[Special Economic Development on August 27, 2024.]
[00:00:05]
EVERYONE, WE HAVE A QUORUM.CALLING A SPECIAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TO ORDER.
FIRST THING TO GET A MOTION FOR THE MINUTES.
>> I THOUGHT WE HAD SOME LAST ONE.
IT IS 1:15. WE'LL GET STARTED.
THE PRESENTATION STAFF MISS GILLIS AND MISS LOU, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, YOU CAN PROCEED.
>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIR, COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON FORWARDDALLAS 2.0.
HERE WE GO. I'LL JUST GIVE IT A SECOND TO GET THE PRESENTATION UP.
THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WE FIRST HAD ON AUGUST 5TH.
THIS PRESENTATION IS GOING TO BE PRETTY BRIEF TO HOPEFULLY GIVE YOU ALL THE TIME.
I ASSUME THAT THERE ARE QUITE A FEW QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.
WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE PLENTY OF TIME FOR THAT.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. JUST FOR THE RECORD, ANDREA GILLIS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
I'M ALSO HERE WITH MY COLLEAGUES PATRICK BLADES, LAWRENCE AGU, AND EMILY LOU, THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT.
WHAT WE'LL BE GOING OVER TODAY IS JUST A FEW FACTS, SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PLAN, A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY TO GROUND US IN THE RATIONALE FOR SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT NEXT STEPS.
EVEN BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, AGAIN, BECAUSE WE ALWAYS HAVE THIS QUESTION ABOUT WHAT GIVES US THE AUTHORITY TO DO THIS? HOW DOES LAND USE AND ZONING RELATE? IS THIS LAND USE? IS THIS ZONING? I WANTED TO BRING UP THE LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT STATE LAW.
THIS LITTLE BUBBLE, THIS IS ACTUALLY FROM 51A, OUR ZONING CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT HOW COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ARE RELATED TO ZONING.
THIS IS OUR LOCAL CODE. I'LL READ THIS OUT.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SERVES MERELY, AND I WILL FOCUS ON THE WORD MERELY, AS A GUIDE FOR REZONING REQUESTS RATHER THAN 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.
THAT IS THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE ON EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE PLANS OR MAPS WITHIN THE PLAN, THAT THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ZONING.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES NOT LIMIT THE ABILITY OF THE CITY TO PREPARE OTHER PLANS, POLICIES, OR STRATEGIES AS REQUIRED.
AGAIN, I THINK THAT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THIS IS ONE DOCUMENT.
IT IS A GUIDANCE DOCUMENT, IT IS NOT THE SOLE RATIONALE OR REASONING BEHIND ONE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
AGAIN, GOING INTO A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SETTING THE FOUNDATION AGAIN, AND WE'LL PROBABLY SAY THIS EVERY SINGLE MEETING, THAT WHAT FORWARDDALLAS IS NOT, AND WHAT IT DOES NOT DO.
IT DOES NOT INCLUDE A RECOMMENDATION TO REZONE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.
I CANNOT BE MORE CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
IT EXPLICITLY STATES THAT THIS PLAN DOES NOT INCLUDE A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CITY TO PURSUE A CITY INITIATED REZONING OF OUR SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.
THAT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THE PLAN, AND IT HAS NEVER BEEN THE INTENT OF THE PLAN.
IT DOES NOT CHANGE HISTORIC DISTRICTS, CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION OVERLAYS AND NEIGHBORHOOD PDS.
IT DOES NOT CHANGE THOSE DISTRICTS.
THOSE WILL REMAIN AND IT HAS NO RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THOSE DISTRICTS.
IT DOES NOT RECOMMEND APARTMENTS ON EVERY RESIDENTIAL LOT OR ELIMINATE RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZES.
IT DOES NOT DO THAT AND IT CANNOT DO THAT.
FORWARDDALLAS CANNOT DO ANYTHING BY RIGHT.
EVEN IF IT DOES NOT, BUT EVEN IF THE PLAN HAD A RECOMMENDATION TO SAY, THE TEXT COULD READ, ALLOW DUPLEXES BY RIGHT.
THE PLAN IN AND OF ITSELF CANNOT DO THAT.
IT WOULD REQUIRE A ZONING CHANGE AND THAT ZONING CHANGE NEEDS TO GO THROUGH THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROCESS.
ULTIMATELY, IF THIS BODY DECIDED THAT THEY DIDN'T LIKE THAT RECOMMENDATION IN THE PLAN,
[00:05:03]
THEY DO NOT NEED TO PROCEED WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION.BUT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE, IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THAT RECOMMENDATION IN THE PLAN.
FORWARDDALLAS DOES ALSO NOT CHANGE THE ZONING REVIEW PROCESS.
AS ALL OF YOU ARE VERY WELL AWARE, THAT PROCESS IS EXTENSIVE, IT'S DETAILED, AND IT TAKES IN A MULTITUDE OF FACTORS INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN DETERMINING AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT IS THE BEST USE ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY.
ZONING APPLICATIONS WILL STILL BE REVIEWED BY STAFF, REVIEWED BY CPC AND IF RECOMMENDED, WILL MOVE TO CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND FINAL VOTE, ALL OF WHICH WILL INCLUDE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WHAT DOES FORWARDDALLAS DO? I WANT TO TALK THROUGH WHAT FORWARDDALLAS 2.0 DOES, AND SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES IN FORWARDDALLAS THAT WE HAVE INCLUDED IN THE FORWARDDALLAS 2.0, THE UPDATE OF 2024 THAT WE DON'T SEE IN WHAT WE HAVE IN 2006.
IF WE DON'T ADOPT FORWARDDALLAS 2.0, WE WON'T HAVE THESE THINGS IN PLACE, NOR WILL WE HAVE FOUNDATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT 0.2 STAFF NEEDING TO TAKE THE NEXT STEPS TO DEVELOP SOME OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.
WHAT FORWARDDALLAS 2.0 IS, IT HAS A MULTITUDE OF DESIGN STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS.
IT PROVIDES MANY RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT SPECIFICALLY HOW WE NEED TO UPDATE OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE EITHER DESIGN OVERLAYS, THAT WE HAVE BASE ZONING DISTRICTS THAT HAVE DESIGN STANDARDS BUILT DIRECTLY INTO THOSE.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO DEVELOP A FOURPLEX, WE ALL FELT THAT THIS WAS A GOOD LOCATION FOR A FOURPLEX.
RIGHT NOW WHAT PEOPLE HAVE TO DO TO DEVELOP A FOURPLEX IS THEY HAVE TO ASK FOR A MULTIFAMILY ZONING.
THAT SCARES PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO ASK FOR MORE THAN WHAT YOU SAY YOU WANT TO DEVELOP ON THAT PROPERTY.
THERE IS NO PREDICTABILITY IN THAT.
IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY OR SELL THE PROPERTY TOMORROW, THEY GOT THEIR MULTIFAMILY ZONING UNDER SAYING THAT THEY WANTED TO DO A FOURPLEX, SAY THEY SELL IT TOMORROW.
WHAT IF THAT NEW PERSON NOW WANTS TO DEVELOP MULTIFAMILY BECAUSE THEY GOT THE FULL ENTITLEMENTS FOR A MULTIFAMILY? WHAT FORWARDDALLAS 2.0 SAYS, LET'S ACTUALLY DEVELOP DESIGN STANDARDS OR A BASE ZONING DISTRICT THAT HAVE BUILT IN DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE TYPE OF PRODUCTS WE SAY WE WANT TO BUILD, SO THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET, AND PEOPLE SURROUNDING THAT HAVE PREDICTABILITY.
IT'S ONE OF THE BIG RECOMMENDATIONS.
WE ALSO TALK A LOT ABOUT DESIGN OVERLAYS.
NOT ONLY FOR DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES.
BUT WE CAN THINK ABOUT THEM FOR AREAS THAT POTENTIALLY ARE EXPERIENCING A LOT OF INFILL DEVELOPMENT OR TEAR DOWNS AND REBUILDS, BECAUSE THE ISSUE ISN'T JUST ABOUT DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES THAT ARE BEING BUILT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, IT'S ABOUT SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE OUT OF SCALE WITH THE EXISTING CONTEXT.
WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE ANYTHING.
WE HAVE TOOLS CURRENTLY, BUT WE KNOW THEY TAKE A LONG TIME FOR THOSE TOOLS TO GET IN PLACE, AND WE KNOW THAT THE THRESHOLD IS HARD TO GET IN, WHICH IMPACTS EQUITY WITHIN OUR CITY.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. FORWARDDALLAS 2.0 ALSO INCLUDES LOCATIONAL CONDITIONS.
2006 RIGHT NOW DOES NOT HAVE THAT LANGUAGE.
IT BASICALLY SAYS, 2006, AND THEN THE UPDATE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLUS PROGRAM IN 2015 SAYS, WE NEED TO DO DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT HOW WE DEVELOP IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS DIFFERENTLY.
THERE SHOULD BE SMALL APARTMENT STRUCTURES.
THEY COULD BE IN THESE AREAS THAT WE CALL THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING BLOCKS.
THERE COULD BE ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES, BUT THERE IS NOT LOCATIONAL GUIDANCE.
WHAT FORWARDDALLAS 2.0 DOES IS IT PROVIDES LOCATIONAL GUIDANCE.
IT SAYS WE SHOULD LOOK FIRST ON OUR CORRIDORS, WE SHOULD LOOK AT OUR TRANSIT ORIENTED AREAS, WE SHOULD LOOK AT OUR ACTIVITY CENTERS, WE SHOULD LOOK AT ALREADY EXISTING MIXED USE AREAS.
CAN WE ADD IN? WE SHOULD LOOK AT OUR AGING SHOPPING CENTERS IN OUR COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.
CAN WE REDEVELOP THERE? DO WE HAVE VACANT PARKING LOTS, THINGS LIKE THAT? IT TRIES TO HONE YOU IN AND PROVIDE SOME BUMPERS ABOUT WHERE DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES ARE MOST APPROPRIATE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
OBVIOUSLY, WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THIS, OUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AREAS.
WE ARE VERY EXPLICIT IN THIS PLAN.
IF THIS WERE NOT TO MOVE FORWARD, WE HAVE NO GUIDANCE ABOUT WHERE WE NEED TO FOCUS.
THIS IS WHERE WE'RE SAYING, AND THE PLAN EXPLICITLY SAYS THIS, PRIORITIZE OUR ENVIRONMENTAL AND JUSTICE AREAS FOR CITY INITIATED REZONINGS.
THAT IS A RECOMMENDATION IN THE PLAN, THAT IS WHERE WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING OUR CITY INITIATED REZONINGS.
[00:10:04]
NOT ONLY IS IT WHERE WE HAVE INDUSTRIAL NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL, IT'S ALSO AREAS OF THE CITY WHERE WE HAVE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT ARE INDUSTRIALLY ZONED.WE NEED TO ADDRESS THOSE AREAS.
WE'VE BEEN SAYING IT FOR YEARS.
WE NEED TO DO IT AND MOVE FORWARD WITH IT THROUGH THIS PLAN. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
IT'S NOT A ONE SIZE FITS ALL FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT.
WE NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE TRANSIT STATIONS IN A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS, A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL AREAS, AND THE SAME TYPE OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT WORK IN ALL PARTS OF THE CITY.
WE'VE INCLUDED MORE NUANCED TYPOLOGIES, THAT SAY IF YOU'RE IN A MORE NEIGHBORHOOD AREA, IT'S THIS TYPE OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, AND IF YOU'RE MORE IN A REGIONAL MIXED USE AREA, YOU CAN FIND THESE THINGS.
BUT AGAIN, BUILDING AND DESIGN GUIDANCE FOR THAT AND ACKNOWLEDGING THE CONTEXT OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THEN REVITALIZING OUR COMMERCIAL CENTERS AND OUR COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS.
THIS IS ANOTHER INCREDIBLY KEY PIECE TO THIS PLAN.
WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT SAY, LET'S PUT THE NEW RESIDENTIAL ON OUR CORRIDORS, LET'S REDEVELOP OUR AGING AREAS.
