[00:00:01]
AND IT IS NOW 1:03 ON CALL THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TO ORDER.
[Economic Development on April 7, 2025.]
FIRST ITEM OF THE AGENDA. CAN I GET A MOTION FOR THE MINUTES? OKAY. ANY QUESTION, ANYTHING? NO QUESTION. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.THANK YOU. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
MISS LOU, I DON'T SEE HER REPORT. OH, EMILY. YES.
SHE'S THERE. OH. OKAY. IS YOUR AGENDA. LET'S GET STARTED. OKAY. YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE PARKING NOW? YES. YES. DOCTOR WOODRUFF SHOULD BE HERE ANY MINUTE.
GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. THIS IS A PROJECT THAT'S BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS.
SO GLAD WE MADE IT HERE TODAY. AND DOCTOR ANDREA WOODRUFF WILL MAKE THE PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.
APOLOGIES. OKAY. I'LL START. SO I WILL PRESENT THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CODE AMENDMENT FOR OUR PARKING REFORM. SO IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE BRIEFLY, I WILL EXPLAIN THE PURPOSE, THE PROPOSAL, THE TIMELINE, THE CURRENT REGULATIONS.
THEN ZOAC, WHICH IS ZONING ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THAT IS A CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE AND THEN CPC RECOMMENDATION AND NEXT STEPS. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THE PURPOSE, AS I SAID, IS TO BE TO PRESENT A SUMMARY IS NOT IN-DEPTH.
IT'S NOT EVERY LITTLE WORD IN THE PROPOSED CODE IS A SUMMARY OF THE CITY PLAN, RECOMMENDED PARKING REFORM IN PREPARATION FOR THE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF THE FULL AMENDMENT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
THESE ARE THE SECTIONS OF THE CODE THAT ARE BEING AMENDED.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. OKAY. SO I WANTED TO MAKE SOME DISTINCTIONS FROM THE BEGINNING.
THE CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT AND THE CODE. AMENDMENT IS AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTERS 51 AND 51.
A IS NOT A CHANGE TO EXISTING PDS PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT THAT HAVE PARKING RATIOS.
FOR EXAMPLE, DEEP ELLUM, UPTOWN AND OAKLAWN, BISHOP ARTS, VICTORY DESIGN DISTRICT, OAK CLIFF, FORT WORTH AVENUE, THEY ALL HAVE THEIR OWN PARKING REGULATIONS IN THEIR EXISTING PDS.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. OKAY. SO WE'RE PROPOSING THE PROPOSAL WAS AN AMENDMENT, AS I SAID, TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, TO LOOK BOTH INTO PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS.
WE ALSO LOOKED AT SOME PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE INTENT WAS TO SHIFT FROM THE QUANTITY FROM REQUIRING QUANTITY OF PARKING SPACES, AND SHIFTED INTO THE QUALITY OF PUBLIC SPACE OR QUALITY OF BUILD SPACE, QUALITY OF PRIVATE SPACE, AND TO MEET OUR TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS THAT WERE ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL IN VARIOUS CITY POLICIES. NEXT TIME. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. VERY SUMMARIZED TIME FRAME.
IT STARTED THIS CODE AMENDMENT WAS AUTHORIZED BY CPC IN 2019.
BETWEEN 2020 AND 2024, THE ITEM LIED OR WAS DISCUSSED AND CONSIDERED BY ZOAC.
2020 END OF 2024 AND BEGINNING OF 25 IT WAS WITH CPC.
AND FINALLY ON MARCH 20TH, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MADE A RECOMMENDATION.
NEXT, TWO SLIDES ARE GOING TO BE A VERY DETAILED TIME FRAME, BECAUSE I WANTED TO SPECIFY OR TO STRESS OVER THE FACT THAT ZOAC DID MEET 25 TIMES TO TALK ABOUT THIS ITEM. IT HAD TWO PUBLIC LISTENING SESSIONS.
[00:05:07]
AND THEN THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION DISCUSSED IT FINALLY BEFORE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL.6 IN 6, SIX TIMES IN SIX HEARINGS. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
AND THEN THE OTHER NEXT SLIDE. NOW WHAT ARE THE CURRENT REGULATIONS.
VERY, VERY BRIEFLY, WHEN A BUSINESS OR A RESIDENCE IS ESTABLISHED ON A PROPERTY, THE DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IT MUST PROVIDE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF CAR PARKING AND TRUCK LOADING SPACES THAT ARE PROVIDED OFF THE RIGHT OF WAY ON THE ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY.
THE REQUIREMENT IS USUALLY A RATIO, BUT THIS IS WHERE IT BECOMES VERY INTERESTING.
BECAUSE THE RATIO SOMETIMES IS PER SQUARE FOOT OF BUILDINGS, BUILDING SOMETIMES IS PER BEDROOM, SOMETIMES IS FOR PER MILLION GALLONS OF WATER CAPACITY, OR PER BOWLING ALLEY OR PER HORSE STABLES.
AND THEN THERE ARE LIMITED REDUCTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVELY WITH THE CODE.
OR ANYBODY CAN GO THROUGH A ZONING CHANGE TO ESTABLISH THEIR OWN RATIOS.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO NOW THE RECOMMENDATION WAS A FULL SHIFT FROM QUALITY FROM QUANTITY TO QUALITY. THEY RECOMMENDED A FULLY FLEXIBLE PARKING REQUIREMENT MEANING NOT REQUIRED PARKING MINIMUMS FOR ANY LAND USE CITYWIDE.
THEY DID MAKE NO CHANGES TO THE LOADING REQUIREMENTS, AS I SAID, THE CODE REQUIRED LOADING SPACES.
THEY ALSO RECOMMENDED A REDUCED TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, WHICH WAS IN OUR PLAN TO BASICALLY SHIFT FROM QUANTITY TO QUALITY AND MANAGEMENT OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED RESOURCES, PARKING BEING A RESOURCE.
AND ALSO THEY RECOMMENDED SOME SCALE DOWN DESIGN ELEMENTS THAT WILL IMPACT THE CURB CUT, MAKE OR SHIFT A LITTLE BIT TO SAFETY AND WALKABILITY. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. NOW CITY PLAN COMMISSION SUMMARY.
CPC ACTUALLY CHOSE TO NOT RECOMMEND ANY OF THE MANAGEMENT TOOLS.
AND THEY RECOMMENDED AS ZOAC TO NOT CHANGE THE LOADING REQUIREMENTS.
BUT THEY RECOMMENDED SOME CHANGES TO THE DESIGN OF LOADING.
I WILL GIVE AN EXAMPLE HERE. FOR INSTANCE, PERSONAL SERVICE USE.
IF YOU'RE BIGGER THAN 10,000FT², YOU REQUIRE AT LEAST ONE LOADING SPACE AND THEN IT GOES ABOVE THAT.
BUT THERE ARE 22 OR 23 USES IN THE CODE THAT REQUIRE LOADING SPACE FROM THE FIRST SQUARE FOOT.
SO I DON'T WANT THE COMMITTEE TO LEAVE WITH THE IMPRESSION THAT LOADING IS NOT REQUIRED.
YES, LOADING IS REQUIRED. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO A SUMMARY IN BULLET POINTS OF WHAT CPC RECOMMENDED.
SO RATIOS THAT THEY MAINTAINED FOR SINGLE FAMILY USES ATTACHED AND DETACHED AND FOR DUPLEX USES.
IT IS A REDUCTION TO A ONE PARKING SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT.
MULTI-FAMILY. THEY PROPOSED A REDUCTION OF HALF A SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT.
AND THEY ALSO ADDED A REQUIREMENT FOR ONE LOADING SPACE FOR BUILDINGS OVER 150 DWELLING UNITS, WHICH IS NEW. ALSO, THEY RECOMMENDED AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS AS A NO MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.
IF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS PROVIDED. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
THIRD IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT FOR DOWNTOWN AND FOR AREAS THAT ARE TODS, MEANING HALF A MILE RADIUS OR AROUND LIGHT RAIL STATIONS AND STREETCARS TO HAVE NO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ANY USE.
THEY ALSO RECOMMENDED NO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICE AND MOST OF THE RETAIL USES.
THEY ALSO RECOMMENDED NO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL SERVICE USES.
HOWEVER, THEY RECOMMENDED THAT WHEN AN INDUSTRIAL OR A COMMERCIAL SERVICE USE IS CONTIGUOUS TO A SINGLE FAMILY USE, THEY MAINTAIN THEIR RATIO AND THEY SIMPLIFY THE RATIO FOR COMMERCIAL SERVICE USES.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. NOW CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED TO MAINTAIN RATIOS FOR BARS,
[00:10:07]
RESTAURANTS AND COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE AND OUTSIDE USES AT A REDUCED RATIO OF TO ONE PARKING SPACE PER 200FT².IT WAS A LOT OF CONVERSATION REGARDING THIS LANGUAGE.
ORIGINAL AND STAFF RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
IT SAYS THAT NO PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE FIRST 2500FT², JUST TO MATCH LANGUAGE THAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN THE CODE FOR DOWNTOWN AND DEEP ELLUM, FOR EXAMPLE. AND I DID A LITTLE BIT OF A CALCULATION TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NOT THE PROVIDED FOR THE FIRST 2500 OR WHAT IT MEANS WITH THE LANGUAGES PROVIDED OR AS RECOMMENDED BY CPC.
SO BASICALLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROVIDING ONE PARKING SPACE OR 13.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. FOR DESIGNATED HISTORIC BUILDINGS.
FEDERAL STATE OR LOCAL ANY TYPE OF DESIGNATION.
THEY THEIR MOTION WAS TO HAVE NO MINIMUM RECOMMENDED, NO MINIMUM PARKING RATIOS.
THEY MUST BE PARKED AT ONE PER 200FT². BUT IF SUCH USE AND SUCH LOCATION WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A REDUCED RATIO, THEY CAN DO SO BY USING THE SUP. FOR PLACES OF WORSHIP.
CPC RECOMMENDED NO MINIMUMS IF SUCH PLACES ARE UNDER 20,000FT².
IF THEY ARE LARGER THAN 20,000FT², THEY MAINTAIN THE CURRENT RATIOS IN THE CODE.
FOR SCHOOLS, THEY RECOMMENDED NO CHANGES AT ALL.
SO THE RATIOS TO BE MAINTAINED AS THEY ARE IN THE CODE.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. ANOTHER MOTION THAT CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MADE AND PASSED WAS TO RECOMMEND THAT RETAIN THE EXISTING PARKING MINIMUMS IS REQUIRED PER EXISTING CODE FOR AREAS THAT ARE COVERED BY THE MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY NUMBER ONE, WHICH IS THE LOWER. ACTUALLY THE GREENVILLE AREA IS THE LOWER GREENVILLE AREA, AND THEY NAMED THE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED UNDER CR ZONING, WHICH IS COMMERCIAL RETAIL. CPC ALSO RECOMMENDED TO ALLOW ALL OFF STREET PARKING TO BE OFFERED FOR A FEE WHICH IS A CHANGE. THE CODE RIGHT NOW REQUIRES THAT ALL REQUIRED PARKING CANNOT BE CHARGED.
RIGHT NOW THE CODE HAS CERTAIN USES THAT ARE THAT REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT REVIEW.
AND THOSE ARE REMAIN UNCHANGED. HOWEVER, THERE IS ANOTHER PROVISION IN THE SAME CHAPTER THAT SAYS AT PERMITTING STAFF CAN REVIEW ENGINEERING IF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATES MORE THAN 6000 TRIPS PER DAY.
CPC AND ZOAC ARE RECOMMENDED TO LOWER THE THRESHOLD AT 1000 TRIPS PER DAY, AND IF THE DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDS MORE THAN THAT OR TRIGGERS MORE TRIPS THAN THAT, THEN AN ADDITIONAL REVIEW WITH OUR TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER WILL BE REQUIRED AT PERMITTING.
AND I CAN EXPLAIN WHAT IT MEANS PER USE AND SQUARE FOOTAGE IF THE QUESTION ARISES.
AND ZOAC RECOMMENDED DESIGN STANDARDS TO LIMIT THE CURB CUT ENTRANCES PEDESTRIAN PATHS WHICH ARE NOT THEY'RE VERY SCALED DOWN PROHIBITED SURFACE WATER TO DRAIN ACROSS SIDEWALKS.
THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH SUMMARIZES THE CBC RECOMMENDATION.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING AND FOR THE DISCUSSION.
WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE ITEM BE BRIEFED AT FULL COUNCIL IN THE MONTH OF MAY, AND MAYBE TOWARDS THE END OF MAY TO COME AS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A VOTE AT COUNCIL. CHAIRMAN WEST. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. I APPRECIATE STAFF BRINGING THIS TO US AND ALL THE HARD WORK THAT'S GONE INTO THIS OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
[00:15:01]
I KNOW THAT SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE COME UP, I'VE HEARD FROM MY COLLEAGUES AND ALSO FROM MY RESIDENTS ARE REALLY CENTERED ON THE SPILLOVER OF COMMERCIAL ZONES AND MULTI-FAMILY ZONES INTO SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.ANDREA, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT HOW THE PROPOSAL FROM CPC ADDRESSES THOSE CONCERNS? THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE QUESTION. SO THE ASSUMPTION AND THE PROPOSAL ASSUMES THAT AND THAT PARKING WILL CONTINUE TO BE PROVIDED BECAUSE THE NEED FOR PARKING WILL NOT CHANGE. WE DO HAVE SOME REDUCTIONS.
AND THAT CHANGE IN 2022. IN THE MEANTIME, A LITTLE OVER 40 PROJECTS WERE BUILT OR ARE BEING BUILT THROUGHOUT THE CITY WHERE THE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE BONUS. HOWEVER, ALL OF THOSE DEVELOPMENTS PROVIDED PARKING.
I WOULD SAY ALSO THAT THE CITY HAS A CURB MANAGEMENT POLICY MANUAL THAT HAS AND RECOMMENDS A VARIETY OF MANAGEMENT TOOLS TO MANAGE THE CURB. SO I THINK THE RECOMMENDATION FROM CPC IS ACTUALLY TRYING TO TAKE MORE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT BENEFITS THAT MAY COME, THAT RESULT IN FASTER PERMITTING, MORE PREDICTABILITY AND BETTER DESIGN.
BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE TO DESIGN THINKING ABOUT THE CURB, THINKING ABOUT THE BENEFITS THAT YOU CAN OFFER VERSUS WHERE DO I PUT MY PARKING LOT AND PARKING LOT NEEDS TO BE IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING? I THINK IT BENEFITS ALL OF US IN IN GENERAL. YOU MENTIONED THERE'S 40 UNITS TOTAL THAT ARE HAVE UTILIZED THE MIXED INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BONUS, BUT DID NOT UTILIZE THE FULL PARKING REDUCTION.
