITS ON ONE LOT AND, AND MANDATING THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE 1.25 PARKING WILL ELIMINATE SPOTS WHERE PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY LIVE. SO I JUST ASK YOU TO REALLY THINK ABOUT CONCRETE OR ACTUALLY PEOPLE HAVING A CHANCE TO LIVE UNDER A ROOF. SO WHEN WE, UM, LOOK AT THE, THE PARKING MINIMUMS, ESPECIALLY FOR LOW INCOME HOUSING, PLEASE, PLEASE LOOK TOWARDS FOR, UM, HELPING US DEVELOPERS BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THIS POPULATION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. HEEL, COLORADO 1509 MAIN STREET DALLAS SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE PARKING CODE AMENDMENT. I WANTED TO BRIEFLY TOUCH ON SOME COMMENTS ACTUALLY FROM MRS. KINGSTON, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. SHE PRESENTED THIS QUESTION ABOUT, IF WE DO THIS AND WE REALIZE WE MADE A MISTAKE, CAN WE ROLL IT BACK? AND SHE BROUGHT UP THIS POINT ABOUT HOW IF WE, IF WE DO THIS, AND LET'S SAY THERE WAS A RESTAURANT TODAY IN LO GREENWELL WHERE I LIVED FOR TWO YEARS WITHOUT A CAR AND STILL VISIT REGULARLY BY DART ROUTE THREE. LET'S SAY THERE'S A RESTAURANT THAT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR PARKING TODAY. AND THEN TOMORROW THEY ELIMINATED PARKING, UH, THE, SORRY, THE ELIMINATED PARKING REQUIREMENTS. THEY MIGHT STILL HAVE THAT PARKING BECAUSE IF IT'S SERVING THEM AND IT'S SERVING THE COMMUNITY, NO REASON TO GET RID OF IT. BUT LET'S SAY THAT THEY DID THAT VALUATION AND THEY DECIDED THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING BETTER TO BE IN THOSE PARKING, LIKE ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE OR, AND DON'T HAVE IN LOUIS GREENVILLE, LIKE A BOOKSTORE, LIKE A CHILDCARE CENTER, LIKE A HIGHER EDUC, LIKE A CONTINUING EDUCATION OR EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION CENTER. ALL OF THESE SERVICES AND RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL THINGS THAT MAKE LIFE BETTER FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. LET'S SAY YOU FILL THAT PARKING LOT WITH THOSE THINGS AND LET'S SAY THAT WAS THE MISTAKE. AND SO IN THAT SCENARIO WHERE YOU DECIDED THAT WAS A MISTAKE, LET'S ROLL IT BACK. WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE TO ROLL IT BACK? WHAT KIND OF SCENARIO DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? IT MEANS TEARING THOSE THINGS THAT THOSE PEOPLE VALUED OUT. AND THAT SOUNDS HYPOTHETICAL. AS EARLY AS THE 1930S, EVERY SINGLE PARKING LOT IN LOWER GREENVILLE, IN LOWER GREENVILLE WAS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. WHEN YOU MANDATE PARKING, YOU ARE NOT GUARANTEEING PARKING. [05:05:01] YOU ARE CREATING THE FORCES THAT HAVE GENTRIFIED, THAT HAS DISPLACED THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. IF YOU'D LIKE TO PROTECT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, DO NOT UPHOLD A SYSTEM THAT HAS SYSTEMATICALLY REMOVED AND PAVED OVER SINGLE FAMILY HISTORIC STRUCTURES IN LOWER GREENVILLE AND OAK CLIFF AND DOWNTOWN ACROSS THIS CITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. UH, MY NAME'S NATE HIMEY AND I LIVE AT 3 3 6 BECKLEY WOOD BOULEVARD. I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF REMOVING ALL PARKING MANDATES AS RECOMMENDED MULTIPLE TIMES BY OUR CITY PLANNERS BECAUSE OF THE BENEFITS THAT LES FORCED PARKING BRINGS TO OUR CITY. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT PLANNERS ASKED AGAIN AND AGAIN THIS MORNING WAS THIS IS A QUESTION OF VISION FOR THE CITY. HOW DO WE WANNA SHAPE THE CITY? THAT'S WHAT THIS PARKING QUESTION IS. IT'S A QUESTION OF VISION, NOT HOW IS THE CITY BUILT NOW, BUT HOW DO WE WANNA BUILD IT FOR THE NEXT GENERATION? I WANNA SEE A CITY THAT SUITS ALL OF OUR USERS, SERVES ALL OF OUR USERS, AND NOT JUST THE FOLKS THAT ARE ABLE TO DRIVE ACCORDING TO AMERICA WALKS. ALMOST A THIRD OF AMERICANS DON'T DRIVE EITHER BECAUSE THEY CAN'T OR BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO. AND I WANNA PONDER WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IN DALLAS. EITHER YOU HAVE TO DEPEND ON SOMEONE ELSE TO GIVE YOU A RIDE, YOU HAVE TO GET A RIDE SHARE OR A TAXI. YOU HAVE TO BRAVE THE STREETS ON A BIKE OR YOU HAVE TO RELY ON DART. AND I CAN SAY FROM EXPERIENCE THAT NONE OF THOSE OPTIONS ARE AS CONVENIENT AS TAKING A CAR TODAY IN DALLAS. IT'S BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT CITY CODE INFLUENCED OUR BUILT ENVIRONMENT, THAT IT CATERS TO PEOPLE THAT ARE ABLE AND WILLING TO DRIVE AT THE EXPENSE OF ALL OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION. IT'S NOT CONVENIENT TO TAKE DART SOMETIMES IT'S STRAIGHT UP DANGEROUS TO RIDE A BIKE. IT'S EXPENSIVE TO TAKE RIDESHARE, AND THAT'S DOING LARGE PART TO THE LARGE MOATS OF PARKING THAT SURROUND MOST BUSINESSES BUILT TO THE CURRENT PARKING CODE. BY REMOVING MANDATES, WE ALLOW FOR NEIGHBORHOODS TO BECOME BUILT THAT ARE FEASIBLE TO ACCESS, TO USE, AND TO ENJOY WITHOUT THE NEED TO GET THERE BY A CAR. AND EVEN BETTER IF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE SERVED BY A DART NODE OR BY HIGH-SPEED BUS ROUTE. I WANNA END WITH A STORY TO ADDRESS ONE COMMISSIONER'S CONCERN FOR ON STREET PARKING. I USED TO LIVE IN BISHOP ARTS ON MELBA STREET, AND WHILE I LIVED THERE, MELBA USED TO BE PARKING ON IN BOTH DIRECTIONS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ROAD. THAT PARKING ADDED A BUFFER TO THAT STREET. IT SLOWED CARS TO A CRAWL, AND I SAW THAT AS A BENEFIT. IT MADE WALKING THERE SAFE, CONVENIENT, AND COMFORTABLE, BUT EVENTUALLY THAT PARKING WAS REMOVED ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET AND NOW CARS GO 25, 35 MILES AN HOUR DOWN THAT STREET AND IT'S NO LONGER COMFORTABLE TO TO WALK ALONG THAT STREET. IT'S NO LONGER SAFE. I WANT YOU TO CONSIDER THAT AS YOU THINK ABOUT ON STREET PARKING, THAT IT MAY ACTUALLY BE A BENEFIT AND NOT JUST A NUISANCE. AGAIN, I COME BACK TO THE QUESTION OF HOW DO WE WANNA SHAPE THE CITY? PARKING ISN'T A SILVER BULLET TO SOLVE ALL TRANSPORTATION, AND IT'S NOT A CHANGE THAT WE'RE GONNA SEE IN THE CITY IN A FLASH, BUT SLOWLY, SURELY I WANNA SEE DALLAS SHAPED TO BE A ROBUST CITY, ONE WHERE IT'S CON AS CONVENIENT TO TAKE DART TO BIKE OR TO WALK AS IT IS TO DRIVE A CAR. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. I NEED TO FILL A FORM OUT. I CAN DO THAT AFTERWARDS. RIGHT. OKAY. HEY, GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, MICHAEL BLACKWELL 8 8 4 5 FIN CHURCH ROAD, DALLAS, TEXAS, UH, DISTRICT 10, UM, JUST ABOVE THE LAKE. I'M, I'M THE DALLAS REGIONAL PARTNER, A DALLAS-FORT WORTH REGIONAL PARTNER FROM MILL CREEK RESIDENTIAL TRUST. WE'RE, UH, A NATIONAL APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, UH, ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY UNTIL RECENTLY DEVELOPING IN THE URBAN CORES OF GROWTH CITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY. UM, I'VE BEEN ACTIVE WITH TRACK TRACKING THE, THIS, THIS DISCUSSION AND, AND, AND OTHERS, UH, AS WELL AS WITH DOWNTOWN DALLAS INC. WANTED TO SHARE JUST SOME OBSERVATIONS GENERALLY IN SUPPORT OF THE, THE REFORMS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING AND THE REMOVAL OF, OF THE ELIMINATION OF PARKING MINIMUM SPECIFIC TO MULTIFAMILY. UM, AND, AND JUST WANT TO E EXPRESS, I KEPT THINKING, AND I'M GONNA REFER TO MY NOTES A LITTLE BIT, THIS REFRAIN WAS DO WE REALLY WANT HOU, DO WE NEED HOUSING? DO WE WANT HOUSING? AND DO WE REALLY WANT TO BE A SMART GROWTH CITY? DOES THAT MATTER TO US? WE ALL SAY YES. UM, WE DEVELOP EVERYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY THAT IS A GROWTH ORIENTED LARGE SCALE MARKET. WE DON'T ACTIVELY DEVELOP IN MARKETS THAT ARE NOT GROWING. UM, THAT DOESN'T MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE. UM, AND IT'S INTERESTING AS I BEGAN TO THINK ABOUT WHERE HAVE WE CHOSEN TO DEVELOP IN, IN DALLAS? [05:10:01] WHY HAVE WE CHOSEN IN SOME CASES MORE RECENTLY TO NOT DEVELOP IN DALLAS? UM, AND HOW DOES THAT COMPARE TO WHERE ELSE WE DEVELOP? UH, AND, AND IS PARKING A FACTOR? AND IT GOTTA BE REALLY INTERESTING AS I THOUGHT ABOUT IT, BECAUSE PARKING HAS DRIVEN, I THINK EVERY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT I'VE DONE IN THE CITY PRIOR TO MILL CREEK AND, AND SINCE COMING TO MILL CREEK, UM, WE HAVEN'T DEVELOPED IN PD 1 93. THE REASON IS IT COSTS 40, $50,000 PER UNIT FOR UNDERGROUND PARKING, AND THERE IS NO WAY TO NOT IN, IN OUR VIEW, GET INTO AN OVER PARKED SITUATION IN THAT PORTION OF DALLAS. AND SO WE'VE CHOSEN TO GO TO OTHER PLACES. UM, WE HAVE PARKED IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY WHERE WE HAVE TO PARK TO THE STANDARD GENERALLY ONE PER BEDROOM PLUS VISITOR PARKING. I THINK WITHOUT EXCEPTION, THOSE ARE OVER PARKED PROJECTS. WE KIND OF KNOW THAT GOING IN. UH, THE EASIEST WAY I THINK FOR PEOPLE TO SEE THAT IS FLY OUT OF DFW OR LOVE FIELD, FLY OVER THE GALLERIA OR SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE YOU CAN LOOK DOWN AND SEE WRAP PARKING GARAGES, YOU KNOW, GARAGES WITH UNITS AROUND THEM AND SEE HOW MANY CARS YOU SEE FROM THE AIRPLANE. YOU'D BE LOOKING AT THE TOP FLOOR OF THE GARAGE. UH, GENERALLY WE EXPECT THAT'S NOT USED. WE OFTEN AFTERWARDS LOOK AND SAY, WHAT, WHAT COULD WE DO NOW THAT WE KNOW THAT THAT PARKING IS NOT GONNA BE USED? UH, SOME OF YOU WERE INVOLVED IN THE APPROVAL RECENTLY OF OUR PROJECT AT WALNUT HILL AND CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY BECAUSE WE KNEW WE WOULDN'T BE USING THE OVER PARKED GARAGE THERE AT THE TOP FLOOR. WE PUT THE POOL ON TOP. WE WOULD NEVER DO THAT, UH, IN A SCENARIO WHERE WE EXPECTED THAT TO BE HIGHLY PARKED. UM, THE, UH, ANOTHER EXAMPLE IN DISTRICT SIX, WE'VE GOT A PROJECT THAT'S RECENTLY DELIVERED ON THE TRINITY RIVER. UM, WE HAVE FEWER UNITS, LARGER UNITS, MORE EXPENSIVE, SO LESS HOUSING AND, AND EFFECTIVELY LESS AFFORDABLE BECAUSE THE PARKING BECAME THE TAIL THAT WAGGED THE DOG ON THAT PROJECT. WE COULD NOT PARK A HIGHER UNIT COUNT, AND THEREFORE WE HAD TO MORPH THE BUILDING INTO, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE ULTIMATELY BUILT ON THE BASIS OF THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, UM, WHERE WE'RE ACTIVELY DEVELOPING NOW PREVIOUSLY AT A ANOTHER FIRM IN DEEP ELLUM AND, AND NOW CURRENTLY JUST A COUPLE BLOCKS AWAY IN DOWNTOWN DALLAS, MADERA ST. PAUL, THE ATTRACTION OF THOSE. THANK YOU. YOUR TIME IS UP. WAS THE PARKING. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. YEAH, YOU BET. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. UH, HI. GOOD EVENING. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. UM, MY NAME IS VINNY CANTINI. I'M FROM BRYAN PLACE. I'M HERE TO VOICE MY STRONG SUPPORT FOR ELIMINATING PARKING MINIMUMS IN DALLAS. UH, THIS PERFORM IS CRITICAL FOR MAKING OUR CITY MORE AFFORDABLE, WALKABLE, AND ECONOMICALLY VIBRANT PARKING MINIMUMS. DRIVE UP HOUSING COSTS AS YOU HEARD FROM THE GENTLEMAN BEFORE ME. ENCOURAGE CAR DEPENDENCY AND TAKE UP VALUABLE LAND THAT COULD BE USED FOR HOMES, BUSINESSES, AND GREEN SPACE. BY REMOVING THESE OUTDATED MINIMUMS, WE GIVE DEVELOPERS THE FLEXIBILITY TO BUILD WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY NEED, NOT WHAT OUTDATED ZONING LAWS RULES, UH, DICTATE. HOWEVER, WHILE THIS REFORM IS A GREAT STEP FORWARD, THERE'S TWO CRE. THERE ARE TWO KEY AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT. FIRST, THE 300 FOOT BUFFER FOR SINGLE FAMILY ZONING NEEDS TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED. THIS BUFFER IS ARBITRARY AND UNNECESSARILY LARGE. SINCE THE VAST MAJORITY OF DALLAS IS ZONED FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, KEEPING THIS RESTRICTION IN PLACE WOULD SEVERELY LIMIT BENEFITS OF THIS POLICY. WE CANNOT ALLOW A CARVE OUT FOR SINGLE FAMILY AREAS TO UNDERMINE EFFORTS TO PROMOTE HOUSING DIVERSITY AND AFFORDABILITY. IF WE'RE SERIOUS ABOUT TACKLING THE HOUSING CRISIS, WE MUST, WE MUST ENSURE THAT ALL NEIGHBORHOODS SHARE THE BENEFITS OF PARKING REFORM. THAT PARKING ISN'T GOING ANYWHERE. THE THE PARKING THAT EXISTS ISN'T GOING ANYWHERE. SECOND, WE NEED TO EXPAND THE TRANSIT RADIUS WHERE PARKING MINIMUMS ARE ELIMINATED. RIGHT NOW, THE PROPOSED HALF MILE RADIUS AROUND RAIL AND TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENTS IS TOO SMALL. MOST PEOPLE CAN WALK A MILE IN 15 TO 25 MINUTES. SO ONE MILE RADIUS IS A FAR MORE REASONABLE STANDARD. ADDITIONALLY, LIGHT RAIL ISN'T THE ONLY FORM OF TRANSIT IN DALLAS. OUR HIGH FREQUENCY BUS ROUTES SERVE MANY RESIDENTS AND SHOULD ALSO BE INCLUDED IN THIS POLICY. IF OUR GOAL IS TO ENCOURAGE TRANSIT USE AND REDUCE UNNECESSARY PARKING, WE NEED TO THINK BEYOND RAIL AND RECOGNIZE THE FULL SCOPE OF OUR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. BY ELIMINATING PARKING MINIMUMS, REDUCING ARBITRARY RESTRICTIONS AND EXPANDING TRANSIT FRIENDLY POLICIES, WE CAN BUILD A CITY THAT IS MORE AFFORDABLE, SUSTAINABLE AND DYNAMIC. I URGE YOU TO MAKE THESE IMPROVEMENTS AND FULLY EMBRACE PARKING REFORM FOR THE FUTURE OF DALLAS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. [05:15:01] GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS LAURA PALMER. I RESIDE AT NINE 11 NORTH MADISON AVENUE IN DISTRICT ONE. I'M SPEAKING TO YOU AS A RESIDENT OF WHAT EVERYONE HERE CALLS BISHOP ARTS. I ACTUALLY LIVE IN WHAT WE PROUDLY CALL CAT KIDS SPRINGS. I WAS PART OF THE PROCESS BACK IN 2010 AND IN 2015 WHERE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MADE CONCESSIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW HISTORIC BUILDINGS OR WHAT IS IN OUR, THESE PDS LEGACY BUILDINGS, TO REMAIN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ACCEPTED, THOSE REDUCTIONS TO RETAIN THOSE BUILDINGS. WE HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THOSE REDUCTIONS. I'VE SENT YOU DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT THOSE PROBLEMS ARE. I CAN SEND YOU DOCUMENTATIONS THAT A LOT OF OUR ALLEYS ARE NOT PAID. SO WITH THAT SET, AS I HAVE SAID AT PRACTICALLY EVERY HEARING SINCE THIS STARTED AT SOAK, THIS CANNOT BE A BLANKET APPROACH FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS. IT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN A STRATEGIC MANNER. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO OBJECT TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE STREETCAR AS BEING AN EQUIVALENT TO LIGHT RAIL. THEY HAVE, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THAT I JUST SAW TODAY, THEY HAVE INCLUDED MY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE ALREADY HAVE ALL THESE PROBLEMS AS SAYING THAT WE NEED TO ACCEPT NO PARKING MINIMUMS. I FIND THAT ACTUALLY VERY FRUSTRATING BECAUSE THE STREETCAR IS A VERY LIMITED MODE OF TRANSPORTATION. IT'S A CLOSED SYSTEM. IT DOESN'T GET YOU ANYWHERE IN THIS CITY. THE BUS SERVICE IS ACTUALLY BETTER AT DOING THAT THAN THE STREETCAR. SO TO RECOGNIZE A STREETCAR AS A TOD IS VERY SHORTSIGHTED. AND FINALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT, WE NEED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE EFFORTS THAT ARE HAPPENING AT THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO STRIP OUR CITY OF OUR ABILITY TO ZONE. RIGHT NOW. THERE'S A HOUSE BILL 8 78 THAT WOULD SAY, HERE IN DALLAS, WE HAVE TO ALLOW BUILDING ON LOTS OF 2,500 SQUARE FEET. SO A LOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD HAVE TO SUPPORT THREE DWELLING UNITS. IF YOU TAKE AWAY PARKING MINIMUMS FROM MY NEIGHBORHOOD, WE'RE GONNA HAVE THREE DWELLING UNITS WITH NO REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE CHAMBER THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD? OKAY, WE'RE WITH OUR SPEAKERS ONLINE. WE BEGIN WITH, UH, MR. REEVES. ALL RIGHT, GOOD AFTERNOON. AFTERNOON. YES. I'M UNMUTED AND YOU CAN SEE ME, I THINK, RIGHT? YES, SIR. OKAY. UM, I'LL GET STARTED. MARK REEVES, 55 30 GOODWIN AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS. UM, I ACTUALLY SIGNED UP AS A SUPPORTER FOR THIS AND I AM IN, IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT THAT WE ARE OVER PARKED ON MANY USES. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH WHAT TR SAID ABOUT, UH, MEDIUM TO LARGER SIZE, UH, DEVELOPMENTS WHERE OF COURSE THEY'RE GONNA PUT IN PARKING. UM, MY CONCERN IS THE SMALLER EXISTING PROPERTIES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. UM, I DO LIVE A BLOCK AND A HALF OFF OF LOWER GREENVILLE AVENUE. IT'S THE REASON I MOVED THERE. I'M UP BY THE TERELLI STANDS, WHAT WERE, WHERE THE BLUE GOOSE WAS. NOW IT'S GOODWIN'S AREA AND WE HAVE SIX BARS, RESTAURANTS RIGHT THERE. AND KNOCK ON WOOD, WE NEVER HAD THE PROBLEM THAT THEY DID EXPERIENCE, YOU KNOW, A DECADE AGO DOWN ON LOUIS GREENVILLE BECAUSE WE STILL HAD 8, 9, 10 MIXED USES IN THERE. BUT THE ONLY REASON WE HAVE THOSE OTHER MIXED USES. WE HAVE A TATTOO PLACE, WE HAVE A LITTLE JEWELRY STORE, WE HAVE A, A CHEESECAKE BAKERY. THE ONLY REASON WE HAVE THOSE THERE IS THEY CAN'T PARK THEM. SO I LIKE SIX BARS. RESTAURANTS UP THERE, 12 IS TOO MANY BECAUSE THAT ADDS MORE TO THE TRAFFIC. SO YES, IT'S DETRIMENTAL TO A NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN WE HAVE DRUNK DRIVERS. IN MY OPINION, IT'S MORE DETRIMENTAL POTENTIALLY TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD IF WE HAVE ALL OF A SUDDEN 12 BARS AND RESTAURANTS UP THERE. UM, KNOW THAT LANDLORDS MAKE MORE MONEY SELLING TO A BAR OR RESTAURANT. YOU LOOK AT THE ALCOHOL SALES NUMBERS FROM TABC, THE, THE LANDLORD CAN ONLY CHARGE X FOR A LITTLE, LITTLE [05:20:01] MOM AND POP JEWELRY STORE, BUT THEY CAN CHARGE WAY MORE FOR ALCOHOL. AND A LOT OF THE CONTRACTS THAT ARE SIGNED, THE, THE, UH, TENANTS HAVE TO GIVE 10% OF THEIR ALCOHOL SALES TO THE LANDLORD. SO THERE'S WAY MORE MONEY. SO THERE IS A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO DO THAT. ALSO KNOW THAT IF I HAVE A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, I CAN DIVIDE IT IN HALF AND I HAVE 2 2500 SQUARE FOOT SPACES AND I NO LONGER NEED PARKING. ALSO REALIZE AS SOON AS WE ELIMINATE PARKING FOR ALL OF THESE OTHER USES, WHICH I THINK WE SHOULD DO OR REDUCE IT IN MANY OF THESE OTHER USES, THAT'S GONNA FREE UP MORE PARKING, WHICH CAN BECOME REQUIRED PARKING FOR BARS AND RESTAURANTS. SO EVEN IF WE LEAVE BARS AND RESTAURANTS TODAY AT A HUNDRED, A HUNDRED, UH, A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET FOR ONE PARKING, WE'RE STILL GONNA LOSE SOME OF THESE SMALLER SHOPS BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO USE THE PARKING THAT ONCE WAS REQUIRED FOR THESE OTHER BUSINESSES. SO, UM, I'M NOT AGAINST REDUCING PARKING AT ALL, BUT I THINK THE 2,500, UH, FREE PARKING FOR 2,500 SQUARE FOOT BARTON RESTAURANT IS JUST A BAD IDEA. AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS DAY AND AGE WE CAN'T COME TO A COMPROMISE. AND I'M A LITTLE BIT MIFF THAT PEOPLE THAT DID NOT EXPERIENCE 2005, 2008, 2010 DOWN IN LEWIS GREENVILLE, ALL OF A SUDDEN THINK THAT THEY KNOW EVERYTHING. THANK YOU. YOUR TIME IS UP, SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, MR. OUTLAND? NO, I DON'T MIND. FELLOWS. YES. OKAY. HELLO? CAN YOU HEAR ME? ME? WE CAN ONLY HEAR YOU. WE CAN'T SEE YOU YET. THERE YOU GO. OKAY. HELLO EVERYONE. I'M FERRELL FELLOWS. I AM A RESIDENT OF SOUTH DALLAS AIR PARK NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M ALSO A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER AND I'M ALSO A LANDLORD. I, UH, I OPERATE IN THE COMMERCIAL AND THE MULTIFAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY SPACES. UM, I'M REPRESENTING THE COMMUNITY OF DISTRICT SEVEN, UH, ON BEHALF OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPERIENCING EXTREME POVERTY DUE TO, UH, HISTORIC DECADES OF INEQUITY AND DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA. I ALSO REPRESENT, UM, I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR THE POINT SOUTH REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE. I'M REPRESENTING ALL OF THE LANDLORDS AND BUSINESS OWNERS IN THIS COMMUNITY WHO OWN LAND THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DEVELOP, BUT UNFORTUNATELY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DEVELOP BECAUSE OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON PARKING. UM, AND I PERSONALLY AM IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A COMMERCIAL SITE THAT WILL HAVE A RESTAURANT IN IT AND ALSO A MULTIFAMILY THAT SERVES A POPULATION OF 30% A MI. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MOST EXTREME POVERTY IN THIS COMMUNITY. AND I HAVE PERSONALLY EXPERIENCES THE CHALLENGES AND THE ADDED COST OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE REALLY BEEN PROHIBITORY IN IN MANY WAYS FROM OUR PROGRESS. AND I'LL GIVE AN EXAMPLE WITH ONE OF OUR COMMERCIAL SITES. WE'RE IN A FOOD DESERT. SO IT'S NOT JUST THAT WE WANT A RESTAURANT, WE NEED A RESTAURANT. PEOPLE ARE HUNGRY. THERE'S REALLY A LACK OF FOOD AND NUTRITIOUS OPTIONS IN THIS COMMUNITY. WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, OUR PROJECT HAS BEEN DELAYED BY THREE YEARS BECAUSE OF PARKING. UM, WE NEEDED ADEQUATE PARKING, SO WE HAD TO GO AND PURCHASE AN ADDITIONAL SITES, WHICH ADDED ABOUT A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IN EXPENSES TO THE PROJECT. WE ALSO HAD TO NEGOTIATE A PARKING AGREEMENT WITH, WITH, UM, A NEIGHBORING TENANT, WHICH WE HAD TO PAY FOR, WHICH ADDED ADDITIONAL COSTS. AND THEN IT TOOK US THREE YEARS TO GET A CPC HEARING BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE RED TAPE THAT ADDED ADDITIONAL TAXES, INSURANCE, AND HOLDING COSTS TO THE PROJECT. ANY OTHER DEVELOPER WOULD'VE WALKED AWAY FROM THE PROJECT BECAUSE IT WAS JUST TOO COMPLICATED. BUT BECAUSE WE'RE IN THE COMMUNITY, WE CARE ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE WERE WILLING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THE DIFFICULTIES TO BE ABLE TO GET THROUGH THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. AND WE'RE JUST NOW ABOUT TO OPEN. BUT I CAN HONESTLY SAY THIS LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY NEEDS TO BE REMOVED. AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE, THE REDUCTION OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE IT'LL BRING EQUITY BACK TO THIS COMMUNITY. ANY OF THE LANDOWNER WILL BE ABLE TO DEVELOP THE LAND THAT THEY DESIRE TO DEVELOP WITHOUT THE ADDED COST RESTRICTIONS AND BARRIERS THAT ARE BEING ADDED RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. YEAH. UH, [05:25:01] IT'S, UH, MR. WARREN ALL LINE? NOPE. UH, JORDAN HOOVER SAID NO, NO, NO. UH, MATTHEW BOSS, MR. BOSS, IF YOU CAN HEAR ME, WE'RE READY FOR YOUR COMMENT. WE'LL COME BACK ABOUT, UH, MR. NICHOLAS FIELD. NO. ROSS NORCOM? NO. PETER CHOW? YES. I, GOOD AFTERNOON. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YES, SIR, WE CAN. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS PETER CO. I LIVE HERE. I LIVE AND WORK IN OAK CLIFF DISTRICT FOUR, UH, 1-826-MARYLAND AVENUE. I'M SPEAKING TODAY IN SUPPORT OF THE PARKING CODE AMENDMENT. THIS IS A GREAT CHANGE FOR DALLAS. DALLAS IS NOT LEADING THE WAY, AND THERE'S NOT BREAKING BARRIERS HERE. OTHER CITIES HAVE ALREADY DONE THAT. THERE ARE SO MANY SMALL BUSINESSES AND HOUSING PROJECTS THAT ARE KILLED BY UNNECESSARY PARKING REQUIREMENTS. I KNOW OF MANY COOL BILLINGS THAT SOMEONE WANTED TO HAVE THEIR SMALL BUSINESS IN, ONLY TO HAVE THEIR DREAMS CRUSHED IN THE COMMUNITY, ROBBED OF A GREAT AMENITY. SOME OF THESE STORIES HAVE BEEN PUBLICLY DOCUMENTED OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, BUT ARE VERY MANY OF THOSE STORIES WERE NOT TOLD THERE IS DATA SUPPORTING THIS CHANGE. RENTERS, WHETHER THEY LIVE IN A QUOTE, AFFORDABLE UNQUOTE UNIT OR NOT, ARE FORCED TO PAY FOR PARKING. AND A LARGE PORTION OF RENTERS HAVE ONE OR LESS CARS. THERE IS DATA THAT SUPPORTS THIS. A SINGLE MOM DOES NOT NEED TWO OR MORE PARKING SPOTS OR PARKING MINIMUMS. FORCE HER TO PAY FOR THAT. I FIND MYSELF HERE AGAIN BEFORE THIS COMMISSION ASKING YOU TO LISTEN TO THE FUTURE OF THE CITY. THEY KEEP SHOWING UP OVER AND OVER AND TELLING YOU WHAT THEY WANT THE FUTURE OF DALLAS TO LOOK LIKE. PLEASE LISTEN TO THEM. I WANT TO GIVE A BIG THANK YOU TO THE STAFF FOR ALL THE HARD WORK ON THIS REFORM PACKAGE. YOU ARE A CREDIT TO YOUR PROFESSION ARE A GREAT RESOURCE FOR OUR CITY. I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN OUR STAFF AT PUBLIC WORKS TO PROVIDE THE NEEDED PARKING ENFORCEMENT IN THOSE AREAS WITH HIGH PARKING DEMAND. AND FINALLY, THERE ARE SO MANY HOOPS TO JUMP THROUGH TO SERVE LIQUOR. REMOVING PARK COMMANDMENTS IS NOT GOING TO CREATE AN EXPLOSION OF BARS AND RESTAURANTS. BARS AND RESTAURANTS ARE CONCENTRATED IN SPECIFIC AREAS BECAUSE OF RESTRICTIONS ON WHERE THEY CAN BE PUT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. WE'LL GO BACK TO MR. BOSS. HELLO? YES SIR. IT'S YOUR CAMERA ON. YES, SIR. THERE YOU GO. WE CAN SEE YOU NOW. PLEASE PROCEED. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME EVERYONE. HI. UH, MY NAME'S MATT BOSS. I LIVE AT, UH, 7 5 2 0 4. MY NAME'S MATT BOSS. I LIVE AT 4 0 3 9 COLE AVENUE. I'M SPEAKING IN OF THE AMENDMENT. PROPOSED RIGHT HERE. UH, I'M SURE YOU'VE HEARD AND RECEIVED MANY TESTIMONIES ABOUT HOW DALLAS PARKING MINIMUMS ARE CRUSHING SMALL BUSINESSES, PREVENTING THE HOUSING THE CITY NEEDS BY MAN, LARGE, EXPENSIVE ACCOMMODATIONS AND, AND MANDATING LARGE, EXPENSIVE PARKING ACCOMMODATIONS AND MANDATING CARS OVER OTHER CHEAPER MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION, LIKE DART CYCLING, WALKING, ET CETERA. I SUPPORT REMOVAL FOR ALL THESE REASONS, BUT ALSO FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT DALLAS IS TOO BIG AND TOO DYNAMIC TO UNIFORMLY LAY REQUIREMENTS ACROSS THE CITY. THAT'S WHAT THE CURRENT DALLAS PARKING CODE DOES. OUR PARKING CODE DOES NOT REFLECT A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE NEEDS OF EVERY BUILDING, EVERY GYM, EVERY APARTMENT, NOT BECAUSE NO ONE'S WORKED HARD ENOUGH ON IT, BUT BECAUSE NO PLANNER, NO BUREAUCRAT, OR ANY PERSON CAN ACCURATELY PREDICT EXACTLY HOW MUCH PARKING EVERY LAST BUILDING NEEDS. THAT NUMBER DEPENDS ON COUNTLESS VARIABLES, LOCATION, TRANSIT, ACCESS, DEMOGRAPHICS, PRICING, NEARBY BUSINESSES, AND NOT TO MENTION HOW THAT CHANGES MONTH TO MONTH AND YEAR TO YEAR. BUT OUR CURRENT CODE [05:30:01] PRETENDS THAT WE CAN REDUCE THIS COMPLEXITY TO A ONE SIZE FITS ALL FORMULA BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE AND UNIT COUNT. INSTEAD, LET PEOPLE DECIDE WHAT THEY NEED. LET AN ENTREPRENEUR TAKE RISKS AND MAKE THEIR BUSINESS MORE ACCESSIBLE. LET A BUILDER ADD EXTRA UNITS AND MAKE THEIR COMPLEX MORE AFFORDABLE, AND LET THEM RESPOND TO THE WAY THE CITY CHANGES DYNAMICALLY WITHOUT HAVING TO SPEND TIME AND MONEY PETITIONING THE CITY FOR PERMISSION TO CHANGE. THE COMPROMISES PROPOSED SO FAR STILL MAKE THIS FUNDAMENTAL ERROR, WHICH IS WHY I AND MANY OF MY FELLOW SPEAKERS ARE AGAINST THEM. AND FOR THE ORIGINAL STAFF AND ZAC RECOMMENDATION. BUT IF NEEDED, IT WOULD STILL BE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, PROVIDED THAT THE ARBITRARY 300 FOOT RULE FOR MULTIFAMILY IS ELIMINATED AND THAT THE PUBLIC TRANSIT RADIUS HAS EXPANDED TO ONE MILE FOR ALL RAIL STREETCAR AND HIGH FREQUENCY BUS ROUTES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, MR. BARRETT. ALL RIGHT. HI THERE. I'M NATHANIEL BARRETT, UH, 45 26 REGER AVENUE HERE IN DALLAS. I'M IN FAVOR OF REMOVING PARKING REQUIREMENTS. UM, ANYTHING LESS THAN A HUNDRED PERCENT REMOVAL IS A COMPROMISE AKIN TO GIVING UP LESS THAN A HUNDRED PERCENT OF YOUR SMOKING HABIT. SO I URGE YOU TO ADVANCE THE STRONGEST PARKING REFORM YOU CAN. THE BEST APPROACH IS A BLANKET CHANGE. WE CAN HAVE A BETTER CITY AT A FRACTION OF THE COST OF OUR CURRENT WASTEFUL AND DESTRUCTIVE POLICIES BECAUSE PARKING REQUIREMENTS STAND IN THE WAY OF SO MANY GOALS. DALLAS PURPORTS TO HAVE. THEY'RE BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, BAD FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION, BAD FOR HOUSING AND BUSINESS AFFORDABILITY, BAD MOBILITY CHOICES, BAD FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, BAD FOR THE ECONOMY, BAD FOR OUR TREE CANOPY, AND THEY'RE BAD FOR CITY AESTHETICS. PARKING REQUIREMENTS DO ALL THIS DAMAGE WHILE NOT ACTUALLY DOING VERY MUCH TO ADDRESS THE ACTUAL IMPACT THEY'RE DESIGNED TO CONTROL, WHICH IS STILL OVER PARKING. I'VE HEARD LOTS OF CONCERNS ASKING ABOUT DATA SUPPORTING REMOVING THE PARKING, WHICH IS COMPLETELY BACKWARDS. THERE'S NO DATA TO SUPPORT MAINTAINING OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS. THIS POORLY CONCEIVED INTERVENTION WAS IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT DATA AND WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF ITS DESTRUCTIVE IMPACTS. WAY BACK IN THE 1960S, WE HAVE THE TOOLS TO CONTROL SPILLOVER PARKING THROUGH ON-STREET PARKING ENFORCEMENT WITH NO PARKING RESIDENT ONLY PARKING AND PARKING METERS. THESE TOOLS, UNFORTUNATELY APPLY TO 100% OF THE CITY, WHETHER THEY OR NOT THEY HAVE SIDEWALKS, TRANSIT, BIKE LANES, OR JUST HAVE CARS AND ROADS, AND THEY HAVE THE VIRTUE OF DIRECTLY ADDRESSING THEIR SPILLOVER CONCERNS. WE HAVE THE TOOLS WE NEED. LET'S USE THEM. PLEASE REMOVE THE COSTLY PARKING MANDATES AND MAKE THE MOST IMPACTFUL CHANGE DALLAS HAS SEEN IN 60 YEARS. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. FAYE X, ARE YOU ? YES. WE CAN'T, WE WE CAN'T SEE YOU YET, THOUGH. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. WE CAN SEE YOU NOW. GOOD AFTERNOON. HELLO EVERYONE. HELLO, EVERYONE. SO, MY NAME IS, I'M FROM 3 8 3 9 MCKINNEY AVENUE UPTOWN. SO I HEARD EARLIER THAT THE, I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THE PARKING AMENDMENT. AND I HEAR EARLIER THAT SOMEONE SAID THE PARKING RULE NOW IS A COOKIE CUTTER. AND I TOTALLY AGREE BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE COMMUNITY AND MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF LIFESTYLE IN DALLAS. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE PLACE I LIVED BEFORE, WHICH IS THE BUCKMAN LAKE AREA. SO EVERY NIGHT, THE BIGGEST ENTERTAINMENT FOR THE PEOPLE IN ABOUT, IN THE FIVE APARTMENTS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE IS FLOCKING TO ONE AND ONLY TACO SHOP UNTIL MIDNIGHT. I WAS ALWAYS WONDERING, IT'S SUCH A GOOD BUSINESS. WHY NOT? WE DON'T, WHY NOT? WE HAVE MORE SUCH BUSINESS UNTIL I UNDERSTAND THE PARKING RULES. AND OF COURSE, THIS IS JUST ONE FACTOR, BUT I BELIEVE THIS IS A BIG FACTOR AND THAT THAT PLACE DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH FOOD, PLACE DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH ENTERTAINMENT, NOT HAVE ENOUGH PLAYGROUND, DAYCARE OR GREEN BELT, BUT IT HAS ABUNDANT THE PARKING. I FEEL LIKE THE PRIORITY IS A LITTLE OFF. AND I, I THOUGHT THAT THE WAY IT IS UNTIL I CAME TO UPTOWN AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THE PARKING DISAPPEARED. IT'S JUST A SHOCKS AFTER SHOP, SERVICE AFTER SERVICE, LIKE PLACE AFTER PLACE. THE, THIS IS NOT A MAGIC. ACTUALLY, THE UPTOWN PEOPLE HIDE THE PARKING INSIDE THE BUILDING. IT'S NOT A PERFECT SOLUTION. BUT, UH, YOU KNOW WHAT THE PEOPLE REALIZE [05:35:01] PARKING IS NOT BEAUTIFUL. IT'S NOT SOMETHING DESIRABLE. THAT'S WHY THEY HIDE IT. AND ALSO IT TELLS US THAT THE PEOPLE ARE SMART. WE CAN FIND OUR SOLUTIONS PARKING SOLUTION OR NO PARKING SOLUTION. SO IN MY OPINION, IT'S BETTER TO GIVE THE CHOICE BACK TO THE PEOPLE BECAUSE AFTER ALL THE RULES IS FOR THE PEOPLE. SO IF WE, TODAY WE'RE TING PARKING TOMORROW, WE ARE GOING TO HOW MANY RESTROOM PLACE NEEDS TO HAVE. THAT WILL BECOME RIDICULOUS. SO YEAH, THAT'S MY ARGUMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GO WITH MR. WYATT. MR. WYATT, WE'RE READY FOR YOUR COMMENT, SIR. UH, HERE I AM. OKAY. JUST MAKE SURE YOUR CAM CAMERA'S ON. HERE IT COMES. EXCELLENT. WE CAN SEE YOU NOW. THANK YOU. HELLO. UH, MY NAME IS CHRIS WYATT. I LIVE AT 42 14, UH, BRETTON BAY CIRCLE IN DISTRICT 12. I LIVE IN A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD UP HERE, AND EVEN THOUGH I DO, I FULLY SUPPORT, UH, FULL ELIMINATION OF PARKING MINIMUMS IN DALLAS. UM, EVEN THOUGH I LIVE WAY UP HERE IN FAR NORTH DALLAS, I'M A FREQUENT USER OF DART. AND I ALWAYS ENJOY COMING TO USE DART OR EVEN DRIVE SOMETIMES TO OUR VIBRANT NEIGHBORHOODS. UM, I'VE HEARD A LOT OF COMMENTS PREVIOUSLY THAT SAYS, UH, WE SHOULDN'T ELIMINATE, UH, PARKING MINIMUMS UNTIL DART OR TRANSIT GETS BETTER. UM, BUT I DISAGREE WITH THAT. UH, DART AND PARKING MINIMUMS AND LAND USE IS A CHICKEN AND THE EGG PROBLEM. UM, DART IS RUNNING AS MANY MUCH SERVICES THEY CAN FINANCIALLY PROVIDE BASED ON THE TAX REVENUE THERE THAT'S COMING IN. UM, THEY CAN'T ADD MORE UNTIL THEY GET MORE REVENUE. WE CAN'T GET MORE REVENUE UNTIL MORE BUSINESSES CAN COME IN ON A PER ACRE BASIS AND BRING IN THAT MORE REVENUE. THEREFORE, DART WILL BE ABLE TO ADD MORE SERVICES, UM, ONCE THAT HAPPENS. AND THE ONE THING THAT'S PREVENTING THAT IS PARKING MINIMUMS. UM, WE'VE HEARD SO MANY OF SMALL BUSINESSES THAT HAVE STRUGGLED OR HAVE ALREADY GONE OUT OF BUSINESS BECAUSE OF ONE OR TWO PARKING SPOTS. UM, WE, I HEARD OF ONE ON GREENVILLE AVENUE THAT RECENTLY WENT OUT OF BUSINESS, UH, BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED TO BE OPEN AFTER 7:00 PM JUST BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO SERVE WINE AFTER, I CAN'T REMEMBER, UH, 7:00 PM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND IT WAS JUST BASED OFF ONE OR TWO PARKING SPOTS. UM, OTHERS HAVE POINTED TO OTHER CITIES. YOU MIGHT THINK OF THE BIG COASTAL CITIES THAT HAVE GOOD TRANSIT, BUT OTHER CITIES, INCLUDING AUSTIN, BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, BUFFALO, NEW YORK, TAYLOR, TEXAS, BASTROP, SACRAMENTO, AND I BELIEVE THE ENTIRE STATE OF MINNESOTA HAS ELIMINATED PARKING MINIMUMS, AND IT'S BEEN NOTHING BUT POSITIVE, UH, EFFECTS ALMOST IMMEDIATELY AFTER THEY'VE DONE SO. SO, I WOULD LIKE YOU, UH, SPECIFICALLY, PLEASE REMOVE THE 300 FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN MULTIFAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY. AND I RE REITERATE, UH, OTHERS, UH, TO EXPAND THE RADIUS FOR, UH, DARK, UH, TRANSIT STOPS, BUS STOPS, UH, UH, HIGH FREQUENCY BUS CORRIDORS, AND THE STREET CAR. AND IN CLOSING, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE'LL GO WITH MR. TONY. MR. TONY, ARE YOU LINE, SIR? [05:40:05] IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WE MISSED? NO. OKAY. MR. TONY, WE'RE READY FOR YOUR COMMENTS, SIR. HI THERE. GOOD AFTERNOON FROM THE DALLAS HOUSING COALITION IN WASHINGTON DC AS WE DETAILED IN YESTERDAY'S DATA FILLED LETTER, THE BEST SOLUTION THAT THIS POLICY COMMISSION COULD ADVANCE TO THE COUNCIL, LIKE OAC AND STAFF ADVANCE TO YOU, IS IN FACT, THE ELIMINATION OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL USES CITYWIDE. IF WE ACCEPT PARKING MANDATES ARE BAD FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS, LIKE SMOKING TWO PACKS OF CIGARETTES A DAY IS BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH. HE USED NATHANIEL'S ANALOGY. WOULD OUR DOCTOR FIRST RECOMMEND WE QUIT ENTIRELY OR GO DOWN TO ONE PACK A DAY? OUR DOCTOR WOULD RECOMMEND WE QUIT ENTIRELY. SIMILARLY, THE LATE DONALD CHUPE WOULD'VE ADVISED COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF PARKING MANDATES OVER INCREMENTALISM. UNFORTUNATELY, WE, INCLUDING THE COALITION IN OUR LETTER IN THIS COMMISSION, ARE CONSIDERING BARGAINING WITH DALLAS POLITICS WHEN POLITICS SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE COUNCIL. GIVEN THESE REALITIES, THE DALLAS HOUSING COALITION WOULD SUPPORT THE PARKING AMENDMENTS AS INTRODUCED BY COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT WITH THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES IN OUR LETTER. IT IS TIME TO MAKE THE BEST POLICY DECISIONS THAT WILL EITHER INCREASE OR DECREASE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY. THESE ARE CONSCIOUS CHOICES YOU ARE MAKING. WHETHER WE AS A CITY PRIORITIZE OUR PEOPLE OR OUR VEHICLES, WE CANNOT DO BOTH. HOUSING COSTS AND PROPERTY VALUES ARE RISING PRICING PEOPLE OUT. AND BY PRESERVING THE STATUS QUO, WE ARE FAILING TO CREATE TWO DIFFERENT IMPOSSIBLE HOUSING MARKETS. ONE THAT ALLOWS THESE TO RISE THROUGH EXCLUSIONARY, DETACHED, SINGLE FAMILY ONLY ZONING, AND ONE THAT CREATES AFFORDABLE HOUSING CATEGORY, CREATING AN EVEN MORE ECONOMICALLY BIFURCATED DALLAS OF HAVES AND HAVE NOTS. PARKING REDUCTIONS ARE NOT A BARGAINING SHIP FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THEY ARE HOW WE MAKE HOUSING MORE AFFORDABLE FOR EVERYONE. WE SIMPLY MUST PRIORITIZE HOUSING AND MOVE AWAY FROM THE NOTION OF PROTECTING NEIGHBORHOODS. FROM WHO, FROM WHAT? A COUPLE QUICK BUSINESS EXAMPLES I HEARD IN THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS, THERE'S A DOMINO'S IN SOUTH DALLAS THAT WAS FORCED TO PURCHASE LAND FOR PARKING ACROSS THE STREET THAT SITS VACANT. IT'S USED AS A GATHERING PLACE FOR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, DECREASING PUBLIC SAFETY IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. SECOND, THERE'S AN EVENT SPACE IN A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL AREA THAT EMPLOYS ALMOST A HUNDRED PEOPLE AND ATTRACTS A QUARTER OF ITS ATTENDEES VIA RIDESHARE. THEY COULD TURN OUT ANOTHER 25% IN REVENUE, WAGES, AND TAXES IF IT WEREN'T FOR OUTDATED PARKING AND CODE. MORE AND MORE ENTERTAINMENT AND SPACES ARE BEING BUILT OUT IN THE SUBURBS, AND THAT'S NOT GOOD FOR DALLAS COMBINED. THIS IS WHY THESE PARKING REFORMS ARE ANOTHER CRUCIAL STEP THAT PRECEDES IMPLEMENTING MORE TOOLS AND LAND USE REFORMS THAT ARE NEEDED IN THE FUTURE, SUCH AS CREATING PARKING BENEFIT DISTRICTS, RIGHT PRICING AND BETTER MANAGING OUR CURVE AND ALLOWING MORE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING. IN DOING SO, AS AUSTIN HAS DONE, WE CAN COLLECT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN REVENUE AND REINVEST THOSE DOLLARS IN OUR COMMUNITY FOR IMPROVED SIDEWALKS. AS A PREVIOUS SPEAKER MENTIONED, ADDING METERS, LIGHTING AND BENCHES, AND ENHANCING WAVE FINDING TO THE ABUNDANT PARKING SPACES IN DALLAS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE. MAKING THIS A WIN WIN WIN FOR EVERYONE. EXCUSES DO NOT LEAD TO HOUSING PRODUCTION OR PRESERVATION EXECUTION DOES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, IS THERE ANYWHERE ELSE ONLINE, JORGE, WE MISSED? NO. IS THERE ANYWHERE ELSE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD? OKAY. COMMISSIONERS ARE GONNA ASK FOR A BREAK. LET'S TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK. GET BACK TO WORK. 4:02 PM ARE READY? READY? WE'RE READY. COMMISSIONERS. IT IS FOUR 13. WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD. WE'LL LET OUR FOLKS GET ON. OKAY. UH, SO COMMISSIONERS, JUST, UH, A QUICK HEADS UP ABOUT THE, THE PROCESS HERE. SO, WE'LL, WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE MAIN MOTION, UH, TO, TO START OFF, FOLLOWED BY A SERIES OF AMENDMENTS TO THAT MOTION. SINCE COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT HAS ALREADY INTRODUCED MANY OF THE, UH, THE AMENDMENTS DURING OUR LAST HEARING, WE WILL BEGIN WITH THOSE FIRST. UM, I THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE A PRINTED COPY OF IT, YET EVERYONE HAS A PRINTED COPY OF IT. OKAY. UM, SO WE'LL DISCUSS EACH ONE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALLY. AND, UH, IF YOU HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR AMENDMENT, THEN YOU'RE MAKE, YOU'RE WELCOME TO PROPOSE, UH, THAT AT THAT TIME. AND WE CAN HANDLE EACH AMENDMENT THROUGH A SINGLE MOTION OR VOTE ON CERTAIN PARTS SEPARATELY. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF, UH, THERE'S A GENERAL AGREEMENT ON THE APPROACH OF THE, ON THE AMENDMENT, BUT A SPECIFIC NUMBER OR METRIC, THERE'S THIS AGREEMENT, THEN WE CAN SEPARATE THAT OUT AND VOTE ON THAT SEPARATELY. SO ONCE WE GO THROUGH THE, THE ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE SHEET THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE IN [05:45:01] FRONT OF YOU, THEN OF COURSE, ANY COMMISSIONER IS WELCOME TO MAKE, MAKE ANY AMENDMENT, UH, THAT THEY INTEREST THEM. UH, SO WE'LL BEGIN WITH A MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. UH, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. UM, YOU KNOW, I, I PREPARED SOME SORT OF INTRODUCTORY REMARKS, BUT IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I'M GONNA SKIP THOSE AND I'LL SAVE THOSE FOR WHEN WE VOTE AT OUR, AT OUR PERFECT. YES. SUBSEQUENT, SUBSEQUENT HEARING. YES, SIR. BUT, UH, IN PREPARING THOSE REMARKS, A COUPLE OF LITTLE FACTS THAT I THOUGHT MIGHT BE INTERESTING TO MENTION BEFORE I I DIVE INTO THIS MOTION. UH, IT'S BEEN ESTIMATED THAT IF WE GATHERED UP ALL OF THE PARKING LOTS IN AMERICA IN ONE PLACE, THEY WOULD COVER THE ENTIRE STATE OF CONNECTICUT AND VERMONT. THE DALLAS THREE. IS THAT ALL RIGHT? THAT'S THE KIND OF ONE. AND THEN IN THE DALLAS 360 PLAN STATES THAT 27% OF OUR CITY IS COVERED WITH PARKING. UM, IT'S TIME TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. SO, UH, LET ME DIVE INTO, UH, THIS MOTION. AND I, I WANNA SAY THAT THIS IS, UM, YES, THERE'S PREFERENCES OF MINE IN HERE, BUT THIS IS A REAL ATTEMPT TO LISTEN TO A LOT OF INPUT FROM COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF AND INDUSTRY ORGANIZATIONS AND NEIGHBORHOODS. AND SO THAT'S WHAT I HOPE THIS REPRESENTS. AND I AGREE WITH THE, THE PROCEDURE THAT CHAIR HAS LAID OUT FOR US. SO, UM, IN, UH, THE MATTER OF DCA 1 9 0 DASH ZERO TWO, JUST, UM, THE MAIN MOTION SHOULD RECORD, AND THEN WE'LL DO, I'M GONNA SAY, AS APPROVED, THE AMENDMENT CAN, CAN I ASK A POINT OF CLARIFICATION? YES, OF COURSE. ARE, ARE WE MOVING THROUGH THESE AND DISCUSSING EACH ONE, OR ARE WE GONNA VOTE ON EACH ONE AS WE GO? YES. WE'LL, WE'LL VOTE ON EACH ONE AS WE GO. OKAY. WITH, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT, UM, I PERSONALLY WOULDN'T RECOMMEND THAT WE VOTE ON THE ENTIRE THING TODAY. WE WOULD GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE, PLUS MAYBE YOU HAVE SOME, SOME ADDITIONAL ONES. WE WORK THROUGH THEM ALL. WE LET STAFF GO BACK AND, AND PRESENT THEM ALL TO US, UH, AND THE PUBLIC. AND MAYBE WE BRING IT BACK ON MARCH 6TH, TAKE A LOOK AT IT, THEN MAKE SOME FINAL ADJUSTMENTS IF NEEDED. UH, AND THEN POSSIBLY VOTE IT, BUT VOTE IT OUT THEN. SO, TODAY, I GUESS THEY'RE PRELIMINARY VOTES, JUST TO KNOW WHERE WE ARE AND TO GET 'EM ON THE PAGE, UH, KNOWING THAT ON THE SIXTH, IF WE BRING IT BACK, THEN WE COULD ADJUST THEM AGAIN THERE. YEAH. I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE A CLEAN COPY. YES. UM, AND GIVE THE, THE PUBLIC A CHANCE TO DO THE SAME. ABSOLUTELY. AND DO WE HAVE A TIMEFRAME FOR TONIGHT WHEN WE'RE GONNA SAY, HEY, THIS IS AS MUCH AS WE'RE GONNA GET THROUGH. I DON'T HAVE ONE. AND I, I THINK, WE'LL, WE'LL PROBABLY KNOW WHEN WE'RE TOO TIRED TO KEEP GOING. UH, BUT, YOU KNOW, I SUSPECT, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE ITEMS ON THE SHEET WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I KNOW WHERE I STAND ON ALL OF THESE. I, I COULD PROBABLY TELL YOU WHERE YOU STAND ON ALL OF THESE. SO MOSTLY I DON'T, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GONNA SURPRISE ME. AWESOME. UM, SO I, I'M HOPING IT WON'T TAKE TOO, TOO LONG, TOO LONG A DISCUSSION. UM, BUT WE'LL SEE. WE'LL JUST PLAY IT BY EAR. BUT YES, IF WE GET A LITTLE CRANKY AND TESTY, WE'LL GO HOME. MR. CHAIR. YES, SIR. IN THAT SPIRIT, CAN I MAKE A PROCEDURAL MOTION? SURE. TO LIMIT DISCUSSION ON ANY AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION TO, UH, THREE ROUNDS PER COMMISSIONER ON THE THREE MINUTES PER COMMISSIONER ON THE FIRST ROUND AND ONE MINUTE ON THE SECOND ROUND. SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND MOTION. AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY, AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. WE'LL GO TO THE THREE IN ONE, UH, SLOPE. LOPEZ WILL KEEP TIME. IS THAT THE RECOMMENDATION? CHAIRMAN, ED? CAN I, YES. COMMISSIONER FOR CAN QUESTION. UH, AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS QUESTION'S APPROPRIATE FOR STAFF OR FOR COMMISSIONER HOUSE, RIGHT? BUT IF THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO OF THESE, UH, AMENDMENTS, UH, WHICH STANDS, LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, IF WE PASS THE ELIMINATE MINIMUMS FOR USES WITHIN ONE HALF MILE RADIUS OF, UH, TOD STATIONS, BUT WE ALSO PASS THE AMENDMENT TO KEEP PARKING MINIMUMS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, THERE'S GONNA BE A CONFLICT BECAUSE THERE ARE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WITHIN A HALF A, A MILE OF A TOD STATION. YES. SO WHAT, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THOSE CONFLICTS EXIST? PERFECT QUESTION. UH, THAT, THAT'S WHY WE'RE GONNA JUST TAKE 'EM ONE AT A TIME. SO, UH, IF, FOR EXAMPLE, THE SECOND ONE ABOUT THE TOD THAT WOULD REPLACE THE LANGUAGE, UH, IN, IN THE FIRST MOTION, SO ONE OVERLAYS ON TOP OF THE OTHER, THAT'S WHY, THAT'S WHY WE'RE NOT GONNA MAKE ONE, ONE VOTE FOR ALL OF THIS. WE'RE GONNA [05:50:01] TAKE 'EM ONE AT A TIME. RIGHT? SO BEFORE WE GET INTO AMENDMENTS TO THE ZAC RECOMMENDATION, WE NEED A MO A MAIN MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE ZAC C'S RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN WE'LL TAKE AMENDMENTS ONE AT A TIME. COMMISSIONER RA. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, IN THE MATTER OF DCA 1 9 0 DASH 0 0 2, I MOVE THAT WE FOLLOW, UH, ZAC RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THIS ITEM. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR YOUR MOTION. AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HALL. AND NOW WE GET TO THE AMENDMENTS. DO WE HAVE A VOTE ON THAT? DO WE HAVE A VOTE? NO, WE'RE NOT GONNA VOTE ON THAT. OKAY. YEAH. SO NOW THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DEBATE ON THE MAIN MOTION. IT'S ALSO OPEN FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE MAIN MOTION. OKAY. MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO, UH, PROPOSE AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO KEEP PARKING MINIMUMS IN RD AND TH DISTRICTS TO REDUCE THOSE MINIMUMS TO ONE SPACE PER UNIT. OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. UH, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HOUSE, RIGHT SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, AND NOW WE'LL DISCUSS THAT BY CHAIR. I'M RESPECTFULLY NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION, I THINK IN THE RD AND TH DISTRICTS. UM, GENERALLY PEOPLE WHO ARE BUILDING, YOU KNOW, PROPERTIES THAT GO IN THOSE DISTRICTS PROVIDE ADEQUATE PARKING FOR THEM ON SITE. AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO, UM, HAMPER FLEXIBILITY IF SOMEONE WANTS TO DO SOMETHING CREATIVE IN THOSE DISTRICTS WITH, UM, BY, BY REQUIRING ONE SPACE PER UNIT, I THINK MOST SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND DUPLEXES WILL PROVIDE AT LEAST ONE SPACE PER UNIT. AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO, UM, MANDATE ONE SPACE PER UNIT BECAUSE THERE MAY BE SOME COMPELLING CASES WHERE ONE SPACE IS NOT REQUIRED. COMMISSIONER TURNOCK, I'LL SECOND THOSE. I MEAN, I'LL ECHO THOSE COMMENTS AND, AND, AND AGREE. I MEAN, I ACTUALLY WOULD EVEN GO FARTHER AND SAY THAT IN RD AND TH MOST DEVELOPMENTS ARE GONNA STILL PROVIDE TWO PARKING SPACES, UH, AND GO ABOVE AND BEYOND. SO, UM, I JUST DON'T SEE A NEED TO PUT A REDUCTION TO ONE SPACE PER UNIT, SO I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF WHAT I THINK IS LIKELY TO COME FROM THE LEGISLATURE IF WE HAVE REDUCED MINIMUM LOT SIZES. I THINK HAVING A MINIMUM PARKING SPOT FOR EACH, UM, USE IS MAY WELL BE IMPORTANT. AND IF WE THINK THEY'RE GONNA DO IT ANYWAY, THEN WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF WE REQUIRE IT? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? UM, I SECONDED THE MOTION, AND I KNOW THERE'S PROBABLY MANY FOLKS WHO ARE A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THAT'S GONNA MEAN FOR THEIR COMMUNITIES, BUT I THINK WHAT I HAVE SEEN, UM, THROUGHOUT MY DISTRICT IS THAT THE TWO SPACE MINIMUM HAS NOT SERVED OUR COMMUNITIES WELL IN TERMS OF HOW THOSE, UM, SPACES GET INTEGRATED IN THEIR IMPACT TO OUR PUBLIC REALM. IT MAY BE CORRECT THAT PROJECTS ARE GONNA CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE TWO SPACES, AND THAT'S THEIR CHOICE, BUT THIS GIVES AN OPTION WHILE STILL KEEPING A MINIMUM STANDARD THAT I THINK CAN BE UNDERSTANDABLE AND PROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY, UM, FOR NEW PROJECT TYPES TO BE DEVELOPED MOVING FORWARD. COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, I JUST WANT TO, UH, WEIGH IN, IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AS, UH, UH, OFFERED BY COMMISSIONER HAS WRIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, THEN WE'LL GO A SECOND ROUND. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I ALSO WILL, UM, SUPPORT THE MOTION AS READ BY COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER, DID YOU SAY NOT? THAT'S RIGHT. NO, I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION. OKAY. YES. IT, IT REALLY CONSTITUTES A, I MEAN, THE ONLY, UM, ONE OF THOSE PARKING CATE THE ZONING CATEGORIES THAT REQUIRES TWO SPACES RIGHT NOW IS DUPLEX, YOU KNOW, R-N-T-H-R-D ONE, I THINK. YEAH. I, I AS READ BY COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, AND AS IT APPEARS ON THIS PIECE OF PAPER, I WILL SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HALL, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, THE MOTION THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW IS TO KEEP THE PARKING MINIMUMS IN RD AND TH AND REDUCE MINIMUMS TO ONE SPACE PER UNIT. THAT'S IT. YES, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. I DO HAVE A QUESTION, PLEASE. UM, SO WHAT IS THE CURRENT MINIMUM FOR RD AND TH? ACTUALLY, COMMISSIONER FRANK, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. I FORGOT TO MENTION THIS PIECE. YOU KNOW, THIS IS, THIS IS A FLUID PROCESS, AND WE'RE WELCOME TO ASK STAFF ANY QUESTIONS AT ANY TIME. YOU KNOW, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL UNDERSTAND ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. UH, QUESTION FOR STAFF. UM, SO FOR SINGLE FAMILY, IT'S, UM, GENERALLY TWO SPACES, EXCEPT IN THE R FIVE AND R [05:55:01] SEVEN FIVE DISTRICT WHERE ONLY ONE SPACE IS REQUIRED FOR DUPLEX USES. THEY REQUIRE TWO PARKING SPACES PER UNIT, SO THAT'S FOUR PARKING SPACES FOR DUPLEX. UM, AND, AND, AND TH WOULD ALSO BE TWO UNITS FOR SINGLE FAMILY, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT R FIVE OR R SEVEN FIVE. SO GENERALLY TWO SPACES, UM, WITH THE ONLY EXCEPTION BEING THE R FIVE AND R SEVEN FIVE DISTRICT WHERE ONE IS REQUIRED. BUT THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND, AND, AND WITH THAT, I'M SURE I'M IN THE MINORITY HERE, BUT I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THE PARKING MINIMUMS AS THEY ARE TODAY FOR RD AND TH WITHOUT REDUCING TO ONE SPACE PER UNIT. OKAY. COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT. I, I CONCUR WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN. YOU KNOW, UH, UH, KEEPING THE PARKING MINIMUMS IN THESE DISTRICTS THE WAY THEY ARE TODAY IS VERY IMPORTANT TO, UH, YOU KNOW, PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. UH, I CAN TELL YOU, LIVING IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE PEOPLE PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET, YOU CAN BARELY GET BY. AND, UM, I, I CAN TELL YOU THAT, UH, BEING NEXT TO AN APARTMENT COMPLEX WHERE PEOPLE CAN'T PAY THE, THE, THE FEE THAT THE APARTMENT COMPLEX CHARGES, THEY'RE PARKING OUT ON THE STREET AND PARKING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AS WELL. WE, WE HAVE, AND, AND WE'VE SEEN IT IN BISHOP ARTS DISTRICT AND, AND, AND, AND, AND, AND ALSO IN THE LOWER GREENVILLE AREA TOO, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF, YOU KNOW, HAS STAFF SAYS THESE AREAS BEING, UH, INCUBATORS FOR SUCCESS, WE REALLY SEE THAT THERE IS, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT THE PEOPLE IN THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS ARE PAYING THE PRICE FOR, YOU KNOW, UH, NOT HAVING APPROPRIATE PARKING. AND, AND SO WE DON'T NEED TO BE REDUCING IT ANYMORE. UM, AND, UM, SO I, I, I, I SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT, BUT I, I, I, I DON'T SUPPORT REDUCING THE MINIMUMS TO ONE SPACE PER UNIT CHAIR. CAN I SPEAK? OH, MY APOLOGIES, PLEASE. COMMISSIONER HERBERT? OKAY. UM, I'LL BE SUPPORTING A MOTION IN MY, MY REASON IS, UM, SO OFTEN IN MY DISTRICT, DISTRICT FOUR, DISTRICT EIGHT, WE HAVE THESE REQUIREMENTS, BUT LOOPHOLES ARE ALWAYS BEING TESTED IN OUR AREA. UM, WE HAVE SEVERAL NEIGHBORHOODS WITH THE TWO CAR MINIMUMS, BUT THEY'RE SO SMALL, YOU CAN'T FIT A CAR INTO THEM. UM, SO I DON'T, I DON'T, THEY'RE HAVING THESE MINIMUMS IN PLACE, HAVE BEEN WALKED OVER IN MY DISTRICT AND, AND NEARBY DISTRICTS FOR YEARS NOW. UM, MAINTAINING THEM, INCREASING THEM, I DON'T THINK WILL MAKE THAT SITUATION BETTER. UM, A LOT OF OUR BUILD FORM GOING DOWN TO THE NEW TOWN HOMES THAT ARE GOING UP, UH, WITH THE FRONT FACING GARAGES AND NO FRONT DOORS, A LOT OF THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. UM, SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENT, UH, MR. RUBEN AND I, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, A VOTE NO ON THIS AMENDMENT WOULD STAY WITH A ZO OAC RECOMMENDATION OF NO PARKING MINIMUM FOR RD AND TH AND A YES VOTE WOULD GO INCREASE FROM THE ZO OAC RECOMMENDATION TO ONE SPACE PER UNIT FOR EACH OF THESE. JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE, WE'RE CLEAR ABOUT THAT ON THE RECORD. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. AND IN, IN FACT, TO THANK YOU. SORRY, COMMISSIONER HERBERT, I WAS JUST THANKING THE VICE CHAIR FOR THAT EXPLANATION. YES. AND, AND TO BE FAIR TO, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF OUR COLLEAGUES' COMMENTS TO, TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT, YOU'D HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT. OKAY. SO JUST MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. UH, IT WOULD BE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, A MOTION THAT AMENDS THE AMENDMENT. YES. A MOTION THAT AMENDS THE AMENDMENT. COMMISSIONER HAWES. YES. I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION. YOU KNOW, WE RECEIVED SOME UNITED STATES CENSUS DATA OVER THE PAST FEW DAYS, AND IT SHOWS OUT OF 540,000 HOUSEHOLDS IN DALLAS, 52% OF THEM HAVE ONE CAR OR LESS. AND THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF FAMILIES, ALMOST 10% THAT HAVE ZERO CARS. SO, UH, I THINK THAT THE PE REASON PEOPLE PARK ON THE STREETS IS BECAUSE THEY PUT STUFF IN THEIR GARAGES. I THINK THEY CONVERT THEIR GARAGES TO LIVING SPACE. IT'S NOT A PARKING ISSUE, IT'S A HUMAN BEHAVIOR ISSUE. SO I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER NGO? UM, DUE TO, UH, COMMISSIONER HALL'S COMMENTS, UM, I WILL RESPECTFULLY NOT BE SUPPORTING THE, UH, AMENDMENT AS IT IS. UM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, RARELY ARE WE GONNA HAVE ANYONE BUILD [06:00:01] A SPACE WITHOUT PARKING. UM, AND I DO THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, A HUMAN BEHAVIOR THING. AND SO I THINK, WE'LL, I THINK THIS COULD, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY GET US TO OUR, OUR GOAL OF, OF MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO, MR. CHAIR, CAN I REQUEST A RECORD VOTE ON THIS ONE? ABSOLUTELY. UH, COMMISSIONER, I'LL WRITE SECOND ROUND. YEAH. UM, WHEN I FIRST READ THE FIRST DRAFT OF THIS, UH, THIS ORDINANCE GETTING UP TO SPEED ON THIS, MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO, THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE OF RESIDENTIAL PARKING JUMPED OFF THE PAGE TO ME AS A, A REALLY SORT OF PIVOTAL ISSUE IN THIS, AND ABOUT HOW YOU THINK ABOUT THE CITY AND HOW WE THINK ABOUT THIS ISSUE. UM, WE'VE BEEN ASKED BY, UH, NUMEROUS PEOPLE TO THINK ABOUT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS IS THINKING ABOUT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. UM, I REALIZE THERE ARE MANY COMMUNITIES IN THIS COUNTRY WHERE YOU PARK YOUR CAR ON THE STREET AND DOWN THE STREET AND AROUND THE CORNER. UM, I DON'T THINK THAT'S DALLAS YET. IT MAY NOT EVER BE DALLAS. UM, I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON MAKES A, A VERY GOOD POINT THAT WE MAY BE LOOKING AT MUCH SMALLER LOT SIZES AT SOME POINT IN THE TIME IN, IN THE RELATIVELY NEAR FUTURE HERE IN DALLAS. UM, I THINK THAT, UM, WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE ON AN INCREMENTAL BASIS. THIS IS AN INCREMENTAL APPROACH, UM, ON THE REDUCING THE MINIMUMS. A VAST AMOUNT OF OUR CITY IS IN R FIVE AND R SEVEN FIVE THAT ONLY REQUIRES ONE SPACE. SO MANY OF OUR CONTENTIOUS DUPLEX CASES ARE CONTENTIOUS, IN PART BECAUSE OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR FOUR CARS ON A LITTLE. THANK YOU, SIR. YOUR TIME IS OUT. SO, UM, THAT DOESN'T APPLY TO ME, DOES IT? ? YEAH. MS. MORRISON SAID THAT DOESN'T APPLY TO ME. I'M SORRY. SHE WANTS TO APOLOGIZE. , I THINK, WAS THAT YOUR FIRST ROUND COMMISSIONER OR YOUR SECOND ROUND? I DON'T THINK I GAVE YOU YOUR FIRST ROUND. THAT WAS MY FIRST ROUND. OKAY. SO WAS THAT, NO, THAT WAS A MINUTE. I'M SORRY. OKAY, SO YOU HAVE TWO MORE MINUTES, COMMISSIONER. I THOUGHT IT WAS, MY APOLOGIES. I THINK I'M DONE. I'M GONNA SAVE THOSE. I'M GONNA SAVE THOSE MINUTES. I REALLY NEED THEM. UH, JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF. JUST, YOU KNOW, JUST TO PUT IT OUT THERE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE TALK A LOT ABOUT, OF OUR, YOU KNOW, OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND OUR EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS, THIS ADJUSTMENT, HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT MY NEIGHBORHOOD? RIGHT? I, I LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S ESTABLISHED. IT'S GOT, YOU KNOW, 30, 40-YEAR-OLD HOMES, 50. HOW IS THIS GONNA CHANGE MY NEIGHBORHOOD? THIS CHANGED NUMBER ONE TO, UH, TO, TO WITH THE AMENDMENT, OR WITH THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO GO TO ZERO? WITH, WITH THE MOTION. WITH THE MOTION. I MEAN, IT'S AN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IF A NEW HOUSE IS GONNA BE BUILT, IT'S GOOD. UH, PARDON ME WITH, WITH THE, THE NUMBER ONE AMENDMENT. YES. YES. YES. SO CHANGE IT FROM, I'M ASSUMING YOUR DISTRICT, I, I DON'T KNOW IF IN YOUR DISTRICT RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE REQUIREMENT OF WORK PER UNIT OR TWO PER UNIT. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA CHANGE OR AFFECT IT TOO MUCH. IT'S JUST THAT THE NEW HOUSES ARE GONNA BE BUILT AGAIN, PER THE MARKET DEMAND. RIGHT. SO ESSENTIALLY, I LIVE IN AN R SEVEN FIVE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IF ONE OF MY NEIGHBORS DECIDES TO RAISE THEIR HOME, THEN THIS WOULD APPLY TO THEIR ONE HOUSE IN, YOU KNOW, MY 300 HOME NEIGHBORHOOD. YES. OKAY. YES. I WANNA MAKE A, A STAFF COMMENT IF YOU WOULD ALLOW ME ON THIS. I JUST WANNA PUT IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION THE FACT THAT, UM, IN THIS DISTRICT, THERE IS ALSO, THERE ARE OTHER REQUIREMENTS. SO FOR INSTANCE, LOT COVERAGE FOR THIS DISTRICTS, FOR OUR DISTRICTS IS 40%. FOR DNTH IS 60%, WHICH LEAVES ENOUGH ROOM ON THE LOT TO ACTUALLY PARK A CAR. SO I WOULD SAY EVEN IF THE REQUIREMENT IS REMOVED BECAUSE OF THE LOT COVERAGE THAT IS RESTRICTED, I THINK PARKING WILL BE, UH, WILL BE ENOUGH ROOM ON THE LOT TO BE PROVIDED. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER? FORESIGHT? I'M NOT GOING TO OFFER THAT MOTION ABOUT, UH, REDUCING THE, OR KEEPING THE MINIMUMS THE WAY THEY ARE. I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE MOTION, UH, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT MY MOTION WOULD NOT PASS. AND, AND IN THE INTEREST OF GETTING THE, THE, THE, THE BEST OUTCOME HERE, I WILL BE SUPPORTING COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHT'S MOTION. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER FORESITE. OKAY, LET'S TAKE A RECORDED VOTE. DISTRICT ONE? NO. DISTRICT TWO? [06:05:02] YES. DISTRICT THREE? YES. DISTRICT FOUR? YES. DISTRICT FIVE? YES. DISTRICT SIX? YES. DISTRICT SEVEN, DISTRICT EIGHT? YES. DISTRICT NINE? YES. DISTRICT 10? YES. DISTRICT 11? NO. DISTRICT 12 ABSENT. DISTRICT 13? YES. DISTRICT 14? YES. PLACE 15. NO. MOTION PASSES. WE'LL GO TO NUMBER TWO. UH, MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO OFFER, UH, A SECOND AMENDMENT. UH, THAT IS TO ELIMINATE MINIMUMS FOR ALL MULTI-FAMILY USES, EXCEPT MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF ONE SPACE PER UNIT WHEN CONTIGUOUS WITH SINGLE FAMILY USES. AND THAT 10% OF PROVIDED MULTI-FAMILY PARKING MUST BE ACCESSIBLE TO VISITORS OUTSIDE A GATE AND CLEARLY MARKED AT THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE. YES. CAN YOU REPEAT IT SLOWLY PLEASE? FOR STAFF, THEY'RE TYPING AS YOU SPEAK. OKAY. YOU WANT FROM THE TOP? UH, I THINK MAYBE JUST THE, THE 10% PIECE. YES. WOULD STAFF LIKE THIS EMAIL TO THEM? ? WE ALL DO IT. YEAH. THERE WAS JUST THAT, THAT LAST PIECE I THINK WAS NOT, IT'S NOT ON THE COPY. 10 10% OF PROVIDED MULTI-FAMILY PARKING MUST BE ACCESSIBLE TO VISITORS OUTSIDE A GATE. OH, IT'S, YEAH. IT'S TOO DEEP. NICE. I'M SORRY. WE, WE DIDN'T CATCH IT. IT'S ON THE SHEET. MY APOLOGIES. I, THAT ONE IT WAS, YES. OKAY. MY APOLOGIES. YOU DON'T HAVE THE SHEET HERE. ONE, ONE WORD WAS ADDED. MULTI-FAMILY. YEAH. THANK YOU, SIR. YEAH, THE SPIRIT OF THAT WAS MY APOLOGIES. MULTI-FAMILY. I SHOULD HAVE STATED THAT, UH, IN THE, I SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN THAT, BUT, OKAY. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER, UH, FOR YOUR MOTION. AND COMMISSIONER HALL FOR YOUR SECOND. I KNOW THERE'S GONNA BE SOME AMENDMENTS TO THIS ONE. UH, SO CAN I ASK A CLARIFICATION QUESTION FIRST, PLEASE? OF COURSE. WHAT DOES CLEARLY MARKED AT THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE MEAN? IS THAT LIKE A SIGN GOING, VISITOR PARKING IN AN ARROW OR, YOU KNOW, I LOOKED OVER SOMEBODY'S SHOULDER AND COPIED THAT GOOD STAFF. MAYBE FROM, FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE. THAT'S WHAT WE FOUND IN A LOT OF CODES. IT, IT REALLY DOESN'T GO INTO THE NATURE OF THE SIGN. UM, BUT IT JUST SAYS THAT THERE IS A MARKING THAT INDICATES TO FOLKS THAT ENTERING WHERE IS THAT? THERE IS SOME VISITOR PARK. OKAY. CORRECT. YEAH. THANK YOU. OKAY. I HAVE TWEAKS. OKAY. CAN I ASK STAFF A QUESTION ON THIS? OKAY. COMMISSIONER HERBERT, MY APOLOGIES. WE'RE, WE'RE, WE HAVE SOME AMENDMENTS FROM, FROM OUR COLLEAGUES THAT I THINK WE WOULD BENEFIT TO HAVE A COPY OF. SO LET'S JUST TAKE A QUICK PAUSE. UH, THEY'RE, SHE'S GONNA SEND THEM TO STAFF AND, UM, WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. SO, JUST, JUST A FEW MINUTES TO THE, THANK MY APOLOGIES, COMMISSIONER HERBERT. NO WORRIES. THANK YOU. IN FACT, IF, UH, YOU KNOW, IF ANY ONE OF US KNOW, WE'RE GONNA MAKE SOME, SOME AMENDMENTS AND YOU CAN EMAIL, UH, STAFF AND THEY CAN PRINT 'EM OUT. COMMERCIAL FORESIGHT, PLEASE. YES. SHE'S NOT NOAA. PARDON ME, MS. LOPEZ, YOUR HONOR. COMMISSIONERS THERE, THERE'S A FEW OF US THAT JUST EMAILED LILIANA SOME AMENDMENTS. ARE THEY FOR NUMBER TWO FOR THE MULTIFAMILY PIECE? 'CAUSE IF NOT, THEN WE CAN KEEP GOING AND, OKAY. WELL, LET'S, LET'S KEEP GOING. UH, IT'S 5 0 1. WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD. SO, COMMISSIONERS, THE, THE GAME PLAN FOR NUMBER TWO IS, UH, LET'S DISCUSS AND UNDERSTAND, UH, WHAT NUMBER TWO IS PROPOSING. AND THEN BEFORE WE VOTE ON IT, THERE'S, THERE'S ANOTHER APPROACH THAT WE'RE GONNA GET ON THE RECORD THAT COMMISSIONER KINGSTON IS, IS GONNA, UH, UH, MAKE AMENDMENT FOR. AND THEN WE'LL DISCUSS AND UNDERSTAND THAT ONE, AND THEN SEE WHERE WE ARE, UH, WHICH ONE WE PREFER. AND THERE MAY BE A THIRD, BUT LET'S BEGIN FIRST WITH NUMBER TWO. AND MAYBE COMMISSIONER HOUSER, DO YOU WANT, DO YOU WANT TO, DO YOU HAVE A, UH, COMMENTS ON [06:10:01] THIS, OR DO YOU WANT TO GO TO CONTEXT FROM STAFF ABOUT MAYBE HOW IT WOULD, YOU KNOW, THE, HOW IT PLAYS OUT? UM, THE ONLY COMMENT I WOULD HAVE WAS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT BUFFERS IN MEASURED IN FEET, WHETHER IT'S 300 FEET OR 100 FEET OR WHATEVER. I'M PERSUADED BY STAFF THAT IT'S A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT THING FOR THEM TO MANAGE AND FOR THEM TO PROCESS. AND, UM, THAT IT RAISES ALL SORTS OF QUESTIONS. AND SO, UM, AS I WORKED ON THIS, I GOT COMFORTABLE WITH, UM, ARRIVING AT THIS IDEA OF CONTIGUOUS. AND AS I UNDERSTAND FROM MS. MAY, CONTIGUOUS IS A MORE MEANINGFUL TERM THAN ADJACENT OR NEXT TO, OR WHATEVER. AND, AND THE, THE SPIRIT OF THAT, OR THE, THE INTENT OF THAT IS THAT IT SHARES A PROPERTY LINE. THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD CONTIGUOUS. UM, SO I'LL STOP MY COMMENTS THERE AND WE'LL GO. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, BEFORE WE GO TO, TO QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS, COMMISSIONERS, UH, DOES STAFF HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT? MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE, IS THERE ANYTHING HERE THAT WE NEED, MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND BEFORE WE DISCUSS IT FURTHER? UM, YES. SO I WOULD LIKE A CLARIFICATION ON MF USES IN MF DISTRICTS AND THEN CONTINUOUS WITH SINGLE FAMILY USES IN RDTH. RIGHT? NOT IN ANY KIND OF, BECAUSE SINGLE FAMILY USES ARE ALLOWED IN, UH, OTHER DISTRICTS AS WELL, LIKE AN NMF DISTRICT. SO RIGHT NOW, THE MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MAKE A DIS THIS TYPE OF DISTINCTION, THIS USES CAN COEXIST. SO THAT'S MY QUESTION FOR THE BODY. WELL, IS, OR AM I TO COMMENT ON THAT? UM, OKAY. MY, I'M TRYING TO, I I JUST TAKE THIS SORT OF ALL AT FACE VALUE. AND SO I'M NOT PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT A CONDITION WHERE A MULTIFAMILY IS NEXT TO A DUPLEX OR A MULTIFAMILY IS NEXT TO A TOWNHOUSE. I DON'T SEE THE REASON TO, UH, INVOKE MINIMUMS PARKING MINIMUMS IN THAT CONDITION. SO WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET AT WAS A VERY STRICT DEFINITION OF SINGLE FAMILY. I, I, I THINK IF I CAN CLARIFY, IT'S NOT ONLY RDTH THAT HAVE, THAT ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY USES, BUT THERE ARE OTHER DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY USES. AND WE'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF YOU ARE, IF YOU WERE INTENDING SINGLE FAMILY IN RD AND TH, BUT NOT SINGLE FAMILY USES IN ANY OTHER DISTRICTS, AND I CAN ALSO FOLLOW UP TO SAY THEN WE MAY SAY CONTIGUOUS WITH SINGLE FAMILY USES IN OUR DISTRICT, BECAUSE MF DISTRICT, FOR INSTANCE, OR MU DISTRICTS ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY AS WELL. AND I WANTED TO FIND OUT THAT THE INTENT WAS SINGLE FAMILY IN ANY TYPE OF DISTRICT OR NOT. WELL, I THINK THE DISTRICTS IS, IS PROBABLY BETTER IF, AND, AND MORE, MORE CLEAR AND EASIER TO UNDERSTAND WERE IT NOT FOR SOME UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT WERE DISCUSSED EARLIER TODAY ABOUT PARKLAND, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT MIGHT BE ZONE R SEVEN FIVE. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I WOULD, UM, PROBABLY DEFER TO STAFF ON WHERE YOU WANT TO INSERT THE WORD USES AND WHERE YOU WANT TO INSERT THE WORD DISTRICT TO GET THIS TO WORK. I WOULD, YOU KNOW, THE WAY IT NEEDS TO WORK. AND THANK YOU FOR THAT SO MUCH. UM, IT IS VERY TYPICAL TO HAVE THIS TYPE OF BUS BUFFERS TO ART DISTRICTS TO SINGLE FAMILY USES IN ART DISTRICT. SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, IF YOU, IF THAT'S WHAT, UM, THE BODY WANTS IS TO SAY WITH CONTIGUOUS WITH SINGLE FAMILY USES IN OUR DISTRICTS, I'M, I'M HAPPY WITH THAT. OKAY. COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER SLEEPER. I, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT YOU JUST SAID. YOU'RE, YOU, YOU'RE FIRST OF ALL, FOR IT TO TRIGGER THIS REQUIREMENT, IT HAS TO BE A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, CORRECT? NOT, NOT JUST A HOUSE PLUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF A, OF AN O2 DISTRICT. IT'S A, IT'S GOTTA BE A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. AND BUT YOU'RE SAYING IT ALSO IT HAS TO BE A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT WITH A SINGLE FAMILY USE ON IT, OR JUST A SINGLE FAMILY? YES, THAT IS CORRECT. IT'S GOTTA BE BOTH. YES. BECAUSE THE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ALSO ALLOWS OTHER USES TO COMMISSIONER CHERLOCK, POINT PARKS, SCHOOLS, SO CHURCHES. SO THAT IS A BUFFER IN ITSELF. SO WE WANNA BE MINDFUL OF THAT. SO A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT THAT HAD NOTHING ON IT, THAT'S [06:15:01] A VERY GOOD QUESTION. WOULD NOT, WOULD NOT TRIGGER THE, WOULD NOT TRIGGER THE REQUIREMENT? THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION. I WOULD SAY, LET'S DISCUSS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE IF IT'S A VACANT, UNDEVELOPED LOT, THEN IT WOULD NOT. OKAY. I, I JUST MOSTLY, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT, THAT THAT, THAT IT'S GOTTA BE THE ZONING THAT TRIGGERS IT. SO A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE THAT HAPPENS TO BE SITTING ON A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT OR A, AN OFFICE DISTRICT, THAT DOES NOT TRIGGER THE REQUIREMENT. CORRECT? YES. THAT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. AND ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? YEAH, I'M FINE. YEAH. I'M, UH, I'M OKAY WITH IT. UH, VACANT LOT, NOT TRIGGERING IT AS WELL. I DON'T, I THINK, UM, IF A MULTIFAMILY PRO BUILD PROJECT IS BUILT AND SOMEBODY COMES AND DECIDES TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON THAT LOT, THEN THEY KNEW THAT, THAT THAT WAS WHAT THEIR SURROUNDING WAS, AND WE SHOULD NOT BE, UM, MAKING PO UH, DECISIONS IN REVERSE LIKE THAT. SO COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, WELL, WE ALSO HAVE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE CITY, YOU KNOW, THAT WERE DEVELOPED OUTTA SINGLE FAMILY AND ARE CURRENTLY SINGLE FAMILY THAT GOT OVERLAID WITH SOME NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE SITTING ON I, OUR ZONING. AND SO THAT REALLY STRIPS THEM OF, I MEAN, IF IT HAS TO BE DEPENDENT ON BEING OUR ZONING, IT, IT STRIPS THEM OF, I MEAN, THEY'VE ALREADY HAD INSULT OR, OR INJURY WITH BEING OVERLAID WITH ANOTHER ZONING, AND NOW THEY'RE, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE THIS PROTECTION AS WELL. I WOULD USE SOMETHING THAT OUR WONDERFUL DIRECTOR TOLD US. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADJACENCY BETWEEN TWO RESIDENTIAL USES, SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY. THIS IS THIS, THE DISCUSSION FOR THIS POINT IS, IS MULTIFAMILY. SO I UNDERSTAND, I'M SAYING IT COULD BE A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY NEXT TO IT, BUT BECAUSE THE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT SITTING ON OUR ZONING, IT, THIS WOULDN'T APPLY TO IT. THAT IS CORRECT. THE SINGLE FAMILY USES THERE IN INDUSTRIAL ZONING RIGHT NOW. MM-HMM . THEY'RE NON-CONFORMING. MM-HMM . I'M NOT SAYING LIKE THAT, THAT, THAT, I WOULD SAY THAT THAT'S A CONVERSATION IN ITSELF. AND I WOULD GO BACK FOR DALLAS TO SAY THAT WE WILL COME BACK WITH ALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PIECES AND WE'LL CHANGE THAT. YES. BUT, UH, SINGLE FAMILY USE IN INDUSTRIAL IS, IS A NON-CONFORMING USE. WELL, IT WAS A NON YES. CREATED BY POLICIES OF THE CITY THAT WERE NOT AT ALL EQUITABLE. MULTIFAMILY IS NOT A USE THAT'S ALLOWED IN INDUSTRIAL EITHER. NO. BUT IT CAN BE. UM, YES, BUT THERE COULD BE MULTIFAMILY ZONING SITTING RIGHT NEXT TO ONE OF THESE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT'S, THAT'S SITTING ON, ANYWAY, I WAS JUST WANTING TO POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE NEIGHBORHOODS, CLEARLY ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT I WOULD THINK ARE DESERVING OF SOME SORT OF PROTECTION, BUT YES. HAVE, HAVE, HAVE BEEN INJURED IN THE PAST BY SITTING ON PROP, UH, ZONING GOT OVERLAID, WAS ZONING. THAT'S NOT SINGLE FAMILY COMMISSIONER FORSYTH. I I HAVE A QUESTION, UH, REGARDING THE WORD OR CONTIGUOUS IN THIS AMENDMENT. EARLIER, I BELIEVE IT WAS COMMISSIONER KINGSTON ASKED YOU THE QUESTION, WHAT DOES CONTIGUOUS MEANS? AND I, MY NOTES, UH, I, I WROTE DOWN THAT YOU REPLIED THAT ACROSS THE STREET IS NOT CONTIGUOUS. YES. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT, YES. SO, SO BASICALLY, IF YOU'VE GOT AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AND ACROSS THE STREET IS A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD, THEN TH THIS, THIS AMENDMENT, UH, MEANS THAT, UH, UH, BASICALLY THAT SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD HAS TO LIVE WITH ITS MULTIFAMILY UNIT WITH NO PARKING REQUIRED, RIGHT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT. SO, SO, SO THAT, THAT, THAT REALLY, TO ME, THAT USE OF THE WORD CONTIGUOUS IS, IS, UH, IS MEANINGLESS. I MEAN, IT, IT REALLY MAKES THIS WHOLE AMENDMENT MEANINGLESS, UH, OR MOOT. YOU'RE NOT PROTECTING SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS WITH THIS AMENDMENT IN ANY WAY. IF YOU'RE SAYING CONTIGUOUS, UH, YOU KNOW, IT MEANS THAT IF YOU'RE ACROSS THE STREET, IT'S NOT CONTIGUOUS. YES. AND I WOULD SAY THAT, THAT THE, THIS UNDERSTANDING OF CONTIGUOUS APPLIES, LIKE, IT'S A, IT'S A COMMON CODE INTERPRETATION FOR A LOT OF OTHER THINGS. SO, UM, SO, SO WHAT, WHAT DOES, UH, APPLY THEN WITH CONTIGUOUS ACROSS THE ALLEY? IN OTHER WORDS, IF, IF THERE'S AN ALLEY BETWEEN THE APARTMENT AND THE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD, THEN THEY'RE CONTIGUOUS, BUT NOT ACROSS THE STREET. YES. YES. THE THOROUGH FAIR IN ITSELF, THINK ABOUT IT. IT'S, IF IT'S FEW LANES, IT'S A BUFFER IN ITSELF. THE THOROUGHFARE IN ITSELF IS A BUFFER. THIS IS NOT PROTECTING MY NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT'S FOR SURE. COMMISSIONER [06:20:01] FORESIGHT, JUST, YOU KNOW, TO BE FAIR, YOU COULD MAKE THAT AMENDMENT TO, OH, I'M SORRY, BUT WELL, YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT ON THE RECORD. YEAH, SIR. YOU HAVE TO. I DON'T THINK WE, I HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THAT ONE. COMMISSIONER FORESITE, WHICH ONE IS IT? YOUR MICROPHONE? UM, OKAY, I SEE NUMBER TWO, I PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO ITEM TWO TO REMOVE THE WORD CONTIGUOUS AND REPLACE IT, UH, WITH WITHIN 300 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY ZONED AREA. OUR ZONED AREA. AND I'M WILLING TO GO ALONG WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY USES IN OUR DISTRICT, YOU KNOW, BUT JUST BASICALLY REMOVE, CONTIGUOUS AND REPLACE IT WITH THE ORIGINAL WORDING THAT HE HAD, WHICH WAS 300 FEET, WHICH WAS WHAT WE WERE ALL WORKING UNDER ASSUMPTION OF BEFORE. OKAY. WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT. I'LL SECOND IT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HERBERT. OKAY, SO LET'S, UM, WE NOW HAVE A MOTION, UH, MAYBE COMMISSIONER HOUSE ARRIVED, UH, TO FOLLOW THIS LANGUAGE THAT HE PROPOSED, BUT REPLACING IT TO TAKE IT, TO TAKE IT BACK TO THE BUFFER LANGUAGE THAT WE IN INITIALLY HAD RECEIVED. UH, SO ARE WE ALL CLEAR ON THAT BEFORE WE, WE INTRODUCE ANOTHER APPROACH? ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, PLEASE. THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY ONLY, UM, PROCEDURAL QUESTION TO MS. MORRISON. IS THAT, UM, TO MAKE, DO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THIS BEFORE WE CONSIDER THE OTHER, IF IT'S IN POTENTIAL CONFLICT? I THINK IT'S STILL TALKING ABOUT PARKING. YES. THEREFORE, IT SHOULD STILL BE WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION. IS THAT CORRECT? SO THE WAY IT WORKS IS THERE'S A MAIN MOTION ON THE FLOOR, WHICH IS TO APPROVE ZAC NO, I AGREE. AN AMENDMENT, UM, WHICH WAS, UM, COMMISSIONER HOUSE WRIGHT'S MOTION. AND BECAUSE THE MO COMMISSIONER FORSYTH'S MOTION IS AN AMENDMENT TO MR. HOUSE WRIGHT'S AMENDMENT, WE TAKE MR. FORSYTH'S MO MOTION FIRST. SO RIGHT NOW WE ARE ON DISCUSSION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT. SO THAT IS ALL THAT'S BEING DISCUSSED RIGHT NOW, AND WE'LL VOTE ON THAT. BEFORE WE GO BACK TO MR. HOUSE RIGHT'S AMENDMENT, WE WANT TO INTRODUCE COMMISSIONER KINGSTON'S OTHER APPROACH TO NUMBER TWO. THERE CAN ONLY BE THREE MOTIONS ON THE FLOOR AT ONE TIME. SO WE'LL HAVE TO VOTE ON COMMISSIONER FORSYTH'S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT, AND THEN, UM, MS. KINGSTON CAN INTRODUCE HER AMENDMENT OKAY TO NUMBER TWO. OH, DID WE ALL FOLLOW THAT? SO ESSENTIALLY, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HAS, HAS ANOTHER APPROACH TO NUMBER TWO, BUT WE CAN'T INTRODUCE IT UNTIL WE VOTE ON COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT'S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT. BA UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, THAT INTRODUCED NUMBER TWO, RIGHT? SO THE RULE, WE CAN VOTE ON THAT. I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD. THE, THE RULE IS ONLY THREE MOTIONS ON THE FLOOR AT ONE TIME, AND THAT INCLUDES THE MAIN MOTION. OKAY. SO THE MAIN MOTION AND TWO AMENDMENTS CAN BE ON THE FLOOR AT ONE TIME. OKAY. SO, UM, ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? AND WITH THE, WITH THE CAVEAT THAT FOR MYSELF, UH, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING COMMISSIONER FORSYTH'S MOTION BECAUSE I WANT TO HEAR THE, THE APPROACH TO, UH, BY COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. AND THERE'S WELL WITHIN THE RULES THEN TO, TO RECONSIDER, UH, COMMISSIONER FORSYTH'S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT. UH, WE, WE COULD REMAKE THAT, RIGHT? CAN WE, WELL, YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER, BECAUSE THAT MOTION HAD ALREADY BEEN VOTED ON. OKAY. CAN WE TABLE THIS? CAN WE, I I CAN THE AMENDMENT WITHDRAW MY AMENDMENT UNTIL WE HEAR, UH, CANNOT YOU CAN WITHDRAW AMENDMENT. YOU CAN WITHDRAW THE AMENDMENT. I I'LL WITHDRAW MY AMENDMENT UNTIL WE HEAR FROM COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. PERFECT. THANK YOU. OKAY, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. OKAY. I, I DO HAVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT APPROACH TO THIS. UM, I, I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIFAMILY EXCEPT FOR COMPLEXES OF A CERTAIN SIZE. AND MY SUGGESTION WAS 20 UNITS. I WOULD LISTEN TO SOMEONE TALK ABOUT A DIFFERENT NUMBER. MY CONCERN IS, UM, INFILL, I THINK GENERALLY LARGER APARTMENT COMPLEX DEVELOPERS ARE GOING TO PARK, SETTING ASIDE THE GUEST PARKING FOR NOW, THEY'RE GONNA PARK THEIR UNITS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T RENT THEM AND THEY CAN'T, YOU'RE GONNA TELL ME TO SHUT UP OUR, WELL BEFORE WE CAN DISCUSS, RIGHT. WE JUST NEED THE FULL MOTION ON THE FLOOR. UH, MY [06:25:01] PROPOSAL IS THAT WE ELIMINATE, UM, PARKING MINIMUMS FOR MULTI-FAMILY USES EXCEPT FOR FOUR COMPLEXES OF 20 UNITS OR LESS. AND THEN WHAT WOULD THAT PARKING REQUIREMENT BE? ONE PER UNIT. OKAY. I'LL SECOND, BUT I WANTED TO CLARIFY, OR ARE WE GOING TO TALK ABOUT GUEST PARKING SEPARATELY? YES. YES, THAT'S LATER. THANK YOU. YES, ABSOLUTELY. CLARIFICATION. THANK YOU. UM, OKAY, I'M SORRY. UM, NO, I WANNA TAKE LOADING AND, UM, RIDE SHARE STUFF WHEN WE GET TO THAT. OKAY. UM, SO I, I THINK GENERALLY THE LARGER APARTMENT COMPLEX DEVELOPERS ARE GONNA PROVIDE PARKING. I THINK THAT THEIR EQUITY AND INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ARE GONNA REQUIRE IT. I THINK THEIR LENDERS ARE GONNA REQUIRE IT. UM, AND FRANKLY, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN RENT IT IF YOU DON'T HAVE PARKING. UM, MY CONCERN IS THE SMALLER DEVELOPERS THAT I THINK SOMETIMES ARE STRETCHED FOR CASH, THEY ARE DOING INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND THEY'RE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO CUT CORNERS AND THE STREET STARTS LOOKING REAL GOOD. OR THEY WANNA PARK, YOU KNOW, HALF A UNIT PER, PER, UH, I'M SORRY, HALF A SPACE PER UNIT. AND THEY COME UP WITH ALL THIS RATIONALE THAT, OH, WE JUST DON'T NEED THAT PARKING. YOU KNOW, AS A LANDLORD, I CAN TELL YOU THAT'S JUST NOT TRUE. IF YOU DON'T PARK IT, THEY, IF YOU DON'T PROVIDE THE PARKING, THEY STILL HAVE THE CARS. AND THESE SMALLER INFILL DEVELOPMENTS ARE WHAT REALLY TAX THE COMMUNITIES AROUND THEM. UM, ESPECIALLY IN THE OLDER HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE YOU'RE SEEING MORE PEOPLE WANT TO BE, BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT ALL OF THE AMENITIES, UM, AND YOU'VE GOT THE TRAILS AND THE RESTAURANTS AND THE WHATEVER. SO, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S MY APPROACH TO THIS. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO OVERREGULATE THE LARGE GUYS. UM, I THINK THAT THE, THE SMALLER GUYS IS REALLY WHERE YOU NEED TO PAY THE MORE ATTENTION. AND IF 20 UNITS ISN'T THE RIGHT NUMBER, IF IT'S 30 UNITS, OR IF IT'S 10 UNITS, SOMETHING IN THERE IS PROBABLY WHERE YOU, YOU NEED TO HAVE SOME MANDATES. UM, AND I'M OPEN TO THAT DISCUSSION. THAT'S HOW I WOULD APPROACH THIS. OKAY. COMMISSIONER , I THINK I FOLLOW THE LOGIC, BUT I WOULD'VE ACTUALLY EXPECTED THE OPPOSITE THAT THE SMALL PROJECTS WE WOULD NOT BURDEN WITH PARKING BECAUSE OF THE HOUSING ISSUES THAT WE'VE BEEN INFORMED OF MANY, MANY TIMES. AND THAT, UM, THEN EVEN ON THE LARGER PROJECTS, MAYBE WE, WE DO REQUIRE IT, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M LOOKING FOR, FOR SIMPLICITY HERE, AND IF THE ANSWER IS JUST TO CONTINUE TO PARK MULTIFAMILY AT ONE SPACE PER UNIT ACROSS THE CITY, EVERYWHERE, MAYBE, MAYBE THAT, MAYBE THAT'S THE ANSWER, BUT, UM, I DON'T KNOW. I, I'D READ YOUR, I MEAN, I'VE HAD YOUR MEMO, THE LUXURY OF HAVING THAT FOR QUITE SOME TIME, AND I, IT, IT WAS, THERE WAS THE LESS THAN FOUR AND THE FOUR TO 20 AND THE 20, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, I, I WASN'T, I WASN'T ABLE TO TO GET MY MIND AROUND ALL OF THAT. SO, UM, I'M GONNA REFERENCE, KIND OF GOING BACK TO WHAT I SAID ABOUT THE PARKS AMENDMENT. I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA LEAN TOWARDS SIMPLICITY, UH, ON ALL OF THIS. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE WERE TRYING TO UNBURDEN MULTIFAMILY AS A GENERAL RULE FROM PARKING MINIMUMS. IF, IF IT'S NOT TIME TO DO THAT IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, THEN MAYBE IT'S NOT TIME TO DO THAT, COMMISSIONER. SURE ENOUGH, YEAH. I'M NOT GONNA SUPPORT THAT MOTION. I, I, I'M NOT TRACKING ON THE, ON THE LOGIC BEHIND IT. I MEAN, CREATING A DOUBLE STANDARD FOR ONE DEVELOPER, YOU KNOW, LABELING THEM AS MAYBE CUTTING CORNERS. I JUST DON'T FOLLOW THAT, UH, RATIONALE. YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE TALKING ABOUT INFILL DEVELOPMENTS, I MEAN, THOSE ARE DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE TYPICALLY A BETTER PROXIMITY TO BUS ROUTES, OFTEN BETTER PROXIMITY TO RAIL. THEY'RE IN AREAS THAT HAVE WALKING PROXIMITY TO LIFESTYLE AMENITIES. I MEAN, THIS IS EXACTLY WHERE WE SHOULD BE NOT HAVING ANY MINIMUMS. UM, IF YOU LOOK AT OTHER CITIES WHO HAVE, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THE WORDS USED THICKENED OR DEN DENSITIES CREATED, THAT IS EXACTLY WHERE THE PARKING MINIMUMS SHOULD GO FIRST. UM, ON INFILL AREAS. AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT IMPACT OF LARGE DEVELOPMENTS, I, I COULD SEE A RATIONALE IF YOU HAVE A 300 UNIT [06:30:01] APARTMENT, BUT IF YOU HAVE 12 UNIT APARTMENT, UM, TRYING TO SAY THAT THAT CREATES, UH, UH, ISSUES FOR NEIGHBORHOODS. I JUST, I'M JUST NOT TRACKING WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, PERSONALLY, UH, MY LAST PROJECT WAS 28 UNITS. I COULD HAVE PARKED 24, I PROVIDED 28, I OVER PARKED MY PROJECT BY FOUR UNITS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I NEEDED FOR MY CUSTOMERS. SO TO THINK THAT LARGER PROJECTS ARE SOMEHOW, YOU KNOW, NOT THINKING ABOUT THE SAME RATIONALE THAT WE'VE APPLIED TO LARGER DEVELOPMENTS. IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST, IT'S A FALSE NARRATIVE THAT I'M NOT FOLLOWING. SO I WON'T, I WON'T, I WON'T, UH, FOLLOW THAT MOTION. THAT CORRECT? JUST, JUST THE NUMBER, THE FIRST BULLET OF THE, THE COMPLEX, BUT NOT THE FOUR COMPLEXES, FOUR UNITS OR LESS, NOT THAT, RIGHT? YEAH. THAT, THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE MOTION. I BELIEVE WHAT I HEARD COMMISSIONER KINGSTON SAY IS THAT 20 UNITS OR GREATER? IT'S ONE PER UNIT. NO, WHAT I SAID WAS 20 UNITS OR LESS. 20 UNITS OR LESS. YEAH. GOT IT. SORRY. THANK YOU. YEAH, I MEAN, I YOU IF THAT, IT'S NOT AN APPROACH YOU GUYS WANT, THAT'S FINE. I MEAN, I'M JUST, THIS HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE ON INFIELD DEVELOPMENT. UM, I KNOW THAT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPERS, BUT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE, THEY'RE IRRESPONSIBLE DEVELOPERS. AND I JUST, YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUST BEEN MY EXPERIENCE. YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME. MY FEELINGS AREN'T HURT. COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN. CAN I ASK, UH, STAFF A QUESTION? ABSOLUTELY, YES. WHAT ARE THE PAR CURRENT PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR MF IN THE CITY DISTRICT? SO, UM, IT'S FOR MULTIFAMILY USES ONE PER BEDROOM PLUS GAS PARK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO, SO, SO BASICALLY THEN WHEN COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT MENTIONED THAT HE WOULD BE WILLING TO COMPROMISE WITH ONE, UH, SPACE PER UNIT, THAT ACTUALLY WOULD BE A REDUCTION, THEN IT, BUT IT WOULD BE A REDUCTION? IT DEPENDS. IT DEPENDS BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE STUDIO APARTMENTS THERE AT ONE PER UNIT RIGHT NOW, I MEAN, I, I CERTAINLY WOULD GO ALONG WITH THAT. , YEAH. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN? YES. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE STAFF. UH, CAN YOU CONFIRM TODAY THAT, UH, THERE, THERE CAN'T BE TRIPLEXES OR QUADRI PLEXES IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONE AREAS? THAT IS CORRECT. YEAH. THAT'S NOT A USE, ANYTHING THAT'S ABOVE THREE UNITS IS A MULTI-FAMILY USE, AND THAT'S NOT ALLOWED IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS. I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A PUSH TO GET THAT DONE HERE IN DALLAS. SO IF, IF THERE WAS EVER ANY LEGISLATION DONE AT THE STATE LEVEL THAT WOULD REQUIRE, OR THAT WOULD ALLOW QUADRAPLEXES TO BE, UH, BUILT IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONE AREAS IN DALLAS, HOW WOULD THAT IMPACT THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT? SO I WILL ROLL WITH THIS SCENARIO. IF THE STATE LEGISLATURE CHANGES THE RULES ON CITIES, IT WILL BE A CODE AMENDMENT THAT WILL COME IN FRONT OF YOU AND IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL. SO THAT CONVERSATION NEEDS TO HAPPEN AFTER STATE LEGISLATURE TELLS US SOMETHING. IT DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY, IF THE STATE LEGISLATURE PASSES A LAW, IT DOESN'T. OBVIOUSLY WE ARE GONNA HAVE TO CHANGE OUR LAWS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THAT, BUT IT, IT DOESN'T CIRCUMVENT THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH UN CITY COUNCIL. UM, I WILL CHIME IN. I, I, I APPRECIATE, UM, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON'S EFFORT TO, TO FIND COMPROMISE HERE. I DON'T THINK THIS ONE STRIKES THE RIGHT BALANCE FOR ME BECAUSE I THINK IT, IT GIVES A CARROT TO THE LARGER MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPERS AND, AND SORT OF GIVES THE STICK TO, YOU KNOW, THE SMALLER PEOPLE DOING INFILL MISSING MIDDLE DEVELOPMENT. SO I, I DON'T THINK THIS ONE LINES UP THE INCENTIVES CORRECTLY, SO I'M NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SUPPORT IT. UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. HELLO. I'LL GET TO YOU IN JUST A SECOND. YOU DISAPPEARED. OR I'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER WHEELER THEN. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. UM, I, I APPRECIATE THE, THE ATTEMPT HERE. UM, IT SEEMS TO ME IT WOULD JUST BE CLEARER TO JUST SAY IF WE'RE GONNA TAKE AN INCREMENTAL APPROACH JUST TO SAY ONE, UM, PARKING SPACE PER UNIT FOR MULTIFAMILY PERIOD AND NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE SIZE. 'CAUSE I MEAN, WE GOT INFORMATION FROM THE, UH, APARTMENT ASSOCIATION SAYING THAT THEY, THEY PLAN ON ONE TO ONE AND A HALF SPACES [06:35:01] PER APARTMENT COMPLEX ANYWAY. IT SEEMS LIKE REQUIRING ONE PER UNIT FOR A LARGE COMPLEX IS REALLY, I MEAN, IT'S A REDUCTION FOR THEM FROM THE REQUIREMENT. IT'S NOT, UM, AN ONEROUS IMPOSITION. AND I, I THINK THAT ONE PER UNIT, EVEN FOR THE SMALLER, IS REASONABLE. AND THEN THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, IF YOU HAVE A SMALLER, UM, COMPLEX THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON COULD FUNCTION WITH LESS PARKING BECAUSE OF SOME PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, BECAUSE TRANSIT PRO, WHATEVER, THERE'S THE OPTION TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND MAKE YOUR CASE THAT HAVING LESS PARKING IS NOT GOING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION. I, I DON'T FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT PARKING FOR MULTIFAMILY. I, I I THINK THAT THEY CAN DO THEIR OWN PARKING, THE GUEST PARKING'S. THE ONLY THING I FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT, WHETHER THEY HAVE IT OR DON'T HAVE IT BY, BY REQUIREMENT WITHDRAW. YEAH. I, I MEAN, I WOULD DRAW IT. I I JUST WAS TOSSING OUT THERE SOMETHING TO DISCUSS. OKAY. UH, LET'S GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION THAT WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE YOUR AMENDMENT NOW YOUR MIC, SIR, BEFORE I, UH, MAKE THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT, WOULD CO COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, UH, CONSIDER, UH, UH, AN AMEND A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO HIS MOTION TO, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, REDUCE THE PARKING MINIMUMS ON ALL MULTI-FAMILY TO ONE UNIT PER, UH, TO ONE SPACE PER UNIT? AND WE LEAVE IT THEN CONTIGUOUS? I'D BE OKAY WITH CONTIGUOUS IN THAT CASE. WE WOULDN'T NEED CONTIGUOUS JUST THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE WITHDRAWING YOUR MOTION WOULD RIGHT. SIMPLE. WHAT IS THE MODIFIC? IT, IT IS A COMPROMISE AND UHS A COMPROMISE. YEAH. AND GIVEN THAT, YES, I WOULD ACCEPT THAT GIVEN THE FACT THAT THIS IS STILL A DISCUSSION AND WE'RE, WE'RE STILL DRAFTING AN THE, WHAT WE'RE GONNA FINALLY VOTE ON. SO FOR TONIGHT, YES, I WOULD, I WOULD DEFINITELY CONSIDER THAT. GREAT. SO YOU'RE WITHDRAWING THIS MOTION? I, YES. I'M HA YES. I I WOULD WITHDRAW IT. VICE CHAIR, MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION. OKAY. BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. PERFECT. WE SHOULD NOT PUNT ON THAT. UH, DO THIS VICE CHAIR, RUBIN, HAVE HAVE A MOTION. HAVE A SECOND, SECOND MOTION. SAY WHAT IS YES, PLEASE. MOTION. I'M SORRY. IT'S THE HOUSE RIGHT MOTION THAT WAS JUST WITHDRAWN, WHICH IS ELIMINATE MINIMUMS FOR MULTIFAMILY USES EXCEPT MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF ONE SPACE PER UNIT WHEN CONTIGUOUS WITH SINGLE FAMILY UNITS IN OUR DISTRICTS. AND, UH, THE TWO B 10% OF THE PROVIDED PARKING MUST BE ACCESSIBLE TO VISITORS OUTSIDE A GATE AND CLEARLY MARKED AT THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE. THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE MEANT SEPARATING UP, I'M SORRY. YOU'RE EXACTLY TRUE. UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA ADDRESS THE, THE GUEST PARKING LOT. SO I'M, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR TWO A SINCE THE PREVIOUS PERSON WHO MADE THAT MOTION WITHDREW IT. OKAY. SO COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, IF YOU WANTED TO CONSIDER A DISTANCE VERSUS THE, UM, CONTIGUOUS, YOU WOULD NEED TO MAKE THAT MOTION, CORRECT? WELL, THEN I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A, A MOTION, WHICH I HOPE WOULD BE A FRIENDLY, FRIENDLY MOTION, UH, TO COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT TO, UH, REDUCE THE PARKING MINIMUMS, UH, FOR ALL MULTIFAMILY TO ONE, UH, SPACE PER UNIT PERIOD. THIS JUST AMENDMENT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS TO STRIKE AMENDMENT. YES. NO, HIS, NO. THE MOTION ON THE TABLE NOW IS THE ORIGINAL HOUSE RIGHT. MOTION. THAT'S NUMBER TWO HERE. AND HE, HE WITHDREW THAT. NO, I MADE HE COMMISSIONER. SO THEN BRENT BRYCE, CHAIR RUBEN MADE IT. YES. YES. SO THEN VICE CHAIR RUBEN. SO NOW WE'RE ON VICE CHAIR RUBEN'S, CORRECT. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION. CORRECT. NOW, COMMISSIONER FORSYTH IS AMENDING THIS AS TO THE ISSUE OF CONTIGUOUS VERSUS THE 300 FEET. NO, NO, HE'S NOT DOING THAT. NO. HE'S JUST ONE PER UNIT PERIOD. YES. NO, NO CONTIGUOUS, NO DISTANCE. OKAY. GOTCHA. WAS THERE A SECOND? YES. I'LL SECOND THAT. I SECOND THAT. REDUCE THE PARKING MINIMUMS FOR ALL MULTIFAMILY USES TO ONE SPACE PER UNIT, PERIOD. REAL SIMPLE. AND THAT'S A COMPROMISE. WELL, THAT'S MY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. UH, IT'S, IT'S AN ALTERNATE. IT'S AN ALTERNATE MOTION. OKAY. UH, UH, OUR, UH, COUNSEL, I SAID THAT THAT IS OKAY, THIS COMMISSION FORCE. I HAVE A SECOND. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. SECOND IT. ALL RIGHT. LET'S DISCUSS THAT. COMMISSIONER FORESITE, YOU KNOW, MY CONCERN REALLY HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, PARTICULARLY WITH THOSE MULTI-FAMILY THAT ARE NEAR SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, [06:40:01] UH, AND, AND, AND CERTAINLY I, I DON'T FEEL THAT CONTIGUOUS PROTECTS SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT I'M WILLING, I FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER, UH, HOUSEWRIGHT STATED, AND ALSO COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, STATED THAT A GOOD COMPROMISE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, JUST SIMPLY TO REDUCE THE MINIMUMS ON ALL THE MULTIFAMILY TO ONE SPACE PER UNIT. AND THAT WOULD BE A REDUCTION. AND SO I THINK THAT'S A, A MEANINGFUL COMPROMISE THAT WE SHOULD ALL GET AROUND. AND I THINK IT'S MORE LIKELY ALSO TO, TO, TO PASS THROUGH THE COUNCIL TOO. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I I, I, I REALLY LIKE THE FACT THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THERE IS THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO COMPROMISE, AND I THINK THIS IS A, IS A GOOD SPOT TO DO IT. THANK YOU, MS. TRUANT. FIRST OF ALL, WHEN WE DO WHAT WE DO HERE, I WANT TO GET IT RIGHT FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE, WEARING MY LAND USE HAT, NOT JUST PRESENT SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK COUNSEL MAY ULTIMATELY APPRECIATE. UM, WITH THAT SAID, I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT PROPOSED WAS ALREADY A SOMEWHAT DECENT COMP OR COMPROMISE IN ELIMINATING ALL MINIMUMS FOR MULTIFAMILY USES, EXCEPT WHEN THEY'RE CONTIGUOUS WITH SINGLE FAMILY USES AND SIMPLY DROPPING, UM, THE, THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR MULTIFAMILY FROM ONE SPACE PER BEDROOM TO ONE SPACE PER UNIT IS NOT A MEANINGFUL COMPROMISE. I THINK IT'S THAT GOING TOO FAR IN THE DIRECTION OF NOT REFORMING OUR ANTIQUATED PARKING CODES. AGAIN, I THINK IT'S SEVERAL OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE, HAVE SAID, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO DEVELOP MULTI-FAMILY USES, PARTICULARLY LARGER ONES, HAVE ALL THE INCENTIVE TO GET THEIR PARKING RIGHTS SO THEY CAN ACTUALLY RENT OUT THEIR UNITS. AND IT WILL PROBABLY BE, IN MANY INSTANCES THAT ONE SPACE PER UNIT OR MORE THAN ONE SPACE PER UNIT IS THE RIGHT RATIO FOR AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY. AND I THINK THE, YOU KNOW, OWNERS OF OF APARTMENT COMPLEXES CAN FIGURE THAT OUT. BUT WHEN THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE ONE SPACE SIMPLY JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, TRAIL PROXIMITY, TRANSIT PROXIMITY, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT'S A VERY WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THERE'S A GROCERY STORE NEARBY AND A COFFEE SHOP AND A DENTIST OFFICE THAT, YOU KNOW, RATHER THAN SORT OF COME IN AND JUST DROP IT TO ONE SPACE PER UNIT FOR ALL MULTIFAMILY. WE SHOULD GIVE SOME MORE FLEXIBILITY HERE BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE MEANINGFUL INSTANCES WHERE NOT REQUIRING PARKING FOR A MULTIFAMILY COMPLEX WILL LEAD TO A BETTER RESULT FOR RESIDENTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CITY. KEEPING IN MIND THAT MOST MULTIFAMILY PARK COMPLEXES WILL STILL BE PARKED AT AT LEAST ONE SPACE PER UNIT, IF NOT MORE. SO THIS, I THINK, AMENDMENT ADDS THE FLEXIBILITY AND STILL BAKES IN A LAYER OF NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION, WHICH WE CAN FINE TUNE WITH THE CONTIGUOUS LANGUAGE COMMISSIONER. THAT'S RIGHT. UM, GIVEN SORT OF EXTENSIVE ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE THAT WE'VE, UH, OVER PARKED OUR APARTMENT PROJECTS HERE IN DALLAS, I'M WONDERING IF, UH, COMMISSIONER FORSYTH WOULD CONSIDER HIS MOTION BEING ONE HALF SPACE PER UNIT RATHER THAN ONE SPACE PER UNIT. UH, I, I WOULD, UH, IF, IF THAT WOULD ENSURE, YOU KNOW, THE SUPPORT, UH, OF COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. YES. I WOULD, UH, AGREE TO THAT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO MY MOTION . THERE, THERE SHOULD BE SOME MINIMUM. AND I THINK THAT THE COUNCIL, THAT IS CORRECT. SO, UH, NOW WE'RE TO A HALF SPACE PER UNIT, IS THAT CORRECT? I WON'T SECOND. DO WE HAVE A, A SECOND FOR THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? I'LL SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A, WELL WHO ORIGINALLY COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT, WHO ORIGINALLY SECONDED HIS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER ORIGINALLY. BUT I'M NOT SECONDING THE AMENDMENT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO WITHDRAW YOUR SECOND OR WOULD YOU JUST LIKE TO SAY, 'CAUSE YOU SECONDED THIS, SIR. I, I SECONDED THE ORIGINAL ONE, BUT I DON'T DON'T LIKE THE AMENDMENT, SO WHATEVER THE PROCEDURE IS, I'LL DO IT. WHY DOES SHE HAVE TO KINGSTON AMENDMENT? OH, WE CAN, I'M AGREEING TO THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IN THE SPIRIT OF COMPROMISE, RIGHT? I KNOW. OH, THERE'S NO SECOND. I STUCK IN IT. [06:45:01] ALL RIGHT. TO KEEP THE RECORD CLEAR, COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, YOU WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION ABOUT THE ONE PER ONE SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT, AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A NEW MOTION FOR ONE HALF SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT AND STRIKE CONTIGUOUS IN ORDER TO ENSURE THERE'S SOME KIND OF MINIMUMS IN MULTIFAMILY. YES. I'M WILLING IF, IF, IF IT, IF WE'LL PASS A MUSTER. A MAJORITY, YES. O OKAY. WE DO HAVE A NEW MOTION COMMISSIONERS TO KEEP THE RECORD CLEAN OF, HAVE SPACE PER UNIT, UH, MADE BY COMMISSIONER FORESITE SECOND ABOUT COMMISSIONER KINGSTON DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, POINT OF CLARIFICATION. AND I DO HAVE A COMMENT, DOES THAT INCLUDE STRIKING THE CONTIGUOUS? YES. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE ALL WERE TALKING ON THE SAME PLEASE, YOUR HANDS. SO I, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN OF THOSE, UM, WHO THINK THAT WE NEED TO GO FURTHER AND THAT HAVING MORE FLEXIBILITY. UM, I APPRECIATE MR. KINGSTON BRINGING FORWARD AN ALTERNATE APPROACH. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF US LIVE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO MULTIFAMILY, BUT I HAVE AN ENTIRE BLOCK DIRECTLY BEHIND ME. MY AREA, UM, IN MY COMMUNITY, WE HAVE NUMEROUS, NUMEROUS RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCIES. SO I, I HAVE SEEN HOW THE ONE SPACE PER UNIT PLAYS OUT IN REAL LIFE FOR 30 YEARS. UM, I, I AM VERY COMFORTABLE AT ONE PER UNIT, AND I THINK THE INFORMATION THAT WE GOT FROM THE APARTMENT GROUP INDICATED ONE TO ONE AND A HALF IS WHAT THEY TYPICALLY PROVIDE. AND SO WE'RE KIND OF HITTING IN LINE WITH WHERE THEY WERE THINKING THAT THEY WOULD NEED IT. AND I KNOW WE'RE GONNA GET TO GUEST PARKING HERE IN A MINUTE AND TALK ABOUT THAT, BUT IT'S MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. BUT STILL ACKNOWLEDGING THAT WE KNOW THERE IS GOING TO BE A DEMAND THAT'S PROVIDED. I RECOGNIZE SOME ARE GONNA PROVIDE MORE THAN THAT. I ALSO HAVE SEEN WHERE THOSE WHO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY WILL CHOOSE TO BE AS NARROW AS THEY CAN BECAUSE IT ALLOWS THEM A DIFFERENT APPROACH. AND IT DOESN'T ALWAYS TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE COMPATIBILITY, COMPATIBILITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES THAT COME ABOUT THROUGH THAT. AS WE CONTINUE TO GROW AND DENSIFY, I THINK ALL OF US AROUND HERE WANNA SEE MORE INFILL COMING, AND WE WANT TO DO IT IN A WAY THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH OUR COMMUNITIES. AND IF WE ARE MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, YOU KNOW, WE FREQUENTLY LOOK AT THINGS, AGAIN, WE TALKED ABOUT IT EARLIER THIS MORNING WITH, UM, THE PARKLAND AMENDMENT. THIS IS OUR STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, GIVES US AN ABILITY TO SEE IT PLAY OUT CITYWIDE IN LIEU OF AREAS THAT DEVELOPED EARLIER, AND THEN MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT IF WE NEED TO. AND I, UM, APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT OF COMPROMISE THAT COMMISSIONER FORSYTH HAVE PUT FORWARD. BUT I, I BELIEVE THAT ONE SPACE PER UNIT IS THE CORRECT STARTING POINT IN MY VIEW. AND I DO THINK THAT IT IS A, AN ADJUSTMENT FROM OUR CURRENT CODE AND A MEANINGFUL ONE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WHEELER, ARE YOU ONLINE PLEASE? COMMISSIONER WHEELER? I AM, BUT I WAS, WHAT? I WAS GONNA SPEAK UP. UH, I WAS, I TRIED TO GET PHONE. HOLD ON. COMMISSIONER WHEELER. YOUR YOUR CAMERA WENT OFF, BUT YOU GO. THANK YOU. WHEN I WAS TRYING TO SPEAK, IT WAS, WHEN I WAS TRYING TO SPEAK, IT WAS ON KINGS, UH, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, UH, A AMENDMENT. UH, I WAS FOR THAT AMENDMENT BECAUSE WE HAVE ISSUES WITH WHEN APARTMENT COMPLEXES ARE SMALLER BUILDERS, UM, WE HAVE AN OVERFLOW ON THE STREET. AND, AND THAT'S IN THE OLDER ONES AND THE NEW ONES IN, UH, SMALLER DEVELOPERS EVEN ON SINGLE FAMILY HOMES DO NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH PARKING. UM, AND WE ARE SAYING OVERFLOW STREET, ESPECIALLY IN, I KNOW MY DISTRICT IN SOUTH DALLAS, ESPECIALLY AS THE SMALLER BUILDERS ARE NOT PROVIDING ENOUGH PARKING, WHEREAS THE LARGER BUILDINGS ARE, COMMISSIONER TURN. OH, PLEASE. UM, YEAH, I'M NOT GONNA BE SUPPORTING THE HALF. UM, I THINK IT JUST, IT, IT'S COMPLETELY LOSING THE INTENT. I, I PREFER, I WOULD PREFER NO MINIMUMS. I THOUGHT THE COMPROMISE THAT COMM COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT PUT FORTH PRETTY GOT IT. RIGHT. UM, ALTHOUGH I THOUGHT THAT WAS A COMPROMISE ALREADY. UM, I, I COULD LIVE WITH THAT AND COULD SUPPORT IT. UM, [06:50:01] BUT TO, TO GO TO A HALF, YOU KNOW, WE JUST HEARD FROM MR. BLACKWELL THAT HIS COMPANY NO LONGER IS WILLING TO DO PROJECTS IN DALLAS BECAUSE OF THE COST OF, OF THOSE PROJECTS AND THE COST OF THE PARKING. MY, UM, FELLOW COMMISSIONER HAMPTON JUST MENTIONED THAT WE'D ALL LOVE TO SEE THE AREA THAT OUR, UM, WOULD LOVE TO SEE DALLAS INCREASE IN INFILL PROJECTS. WELL, IF WE ALL WERE AGREEABLE TO THAT AND SAY THAT WE WANNA PROMOTE INFILL PROJECTS, AND WE JUST HAD A DEVELOPER HERE TELLING US THAT THE PARKING WAS THE, THE REASON THAT THEY NO LONGER WILL DEVELOP IN DALLAS. UH, I THINK THAT THAT'S A, THAT'S A STRONG MESSAGE THAT JUST REDUCE, NOT REDUCING IT FURTHER IS REALLY INHIBITING THE PARTS OF OUR CITY THAT NEED TO LET GO OF THE PARKING MINIMUMS. AND, YOU KNOW, I LOOK AT THIS LIKE, WE HAVEN'T REVISED PARKING FOR 40 YEARS, 50 YEARS. I MEAN, THERE'S BEEN, SO GOD FORBID WE SHOULD GET OUT A LITTLE IN FRONT OF OURSELVES HERE AND GROW INTO ANY IDEAS HERE. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT CONCERNS ME IS THAT BY WATERING THIS DOWN SO MUCH, IT JUST DOESN'T EVEN EVEN SCRATCH THE SURFACE OF ITS INTENT. AND WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF THE, THE, THE TALKING POINTS. SO I, I, I THINK WE'VE GOTTA GO BACK TO THAT ORIGINAL MOTION, UH, BECAUSE I REALLY FEEL LIKE THAT'S, THAT'S THE ONE, UM, THAT CREATED THE BEST BALANCE OF COMPROMISE. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE SPIRIT OF COMPROMISE. YOU KNOW, THIS ISN'T THE LAST OF THE COMPROMISING . THERE'S A LOT GONNA BE A LOT MORE COMPROMISES GOING ON WHEN THIS GETS TO COUNCIL. AND I, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE LEAVE SOME ROOM FOR FURTHER COMPROMISE. THAT'S . YEAH. I, I AM REALLY STRUGGLING WITH THIS ONE BECAUSE LIKE COMMISSIONER CHERNOCK, I DON'T THINK THIS COMPROMISE GOES FAR ENOUGH. I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH ELIMINATING PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR MF SAFE FOR SOME SMALL BUT MEANINGFUL BUFFER. ON THE OTHER HAND, I THINK THIS IS, COMMISSIONER FORSYTH EXTENDED THIS COMPROMISE IN, IN GOOD FAITH. AND WHILE IT DOESN'T GET ALL THE WAY TO WHERE I WOULD NECESSARILY WANT TO GO, I THINK IT IS A MEANINGFUL COMPROMISE AND SOMETHING THAT WOULD MAKE A MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE. AND, YOU KNOW, ALLOWING SOME INFILL AND MISSING MIDDLE DEVELOPMENT WHEN MAYBE THE PARKING STANDS IN THE WAY OF IT, OUR CURRENT PARKING REQUIREMENTS STAND IN THE WAY OF IT. SO I THINK I'M ALMOST THERE TO SUPPORTING THIS. YOU KNOW, WE, WE, WE MAKE A, A COMMENT LESS LAWYERS THAT, YOU KNOW, A A GOOD MEDIATION IS WHEN BOTH SIDES GO AWAY, YOU KNOW, NEITHER COMPLETELY HAPPY. AND, AND I, I THINK WE'RE HITTING AT A SPOT WHERE I DON'T THINK I'M GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, JUMPING FOR JOY AT THIS POINT. I DON'T THINK COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT IS JUMPING FOR JOY AT THIS POINT EITHER, BUT I, I, I THINK THIS FORGES A, A FAIR COMPROMISE THAT AFFECTS MEANINGFUL CHANGE AND WILL, WILL ULTIMATELY DO GOOD FOR OUR CITY. SO I, I THINK I'VE COME AROUND. COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, THANK YOU. I WILL SUPPORT THIS COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN THE CHAIR. YEAH. FOLLOW THAT. COMMISSIONER HERBERT. OKAY. UM, I WILL BE SUPPORTING COMMISSIONERS FORESIGHT'S POSITION, AND ALSO I WILL CHALLENGE THAT THE, THE THEORY THAT MULTI-FAMILY IS NOT BEING BUILT IN DALLAS BECAUSE OF PARKING. AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT I INVITE YOU TO COME TO DISTRICT EIGHT OR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICTS WHERE MULTIFAMILY IS BEING BUILT EVERYWHERE OR UNDER AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO THERE IS A, A, A, A PROFIT MARGIN TO BE MADE THERE SO THAT THINGS WILL BE BUILT. UM, AND LIKE, UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, I LIVE RIGHT ADJACENT TO MULTIFAMILY. AND I THINK THE REQUIREMENTS NEED TO BE THERE, NOT ONLY TO KEEP THE, THE CONSISTENCY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO, TO KEEP THE LOOK AND FEEL THE SAME, BUT WE DON'T WANNA RUN INTO ISSUES THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER WERE JUST IS TALKING ABOUT. WE HAVE MULTIFAMILY WHERE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SPOTS AND THERE ARE PARKING ALONG THE STREETS OR PARKING IN THE RESIDENTIAL NE NEIGHBORHOODS. I THINK A HALF IS A COMPROMISE. I WOULD, I WOULD SAY ONE TO ONE, [06:55:01] UH, BUT I COULD, YOU KNOW, BITE MY TONGUE AND GO ALONG WITH A HALF AS A COMPROMISE COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. UM, I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THE COMPROMISE OF, UH, HALF A UNIT. I THINK WE'RE, YOU KNOW, EVEN THE ORIGINAL, UM, LANGUAGE WHICH PROTECT, WHICH MAINTAINED ONE SPACE PER UNIT WHEN CONTIGUOUS WITH SINGLE FAMILY. HOWEVER, WE ENDED UP WORDING THAT IN, IN OUR DISTRICTS THAT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE WERE SOME SPECIAL, UM, ISSUES WHEN YOU'RE DOING SOME, YOU KNOW, SMALL, SMALLER INFILL OR INFILL, UH, MULTIFAMILY. SO IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE, WE'RE KIND OF LOSING THAT PROTECTION. AND WHEREAS I DON'T THINK ONE IS ONEROUS FOR THE LARGE UNITS. I THINK WE KNOW MR. BLACKWELL ISN'T HERE FOR US TO ASK HIM HOW MUCH PARKING. I'D BE SURPRISED IF IT WAS LESS THAN A, A PARKING SPACE PER UNIT. SO I, I REALLY PREFER TO JUST STAY AT THE ONE COMMISSIONER HERBERT. YEAH. UM, LIKE MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID, THE SOUTHERN SECTOR, WE'RE NOT AFFORDED THE GUARD STYLE APARTMENTS. DISTRICT SEVEN DOES. DISTRICT FOUR HAS SOME THAT ARE CLOSER TO THE DOWNTOWN 10TH STREET AREA. UM, WE GET THE LARGE 305 BLOCK BY FIVE BLOCK APARTMENT COMPLEXES, UM, WHO CONTINUOUSLY CHARGE THEIR RESIDENTS TO PARK. LIKE, UNTIL WE HAVE THE COALITIONS MAKING THE APARTMENTS THROUGH RIGHT BY OUR CITIZENS, I WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO SUPPORT A HALF A CAR PER PER UNIT. OKAY. UH, I, I HAVE ONE QUICK COMMENT AND THEN YES. UM, UH, MY THINKING IS, IS ALONG THE LINES, UH, OF MR. RUBIN, UH, YOU KNOW, OVER, OVER THE PAST COUPLE MONTHS, WE'VE SEEN LOTS OF, UH, DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS EXACT ISSUE. UH, SOME EXPANDING THE RUBBER BAND AND STRETCHING IT FURTHER, AND SOME WANTING TO NARROW IT. UH, AND, UH, I AGREE THIS IS, THIS IS KIND OF AN, AN ELEGANT, ELEGANT COMPROMISE HERE. UH, DO WE HAVE NO MINIMUM BUT IF TALK ORDINANCE OR, OR NOT? OR DO WE KEEP WHAT WE HAVE TODAY? AND I THINK THIS KIND OF THREADS THE NEEDLE. UH, AND SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER KNIGHT. YEAH. SO I DON'T LIVE ADJACENT TO MULTIFAMILY. I LIVE IN MULTIFAMILY AND I HAVE A CAR. UM, WE HAVE A TWO BEDROOM APARTMENT. WE HAVE ONE CAR, BUT WE'RE PAYING FOR TWO PARKING SPOTS, BASICALLY. 