IN MANY CASES, WE ARE I DON'T WANT TO SAY STUCK WITH, BUT RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE HAVE ON OUR CORRIDORS AND OUR AGING COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTERS, THERE ARE SEVERAL, BUT ONE OF THE REASONS WHY IT IS NOT EASY TO REDEVELOP THOSE IS BECAUSE IT'S SINGLE USE ZONING.
IT IS ONLY ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL, IT IS ONLY ZONED FOR OFFICE, POTENTIALLY ONLY ZONED FOR INDUSTRIAL.
EVEN IF WE WANTED TO INCORPORATE RESIDENTIAL INTO A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, WE CAN'T CURRENTLY DO THAT.
WE NEED TO LOOK AT THESE KEY CORRIDORS THROUGHOUT THE CITY WHERE IT MAKES SENSE TO ADD IN AND ADD IN THAT RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, WHICH WILL NOT ONLY TAKE THE BURDEN OR THE STRAIN OFF OF THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AREAS, BUT THEN IT ADDS TO THE STRENGTH OF THOSE BUSINESSES, IT PROVIDES MORE WALKABILITY, IT ALLOWS THE RESIDENTIAL IN THOSE REDEVELOPMENT AREAS TO HAVE ACCESS TO AMENITIES AS WELL.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. I WANT TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THE HISTORIC LAND USE INEQUITIES, SOME OF THE KEY POINTS IN TIME AND SOME OF THE REASONS WHY.
WE HAVE TRIED TO BE VERY THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THE LANGUAGE THAT WE DO OR DO NOT INCLUDE IN ANY PLANS MOVING FORWARD.
WHEN WE STARTED OUT WITH THIS PROJECT, THERE WAS A LOT OF CONVERSATION, ESPECIALLY AT THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMMITTEE ABOUT ACKNOWLEDGING WHAT HAS OCCURRED IN THE PAST, AND ACKNOWLEDGING THE INEQUITIES THAT WE FACED AND MANY EXPERIENCE WITH THIS IN THE CITY IN THE PAST, AND MAKING A COMMITMENT TO LEARN FROM THEM, AND NOT REPEAT IT THROUGH THIS PLANNING PROCESS.
I WILL SAY THAT IS ONE OF THE MAJOR REASONS WHY ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN SUCH AT THE FOREFRONT OF THIS PLAN, BUT IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, IT IS ABOUT HOUSING AS WELL.
WE KNOW THAT WHAT WE SAY ABOUT HOUSING HAS AN IMPACT ON CHILDREN'S SUCCESS AND ALL FOLKS WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY SUCCESS.
I DON'T WANT TO DWELL ON THIS BECAUSE I THINK WE ALL KNOW THIS.
BUT I DO JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS AND WORDS DO MATTER BECAUSE SOME OF THE WORDS THAT YOU SEE IN THIS ARE SOME OF THE WORDS THAT WE'VE SEEN AND READ THROUGH COMMENTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS.
WE JUST WANT TO BE COGNIZANT OF THAT, THAT WHEN WE MOVE FORWARD THAT OUR PLAN NEEDS TO ENSURE IN 2006 DID A REALLY GOOD JOB OF THIS.
WE WANT TO BE MINDFUL OF IT AND KEEP MOVING FORWARD WITH LANGUAGE THAT IS OPEN AND DOESN'T MOVE US BACK TO THE RESTRICTIVE LANGUAGE THAT WE'VE SEEN OF THE PAST.
SOME OF OUR PLANS WERE VERY EXPLICIT ABOUT, WHO COULD LIVE WHERE, AND WHO SHOULD LIVE, WHERE AND WHO WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE CITY? ZONING AT THE VERY BEGINNING, IT WAS ORIGINALLY SUPPOSED TO JUST SEPARATE HARMFUL USES FROM EACH OTHER.
IT STARTED TO INCLUDE SEPARATING PEOPLE UNTIL THERE WERE LAWSUITS THAT WERE PUT IN PLACE, AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS THAT SAID YOU CAN NO LONGER EXPLICITLY DO THAT.
THEN WE FOUND DIFFERENT WAYS OF DOING THAT.
WE ALL ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH OUR RED LINING MAPS AND WHAT THAT HAS DONE TO THE CITY AND THE HISTORICAL LEGACY OF THAT.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. IT'S NOT JUST FEDERAL POLICIES.
SOME OF OUR PLANS HAVE ACTUALLY HAD THIS LANGUAGE IN THERE ABOUT PROTECTING.
THE QUESTION IS, WHO ARE WE PROTECTING AND WHAT ARE WE PROTECTING? OUR PLAN FROM 1944 SPECIFICALLY SAID
[00:15:02]
THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AREAS OF THE CITY SHOULD BE GIVEN PROTECTION.WE ALL AGREE WITH THAT AND THEN WE GET DOWN TO THE DEVIL IN THE DETAILS.
ALMOST EVERY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AREA IN THE CITY HAS ALREADY BEEN DAMAGED IN SOME DEGREE BY THE INTRUSION OF RESIDENTIAL USES SUCH AS DUPLEXES OR APARTMENTS.
EXPERIENCE IN OTHER CITIES INDICATES THAT THESE AREAS CAN BE EXPECTED TO DEPRECIATE FASTER, IN OTHER WORDS, TO BECOME BLIGHTED DISTRICTS AND SLUMS MORE QUICKLY THAN WOULD BE IN THE CASE IF PREDOMINANT LAND USE HAD BEEN PROTECTED.
AGAIN, WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THOSE WORDS AND HOW WE USE THEM TODAY AND HOW WE'RE THINKING ABOUT OUR PLANNING DOCUMENTS MOVING FORWARD.
WE HAD ANOTHER FEDERAL HIGHWAY ACT THAT SEPARATED COMMUNITIES AND DEMOLISHED A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WERE THRIVING IN THE PAST, BUT THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS LOOK DIFFERENT AND THEY WERE MORE VULNERABLE TO THAT DEMOLITION.
AGAIN, EVEN INTO 1985, WE HAD THE WALKER CONSENT DECREE, WHERE THERE WERE BASICALLY FAIR HOUSING CONCERNS.
WE HAVE THAT EVEN LEADING INTO TODAY.
I ONLY STATE THIS JUST TO GROUND THIS IN SOME OF THE RATIONALE FOR SOME OF EITHER THE LANGUAGE THAT IS OR IS NOT IN THE PLAN, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE THINKING ABOUT THOSE WORDS OF THE PAST AND MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE ENSURING THAT OUR PLANS ARE MORE EQUITABLE AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THEN JUST ON THIS AS WELL, JUST ALSO AS A REMINDER, FORWARDDALLAS 2.0 IS THE MISSING PIECE IN THE PUZZLE OF A SERIES OF RECENTLY ADOPTED CITY WIDE PLANS THAT ALL HAVE DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND MAKE FORWARDDALLAS HAVE SOME OF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE WAY TO ACHIEVE THEIR GOALS THROUGH THOSE PLANS ARE CONTINGENT ON WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE AN UPDATE TO THE FORWARDDALLAS PLAN.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. I THINK THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE.
I THINK THE WHAT NEXT IS LARGELY WE'LL BE LOOKING FOR SOME GUIDANCE FROM YOU AS TO THE NEXT STEP IN THE PLANNING PROCESS AS TO WHETHER IT'S BRIEFINGS OR FULL COUNSEL AND WHATEVER THAT MEANS.
BUT HOPEFULLY, THAT WE CAN GET THROUGH THAT DISCUSSION AND COME TO RESOLUTION ON THAT TODAY.
WITH THAT, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
>> JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS TO GET STARTED.
>> THERE ARE A LOT OF SIMILARITIES TO 2006 AND 2.0.
I WOULD SAY THAT THE 2.0 OF TODAY PROVIDES A LITTLE BIT MORE NUANCED GUIDANCE THAN WHAT THE PLAN DID IN 2006.
>> DO 2.0 HAVE MORE PROTECTION THAN THE GUIDANCE IN 2006?
>> I WOULD SAY IT DEFINITELY HAS MORE GUIDANCE THAN WHAT 2006 HAS.
>> MORE GUIDANCE. IF YOU LOOK AT UPTOWN, WILL 2.0 HAVE MORE GUIDANCE AS TO WHAT HAPPENED TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING IN UPTOWN?
>> IF WE WENT BACK, YES, IT WOULD HAVE MORE GUIDANCE.
>> IF YOU WENT BACK AND LOOK AT UPTOWN, FOR EXAMPLE, 2.0 WILL HAVE MORE GUIDANCE.
>> I THINK THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT.
>> WHAT 2.0 IT INCLUDES LOCATIONAL GUIDANCE OF IF WE'RE GOING TO DO DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING, WHERE THOSE PRIORITY AREAS ARE.
IT HAS A LOT MORE DESIGN GUIDANCE AND VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD CLEAR DESIGN GUIDANCE ABOUT DIFFERENT TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT AND WHAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE THROUGH THAT.
IF IT WERE TO BE ADOPTED, DIRECTING STAFF TO START PRIORITIZING, UPDATING THAT DESIGN GUIDANCE.
IT ALSO HAS LANGUAGE ABOUT DISPLACEMENT AND THE CREATION OF A DISPLACEMENT OVERLAY, SO THAT WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY SOLVE THE ISSUE, BUT IT DOES ASK US TO PAUSE AND THINK ABOUT THE IMPACT ON EXISTING RESIDENTS IN THOSE AREAS.
>> THEREFORE, IF YOU LOOK AT 2.0 YEAR 2006, WHEN YOU DEFINE PLACE TYPE, IF YOU WERE SAYING THAT IN UPTOWN, OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, WE GOT 14 DIFFERENT DISTRICTS.
EVERY DISTRICT IS DIFFERENT, BUT WE ARE TRYING TO COME UP WITH A PLACE TYPE AS A WHOLE OF THE WHOLE CITY. IS THAT A FIRST STATEMENT?
[00:20:04]
>> WHEN YOU SAID THAT WE DO NEED PLACE TYPE IN ORDER TO HAVE SOME GUIDANCE.
IF WE DO NOT HAVE PLACE TYPE, WHAT WOULD BE THE NEGATIVE?
>> I THINK IT PROVIDES ADDITIONAL BUMPERS THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD IN THE PAST, AND IT HELPS US HONE INTO SOME OF THE DETAILS, WHERE THE PLANS OF THE PAST HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT MORE OPEN-ENDED.
THEY DON'T REEL US IN AS MUCH AS THE 2.0 PLAN.
>> WHAT I'M GOING TO DO, WE'RE GOING TO OPEN IT.
THERE IS NOT A RECOMMENDATION.
IT'S A DISCUSSION BECAUSE THAT'S HOW WE'LL POST IT AS A DISCUSSION.
I KNOW WE HAVE ALL OF MY COMMITTEE MEMBERS HERE.
WHAT I'M GOING TO DO, GET EVERYBODY A FIRST ROUND LIKE FIVE MINUTES AND SEE WHERE WE ARE.
THEN WE GOT SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ON THE COMMITTEE, AT LEAST TRY TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY SOMETHING ALSO.
I AIN'T GOING TO HOLD YOU TO IT, BUT I'LL JUST MAKE SURE THAT ALL YOUR QUESTIONS GET ADDRESSED WITH THE COMMITTEE.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU FOR CONTINUING TO MAKE THIS A PRIORITY.
I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS, SO WHEN YOU NEED TO CUT ME OFF, CUT ME OFF, BUT I'M GOING TO TRY TO GET THROUGH THEM.
A COUPLE OF THINGS I HEARD I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT I REALLY APPRECIATE IS THE DESIGN GUIDANCE THAT'S IN THIS.
CAN YOU GO TO SLIDE 4 FOR A SECOND AND PULL THAT UP? WHILE YOU'RE PULLING THAT UP, I'LL ALSO MENTION THE DISPLACEMENT ITEM.
THE TWO THINGS I HEAR IN DISTRICT 1 MORE THAN ANYTHING WHEN IT COMES TO ZONING, ARE CONCERNS ON WHAT NEW BUILDINGS LOOK LIKE.