IS IT 40? NO, OUT OF 62 PER INFORMATION THAT I HAVE OUT OF 62 DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 2019 THAT BENEFITED OR TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE MIXED INCOME HOUSING BONUS.
41 OF THOSE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE PARKING REDUCTION BONUS, WHICH TELLS US THAT IT DOES THE PARKING.
YES. THANK YOU. AND DID THEY GO ALL THE WAY? DO YOU? YOU PROBABLY DON'T HAVE THE STATS AVAILABLE TO KNOW HOW MUCH OF THE REDUCTION THEY USED, IF THEY USED ALL OF IT, OR JUST PART OF IT, BUT IT'S PROBABLY A MIX I WOULD ASSUME, RIGHT? YES. I DO NOT HAVE HOW MUCH PARKING THEY PROVIDED PER EACH DEVELOPMENT.
FROM OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH DEVELOPERS, IT'S JUST THE FLEXIBILITY.
THEY CONTINUE TO PROVIDE AT LEAST ONE PER UNIT.
KEEP IN MIND THAT AGAIN, THE MARKET EXPECTATION IS THAT PARKING IS AVAILABLE AND IS PROVIDED.
THEY JUST NEEDED THE FLEXIBILITY TO DO AWAY WITH BEDROOMS AND COUNTING OF BEDROOMS AND FLOOR PLANS TIED TO PARKING SPACES, WHICH SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT PERMITTING TIMES AND TYPE OF HOUSING THAT'S PROVIDED.
YEAH, I GUESS I JUST WANTED TO TOUCH ON THE FEAR THAT I HEAR SOMETIMES IN MY DISTRICT OF IF YOU TAKE AWAY PARKING, IF YOU REDUCE PARKING MINIMUMS, YOU'RE JUST GOING TO SEE EVERYONE'S GOING TO TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF IT, BUT THERE ARE OTHER DRIVERS THAT WOULD REQUIRE A BUILDER TO PUT IN PARKING.
ISN'T THAT RIGHT? LIKE FINANCING INSURANCE, STUFF LIKE THAT? YES. FROM OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH DEVELOPERS I UNDERSTAND THAT IN THEIR FINANCING THEY NEED TO SHOW PARKING AND THEY NEED TO PROVE AND PROVE HOW MUCH PARKING SPOTS THEY WILL PROVIDE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE RATIOS THAT THEY KNOW THAT THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE.
I WILL GIVE AN EXAMPLE, FOR INSTANCE, FROM WHAT I KNOW, FROM TALKING TO DEVELOPERS FOR THE LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS, STATE REQUIRES DEVELOPMENTS TO PROVIDE 1.25 PARKING SPOTS PER UNIT.
AND THEN THE SECOND THERE ARE SOME FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS OR OTHER TYPE OF AGENCIES THAT DO REQUIRE PARKING. PARKING. WE TRY TO GET THOSE NUMBERS FROM THE BANKS, BUT NO, THEY DO NOT TALK TO US.
I KNOW ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT CPC CHEWED ON QUITE A BIT WHICH IS A PROBLEM IN SOME OF THE OLDER UNITS, IS IN THE CITY IS THE LACK OF GUEST PARKING? WASN'T THAT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN SOMEHOW TIED INTO THIS BY CPC?
[00:20:02]
YES. THAT DISCUSSION WAS HAD LIKE A FEW TIMES.AND I WILL TELL YOU, YES, IT WAS. THERE WERE A FEW MOTIONS.
AND THEY ALSO HAVE LANGUAGE PROPOSED LANGUAGE TO SAY THAT IT HAS TO BE CLEARLY MARKED.
SO YOU HAVE TO OFFER THIS GUEST PARKING. AND GUESTS NEED TO KNOW WHERE THAT IS.
BECAUSE I THINK WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PARKING SUPPLY IS NOT THE ISSUE.
IT'S NOT CLEARLY MANAGED. SO IN AN EFFORT TO DO THAT, THEY ALSO ADDED TO SAY THAT GUEST PARKING MUST BE CLEARLY MARKED AT THE ENTRANCE SO THE GUESTS KNOW WHERE TO FIND IT. I KNOW ONE OF THE BIG ISSUES LIKE I SEE PARKING CODE REFORM IS TWO PILLARS.
THE FIRST BEING THE, YOU KNOW, SAVING MONEY FOR YOU KNOW, OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING COSTS.
IT'S PASSED ON TO THE TENANTS. SO FOR ME, THAT'S ONE PIECE OF THIS.
THE OTHER PIECE I SEE, WHICH IS JUST AS IMPORTANT IN A LOT OF WAYS, IS SIMPLIFYING THE CODE IN A WAY WHERE WE ARE NOT SPENDING SO MUCH OF OUR TIME AT THE PERMIT OFFICE, COMBING THROUGH THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE CURRENT CODE.
DOES THIS PROPOSAL BY CPC ACHIEVE THAT SECOND GOAL? YES, THAT IS OUR EXPECTATION. AND I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT WHAT IT MEANS FOR PERMITTING IS NOT A PROBLEM THAT, OH, WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO CALCULATE IT. YEAH, WE KNOW WE CAN INTERPRET AND WE CAN APPLY ANY CODE.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT IT IS NOT VERY PREDICTABLE TO THE DEVELOPER OR TO THE COMMUNITY, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME REDUCED MECHANISMS THAT YOU CAN APPLY. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SMALL REDUCTIONS, 10% OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND THEN THAT'S THE UNPREDICTABILITY THAT COME TO IT.
THERE ARE PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING KILLED JUST BECAUSE A FEW PARKING SPACES.
ALL THE BIG DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE COMING OUR WAY, THEY DO PROVIDE PARKING, BUT A LOT OF IT IS JUST IT'S A LOT OF COMPLICATED MATH TO JUST LIKE, OH, WHERE IS YOUR BUS STATION? OR DO YOU HAVE TO RESTRIPE TO SHOW COMPACT? NOW GO BACK AND RESTRIPE IT. REPAY THE ENGINE.
REPAY THE ENGINEER. WHEN IN REALITY, THIS IS NOT HOW PEOPLE PARK.
SO WE WILL STILL REVIEW PARKING. IT'S JUST THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO START HUNTING EVERY LITTLE SPACE AND MAKE YOU RESTRIPE OR REDRAW AN ENTIRE PARKING LOT JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE MISSING FIVE SPACES.
CHAD, WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU. CHAD. AND WE GOT A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE HERE.
I KNOW YOU'RE AT THE AIRPORT, SO IF WE FINISH, WE'LL COME RIGHT BACK TO YOU.
ANYONE ELSE? CAN I SAY ONE THING IN CLOSING REAL QUICK? SURE. JUST LIKE ONE MINUTE. YES I WAS. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS ON THE COMMITTEE.
I SEE THIS AS A I DON'T THINK THE CITY'S READY FOR THAT.
I SEE THIS AS A COMPROMISE. THAT'S BEEN WORKED ON FOR YEARS BY CPC.
THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN BAZALDUA. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME THE EXISTING PDS THAT WE HAVE AND HOW I MEAN, FIRST, I GUESS I'LL ASK. THERE IS NO RETROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT.
THIS IS ACCURATE, RIGHT? NO. AND IT APPLIES TO NEW DEVELOPMENT.
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. I MEAN, AND THE BONUS THAT IS ALREADY BEING PRESENTED TO US TO GO DOWN TO NO MINIMUM AT ALL, THAT'S AFFORDED TO A DEVELOPER FROM DOING WHAT?
[00:25:01]
THAT IS ONLY IF IN EXCHANGE OR FOR PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PER CODE THE MINIMUM AFFORDABLE HOUSING YOU CAN PROVIDE IS 5%. SO IF YOU PROVIDE 5% OF YOUR UNITS AS AFFORDABLE THEN YOU CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS BONUS.HOW MANY PDS DO WE HAVE CURRENTLY IN THE CITY? MORE THAN 1200 AND I WOULD LOVE TO SAY THAT THAT'S A COMPREHENSIVE NUMBER.
SO I WOULD SAY, I DON'T KNOW, BETWEEN 1200 AND 1300 PROBABLY CURRENTLY WITH OUR EXISTING PDS.
HOW COMMON IS THE STRUCTURE OF THE PD THAT'S BEING APPLIED FOR? THAT ELIMINATES THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AS EXISTING IN CODE NOW.
SO WE'VE BEEN SEEING PDS WITH ZERO RATIOS MORE FREQUENTLY IN THE PAST YEARS SINCE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN WORKING AT THIS PARKING REFORM FOR FIVE YEARS.
SO I FEEL LIKE EVERYBODY IS A LITTLE BIT MORE EDUCATED ON IT, AND EVERYBODY IS A LITTLE BIT MORE BRAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT WHAT WE THINK IS GOING TO AFFECT. SO LATELY WE'VE BEEN SEEING, I WOULD SAY, IN THE PAST TWO YEARS, MORE PDS WITH ZERO RATIOS, BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO A LITTLE BIT MORE COMFORT LEVEL WITH YOU AS COUNCIL APPROVING IT.
THE EXISTING LARGE PDS, AS I SAID IN MY IN MY FIRST OR SECOND SLIDE, LIKE DEEP ELLUM THEY HAVE REDUCED RATIOS ANYWAY, LIKE IN ORDER FOR AREAS LIKE DEEP ELLUM OR BISHOP ARTS TO BECOME SUCCESSFUL, THEY NEEDED TO CUT THE RATIOS.
AND THEY INCLUDED NOT JUST SIGNIFICANTLY DISCOUNTED RATIOS, BUT ALSO WAY MORE WAYS OF APPLYING REDUCED RATIOS. EVEN THOSE PDS DON'T GO AS FAR AS ZERO, BUT I WOULD ARGUE THAT THEY'VE BEEN IN PLACE FOR SO LONG THAT WE'VE SEEN THAT THE ONCE YOU START TWEAKING THE PARKING REQUIREMENT, YOU HAVE YOU START TO SEE A LITTLE BIT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT YOU HAVE, YOU CAN SEE A LITTLE BIT OF MOVEMENT IN THOSE AREAS.
IS THIS ACCURATE? THAT'S WHAT I'VE HEARD. OKAY.
I AM ASKING BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A COMMON DENOMINATOR WHEN WE'VE HAD SOME OF THESE AUTHORIZED HEARINGS THAT YOU KNOW, SIGNIFICANT CODE CHANGE LIKE THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION FROM MULTIPLE DIFFERENT PDS THAT HAVE BEEN UTILIZED TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME GOAL.
AND SO I THINK WHEN WE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE, THE FISCAL SCHOOL RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE HAVE TO OUR CITY, AND WE LOOK AT HOW TO GROW THIS TAX BASE. OVERLOOKING OPPORTUNITIES LIKE THIS TO AMEND CODE THAT IS, QUITE FRANKLY, ANTIQUATED AND HAS RESULTED IN WAY TOO MUCH SURFACE PARKING IN OUR CITY, HAS ONLY ADDED TO THE BURDEN OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO LEAN ON OUR PRIVATE SECTOR IN BRINGING, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT IN CERTAIN PLACES.
I'M EXCITED FOR SEEING THAT CHANGE COMING. THIS PD, BUT BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE SO MUCH DATA TO SUPPORT THAT, THIS IS ALREADY THE DIRECTION WE'RE GOING AS A CITY FOR US TO NOT TAKE THAT AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE POLICY CHANGE AND DO THIS HOLISTICALLY FOR CONSISTENCY ACROSS THE CITY IS A VERY BIG MISSTEP. I'M FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF WHERE WE ARE.
I THINK WE WATCHED CPC DO A LOT OF DUE DILIGENCE AT THIS SUBJECT, TO GIVE IT TO US AT THIS POINT.
SO I'M HAPPY WITH WHERE WE ARE. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CAN THEN DISCUSS.
UNLESS YOU WANT ME TO WAIT. MR. CHAIR, I'M JUST WAITING TO HEAR YOU WANT TO WAIT? YES, PLEASE. OKAY. THANK YOU. I THANK CHAIRMAN RIDLEY WAS UP AND CHAIRMAN STEWART. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. WHAT WAS THE BASIS AT CPC FOR ARRIVING AT THE REDUCTIONS? FOR EXAMPLE, MULTIFAMILY TO HALF SPACE PER UNIT.
NO MINIMUMS FOR OFFICE USES AND MOST RETAIL. WAS THAT BASED UPON ANY EMPIRICAL STUDIES OR SURVEYS OF OTHER CITIES? YES. SO THAT BASICALLY THEY TOOK FOR THE NO MINIMUMS.
[00:30:03]
THEY TOOK WORK, AS I SAID, THEY WORKED FOR FIVE YEARS.THERE ARE MULTIPLE STUDIES THAT SUPPORT THAT.
THE RATIOS ARE ARBITRARY AND THEY ARE A ONE SIZE FITS ALL.
THEY CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED IN SOME PARTS OF THE CITIES, BUT THEY CANNOT IN OTHERS.
AND THEY MAY HURT THERE ISN'T ANY DATA TO SUPPORT A RATIO.
SO THEREFORE THERE'S ACTUALLY A LOT OF RECOMMENDATION FROM ALL THE PROFESSIONALS PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS, PLANNING, EVEN ENGINEERS, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS ARE RECOMMENDING NOW TO GO TO ZERO REQUIRED PARKING SHIFT TOWARDS MANAGEMENT.
THERE'S PLENTY OF DATA TO SUPPORT THAT. REMOVING PARKING MINIMUMS AND ALLOWING A RIGHT SIZE OF PARKING TO BE PROVIDED HELPS STIMULATE DEVELOPMENT.
SO WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THESE STUDIES? WHERE ARE THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS? ARE THERE ARE THESE PARKING MINIMUMS ACT AS BARRIERS TO PROVIDING HOUSING, FOR INSTANCE, WHAT IS THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATION WHEN YOU PROVIDE AN UNEDITED UN, SORRY, I STRUGGLE WITH THIS WORD TOO MUCH PARKING THAN WHAT IS ACTUALLY UTILIZED.
HOW DOES THAT COST AFFECT HOUSING, FOR INSTANCE? WELL, I'M TALKING ABOUT STUDIES THAT SHOW FOR THIS TYPE OF LAND USE, THIS IS THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT ARE ACTUALLY NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEMAND FROM THAT USE. YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
I DON'T THINK YOU SEE, I HAVE A COUNTERARGUMENT TO THAT.
I'M NOT LOOKING FOR ARGUMENTS, LOOKING FOR DATA. I KNOW, I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND THE CITY STARTED TO ADD PARKING RATIOS SINCE THE 50S, 40S AND 50S. THE ARRAY OF NUMBER VARIES GREATLY.
NONE OF THEM WORKS, AND NONE OF THEM IS HELPFUL.
