Thread by @ncoxbarrett

Dallas ZOAC returns today at 8:30am for more PARKING discussion!

The air is tense as I have had heard rumors that high level staffers are trying to sabotage the ambitious parking reform efforts being discussed.

We may have gotten a hint of this last time when a staffer suggested we were moving too fast. This despite holding public meetings for a year.

https://twitter.com/ncoxbarrett/status/1370041590413062147?s=20

There have also been some rough comments submitted to ZOAC e.g. "this proposal shifts the cost of parking...to the driver, which in turn impacts the people at the lowest income levels, who are disproportionately people of color in Dallas."

What about equity for parking?!

In seriousness, low-income households are far less likely to own a car and far more likely to commute by walking, biking, or public transportation than by single occupant vehicle. The current structure comes at a huge expense to the detriment of all Dallas residents.

Other comments (summarized/paraphrased):
1) Dallas does not invest in transportation alternatives to driving. Thus, parking requirements are needed.

2) Allowing buildings <5,000sqft to be exempt from parking requirements will lead to the demolition of smaller historic structures to make way for larger new structures.

3) Removing parking requirements will result in a decreased diversity of land uses and competition from high-rent tenants who are currently restrained by parking requirements.

4) Removing parking requirements benefits commercial property owners at the expense of homeowners (via spillover) and drivers (who will have less free parking).

5) Eliminating parking requirements will cause an over-proliferation of bars & restaurants which bring negative externalities (noise, trash, crime, and congestion).

These are legitimate concerns BUT minimum parking requirements (hereafter MPRs) are absolutely the wrong tool to address them.

Confusion on the ZOAC start time (sometimes its 8:30 and sometimes 9) has committee members and staffers sitting in silence as we wait for a quorum.

So since we have extra time...i'm going to rebut a few points:

1) Dallas has bad public transit, so we need MPRs.

Dallas will never have an effective transportation system so long as MPRs exist. As is, drivers have assurance that, they will have a free space w/e they drive.

2) Removing MPRs will result in loss of historic buildings.

Several things here: MPRs result in MORE demolition of old buildings as tight fabric have to be removed to make way for parking.

In addition, antiquated buildings are usually less safe, less energy efficient, and less accessible than new buildings constructed meeting the standards laid out in current Fire Codes, Energy Codes, and ADA/TAS.

Finally, even if preserving historic buildings is a legitimate goal, MPRs are a terrible way to achieve this goal. Much better tools to incentivize historic preservation!

3) Removing MPRs will result in a decreased diversity of land uses due to competition from higher-rent tenants who are currently restrained by MPRs.

Aside from the slightly strange social engineering this entails, this does not necessarily follow

Oops, meeting has actually started now! Chair Murphy opens with a reminder that no recommendations have actually been made, but just directions of research for staff.

There are also apparently a lot of people signed up to speak. That is generally not a good sign. I anticipate many verbal comments in the same vein as above.

The staffer is running through an example of what the suggested parking ratios would look like at an existing shopping center. Yellow boxes are those in the 330ft buffer. The "X" are those that would still be exempt from MPRs due to small size (<5,000SF) or old age (pre 1967)

Another example along Lovers Ln. Basically all buildings here would be exempt from MPRs. This is a good thing!

"But Nathaniel" you say. "If we remove MPRs, there won't be any parking and all those shoppers will park in front of peoples houses".

1) Shops will still voluntarily provide parking
2) The right tool to prevent spillover parking is resident only parking/no parking/PBD zones.

Example 3 at Mockingbird & Abrams. Summary: They have a lot of parking (5.88 per 1,000sf)

Example 4:

Chair Murphy raising a recent example where a shopping center owner wanted to build a parking lot on a residential lot to prevent parking on-street parking nearby residential streets.

Murphy continues: A consideration was whether adding parking would allow a new/different use that requires more parking as current center was maxed out on current parking reqs.

Murphy keeps raising the question of shopping centers "becoming a regional destination" if MPRs are removed (similar to some submitted commitments). I would like to point out that there is not unlimited demand for bar/restaurant space.

MacGregor points out that exempting buildings built before 1965 that are within the 330ft buffer means that developers will most likely ever redevelop these structures into better urban form because they couldn't meet parking reqs.

most likely *never* redevelop that is (typo)

More talk about "regional destinations", which I think is informed by some members experience in places like Bishop Arts District and Lowest Greenville.

Chair Murphy continues earlier anecdote about a neighborhood meeting where residents were asked if they wanted the center to be a neighborhood shopping center or 'regional destination'.

Apparently residents wanted both because they wanted a really great restaurant but didn't too many other people to come.

Staff Udrea answers a question on whether the examples they're giving are sufficiently parked. She points out that they ARE currently parked to code, BUT some of them cannot add certain uses/tenants because they are maxed out on parking reqs.

Staff Sarah May discusses how much time staff spends on zoning review of parking. Staff May says it is an excruciating process of plan review, site visits, and space counting & measurement. Takes 4-6 weeks for zoning review.

Staff continues by saying it is a flawed and broken system due to the convoluted process.

Staff Nevarez gives example of a B&B going for an SUP (in my nbhd!) that has NO parking due to its physical reality of having no space for parking. Asks if we value B&Bs or parking more?

About to open for public comment. I actually signed up this week! Sadly, I have a 10am cut-off so I am mourning the late start for the committee.

First commenter: Melissa Kingston!

Kingston says the community should have some say in what parking is provided and what works for Lower Greenville may not be right for other locations. She is also very disturbed by discussion of removing "use" from parking requirements.

Also says we have to be careful because it vests a right that will be hard to claw back.

Sadly, I have to drop off now!

Well, i'm back and commenters are still going! Current commenter concerned about noise and parking from patrons of nearby bars.

Note: This is what resident parking only is for.

Another commenter. So far they seem to mostly be from the Knox/Henderson and Lower Greenville area.

We've got another person concerned about a "mix of uses". Says only thing saving these businesses from being kicked out for more bars/restaurants is MPRs. Note: *sigh*

Next commenter! She says all the bar patrons will park on her street. She is also bringing up the eternal Old East Dallas allegation that the city is trying to destroy them through urban planning changes and removing MPRs will lead to the destruction of century old nbhds.

Next commenter! Says people are freaked out because ZOAC sounds like they're ready to vote on this.

Note: THEY SHOULD BE, IT'S BEEN A YEAR.

Also doesn't like the 5,000sf and 1967 carveout. Cites Greenville again.

Continues by saying we don't have a multi-mobility solution in Dallas. Says he would like to be able to get to destination by transit as he would be car, but we just can't.

Next commenter: Commercial real estate agent says difficulty of parking reductions is that it requires agreement among landlords, lenders, and consumers.

Note: Hard to reach this agreement when it is illegal currently?

Woot, got to make my comment which is basically just everything i've been tweeting above.

ZOAC Member Rieves says that land owners might build on existing parking lots and cause more parking problems.

Note: Repeated comments that the City can create Resident Only Parking are just not getting through.

Whew, we are done at last! Next time we're talking parking management districts. See y'all then!