THEN INSTEAD OF LIKE THE DUPLEX, FOURPLEX, THE NUMBER OF UNITS, IT'S MORE SO WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
THE SECOND THING IS THE DISPLACEMENT.
THIS EXISTING PICTURE YOU PUT HERE, IS THAT A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME THAT'S BEEN CONSTRUCTED NEXT TO THE SMALL HOME?
>> THAT CAN BE BUILT CURRENTLY?
>> WE CONTINUE TO EXIST WITH FORWARDDALLAS 2006, NO CHANGES.
>> THANK YOU. IF 2.0 WERE APPROVED TOMORROW, WOULD ANY ZONING IN THE CITY BE AUTOMATICALLY CHANGED?
>> HOW DOES STAFF CURRENTLY USE FORWARDDALLAS 2006 TO MAKE ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS? HOW WOULD THAT BE MODIFIED, IF AT ALL, UNDER 2.0?
AS A PLANNER, I'LL SAY MY FIRST QUESTION IS, WHAT DOES THE PLAN SAY? THAT'S MY STARTING POINT.
I LOOK NOT ONLY WHAT, SAY, FOR IN THIS CASE SCENARIO, WHAT DOES THE LAND USE SAY OR WHAT DOES THE PLACE TYPE SAY? I ALSO THEN GO THROUGH AND LOOK AT WHAT IS THE TEXT THAT GOES ALONG WITH THAT PLACE TYPE, WHAT DOES THAT SAY? THEN I FACTOR IN ALL OF THE OTHER, YOU DO THE SURROUNDING CONTACT, YOU DO THE EXISTING SURROUNDING CONTEXT ANALYSIS, YOU DO TRANSPORTATION. ARE THEIR STREETS? DO WE HAVE ENOUGH INFRASTRUCTURE? WE USE IT AS A STARTING POINT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT, DOES THIS START TO MAKE SENSE IN THIS AREA.
WHAT IS THE GUIDANCE THAT THE PLAN PROVIDES FOR US?
>> SO IT'S ONLY GUIDANCE, IT'S NOT ZONING.
>> SO DUPLEXES, FOURPLEXES, TOWNHOMES, WILL NOT BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, RIGHT?
>> FORWARDDALLAS 2.0 DOES NOT LEGALLY REQUIRE THE CITY TO APPROVE A ZONING CHANGE FOR DUPLEX, TRIPLEX, OR TOWNHOMES?
>> TODAY, WITHOUT FORWARDDALLAS 2.0, CAN PEOPLE BUY AN OLD HOME IN A SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD, KNOCK IT DOWN, AND BUILD A MODERN MCMANSION?
>> ARE THERE EXAMPLES OF DUPLEXES IN THE CITY THAT MATCH THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE WINNETKA HEIGHTS AND KING'S HIGHWAY IN DISTRICT 1?
>> THEY'RE ALL THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
>> ESPECIALLY IN OUR OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS, RIGHT?
>> WILL FORWARDDALLAS OVERRIDE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS?
>> WHAT ABOUT HISTORIC DISTRICTS?
>> THERE HAS BEEN SOME CONFUSION ABOUT A PREVIOUS COMMENT STAFF MADE ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
DOES STAFF BELIEVE THAT ALLOWING FOR GREATER HOUSING CHOICE AND HOUSING TYPES WOULD CREATE HOUSING AT DIFFERENT PRICE POINTS?
>> FORWARDDALLAS 2.0 IS NOT ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT IT IS ABOUT GIVING US MORE OPTIONS FOR HOUSING WITH DIFFERENT PRICE POINTS.
>> THAT'S A CORRECT CHARACTERIZATION?
>> THANK YOU. I'VE SAID THIS PUBLICLY, AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN.
I BELIEVE WE'RE IN A HOUSING CRISIS IN THE CITY.
[00:25:03]
I BELIEVE, IF WE DON'T TAKE ANY ACTION AS A COUNCIL AND TAKE COURAGEOUS ACTION, IT'S JUST GOING TO GET WORSE.QUESTION FOR STAFF, HAVE HOUSING PRICES INCREASED IN DALLAS IN RECENT YEARS, INCLUDING IN SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS?
>> I'M GOING TO REFERENCE A KERA ARTICLE THAT SAID THE MEDIAN SALES PRICE IN 2018 WAS $133,000 FOR A HOME.
THIS JUST CAME OUT A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, 133,000-395,000.
I WAS GOING TO MAKE A POINT TO MY COLLEAGUES ABOUT MY FIRST HOUSE IN DALLAS, 1028 HAYNES AVENUE NEAR BISHOP ARTS.
I BOUGHT IT IN 2008 FOR $150,000.
IT'S A LITTLE 21 ARTS AND CRAFTS, GREAT HOUSE.
IT IS NOW PRICED AT $607,000 FOR 1,300 SQUARE FEET, 21 DUPLEX, WALKABLE TO METHODIST HOSPITAL.
I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE IN THE 300S, BUT IT WAS 607 WHEN I LOOKED IT UP.
DID FORWARDDALLAS 2.0'S PRESENTATIONS AND PROPOSITION, DID IT CAUSE HOUSING PRICES TO GO UP?
>> DOES STAFF BELIEVE THAT FREEZING ALL CURRENT HOUSING STOCK IN DALLAS WILL CAUSE HOUSING PRICES TO GO UP OR DOWN? WE JUST FREEZE IT, WE DO NOTHING, WE DON'T CHANGE IT.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO HOUSING PRICES?
>> I CAN'T PREDICT, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT DOING NOTHING OR MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR DR. ANDERCHECK IF SHE'S HERE. COME ON DOWN.
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOUR TEAM HAS A TAX DENSITY TOOL.
>> I WANT TO MAKE SOMETHING VERY CLEAR BEFORE YOU BRING THIS UP.
I PERSONALLY I LIVE IN A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.
I LIVE IN A MIXED AREA NEXT TO DUPLEXES, MULTIPLEXES, NEXT TO A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, BUT I HAVE LIVED IN SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES SINCE I MOVED TO DALLAS AND LIVED IN SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, AND I BELIEVE THEY HAVE A VERY IMPORTANT VALUE TO THE FABRIC OF OUR COMMUNITY.
BUT I THINK WE AS A COUNCIL, ESPECIALLY AS WE'RE CONSIDERING THE PENSION, BUDGET SHORTFALLS, NEED TO BE VERY COGNIZANT OF WHEN WE MAKE ZONING DECISIONS, WHEN WE MAKE LAND USE DECISIONS, THERE IS A COST TO THAT TO THE TAXPAYERS.
I WANT TO BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT THIS, AND I WANT TO SAY THIS UPFRONT SO THAT THIS IS NOT VIEWED AS AN ATTACK ON SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS IN ANY WAY.
BUT I'M GOING TO ASK DR. ANDERCHECK NOW, HOW DO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING IN MIXED-USE AREAS COMPARE IN TERMS OF REVENUE GENERATED FOR THE CITY?
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. FOR THE RECORD.
MY NAME IS BRITA ANDERCHECK, AND I SERVE AS THE CHIEF DATA OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.
AS A REMINDER, I AM NOT A PLANNER, I DO DATA ANALYTICS, AND SO MY ROLE IS TO PROVIDE THAT DATA.
IN TERMS OF YOUR QUESTION, WE KNOW THAT, IN GENERAL, WE'VE OBSERVED THAT SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED PARCELS ARE ACCOUNTING FOR ABOUT 35% OF OUR LAND USE, AND THEY ACCOUNT FOR ABOUT 4% OF THE TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE PER ACRE.
IN GENERAL, MIXED-USE PARCELS ACCOUNT FOR ABOUT 0.2% OF OUR LAND USE IN THE CITY, AND THEY ACCOUNT FOR ABOUT 40% OF THE TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY GRAPHICS OR SLIDES YOU CAN SHOW US?
>> I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE SLIDES THAT LAWRENCE HAD PREPARED, AND I WILL SWITCH CHAIRS SO THAT LAWRENCE CAN DO THEM.
>> WE'LL HAVE TO TRY TO PULL THEM UP.
>> WHILE YOU'RE BRINGING THAT UP, AND ONCE AGAIN, THERE ARE PARCELS OF LAND LIKE PARKS AND OTHER THINGS THAT WE DON'T EXPECT TAX VALUE TO COME OUT OF THAT, BUT WE STILL SEE A VALUE IN MAINTAINING THAT.
BUT IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS AND A SINGLE-FAMILY PARCEL ACTUALLY COSTS THE CITY MONEY TO EXIST, AND THEY ARE SUBSIDIZED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE CITY?
>> I DID NOT DO AN EXACT ANALYSIS ON THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION.
WHAT WE DO KNOW RELATED TO THIS IS THAT WE SEE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS WHEN YOU LOOK AT AN ACRE, IN TERMS OF WHAT IT CAN PRODUCE.
WE KNOW THAT THE VALUE PRODUCED BY CERTAIN TYPES OF PROPERTIES SUCH AS MIXED VALUE OR COMMERCIAL IS HIGHER IN TERMS OF TAXABLE LAND VALUE THAN FOR SMALLER STRUCTURES.
[00:30:06]
IN GENERAL, WE SEE THAT, WITHOUT GETTING INTO ANY SPECIFICS.>> IT JUST BRINGS THIS UP AGAIN TO SAY WE JUST NEED TO BE IT'S JUST LIKE WE QUESTION EVERYTHING.
OVER TIME, WE QUESTION EVERY DEPARTMENT.
WHEN WE'RE MAKING LAND USE DECISIONS, WE NEED TO BE TRANSPARENT TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE COST OF THE TAXPAYERS AND THEN MAKE A DECISION, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT LAND USE DECISION, THAT ZONING DECISION REGARDLESS.
I'LL COME BACK IN THE NEXT ROUND.
>> WITH THE VICE CHAIR, OMAR NARVAEZ?
>> I CAN'T HEAR YOU. CHAIRMAN, WE CANNOT HEAR YOU.
THANK YOU AGAIN, ANDREA AND YOUR TEAM, FOR WORKING WITH US AGAIN, AND TO ALL THE PUBLIC THAT IS ASKING A LOT OF QUESTIONS, GIVING A LOT OF COMMENTS.
I ACTUALLY HAD A VERY SMALL INTIMATE TOWN HALL WITH SOME KEY CONSTITUENTS IN DISTRICT 6, AND THE SAME THINGS WERE SAID THAT I MENTIONED LAST TIME, BUT I WANT TO GO OVER SOME OF THEM AGAIN.
UNDER HOUSING CHOICE PLUS ACCESS IMPLEMENTATION TABLE, WHICH IS SECTION 4:8-9.
I'M GOING TO REITERATE, WE HAVE TO PRESERVE THE SUBJECTIVE NUMBER 8, WHICH IS TO PRIORITIZE THE DEVELOPMENT OF DISPLACEMENT MITIGATION OVERLAY FOR USE IN AREAS FACING SIGNIFICANT RISK OF DISPLACEMENT.
I THINK IF WE REALLY HONE IN ON THAT, I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ALSO WERE SAYING AT THE BEGINNING, ANDREA, IS, THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE AREN'T UNDERSTANDING AS FAR AS THE ZONING GOES.
THIS IS NOT A DOCUMENT THAT'LL CHANGE ANYTHING ZONING.
BUT THERE'S ALSO STILL A LOT OF WORRY OR FEAR THAT IF THE FORWARDDALLAS COMES THROUGH, THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN, STAFF IS GOING TO START RECOMMENDING CHANGES TO ZONING THAT SLIP THESE THINGS IN.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW THAT WOULDN'T HAPPEN OR WHAT IS THE PROCESS IN THE EVENT THAT, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE BIGGEST FEARS? I WANT TO MAKE SURE HOW DO WE USE IT IN THE PLAN SO THAT WE CAN'T JUST GO AND CHANGE SOMETHING FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
>> SURE. WELL, I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT STAFF HAS NO INTENT OF SLIPPING ANYTHING IN, WHICH IS WHY I WILL SAY THAT ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE PLAN IS LAID OUT THE WAY THAT IT IS, AND THERE'S PART OF IT THAT ON THE FLIP SIDE, I'M LIKE, MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE JUST MADE IT TEXT HEAVY.