I THINK THAT'S HOW YOU ARGUE IT. THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, WHICH HAS A MANUAL OF PARKING RATIOS, EVEN THAT. AND THAT RECOMMENDS RATIOS OR IT DOESN'T, IT JUST PROVIDES WHAT ARE THE RATIOS FOR DISUSE USED THROUGHOUT US? THOSE VARY GREATLY. SO IT'S JUST A MATTER OF LIKE PICKING A NUMBER AND STICKING WITH IT.
THE REALITY OF THE MARKET IS, AS I SAID, IS THAT A PARKING RATIO IS DIFFERENT, OR A PARKING, A PROVIDED PARKING OR A NEEDED PARKING IS DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON LOCATION.
DEPENDING ON PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT, DEPENDING WHAT IS AROUND IT.
SO THERE ARE A LOT MORE FACTORS. IT'S WAY MORE LOCATION BASED THAN A SIMPLE RATIO.
OH, OFFICE NEEDS ONE PER HUNDRED. THERE IS NO SUCH RATIO.
WELL, WHAT STUDIES HAVE BEEN PERFORMED IN DALLAS THAT WOULD TAKE ACCOUNT OF OUR LOCAL CONDITIONS.
FOR EVERY DEVELOPMENT THAT NEEDS A PARKING REDUCTION, OR IS ASKING FOR A PARKING REDUCTION THAT COMES IN FRONT OF YOU, WE ARE REQUIRING THE DEVELOPER TO PROVIDE US WITH A PARKING STUDY.
THEY LOOK IN THEIR DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY, AND WHAT THEY USUALLY DO IS THEY ARE ADDING AN EXCESS OF LIKE TEN, 20%. SO THIS IS HOW THEY INFLATE TO ADD TO A RATIO.
SAME IF WE ASK A DEVELOPMENT IN DOWNTOWN, THEIR PARKING RATIO PROPOSED IS GOING TO VARY GREATLY FROM ONE IN UPTOWN OR EVEN LIKE IN TWO AREAS THAT ARE FAR FROM DOWNTOWN.
IT REALLY, REALLY DEPENDS. I WOULD SAY THAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE ENOUGH.
WE TALKED TO ENGINEERS. THERE IS NO RATIO. THEY TOLD US.
THEY SAY WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE BECAUSE THIS IS THE MARKET.
AND THEY BACK INTO THAT RATIO. SO IF THERE IS NO RELIABLE DATA FROM STUDIES ABOUT WHAT PARKING RATIO, WHAT PARKING IS NEEDED, WHY SHOULD WE CHANGE FROM WHAT WE HAVE? WHERE'S THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CHANGE? PERFECT.
DO YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION? WE'VE BEEN DEBATING THIS FOR YEARS FROM OUR PROFESSION.
[00:35:05]
THE BUSINESS KNOWS HOW MANY PARKING THEY NEED.AND SO THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES LIKE US PLANNERS, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THESE NUMBERS ARE COMING FROM EITHER 0.5 OR 3 IN THE PAST PER OR ONE PER BEDROOM. NONE OF THOSE HAVE SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION.
SO I THINK THE APPROACH HERE IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR ALL THESE YEARS.
LET'S GET OUT OF THE WAY. LET THE MARKET DICTATE.
FOR ALL THE CITIES THAT I'VE BEEN TALKING TO, NASHVILLE OR PEER CITY, THEY HAVE REMOVED ALL THE PARKING MINIMUMS, THEIR MINIMUM BECOME THE MAXIMUM. AND I HAVE A RECENT CONVERSATION WITH THEIR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, AND THERE IS NO ISSUE RIGHT NOW. AND FOR THEIR DOWNTOWN CITY OF NASHVILLE, IF YOU'VE BEEN TO NASHVILLE RECENTLY, THE SKYLINE HAS DRAMATICALLY CHANGED FOR ALL THOSE BIG HIGH RISES BEING BUILT IN NASHVILLE.
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM OFFER PARKING EXCEPT ONE BUILDING, AND THIS ONE BUILDING IS OWNED BY THE SAME DEVELOPER THAT OWNS NEXT DOOR THAT OFFER PLENTY OF PARKING. I THINK SIMPLY REMOVE THE PARKING MINIMUM DOES A NUMBER OF THINGS.
ONE IS LET THE MARKET DICTATE. SECOND, I KNOW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IS IN EVERYBODY'S MIND IS SENT A STRONG SIGNAL TO OUR INVESTORS, TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY THAT WE WANT TO BE OUT OF THE WAY.
WE WANT TO DETERMINE HOW MANY PARKING YOU NEED.
WE WANT TO GIVE YOU MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY. WE WANT YOU TO DETERMINE THE RIGHT SIZE OF YOUR PARKING.
WE THE PLANNERS, I CAN TELL YOU I'VE BEEN IN THE PROFESSION FOR 30 YEARS.
I DO NOT KNOW WHERE THOSE RESULTS ARE COMING FROM.
DOCTOR ADREA, FINALLY, YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR PRESENTATION THAT THIS REGULATION WOULD NOT APPLY TO EXISTING PROPERTIES AND JUST TO NEW PROPERTIES. SO IF AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT HAS X NUMBER OF SPACES IN AN OPEN LOT, AND WE REMOVE OR REDUCE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT TYPE OF USE, WHAT'S TO PREVENT THE OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY FROM ERECTING AN ADDITIONAL BUILDING ON THAT PROPERTY WHERE THERE WAS PARKING, BECAUSE THAT PARKING IS NO LONGER REQUIRED? YES, AND THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I SAID THAT IT APPLIES TO NEW DEVELOPMENT AND NEW CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY.
AND IN YOUR SCENARIO I THINK I HAVE A LOT TO SAY.
ONE, I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO USE PARKING RATIOS TO STOP DEVELOPMENT.
SO YOU ALWAYS WE ALWAYS HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT IS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE AT THIS LOCATION.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PHILOSOPHY NOW I'M TALKING ABOUT PRACTICALITY.
PRACTICALITY. WILL AN EXISTING DEVELOPER WHO HAS THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF PARKING ONCE THIS PASSES, IF IT DOES, BE ABLE TO REDEVELOP THAT PROPERTY BY ADDING AN ADDITIONAL BUILDING IN ADDITION TO WHAT'S ALREADY THERE ON WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PARKING. YES AND YES. AND I'M HOPING THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WANT BECAUSE, AS I SAID, WE NEED TO LOOK AT HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE LAND AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT SOME ACTIVATION OF STRUGGLING PROPERTIES.
BUT TO SHORT. YES. SO IT WILL APPLY TO EXISTING PROPERTIES IS THE BOTTOM LINE.
YES. BUT MY ANSWER WAS NOT THAT IT DOESN'T APPLY TO EXISTING PROPERTIES.
MY ANSWER WAS THAT IT APPLIES TO NEW DEVELOPMENTS.
WELL, THAT WAS THE IMPRESSION THAT I GOT FROM YOUR COMMENT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. CHAIRWOMAN STEWART. OKAY.
I'M GOING TO JUST NARROW MY AREA OF CONCERN TO MULTIFAMILY.
THE REST OF IT, I THINK I NEED TO DO SOME MORE THINKING AND STUDYING OF WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING.
BUT THE MULTIFAMILY IS MY ISSUE BECAUSE I HAVE A LOT OF MULTIFAMILY.
RIGHT. WE KNOW WE HAVE I HAVE 36,000 UNITS THAT ARE IN THE AFFORDABLE CATEGORY.
AND I HAVE SOME THAT ARE MARKET RATE. SO MAYBE I HAVE 40, 45,000 UNITS IN MY DISTRICT.
IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE PARKING MINIMUM FROM PER BEDROOM TO PER UNIT.
I COULD THAT I COULD GET COMFORTABLE WITH BECAUSE IT'S NOT.
IT'S A CHANGE, IT'S A DROP, BUT IT'S NOT DRAMATIC.
[00:40:04]
WHEN YOU TAKE IT TO A HALF A SPACE PER UNIT, YOU'VE CUT THAT MORE THAN IN HALF.RIGHT. IN TERMS OF WHAT WE HAVE TODAY. SO LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND.
I WILL ANSWER THE EXISTING MULTIFAMILY THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR DISTRICT.
THEY DON'T NEED TO CHANGE. IT'S ALREADY BUILT.
NO, NO, NO I KNOW, BUT OKAY. I SHOULD HAVE PREFACED THAT WITH THIS.
IT THE MARKET WON'T ALLOW ANYTHING ELSE. THERE'S NOT A DEMAND FOR OFFICE OR RETAIL.
AND YOU COULDN'T DO SINGLE FAMILY. IT WOULDN'T.
THE NUMBERS WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE. SO IT WILL GO IT WILL STAY MULTIFAMILY WHEN IT GETS REDEVELOPED.
AND I DO WANT TO ENCOURAGE IT TO BE REDEVELOPED BECAUSE IT'S AGING.
AND THAT IS A THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME. BUT I DON'T WANT TO THEN PUT IN SOMETHING THAT'S NEW THAT IS GOING TO HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON WHAT'S AROUND IT.
AND I HAVE A LOT OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
I HAVE POCKETS OF MULTIFAMILY. AND THEN THAT WAS TYPICALLY SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY.
THEY'RE BOUNDED BY LBJ ON THE NORTH ISH. SO THERE WILL BE NO PARKING OUT THERE.
THERE'S THEY'RE ALSO BOUNDED BY SKILLMAN. THERE WILL BE NO PARKING THERE.
WHITEHURST IS A FAIRLY BUSY STREET. I BELIEVE THERE'S NO PARKING ALLOWED THERE.
SO YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT CURB PARKING? I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE EXTRA.
YOU KNOW YOU HAVE A, IF WE CUT THIS TO HALF A SPACE, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE WHERE DO THE OTHER CARS PARK? SO THE FACT THAT THE RATIO IS WHAT IT IS, IT DOESN'T MEAN THE PARKING WILL NOT BE PROVIDED.
THERE IS NO MAXIMUM. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CODE THAT SAYS YOU MUST PROVIDE JUST HALF.
AND THAT'S IT. YES, BUT I DON'T I, I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A HARDER LINE.
I DON'T THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
YES. I'D LIKE TO BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD PROVIDE MORE PARKING.
BUT WHAT IF THEY DON'T? WHAT IF THEY'RE CUTTING COSTS? WHAT IF THEY'RE. WHAT IF THEY'RE JUST. THEY JUST DON'T.
AND I DON'T HAVE AS A COUNCIL MEMBER OR AS A RESIDENT AT THAT POINT.
THERE'S NOTHING I HAVE. I CAN'T ENFORCE ANYTHING THERE RIGHT.
I'M IT'S THEIR DECISION. AND I DO WANT THEM TO COME.
I WANT TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO COME. SO I DO UNDERSTAND REDUCING THE MINIMUM.
AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE DONE UNDER MULTIFAMILY.
IT'S A REDUCTION, BUT IT'S A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IS MY POINT.
IT'S A IT'S A SHIFT IN THE WAY WE'RE LOOKING TO TRY TO.
IT'S A REDUCTION TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE LARGER UNITS WITH MORE BEDROOMS. MAYBE FAMILIES NEED MULTIFAMILY. IT IS, THIS IS THE ANGLE.
DO WE SEE THAT HAPPENING IF WE REDUCE, IF WE GO DOWN? BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE. YES. BECAUSE YOU MAY HAVE, LIKE A THREE BEDROOM APARTMENT FOR A FAMILY THAT HAS KIDS AND KIDS DON'T DRIVE.
BUT WHERE DO WE SEE. SO YOU'RE SAYING WE DON'T BUILD THE LARGER UNITS BECAUSE OF THE PARKING REQUIRED? THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. YES. I WILL HAVE TO TAKE THAT BACK TO SOMEBODY AND ASK THE QUESTION.
YES, YES, YES. I DON'T THINK THAT'S IT. IT IS.
BUT I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT IF IT'S UNDER PARKED AND PEOPLE WILL START TO LIKE, PARK ON THE STREET.
I WOULD SAY THAT THE CURB OR THE RIGHT OF WAY IS OURS TO ENFORCE.
THEY WILL GO THEN TO THE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE WEST SIDE.
SAME, SAME. IT'S OUR CURB. IT'S OUR RIGHT OF WAY.
THAT IS TO ENFORCE THAT. I'M ALREADY ENFORCING IT IN THREE AREAS OF MY DISTRICT.
I ALREADY HAVE APARTMENT COMPLEX FOLKS TAKING THEIR BOX TRUCKS AND THEIR EXTRA VEHICLES AND PARKING THEM IN WHISPERING HILLS, HAMILTON PARK AND COUNTRY FOREST, JACKSON MEADOW ALREADY.
THAT'S THOSE ARE THREE AREAS. I'M WORKING WITH THE RESIDENTS, SO I FORESEE MORE OF THAT.
IT PROPOSES A PARKING BENEFIT DISTRICT. IT PROPOSES RPOS.
RPOS ARE NOT IN YOUR AREA FROM WHAT THE STUDY SAYS.
SO I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF TOOLS THAT PROBABLY WE DON'T USE RIGHT NOW.
[00:45:03]
I WOULD LIKE, AS I SAID, TO ALLOW THE FLEXIBILITY FOR HOUSING TO BE PROVIDED AND TO REMOVE A BARRIER.AND ARE WE NOT REMOVING A BARRIER BY TAKING IT TO ONE SPACE PER UNIT? WE ARE PROBABLY THE MARKET WILL SAY, I WILL TELL YOU THE ONE SPACE PER UNIT WAS THE RATIO THAT WE HAD IN TWO UNTIL 2012. AND LET ME JUST TELL YOU, WE BUILT A TON OF APARTMENTS BEFORE 2012.
IN MY DISTRICT, A LOT WITH ALL THOSE THOUSANDS WERE BUILT, LIKE WITH ONE PER UNIT.
WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE OPERATING ON THE INDUCED DEMAND.
WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THERE'S A DEMAND FOR PARKING AND DEVELOPERS, IF THEY WANT THEIR PRODUCT TO BE USED, THEY WILL PROVIDE IT. IF THERE ARE SINGULAR EXAMPLES THAT I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT THEN I HAVE TO TRUST THAT.
AND I DON'T HAVE THAT TRUST THAT, THAT, THAT THAT WILL TAKE CARE OF ITSELF IN MULTIFAMILY WHEN IN MY EXPERIENCE, IT JUST I WANT THE ABILITY TO HAVE SOME CAP, SOME LIMIT.
I, I NEED YOU TO HAVE AT LEAST THIS MANY. I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL OF US ACTUALLY, TO START EXPLORING TOOLS THAT DEAL WITH MANAGEMENT AND WITH ISSUES LIKE THAT, INSTEAD OF INDUCING A DEMAND FOR CARS AND THEN DEALING WITH THE CONSEQUENCES, WHICH ARE THE TOOLS HAVE TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF ENFORCEMENT, CORRECT? YES. BUT IF WE DON'T HAVE THE TOOLS, THERE IS NO ENFORCEMENT AND WE DON'T HAVE THE THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE THAT.
I, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND. I ALSO HAVE ANOTHER ANSWER TO SAY IF WE HAVE AN ISSUE RIGHT NOW, IT MEANS THAT THE RATIOS DON'T HELP. SO YOU HAVE THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE ARE MANAGEMENT NOT SUPPLY.
SUPPLY IS THERE LIKE LOOK WE LOOK AROUND US NOT BE IN THE THREE AREAS.
I JUST MENTIONED THE APARTMENTS ON WALNUT ON SCHROEDER AND FOREST LANE.
IF YOU NEED ME TO, I WILL LOOK INTO THOSE. I'LL TALK TO CODE COMPLIANCE.
WE TALKED TO MANAGEMENT COMPANIES AND THEY TOLD US THAT THEY ENFORCE IT.
THEY SHOWED US THAT THEY HAVE ADEQUATE SUPPLY.
THEY SHOWED US THAT EVEN OUR CODE COMPLIANCE, THEY WORKED WITH THEM.
I CAN ASK CODE COMPLIANCE TO LOOK INTO THOSE AND EXPLAIN TO ME IF THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH SUPPLY, OR IF THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH MANAGEMENT, WHEN WE LET'S HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH THEM TOGETHER.
YES, BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT.
YES. SO I HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ONCE WE HAVE A MOTION.
CHAIRWOMAN ARNOLD, THANK YOU. JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS.
THIS IS TEXAS. WE'RE ADDICTED TO OUR CARS. COMMENT TO ME, AND I SUPPORT THAT.
BECAUSE ONE THING I DO KNOW, WE CONTINUE TO WORK IN SILOS, AND WE ALWAYS HAVE TO SAY, WELL, WE DIDN'T GET THAT. AND THEN WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO GET THAT DEPARTMENT IN TO WEIGH IN.
IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CODE, YOU'RE ADDING ANOTHER CHALLENGE TO WHAT CODE HAS TO DO.
WE KNOW WE HAVE NEW PARKING GUIDELINES NOW ON STREET PARKING AND SOME OTHER THINGS.
WE HAD A TOWN HALL MEETING VIRTUALLY ON IT, AND MANY FOLKS DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON.
SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO CONTINUE. IF CITY MANAGER WAS HERE, I WOULD TELL HER THE SAME THING.
MIGHT I SUGGEST THAT WE BEGIN TO BREAK DOWN SILOS SO THAT AS WE INTRODUCE POLICY, IT MAKES SENSE? AND ONCE AGAIN, I INTRODUCE KISS. YOU WANT TO KEEP IT SIMPLE AND SUCCINCT SO PEOPLE UNDERSTAND.
SO BEFORE I READ THIS NOTE, MISS ANDREA, IN A NUTSHELL FOR THE PUBLIC THAT MIGHT BE LISTENING.
WHAT ARE YOU TELLING THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS TODAY AS WE TALK ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL? JUST KIND OF IN LAYMAN'S TERM. WHAT ARE YOU TELLING THEM? WHAT CAN THEY. THE RATIO OF THE RATIO FOR SINGLE FAMILY RECOMMENDED BY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION IS ONE PER UNIT.
SO THEY DIDN'T THEY CHANGED ONLY FOR. NO, NO, NO.
IF YOU AS A AS A HOMEOWNER, TELL THEM IF THERE'S AN APARTMENT COMPLEX COMING, WHAT DO THEY EXPECT?
[00:50:06]
WHAT CAN THEY EXPECT IN TERMS OF THE PARKING ACCESS TO THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOODS? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO TELL THEM? THAT PARKING IS GOING TO BE PROVIDED AS THE MARKET DEMANDS AT THAT LOCATION? TRANSLATE. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO MISS JONES? SHE'S BEEN IN THAT IN THAT HOUSE FOR YEARS. AND SO A NEW COMPLEX COMES.SO THEY HAVE A PARKING GARAGE. THEY'RE NOT PARKING ON THE STREET.
SO TELL ME JUST IF YOU CAN. AS I SAID, LIKE, IT IS OUR EXPECTATION THAT PARKING WILL BE PROVIDED AS THEY NEEDED, AND WHATEVER BENEFITS COME WITH ADDITIONAL NEW HOUSING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THOSE ARE THE BENEFITS, THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BENEFITS THAT WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE ASIDE.
AS FAR AS OVERSPILL PARKING, I WILL SAY THE SAME IS THE SAME AS A SINGLE FAMILY COMES IN.
IF THEY HAVE TOO MANY CARS AND THEY WANT TO PARK THEM AT THE CURB.
AND IF WE NEED TO CREATE MANAGEMENT TOOLS FOR HOW TO MANAGE THE CURB, I WOULD SAY LET'S DO THAT, BUT NOT CONSTRAIN THE SUPPLY OF HOUSING. WHEN WE KNOW WE NEED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND WE KNOW WE NEED HOUSING.
SO, TRANSLATOR, DID YOU JUST TELL HER THAT IF INDEED THE PARKING OVERFLOWS AND THAT PARKING, THEN IT'S GOING TO BE PARKING ON THE STREET AND THEY JUST HAVE TO MAKE DO WITH IT UNTIL WE CAN GET CODE TO COME OUT.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT UNLESS IT IS RESTRICTED, PARKING AT THE CURB IS ALLOWED, IS ALLOWED FOR ME AS A SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY OWNER, AS IS ALLOWED FOR ANY USER UNLESS IT IS RESTRICTED OTHERWISE.
CURB PARKING IS LIMITED. YOU CAN ONLY HAVE AS MANY PARKING SPACES ON THE STREET.
WE NEED TO BE CREATIVE ON WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS TO DO WITH THEIR CURB IF THEY WANT BIKE LANES, LET'S PUT BIKE LANES. IF THEY WANT BUS LANES, LET'S PUT BUS LANES.
IF THEY WANT TO STRIPE ON STREET PARKING, LET'S DO THAT.
IF THEY WANT TO DO RPOS, RESIDENTIAL PARKING ONLY, LET'S DO THAT.
BUT IF THE CURB REMAINS UNASSIGNED, IT APPLIES THE SAME TO EVERY USER IN THE CITY.
SO BASICALLY WE'RE GOING TO BE DEPENDENT UPON CITY SERVICES.
EITHER IT'S GOING TO TRIGGER CODE OR IT'S GOING TO TRIGGER POLICE COMING.
IF THOSE ADDITIONAL CARS ARE OUT THERE IN THE AND THE COMMUNITY REALLY DOESN'T KNOW, IS IT A POSSIBILITY? IS IT A POSSIBILITY? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WOULD WE CALL A POLICE FOR A CAR THAT'S PARKED ON THE STREET WHERE PARKING IS ALLOWED.
WELL, THE QUESTION PROBABLY IS MOST RESIDENTS DON'T REALLY WANT PARKING TO BE ON THE STREET.
AND WE ALSO HAVE TO BEGIN TO LOOK AT THE STREETS BECAUSE MANY TIMES AND WE HAVE THAT POSSIBILITY WHERE YOU HAVE THIS PARKING AND YOU HAVE THE INTERFERENCE WITH THE POLICE AND FIRE BEING ABLE TO SERVICE THEIR RESIDENTS.
SO LET ME LEAVE IT RIGHT THERE. I WOULD SAY JUST A SECOND.
I WANT TO ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC.
IF THERE IS A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE AND AN AMBULANCE OR A FIRE TRUCK CANNOT GO THROUGH THE DEPARTMENTS ARE PROACTIVE INTO INSTITUTING NO PARKING ON THOSE STREETS WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND ACCESS BECAUSE OF PUBLIC SAFETY.
THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT NO PARKING SIGNS WILL BE INSTALLED AND THEY WILL BE ENFORCED.
BUT AS I SAID, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE JUST PARKING ON THE STREET, I WOULD SAY WE NEED TO GET WITH THE COMMUNITY AND RE-ENVISION THE CURB AND SIMPLY RE-ENVISION IT. AND IF IT NEEDS TO BE A BIKE LANE, THEN A BIKE LANE IT IS.
AND BIKE LANE WILL PROHIBIT ON STREET PARKING LIKE IT'S.
THERE ARE WAYS TO MANAGE THE CURB, WHICH IS NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY.
ALL RIGHT. SO IN REALITY, IN THE REAL WORLD THAT I LIVE IN WHERE FOLKS BEGIN TO PARK WHEREVER THEY WANT TO, THE QUESTION NOW IS, HAVE WE INCLUDED POLICE AND FIRE AND PUBLIC WORKS IN THIS CONVERSATION? I ASKED THEM IN THE BEGINNING. THAT'S WHY I KNOW THAT IF THERE IS A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE.
BUT I MEAN, HAVE THEY WEIGHED IN ON, IN WRITING THAT SOMETHING WE COULD LOOK AT? IF THEY NEED TO, WRITE WHATEVER IS HAPPENING ON THE RIGHT OF WAY, BUT ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY, THAT'S ZONING AND THAT'S US. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
SO I'M NOT REALLY GETTING THERE. SO LET ME JUST PUT THIS REAL FAST.
PARKING REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE REDUCED INCREMENTALLY, RATHER THAN TAKING A CITYWIDE APPROACH THAT IS DESIGNED TO PRODUCE HIGHER DENSITY, ESPECIALLY IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS DISGUISED AS ADVANCING ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY.
AND SO THIS INDIVIDUAL IS SAYING, LET'S TRY TO FIRST LET'S TRY DOWNTOWN.
[00:55:07]
SO PARKING MINIMUMS WILL NOT WORK IN AREAS WITH LIMITED PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.IN AREAS WHERE TEMPERATURES ARE EXTREMELY HOT, APPROACHING 100 DEGREES THROUGH MANY MONTHS.
AND SO I DID WANT TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS, AS YOU'RE LISTENING OR NOT LISTENING.
AND THEN THE PUBLIC AND THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN THE AUDIENCE AND OF COURSE, STAFF.
THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN NARVAEZ. THANK YOU. SO THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO WHAT I WANTED TO ASK WAS I WANTED TO GO BACK ONTO THE APARTMENTS.
SO I'M THE ONLY COUNCIL MEMBER WHO ACTUALLY LIVES IN MULTIFAMILY.
AND SO THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, THOUGH, WHAT I'M HEARING BETWEEN DIFFERENT COMPLEXES THAT ARE TYPICALLY HIGHER UNITS OF LOWER INCOME OR AFFORDABILITY TEND TO AND I HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF THOSE IN THE BLACKMON LAKE AREA TEND TO FOLKS STUFF A LOT OF PEOPLE INTO THESE UNITS.
THAT'S ON THE MANAGEMENT. BUT WHEN DO WE ENFORCE? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S HURTING A LOT OF THAT PARKING IN THOSE AREAS.
AND THEY'RE TYPICALLY ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH THEN IT POURS OUT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOODS, WHICH OF COURSE WE'RE ALWAYS COMBATING. BUT THEN YOU GET INTO A BUILDING LIKE MINE THAT IS 20% AFFORDABILITY.
AND THE GARAGE THAT I LIVE IN, THE BUILDING I LIVE IN, THERE'S FIVE, SIX, SEVEN BUILDINGS ALL IN A ROW, AND WE EACH HAVE OUR OWN GARAGE. AND EVERY DAY I, YOU KNOW, PARK IN THE GARAGE AND THERE'S PROBABLY EASILY 30 TO 40% OF THE SPACES NOT BEING UTILIZED AT ALL, ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, BECAUSE THERE IS A BIG NUMBER THAT DO PARK OUT ON THE RESIDENTIAL STREET.
BECAUSE BUT I DON'T HAVE SINGLE FAMILY THERE.
IT'S ALL MULTIFAMILY, RIGHT? BECAUSE NATURALLY, IF YOU LIVED ON THE FIRST OR SECOND FLOOR, YOU DON'T WANT TO GO PARK ON THE THIRD FLOOR OF THE GARAGE TO GET BACK DOWN TO YOUR UNIT OR CARRY GROCERIES OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
SO YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DO.
THEY'RE GOING TO PARK CLOSEST TO WHERE THEY CAN ENTER THE BUILDING AND FOR WHATEVER REASON, RIGHT. I DO IT SOMETIMES I PARK ON THE STREET BECAUSE I KNOW I'M GOING TO DIP IN AND DIP OUT, AND I HAPPEN TO LIVE NEXT TO THE ELEVATOR. SO IT'S LIKE REALLY GREAT FOR ME.
LIKE, BUT, YOU KNOW, AT NIGHT I'M GOING TO PARK IN THE GARAGE.
BUT SOMETIMES DURING THE DAY I PARK OUT ON THE STREET.
SO I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHERE MY COLLEAGUE IS COMING FROM TALKING ABOUT THE MULTIFAMILY.
SO IS THERE, YOU KNOW, NOT ALL AREAS ARE EQUAL WHEN IT COMES TO THE MULTIFAMILY.
SO WHAT WOULD BE YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO THAT? I HAVE A LOT. AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE NUANCES AND FOR THE QUESTION.
IT SHOWS US NOT THAT WE NEED MORE PARKING, IT JUST SHOWS US THAT WE NEED MORE UNITS.
IF WE NEED TO SQUEEZE IN MORE PEOPLE IN A UNIT AND NOT HAVE PLENTY OF PARKING.
IT TELLS ME THAT WE HAVE A HOUSING ISSUE, NOT A PARKING ISSUE.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT GOES TO MAYBE WE NEED TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE EASIER TO ALLOW OR TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE HOUSING, ESPECIALLY AFFORDABLE. I THINK ABOUT WHERE I LIVE JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MARGARET HUNT HILL BRIDGE.
YOU COME DOWN THE BRIDGE, I'M IN THE BUILDINGS ON, ON THE LEFT, THE CYPRESS AT TRINITY GROVES.
AND WHEN I SEE ALL THESE EMPTY UNITS, I MEAN EMPTY SPACES.
I SIT THERE AND WONDER, COULD THERE HAVE BEEN ANOTHER? I DON'T KNOW, 10%, 15%, 20% MORE? I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.
ESPECIALLY AFFORDABLE. THAT WOULD THEN ADD TO THE 20%, RIGHT? BECAUSE IF YOU GO UP TO 1000 UNITS, THAT'S 200 UNITS OF AFFORDABLE VERSUS, YOU KNOW, OH, WE ONLY GOT 500.
AND YOU'RE GETTING WHAT? 100 UNITS BECAUSE HALF OF IT RIGHT.
BUT I DO SEE A LOT OF WASTED SPACE WHEN IT COMES TO PARKING IN THE GARAGE.
AND I'M NOT SAYING LIKE, OH, I DON'T KNOW WHERE I'M AT ON THIS BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU THAT, YOU KNOW ONE PER BEDROOM IS ABSOLUTELY NOT THE CORRECT ANSWER, BECAUSE THEN I'M TRYING TO THINK OF LIKE, ALL THE ALL THE CARS THAT ARE PARKED ON THE STREET, LIKE, LET'S SAY THEY ALL WERE FORCED TO BE IN THE GARAGE.
