After much ado, ForwardDallas 2.0 has once again hit the brakes.
The Dallas Express has been following the attempt to pass the City of Dallas’ comprehensive land use plan, which has not been updated since 2006.
Look here to read the backstory.
During the two-hour special-called Economic Development Committee meeting on Tuesday, residents were hopeful that the council members would make a decision regarding ForwardDallas 2.0.
However, Mayor Pro Tem and Council Member Tennell Atkins of District 8, who chairs the committee, made it clear from the start that the purpose of the meeting was to have a discussion.
Andrea R. Gilles, deputy director of Planning and Development, and colleagues briefed the committee in a presentation, including what ForwardDallas 2.0 is not recommending.
Per their presentation, it was made clear that ForwardDallas 2.0 DOES NOT:
Include a recommendation to rezone single-family neighborhoods.
Change Historic Districts, Conservation Districts, Neighborhood
Stabilization Overlays and neighborhood-led PDs.
Recommend apartments on every residential lot or eliminate residential lot sizes.
Change the zoning review process—each zoning case will still be filed with the planning and development department, will be reviewed by staff, reviewed by the CPC and if recommended, will move to the City Council for review and final vote.
“[The comprehensive plan] is one document. It is a guidance document. It is not the sole rationale or reasoning behind one decision-making process,” Gilles stressed.
The plan aims to clearly outline the primary and secondary land uses, identify the most suitable areas for different housing types, locate areas where residential zones may be impacted by industrial activities, and recommend prioritizing authorized hearings in those areas.
Additionally, ForwardDallas 2.0 aims to acknowledge the distinct features of various transit areas and suggests that future transit-oriented development should take into account the surrounding environment. Furthermore, it recommends revitalizing older commercial streets to promote mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly development.
In relation to zoning, “the comprehensive plan serves merely as a guide for rezoning requests rather than as a mandatory restriction on the city’s authority to regulate land use. The comprehensive plan shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district boundaries. The comprehensive plan does not limit the ability of the city to prepare other plans, policies, or strategies as required,” per the presentation.
Councilman Chad West of District 1 noted that he has heard concerns from his district regarding zoning, including the appearance of structures and displacement, and he is encouraged that ForwardDallas 2.0 addresses both of these issues.
“If 2.0 were approved tomorrow, would any zoning in the City be automatically changed?” West asked.
“No,” replied Gilles, explaining that the plan is used as a “starting point.”
“So, it’s only guidance; it’s not zoning,” West reiterated.
“It’s only guidance,” confirmed Gilles.
West asked several more clarifying questions, including, “ForwardDallas 2.0 is not about affordable housing, but it is about giving us more housing options with different price points.”
“Correct,” said Gilles.
West further stressed that he believes “we are in a housing crisis in this City,” and if we don’t take “courageous action, it’s just going to get worse.”
West shared an example with his colleagues, explaining that he purchased his first house in Dallas, near Bishop Arts, for $150,000 in 2008.
That same property is “now priced at $607,000, for a 1,300 square foot, 2-1 duplex, walkable to Methodist hospital,” said West.
Council Member Omar Narvaez of District 6 stressed that one of the biggest fears surrounding this plan is that staff will slip in changes to zoning in single-family residential neighborhoods if ForwardDallas 2.0 is approved.
“I can assure you that staff has no intent of slipping anything in,” responded Gilles, adding that the plan is not text-heavy and is transparent: “There’s no hiding anything.”
Gilles explained that the staff is not authorized to implement any alterations independently. They represent the initial stage of the procedure. Then, the changes are referred to the City Plan Commission and, ultimately, to the City Council to make the final decision.
“There is no intent to rezone our single-family neighborhoods,” stressed Gilles.
However, despite the continued reassurance from Gilles, distrust still settled on the surface.
Council Member Paul E. Ridley of District 14 said to Gilles, “You’re basically giving lip service to the fears of single-family residents that their neighbor’s property will be rezoned around them.”
Council Member Carolyn King Arnold of District 4 said the guide seems more like a guise.
“Dallas, we stand to lose. Council members, we stand to lose. We’re not going to be here forever. And we need to put a plan in place so those that come after us in these seats continue to fight for Dallas,” said Arnold. “Dallas holistically cannot exist without single-family, businesses, the whole nine yards. But don’t make single families make a choice about which city would be the best choice for their families.”
“Single-family communities must be protected at all costs,” stressed Arnold, “especially those that are established.”
Repeatedly, Gilles stressed that “this plan does not mandate anything.”
“I do believe that there are fears, and all fears of our residents should be considered to be legit, even if they are based on misinformation. And that’s, unfortunately, where we are. We have legit fears, in my opinion, that need to be addressed, that we need to take more time on, that we need to nuance,” said Council Member Adam Bazaldua of District 7.
“We need to educate because the misinformation and the fearmongering, unfortunately, is what’s been driving the fears of a lot of people who are ignorant to the subject. That’s the reality of it,” added Bazaldua.
Council Member Cara Mendelsohn of District 12 asked if it was possible for them to vote “just on sections of this plan. Is that an option?”
“I think, technically, yes,” replied Gilles.
“If the plan comes to us as just one item, I’ll be voting no and it will be about residential,” said Mendelsohn.
“In my opinion, there should be absolutely no secondary uses for our residential items. And, it is actually better to do nothing than to do harm,” added Mendelsohn.
“People deserve to have the housing option that does include single family only,” stressed Mendelsohn, adding that this includes parks, churches, and schools. “By putting in these secondary uses, you actually have removed that assurance from people.”
Mendelsohn said, “What you’re asking residents to do is to constantly come down here and fight off a zoning case… you only need eight votes to override the will of the community, which we should be representing. And if we are not representing the will of the community, we should not be reelected.”
Atkins said that the next committee meeting to discuss the plan will be Tuesday, September 3.
“We have been working on this since 2006,” said Atkins. “Some people say wine is best when it’s aged. But sometimes it goes sour … you aged it too long.”