IT IS A VERY TRANSPARENT DOCUMENT BECAUSE WE WANTED TO MAKE EVERYONE VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE, WHERE TO FIND THE INFORMATION IN THE PLAN.
I THINK PLANS IN THE PAST, BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN SO TEXT-HEAVY, YOU'VE GOT 400 PLUS PAGES TO SIFT THROUGH.
>> THERE'S NO INTENT IN THIS, BUT IT'S HARD TO FIND WHERE THE RECOMMENDATIONS ACTUALLY ARE AND WHAT THE LANGUAGE IS THAT'S ACTUALLY STATED.
WE'RE FINDING THIS FROM THE 2006 TO THE 2.0 PLAN.
BECAUSE TO BE PERFECTLY FRANK, AS WE'VE GONE BACK ONCE AGAIN THROUGH THE 2006 PLAN, IT'S A LOT OF THE VERY SAME LANGUAGE.
WE JUST HAVE IT IN A VERY CONCISE AND MORE GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF THAT LANGUAGE.
WHAT I WILL SAY WITH THAT IS I UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE CONCERNS ARE.
NUMBER 1, STAFF CAN'T MAKE ANY CHANGES ON ITS OWN.
WE ARE THE FIRST STEP IN THE PROCESS.
THEN IT GOES THROUGH CPC AND ULTIMATELY THE FINAL DECISION COMES TO CITY COUNCIL.
WHAT I CAN SAY IS WELL, I KNOW THAT STAFF HAS ABSOLUTELY BEEN LISTENING AND THAT THERE IS NOT THIS UNDERLYING INTENT FOR US TO RUSH OUT AND MAKE ALL OF THESE CHANGES TO NEIGHBORHOODS.
IT'S JUST NEVER BEEN THE INTENT AND IT'S NOT OUR INTENT MOVING FORWARD.
THAT'S WHY WE INCLUDED IN THE PLAN TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT IS THAT THERE IS NOT INTENT TO REZONE OUR SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT'S ADDED IN SOMEHOW OR SOME WAY.
IT'S POSSIBLE THAT MIGHT GIVE SOME COMFORT TO SOME FOLKS.
IT'S JUST AN IDEA. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD WORK OR NOT. I KEEP HEARING [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE HAVE IT IN THE DOCUMENT.
>> WE NEED IT IN WRITING. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DO IT, BUT IF IT'S POSSIBLE.
[00:35:02]
WE EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE DOCUMENT.
>> WILL YOU MAKE SURE THAT WE GET IT HIGHLIGHTED OR WHAT HAVE YOU SO WE CAN PASS IT OUT TO THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE OUT AND ABOUT WHEN THEY HEAR IT?
>> THANK YOU. THE NEXT ONE IN THE SAME SECTION IS I WANT TO ADD A NEW OBJECTIVE, WHICH IS TO PRIORITIZE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE FAMILY DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM TO ENSURE THAT NEW MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING UNITS, INCLUDING TOWNHOMES, DUPLEXES, AND TRIPLEXES, ETC, AND I'M GOING TO ADD IN THERE, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, AND EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS ARE APPROPRIATELY PRICED FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES.
I KNOW I MENTIONED IT BEFORE, BUT I THINK THIS IS A BIG KEY BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF DISPLACEMENT THAT HAPPENS.
YOU DID SAY IT EARLIER THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE PRICES, IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE VALUES AND ALL OF THAT.
BUT IF WE CAN PUT IN SOME TYPE OF A DENSITY BONUS FOR SOMEBODY WHO IS BUILDING AND LET'S SAY THERE IS AN AREA THAT MAYBE WE HAVE A CORRIDOR LIKE SINGLETON BOULEVARD, WHICH I TALKED ABOUT IN OUR LAST COMMITTEE MEETING WHERE RESIDENTS ARE OKAY WITH DENSITY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SINGLETON.
THAT IF WE CAN PUT IN A DENSITY BONUS THERE, THEN THAT WE'LL GET AFFORDABILITY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE'LL GET THE DENSITY THAT WE NEED AND WE'RE STILL PROTECTING THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS WHILE ALSO GETTING RID OF INDUSTRIAL LAND USES THAT NO LONGER FIT.
THAT'S THE BIG ONE. I'M NOT GOING TO STOP TALKING ABOUT THAT ONE.
IF WE CAN FIGURE THAT OUT, THAT'D BE GREAT.
THEN UNDER THE COMMUNITY AND URBAN DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION TABLE, WHICH IS 4:12-13, I'D LIKE TO ADD ANOTHER NEW OBJECTIVE UNDER THERE, WHICH IS DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE CITYWIDE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY TO ENSURE THAT ALL IMPACTED RESIDENTS, INCLUDING RENTERS, ARE APPROPRIATELY NOTIFIED AND ENGAGED IN NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
I THINK THIS IS PART OF THAT OUTREACH AND MAKING SURE PEOPLE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.
I MENTIONED IT BEFORE, WE DON'T HAVE A WAY FOR NON-LANDOWNERS TO BE INVOLVED OR TO GET NOTICED.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY CAN'T OR THEY DON'T, IF WE HAVE THIS AND WE CAN DEVELOP THAT PLAN, THEN WE CAN DO OUTREACH BETTER FOR MORE RESIDENTS.
MORE VOICES IS ALWAYS GREAT WHEN WE'RE WORKING ON ZONING AND ALL THESE TYPES OF PLANS.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ADD IN?
>> IT'LL ULTIMATELY BE UP TO THE BODY, BUT STAFF HAS NO ISSUE WITH ADDING THAT INTO THE PLAN.
>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. WHAT'S THE PROCESS WHEN THIS COMES UP? IS THIS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THE NEXT TIME WHEN WE HAVE VOTING OR [OVERLAPPING]?
>> EXACTLY. YOU MAKE A MOTION TO ADD IT INTO THE RECORD AND WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT.
>> EXCELLENT. MR. CHAIRMAN, I WILL BE MAKING THIS MOTION, BUT WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE TIME WHEN WE ACTUALLY ARE VOTING.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, WE'RE JUST HAVING A DISCUSSION LIKE YOU SAID.
THEN THE LAST ONE IS AND YOU MENTIONED IT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO EITHER AN AREA OR A REGION OR AN ENTIRE CITY OVERLAY FOR ALL HOUSING THAT'S ON INDUSTRIAL ZONE PROPERTIES, THAT WE CAN JUST GET ALL OF THESE FOLKS IN ONE SWOOP ONTO RESIDENTIAL LAND OR NEXT TO, WHATEVER IS DECIDED, WHAT WE THINK IS BEST FOR THEM SO THAT THEY CAN PARTAKE IN HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS AND SENIOR AND DISABILITY HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS.
BECAUSE THAT AS WELL, YOU HEARD MR. WEST TALKING ABOUT PRICES AND ALL OF THAT, WHICH HE WAS SPOT ON.
THANK YOU, MR. WEST FOR YOUR QUESTIONS AND YOUR COMMENTS EARLIER.
THIS IS ANOTHER AREA WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO HELP A LOT OF PEOPLE GET MONEY BACK IN THEIR POCKETS BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THE WRONG ZONING AND THEY DON'T GET TO PARTICIPATE IN THOSE TAX CREDITS THAT OTHER FOLKS GET TO HAVE AND THAT WILL HELP A LOT.
THEN AT THE SAME TIME, THESE FOLKS THAT ARE ON THAT INDUSTRIAL LAND, THEY'RE HELD TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD WHEN IT COMES TO SIDEWALKS AND STORMWATER, STREETS, EVERYTHING IN GENERAL.
THAT'S UNFAIR TO THEM AS WELL.
WE KNOW THEY'RE THERE, WE KNOW THEY EXIST.
A LOT OF THEM ARE IN WEST DALLAS, BUT I KNOW THERE'S SOME IN NORTHEAST, NORTHWEST, SOUTH DALLAS, SOUTHEAST, SOUTHERN DALLAS.
IT'S NOT JUST WEST DALLAS, IT'S ALL OVER THE CITY, SO WE CAN GET EVERYBODY AT THE SAME TIME.
I THINK THAT'D BE SOMETHING REALLY GREAT THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY DO.
OR COULD WE DO IT IN QUADRANTS OR SECTIONS, IF THAT MAKES THINGS EASIER THERE SOME WAY?
[00:40:02]
>> THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN RIDLEY.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO EXAMINE THE CONTEXT IN WHICH WE ARE DISCUSSING FORWARDDALLAS 2.0.
HISTORICALLY, IT IS PRESAGED BY THE ORIGINAL FORWARDDALLAS DOCUMENT FROM 2006.
THIS NEW 2.0 VERSION IS PROMOTED AS AN UPDATE OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, NOT DISCARDING IT AND NOT REJECTING IT.
THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL 2006 DOCUMENT THAT I BELIEVE SHOULD BE PRESERVED AND MEMORIALIZED IN THE NEW UPDATE BUT THEY ARE NOT.
I WILL IDENTIFY THOSE IN JUST A MOMENT.
BUT THE SECOND SOURCE OF CONTEXT FOR THIS DOCUMENT IS THE TUMULTUOUS SIX MONTH TRIP THROUGH THE PLAN COMMISSION HEARING PROCESS, WHICH CULMINATED IN THEIR LAST MEETING AT WHICH THEY MADE THEIR FINAL RECOMMENDATION, INCLUDING THE ADOPTION OF OVER 100 SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS WITHOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE OVERALL IMPACT OF THOSE CHANGES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF AN INTEGRATED DOCUMENT.
I THINK THAT WAS UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE IT WAS REALLY A FOCUS ON THE TREES RATHER THAN THE FOREST.
IT IS NOW OUR OPPORTUNITY TO FOCUS ON THE FOREST TO ENSURE THAT IT'S WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CITY AND BEST FOR ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS.
TO THAT END, I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE SOME CHANGES AND SOME ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DRAFT 2.0.
FIRST, 2.0 IS TOO EXPLICIT IN SOME DIRECTIVES AND TOO BROAD IN OTHERS.
I HAVE COPIES OF MY COMMENTS, WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO PASS OUT TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.
MY FIRST COMMENT IS THAT IT IS TOO EXPLICIT IN SOME DIRECTIVES AND TOO BROAD IN OTHERS.
THE LAND USE MAP, THE SUPPOSED INTENT IS MISSING, SUCH AS THE INTENT TO RECOMMEND MAJOR CORRIDORS FOR HIGHER DENSITY RATHER THAN INTERIOR TO SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, AS SHOWN IN THE ORIGINAL FD MAP.
THE 2.0 MAP DOES NOT REFLECT THE GENERALIZED LAND USE INTENT DESCRIBED IN THE NARRATIVE.
WE NEED TO HAVE A MECHANISM FOR IDENTIFYING WHICH IS THE PRIORITY.
DOES THE NARRATIVE RULE OVER THE MAP OR THE MAP OVER THE NARRATIVE? SECONDLY, SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ARE TOO DIRECTIVE.
WE SHOULD REMOVE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY TAKE ACTION AT THE STATE LEVEL TO PROMOTE GREATER HOUSING OPTIONS.
THAT IS NOT A STATE FUNCTION, THAT IS NOT A FUNCTION OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THAT SHOULD BE DONE SOLELY ON THE LOCAL LEVEL.
TWO, REMOVING DIRECTIVES FOR REZONING.
THREE, REMOVING DIRECTIVES TO ELIMINATE THE PARKING REGULATIONS.
THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF SEPARATE DISCUSSIONS AT ZOAC, WE HAVE YET TO RECEIVE RECOMMENDATIONS AND I'M NOT PREPARED TO INCLUDE THOSE IN FORWARDDALLAS UNTIL WE DO GET THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AND HAVE A DISCUSSION AT THIS BODY ABOUT THEM.
IT ATTEMPTS TO OVERSIMPLIFY AND DISTILL ALL LAND USES OF ALL VARIOUS AREAS INTO GRAPHIC DOTS THAT DO NOT INDICATE PRIORITIES OR APPROPRIATENESS OF VARIOUS SECONDARY OR PRIMARY LAND USES OVER OTHERS.