[01:00:06]
OKAY, MAYBE IT WOULDN'T BE A 30 TO 40% EMPTY.IT WOULD BE MAYBE 20% EMPTY. BUT THAT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN BECAUSE YOU CAN'T FORCE PEOPLE TO.
I WAS GOING TO SAY IT WILL HAPPEN WHEN WE HAVE MANAGEMENT.
SO MY SECOND ANSWER IS WE HAVEN'T SEEN BEING A SUPPLY ISSUE.
WE'VE SEEN IT BEING A MANAGEMENT ISSUE. THE SECOND YOU SAY, YEAH, YOU CANNOT PARK ON THE CURB.
NOW YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH YOUR GUESTS. IT'S EASIER WHEN YOU HAVE A MANAGEMENT COMPANY TO MANAGE WITH THE WAY THE GUESTS BEHAVE, AS OPPOSED TO A SINGLE FAMILY OWNER, THAT OBVIOUSLY THERE IS NO OVERSIGHT.
BUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MULTIFAMILY, THEY DO HAVE MANAGEMENT COMPANIES.
SO I THINK IT'S A MANAGEMENT OF PARKING ISSUE.
AND THIS IS WHAT WE WANTED TO ADD. YES. WHEN YOU WON'T HAVE PARKING AT THE CURB, YES, YOU WILL BE FORCED TO GO IN YOUR GARAGE EVEN MORE WHEN THE COMPLEX NEARBY DOESN'T HAVE. MAYBE THEY MAKE A SHARE PARKING WITH YOUR WITH YOUR GARAGE AND THEY MAKE A LITTLE BIT MORE MONEY, AND YOU USE THE RESOURCES THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE TO SPARE THE SINGLE FAMILY OF THE BURDEN OF NOT FINDING A SPACE AT THE CURB.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT WE NEED TO ALLOW AND ENCOURAGE THAT TYPE OF MANAGEMENT.
I DON'T THINK THERE IS ENOUGH NEED RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT'S SO MUCH SUPPLY THAT PEOPLE JUST PARK WHEREVER IS MORE CONVENIENT, AND IT'S ALWAYS MORE CONVENIENT TO BE BY THE DOOR.
OF COURSE. THAT'S LIMITED. VERY GOOD. I JUST WANTED TO ASK IF IT'S OKAY OF MY COLLEAGUE.
WHICH ONE? OF CHAIR STEWART. IF YOU'D BE WILLING TO ANNOUNCE.
AND I'M KIND OF WITH YOU ON THE HALF. LIKE, THAT'S MAYBE A LITTLE TOO LITTLE.
COULD WE DO THREE QUARTER AND SEE WHERE THAT GOES? YOU HAD AN ANSWER. YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER. I MEAN, OR THINK ABOUT IT.
AND THAT'S ALL I GOT RIGHT NOW, SO I DON'T EXPECT AN ANSWER RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT RIGHT NOW. MR. CHAIR, WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ON THE COMMITTEE TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. THANK YOU.
COUNCILMAN. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO FIRST, WHAT I'M HEARING IS FOR A LOT OF THIS IS THE BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE FEAR OF THE PARKING ON THE STREET. AND SO I DO BELIEVE BEFORE YOU COME TO FULL COUNCIL BRIEFING, WE SHOULD REALLY UNDERSTAND OUR PARKING ISSUES.
AND I THINK THAT CHAIR NARVAEZ ARTICULATED, WE ALL HAVE AREAS THAT ARE MARKET RATE AFFORDABLE THAT ARE PUTTING, YOU KNOW, SIX PEOPLE IN A TWO BEDROOM APARTMENT, SIX ADULTS, SIX CARS, WHEN THEY'RE ONLY REQUIRED TO HAVE TWO SPOTS.
AND SO HOW DOES EVERYBODY MANAGE THAT? WE KNOW IT'S A HOUSING ISSUE, NOT A PARKING ISSUE.
WE KNOW THAT. HOWEVER, THAT SAID, I DO BELIEVE BECAUSE THE BURDEN FOR THAT, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT FULLY ON BOARD YET AS A CITY TO UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR MORE HOUSING THAN RIGHT NOW IT'S SITTING IN THE LAP OF THIS GROUP THROUGH PARKING AND IT'S GOING TO COME TO COUNCIL.
NUMBER TWO, I THINK WE ALSO AT THE SAME TIME BEFORE THE COUNCIL BRIEFING, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT ON THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT OF THIS, OF INACTION OR SMALL ACTION. WE'VE GOT TO UNDERSTAND THE FINANCIAL BURDEN THAT WE'RE CARRYING BECAUSE OF THIS PARKING ISSUE.
SO IF HE'S GOT, YOU KNOW, 10% OR 20% EXCESS PARKING, HOW MUCH DID THAT COST? AND THEREFORE, HOW MUCH DID THAT TRANSLATE INTO RENTS? AND THEN HOW DOES THAT THEN EXCLUDE MORE PEOPLE, PEOPLE FROM BEING ABLE TO LIVE IN HOUSING, WHICH THEN CAUSES MORE PEOPLE STACKED INTO APARTMENTS? IT'S A DOMINO EFFECT THAT WE'VE GOTTEN. I THINK BEING ABLE TO ARTICULATE THAT WITH SOME NUMBERS WOULD BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL FOR US TO UNDERSTAND AND BE ABLE TO ADDRESS AND RESPOND TO OUR SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, BECAUSE THOSE ARE ESPECIALLY NOW, THE VOTERS.
AND SO COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE NOT GOING TO SAY TO THE SINGLE FAMILY PEOPLE, TOO BAD, BECAUSE THE PROBLEM IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEYOND ANYTHING THAT WE CAN ALL CONTROL BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT HOUSING, NOT PARKING. THAT'S NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO, COULD YOU EXPLAIN REALLY QUICKLY ON THE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SCHOOL THE RATIONALE OF HAVING DIFFERENT PARKING FOR I UNDERSTAND THE SENIOR CLASS HIGH SCHOOL BECAUSE THERE'S DRIVERS.
BUT WHY. WHAT IS JUNIOR OR MIDDLE HAVE TO DO WITH KINDERGARTEN? BECAUSE IT'S ALL ABOUT FACULTY IS WHY IS THAT DIFFERENT AND NOT JUST ONE PER? I KNOW, AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.
I WOULD SAY THAT YES, I DO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH HAVING PARKING RATIOS FOR SCHOOLS BECAUSE WANTING OR NOT, ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE A PER CLASSROOM, IT PUTS A CAP ON ENROLLMENT AND ESPECIALLY FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DANGEROUS OR IT CLOGS BASICALLY THE CLASSROOMS.
[01:05:05]
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE MORE KIDS IN ONE CLASSROOM BECAUSE YOU HAVE LIMITED PARKING.EVEN MORE WHEN WE HAVE A LOT TO SAY ABOUT IT.
SCHOOLS AND NEIGHBORHOODS ARE BY SUP. MOST OF THEM ARE BY PD ANYWAY.
THERE ARE A LOT OF OLDER SCHOOLS THAT WE TRY TO SAVE, AND THEY DIDN'T MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENT, BUT THE SUP ALLOWS THEM TO HAVE A REDUCTION. AND WE DID HAVE TO MAKE A SELFISH CHOICE BY ADDING TEN MORE SPACES OR SOME TREES FOR KIDS.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S OKAY. MLK, FOR INSTANCE, ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WAS A SITUATION LIKE THAT.
AND I WOULD SAY IT GOES BACK TO LIKE, DO WE NEED TO EDUCATE THE KIDS IN LARGER CLASSROOMS WITH MORE TEACHERS, OR DO YOU JUST WANT TO LIKE, PARK IT OUT AND THAT'S IT.
SO THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER.
THE FINAL THING, IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR, IS TO. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE ALL REALLY UNDERSTAND THAT THE IMPACT IN THE MARKET OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE COSTS ARE TO US TO CONTINUE DOING IT THE WAY THAT WE'RE DOING IT AND THAT IT'S LIMITING DEVELOPMENT.
SO EXTREMELY. BUT I DON'T THINK WE REALLY FEEL IT AND UNDERSTAND IT.
AND SO I AGAIN, I'M ASKING IN THAT BRIEFING, OR MAYBE IF THERE'S THE OPPORTUNITY FOR STAFF TO SPEAK TO US OR ANY OF THE KEY STAKEHOLDERS, I MEAN TO TALK ABOUT THIS, I JUST HEARD A MAJOR DEVELOPER IN DALLAS AT A HOUSING CONFERENCE SAY THAT PARKING REFORM WOULD BE THE ONE TRIGGER THAT WOULD CHANGE THINGS, BECAUSE IT WOULD CHANGE THE PRICING FOR THINGS AND ENABLE THEM TO BUILD MORE.
SO FOR ME I, I HOPE THAT THAT THIS WILL COME TO US AS A FULL BRIEFING INSTEAD OF AS A MOTION FIRST, BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE ALL OF COUNCIL REALLY UNDERSTANDS THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE RATIOS AND THE CPC RECOMMENDATIONS YET ENOUGH.
I'D RATHER SEE IT COME TO US AS A BRIEFING. AND THEN IF IT NEEDS TO COME BACK TO THIS COMMITTEE FOR FOR A RECOMMENDATION, THAT'S FINE. BUT I THINK WE NEED A FULL BRIEFING AND UNDERSTAND IT BEFORE WE DEAL WITH A STRAW MAN, WHICH IS WHAT THIS MOTION WOULD BE THAT WE DON'T ALL GET YET.
SO THAT'S MY COMMENT AS AN OUTSIDER. THANK YOU.
LET ME KIND OF SPEAK TO YOU WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
IF IT'S A STRONG MOTION, IT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION.
WE DO GOT A FULL BRIEFING COMING UP. SO I'M GOING TO MAKE SURE THE PEOPLE OUT THERE UNDERSTAND.
SO THIS IS NOT A MOTION TO SEND TO COUNCIL. THIS IS JUST A DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW.
SO I'M JUST GOING TO PUT ON THE RECORD. RIGHT.
RIGHT. A RECOMMENDATION, WE'RE NOT TAKING VOTES JUST A RECOMMENDATION.
THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. I THINK MS. BLACKMON YOU HERE? OKAY. OKAY. GO BACK TO YOU, MISS STEWART. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
WHAT? NO, NO, NO. SO I JUST HERE'S MY QUESTION.
SO WHERE ARE WE GOING TO BUILD THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS? I DON'T THINK THEY'RE COMING TO D10. HOLD ON.
WELL, THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING. WHERE ARE WE HOPING THAT THEY WILL COME TO? AND ARE WE SURE THAT PARKING IS THE BIGGEST OBSTACLE? BECAUSE I'M, I'M OKAY WITH MOST ALL OF THE OTHER CHANGES.
AND THERE ARE A LOT OF CHANGES BEING RECOMMENDED.
BUT MULTIFAMILY IS A HUGE ISSUE FOR ME FOR DISTRICT TEN.
I AM LOOKING OUT FOR MY DISTRICT. WE'RE HEADED SOMEWHERE.
I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE, BUT I CAN'T JUST OPEN THAT DOOR.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT'S GOING TO MEAN. AND SO I WELL, I THINK TAKING IT TO THE ONE SPACE PER UNIT IS A REDUCTION. IT IS A REDUCTION. AND IT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE LARGER UNITS TO BE BUILT.
YOU CAN GET YOUR TWO AND THREE BECAUSE IT'S STILL JUST ONE UNIT.
IT'S STILL ONE SPOT NO MATTER HOW MANY BEDROOMS. SO IT WOULD ENCOURAGE THE LARGER SIZE WHICH WOULD BE GREAT.
BUT I'M JUST GOING TO SAY I DON'T THINK THAT'S COMING TO D10.
AND SO I'M ASKING THAT WE DO. I UNDERSTAND THE REDUCTION.
I'M JUST ASKING THAT WE TIE IT ONE SPACE PER UNIT.
I WOULD. OKAY. JUST ADD A FEW NUMBERS AND I WILL KEEP ON REPEATING THEM.
[01:10:09]
AND THAT'S A NUMBER I DO UNDERSTAND THAT I THAT'S A BIG NUMBER EXPOSED TO THE REAL ESTATE WORLD.I'M NOT GOING TO EXPLAIN TO YOU HOW BECAUSE THAT'S NOT IMPORTANT.
I UNDERSTAND THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT. LET ME JUST SAY THAT.
OKAY. OKAY. WITH THAT? OKAY. WE NEED TO CLOSE THIS.
SO WE GOT QUITE A FEW MORE AGENDA TO GO TO. SO ADAM BAZALDUA, YOU HAVE SOMETHING? YEAH. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I DO WANT TO JUST ITERATE, REITERATE THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE A CLEAR CORRELATION OF THE AFFORDABILITY, AND YOU'RE MENTIONING THAT YOU DON'T THINK THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS COMING TO DISTRICT TEN FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS, THE OR AT ALL. AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD ASSUMPTION TO NOTE BECAUSE THIS IS THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE.
THE ISSUE THAT YOU HAVE BROUGHT UP IS NOT AN ISSUE IN MARKET RATE DEVELOPMENTS.
THAT'S WHERE WE SEE AN EMPTY SPACE. OVER UTILIZED PARKING LOT WHERE WE SEE THE PARKING LOTS ARE CONCENTRATED AND ARE HAVE MUCH MORE IS IN OUR LOWER INCOME.
BUT THE REALITY IS, IS THE WAY THAT THIS IS BEING BUILT IN BY ADJUSTING THE RATIO ALONE AND ALLOWING FOR A MINIMUM OF 5% AFFORDABILITY TO WAIVE ANY PARKING REQUIREMENT AT ALL. I BELIEVE IN MOST CASES, IN A LARGER SCALE DEVELOPMENT, IT'S GOING TO PENCIL OUT AND BE MUCH MORE FRUITFUL FOR A DEVELOPER TO OPT IN TO THE 5%, WHICH COULD BE JUST A COUPLE UNITS IN THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT, AND FOREGO WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SPEND TO PUT ANY OF THOSE SPOTS.
I MEAN, THEY'RE REDUCING A GREAT DEAL OF WHAT THEIR DEVELOPMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE.
SO IT'S ALREADY BUILT IN HERE. CHANGING THAT RATIO IS NOT SOLVING THE ISSUE THAT YOU HAVE, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT ANY DEVELOPER IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO GO THERE.
ONE. RESTORE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT REVIEW. TRIGGER TO CURRENT REQUIREMENT OF 6000 TRIPS PER DAY.
UPDATE LANGUAGE THROUGHOUT ACCORDINGLY. NUMBER TWO AMEND BAR RESTAURANT PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW NO PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR FIRST 2500FT². UPDATE SECTIONS 50 1A4 .210, B FOUR, 4.21, 024 AND 4.21025 ACCORDINGLY. NUMBER THREE REMOVE THE FOLLOWING USES FROM THE AMENDMENT TO EXCLUDE MD ONE OVERLAY FROM UPDATED PARKING ORDINANCE.