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN, WELL, NOT IN OUR DOWNTOWN, BUT USUALLY THAT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED. UM, I WOULD SAY OUR PARKING LOT IS MAYBE TWO THIRDS FULL ON ANY GIVEN DAY. UM, IF EVEN SO THE, I WE, WE GOT A LOT OF EMAILS. WE HEARD FROM A LOT OF SPEAKERS WHO SAID, MULTIFAMILY IS OVER PARKED. LIKE THAT WAS A RESOUNDING THEME THAT WAS COMING ACROSS. SO WE DO NEED TO GET CLOSER TO ELIMINATING, UM, SOME OF THOSE PARKING SPOTS AND ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, PUTTING LESS ON OUR RENTERS. UM, SO I APPRECIATE THE COMPROMISE. UM, I JUST DON'T, I DON'T, I FEEL LIKE IT'S NOT EXACTLY A STEP FORWARD. IT'S MORE OF A TIPTOE. AND I'D LIKE TO SEE US AS A GROUP, UM, TAKE LARGER STEPS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONERS, BEFORE WE VOTE, LET'S TAKE A RECORD VOTE. I MADE ONE COMMENT BEFORE. OH, PLEASE. COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT, YOU KNOW, TO THE COMMISSIONERS, UH, UH, TO MY, UH, FRIENDS AND COMMISSIONERS, UH, FROM DISTRICTS, UH, SIX AND THREE, IF YOU'LL ALLOW ME TO SAY THAT I WOULD PREFER THE ONE SPACE PER, UH, PER UNIT MINIMUM. AND I'M DOING THIS AS A COMPROMISE TO KEEP THE PARKING MINIMUMS IN THERE. AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY I OFFERED THIS. AND I, AND I THINK THAT WE'RE BETTER OFF KEEPING SOME PARKING MINIMUMS IN THERE, AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK AND MAYBE WORK ON THAT WITH THE COUNCIL LATER. YOU KNOW, LIKE, UH, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER SHADI SAID, THIS IS JUST PUTTING A MARKER IN THE SAND RIGHT NOW. SO PLEASE CHANGE YOUR MIND AND VOTE WITH ME ON THIS SO WE CAN KEEP THESE PARKING AMENDMENTS IN THE CODE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONER HALL? YES. I, I WOULD JUST ASK BEFORE WE TAKE A RECORD VOTE THAT, UH, YOU RESTATE THE MOTION CLEARLY. THANK YOU. UH, THE MOTION IS, I UNDERSTAND IT IS TO KEEP A HALF, UH, SPACE PER UNIT WITHOUT THE YES. CLEAN, UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER. SO, WHEN IT COMES TO APARTMENT COMPLEX, AND I, AND I'M, I'M, I'M GONNA SAY THAT WE'RE GETTING DIFFERENT TAILS FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF OUR [07:00:01] CITY IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR. PARKING, UH, THE PARKING LOTS ARE NOT MINIMALLY FILLED. THERE ARE OVERFIELD AND NOT ONLY THAT, THINGS RUN OVER TO THE STREET, EVEN THE NEW APARTMENTS ONCE THEY'RE FILLED UP, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR TEND TO OWN UP A LOT OF CARS, IF NOT ONE, THEY CAN'T MAKE IT ON ONE CAR. THEY HAVE TO HAVE TWO PER FAMILY. AND, AND IN THE, IN, IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR HAVE IT THAT HAS, I CAN DRIVE THROUGH ANY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS, HAS PARKING AND IT'S BIG BUSINESS BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS CHARGED IF THEY EVEN HAVE, UH, UM, VISITOR PARKING. AND SO IT'S HALF ONLY, IT SEEMS IT ONLY APPLIES WHERE THERE IS LANDLOCK PER SE, THAT THAT HAS THE ONE FEELING. BUT IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR WHERE WE HAVE A LOT TO BUILD, I DON'T, I, I DON'T SEE THIS HITTING THAT. AND, AND I CAN'T SUPPORT THE, I CAN'T SUPPORT THE MOTION OF A HALF. I'M MORE SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT HAS ASKED. AND DO COMMISSIONER SLEEPER TAKE US HOME? WELL, I'M, I'M GONNA SPEAK IN FAVOR OF COMMISSIONER FORAYS MOTION. I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND, JUST BECAUSE WE'RE SETTING SOMETHING AT A, AT A MINIMUM, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE ARE GONNA BUILD. I MEAN, MOST APARTMENT BUILDERS ARE GONNA BUILD MORE THAN THAT BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT'S WHAT THE MARKET IS. BUT THERE ARE SOME CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE YOU DON'T NEED THAT MANY SPACES. SO I THINK THIS IS A, A REASONABLE COMPROMISE TO, TO MOVE IT ON. I, I, I HOPE WE'RE GONNA PAIR IT WITH A, UH, WITH A VISITOR PARKING REQUIREMENT, WHICH WE'VE GOTTA DO NEXT. BUT, BUT I THINK TO JUST TO MOVE THIS ON AND NOT SPEND THE REST OF THE EVENING TALKING ABOUT THIS ONE TOPIC, UH, I'M, I'M GONNA SUPPORT COMMISSIONER FORSYTH'S MOTION. OKAY. LET'S TAKE A RECORD VOTE REALLY QUICKLY, PLEASE. COMMISSIONER HERBERT, I WANT TO BE CLEAR, RIGHT? MOST OF MY RESIDENTS, MOST OF THE RESIDENTS IN THIS SOUTHERN SECTOR ARE NOT LIVING WHERE THEY'RE LIVING BECAUSE IT'S A CHOICE. IT'S BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO. SO THE MARKET ISN'T GOING TO CAUSE FOR MY PEOPLE TO MOVE OR GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. THEY DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. THEY'RE STAYING THERE BECAUSE IT'S LESS EXPENSIVE. THEY'RE STAYING THERE BECAUSE IT'S CLOSE TO THE BUS. THEY'RE STAYING THERE BECAUSE THE DAYCARE IS NEARBY, NOT BECAUSE THEY'VE CHOSEN TO LIVE THERE, BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE FINANCIAL MEANS TO GO WHEREVER THEY WANT TO. SO PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND AS WE MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU. OKAY. LET'S TAKE A RECORD VOTE. DISTRICT ONE. DISTRICT TWO? YES. DISTRICT THREE? NO. DISTRICT FOUR? YES. DISTRICT FIVE? YES. DISTRICT SIX? NO. DISTRICT SEVEN? NO. DISTRICT EIGHT? NO. DISTRICT NINE, DISTRICT 10? YES. DISTRICT 11? NO. DISTRICT 12 ABSENT. DISTRICT 13? NO. DISTRICT 14? YES. AND PLACE 15? YES. SEVEN. SEVEN. MOTION FAILS IS WHAT I HAVE. IS THAT CORRECT? SEVEN. SEVEN. OKAY. SO WE NEED ANOTHER MOTION. COMMISSIONER HAM. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. RIGHT? NO, I MEAN, THE COURT IS OPEN RIGHT NOW. WE GO BACK TO MR. GREEN QUESTION. THAT'S CORRECT. WE GOT DISCUSSION ON THAT. SO I WAS MOVING. APOLOGIES TO AMEND, UM, COMMISSIONER RUBIN'S MOTION TO SIMPLY STRIKE CONTIGUOUS TO SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS TO JUST, IT'S ONE SPACE PER UNIT. MULTIFAMILY. CAN WE GET THAT RESTATED IN ITS ENTIRETY, PLEASE? YES. LET'S GO. LET'S, UH, HAVE A REWIND. I CAN STATE THE WHOLE THING. CHAIR MOVEMENT. YES, PLEASE. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. SO IT WOULD STRIKE WHEN CONTINUOUS READ THE WHOLE THING THE FAMILY USES. SO THE WHOLE, THE MOTION WOULD BE READ THE THING? YEAH. THE MOTION WOULD BE ELIMINATE MINIMUM, NO. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF ONE SPACE PER UNIT FOR MULTIFAMILY USES. MR. CHAIR, IF YOU WANNA RESTATE THE ORIGINAL MOTION, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS ALL OF TWO A, WELL, TWO A AS WRITTEN, ELIMINATE MINIMUMS FOR ALL MULTIFAMILY USES EXCEPT MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF ONE SPACE PER UNIT WHEN CONTIGUOUS, WHEN SINGLE FAMILY [07:05:01] USES AND DISTRICTS. THAT WAS THE CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF. SO MY MOTION OR MY PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS TO STRIKE WHEN CONTIGUOUS WITH SINGLE FAMILY USES IN DISTRICTS AND HAVE A STRAIGHT ONE SPACE PER UNIT MINIMUM FOR ALL MULTIFAMILY USES. CHAIR. THANKS. PRECEDENCE. OH, OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER AMENDMENT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. WE HAD A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER. AND WE HAVE ANOTHER PRESIDENT, NUMBER THREE FROM COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE. CAN I MOVE TO RECONSIDER THE PREVIOUS MOTION? THE PREVIOUS MOTION? MM-HMM . I'LL SECOND THAT. NO, SHE, UH, COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE, YOU ARE NOT ON THE WAIT. YEAH, NO, YOU WERE ON THE PREVAILING SITE. YES. YES. YOU CAN MAKE THAT MOTION. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE ORIGINAL MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT. AND IT WAS SECONDED. DO WE DISCUSS THAT? THE RECONSIDERATION CONSIDERATION? IS IT, DOES ANYONE WANNA DEBATE THAT? OKAY. DOES ANYONE DEBATE THAT? DOES ANY, ANY COMMENTS? OKAY. THEN WE TAKE ANOTHER RECORD VOTE PLEASE. AND THIS IS THE MOTION AS STATED HERE IN, UH, NO, I'M SORRY. LET'S RE YES, THIS, WE, WE ARE NOW RECONSIDERING THE VOTE THAT TIED SEVEN SEVEN, WHICH WAS COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT'S MOTION OF ONE HALF SPACE PER UNIT. RECONSIDER, WE'RE RECONSIDERING. SO WE, WE RECONSIDER MEANS WE'RE GONNA, UH, OPEN IT BACK UP TO VOTE ON IT. NO. IS THAT WHAT IT RIGHT? IS THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO RE YEAH, SO, SO THE MOTION TAKES US BACK, BUT IT DOES NOT APPROVE THE, THE MOTION THAT FAILED BECAUSE IT WAS SEVEN. SEVEN. WE'RE JUST GONNA RECONSIDER IT. AND IF THAT PASSES, THEN WE ON THE MOTION. YES, MA'AM. YES MA'AM. COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. EVERYBODY HEAR THAT? WE'RE, WE'RE MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION THAT FAILED BECAUSE IT WAS SEVEN. SEVEN. SO THIS MO THIS VOTE DOES NOT PASS THAT MOTION. IT JUST ALLOWS US TO RECONSIDER IT. SO NOW WE'RE VOTING TO RECONSIDER THE PREVIOUS MOTION THAT FAILED BECAUSE IT WAS SEVEN SEVEN TIE. SO ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? WE'RE GONNA RECONSIDER THE, THE PREVIOUS MOTION. LET'S TAKE A RECORD. VOTE NO. WELL, DISTRICT ONE? NO. DISTRICT TWO? YES. DISTRICT THREE? NO. DISTRICT FOUR? YES. DISTRICT FIVE? YES. DISTRICT SIX? NO, NO. DISTRICT SEVEN. OH, I'M SORRY. DID SHE, SHE SAID NO. SHE SAID DISTRICT DATE? NO. DISTRICT NINE? YES. DISTRICT 10? UH, YES. SORRY. DISTRICT 11. YES. DISTRICT 12 ABSENT. DISTRICT 13. NO. DISTRICT 14? YES. AND PLACE 15? YES. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I HAVE EIGHT. OKAY, THE MOTION PASSES. SO NOW WE'RE ON THE MOTION. NOW WE'RE ON, ON THE PREVIOUS MOTION THAT HAD FAILED AND WHICH WAS ONE HALF SPACE PER UNIT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? COMMISSIONER? HARA. SO I'M MODERATELY UNHAPPY WITH ONE HALF SPACE PER UNIT. I WAS REALLY UNHAPPY WITH ONE PER UNIT. I MEAN, I JUST THINK IT'S A HUGE BACK STEP, BUT STEP BACKWARDS ON REFORM. REFORM IN OUR PARKING. I DON'T CARE IF THE APARTMENT ASSOCIATION WITH ALL DUE RESPECT WRITES US ABOUT THEY NEED ONE OR ONE AND A HALF SPACES. WE'RE NOT PREVENTING THEM FROM BUILDING THAT. AND FURTHERMORE, THE ONE AND ONE AND A HALF SPACE RULE IS WHAT'S GETTING, GIVING US EMPTY PARKING GARAGES ALL OVER THE CITY. SO THE HALF SPACE PER UNIT IS NOT A MANDATED MAXIMUM ANYWHERE IN ANY DISTRICT, IN ANY PART OF THE CITY. WE CAN BUILD, YOU CAN BUILD WHATEVER YOU WANT. SECONDLY, WE WANT TO HELP INFILL DEVELOPMENT. WE WANT TO EASE THE HOUSING CRISIS, [07:10:02] ALLOWING DEVELOPERS THE FLEXIBILITY TO TAKE INFILL SITES AND NOT HAVING TO BUILD A ONE-TO-ONE OR A ONE AND A HALF, ONE PARKING, ONE AND A HALF TO ONE PARKING RATIO, I THINK WOULD BE A HUGE BOOST TO HOUSING IN A CITY THAT NEEDS HOUSING. SO, UM, I WOULD URGE YOU THOSE THAT VOTED AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR MOTION TO RECONSIDER THAT AND REMIND YOURSELVES THIS IS NOT A MAXIMUM. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KINSTON. I'LL ALSO SAY WE VISIT THIS, UM, ISSUE WITH EVERY LARGE DEVELOPMENT WE DO IN PD 1 93. AND WE, EVERY TIME UNDER PARK THE MANDATES OF PD 1 93, FREQUENTLY LESS THAN ONE TO ONE UNIT IN PD 1 93. AND WE JUST LAST TIME APPROVED A 400 FOOT TOWER WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL PARKING BECAUSE THAT SITE HAD SO MUCH EXTRA PARKING THAT THEY'RE USING THE EXISTING PARKING FOR A 400 FOOT TOWER THAT'S GONNA HAVE OVER 200 LARGE UNITS. SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OR WHATEVER, THEY THINK, WE HAVE APARTMENT STRUCTURES ALL OVER UPTOWN THAT WERE BUILT TO CODE THAT HAVE FLOORS THAT DON'T EVER GET USED. THEY, THEY'VE GOT PARKING FLOORS THAT JUST DON'T GET USED. SO IT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT WHATEVER WE'VE GOT UNDER CODE NOW IS FAR IN EXCESS THAT THAN WHAT WE NEED. AND I, I THINK ONE TO ONE UNIT DOESN'T MOVE THE NEEDLE ENOUGH FOR THE FUTURE OF THE CITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. LET'S TAKE COMMISSIONER CHAR. YEAH. I MEAN, WE'RE ALL JUST SITTING HERE SPECULATING ON WHAT, WHAT THE, UH, DEVELOPER WOULD, YOU KNOW, BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT FOR HIMSELF. I MEAN, I MEAN, IF THEY NEED THE PARKING, THEY'LL PROVIDE IT. IF THEY DON'T, THEY, THEY WON'T. I MEAN, IT JUST, WE'RE, WE'RE LOSING SIGHT OF THE INTENT OF NO MINIMUMS, WHICH IS REALLY, YOU KNOW, THE, THE IMPORTANT THING HERE. AND, YOU KNOW, WITH THIS COMPROMISE, MY, THE BIG, THE BIG PROBLEM, IT'S NOT SO MUCH THE HALF SPACE. IT'S MY, MY, MY BIG CONCERN IS THE FUTURE COMPROMISES. WHERE DO WE GO FROM A HALF? WE GOT NO WI WE HAVE NO WIGGLE ROOM FROM HERE ON IN. THANK YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, AS WE'VE BEEN TALKING TONIGHT, I THINK IT'S BECOME VERY CLEAR. WE ARE CITY. WE WE'RE TWO DIFFERENT CITIES IN ONE CITY. ONE HALF OF THE CITY IS OVER PARKED AND THE OTHER HALF IS UNDER PARKED. AND SO AS WE'VE BEEN TALKING LIKE ONE SIZE DOESN'T FIT ALL. I THINK IT'S BECOME MORE APPARENT HERE TODAY. AND SO BASED ON THAT, THE NO REMOVING IT DEPARTING REQUIREMENTS, I THINK AS A NO-GO, I COULD ALMOST GET BEHIND TO COMMISSIONER FORSYTH WITH THIS HALF AS A COMPROMISE. BUT WHAT'S REALLY NEEDED IN THE SOUTH, WHAT'S REALLY NEEDED IS ONE TO ONE TO ONE. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT COMMENT IN OBSERVATION. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER FORSYTH? YES, SIR. I JUST, I JUST WANT TO SAY MY HEART IS WITH YOU. A HUNDRED PERCENT IS WITH COMMISSIONER HERBERT AND HER AND HIS COMMENTS AND, AND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER AND HER COMMENTS. I, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO KEEP SOME KIND OF MINIMUM IN, IN THE CODE. AND AT LEAST THIS IS A, A START. THIS IS A, A, A, A COMPROMISE THAT CAN GET A MAJORITY OF THE, OF, OF, OF THIS BODY. AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY I OFFERED IT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, COMMISSIONER HERBERT, UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK WE WENT FROM COMPROMISE TO ACCOMMODATION. UM, THE SOUTHERN SECTOR IS A TALE OF A SECOND CITY. IT'S CLEAR AROUND THE HORSESHOE THAT WE'RE THE ONLY ONES WHO SEE THAT AND UNDERSTAND IT. WE'RE OVER PARKED IN WHERE WE'RE NOT OVER PARKED. WE'RE OVERCHARGED FOR PARKING. LIKE THERE'S NO WAY WE CAN GET AROUND REMOVING ALL MINIMUMS. RIGHT? I THOUGHT DOING ONE PER UNIT WAS BETTER THAN ONE PER BEDROOM WHERE WE AT TODAY. SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS A NICE COMPROMISE, ESPECIALLY FROM THE CONSTITUENTS WHO SHOWED UP TODAY FROM MY DISTRICT. RIGHT. UM, AGAIN, I JUST CAN'T SEE US GETTING BEHIND NO MINIMUMS IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR UNTIL A LOT OF CHANGES ARE DONE AT THE POLICY LEVEL. UM, SO AGAIN, I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? OKAY. THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS ONE HALF PACE SPACE PER UNIT. WE'LL TAKE A RECORD VOTE. DISTRICT ONE? NO. DISTRICT TWO? NO. DISTRICT THREE O, DISTRICT FOUR? YES. DISTRICT FIVE? YES. DISTRICT SIX? [07:15:01] NO. DISTRICT SEVEN, DISTRICT EIGHT? NO. DISTRICT NINE. DISTRICT 10? YES. DISTRICT 11? YES. DISTRICT 12 ABSENT. DISTRICT 13? YES. DISTRICT 14? YES. DISTRICT AND PLACE 15? YES. OKAY. MOTION PASSES. OKAY. TWO B, WE'LL GO TO TWO B. UH, I THOUGHT I'D ALREADY READ THAT INTO THE RECORD, BUT, UM, OKAY. MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO, UH, PROPOSE A FURTHER AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE 10% OF PROVIDED MULTI-FAMILY PARKING TO BE ACCESSIBLE TO VISITORS OUTSIDE A GATE CLEARLY MARKED AT THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR YOUR MOTION. AND VICE CHAIR RUBIN, FOR YOUR SECOND DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER FORESITE, I HAVE A QUESTION. UM, DOES THIS MEAN THAT ALL VISITOR PARKING HAS TO BE OUTSIDE OF A GATE? UH, WHAT, WHAT DOES THIS, UH, UH, MEAN, UH, LIKE THE CURRENT, UH, MY UNDERSTANDING, CORRECT ME NOW, STAFF, THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT IS ONE QUARTER SPACE FOR EVERY UNIT FOR GUEST PARKING. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. SO DOES, DOES, IS THIS, UH, REPLACING THAT, BASICALLY TO SAYING THAT THE, UH, THE, THE MINIMUM PARKING IS JUST 10%, UH, OF THE PARKING SPACES THAT ARE PROVIDED BY THAT UNIT? YES, BECAUSE RIGHT. THIS WOULD BE A, AS AS I UNDERSTAND, A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED VISITOR PARKING. 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S 25% OF THE PARKING. WELL, IT'S, WELL, IT'S ONE FOURTH PER UNIT. IT'S ONE FOURTH PER UNIT. SO IT'S NOT EXACTLY AN APPLES TO APPLES DEAL. UM, I THINK WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE WOULD BE A, A MODEST DECREASE, LIKELY IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF VISITOR SPACES. BUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET AT IS THAT THOSE SPACES ARE ACTUALLY USABLE BY VISITORS AND NOT BLOCKED OFF BY A SECURITY GATE. THAT'S, THAT'S THE SPIRIT OF THIS. SO I, I MEAN, I I I GO TO APARTMENT COMPLEXES AND, AND, AND, UH, I DON'T THE ONES THAT I GO TO, I I, HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE TO HAVE ALL THE, A VISITOR PARKING OUTSIDE THE GATE? IS THAT, IS THAT, I MEAN, PRACTICALLY, I MEAN, I'D LIKE, LIKE TO HEAR MORE FROM Y'ALL ABOUT THAT. IS THAT PRACTICAL? UH, COMMISSIONER SLEEPER MAY HAVE SOME CONTEXT. I, I, I THINK IT IS PRACTICAL. WHAT IT MEANS IS YOU WOULD PUT YOUR CONTROL GATE IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION AND HAVE MORE PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE FOR VISITOR PARKING. SO, SO YOU STILL HAVE TO HAVE A, A A, A CONTROL GATE FOR THE PARKING VISITOR PARKING. SURE. YOU'RE STILL GONNA HAVE THAT. AND, AND YOU MIGHT VERY WELL HAVE, UH, A, A CERTAIN NUMBER OF VISITOR SPACES THAT ARE BEHIND THAT CONTROL GATE. I MEAN, SOME PEOPLE WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A VISITOR OVER HAVE THEM PARK BEHIND THE GATE IN A SECURE WAY. THE PROBLEM IS, WHAT HAPPENS NOW IS MOST, ALL OF THE SPACES, INCLUDING THE VISITOR SPACES, ARE BEHIND A CONTROL GATE. AND, AND, AND VISITORS OFTEN CAN'T GET TO THOSE SPACES. SO HAVING SOME REQUIREMENT TO HAVE VISITOR SPACES OUTSIDE THE, THE CONTROL GATE IS THE, IS THE CONCEPT HERE WHETHER THAT NUMBER IS, NEEDS TO BE THE NUMBER THAT COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT PROPOSED, OR SOME LESSER NUMBER. I, I THINK I SAW COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HAD A PROPOSAL THAT IT WAS 0.25 SPACES PER UNIT OUTSIDE THE CONTROL GATE. THAT, THAT, THAT THAT'S CURRENT. WELL, THERE, THERE'S CURRENTLY 0.25 PER UNIT. RIGHT. AND THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT THEY BE OUTSIDE THE GATE. SO IT, IT IS A, IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO DO THAT. BUT I THINK IF, IF YOU DID, FOR EXAMPLE, 0.25, UH, OUTSIDE THE GATE, IT'S VERY POSSIBLE THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD BUILD ANOTHER, I DON'T KNOW HOW, HOWEVER MANY SPACES INSIDE THE GATE. 