THIS RESULTS IN AN EVERYTHING IS ALLOWED EVERYWHERE PROPOSITION.
THE TERM SECONDARY IS TOO BROAD AND TOO VAGUE.
THE MATRIX EQUALLY PROPOSES ALL OF THE FOLLOWING SECONDARY USES IN CR AREAS, MULTIFAMILY OF ANY SIZE, MIXED USE OF ANY SIZE, RETAIL, LODGING, OFFICE, AND RESTAURANTS.
THERE IS NO SYMBOL TO INDICATE BY SUP ONLY TO ALLOW INDIVIDUALIZED EXAMINATION OF APPROPRIATENESS.
THE MATRIX IS TOO BROAD TO BE A USEFUL TOOL.
THERE WAS NONE IN ORIGINAL DALLAS 2006 AND IT SHOULD BE ELIMINATED.
FORWARDDALLAS 2.0 PLACES THE BURDEN OF HIGHER DENSITY ON SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.
THROUGH REDEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS, 2.0 INCENTIVIZES REMOVING MUCH NEEDED, NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND
[00:45:04]
INCENTIVIZES DISPLACEMENT OF OUR FAMILIES WHO LIVE IN THOSE HOMES.2.0 MUST FULLY CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES AND HUMAN IMPACTS THAT REDEVELOPMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS WOULD HAVE.
SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS SERVE WELL TO PROVIDE IN-DEMAND HOUSING TO THE OVERALL HEALTHY MIX OF DALLAS HOUSING OPTIONS.
FORWARDDALLAS SHOULD NOT SACRIFICE ONE HOUSING TYPE FOR ANOTHER WHEN DALLAS HAS RESOURCES TO ADDRESS HOUSING NEEDS OTHER THAN IMPACTING SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.
STAFF SHOULD PREPARE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS THAT DO NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT OR INCENTIVIZE THE REMOVAL OF NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND DISPLACEMENT OF FAMILIES.
FORWARDDALLAS 2 SHOULD CHANNEL HIGHER DENSITY TO APPROPRIATE AREAS, PROVIDING AN EMPHASIS, PRIORITIZATION, FOCUSED RECOMMENDATIONS, INCENTIVES, AND TRACKING OF HOUSING DENSITY AND GOALS IN AND AROUND SUITABLE DART STATIONS IN AND NEAR DOWNTOWN FOR HOUSING OPTIONS THROUGH ADAPTIVE REUSE.
COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS OF THE 3,600 UNTAPPED AND UNDEVELOPED ACRES IN DALLAS AND CITY-HELD UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES.
FINALLY, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ALONG MAJOR ROAD CORRIDORS, THAT'S A MAJOR EMISSION OF 2.0, DOES NOT IDENTIFY THE OPPORTUNITIES ALONG THOSE ROAD CORRIDORS.
NEXT, 2.0 SHOULD ADDRESS AFFORDABILITY AS THE MOST CRITICAL HOUSING NEED.
2.0 PROPOSES AND PROMOTES INFILL IN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WILL IN EFFECT DUE TO LAND AND STRUCTURE VALUES, TARGET THE MOST AFFORDABLE PROPERTIES FOR DEMOLITION AND REPLACEMENT BY LESS AFFORDABLE SOLUTIONS.
AS SUCH, IT CURRENTLY ACTS AS A DISPLACEMENT TOOL.
2.0 SHOULD PROVIDE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROGRAMS TO INCENTIVIZE RETAINING NATURALLY OCCURRING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACROSS THE CITY AND GUARD AGAINST DISPLACEMENT IN ALL AREAS OF THE CITY.
WE SHOULD EDIT THE LOCATIONAL STRATEGY LANGUAGE FOR THE CR PLACE TYPE.
WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT OF DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES IS PROPOSED, THIS IS THE LANGUAGE I SUGGEST, CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF LOCATION, NEIGHBORHOOD FEEDBACK, AND EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER IS ESSENTIAL.
PROPERTIES NEAR PUBLIC TRANSIT STATIONS AND LONG CORRIDORS, TRANSITION AREAS BETWEEN NON-RESIDENTIAL AND EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS, FORMER CIVIC INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTIES, AND DERELICT SHOPPING CENTERS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR ADDING THESE ALTERNATIVE BUILDING HOUSING TYPES.
REZONING INDIVIDUAL SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, ESPECIALLY MIDBLOCK, IS GENERALLY DISCOURAGED.
TEARING DOWN EXISTING HOUSING FOR REPLACEMENT AND INCOMPATIBLE INFILL IS NOT ENCOURAGED BY THIS PLAN, PARTICULARLY IN AREAS AT RISK OF DISPLACEMENT.
PRESERVING EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IS VITAL TO MINIMIZE THE DISPLACEMENT OF EXISTING RESIDENTS, PARTICULARLY IN AREAS SUBJECT TO DISPLACEMENT.
NOW, ON TO THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE IN THE 2006 DOCUMENT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE CARRIED OVER TO THIS DOCUMENT.
THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN DALLAS IS REFLECTED IN THE QUALITY OF ITS NEIGHBORHOODS.
FORWARDDALLAS IS DESIGNED TO SPECIFICALLY PROTECT EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS, BUILD NEW WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOODS, AND IDENTIFY AND SUPPORT NEIGHBORHOODS IN NEED OF REHABILITATION.
IT IS VITAL THAT IN STABLE NEIGHBORHOODS, DEVELOPERS IN THE CITY CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE LOCAL COMMUNITY TO DETERMINE WHAT CHANGES ARE WELCOME AND APPROPRIATE, IMPROVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSING.
DALLAS HAS A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF RENTAL HOUSING, ESPECIALLY CONCENTRATED IN LARGE APARTMENT COMPLEXES.
BASED ON PUBLIC RESEARCH AND COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS, THERE IS AN UNMET DEMAND FOR MORE HOME OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY, INCLUDING TRADITIONAL SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, AS WELL AS TOWNHOUSES AND CONDOMINIUMS IN PREDOMINANTLY MIXED USE AREAS NEAR JOBS AND SHOPPING CENTERS.
IT SHOULD BE BROUGHT FORWARD FROM THE ORIGINAL FORWARDDALLAS DOCUMENT TO THE CURRENT ONE.
I DON'T THINK THOSE ARE CONTROVERSIAL.
THEY ARE UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES THAT WE SHOULD MEMORIALIZE IN THIS LATEST DRAFT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
>> DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM BAZALDUA.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU ALL FOR Y'ALL'S PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU ALL ALSO FOR Y'ALL'S HARD WORK ON THIS.
THIS IS IT'S RARE TO HAVE AN ITEM THAT WE'VE SEEN TWICE IN ONE MONTH AND ONE COMMITTEE.
I KNOW THAT WE'VE GOT A LOT OF WORK TO GET DONE, BUT WE'VE ALSO HAD A LOT OF WORK PUT INTO THIS.
THAT'S WHY I WAS WANTING TO FIND SOME COMPROMISE.
[00:50:01]
I'VE BEEN TRYING TO LOOK AT WHERE THERE COULD BE OPPORTUNITY FOR COMPROMISE.I GUESS I'LL START WITH CAN Y'ALL ARTICULATE WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO HAVE HEARD BE THE PRIMARY OPPOSITION TO THE PASSING OF FORWARDDALLAS 2.0 AS PRESENTED? Y'ALL HAVE BEEN OUT IN THE COMMUNITY, Y'ALL DONE THE ROAD SHOW ACROSS THE CITY, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM Y'ALL ON HONING IN ON A COUPLE OF BULLET POINTS THAT SEEM TO BE THE CLEAR CONSENSUS OF WHERE OPPOSITION LIES.
>> I WILL BE FRANK. A LARGE PART OF THE OPPOSITION LIES IN MISINFORMATION.
THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE SAID, FORWARDDALLAS RECOMMENDS PUTTING APARTMENTS ON EVERY SINGLE PROPERTY IN THE CITY, AND IT IS JUST NOT TRUE.
IT MAKES NO RECOMMENDATION TO DO THAT, NOR WAS THAT EVER THE INTENT, NOR WOULD WE EVER RECOMMEND THAT.
I THINK A BIG PART OF THE OPPOSITION IS BASED ON A MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THIS PLAN ACTUALLY SAYS, AND IT HAS BEEN A VERY STRATEGIC CONTINUOUS CAMPAIGN TO CONTINUE THAT NARRATIVE, AND IT'S FRUSTRATING.
CLEARLY, YOU CAN HEAR FROM MY RESPONSE BECAUSE IT'S NOT SOUND PLANNING AND IT NEVER WAS THE INTENT OF THIS PLAN.
IN FACT, THE LANGUAGE FROM 2006 IS ACTUALLY MORE EXPLICIT ABOUT ALLOWING SMALL APARTMENTS IN OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
FORWARDDALLAS DOES NOT DO THIS.
NOW, IF WE GET AWAY FROM THE MISINFORMATION, WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT I THINK A LOT OF THE CONCERN WAS, AND JUSTIFIABLY SO, IS THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE WILLING TO THINK ABOUT DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES, BUT THEY'RE SO DISTRACTED BY REALLY TERRIBLE DESIGN THAT THEY'RE SEEING, THAT IT IS PROBLEMATIC FOR ANY PART OF THE CITY IS THAT WE DO NOT HAVE UPDATED STANDARDS TO ADDRESS COMPATIBLE HOUSING TYPES THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
EVEN IF HOWEVER WE WANTED TO PURSUE THAT.
I THINK WE HAVE REALLY BAD EXAMPLES OF DUPLEXES, WE HAVE REALLY BAD EXAMPLES OF TOWN HOUSES, AND SO WHEN WE THINK OF OUR OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS AND SOME OF THE AREAS THE NEWER, YOU HAVE A LOT OF REALLY GOOD EXAMPLES AND YOU DON'T EVEN NOTICE.
YOU GO THROUGH SOME OF OUR AREAS AND YOU'RE, OH, WOW, THAT IS A DUPLEX.
OH, THAT IS A FOURPLEX BECAUSE THEY'RE SO WELL DESIGNED.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE'VE MOVED AWAY FROM THAT, AND SO I THINK THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE THAT CONCERN ABOUT THE DESIGN.
I'D BE WILLING TO CONSIDER A LITTLE SOMETHING, BUT I NEED ASSURANCES ABOUT WHAT THAT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE.
I THINK THAT'S A BIG ISSUE WITHIN THIS PLAN AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU. I ACTUALLY HAD THE SAME BULLET POINTS, DESIGN STANDARDS AND MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE MIDDLE OF SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.
THAT SEEMS TO BE THE CLEAR CONSENSUS OF WHERE OPPOSITION LIES.
NOW, I ASKED IN OTHER WAYS WITH HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLES LAST TIME WE MET BUT CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THOSE TWO BULLET POINTS, THE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, NO ONE'S ARGUING WITH THAT, IT'S 100% NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED, IN ADDITION TO SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS BEING OVERRUN BY MULTIFAMILY, WITH THIS FEAR MONGERING HYPOTHETICALS, CAN YOU GIVE ME WITH THOSE TWO, THE SCENARIO OF IF WE WERE TO PASS FORWARDDALLAS 2.0 AS PRESENTED TODAY, HOW THOSE ARE IMPACTED? BUT I ALSO WANT YOU TO ANSWER THE QUESTION WITH THE CONTEXT OF IF WE DON'T, AND IF WE WERE TO JUST KILL IT, THROW IT OUT RIGHT NOW, DO NOTHING, KEEP 2006, GIVE ME THE COMPARISON OF WHAT THESE TWO BULLET POINTS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS FROM THE LOUDEST VOICES IN THE ROOM, HOW ARE THEY ADDRESSED?
>> I WOULD SAY LARGELY WE DON'T ADDRESS THEM.
IF WE DON'T PASS THE HOUSING COMPONENT IN THIS WITH A LOT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE INCLUDED, WE MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO.
WE'RE NOT PURSUING DESIGN STANDARDS AND OVER BECAUSE BASICALLY WHAT WE WOULD BE SAYING IS EVERYTHING'S FINE.
THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES IT NOT FINE IS THIS PLAN.