CATERING SERVICE. ELECTRONICS SERVICE CENTER.
AUTO SERVICE CENTER. DRY CLEANING OR LAUNDRY STORE.
FURNITURE STORE. GENERAL MERCHANDISE OR FOOD STORE.
3500FT² OR LESS. MORTUARY. FUNERAL HOME OR COMMERCIAL.
WEDDING CHAPEL. MOTOR VEHICLE FUELING STATION.
PERSONAL SERVICE USE. TEMPORARY RETAIL USE. VEHICLE DISPLAY.
SALES AND SERVICE. FINANCIAL INSTITUTION WITH A WITH AND WITHOUT DRIVE IN WINDOW.
MEDICAL CLINIC OR AMBULATORY? SURGICAL CENTER AND OFFICE.
A 4.202. COMMERCIAL USES. ONLY WHEN CONTIGUOUS TO A PROPERTY CONTAINING A SINGLE FAMILY USE IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS ARE ONLY. NUMBER FIVE, REMOVE EXCEPTION FOR ADJACENCY TO A RESIDENTIAL USE FOR INDUSTRIAL USES BY STRIKING THE FOLLOWING ADDED PHRASE FROM ALL INSTANCES IN SECTION 51A-4.203.
INDUSTRIAL USES. THE STRICT LANGUAGE ONLY WHEN CONTIGUOUS TO A PROPERTY CONTAINING A SINGLE FAMILY, USE NUMBER SIX.
REMOVE LANGUAGE ADDED TO SECTION 51.A-4.219 THAT ALLOWS ADDITIONAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO BE NEGOTIATED DURING AN APPLICATION FOR AN SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.
SECOND. OKAY, WE GOT A SECOND. IS THIS DISCUSSION?
[01:15:02]
LET'S I MEAN, THIS IS NOT A MOTION. THIS IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION AND A LANGUAGE THAT HE READ.WE GOT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE KNOW TO GET THE COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THAT. SURE. SO THEREFORE I'M GOING TO TAKE IT A LITTLE OUT OF ORDER THAT WHATEVER WE MAKE HERE, WE'RE GOING TO A FULL BRIEFING. AND STAFF GOT TO GET HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW AND SEE WHAT IT'S GOING TO GO ON BEFORE.
IT'S NOT A MOTION, IT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION. IT'S A CONVERSATION.
BECAUSE THEN AT THE FULL COUNCIL EVERYBODY THERE, WE WILL MAKE A MOTION IF A MOTION NEED TO BE DONE.
BECAUSE THIS IS NOT SET ON THE AGENDA FOR THE MOTION TO BE MADE TODAY.
OKAY. OKAY. WE'RE NOT GOING TO FULL COUNCIL. I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE SURE WE PUT THAT OUT THERE.
JUST A RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. WE UNDERSTAND THAT.
GO AHEAD. POINT OF ORDER. I HAVE A POINT OF INFORMATION.
I THOUGHT I HEARD. YEAH. GO AHEAD.
OMAR. OKAY OMAR. I MEAN CHAD. YEAH, I HAD ONE.
I HEARD SOMEBODY ELSE. SO JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND IT, THERE'S NO RECOMMENDATION.
CHAIR, YOU'RE NOT ACCEPTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF APPROVAL OR ANYTHING THAT'S MOVING ON TO COUNCIL, BUT ANYTHING THAT IS PROPOSED CAN BE UP FOR DISCUSSION WHEN WE DO A FULL BRIEFING TO COUNCIL FOR THE WHOLE COUNCIL.
IS THAT WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY? THAT'S CORRECT.
YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN SAME WITH ANY OTHERS THAT COME UP IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MINUTES.
THAT IS CORRECT. POINT OF INFORMATION. SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE OF PUTTING THIS FORWARD WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OR WITH NO RECOMMENDATION? WE'RE GOING TO FULL COUNCIL, FULL BRIEFING. YOU'RE GOING YOU'RE GOING TO FULL BRIEFING AWAY. JUST GET SOME KIND OF IDEA TO GET THE STAFF SOME KIND OF GUIDANCE FOR THEM COME BACK IN, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A WHOLE LOT OF COURSE, GOING TO COME UP. I THINK STEWART ASKED A QUESTION. I THINK CHAIRMAN [INAUDIBLE] HAS SOME QUESTIONS.
I BELIEVE SCHULTZ HAD SOME QUESTIONS AND THEN PAULA GOT SOME QUESTIONS.
NOT RIGHT NOW, BUT THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF QUESTIONS, I THINK STAFF AND BUT WE SHOULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT WE JUST READ THIS INFORMATION.
YOU KNOW, IF YOU GOT ANY QUESTION, PUT IT IN WRITING BACK TO STAFF.
SO STAFF HAVE A PLAN TO GET IT BACK TO US FOR THE FULL BRIEFING, THEN THE FULL BRIEFING.
WE CAN TALK INTELLIGENT. OKAY, SO THEREFORE I THINK TO BE EASY, WE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION.
ALL RIGHT. SO, MR. CHAIR, WE'RE NOT VOTING ON THIS PURPORTED MOTION.
YOU'RE NOT VOTING ON IT. IT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION OF GUIDANCE.
I'M GOING TO PUT THAT CLEAR. WELL, IT CAN'T BE A RECOMMENDATION OR GUIDANCE IF WE DON'T VOTE ON IT.
IT'S JUST ONE INDIVIDUAL, MAYBE TWO, WHO WANT TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS THAT WE HAVEN'T EVEN DISCUSSED.
I'M NOT PREPARED TO VOTE ON ANYTHING ON THAT SCORE.
SAME HERE. OKAY, CHAIR. ATTORNEY. I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE ATTORNEYS COME FORWARD.
MAKE IT SIMPLE. I'D LIKE TO SPEAK. YOU GO SPEAK.
JUST GO AHEAD. MY MIC WAS ON CHAIR. GO AHEAD.
THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE WAS A RECOMMENDATION.
AND IF WE'RE IF THE NEXT STEP IS A FULL COUNCIL BRIEFING, THE INTENT WOULD BE TO FOR OUR ABILITY TO VOTE ON THIS BEING A RECOMMENDATION, SO THAT WHEN YOU BRIEF US, IT WOULD BE INCLUSIVE OF THESE TECHNICAL CHANGES TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE FULL COUNCIL.
INSTEAD, THIS WOULD END UP BEING A FLOOR MOTION ONCE IT'S BEEN BAKED.
THE IDEA IS EXACTLY THE CONCERN THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM YOU ALL IS THAT THE NEXT STEP, INEVITABLY, IS GOING TO A FULL COUNCIL BRIEFING. SO YOU WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT WHAT THIS IS BAKED INTO, WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. THEN WE CAN, AS A FULL COUNCIL, GIVE DIRECTION ON WHAT IS OR IS NOT RECOMMENDED TO BE TAKEN ACTION ON FROM THE FULL COUNCIL. THIS IS NOT MAKING A VOTE ON THE PLAN, BUT OKAY, HOLD ON, HOLD ON.
BUT WE DON'T SUPPORT THE RECORD.
I MEAN. NOT IF YOU WIN THE VOTE. THEY DON'T APPROVE.
WELL, IT'S PRETTY MUCH GOING TO BE APPROVED. BUT.
[01:20:04]
THAT'S THE POINT OF MAKING A MOTION. IT'S AN ACTIONABLE ITEM.IT'S ON OUR AGENDA AS ACTIONABLE. POINT OF ORDER, MR. CHAIR. CAN WE GET SOME ORDER IN THIS BODY, PLEASE? WHAT IS YOUR ORDER? I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHO HAS THE FLOOR.
AND I THINK AND I THINK NOT HAVE BACK AND FORTH CONVERSATION.
RIGHT NOW IF I CAN FINISH. I THINK [INAUDIBLE] WAS TALKING.
AND IF HE'S FINISHED, THEN WHOEVER WANTS TO TALK NEXT IS CAN TALK.
ARE YOU FINISHED? OKAY. IS ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK? MY LIGHT WAS IS ON NOW. OKAY. WELL YOU WANT TO SPEAK? GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. CHAIR. COUNCIL, MAYOR OR CHAIR, WHICHEVER ONE YOU'RE HOLDING NOW.
I THINK, NUMBER ONE, I WOULD SAY THIS WHEN WE'RE IN A CONVERSATION OR DISCUSSION, ESPECIALLY WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT'S BEING MADE THAT'S SO VERBOSE, WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A PIECE OF PAPER IN OUR HANDS WITH THOSE CHANGES.
AND IT'S DANGEROUS FOR US TO AGREE TO SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T SEE.
THAT'S MY POSITION. THAT'S MY POSITION. SO I COULDN'T SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO FINISH IF I COULD. I'M BEING DISTRACTED, SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE ARE.
CHAIR. IF WE COULD HAVE SOME. EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU.
31A. ONE AT A TIME, PLEASE. THANK YOU. IT IS ABOUT BEING RESPECTFUL.
NUMBER ONE CHAIR, IF YOU WOULD. THAT'S WHAT I'M PROPOSING TO YOU.
I WON'T CALL ANY OF THE COUNCIL RULES TO YOUR ATTENTION AT THIS TIME.
BUT IT IS IMPORTANT THAT AS WE VOTE, WE HAVE THE INFORMATION.
AND SO WHAT I WAS MY POSITION IS THIS IF WE'RE GOING TO GO TO FULL COUNCIL, THEN THIS QUOTE RECOMMENDATION COULD BE PREPARED IN THE FORM OF A QUESTION AS YOU JUST MENTIONED, SO THAT STAFF WOULD HAVE THAT INFORMATION COMING BACK OR COULD GIVE IT TO ALL OF US AS COUNCIL MEMBERS SO THAT WE COULD HAVE SOMETHING TO READ OVER BEFORE WE GO TO FULL COUNCIL.
AND SO THAT THAT WAS JUST MY RECOMMENDATION. BUT AS IT IS NOW WE REALIZE I KNOW I DO ALL OF THAT THAT WAS READ HAS NO MEANING IF WE CAN'T LOOK AT IT AND WEIGH IT.
AND SO I WILL CLOSE BY SAYING THIS, CHAIRMAN.
I'M TALKING NOW, AND THERE SEEMS TO BE ANOTHER CONVERSATION CHAIR WHERE I'M TRYING TO GET YOUR SUPPORT SO THAT WE CAN MOVE IN ORDER, AS CHAIRMAN NARVAEZ HAS STATED. CHAIR, IF I COULD PROCEED WITH SOME RESPECT WHILE I'M SPEAKING. SO IN A NUTSHELL, YOU ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M TRYING TO.
IT MIGHT SUGGEST THAT WE GET THAT IN WRITING, SO WE CAN LOOK AT IT BEFORE WE GO TO THE COUNCIL.
NOW, WHAT I WILL SAY TO THOSE WHO ARE LISTENING, THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE, WE REALIZE THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT TOPIC, BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO REALIZE THIS IS CAMPAIGN SEASON.
AND SO ALL OF THESE LITTLE TIDBITS AND SOUNDBITES ARE DESIGNED FOR CAMPAIGNING.
I'M NOT HERE IN THAT VEIN. MY VEIN IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSTITUENTS WHEREAS MULTIFAMILY SINGLE FAMILY BUSINESS UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING AS A CITY. THIS IS NOT SOME GAME THAT WE'RE PLAYING SHOULD BE PLAYING AND I'M VERY SERIOUS ABOUT THAT.
SO IT CAN'T BE, IT HAS TO BE ABOUT CONSTITUENTS.
IT HAS TO BE ABOUT THE CITY. IT CAN'T BE ABOUT CAMPAIGNING.
SO I'M SIMPLY SAYING, LET'S DO THE RIGHT THING.
SO, CHAIR, I HOPE THAT YOU WILL KEEP THAT IN MIND.
AS I CONTINUE TO PUSH FOR WHAT IS BEST FOR DALLAS AND THE AND ALSO REQUIRE THE RESPECT, AS COUNCIL RULES DO LAY OUT IN TERMS OF CIVILITY AND RESPECT OF COUNCIL MEMBERS. WHEN WE ARE TALKING AROUND THE HORSESHOE AND WHEN THE PUBLIC IS LISTENING.
THANK YOU. STEWART, DO YOU HAVE. WILL YOU? OKAY.
[01:25:07]
CHAIRMAN DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM BAZALDUA. THANK YOU.AND I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT NOT ALL OF US WERE FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE CAMPAIGNING RIGHT NOW.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE DECISION THAT I'M BEING MAKING HERE.
THE REALITY IS THIS WILL REMAIN ON A PIECE OF PAPER THAT I, BECAUSE OF TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GO MAKE MY ROUNDS TO COLLEAGUES AND HAVE DISCUSSION.
IF THIS WAS BAKED IN AS A AS A SLIDE IN THE PRESENTATION GIVEN TO FULL COUNCIL AS A PART OF RECOMMENDATION FROM THIS COMMITTEE, IT ALLOWS FOR IT TO BE DAYLIGHTED TRANSPARENTLY TO THE PUBLIC, THE CONSTITUENTS, AND TO ALL OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE, TO TALK TO STAFF, TO GET QUESTIONS ANSWERED. AND SO THAT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE ARE PIECEMEALING ON THE FLOOR WITH SUCH A CRITICAL PIECE OF POLICY THAT WE'RE TAKING UP. THIS IS NOT MEANT TO SHOVE ANYTHING DOWN THE THROAT.
THIS IS NOT COMING UP TO AN AGENDA TO BE VOTED ON, TO TAKE ACTION BY THE FULL COUNCIL.
THE NEXT STEP IS A BRIEFING FOR THE FULL COUNCIL.
ONCE WE'VE TAKEN TO THE NEXT STEP AS A FULL COUNCIL BRIEFING.
AND WE HAVE ALL THE THE OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION AND GET OUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED AND WORK WITH STAFF BEFORE GOING INTO THIS THIS FULL COUNCIL BRIEFING. SO I STICK WITH THE MOTION THAT'S THERE.
IT'S SIMPLY ASKING THAT WE ARE ABLE TO TAKE UP WITH AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE AT THE FULL COUNCIL BRIEFING AND NOT HAVE TO TAKE STEPS BACKWARDS, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, WE GOT 30 MINUTES LEFT.
WE GOT EXECUTIVE SESSION. SO FIRST OF ALL, HOW MANY PEOPLE IS WILLING TO STAY TO 3:30? CAN I GET A RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO STAY 3:30, WE CAN HAVE.
OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A QUORUM. SO WITH THAT TO DO, WE GOT A RECOMMENDATION.
ALL IN FAVOR WITH DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM BAZ SAY AYE.
AYE. TWO AYES. MOTION FAILS. MOTION FAILS. OKAY.