'CAUSE THEY FELT LIKE THEY NEEDED THEM. COMMISSIONER, MY, MY APOLOGIES. YOU, YOU MAY HAVE ADDRESSED THIS AND I, I MAY HAVE BEEN DISTRACTED, BUT, UH, IT DOES THIS NOT ALSO ADDRESS AN OVERFLOW ISSUE WHERE, UH, YOU KNOW, OCCASIONALLY WE HEAR ABOUT APARTMENT COMPLEXES THAT ARE, THAT ARE PARKING ON THE STREET OR NOT PARKING ON THE PROPERTY. AND, YOU KNOW, I VISITED A COUPLE OF THESE AND, AND WHAT I HAVE FOUND IS [07:20:01] THAT IT'S THE REALLY, IT'S A DESIGN ISSUE IN THAT, UH, THE COMPLEXES ARE DESIGNED IN A WAY THAT THEY'RE INCENTIVIZING FOLKS TO PARK ON THE STREET. AND WOULDN'T THIS KIND OF A HELP, HELP ADDRESS THAT, WHERE YOU'RE BASICALLY SAYING WHEN YOU DESIGN YOUR, YOUR APARTMENT COMPLEX, YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE PARKING SPACES. YEAH. I, I, I AGREE. I AGREE WITH THAT. YEAH, SURE. THERE WOULD, THERE WOULD BE JUST MORE SPACES THAT ARE AVAILABLE AND USABLE TO THE PUBLIC. YEAH. COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, EXCUSE ME. CAN I SPEAK COMMISSIONER UH, HERBERT? YOU'RE AFTER COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. I APOLOGIZE. I DIDN'T SEE YOU, SIR. I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION. ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT WE MAINTAIN 0.25 PER UNIT AND THAT 10% OF THAT IS OUTSIDE THE GATE? OR YOU'RE PROPOSING A REDUCTION? IN TOTAL? IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT CALCULATION. IT WOULD BE 10% OF PROVIDED PARKING RATHER THAN 0.25 PER UNIT. IT WAS SORT OF IN, IN THE SPIRIT OF WE'RE WE'RE GONNA HAVE LESS PARKING OVERALL. AND SO WE'RE, AND WE'RE, WE'RE NOT GONNA DO A ONE-TO-ONE ON A UNIT OR SOMETHING. AND SO LET'S JUST LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF SPACES WE'VE GOT. PROVIDE 10% FOR VISITORS. OKAY. I'M NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. I THINK THAT GUEST PARKING IS WHERE APARTMENT COMPLEX DEVELOPERS CUT THE CORNERS THE MOST. AND I THINK GUEST PARKING IS WHERE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY MEMBERS GET TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THE MOST. I COULD GET BEHIND HAVING SOME OF THE GUEST PARKING BEHIND THE GATE, SOME OF IT OUTSIDE THE GATE. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT SOME OF IT BE OUTSIDE THE GATE, BUT I CAN'T SUPPORT A REDUCTION IN IT. UH, I THINK INCREASINGLY, UM, THE LIFESTYLE THAT APARTMENT DWELLERS LEAD, ESPECIALLY YOUNGER APARTMENT DWELLERS, IS THAT THEY HAVE GUESTS AND THEIR GUESTS STAY THE NIGHT. AND IF THEY DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO PARK, THEY PARK ALL WHEREVER. AND THE HARDER YOU MAKE IT FOR THEM JUST TO HAVE A PLACE TO PARK, THEN THEY'LL PARK IN YOUR DRIVEWAY. THEY'LL PARK UP AND DOWN THE STREET, THEY'LL PARK WHEREVER. SO I THINK GUEST PARKING IS CRITICAL FOR MULTI-FAMILY. AND IF WE'RE GONNA REQUIRE PARKING AT ALL, THAT IS THE FIRST THING I THINK YOU HAVE TO DO. SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN A HEALTHY AMOUNT OF GUEST PARKING. IT'LL GET USED. WE'RE NOT WASTING IT. AND I THINK AT LEAST SOME PORTION OF IT NEEDS TO BE READILY ACCESSIBLE. THANK YOU. UH, JUST TO POINT CLARIFICATION, COMMISSIONER HOUSE WRIGHT, I, I DIDN'T READ THIS AS A REDUCTION IN GUEST PARKING. IS THAT THAT, WAS THAT THE INTENT? WELL, I HAVEN'T DONE THE ARITHMETIC ON THAT, SO I'M JUST, I'M JUST ESTIMATING THAT IT COULD, THAT IT COULD BE A REDUCTION IF, IF THE COM, IF THE COMMISSION BELIEVES THAT 0.25 SPACES PER UNIT, REGARDLESS OF WHAT OUR OTHER PARKING STANDARDS ARE, IS THE RIGHT NUMBER. AND THAT THIS, THIS, UM, PARTICULAR ITEM IS ONLY ABOUT MAKING THOSE SPACES AVAILABLE IN FRONT OF THE GATE. I COULD GET ON BOARD WITH THAT. I THINK THE REAL, I THINK THE, THE, THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THIS IS THAT THESE SPACES ARE USABLE AND THEY'RE VISIBLE, THEY'RE USABLE, THEY'RE ACCESSIBLE. WHAT, HOW WE CALCULATE HOW MANY, YOU KNOW, I'LL LET MR. SLEEPER WHO WORKS AT THIS, OR MR. CHERNOCK OR WHOMEVER, BUT, UH, AGAIN, I THINK I MISUNDERSTOOD, COMMISSIONER. I UNDERSTOOD THAT AS, AS SAYING, UH, YOU'RE NOT CHANGING THE CALCULATION OF THE REQUIRED VISITOR PARKING. YOU'RE JUST SAYING WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS, 10% OF THAT WE WE'RE GONNA MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS CAN ACCESS. IS THAT, THAT I MISUNDERSTOOD? WELL, MY WORDING IS 10% OF PROVIDED PARKING, NOT 10% OF PROVIDED VISITOR PARKING. MM-HMM . OKAY. I MISUNDERSTOOD THAT. UH, COMMISSIONER SLEEPER. OH, WELL, I, I, I, I COULD, I COULD SUPPORT, I THINK THE, I THINK THE 0.25 SPACES PER UNIT IS PROBABLY A GOOD WORKABLE NUMBER. AND, AND I COULD SUPPORT THAT IF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ARE ON BOARD WITH THAT. UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, THERE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER HURT. YEAH. SO, UM, JUST, UM, NOT TO SOUND LIKE A SMART ASS, BUT, UM, MOST OF THESE APARTMENTS THAT I'M GOING TO VISITING PEOPLE, FAMILIES, FRIENDS, UBERS, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, EVEN IN A GUEST PARKING, THERE'S STILL A GATE WITH A CODE TO GET IN TO WALK THROUGH. SOME OF THESE APARTMENTS ARE SO LARGE, YOU ALMOST NEED A RIDE TO GET TO YOUR FRIEND'S HOUSE IF THEY LIVE AT A CERTAIN SECTION OF IT. AGAIN, TELL OF TWO CITIES, RIGHT? THESE ARE LARGE, LARGE [07:25:01] APARTMENT COMPLEXES AND GUEST PARKING OUTSIDE OF THE GATE DOESN'T REALLY RESOLVE ANYTHING. THOSE PEOPLE WON'T PARK THERE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET TO THEIR PERSON. THEY'LL PARK ON THE SIDE STREET WHERE THERE'S A SIDE GATE, RIGHT? 'CAUSE IT'S CLOSER TO GET TO THAT APARTMENT COMPLEX. UM, THE ONLY PEOPLE I SEE THAT'S BENEFITING IS FEDEX AND UPS. UH, I THINK WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT. PLEASE. WOULD YOU CONSIDER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT IT WOULD BE 0.25 SPACES PER UNIT ACCESSIBLE TO VISITORS OUTSIDE OF AN ACCESS GATE AND CLEARLY MARKED AT DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE OR ENTRANCES? GLADLY. THANK YOU. I'LL SECOND THAT. WELL DON'T NEED A SECOND. CAN WE AMEND THAT TO THE WALKING GATES AS WELL? I SAID, UH, YEAH. DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE OR ENTRANCES OR WALKING GATES THAT WOULD GIVE THE DEVELOPERS THE LEEWAY TO PUT IT WHERE IT MADE THE MOST SENSE. DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER KNIGHT. YEAH, JUST ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION. AND I THINK WE ASKED ABOUT THIS EARLIER TODAY, AND I MIGHT STILL BE CONFUSED. HOW WOULD THIS AFFECT CURRENT APARTMENT COMPLEXES? SO IF THEY HAVE ALL THEIR GUESTS PARKING BEHIND A GATE TODAY AND WE PASS THIS, DO THEY HAVE TO BRING THAT OUT THEN? SO THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE, UM, TALKS MORE ABOUT IF THE SPACES ARE RESERVED FOR THE RESIDENCE, IT CANNOT BE COUNTED AS YOUR GUEST PARKING SPACES. SO THAT DOES ALLOW APARTMENTS TO FULLY SECURE THEIR PRIVATE PARKING AND VISITORS CAN BE BUZZED IN THROUGH THE GATE. MM-HMM . THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT WOULD BE, UM, THE, THE WAY I THINK WE'RE TALKING AMONGST OURSELVES, TRYING TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING. UM, BUT I THINK THE CHANGE THAT I'M HEARING IS MORE SO THAT WE WANT THE GUEST PARKING SPACES IN AN INSECURE LOCATION OUTSIDE OF A GATE. WHICH I THINK IN THE, THE PAST BUILDING OFFICIALS AND EVERYBODY THAT I'VE TALKED TO, THEY, THEY WERE OKAY WITH SECURING IT WITH A GATE WHERE A VISITOR COULD BE BUZZED IN BECAUSE NOT ALLOWING A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO SECURE THEIR PROPERTY CAN BE A LITTLE DELICATE AND MAYBE NOT SOMETHING THE CITY HAS HISTORICALLY WANTED TO DO. SO, I MEAN, WE CAN HA Y'ALL FEEL FREE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. AND IF I LEFT ANYTHING OUT, UH, DR. RE AND MR. WADE, PLEASE FEEL FREE. NO, I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT THERE IS A REQUIREMENT IN THE CO RIGHT NOW AN ADDITIONAL ONE QUARTER SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT MUST BE PROVIDED FOR GUEST PARKING IF THE REQUIRED PARKING IS RESTRICTED TO RESIDENT PARKING ONLY. SO I DON'T, I JUST WANT A CLARIFICATION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MOTION AND THE INTENT AND THE EXISTING LANGUAGE IN THE CODE. COULD YOU REPEAT THAT AGAIN PLEASE? UH, UH, DR. RE? YES. AN ADDITIONAL ONE QUARTER SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT MUST BE PROVIDED FOR GUEST PARKING. IF THE REQUIRED PARKING IS RESTRICTED TO RESIDENT PARKING ONLY. OKAY. SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS THOUGH, THE CHANGE WOULD BE THAT HAS TO BE AVAILABLE OUTSIDE OF A GATE. SO CURRENT COMPLEXES THAT ARE NOT SET UP THAT WAY, IF THIS PASSES, THEN THEY NEED TO MAKE THAT CHANGE? OR HOW DOES THAT AFFECT NO, I THINK THIS WOULD APPLY TO A NEW BUILD. OKAY. I MEAN, THAT'S HOW I WOULD INTERPRET OTHERWISE MY COLLEAGUES BACK TO DIFFER. UH, CAN I ASK THAT OR WHERE DO WE GET THE LANGUAGE FOR THE FENCING OR WHY, WHY WE GO WITH OUTSIDE THE GATE? UH, I DON'T KNOW IF, UH, BECAUSE THEY DON'T PARK INSIDE THE GATE, IT, THIS DOESN'T PREVENT PEOPLE FROM, UH, BUILDING PARKING INSIDE THE GATE FOR VISITORS. THEY CAN DO THAT ALL THEY WANT. THEY JUST HAVE TO PROVIDE SOME OUTSIDE THE GATE FOR ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT REFUSE TO PARK INSIDE THE GATE AND PARK IN THE STREET IN THE BUSINESS LOT ACROSS THE STREET IN THE NEIGHBOR'S PARKING LOT. I MEAN IT, WE SEE IT EVERYWHERE. THEY ARE FREE TO PARK. WHAT I SEE IT IS BECAUSE ALL OF THE GATE, THEY'RE FREE TO PUT ALL OF THE GUEST PARKING INSIDE THE GATE. THEY WANT TO, THAT THERE'S NO PROHIBITION AGAINST THAT. THE GATE, OUR ISSUE IN THE SOUTH ISN'T THE GATE. THE GATE'S NOT STOPPING PEOPLE. WHAT STOPPING PEOPLE IS CHARGING RESIDENCES FOR PARKING SPACES INSIDE THE GATE? WELL, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CHARGE FOR REQUIRED PARKING. SO THAT MIGHT BE IN A CODE ISSUE. THEY CAN CURRENTLY CHARGE FOR CONTRACT PARKING. COMMISSIONER SLEEPER. [07:30:01] NOW WHAT, WHAT HAPPENS RIGHT NOW IN MIXED USE COMMUNITIES WHERE YOU HAVE MULTIFAMILY AND RETAIL TOGETHER IS TYPICALLY, UM, THE APARTMENT DEVELOPERS ARE HAVING TO BUILD WAY MORE PARKING SPACES THAN THEY SHOULD. AND SO WHEN IT COMES TO ADDING ADDITIONAL VISITOR SPACES, I MEAN THEY, THEY, THEY PUT THE COUNT TYPICALLY BEHIND THE GATE. WELL, THAT DOESN'T REALLY HELP THE PROJECT ANY, BECAUSE ALL THOSE VISITORS, FOR WHATEVER REASON, EITHER 'CAUSE IT'S NOT CONVENIENT FOR THEM TO GO BEHIND THE GATE OR THEY CAN'T GET BEHIND THE GATE, THEY END UP PARKING IN FILLING, FILLING IN ALL THE RETAIL SPACES AND TAKE IT OVER THE GROUND SPACES THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO USE FOR OTHER PURPOSES. SO THE IDEA IS IN, OR, OR SOMETIMES THEY PUT IT IN THE MOST REMOTE LOCATION WHERE NOBODY WOULD EVER PARK. I I CAN SHOW YOU ONE COMPLEX THAT HAS THAT, THAT THEY MET THEIR VISITOR PARKING REQUIREMENT. BUT THERE NO, NO SPACES NEVER GET USED. 'CAUSE NOBODY KNOWS HOW TO FIND THEM. SO THE IDEA IS TO TRY TO PUT THE VISITOR SPACES WHERE VISITORS THAT ARE GONNA COME OVER AND VISIT SOMEBODY, WE'LL PARK IN THOSE SPACES AS OPPOSED TO TAKING UP SPACES THAT ARE INTENDED FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE. SO IT, IT, IT'S, I I, I DO THINK, UH, UH, THE APARTMENT DEVELOPERS WILL, WILL BUILD SPACES WITHIN THE GATE. THEY'LL CONTINUE TO BUILD SOME VISITOR SPACES. 'CAUSE THERE'S A DEMAND FOR THAT. PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE, UH, SOME SECURED AREA FOR VISITORS, BUT THERE'S A NEED TO HAVE SOME OUTSIDE THE GATE SO THAT THEY'RE NOT TAKING UP SPACES THAT ARE INTENDED FOR EITHER SPILLING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR TAKING UP SPACES THAT ARE INTENDED FOR ANOTHER USE. I THINK, UH, IF I MAY LIKE A GREAT POINT THAT YOU'RE MAKING, IS THAT ALSO IT'S VERY HARD TO FIND. SO I THINK THE LANGUAGE IN TWO B, IT SAYS OUTSIDE THE GATE OR NOT. WE CAN MAKE IT INTO CODE LANGUAGE. WE CAN SAY UNRESTRICTED. UH, BUT I THINK THE KEY POINT IN HERE IS LIKE CLEARLY MARKED AT THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE. AND I THINK THAT ADDRESSES COMMISSIONER KINGSTON'S CONCERNS TOO. SO, UH, AND OBVIOUSLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID, COMMISSIONER, UH, HAMPTON? NO, MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER FORSYTH. SO ARE WE ADDRESSING AN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THIS TO 25 1 TO KEEP IT AT THE ONE, UH, UH, QUARTER SPACE, UH, PER, UH, PER UNIT, UH, FOR VISITOR PARKING? THAT IS YES, SIR. IN A LOCATION THAT'S WHERE IT'S CLEARLY MARKED AT THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE? CORRECT. OKAY. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN? YES, SIR. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DEBATING, RIGHT? YES, SIR. OKAY. I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK THROUGH HAVING THE VISITORS PARKING OUTSIDE OF THE COMPLEX AS A REQUIREMENT, WOULD THAT HAVE ADDITIONAL LIABILITY ON THE OWNERS THEMSELVES? UH, EVEN THOUGH A, A FENCE OR A GATE ITSELF WON'T KEEP, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE SAFE IN THEIR BELONGINGS, BUT IF WE MAKE THAT REQUIREMENT AND IF SOMETHING HAPPENS TO THEM GOING TO THEIR VEHICLE ON, ON THE PROPERTY, WOULD THAT RAISE THE RATES OR ADD ADDITIONAL LIABILITY TO THE DEVELOPER, WHICH WOULD ADD MORE COSTS TO THE DEVELOPERS? WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ELIMINATE TO BEGIN WITH? UH, POINT OF CLARIFICATION, PLEASE, COMMISSIONER. UM, AND I CERTAINLY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THIS IS IN THAT OR WHAT I'VE HEARD THE DISCUSSION, IT'S A COURSE BASED PER UNIT, WHICH IS GENERALLY CURRENT CODE DEFINING WHERE IT GETS LOCATED. YES. BUT IT IS LOCATED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. I THINK WHAT I HEARD COMMISSIONER SLEEPER ADDRESSING, AND I'VE SEEN IT ON OTHER, UM, AREAS, IS THAT HOW THE SITE AND HOW THE PROJECT IS LAID OUT, WHETHER IT'S SURFACE PARKING, WHETHER IT'S GARAGE PARKING, HOWEVER IT GETS FORMULATED, THAT THERE IS RESTRICTED ACCESS TO THOSE SPACES, WHICH IS IN TURN PUSHING OUT THE VISIT OR PARKING OUTSIDE OF THE PRO PROPERTY, THE PROJECT, THE DEVELOPMENT, NOT ON PROPERTY. SO I DON'T THINK THE, THE INTENT IS TO TRY TO MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE AS A PART OF THE PROJECT. AND THEN I THINK AS COMMISSIONER SLEEPER SAID, HOW THE DEVELOPER SEEKS TO LAY IT OUT, THEY'LL LIKELY WOULD PROVIDE SOME BEHIND A SECURED AREA, BUT SOME WOULD BE ALMOST LIKE MORE OF A SHORT TERM. I'M COMING IN TO SEE MY MOM FOR THE AFTERNOON AND I GOT A SPACE TO PARK. I DON'T HAVE TO GET BUZZED IN. I DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A CODE, I DON'T HAVE TO HAVE SOME OTHER MECHANISM TO AVAIL MYSELF OF THE GUEST PARKING AREA. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? BECAUSE I THINK WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY WAS OFF PROPERTY, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT INTENT, WELL, NOT STILL OFF PROPERTY, BUT OUTSIDE OF THE GATE. RIGHT. I THINK THERE'S MORE OF A RISK WHEN PEOPLE PARK THEIR CARS OUTSIDE [07:35:01] OF AN ENCLO AREA, A SECURE AREA AREA, A SECURE AREA. GET THAT UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. THANK YOU. SHIFT THE BURDEN. BUT BASED ON WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, IT STILL COULD BE DESIGNED TO WHERE THERE'S SECURITY THERE AND THAT COULD OFFSET WHATEVER LIABILITY THAT THE OWNER OR DEVELOPER MAY HAVE. THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANK YOU. THAT CONTACT AND CLARIFICATION. THANK YOU. 'CAUSE I NEEDED IT TOO TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE DIDN'T CORRECT ME. THANK YOU. I WILL, I WILL BE SUPPORTED. THE MOTION. AND, UH, I'M NOT SURPRISED THAT AN ARCHITECT PUT IT ON THE TABLE. UH, I THINK IT ADDRESSES A DESIGN ISSUE. UH, YOU KNOW, BOTH OF MY KIDS LIVE IN APARTMENTS NOW. MY OLDEST SON, UH, LIVES IN AN APARTMENT. AND AS COMMISSIONER HAMPTON WAS TALKING, I WAS REMEMBERING VISITING HIM. AND IT'S EXACTLY THAT ISSUE. THERE'S JUST ALL THE VISIT, ALL THE VISITOR PARKING IS INSIDE THE GATE. AND WHEN I ARRIVE AT HIS COMPLEX, ALL THE, THE VISITOR PARKING IS ALWAYS TAKE IT. AND SO I HAVE TO WAIT IN LINE AND GET, EITHER GET BUZZED IN OR WAIT TILL SOMEBODY OPENS THE GATE TO FIND THE VISITOR PARKING LOT. SO THIS, I'M, THIS ADDRESSES THAT ISSUE AND IT'S ESSENTIALLY REDESIGNING THE FUTURE OF THESE COMPLEXES, UH, TO BE A LITTLE BIT SOFTER WHERE THEY, WHERE THEY LAND. UH, VICE CHAIR RUBIN. YEAH, I'M STRUGGLING WITH THIS ONE BECAUSE I THINK THE INTENT IS, IS GOOD, BUT MAYBE WE ARE GETTING A LITTLE BIT TOO PRESCRIPTIVE HERE AND NOT ACCOUNTING FOR D DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES FOR DIFFERENT APARTMENT COMPLEXES. IT MAY MAKE SENSE AT SOME TO PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT PARKING OUTSIDE THE GATE. THERE MAY BE OTHER APARTMENTS WHERE RESIDENTS AND THEIR VISITORS REALLY WANT TO BE INSIDE OF THE GATE BASED ON FOR, FOR VARIOUS REASONS. AND SO I DON'T THINK I'M 100% THERE YET ON THIS ONE, BUT I APPRECIATE THE INTENT BEHIND IT. CAN I ASK A QUESTION? COMMISSIONER RUBIN, WOULD YOU SUPPORT IT IF THAT OUT OUTSIDE THE GATE? UH, UH, WERE DELETED. I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH IT, BUT I'M NOT SURE HOW OTHERS WOULD FEEL. COMMISSIONER HERBERT? YEAH, IT'S JUST, UM, I DON'T THINK I'VE BEEN THIS IGNORED IN MY LIFE. UM, IT'S JUST, UH, THE, AGAIN, THE SIZE OF OUR APARTMENT COMPLEXES, UM, THE AMOUNT OF OFF STREET PARKING WE HAVE IN THE 30 40 CARS, THE, I MEAN, WE HAVE A LARGER ISSUE HERE AT HAND. UM, AND I JUST CAN'T MAKE A DECISION LIKE THAT FOR MY CONSTITUENTS, IS WE, WE HAVE TO CLEAN UP A LOT FROM CODE COMPLIANCE TO THE WAY WE ARE RENTING TO THE APARTMENTS. I JUST LEARNED THAT THERE'S A RULE THAT THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE CHARGING FOR PARKING SPACES. WE HAVE HUGE ISSUES HERE. AND, AND UNTIL THAT'S ADDRESSED, IT'S HARD TO MAKE A DECISION LIKE THIS. UM, I WOULD APPRECIATE IF THE PARKING WAS REQUIRED BEHIND THE, UM, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE AND THAT BUZZING IN, UM, AS WE'VE ALL HAD TO DO. YOU JUST BUZZ IN, RIGHT? WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? ON OUR END? THE BUZZER DOESN'T WORK, RIGHT? SO WE'RE BACK TO SQUARE ONE. WE'RE BACK TO LOW MAINTENANCE. WE'RE BACK TO CO COMPLIANCE. NOT DOING WHAT'S, WELL, NOT BEING CALLED OR NOT KNOWING THE ISSUE. UM, BUT THIS IS THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR. UH, YOU CAN PUT AS MUCH PARKING THERE IF WE, IF 20 10% OF A 200 APARTMENT COMPLEX, RIGHT? YOU GOT IT. IT, THERE ARE MORE VISITORS THAN EVEN THAT. UM, SO AGAIN, I DON'T THINK HAVING IT OUTSIDE OF THE GATE FOR MY, UM, SOUTHERN SECTOR WITH CRIME PROBLEMS AND, UM, A LITANY OF OTHER ISSUES, I THINK INSIDE THE GATE WILL FEEL BETTER FOR THE RESIDENTS. UM, BUT NEITHER HERE, THERE, I I WOULD RATHER SUPPORT INSIDE THE FENCE THAN ANYTHING. COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE, BEFORE YOU TAKE A VOTE, UM, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, WERE YOU THE ONE WHO MADE THE AMENDMENT? WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OF TAKING OUT OUTSIDE A GATE? NO, BUT I MIGHT CONSIDER SPLITTING THE DIFFERENCE IN HALF IN AND HALF OUT. I, YOU KNOW, I, I'M NOT PART OF THIS IS, IS CONSIDERATION FOR THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. THE WHOLE POINT OF HAVING IT OUTSIDE THE GATE IS THAT PEOPLE WILL PARK ON THE DEVELOPER SITE INSTEAD OF ABUSING THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY, THE SURROUNDING BUSINESSES, ET CETERA. THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE AMENDMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND IF THE DEVELOPER DOESN'T WANNA KEEP HIS GATE WORKING AND ALL OF THAT, I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S A, A PROBLEM THAT HAS TO BE ADDRESSED WITHIN THE COM APARTMENT COMMUNITY. AND WHAT I'M HEARING IS, YOU KNOW, THE PROBLEMS IN UPTOWN ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE PROBLEMS IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR. AND MAYBE A MORE NUANCED SOLUTION IS HALF OF IT HAS TO BE OUTSIDE, HALF OF IT CAN BE INSIDE. IT SORT OF ADDRESSES SOME OF THEIR ISSUES. NOT ALL OF 'EM ADDRESSES [07:40:01] SOME OF OUR ISSUES, NOT ALL OF 'EM. BUT IT'S A COMPROMISE. PLEASE, COMMISSIONER NGO, AND FORGIVE ME, AS THE CODE IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, DOES IT HAVE THE WORD ACCESSIBLE IN THERE? SORRY, STAFF? UH, FOR GUEST PARKING ONLY? YEAH. UH, IT SAYS IT MUST BE PROVIDED. IT DOESN'T, IT SAYS AN ADDITIONAL ONE CAR SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT. IT MUST BE PROVIDED FOR GUEST PARKING, BUT IT DOESN'T, DOES ACCESSIBLE DO ANYTHING FOR YOU? I THINK IT SAYS RESTRICT IF IT'S UNRESTRICTED, RESTRICTED TO RESIDENT PARKING ONLY. I MEAN, WE CAN PLAY WITH THE WORDS, BUT THE POINT OF IT IS, I, I DON'T WANT IT TO BE IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE TO GET THROUGH SOME BARRIER IN ORDER TO ACCESS IT. CAN I MAKE A POINT TO THAT? UH, JUST FYI, OUR HUGE APARTMENT COMPLEXES HAVE 20 TO 30 GUEST PARKING SPOTS IN FRONT OF THEIR COMPLEXES. FYI, UM, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT YOUR DISTRICT, BUT MOST OF MY APARTMENT COMPLEXES ARE SET UP LIKE FORTRESSES. SO THE RENTAL, UH, LEASING SPACES ARE THERE. THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF PARKING THERE FOR US IN THE FRONT THAT IT'S NOT WORKING TODAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, MS. MORRISON, CAN YOU, CAN YOU READ, UH, WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON? YES. AND COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, TELL ME IF I GET IT WRONG, PLEASE, UH, REQUIRE 0.25 GUEST PARKING SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT THAT MUST BE ACCESSIBLE TO VISITORS OUTSIDE A FENCE SLASH GATE AND CLEARLY MARKED AT THE DRIVE ENTRANCE, AT THE DRIVE ENTRANCES, OR WALKING GATES OR WALKING GATES. