After a brief break to gather some public comment, ZOAC is BACK to discuss Reforming our costly parking mandates!
We have a new ZOAC member joining us today, Jennifer Rangel of the @ICPDallas!
Today is a recap of the public engagement comments.

By my own count, we had about 2/3 comments in favor of dropping parking requirements while about 1/3 were "concerns". Image
Lots of good comments, especially about how parking requirements distort our transportation choices. Image
More in the "concern category". Mostly things like areas with bad transit still need parking.

Note: THERE WILL STILL BE PARKING. Nobody is going to build something without parking if there are no choices besides driving. Image
Still baffled by the idea that we must have perfect public transportation to remove costly parking mandates. Image
ZOAC Member Rangel: Comments about transit users stand out to her. Many of these people already don't have a car (including herself).

Love to see a transit user represented!
ZOAC Behring: Appreciated comments about other city goals, NCTCOG, City, and CECAP goals about how these parking policy changes would align and contribute to these goals.
ZOAC Bagley: Says removing costly parking mandates won't make people in transit-poor area stop driving. Says our transit isn't there no matter what we do with parking.

Note: AHHHHHHHHHH. How do get people to divorce the idea of parking EXISTING from parking being REQUIRED?
Continued: Costly parking mandates=transit service is degraded. Removing parking mandates doesn't mean "everyone will take transit" but instead "remove the required expectation that everyone drives".
ZOAC Rieves: People who shared concerns: didn't hear anyone say the status quo was fine. Says people mentioned downtown where parking is not required (not true, new buildings require it) and these changes won't open up parking garages to shared use due to liability.
ZOAC Hall: Pleased to hear so much positive feedback from the public (note: thanks so much for everyone who spoke!). Also wants to think about unintended consequences.

Note: Costly parking mandates introduced the unintended consequences away from the natural result,
CPC Johnson: Doesn't favor an incremental approach as it won't make much change in long run. Notes we are not removing parking, we're just removing the req. to provide parking.

Also our regulations shape the results and behaviors and makes city more favorable to transit successs
CPC Johnson continued: If we know the solution, why would we take an incremental approach? Doesn't understand why we'd do it.

Hear hear!
Staff Udrea responds: We have to define our goal and then we can regulate towards that end. Does say we are too focused on numbers/ratios of parking. We can change discussion from a quantity to a quality discussion. We've already tried incremental approaches (PDs and downtown).
Staff continues: but we've never gotten away from number of spaces and instead thought about having a different city.
Note: I'll go further and say Costly Parking Mandates are bad policy no matter your location, mode share, city goals, transit options, topography, or weather. They are a regulation searching for a problem to solve.
Staff Udrea: A brief history of parking requirements in Dallas. We've been giving up our walkable city incrementally to a car oriented city incrementally for decades. We've tried the incremental approach to tinkering with the code. ImageImage
Shares some other cities that have taken a more aggressive approaches with no minimums, starting decades ago.

Note: All of these cities still have a lot of parking. Image
Staff Udrea: Challenges to ask ZOAC if we want to set the next 20 years of policy with a tiny change or whether we can set more ambitious goals for the city. The cities above started 20 years ago and have made only small progress. If we reform today, we are decades from change.
CPC MacGregor: Dropping parking requirements just sets a baseline from which we can make further reforms to adapt. Also says of those who think it's too abrupt, he disagrees. These changes can be reversed if needed. We can also observe what others have done and see it's been fine
MacGregor cont: Nothing we're discussing is controversial among the experts on this topic, even though it may be among citizens. Supports a comprehensive, not incremental, reform.
CPC Johnson concurs: The experts are universally aligned in the benefits of parking reform. The public may be shocked, but those who have delved deep and studied it, know this is the right approach.

Note: Branding like "Market-based parking" or "Responsive Parking" may help.
Johnson continues: It offends him to think that we would require the whole city to provide subsidized parking when our most vulnerable and low-income citizens don't even have cars.
I'm feeling the parking reform love with 2 CPC members (who will also be votes when this goes to the Commission for a recommendation) favoring strong reform efforts!
ZOAC Behring: We've been a little distracted. We've talked a lot about number of spaces and walkability, but our discussion is really around what we are requiring in the code. All we're discussing is removing requirements not physically adding/removing spaces.
Staff Moorman: Next step will be to discuss bringing in design standards for parking to the code.
CPC MacGregor asks when we think a proposal will come to CPC.

Staff Moorman: We need to cover design standards and transit adjacency. Then preparing a formal proposal. Should have a proposed schedule in the near future.
That's a wrap! Yay parking reform!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Nathaniel Barrett

Nathaniel Barrett Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ncoxbarrett

4 Jun
1) Permitting delays, a recent phenomenon, are likely temporary (but should be fixed).

2) High labor and materials costs are annoying but also temporary and out of the City's control.
The article just barely touches on the remaining factor: "land costs", lack of construction sites and NIMBY-ism which are interrelated and definitely largely within the City's control.
Dallas' residential land is zoned for about 85% detached single family homes. Another 10% allows only low-rise moderate density housing. We don't even really allow ADUs!
Read 6 tweets
22 May
I'm so pumped about removing costly parking mandates in Dallas because it'll be a huge deal to remove this impediment to quality of life. Funny enough, it'll also be a really small and subtle change. L
Like, it's not like we'll suddenly see high rises on every corner with no parking. It'll just result in a very subtle downward trend in parking spaces built, most people won't even notice.
They might notice a few lots or buildings, previously undevelopable, get built on or renovated, but most won't know why.
Read 4 tweets
20 May
Second public engagement meeting starts at 8:30am this morning! Join in and support cleaner air, a stronger economy, and a better transportation system! No sign-up needed, just join here:
About 1/2 the number of attendees as yesterday and I see some returning names.
Attendee list is going. I see members of the MEDIA and some industry groups in attendance. Good thing, this needs attention as the most impactful land use change in Dallas in 50 years!
Read 23 tweets
19 May
First public engagement meeting for Parking reform has started! Thanks to the many supporters who have logged on to advocate for this reform!
They pose 3 questions to the attendees:

1) What do you think about the amount of parking Dallas?
2) Does parking availability determine your choice of destination?
3) What's more important to you? (walkability, transit options, parking etc.)

Disappointing, no talk of tradeoffs!
First comment! She lives 6 minute walk from DART station, but she takes her car everywhere. Says opponents think we should make decisions based on status quo, but disagrees and we should plan for the city we WANT to have. We can always adjust later.

Wow good comment!
Read 17 tweets
6 May
zoac zoac zoac ZOAC ZOAC ZOAC! It's happening right now! We are back to talk parking!
A reminder of where we are: Image
I've looked over the materials for the meeting today and it looks great, we're looking at Lower Greenville as a specific example of what things might look like under the framework being considered.

Below reference of "lower greenville" areas. Image
Read 41 tweets
24 Apr
All right, I finally watched the video and here are my thoughts:
Mill Creek (applicant) wanted to create a Planned Development (PD) to build an 80ft mixed-use project with 305 units. Current zoning allows mixed-use but only up to 54 feet due to a pre-existing deed restriction.
Mill Creek (applicant) held 45 public and private meetings, including one where they brought a lift to showing what 80ft of height looks like. They also consulted the variety of (largely useless) comprehensive, area, and trasnport. plans covering this stretch of East Dallas.
Read 35 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!