MR. CHAIR, I MAKE A MOTION THAT THIS BE REFERRED TO FULL COUNCIL WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION.
SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION.
YOUR DISCUSSION? YES. HE HAD A SECOND. WHO DID THE SECOND? OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION? I DON'T UNDERSTAND. THE FLOOR IS THE MOVEMENT.
NOT IF HE JUST GAVE ME THE FLOOR. HEY, HEY, HOLD ON, HOLD ON.
IT'S A LONG DAY. WE'RE GOING TO BE CIVIL. OKAY.
YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. OKAY. HE MADE THE MOTION, AND HE.
HE DID NOT RELEASE A MOTION. THAT WAS A SECOND.
SO HE STILL HAS A FLOOR. AND I MADE A MISTAKE.
I SHOULDN'T HAVE CALLED ON YOU FIRST. I DON'T THINK I DID. IF I DID, I MADE A MISTAKE.
AND THAT, I THINK, WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN BRIEFED ON THOSE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WHICH WERE MULTITUDINOUS AND WE HAVE NOT EVEN DISCUSSED THEM. AND SO IF THERE IS ANY URGENCY ABOUT THIS, THEN I THINK IT NEEDS TO GO ON TO COUNCIL WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION SO THAT THE FULL COUNCIL CAN CONSIDER THESE ISSUES.
THERE'S NO REASON WHY STAFF CAN'T EVALUATE THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS IN THE MEANTIME, OR FOR THE FULL COUNCIL AT THE BRIEFING. SO I AM NOT PREPARED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON ANY OF THESE ISSUES UNTIL AFTER WE'VE HAD A FULL DISCUSSION AT THE CITY COUNCIL. THANK YOU. YOU'RE ABOUT TO PUT YOUR CHAIRMAN NARVAEZ YOU. BAZ HAS A HAND LIGHT ON. I DON'T HAVE A MIC, SO YOU SHOULD TURN THIS WAY.
[01:30:08]
I AGAIN, THERE WAS NO RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OR NOT.IT WAS JUST FOR TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS. SO THIS THIS THIS MOTION TO ME IS NOT EVEN IN ORDER WHEN WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO US WAS THAT THE NEXT STEP IS GOING TO A FULL COUNCIL BRIEFING NO MATTER WHAT.
SO THIS IS THIS IS THIS IS ACTUALLY NOT EVEN AN ORDER.
BUT I GUESS IF WE WANT JUST FOR THEATRICS, WE CAN TAKE A VOTE.
CHAIRMAN NARVAEZ. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO REALLY QUICKLY, WE HEARD A SET OF AMENDMENTS, WHICH I DO WANT TO HEAR MORE ABOUT, AND I THINK OTHERS DO AS WELL. AND OBVIOUSLY, WE WE VOTED NOT TO MOVE THOSE FORWARD, BUT THERE'S NOTHING THAT PRECLUDES YOU FROM GETTING THAT RESEARCH DONE AND HAVING THE ABILITY TO ANSWER ON THAT IS THERE.
NO, NO, I CAN ANSWER THOSE AT FULL COUNCIL, OF COURSE.
ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. SO I THINK IS THAT WHAT I BELIEVE? THAT'S WHAT MY COLLEAGUE MR. RIDLEY'S MOTION IS, IS BASICALLY WE'RE JUST NOT GIVING THE RECOMMENDATION.
BUT STILL WE WANT TO HEAR THOSE AMENDMENTS. AND THEN, MR. CHAIR FROM YOUR COMMENTS EARLIER, YOU SAID THAT ANYBODY CAN SEND QUESTIONS OR AMENDMENTS TO STAFF TO IN ORDER TO VET AND PUT FORWARD DURING THE BRIEFING. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS.
SO THEREFORE ROBIN BENTLEY. ROBIN BENTLEY IS A MANAGER OVER THIS COMMITTEE.
AND, ROBIN, YOU KNOW YOU HEARD THE DISCUSSION.
IT WAS A GREAT DISCUSSION. EVERYBODY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISCUSS, BUT IT IS GOING TO THE FULL COUNCIL.
SO ROBIN SHOULD MAKE SURE FOR CLARIFICATION THAT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.
YEAH I WAS GOING TO SAY EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID. IF EVERYONE WILL JUST SEND IN ANY QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS THAT THEY HAVE, WE'LL PUT TOGETHER A REALLY COMPREHENSIVE FRIDAY MEMO BETWEEN NOW AND THE COUNCIL BRIEFING, AND WE'LL ANSWER WHATEVER NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED SO THAT YOU'RE FULLY READY FOR THAT MAY COUNCIL BRIEFING.
AND SINCE THERE WERE NO RECOMMENDATIONS COMING OUT OF THE COMMITTEE, WE'LL JUST REBRIEF THE CPC WITH THESE ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS THAT WERE DISCUSSED HERE TODAY, NOT THE MOTION, THE BACKGROUND ENFORCEMENT TOOLS AND ALL OF THAT.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE MAKING A MOTION FOR WHAT WAS TOLD.
THAT IS ALREADY THE NEXT STEPS. I DON'T BELIEVE THE MOTION TO BE IN ORDER.
WE CAN ALL SEND IN OUR QUESTIONS AND WE MOVE FORWARD.
OKAY. OKAY. SO. MOTION TO VOTE. RIGHT.
CHAIR ATKINS, JUST TO CLARIFY, THE MOTION IS NOT NECESSARY, BUT IT IS NOT NECESSARILY OUT OF ORDER.
SO IT WOULD NOT REALLY CHANGE THE STATUS QUO AS OF THIS MOMENT.
OKAY. IT'S NOT OUT OF ORDER, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. LET'S DO THE NEXT ITEM.
LET'S GO. COME ON. I'M. LET'S GO HOME. I'M GETTING TIRED.
I GOT 81 DAYS I AM CLEAR I WILL HAVE ANSWERS OKAY? I GOT 81 DAYS OKAY. NEXT ITEM WE GOT, WE GOT I GOT 81 DAYS.
WE GOT EXECUTIVE SESSION. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO PLOW THROUGH IT BECAUSE THIS WAS THE MAIN ONE.
YOU WANT TO DO A NEXT. YEAH. YOU GO WITH A YOU WANT TO DO C? WHICH ONE? I WANT TO GO C FIRST. GO C, THEN OKAY.
IT'S ACTUALLY COME ON. IT'S ACTUALLY C, WHICH IS THE PERMITTING FEE.
CAN YOU PUT UP THAT SLIDE, THOSE SLIDES? CAN WE JUST GO THROUGH THE HIGHLIGHT.
YES, I WILL READ OUR MATERIALS. OKAY. YES. CATHERINE LEE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PLANNING DEVELOPMENT.
SO TODAY WE ARE PROPOSING TO AMEND SOME FEES, SOME PERMITTING FEES IN THE CITY CODE.
SO IF YOU GO TO SLIDE FOUR BASICALLY SOME BACKGROUND THE CITY HIRED MGT CONSULTING TO CONDUCT.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED A BACKGROUND. WE CAN READ.
OKAY. SLIDE NUMBER SEVEN. SO OR ACTUALLY GO TO SLIDE SIX.
[01:35:01]
SO WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THREE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES TODAY ABOUT FEE AMENDMENTS.SO IT'S COMMERCIAL REMODEL Q-TEAM FEES AND INEFFICIENT FEES.
NEXT SLIDE. SO IN COMMERCIAL REMODEL THEY ARE CITY'S HIGHEST VOLUME PERMIT.
IT'S ABOUT 97% OF ALL COMMERCIAL PERMITS ARE COMMERCIAL REMODEL.
SO WHEN THE FEE CHANGES WERE IMPLEMENTED THE AIR STAFF.
THE CONSULTANTS PROPOSE AN INCREASE THAT STAFF FELT WAS TOO LARGE.
THERE WAS AN ERROR MADE AND IT ACTUALLY WENT THE OTHER WAY.
SO WE ACTUALLY DECREASED FOR HIGHER VALUATION PERMITS IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
IF WE HAD JUST STUCK WITH THE PREVIOUS PERMIT FEE STRUCTURE, WE WOULD HAVE COLLECTED 5.6 MILLION.
AND IF WE HAD GONE WITH THE CONSULTANTS, IT WOULD HAVE GONE TO 8.4 MILLION.
NEXT SLIDE. SO ONCE WE REALIZED THAT WE HAD THIS ISSUE, WE DID TAKE PROACTIVE MEASURES.
WE HAVE WE'VE HAD A HIRING FREEZE OTHER THAN HARD TO FILL POSITION AND INSPECTOR POSITIONS.
SO IF WE SKIP TO SLIDE 12. SO THE NEXT FEE WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IS THE Q TEAM FEE.
Q TEAM REVIEW FEE. SO THE Q TEAM IS THE CITY'S EXPEDITED PLAN REVIEW.
IT'S $1,000 PER HOUR. AND THIS CONSULTANT STUDY DID NOT INCLUDE THIS REVIEW.
SO THE CURRENT FEE STRUCTURE FOR PROJECTS UNDER 10,000FT² IS TWO HOURS OR $2,000.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT FISCAL YEAR 23-24, WE HAD 834 PROJECTS.
SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING INCREASING THE FEE CAP TO 10 TO $10,000 OR UP TO TEN HOURS.
THESE FEES ARE HARD TO CALCULATE. THEY'RE THEY BRING IN VERY LOW AMOUNTS.
SO THE FIRST THING WE WANT TO DO IS STREAMLINE A COUPLE CATEGORIES.
SO THE ZONING VERIFICATION AND ADDRESS ASSIGNMENTS, THEY'RE DIFFERENT TIERS.
SO FOR ZONING VERIFICATION $302 AN ADDRESS ASSIGNMENT IS $50 PER ADDRESS OR SUITE.
AND THEN THE FINAL SLIDE IS THE ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN FEES DUE TO LOW OR NO UTILIZATION.
SO THESE ADJUSTMENTS WILL PROVIDE GREATER CLARITY TO APPLICANTS, STREAMLINE THE APPLICATION PROCESS AND IMPROVE OVERALL EFFICIENCY AND FEE COLLECTION AND COST RECOVERY. SO OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO MOVE FORWARD AN ORDINANCE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL, AMENDING COMMERCIAL REMODEL FEES, Q TEAM REVIEW FEES AND COMBINING CERTAIN OTHER FEES.
AND THEN THE NEXT STEPS. SO SLIDE 16. SO IF IT IS RECOMMENDED BY THIS COMMITTEE TO GO TO COUNCIL, WE PLAN TO GO TO COUNCIL FOR ACTION ON APRIL 23RD.
THE ORDINANCE WILL GO EFFECTIVE JULY 1ST. THIS IS BECAUSE DALLAS NOW, WHICH WILL BE BRIEFED LATER, IS GOING LIVE MAY 5TH. AND WE NEED TIME TO IMPLEMENT AND TEST TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE THIS ERROR IN THE FUTURE.
SO WITH THAT HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS, CHAIRMAN RIDLEY.
OKAY. GOT A MOTION AND SECOND IN DISCUSSION. SEEING NONE.
NEXT ITEM. ITEM. OH, OKAY, I THOUGHT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED? 80 DAYS LEFT. TO ITEM A YES, AND WE ARE READY. SO NEXT ONE IS ITEM A WHICH IS GOING TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF DALLAS, NOW ALSO CALLED A SELLER THAT'S BEEN IN THE WORK FOR TWO YEARS.
WE ARE GOING TO LAUNCH THIS GO LIVE BASICALLY IN FOUR WEEKS, ACTUALLY.
SO WE WANT YOU TO BE AWARE OF THIS. IT'S A MAJOR INITIATIVE.
HOPEFULLY THIS ALSO WILL HELP US STREAMLINE OUR PROCESS.
THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS TIRELESSLY FOR THE LAST A NUMBER OF MONTHS AND YEARS.
GO AHEAD. OKAY. I ASSUME EVERYONE READ THIS. VERNON, COULD YOU GET THE HIGH VERSION OF IT, PLEASE?
[01:40:01]
SO THIS PRESENTATION IS JUST TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW AND GIVE SOME HIGHLIGHTS AND SHARE SOME IMPORTANT DATES.I DO WANT TO INTRODUCE TWO OF OUR KEY MEMBERS THAT WE BROUGHT WITH US THAT HAVE BEEN THE CORE TEAM LEADS AND DRIVING FORCE IN THIS SENIOR PROJECT COORDINATOR ERMA HAYES AND SENIOR PROJECT COORDINATOR KEVIN DELGADO.
THEY'VE BEEN QUINTESSENTIAL TO GETTING THIS IN PLACE.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO WHAT IS DALLAS NOW? DALLAS NOW IS GOING TO BE OUR NEW LAND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.
WHAT THIS IS, IS A SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING ALL OF OUR PERMITTING AND ANY KIND OF LAND MANAGEMENT USE.
OUR CURRENT SYSTEM, POSSE, IS HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS.
SO IT IS. IT IS TIME TO UPDATE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
SO BASED ON MOST OF Y'ALL'S KNOWLEDGE IN 2000 OR 2024, IN JUNE, WE MERGED DEPARTMENTS.
PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BECAME PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
IT OFFICIALLY BROUGHT US UNDER ONE ROOF. ALL OF OUR SERVICES UNDER ONE ROOF.
IT IS SET TO LAUNCH ON MAY 5TH. THE CURRENT BENEFITS FOR THIS WILL INCLUDE AN INTEGRATED AND ASSESSABLE ONLINE SYSTEM. IT BRINGS ALL OF OUR CORE FUNCTIONS, WHICH INCLUDES ZONING, PLATING, ENGINEERING, PERMITTING AND INSPECTIONS INTO ONE CLOUD BASED SYSTEM.
CURRENTLY, THE SYSTEM IS OPERATING INDEPENDENTLY, WITH OUR MOST ADVANCED BEING AN INTERNAL, LOCALLY BASED SOFTWARE WITH A FEW LIMITED ONLINE COMPONENTS AND MOST OF OUR PROCESSES BEING FULLY MANUAL, RELYING ENTIRELY ON PAPER OR PHYSICAL HANDOFFS.
THE SYSTEM CAN BE USED ON ANY DEVICE THAT HAS WEB CAPABILITY, ELIMINATING THE NEED TO TRAVEL TO CITY OFFICES FOR THOSE THAT WISH TO TRAVEL TO CITY OFFICES. WE WILL HAVE ATTENDED SELF SERVICE STATIONS SET UP.
DALLAS NOW IS FULLY DIGITAL, WHICH WILL ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR PAPER PLANS.
ALL PLANS WILL BE UPLOADED AND REVIEWED DIGITALLY, AND APPROVED DOCUMENTS ARE RESEARCHABLE INSTANTLY IN ONE CENTRALIZED LOCATION, AND DALLAS NOW OFFERS REAL TIME TRANSPARENCY, WHICH THROUGH OUR CITIZEN ACCESS PORTAL, ALLOWS THE PUBLIC TO SEARCH RECORDS BY ADDRESS, TAX, PARCEL ID CONTRACTOR AND MANY MORE. FOR APPLICANTS, REAL TIME EMAIL NOTIFICATIONS ARE SENT FOR EACH KEY STEP.