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NO. ANY OTHERS IN OPPOSITION? NO. THREE IN OPPOSITION. UH, THAT'S MR. RUBIN, FRANKLIN AND HERBERT MOTION PASSES. UH, COMMISSIONERS. I THINK WE PROBABLY GO TILL SEVEN. UH, AND THEN, SO START THINKING ABOUT PLANS FOR, FOR PARKING. AGAIN, CONSIDERING OUR, OUR AGENDAS ARE ALWAYS STACKED. UM, SO BE THINKING ABOUT THAT. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, PLEASE. SO RELATED TO MULTIFAMILY AND SOME OF THE DISCUSSION, AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS WOULD FALL, SO IF THERE'S ALREADY AN ITEM ON OUR LIST, BUT THE RIDESHARE AND LOADING, WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION. I THINK LOADING MAY BE DOWN. UM, I LOST MY NUMBER 14. SO I GUESS JUST MY QUESTION FOR THE BODY, DO WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT 14 NOW, OR, OR, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WANNA STRUCTURE THAT, BUT RELATED TO MULTI-FAMILY, WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MULTI-FAMILY, I DON'T THINK WE WANNA TAKE UP RESTAURANTS NOW. , WHY NOT? UH, UH, STANDBY. UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE ALREADY HAS LANGUAGE WRITTEN FOR LOADING AND SHORT TERM DROP OFF RELATED TO MULTIFAMILY. OKAY. SO YOU WANNA TAKE UP, I NEED TO GO FIND IT BECAUSE I WASN'T SURE. COMMISSIONER HOUSER, DO WE WANNA JUST GO IN ORDER OR DO YOU WANT TO GO THIS ONE OUT? LET'S KNOCK IT OUT. WE'RE NUMBER 14. IS IT NUMBER 14? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON ADOPT STAFF LANGUAGE. UH, PER, WELL, LET'S, IT'S COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHTS, I BELIEVE. AND IT IS, IT'S UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL USES IN SECTION 4 0 9. IT IS ITEM 14 ON OUR LIST. AND WITH THAT, I WILL DEFER TO COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. LET'S, WASN'T SURE WHAT THE LANGUAGE IS THAT'S BEING PROPOSED. IT'S, IT'S IN A BOX IN THE ORDINANCE. I HAVE IT. I CAN READ IT IF WE WANT TO. THANK YOU. MR. WHITE. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. CAN YOU JUST PUT THAT THE AMENDMENT ON THE RECORD, PLEASE? NUMBER 14. UH, YES, MR. CHAIR. UM, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT TO, UM, DCA ONE 90 DASH ZERO TWO. IT'S ITEM 14 IN 51 A DASH 4.209 E ADOPT STAFF LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO OFF STREET LOADING, SHORT TERM DROP OFF AND PICKUP. MAY I ASK MR. UM, WADE TO GIVE US THE CASE REPORT PAGE NUMBER FOR THOSE OF US WHO NEED TO SEE IT? THIS WAS IN [07:45:01] THE TEXT AMENDMENT, THE 72 PAGE TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WAS FIRST BROUGHT TO CPC WITH OACS RECOMMENDATIONS. UM, THIS IS WITHIN THE MULTIFAMILY LAND USE IN 4.209. UM, ZAC MADE A RECOMMENDATION, UH, THEIR, THEIR LANGUAGE WAS ADEQUATE. OFF STREET SPACE FOR LOADING MUST BE PROVIDED AT THE DIRECTOR'S DISCRETION. STAFF HAD A BOX, AND I THINK THIS IS WHAT COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT IS REFERRING TO, ONSITE OR OFFSITE AREAS OF ANTICIPATED LOADING AND UNLOADING ACTIVITY, INCLUDING SHORT-TERM PICKUP AND DROP-OFF, MUST BE IDENTIFIED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING ANY RELEVANT BUILDING COMPONENTS SUCH AS FREIGHT, ELEVATOR AND ENTRANCES. AND MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY, THAT'S OF COURSE PAGE 26 OF ANYONE WHO HAS THE CASE REPORT UP. THANK YOU. PAGE 26, COMMISSIONER SEPER. SO, UH, I HAVE, I HAVE SOME LANGUAGE THAT I, THAT I, IT SAYS, UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDED VERSION. DOES EVERYBODY HAVE A COPY OF THIS? THIS IS THE ONE THAT STARTS WITH UP TO 150 UNITS, AREAS OF ANTICIPATED LOADING AND UNLOADING ACTIVITY, INCLUDING SHORT TERM PICKUP AND DROP OFF MUST BE IDENTIFIED AT THE TIME OF THE BUILDING PERMIT. IS THAT, IS THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW? OR ARE WE LOOKING AT SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THAT? THAT'S, THAT'S NOT THE LANGUAGE. THAT'S NOT THE LANGUAGE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT WAS REFERRING TO. IF YOU WANT, I CAN SEND THAT FROM YOU TO LILIANA TO SHARE WITH THE COMMISSION. IF, IF, IF WE COULD, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. SO THE LANGUAGE YOU'RE REFERRING TO NOW, JUST FOR CLARITY, IT WAS WORKED OUT. UH, YOU, YOU BROUGHT A REQUEST FOR HELPING TO DRAFT UP THIS LANGUAGE, I THINK TODAY. I THINK THAT HAPPENED. AND SO THAT'S A DIFFERENT, UM, SET OF PROVISIONS THAN WHAT THE COMMISSIONER IS REFERRING TO. DO YOU HAVE THE LANGUAGE THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LANGUAGE ARE, ARE YOU GONNA, UH, OFFER AN AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER SLEEPER? IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? HE WAS JUST CONFUSED WHAT, YES, ASK WHAT WOULD, WHAT PAGE YOU THAT IN THE CASE REPORT? SIX WHAT? 26. MY CASE REPORT. IT MUST NOT BE THE RIGHT CASE REPORT. SO THIS, THIS IS THE LANGUAGE. I NEVER, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THAT I NO. YEAH, WE'VE SEEN THAT. WE'VE SEEN NOTHING. THAT STARTS WITH THE NUMBER. SHOULD I JUST READ THIS AND CALL AN AMENDMENT? WELL, THE ONLY I PRIMARY DIFFERENCE, IT'S THE HUNDRED 50 UNIT. THIS IS LIKE EVERY PROJECT. I MEAN, I WOULD'VE TO BE A PANELIST. IT'S THE SAME THING. SO THAT'S THE NEW LANGUAGE THERE. YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THE OLD LANGUAGE. THAT HELPS. YEAH, I MEAN, I WOULD NEED COMMISSIONERS. WE NEED, WE NEED TO TALK INTO THE MICROPHONES COMMISSIONERS. WE NEED THE, WE NEED TO TALK INTO THE MICROPHONES FOLKS. I MEAN, I WANNA SEE WHAT THEY WANT FIRST. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, PLEASE. BOBBY. I THINK WE, WELL, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO LOCATE, UM, THE LANGUAGE FOR COMMISSIONER FORSYTH IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF, AND, AND HE IS NOW LOCATED IT. AWESOME. SO IT'S JUST SO 4.09 IN THE PAGE THAT IT MAY BE ON. SHE JUST EMAILED IT TO ALL OF US. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? COMMISSIONER SLEEPER? WELL, UM, THERE, THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS BEING FLOATED AROUND O ONE, ONE OF WHICH IS WOULD BE, DO WE WANT TO HAVE SEPARATE REQUIREMENTS FOR LARGER BUILDINGS, LIKE, SO 150 UNITS AND ABOVE? AND I, AND I THINK, I THINK WE OUGHT TO MAKE A DETERMINATION WHETHER WE WANT TO SAY ONE SIZE FITS ALL OR WANT TO HAVE IT JUST FOR UNITS OF 150 AND ABOVE. I, I, I PERSONALLY LIKE THE 150 UNITS AND ABOVE BETTER DISTI DISTINGUISH THEM FROM THE SMALLER COMPLEXES THAT THE SECOND THING, WHICH IS NOT IN HERE RIGHT NOW IS, IS LANGUAGE THAT WOULD SAY, UH, FOR DEVELOPMENTS WITH, UH, [07:50:01] 150 UNITS OR MORE, ONE OFF STREET, UH, LOADING SPACE, UH, ADEQUATE SIZE TO ACCOMMODATE A TYPICAL MOVING VAN. THERE MAY BE BETTER LANGUAGE THAN THAT, BUT THAT'S THE, THE SPIRIT. UM, AND AN AN ADDITIONAL AREA DESIGNATED FOR SHORT TERM PICKUP AND DROP, DROP OFF THAT WOULD BE OF ADEQUATE SIZE TO ACCOMMODATE THE TYPICAL, UM, UH, AMAZON OR FEDEX TRUCK, UH, IDENTIFIED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING ANY RELEVANT BUILDING COMPONENTS SUCH AS FREIGHT AND ELEVATOR ENTRANCES. SO I, I I THINK THAT CLARIFICATION WOULD, WOULD, IT'S A, IT'S AN, IS THAT AN AMENDMENT? WAS THAT YOUR AMENDMENT, SIR? CORRECT. WAS WAS THAT AN AMENDMENT? YES, THAT WAS AN AMENDMENT SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. LET'S DIS DISCUSS THAT. COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. YEAH, I SUPPORT THAT. I THINK I, I'M, I THINK YOU NEED TO HAVE, UM, SHORT TERM PICK UP AND DROP OFF OFFSITE, OFF, OFF STREET, UM, FROM, FOR MULTIFAMILY. I MEAN, I, I I THINK IT'S CONSISTENT WITH VISION ZERO. I THINK THAT, UM, THESE APARTMENT COMPLEXES CAN AND SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST ONE PARKING SPACE WHERE THEY CAN ACCOMMODATE DELIVERIES LIKE THAT. AND IT'S ALSO GOOD FOR UBER EATS AND I MEAN, WE JUST, YOU KNOW, THE WAY PEOPLE LIVE NOW AND IT NEEDS TO, FRANKLY, NEEDS TO BE NOT BEHIND THE GATE. I WOULD SUGGEST A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT IT'S UNRESTRICTED FOR THE SHORT TERM DELIVERIES. IT WAS ACCEPTED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR. RUBIN. I WANNA UNDERSTAND ON THE DELIVERY SPOTS IN THE SHORT TERM DROP OFF PICKUP, IS THERE A SIZE OF MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE SAYING THAT APPLIES TO LIKE A OF A PARTICULAR SIZE? ARE WE SAYING IT APPLIES ACROSS THE BOARD? SO YEAH, THE, THE LANGUAGE I READ SAID FOR DEVELOPMENTS WITH 150 UNITS OR MORE. OKAY, GREAT. SORRY, I DIDN'T CATCH UP. AND THAT, THAT NUMBER IS, MAYBE THAT'S TOO BIG, TOO SMALL, BUT NO, QUAL SAID THAT NUMBER WAS NOT SUGGESTED 150 UNITS OR MORE. COMMISSIONER , SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THE MOTION JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD. FOR DEVELOPMENTS WITH 150 UNITS OR MORE, ONE OFF STREET LOADING SPACE OF ADEQUATE SIZE TO ACCOMMODATE A, UM, TYPICAL MOVING VAN, IN ADDITION, UM, IT WOULD BE REQUIRED. AND THEN IN ADDITION, AN AREA DESIGNATED FOR SHORT TERM PICKUP AND DROP OFF MUST BE IDENTIFIED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING ANY RELEVANT BUILDING COMPONENTS SUCH AS FREIGHT AND ELEVATOR ENTRANCES. AND, AND MAYBE WE SHOULD ADD TO THAT, UM, UH, THAT THE, UH, THE SHORT TERM PICKUP AND DROP OFF SHOULD BE ADEQUATE TO ACCOMMODATE TYPICAL AMAZON OR FEDEX TRUCK. THERE, THERE MAY BE, THERE MAY BE SOME TECHNICAL LANGUAGE THE STAFF COULD GIVE US THAT WOULD IDENTIFY THE SIZE OF THAT SPACE, BUT THAT'S THE SPIRIT. YES. YES. IF, IF THE COMMISSION SPECIFIES, THEN UH, YEAH, WE WILL DIMENSION IT ACCORDINGLY. ABSOLUTELY. COMMISSIONER, I, UM, I WAS QUITE HAPPY WITH THE ORIGINAL MOTION. UH, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK I CAN SUPPORT THE, THE, THE REVISION, UM, YOU KNOW, TO REQUIRE A LOADING SPACE OVER X NUMBER OF UNITS. I MEAN, THE, THE LANGUAGE WE HAVE, I THINK IS KIND OF ELEGANT BECAUSE, UM, IT ALLOWS US TO TRUST STAFF TO GET THIS, GET THIS RIGHT. I MEAN, IT REQUIRES, IT SAYS YOU HAVE TO SHOW WHERE YOUR LOADING IS, WHERE YOUR UNLOADING IS. YOU HAVE TO SHOW WHERE YOUR SHORT TERM PICKUP AND DROP OFF IS. UH, YOU, YOU HAVE TO, UH, SHOW US WHERE YOUR FREIGHT ELEVATOR IS AND, AND HOW ALL THIS WORKS TOGETHER. AND IT, IT PROVIDES SOME FLEXIBILITY. UM, AND IT, IT PROVIDES, I THINK, A WAY TO GET TO A BETTER SOLUTION RATHER THAN TRYING TO HAMMER OUT AROUND HERE, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS NUMBER OF SPACE, LOADING SPACES AT THIS SIZE AND THIS AT THIS SIZE AND, AND THE WHAT, THE DROP OFF HOW, YOU KNOW, JUST, I, I THINK, I THINK THAT THE ORIGINAL MOTION GOT IT RIGHT. THANK YOU. CAN I SPEAK CHAIR, PLEASE? OF COURSE. COMMISSIONER HERT. UM, YEAH, SO I THINK A LOT OF MY FRUSTRATION IS THE LINEAR, [07:55:01] UM, COMPLEXES OF UPTOWN AND AROUND THE CITY VERSUS WHAT WE DEAL WITH IN THESE FIVE BLOCK BY FIVE BLOCK SOMETIME LARGER APARTMENT COMPLEXES. UM, I THINK EVERYTHING YOU GUYS HAVE SAID FOR LINEAR APARTMENTS WORK, BUT THE WAY OUR APARTMENT COMPLEXES ARE SET UP IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR, THE WAY THEY'RE BEING PROPOSED TO ME RIGHT NOW FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS EVEN, UM, I THINK THE FIRST PROPOSAL COULD FIT THAT BETTER, BUT, UM, I'M OPEN TO DISCUSSION. THANK YOU, SIR. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER KINGSTON? YEAH, I, I THINK I'M OKAY WITH GIVING STAFF MORE LEEWAY TO DEFINE, TO, TO SAY, YOU KNOW, AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING OR WHATEVER, THAT THERE HAS TO BE, THIS LOADING AND SUCH IS DEFINED, IS IDENTIFIED, BUT I FEEL STRONGLY THAT THERE HAS TO BE AN ONSITE PARKING SPACE FOR SHORT TERM PICKUP, BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY USED THE STREET. AND I DON'T WANT THAT TO BE THE OPTION, AND I DON'T WANT STAFF TO SAY IT'S OKAY TO BE THE OPTION. I THINK THAT THAT HAS TO BE ONSITE, AND I THINK IT HAS TO BE UNRESTRICTED. AND, AND I THINK FOR APARTMENTS OF A CERTAIN SIZE, THE LOADING HAS TO BE ON SITE. NOW, WHAT SIZE IT IS AND WHERE IT IS ON SITE, I'M FINE FOR STAFF TO FIGURE THAT OUT. UM, I FRANKLY THINK APARTMENT COMPLEXES, YOU KNOW, WILL FIGURE THAT OUT TOO. BUT I THINK IT HAS TO BE ON SITE BECAUSE WHEN WE ALLOW THEM TO USE THE STREET, WE CREATE SAFETY ISSUES FOR OUR BICYCLISTS, FOR OUR MOTORISTS, FOR OUR PEDESTRIANS, IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH VISION ZERO. AND WE ARE ALL CHARGED WITH ENFORCING THAT POLICY. AND WHEN WE ALLOW THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF OUR STREETS FOR THOSE USES, WE ARE GIVING THE DOUBLE BIRDS TO VISION ZERO. AND I'M NOT OKAY WITH THAT. SO I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME LANGUAGE THAT GIVES STAFF FLEXIBILITY, BUT RECOGNIZES THAT THOSE USES HAVE TO BE ON THE SITE OF THE DEVELOPER. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. THANK YOU. I, I HEAR COMMISSIONER HARBERT AND I DO THINK THAT, UM, WHAT I HEAR IN THE AMENDED MOTION IS THE IDEA OF TRYING TO THINK ABOUT IT DIFFERENTLY. UM, WE ACTUALLY, WHEN WE REDID THE, UM, PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CEDARS, WHICH IS PRIMARILY GROUND UP, THEY'RE STILL SMALLER. THERE'S STILL MORE INFILL. AND WE HAD, NOT THIS APPROACH, BUT A SIMILAR MODEL THAT TRIED TO ADDRESS, UM, WHERE THEY WERE NEEDED NOT ON SMALLER UNITS TO FIND A MEDIUM, MEDIUM SIZED TYPE PROJECT. AND THEN ON LARGER PROJECTS WHERE THEY GO, AND I THINK THIS TRIBES TO NOD IN THAT DIRECTION. UM, BUT I'VE SEEN A LOT OF THE ISSUES, UM, WITH PROBABLY STILL MORE VERTICAL, BUT WHAT YOU WOULD THINK OF AS A WRAP PRODUCT. AND I REGULARLY DRIVE BY AND SEE DELIVERY TRUCKS, MOVING VANS, LONG CREWS, EVERYBODY USING THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. AND I KNOW NONE OF THAT'S ALLOWED. I THINK MANY TIMES THOSE SPACES ARE PROBABLY ON SITE, THEY'RE NOT CONVENIENT, THEY'RE NOT USED. THAT'S A CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE. BUT I THINK IF WE START BY HAVING IT REVIEWED AT PERMIT ON SMALLER PROJECTS AND THEN ON LARGERS, HAVING A DEFINED METRIC HELPS GIVE OUR STREETS BACK FOR THE OTHER USES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO TALK ABOUT IN THINKING ABOUT THIS PARKING REDUCTION. AND, UM, I SECONDED THE MOTION, BUT AGAIN, I, I, I THINK IT, IT IS TRYING TO SPEAK TO THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS THAT WE'RE SEEING, AND THERE MAY BE MORE REFINEMENT OF LANGUAGE THAT CAN ADDRESS, UM, COMMISSIONER HARBERT'S CONCERNS AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S MEETING THE, THE NEEDS OF HIS COMMUNITY AS WELL. BUT I THINK THIS IS A GOOD STEP IN THAT DIRECTION. SO THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DISCUSSION, STAFF? ASK FOR CLARIFICATION, PLEASE. UM, DID THE ONE, ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT 150 UNIT, UM, THRESHOLD ARE FOR LOADING AND FOR DROP OFF PICKUP. DROP OFF. OKAY. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE SO. KEEPING UN UNRESTRICTED FOR THE SHORT TERM. IT WAS UNRESTRICTED. I BELIEVE HE ACCEPTED THE ORDER. UNRESTRICTED. YOU HAVE A QUESTION, COMMISSIONER KEYS AND EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING BELOW THAT, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT. COULD YOU SAY THAT, UH, LINE, I THINK ANYTHING, ANYTHING BELOW IS WORKING WITH STAFF, LIKE WE WILL, IT, IT STILL HAS A LANGUAGE TO SAY, AREAS OF ANTICIPATING LEARNING AND UNLOADING, INCLUDING IF YOU READING THAT, INCLUDING SHORT TERM PARKING, UH, PICKUP AND DROP OFF MUST BE IDENTIFIED AT THE DEMO OF PERMITTING. IT DOESN'T, UM, HAVE A NUMBER ON IT. I WANT, I WANNA [08:00:01] PROBABLY, WE NEED TO THINK OF VERY SMALL MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS THAT, I MEAN A FOURPLEX OR SOMETHING WHEN WE THINK ABOUT LOADING. SO THAT'S WHY WE NEED A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY. COMMISSIONER FORSIGHT, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I GUESS MY QUESTION THOUGH IS, UH, DOES, IS COMMISSIONER HERBERT, UH, UH, COMFORTABLE WITH THAT 150, UH, UNIT MINIMUM FOR THE, UH, YOU KNOW, OR DOES HE FEEL THAT IT SHOULD BE LOWER THAN THAT? LIKE, REQUIRING IT FOR, UH, ANY UNIT ABOVE A HUNDRED UNITS? YOU KNOW, FOR FOR ME, IT'S, IT'S NOT BECAUSE IT'S, IF WE HAD THE UP AND DOWN THE, IF WE HAD THE LINEAR BUILDINGS THAT, THAT WE, WE REALLY ARE DISCUSSING HERE, I WOULD DO THE, THE, IT WOULDN'T MATTER TO ME, UM, ON THE NUMBER. I THINK IT, IT'S NEEDED, RIGHT? IF YOU'RE TAKING THAT MUCH SPACE FOR, I, I THINK IT MAY BE NEED TO BE FLOORS, RIGHT? OR HOW MUCH SPACE TO TAKE, I'M NOT SURE. UM, IT JUST, THE NUMBER OF UNITS DOESN'T EQUATE TO MY AREA FOR ME BECAUSE OF THE SPACE THAT WE ENCOMPASS. UM, SO FOR INSTANCE, FOR, UH, SOMEONE AT THE BACK OF AN APARTMENT ON THE FIRST FLOOR WHO NEEDS AN UBER, THEY'LL GIVE THE PERSON THE CODE TO GET TO THEM, RIGHT? PEOPLE WILL STILL MAKE A WAY HERE, RIGHT? SO, BUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR A PARKING SPACE MAY BE NEEDED IF A LOT OF ON SETBACKS GO AWAY. IF APARTMENTS ARE STARTING TO BE BUILT LIKE THEY ARE UPTOWN, WHICH WE WANT, THEN YES, I THINK WE NEED THOSE REQUIREMENTS. THE NUMBER I'M, I, LIKE I SAID, I, I DON'T, I DON'T, I THINK ONE 50 IS A LOT FOR JUST ONE SPACE, SO DON'T, DON'T, DON'T ASK FOR MY OPINION ON THAT. OKAY. FAIR ENOUGH. UH, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? LET'S TAKE A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. UH, COMMISSIONERS THIS TALK SCHEDULE. LET'S PUT OUT OUR CALENDARS HERE. WHAT DO WE THINK ABOUT THE 27TH? I CAN'T TAKE OFF THE DOCTOR THIS MONTH. OKAY. UM, YES, SIR. UM, I, UH, THIS WOULD, SHOULD WE BE, WE WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET OUT BEFORE FIVE OR SIX? 'CAUSE I HAVE A COMMUNITY MEETING THAT NIGHT ON THE 27TH. I I'M HEARING 27TH MAY BE TOUGH. UM, 13TH. 13TH WHAT DAY? 13TH OF MARCH. MARCH 13TH. MR. CHAIR, IF WE YES, SIR. HAVE A SPECIALLY CALLED MEETING. I'D SUGGEST THAT WE START THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:00 AM WE'VE BRIEF THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. YEAH, I THINK WE'VE ROLLED UP OUR SLEEVES AND WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. SO LET'S, LET'S DO IT. WE MIGHT AS WELL DIVE RIGHT IN AT 9:00 AM YEP. LET'S DO IT. SO 9:00 AM MARCH 13TH. I JUST, SORRY. MARCH, MARCH 13TH. THAT'S THE WEEK OF SPRING BREAK. SO WHOMEVER HAVE KIDS, IF YOU HAVE PLANS, JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND. YEAH, I MEAN, I'M FIELD TRIP PLANE PERMISSION. START EARLY. YEAH. 13TH DOESN'T WORK. START EARLY. I, YEAH. 13TH DOESN'T WORK FOR TOO MUCH TO DO FOURTH WITH A HEARING ON THE SIXTH. NOT ON MY, I COULD DO THAT. HOW ABOUT MARCH 4TH? YEAH. MARCH 4TH. YES. ABSOLUTELY. CAN BE OUT BY SEVEN. YEAH, WE'LL START IN THE MORNING AND HOPEFULLY BE OUT FOUR OR FIVE. I, I'M NOT PROMISING, BUT I THINK WE COULD DO IT. WE'LL, WE'LL GET SOME VELOCITY HERE. WE GOT A LOT DONE. UH, VERY TOUGH ISSUES TODAY. WHERE ARE WE WITH MARCH 4TH? 9:00 AM OKAY. UH, THEN I APPRECIATE ALL THE HARD WORK COMMISSIONERS. UM, LET'S GET A MOTION. LET'S GET YES. COMMISSIONER HOUSER. I THINK YOU'RE GONNA GET SOME LANGUAGE, UH, TO, TO HOLD THE MATTER. DOES HE HAVE TO READ EVERYTHING OR JUST THAT? NO, JUST TO HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT. OKAY. ALL WE NEED TO HOLD IT, SIR. HONOR, UM, YEAH. IN, IN THE MATTER, UH, DCA, UH, 1 9 0 DASH [08:05:01] 0 0 2, OUR, OUR MOVE. WE KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL MARCH THE FIFTH. FOUR FOURTH, SORRY. YES, SIR. FOURTH. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR YOUR MOTION. VICE CHAIR WEIN FOR YOUR SECOND. NONE THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. MOTION PASSES AND YOUR MOTION TO ADJOURN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONER. CAN, CAN WE ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION? YES. FOR MARCH 4TH, WE'RE COMING BACK AND WE'RE CONTINUING TO DISCUSS THE LIST WITH THE ITEMS THAT WERE NOT DISCUSSED TODAY. AND THERE'S NO EXPECTATION FROM STAFF TO BRING CHANGES PER THE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAPPENED TODAY. I DIDN'T HEAR ANY. I THINK WE'RE JUST GONNA PICK UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF, BUT AT 9:00 AM WE'LL TAKE PUBLIC INPUT AND DIVE RIGHT IN. I ALSO WANNA SAY THIS MAKES ME VERY HAPPY WHEN WE LAUNCHED IN, HONESTLY, TO NUMBER ONE, WE'RE ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH THE DISCUSSION. I TEXTED ANDREA THAT I'M TEARING UP A LITTLE BIT. I LOVE THAT WE'RE WORKING ON THIS. I LOVE THAT WE'RE DOING IT TOGETHER. I'VE ONLY BEEN ON IT FOR TWO YEARS. UH, NOT AS LONG AS SOME OF YOU, BUT THIS IS VERY EXCITING. THIS IS REALLY EXCITING. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER 6:58 PM OUR MEETING IS ADJOURNED. HAVE A GREAT EVENING. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.