THEN IF WE DON'T PASS IT, THEN WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO.
WE HAVE NO ISSUES IN OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
THERE'S NO DESIGN ISSUES, THERE'S NO LOCATIONAL ISSUES, AND WE HAVE GUIDANCE RIGHT NOW THAT SAYS, WE NEED DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES THROUGHOUT OUR CITY.
[00:55:01]
THAT VERY STRINGENT LOCATIONAL CONDITIONAL LANGUAGE IN THIS PLAN THAT SAYS WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT.WE DON'T HAVE THE DISPLACEMENT MITIGATION OVERLAY LANGUAGE IN THIS PLAN THAT SAYS WE NEED TO ADDRESS THIS.
WE HAVE LANGUAGE IN HERE ABOUT WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING TEAR DOWNS AND REBUILDS TO DESTABILIZE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
WE HAVE LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT RECOGNIZES THAT NOT ALL PARTS OF THE CITY ARE THE SAME, AND WE NEED TO BE CONSCIOUS OF THAT. NONE OF THAT EXISTS.
NOW, TO COUNCIL-MEMBER RIDLEY'S POINT, IF WE NEED TO BEEF UP AND BE MORE EXPLICIT ABOUT SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN HERE TO BE MORE CLEAR ABOUT INTENT, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY SPACE TO DO THAT.
BUT AGAIN, IF WE JUST GO BACK TO 2000, AND WE CAN DO THAT, WE CAN JUST SAY RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS DEFER TO 2006.
THEN WE FOCUS ON OUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AREAS, WHICH HONESTLY IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO ANYWAY.
>> A 100%. WELL, TO BE FRANK, I'M TIRED OF MY MOST VULNERABLE RESIDENTS BEING HELD HOSTAGE TO SOME OF THE MOST AFFLUENT OR PRIVILEGED WHO ARE ARGUING A FIGHT THAT KEEPS US FROM BRINGING IN RELIEF FOR THE COMMUNITIES WHO HAVE BEEN, IN MY OPINION, FAR MORE PLAGUED BY THE SYSTEMIC ISSUES THAT WE HAVE WITH ZONING IN OUR CITY.
WHEN YOU SPOKE TO, WE CAN STAY TO KEEP 2006, LET'S KEEP 2006, AND LET'S SAY THE RESIDENTIAL, THE YELLOW, IF YOU WILL, THAT WE CAN REFER TO IN THE PLAN AS PRESENTED, IS WHAT IS A USE? TELL ME WHAT A USE IS FOR IT? WE'RE DOING NOTHING TO IT, BUT WITH 2006, WITH ALL OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WE'RE ALREADY TRYING TO QUOTE UNQUOTE, SAVE, WHAT CAN BE USED IN PRIMARY USE THAT STILL HAS TO GO THROUGH ZONING, BUT WHAT IS ALREADY ACCEPTABLE?
>> THIS BUILDING BLOCK, RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS BUILDING BLOCK IS DESIGNED TO BE PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL WITH SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND SOME LOWER DENSITY MULTIFAMILY HOUSING OPTIONS.
>> YOU MEAN THAT MISSING MIDDLE THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS WHOLE TIME?
>> YEAH, THIS AREA COULD INCLUDE SMALL INDIVIDUAL APARTMENT BUILDINGS, AND CONDOS, TOWN HOMES, AND SMALL AND MEDIUM AND LARGE-SIZED SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE ARGUING ABOUT NOTHING.
LITERALLY ARGUING ABOUT NOTHING, AND SO I HONESTLY THINK THAT AGAIN, MY RESIDENTS IN JOPPEE SPECIFICALLY, WHO WILL BENEFIT GREATLY FROM THE PLAN THAT'S BEING PRESENTED, I DON'T BELIEVE SHOULD BE COMPROMISED.
BUT THE REALITY IS, IF WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD AND JUST KEEP THE HOUSING COMPONENT OUT OF WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED, WE'RE ACCOMPLISHING NOTHING FROM THOSE LOUDEST VOICES.
WE'RE ACCOMPLISHING NOTHING FROM THE CONTROVERSY THAT HAPPENS.
IF THAT'S REALLY WHERE WE WANT TO BE, I'D BE OKAY WITH THAT.
BUT I WANT TO ASK IF YOU CAN JUST DIFFERENTIATE WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE VERSUS IF WE WERE TO PUT A RECOMMENDATION FORWARD TO PASS IT BY JUST REMOVING DUPLEX, TRIPLEX, AND TOWN HOMES FROM OUR PRIMARY USE WITHIN COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL, THAT PLACE TYPE ESSENTIALLY ONLY HAVING SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED AS THE PRIMARY USE.
EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THAT HAS BEEN CONTROVERSIAL, BEING IN THE SECONDARY USE, EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE IF THAT WERE TO BE WHAT IS PASSED VERSUS 2006 STATUS QUO.
>> IF WE WENT THAT APPROACH, I THINK IT'S LARGELY PRACTICALLY HOW THINGS PLAY OUT TODAY AND INTO THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT.
IT IS A QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE SAYING THAT THERE IS HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY.
THERE'S STILL SCRUTINY FOR DUPLEXES, TOWNHOUSES, AND TRIPLEXES.
THERE'S STILL ALL THE SCRUTINY IN THE TEXT THAT WE TALK ABOUT.
BUT IF WE MOVE IT TO SECONDARY, IT'S EVEN FURTHER HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY.
IF THAT MAKES EVERYONE FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE TO HAVE THE SECOND LAYER OF HEIGHTENED-HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY, WE WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT IF IT PROVIDES GREATER COMFORT OF INTENT [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'LL GO TO A SECOND ROUND. MAYOR PRO TEM.
I'LL GO TO A SECOND ROUND, BUT I WANT TO JUST EMPHASIZE THAT YOU SPEAK OFTEN ABOUT A TALE OF TWO CITIES.
YOU'VE SEEN THIS FOR ALMOST TWO DECADES IN OUR CITY.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS DECISION, THE LAST THING THAT I WANT TO DO IS FOR US TO CONTINUE TO PERPETUATE A TALE TWO CITIES.
IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE CLEAR DECISIONS TO MAKE THAT WE CAN DECIPHER BETWEEN WHAT WOULD ACCOMPLISH THAT PERPETUATION OR WHAT WOULD NUANCE AND GIVE A COMPROMISE.
POLICY MAKING SHOULD NEVER BE ZERO-SUM, AND THAT'S WHAT THE ARGUMENT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME.
I WILL WAIT FOR MY SECOND ROUND TO KEEP IN WITH QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
[01:00:07]
>> I'M SORRY. I'VE BEEN SITTING IN THIS SPACE FOR THREE HOURS AND I HAVE MORE TO GO.
IF I SEEM A LITTLE DISORIENTED, I COULD BE.
I'M GOING TO PICK UP WHERE COUNCIL-MEMBER BAZALDUA LEFT OFF, AND IF WE MOVE THE TRIPLEX, DUPLEX, AND TOWN-HOMES TO SECONDARY USE, YOU AND I HAD A CONVERSATION LAST TIME WE MET ABOUT SECONDARY USE, AND YOU WALKED ME THROUGH YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS.
THE CONCLUSION WAS THOUGH THAT IT WAS STILL A SUBJECTIVE CALL ON A PLANNER'S PART, AND SO IN ALL OF THIS, MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS NEIGHBORHOOD FEEDBACK, AND I APPRECIATE IT, COUNCIL-MEMBER RIDLEY NOTING THAT AS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT.
WHERE WOULD THE NEIGHBORHOOD FEEDBACK PLAY OUT IN A REQUEST? AT THIS POINT, YOU'RE RIGHT, WE STILL HAVE TO DO THE ZONING CHANGE.
THAT'S WHEN THE PLANNER COMES IN AND BEGINS THEIR ANALYSIS OF LET'S SAY A STRIP OF HOMES.
I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE A STREET BECAUSE THAT WILL GET EVERYBODY WORRIED [LAUGHTER] NEVER MIND.
AN IMAGINARY MAIN STREET, USA, BUT IT'S RESIDENTIAL, AND WE COME THROUGH AND WE'RE READY TO CHANGE THAT TO TOWN HOMES.
WHAT HAPPENS? WHEN DOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD FEEDBACK PLAY COME IN? BECAUSE HERE'S SOMETHING I'VE EXPERIENCED OVER AND OVER, IS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD FEEDBACK, WHEN I'VE BEEN ASKED TO COME AND WEIGH IN ON, LET'S SAY AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AT THE LAKE HIGHLANDS TOWN CENTER WAS VERY LATE IN THE PROCESS.
I HAD THE ZONING CONSULTANT SAY TO ME.
I'VE HAD SAID TO ME MULTIPLE TIMES, "MRS. STEWART, WE'RE SO GLAD YOU'RE HERE, AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE HERE OUT OF THE GOODNESS OF OUR HEART.
THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT THAT WE COME AND ASK YOU THESE QUESTIONS." THAT IS A DAGGER IN THE HEART TO A RESIDENT.
I HAD A VALUABLE OPINION ABOUT WHETHER THE APARTMENT COMPLEX HAD A MAJORITY ONE BEDROOM OR TWO BEDROOM UNITS, AND I THOUGHT MY POINT WAS VALID BASED ON WHERE IT WAS PLACED, THAT IT WAS CLOSE TO A SCHOOL, THAT I THOUGHT THERE'D BE MORE FAMILIES, ETC.
ANYWAY, THAT'S WHAT I WORRY ABOUT, THE THINGS THAT I'VE EXPERIENCED IN THE PAST, THAT MY INPUT AS A HOME OWNER JUST AREN'T IMPORTANT.
YOU'RE GOING TO CHECK A BOX, YOU'RE GOING TO WALK THROUGH A PROCESS, BUT I WOULD FEEL LIKE I HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO IMPACT THAT.
THAT'S WHERE THE FEAR COMES FROM.
I KNOW THAT HAS BEEN USED BY PEOPLE, AND INFLAMED, AND ALL OF THAT, BUT THERE IS THE LEGITIMATE FEAR I THINK COMES FROM THAT EXPERIENCE OF CITY STAFF AND ZONING CONSULTANTS ARE CHECKING THE BOX OF GOING TO TALK TO THE COMMUNITY, BUT WE REALLY DIDN'T GET A SAY.
>> I ABSOLUTELY APPRECIATE THAT, AND I THINK THAT IS DEFINITELY AN ISSUE, AND I THINK WE HAVE A HISTORY OF MISTRUST THAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED OVER THE PAST HOWEVER MANY DECADES, THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON REPAIRING.
I THINK THIS ALSO LEADS INTO COMMENTS FROM CHAIR NARVAEZ ABOUT COMING UP WITH A STRONGER COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY IN DIFFERENT AREAS WHERE WE KNOW SOME OF THESE ITEMS MAY COME UP.
I'LL GIVE YOU A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES.
NUMBER 1, WHEN OBVIOUSLY WE'VE BEEN A LITTLE FOCUSED ON FORWARDDALLAS, BUT WHEN I STARTED, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT WE WERE WORKING ON IS AN UPDATED NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROGRAM.
PART OF THAT WAS IS BECAUSE HISTORICALLY IN ALL THE AREAS THAT I'VE WORKED IN, WE HAVE HAD REALLY STRONG COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT LINKED TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROGRAMS, WHICH IS THEN LINKED TO ANY ZONING CASES THAT GO FORWARD.
WE NEED TO MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION AND BRING THAT FORWARD.
THAT LEADS INTO WE'VE ALREADY GOT INTO THAT WE NEED TO BROADEN OUR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY AND WORKING ON THAT.
WE'VE ALSO WORKED WITH WE'VE BEEN TALKING WITH OUR ZONING STAFF, AND I THINK THIS IS ALSO ON TOP OF HOW WE EXPAND OUR NOTIFICATION.
BECAUSE IT WAS SURPRISING TO ME THAT WE DON'T AUTOMATICALLY INCLUDE WITHIN, THERE'S THE REQUIRED NOTICE AREA, FOR ANY ZONING CHANGE CASES, THAT ANY REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS WITHIN
[01:05:02]
THAT AREA SHOULD ALSO GET NOTICE OF THAT.YOU ALSO HAVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION LEADERSHIP THAT CAN DISSEMINATE THAT INFORMATION.