THIS INCLUDES APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE, PAYMENT CONFIRMATION REVIEW, UPDATES AND OUTCOMES.
IT INCLUDES INSPECTION RESULTS OR ANY FINAL DECISIONS.
THESE EMAILS ARE SENT ONCE OR. EXCUSE ME. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
ALL STAFF IS REQUIRED TO ATTEND. DURING THE COMING WEEKS, WE'LL BE PROVIDING ANNOUNCEMENTS, DEMOS AND WORKSHOPS AND ENGAGEMENT SESSIONS. WE HAVE REACHED OUT TO SEVERAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS AND ARE PROVIDING DEMOS FOR THEM.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO. AS WE INTEGRATE, THERE WILL BE SOME DOWNTIME.
THIS DOWNTIME WILL TAKE PLACE BETWEEN APRIL 25TH AND MAY 4TH, AND WE WILL HAVE LIMITED SERVICES.
THE FOLLOWING SERVICES WILL CONTINUE TO BE AVAILABLE DURING THE DOWNTIME.
THIS INCLUDES INSPECTIONS, EMERGENCY RELEASES AND CONSULTATIONS.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO TO COUNTER THIS DOWNTIME WE'RE OFFERING A CUSTOMER SERVICE INITIATIVE, AND IT'S A TWO PHASE PROCESS. SO PHASE ONE STARTS NEXT WEEK, APRIL 14TH AND WILL CONTINUE TO GO LIVE,
[01:45:07]
WHICH IS APRIL 24TH. WE WILL OFFER EXTENDED HOURS FOR THIS TIME AT OAK CLIFF MUNICIPAL CENTER, WHICH WILL BE OFFERED FROM 8 A.M. TO 6:30 P.M.TO A FULL TWO ADDITIONAL HOURS. WE'RE ALSO ASKING THAT ALL STAFF REPORT TO THE OFFICE.
THE GO LIVE DATE WILL BE MAY 5TH WHEN WE ACTUALLY TURN THE SYSTEM ON.
AND WE'LL START PHASE TWO, WHICH IS MAY 5TH THROUGH MAY 16TH, TWO WEEKS FOLLOWING THE GO LIVE.
NEXT SLIDE. FINALLY, WE'VE DEVELOPED A QR CODE THAT WE ARE POSTING THROUGHOUT.
THIS LEADS TO OUR PUBLIC HUB WEBSITE WHERE ALL THE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE.
WITH THAT, I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. WITH THAT CHAIRMAN.
OH, REALLY? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO, WILL THIS SYSTEM ALSO APPLY TO THE CA PROCESS FOR DESIGNATED HISTORIC PROPERTIES? YES. ALL OF OUR PLANNING FUNCTIONS ARE WILL BE INCORPORATED.
SO WILL THAT BE THE ONLY WAY TO SUBMIT A CA APPLICATION DIGITALLY, OR WILL YOU STILL ACCEPT ANALOG VERSIONS? THE INTENT IS TO GO FULLY DIGITAL. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCILMEMBER RIDLEY, I WANT TO SAY THIS COMMITTEE REALLY PUSHED US TO GET IT GOING. AND SO WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT WE HAD TO TAKE A DIFFERENT APPROACH.
IT WAS AN ALL HANDS ON DECK. WE HAD TEN KEY MEMBERS FULL TIME.
IF YOU GUYS RECALL, IN THE SPRING OF 2023, YOU ASKED IF WE COULD GET IT DONE IN 24 MONTHS.
WE'RE HERE AND WE APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT. I JUST WANT TO HAVE ONE COMMENT.
I KNOW IT SAID FROM I THINK IT'S FROM THE DAY THAT WHEN YOU GO LIVE, I THINK APRIL 14TH THROUGH APRIL 24TH, YOU'LL BE DOWN. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. THE DATES ARE APRIL 20TH 4TH TO MAY 5TH THROUGH MAY 5TH.
OKAY. SO THEREFORE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE COMPLETED.
BLACK OUT. SO WHAT IS THE OPTION THAT WHEN PEOPLE NEED TO SUBMIT? BECAUSE YOU NEVER SHUT DOWN. MAYOR PRO TEM, THIS IS VERNON YOUNG DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
SO THAT WAS A CONSCIOUS CHOICE THAT WE HAD TO MAKE IT MAKE A CHOICE.
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE 100% STAFF AVAILABLE ONCE WE GO LIVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PROCESS THOSE THAT COME THROUGH ON MAY 5TH AND THAT WEEK AFTER AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE. SO WHAT IS THAT DATE AGAIN? THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GO DARK? APRIL 24TH TO MAY 5TH.
YOU'D STILL BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING. YEAH, THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING.
SO WHAT THE GO DARK PERIOD MEANS WE WILL NOT ACCEPT NEW PERMIT APPLICATIONS DURING THAT PERIOD, BUT THE STAFF IS STILL WORKING. THE INSPECTORS ARE STILL OUT. IF THERE ARE EMERGENCY APPLICATIONS, THE STAFF WILL BE THERE TO ACCEPT THOSE. BUT THE NORMAL EVERYDAY.
OKAY, OKAY. THAT'S WHY WE MAKE SURE THE PEOPLE WE'LL BE OPEN LATE THE TWO WEEKS BEFORE, BECAUSE WE KNOW THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IS GOING TO BE HUSTLING TO GET THOSE IN BEFORE WE CLOSE FOR THAT SHORT PERIOD FOR THE MIGRATION.
SO WE'LL HAVE STAFF THERE LATE EVERY NIGHT FOR THE TWO WEEKS LEADING UP.
I UNDERSTAND THE TWO WEEKS, BUT THAT'S A LONG TIME IN THE DARK.
SO IF SOMEONE HAD AN EMERGENCY PROJECT, THEY GOT TO GET IT DONE.
WHAT IS THE PROCESS OR IS THERE A PROCESS THAT CAN GET SOMETHING DONE? IT GOT TO BE THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE. YES. I DON'T WANT TO SHUT THE WHOLE CITY DOWN.
YES, THEY CAN STILL COME TO OCMOC. THEY CAN STILL WORK WITH STAFF IN PERSON.
ALL THE DATA WILL BE IN ITS WAY ONTO THE ACELA PLATFORM FOR THOSE FIVE WEEKDAYS AND TWO WEEKENDS.
OKAY. SO WILL YOU MAKE SURE YOU PUT THAT OUT THERE SO EVERYBODY WOULD KNOW? AND WHEN YOU START PUTTING THE INFORMATION OUT THERE, IT'S OUT.
MAKE SURE YOU GET YOUR, IT'S ONLY A WEEK. IT'S ONLY FIVE WEEKDAYS.
[01:50:03]
IF YOU AIN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO PAY FOR PERMITS OKAY THEN GO.OKAY. SO JUST MAKE SURE WE GET OUT THERE. WE DON'T LOSE NO BUSINESS OKAY.
WITH THAT LET'S GO TO THE FIRST ITEM WOULD BE D.
IN AND OUT. AND SHARE THE REST OF THESE ARE BRIEFING MEMOS.
SO IF YOU JUST WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS, WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THEM ON D.
I DO YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN D BECAUSE IT'S A I THINK IT'S A TIF I BELIEVE.
JUST A REAL QUICK HIGH LEVEL EXPLANATION OF WHAT THIS ITEM IS.
IT'S A NOTICE OF UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS TO. DO A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS TO GET TO.
THIS DAY THROUGH HEAVY COORDINATION WITH DALLAS FIRE RESCUE, WHO'S ALSO HERE TODAY.
BUT THIS IS A LONG EXPLANATION FOR A VERY SIMPLE SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM.
AND SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE DOWNTOWN CONNECTION TIF DISTRICT.
PROJECT PLAN AND REINVESTMENT ZONE FINANCING PLAN.
AND THEN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE NEW STATION WILL BE LOCATED TO BE A FEE DEVELOPER FOR THE CITY AND TO CONSTRUCT THE FIRE STATION.
AND THEN AT THE END, WE WILL TAKE POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP OF THE FIRE STATION AND SWAP PROPERTIES.
THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO HOW FIRE STATION 58 WAS FIGURED OUT IN CYPRESS WATERS NOT TOO LONG AGO.
AND AT THE MAY 14TH COUNCIL AGENDA, THE COUNCIL WILL HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE MINOR PLAN AMENDMENTS TO THE TIF DISTRICT PROJECT PLAN, AND ALSO WILL BE ASKING THE COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
SO IT'S A TIFF SUBSIDY UP TO 29.399 MILLION. AGAIN, FOR THE DEVELOPER WHO'S ALSO THE PROPERTY OWNER, TO FINANCE, DESIGN, CONSTRUCT THE FIRE STATION AND THEN GIVE IT TO US WHEN IT'S DONE.
WITH THAT, I'LL STOP AND TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. CHAIRMAN RIDLEY.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROPOSAL, WHICH IS IN MY DISTRICT, AND I SUPPORT IT. I'M JUST QUESTIONING WHAT THE FINANCE TIMING IS.
SO THE DEVELOPER SLASH LANDOWNER WILL DESIGN AND BUILD THE NEW FIRE STATION 18 AT THEIR OWN COST. AND THEN WHEN IT'S READY TO TURN IT OVER TO THE CITY, THEY GIVE IT TO US FREE OF CHARGE.
OR DO WE PAY THEM THE $18 MILLION AT THAT POINT? YEAH. THE EASY ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS WE'RE SELLING OUR PROPERTY AT FAIR MARKET VALUE, AND WE'RE GETTING THEIR PROPERTY AT FAIR MARKET VALUE.
THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE IS ABOUT $275,000.
SO THAT WILL BE PART OF THE CONVEYANCE OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THAT'S PART OF THE WHOLE DEAL. OKAY, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COUNCILMAN RIDLEY, ONCE THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE AND THERE'S A COMPLETED FACILITY, THE CITY HAS INSPECTED IT, AND WE ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT IT.
OKAY. SO AT THAT POINT, AFTER WE ACCEPT THE BUILDING, WE WILL BE PAYING THE DEVELOPER FOR THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT. IT'S A PROJECT THAT THEY UNDERTOOK FOR US.
OKAY. EXCEPT THE LAND COST, WHICH IS AN EQUAL TRADE FOR THE OLD FACILITY.
JUST ABOUT. OKAY. SO WE'RE JUST PAYING FOR THE BUILDING, AND THAT'S ABOUT 18 MILLION.
NO. SO THE BUILDING, THE CONSTRUCTION IS ABOUT 18 MILLION.
THERE ARE SOFT COSTS THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL INCUR TO CONSTRUCT THE BUILDING.
AND THEN THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN PROPERTY VALUES, WHICH IS ABOUT THE APPROXIMATELY 270,000,
[01:55:02]
I BELIEVE. AND SO. WE WILL BE REIMBURSING THEM FOR THAT? YES, YES. THANK YOU. CHAIRWOMAN ARNOLD. THANK YOU.SO I APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENTATION AND YOUR PROFESSIONALISM AT THIS TIME AND KEEP ON KEEPING ON.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTION ON OH GO AHEAD.
I JUST WANT TO SAY I'M EXCITED TO SEE TWO NEW PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS ON THE BOOKS.
THAT'S GOING TO BE GREAT. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM BAZALDUA.
ON E? E UH HUH. I JUST WANTED TO SAY I HAVE A COUPLE OF THE HARD WORKERS FOR THE FERGUSON ROAD INITIATIVE AND THE FAR EAST DALLAS PID HERE. I WANT TO THANK THEM FOR THEIR WORK AND COLLABORATION.
I THINK PIDS ARE ONE OF THE MOST UNDERUTILIZED TOOLS IN OUR CITY.
AND IT WAS A LONG TIME COMING, BUT THIS IS THE FIRST OF HOPEFULLY A FEW THAT WE HAVE.
AND THIS ACTUALLY TOUCHES COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO AND NINE AS WELL.
AND WILL BRING HUGE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE AREA.
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, WE'VE ALREADY BEEN TALKING AND AS A PART OF THE PLAN IS TO ENACT AN E AND P PROGRAM THAT DOES NOT AND HAVE NOT EVER EXISTED IN THIS PART OF THE CITY.
REALLY, REALLY EXCITED TO SEE THIS GET THROUGH.
I WANT TO SPEAK ON E ALSO. THANK YOU. OH, YOU GOTTA PUT YOUR LITTLE.
COUNCILWOMAN BLACKMON. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR ENTERTAINING ME TODAY.
AS MR. BAZALDUA SAID, IT DOES TOUCH IN NINE. AND I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR WORKING SO HARD.
THESE ARE VERY VITAL TO OUR COMMUNITIES AND USED RIGHT.
IT CAN BE A VERY IT CAN BE, COULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL.
SO I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL AND YOU'VE GOT MY SUPPORT AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN GET IT THROUGH AT COUNCIL EASY PEASY, THANK YOU. AND I ALSO WANT TO TALK ABOUT, I THINK MY CHAIRMAN GRACEY AND I HERE ON REDBIRD MALL PID AND TAKE TWO THIRDS VOTE ALSO. SO I HOPE THAT IT'S ALSO GOING TO BENEFIT THE NORTH SIDE OF REDBIRD AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF REDBIRD, YOU KNOW, WHICH IS GROWING. BUT WE DEFINITELY NEED THIS PID THERE.
SO JUST PUT MY $0.02 IN. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANOTHER QUESTION ON F G AND H.
I MEAN F AND G. SEEING NONE. SO IT IS NOW 3:01 THE PM ON APRIL 7TH, 2025.
THE ECONOMICS DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WILL NOW GO INTO CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTION 551.087 AND 551.01 OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETING ACT ON THE FOLLOWING MATTERS ON TODAY AGENDA RELATED TO 25-1145 A.
THE DELIBERATION. THE OFFER OF FINANCE OF THE OTHER INCENTIVES TO THE BUSINESS PROSPECT PROJECT BEEKER DID THAT THE CITY SEEK TO LOCATE IN THE CITY WHICH THE CITY IS CONDUCTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEGOTIATING SEEKS ADVICE OF HIS ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE RELATED TO THIS DELIBERATION. SESSION 551.087 TOMA, SESSION 551.551-071 HEATHER [INAUDIBLE] AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IS GOING TO BE IN CHARGE.
[02:01:37]
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT[02:08:06]
CORPORATION. THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE HAD COMPLETED ITS CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTION 55 1.087 AND .511.071.THE TEXAS OPEN MEETING ACT. 3:11 P.M. ON APRIL 7TH.
WE HAVE RETURNED TO OPEN SESSION. NOW WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 3:11.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.