YOU'RE BROADENING THE PRONGS OF INFORMATION.
I THINK COUNCILMAN SCHULTZ, YOU BROUGHT UP IN THE PAST, AND I THINK OTHERS HAVE BROUGHT THIS UP, WHAT IF YOU DON'T OWN PROPERTY AND YOU'RE NOT DIRECTLY GETTING THAT NOTICE? HOW ARE WE DOING BETTER ABOUT THAT TO GET THAT INFORMATION ACROSS? I WILL ALSO SAY, EVERY TIME I TALK TO AN APPLICANT WHO COMES IN, I'LL GET A RANDOM CALL ABOUT, HEY, I WANT TO DO X, Y, AND Z.
IF I THINK, KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT A CERTAIN AREA OR A CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT TYPE, THE FIRST THING I ALWAYS SAY IS YOU NEED TO REACH OUT TO YOUR ELECTED APPOINT AND HAVE A CONVERSATION OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
FIND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THEM FIRST.
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S REALLY CRITICAL THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, THAT THAT CONVERSATION STARTS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
I THINK WE'VE ALREADY STARTED MAKING THAT HAPPEN IN PART OF THIS IS BUILDING STRONGER RELATIONSHIPS WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, AND A PART OF THAT HAS ALREADY STARTED IN THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK AREA, THE AREA PLAN THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING IN, WE'VE BEEN GOING BEYOND WHAT'S NECESSARY FROM A REACHING OUT AND NOTICING PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THOSE AREAS AUTOMATICALLY FEEL THAT THEY'VE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE PROCESS FOR SO MANY YEARS.
IF WE HAVE TO DO A LITTLE EXTRA, THEN THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO SO THAT PEOPLE CAN COME TO THE TABLE SOONER THAN LATER.
>> I THINK I WOULD ALSO ASK THAT WE PUT SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT WIGHTS IT, GIVES IT WEIGHT.
IT IS NOT A BOX THAT WE CHECK.
IT HAS AN IMPACT IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS.
>> THAT'S WHY I'VE COME TO LIKE SUPS, AND I KNOW THOSE ARE NOT POPULAR THESE DAYS.
BUT IN UPTOWN WHEN YOU LIVED ABOVE THE WHOLE FOODS, YOU HAD A BAR ACROSS THE STREET THAT WAS A NUISANCE DISRUPTING THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE.
THERE WAS NOTHING THAT THOSE RESIDENTS COULD DO.
I HAVE SEEN IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHERE RESIDENTS JUST LOSE THEIR VOICE.
I'VE SEEN IT IN THIS CHAMBER WHERE A COUPLE OF WOMEN WILL COME DOWN OR SOME PEOPLE WHO'VE JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT XYZ HAPPENING AND YOU'RE WONDERING WHY IT TOOK THAT.
>> I AGREE. I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
AGAIN, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO PROVE WHAT THESE THINGS CAN DO AND BUILD THAT TRUST.
AGAIN, I'M A PLANNER, SO I'M GOING TO SAY THIS.
FOR ME, PLANNING IS AN IMPORTANT STEP IN THE PROCESS.
TO GET EVERYTHING IN A PARTICULAR AREA AND GUIDANCE IN ONE AREA, PARTICULARLY FROM A CITY-WIDE PERSPECTIVE SO THAT WE'RE ALL AT LEAST PLAYING FROM X IF IT'S FIRST BASE.
THIS IS JUST FIRST BASE, SO THAT PEOPLE CAN SEE WHERE WE'RE ALL COMING FROM, BECAUSE WITH NO GUIDANCE, WE MAKE IT UP EVERY SINGLE TIME.
I THINK THAT IS PART OF THE CHALLENGE BECAUSE WE JUST CONTINUOUSLY DON'T GET SOME OF THAT BASELINE FOUNDATION STUFF IN PLACE, WHICH MAY NOT SEEM ALL THAT IMPORTANT.
IS THIS PLAN GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD? NO. BUT WHAT IT IS GOING TO DO IS REAL CERTAIN THINGS IN, PUT THINGS ALL IN ONE AREA.
AT LEAST IN THIS LITTLE AREA, THINGS THAT WE CAN CONTROL, WE HAVE A STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE, AND THEN WE GO FROM THERE.
THE LONGER WE DON'T HAVE THAT, THE MORE WE CONTINUE GRASPING AT STRAWS EVERY SINGLE TIME SOMETHING NEW COMES IN, AND THEN WE CAN'T WORK ON BASE 2.
BECAUSE WE'RE NOT WORKING ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS, WE'RE NOT WORKING ON THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THROUGH BASE 1.
THE MORE WE DELAY THAT, THE HARDER IT IS THEN TO GET TO THE OTHER STUFF.
>> THANK YOU, AND I'LL BE QUICK.
I'M HAPPY TO BE HERE TODAY, AND I DO HAVE ANOTHER PRESSING MATTER THAT AFFECTS OUR SINGLE FAMILY.
JUST QUICKLY, JUST MAKING NOTES.
I'M READING IN THE BEGINNING WITH THE STATEMENT SAYS, THIS IS IN RELATION TO ZONING SECOND PAGE.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SERVES MERELY AS A GUIDE FOR REZONING REQUESTS RATHER THAN A MANDATORY RESTRICTION ON THE CITY'S AUTHORITY TO REGULATE LAND USE.
[01:10:01]
WHAT I'M LISTENING TO SOUNDS MORE OF A GUISE.THE PROTECTION THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR AS A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS I THINK IS A PROTECTION THAT I'M HEARING SOME TALK ABOUT THAT THE SINGLE FAMILY OWNERS ARE EXPECTING DALLAS TO LIVE UP TO.
SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY OWNERS CHOSE TO COME TO DALLAS BASED ON THE ZONING, AND I KNOW WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT WHAT IS NOT, BUT IN MY SPACE AND TALKING TO MY CONSTITUENTS, WHAT IS? THEY WANT THE DALLAS TO STAND BEHIND THE COMMITMENT TO SINGLE FAMILIES.
SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY OWNERS CHOSE THAT LOCATION BECAUSE THEY EXPECTED TO HAVE A SPACE WHERE THEY COULD MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR FAMILY.
IF THEY WANT TO RAISE CHILDREN, THEY COULD DO THAT.
THEY WANT SINGLE FAMILIES NEXT TO THEM.
I LIVE AND I CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE, AND I'M LISTENING, AND I THANK SO MUCH FOR TOM FORSYTH, WHO IS A NEIGHBORHOOD LEADER AND HAS A NEIGHBORHOOD SIMILAR TO WHERE WE LIVE.
WE HAVE QUITE A FEW NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR THAT HAVE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN THAT ARE BASED ON QUALITY DESIGN, WHERE WE DON'T HAVE COOKIE-CUTTER COMMUNITIES.
NOW, WE HAVE SOME, BUT I'M GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT THOSE THAT HAVE THE INTEGRITY THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO KEEP, AND IT'S ABOUT THE LEGACY.
WHAT I'M LISTENING TO, I COULD AGREE WITH AND WE'LL GET WITH CHAIR RIDLEY ON SOME OF THOSE POSITIONS.
BUT I THINK LONG TERM WHAT WE'RE SIMPLY ASKING FOR IS THAT THERE IS PROTECTION.
I'M LISTENING TO YOU ALL TALK ABOUT WHAT'S NOT AND WHAT WE CAN DO IN THE FUTURE, BUT WE'RE AROUND HERE NOW.
I'M GOING TO SPEAK IN GLEN, LET ME GO BACK TO GLEN OAKS, WHERE THAT WAS A CUSTOM-BUILT COMMUNITY BACK IN THE '50S AND '60S.
YOU CAN GO RIGHT NOW AND FIND A SINGLE PROPERTY OWNER THEY STILL OWN THEIR PROPERTY, 40, 50, 60 YEARS, AND THEY CHOSE TO BE THEN THEY CHOSE TO STAY.
BECAUSE WE HAVE INTEGRITY IN THE COMMUNITY, AND NO ONE, IF A LOT, AND WE HAVE A FEW HOMES THAT HAVE BURNED, NO ONE WOULD EXPECT TO HAVE A DUPLEX NEXT DOOR.
NOW, WHAT WE HAVE RUN INTO IN ONE OF THE STREETS AND BLOCKS IS THAT WE HAVE ONE OF THOSE MONSTROSITIES THAT POPPED UP THE BIG BOX HOUSE LIKE A JACK-IN-THE-BOX POP UP, AND WE'RE NOT HAPPY.
WE'RE GETTING THERE FROM OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS.
WE'RE SEEING THINGS SUCH AS PAINTING OF THE BRICKS, AND I HOPE I'M NOT OFFENDING ANYONE, BUT THAT'S NOT HOW WE WERE DEVELOPED AND DESIGNED IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S TROUBLING. AS A RESULT, WE ARE WORKING DILIGENTLY TO GET THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT, BECAUSE WE WANT TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
WE HAVE QUITE A FEW OF THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS.
I CANNOT TELL YOU HOW IT FEELS TO HAVE THE WORDS RECITED AND WE KNOW REALITY.
WE'RE FIGHTING RIGHT NOW TO PROTECT ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS.
NOW, FOR SOME OF THE NEWER NEIGHBORHOODS, MATTER OF FACT, I HAVE SOME DUPLEXES ON BECKLEY, BUT THAT'S AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD.
YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE THERE.
BUT FOR THE NEW COMMUNITIES, THAT'S FINE, BUT NO ONE WANTS TO ESTABLISH THE DISRUPTION OF THE MAKEUP OF THAT COMMUNITY, AND I CAN'T STRESS THAT ENOUGH.
WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW, I WOULD SAY THAT WE ARE RUNNING THE RISK OF SCARING FUTURE PROPERTY OWNERS OFF WHEN IT COMES TO DALLAS BECAUSE OF CONVERSATIONS AROUND THIS WHOLE ISSUE.
THEY'RE GOING TO BEGIN TO GO TO PLACES WHERE THEY HAVE SOME ASSURANCE THAT THEY WILL HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY DESIGNATION.
WE TALK HERE ABOUT WALKING TO THE PARK AND ALL THOSE THINGS.
THEY'RE GOING TO GO TO THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THEY CAN GET THE PARKS THAT THEY CAN WALK TO, THEY CAN HAVE THE BLOCK PARTIES WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS.
THEY'RE GOING TO GO OTHER PLACES OTHER THAN DALLAS.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT ALL OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN.
WE NEED TO HAVE SECURITY AND SOME ASSURANCE IN WRITING.
LET ME ASK THIS QUICK QUESTION.
I NOTICED YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE,
[01:15:04]
AND YOU TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE HISTORICAL ISSUES THAT WE HAD IN THE PAST AND TREATMENT OF PEOPLE.ARE YOU ALL WORKING WITH THE ATTORNEYS IN TERMS OF THIS PLAN?
>> IN TERMS OF THIS PLAN, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO FOR MYSELF, I WILL GET WITH THE ATTORNEYS BECAUSE I WANT TO LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE.
NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR, WELL, IT'S NOT A PRIMARY USE. IT'S A SECONDARY.
IF IT'S A SECONDARY, IT'S JUST LIKE ON A BASEBALL TEAM, THEN THE SECOND PLAYER HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME UP AND PLAY, AND WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE THE CHANCE OF A SECONDARY USE COMING TO A PRIMARY USE.
AM I UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY? IS IT A POSSIBILITY THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS A SECONDARY, IT'S NOT A PRIMARY, BUT IT CAN BECOME A PRIMARY? YOU'RE GOING TO TELL ME?
>> IT'S JUST NOT EXCLUDING THE POSSIBILITY.
>> WELL, THEN THAT MEANS IT'S A POSSIBILITY THAT IT CAN HAPPEN, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WELL, THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT.
MANY OF THE SINGLE FAMILY COMMUNITIES, THE ONES THAT WE DEPEND ON CAMPAIGN SEASON INPUT ON ISSUES, WE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES HAVE COME TO DALLAS, WE HAVE CHOSEN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FOR A REASON, AND WE WANT DALLAS TO LIVE UP TO ITS WORD.
COUNCILMEMBERS, AND I'M LIKE YOU, COUNCILMEMBER WEST, I SEE THOSE VALUES GOING UP, AND WE'RE LIVING WITH THAT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WE CANNOT GIVE UP THE CHOICE THAT WE MADE TO ADDRESS WHAT POTENTIALLY COULD AFFECT, I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT APPRAISAL VALUES.
THEY ARE HIGH, BUT I KNOW FOR SURE, I HAVE RESIDENTS WHO WOULD RATHER PAY THE PROPERTY TAXES THAN TO SEE A POP UP BOX NEXT DOOR TO THEM.
I'M GOING TO CLOSE BY SAYING THIS; DALLAS, WE STAND TO LOSE.
COUNCILMEMBERS, WE STAND TO LOSE.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE HERE FOREVER, AND WE NEED TO PUT A PLAN IN PLACE SO THAT THOSE WHO COME AFTER US IN THESE SEATS CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR DALLAS.
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.
I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT THERE. WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK.
THIS IS NOT GOING TO GET RESOLVED IN THE NEXT 30 MINUTES OR DAYS, BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK AND I HAVEN'T BEEN TO ALL OF OUR COMMUNITIES, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE EITHER.
BUT I REALLY WANT YOU ALL TO UNDERSTAND THIS, I WILL DO WHATEVER I HAVE TO DO TO ACCOMMODATE CONVERSATIONS AROUND THIS PLAN.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM CARRYING YOU ALL TO OUR COMMUNITIES SO THAT YOU CAN SEE WHAT HAS BEEN DONE TO OUR COMMUNITIES, ESPECIALLY IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR WITH THESE GREAT PLANS.
THAT'S WHY YOU CAN'T PICK UP YOUR TRASH IN THE BACK BECAUSE OF THESE GREAT PLANS THAT WERE CAREFULLY THOUGHT THROUGH.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS, CHAIR, I APPRECIATE COUNCILMEMBERS, THOSE WHO ARE LISTENING, I HOPE THE PUBLIC IS LISTENING, SINGLE FAMILY COMMUNITIES MUST BE PROTECTED AT ALL COSTS, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT ARE ESTABLISHED.
I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT LIKE THAT.
YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO, I'M GOING TO BE A COUNCILWOMAN OF MY WORD.
I'M GOING TO DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO PROTECT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, COMMUNITIES.
BUT MOST OF ALL, MAKE SURE DALLAS HAS A ROADMAP TO CONTINUE TO BE GREAT, AND PERHAPS WE'LL MOVE FROM NINTH TO NUMBER ONE, THE BEST CITY IN THE NATION FOR SINGLE FAMILIES TO LIVE IN.
>> CHAIR, WOULD YOU MIND, IF I READ A PORTION OF THE PLAN THAT HOPEFULLY CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THAT?
>> THIS IS PAGE 1.3. WE KNEW THAT THIS WAS AN ISSUE.
IT'S ON PAGE 1.3, WHAT THIS PLAN IS NOT.
THIS PLAN DOES NOT RECOMMEND A CITY INITIATED REZONING OF SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.
UNDER EXISTING ZONING CHANGES ALREADY COME TO COUNTLESS ESTABLISHED DALLAS NEIGHBORHOODS, FUTURE POLICY MAKING SHOULD BE SENSITIVE TO THE FABRIC OF NEIGHBORHOODS, PARTICULARLY THOSE WHERE LONG TERM RESIDENTS ARE AT RISK OF DISPLACEMENT.
[01:20:04]
SPECIFICALLY, FUTURE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES AND ZONING CONSIDERATIONS POST FORWARDDALLAS WILL REQUIRE A SEPARATE PUBLIC PROCESS THAT INCLUDES COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, CITY PLAN COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION, AND CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION.FURTHERMORE, TEARING DOWN EXISTING HOUSING FOR REPLACEMENT AND AND INCOMPATIBLE INFILL IS NOT ENCOURAGED BY THIS PLAN, PARTICULARLY IN AREAS AT RISK OF DISPLACEMENT.
THIS PLAN DOES NOT RECOMMEND A CITY INITIATED REZONING OF SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE GOING TO GO AROUND TO CHAD WEST.
JUST BE VERY COGNIZANT OF YOUR TIME.
THEN WE GOT SOME NON-MEMBERS HERE THAT I WANT AT LEAST GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE TO SPEAK.
>> IF YOU WANT TO GIVE YOUR TIME, YES.
>> THEN YOU NEED TO SPEAK THEN. GO AHEAD AND SPEAK, CHAD.
>> THREE MINUTES. JASON LOVE MY COLLEAGUE IN DISTRICT 4, MY BUDDY, BUT I WILL SAY YOU CAN STILL BE A FAMILY AND NOT LIVE IN A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOME.
AS WE THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE, WE TALKED ABOUT HOW SOMEONE MIGHT HAVE BEEN TALKING TO COUNCILMEMBERS AND THEY'VE LIVED IN THEIR HOME 50, 60 YEARS. I RESPECT THAT.
I'VE GOT A LOT OF NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE BEEN THERE IN THAT SITUATION.
WHAT ARE WE DOING TO PLAN FOR THE FUTURE? BECAUSE WHEN THIS LAND USE IS FINALLY PASSED AND WHEN ZONING STARTS HAPPENING, ISN'T IT CORRECT THAT THIS IS ADDRESSING THE NEXT 10, 20, 50 YEARS IN THE CITY?
>> IT IS. I UNDERSTAND OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS THE HOT TOPIC OF CONVERSATION.
BUT WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT, PARTICULARLY THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT THIS PLAN IDENTIFIED AREAS FOR CHANGE.
THEY WERE NOT THE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.
THEY WERE MANY OF THE AREAS THAT ARE, HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ISSUES THAT HAVE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY FOR CHANGE IN REDEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL.
IF WE CAN FOCUS ON THOSE CHANGE AREAS, WHICH A LOT OF THEM HAVE BEEN SHIFTED TO EITHER COMMUNITY MIXED USE OR NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE.
WE ALSO HAVE A LOT OF AREAS WITHIN THE CITY THAT WERE NEVER RECOMMENDED FOR, AND PARTICULARLY IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OR SOUTHERN AREAS THAT WERE RECOMMENDED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THEY NOW HAVE A COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL PLACE TYPE.
THE UNDERLYING ZONING FOR SEVERAL OF THEM IS INDUSTRIAL OR AGRICULTURAL.
WE HAVE A LOT OF PARTS OF OUR SOUTHERN PART OF OUR CITY THAT ARE ZONED FOR AGRICULTURAL USES, WHICH RUNS THE GAMUT OF WHAT YOU CAN DO.
BUT IF WE WANT SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERSHIP IN THOSE AREAS, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET IT IN AN AGRICULTURAL ZONE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET IT IN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE.
WE NEED TO GO IN THERE AND TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE DISTRICTS BECAUSE WE GET THE QUESTION ALL THE TIME.
WHY ISN'T SINGLE FAMILY BEING DEVELOPED IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR? WELL, THERE ARE A LOT OF REASONS FOR THAT, BUT ONE OF THEM MAY BE LAND USE AND ZONING.
>> TO GET US WHERE WE WANT TO GO FOR WHAT EVERYONE SAID, WHICH IS MORE HOMEOWNERSHIP, MORE PURCHASING OF HOMES FOR THE LONG TERM, WE'VE GOT TO HAVE A LAND USE PLAN THAT ADDRESSES THAT AND MOVES US FORWARD.
>> SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED IS NOT THE ONLY HOMEOWNERSHIP OPTION.
WE HAVE GOT TO THINK ABOUT, AGAIN, IF WE CAN CONTINUE TO BUILD, I DON'T THINK WE CAN BUILD JUST SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED AND WORK OUR WAY OUT OF THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE MOVING IN OVER THE NEXT COMING DECADES.
I CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY A HOUSE IN DALLAS.
MY CONCERN IS, HOW ARE NEW PEOPLE GOING TO LIVE AND HAVE HOME OWNERSHIP ON OPPORTUNITIES IN DALLAS? YES, DON'T TOUCH THE SINGLE FAMILY.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S THERE.
BUT HOW DO WE INTRODUCE SOME ADDITIONAL PRODUCTS IN THE APPROPRIATE AREA? NEW PRODUCTS IN THE APPROPRIATE AREAS WHERE YOU ALL FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH IT BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO BE THE ONES THAT ARE APPROVING THE ULTIMATE PLAN THAT ALLOWS HOMEOWNERSHIP TO MORE PEOPLE.
>> WELL, JUST TO CLOSE THE LOOP ON THAT, THERE'S TWO REASONS WHY IN MY OPINION, WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT MORE HOUSING OPTIONS.
ONE IS TO ADDRESS THE AFFORDABILITY ISSUE, THE OPTIONS FOR DOWNSIZING FOR SENIORS WHO MIGHT WANT TO MOVE INTO SOMETHING BESIDES A LARGE HOME OR FOR PEOPLE BUYING THEIR FIRST HOME.
THE SECOND IS PREFERENCE OF OUR UPCOMING MARKET.
HAS STAFF DONE ANY STUDIES ON WHAT MILLENNIALS WHO ARE GOING TO BE THE NEXT GENERATION OF HOME BUYERS, THEY ALREADY ARE, WHAT THEY PREFER?
>> I THINK THROUGH THE COMMUNITY, WELL, I KNOW THROUGH THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS,
[01:25:02]
THAT'S WHAT WE HEARD A LOT FROM THAT PEOPLE WANT MORE URBAN LIVING.AGAIN, IT'S JUST ABOUT PROVIDING THE CHOICES AND THE POSSIBILITY FOR THE CHOICES.
IT'S NOT MANDATING ONE THING, AND THIS PLAN DOESN'T MANDATE ANYTHING.
YES. YOUNGER GENERATIONS WANT TO HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES AS OTHER GENERATIONS, IT MAY JUST LOOK A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
>> I'LL CLOSE ON THIS, CHAIRS REELING ME IN.
THERE IS A DATA STUDY BY ZUO, THAT DALLAS SITES WHO HAVE TAKEN THIS SURVEY, 71% OF ADULTS SUPPORT ADUS IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS.
IT'S LESS, BUT 57% SUPPORT DUPLEXES AND TRIPLEXES.
THEN WHEN YOU GET TO THE MULTIFAMILY, IT GETS CLOSER TO 50%.
BUT THERE IS A MARKET AND APPETITE OUT THERE.
THEY MAY NOT BE EVERYONE IN THE ROOM, THE LOUDEST VOICES, BUT THEY ARE OUT THERE, AND THEY DO SPEAK THROUGH METHODS WHEN WE SURVEY THEM. THANK YOU.
>> HOW DO YOU WANT TO PASS AND YOU WANT TO SPEAK.
>> I'M GIVING IN THREE MINUTES.
>> YES, SIR. THREE MINUTES. I JUST WANT TO REITERATE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID DISCUSS.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE'RE NOT DOING IS THROWING THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER.
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.
THAT'S UNFORTUNATELY WHERE WE ARE.
WE HAVE LEGIT FEARS THAT IN MY OPINION, NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, THAT WE NEED TO TAKE MORE TIME ON THAT WE NEED TO NUANCE.
WE NEED TO EDUCATE BECAUSE THE MISINFORMATION AND THE FEAR MONGERING UNFORTUNATELY IS WHAT'S BEEN DRIVING THE FEARS OF A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE IGNORANT TO THE SUBJECT.
WHAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IS NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, THAT WE CHARGE STAFF TO BRING IN MORE ROBUST TOOLS FOR DESIGN STANDARDS.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE HEARD ACROSS THE BOARD.
AGAIN, JUST AS MY COLLEAGUE, MS. ARNOLD MENTIONED, IF SHE WANTS TO PROTECT SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, NOT PASSING THIS DOESN'T DO IT.
LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'VE HEARD THE CONTROVERSY BEING.
LET'S TALK ABOUT WHERE WE'VE HEARD THE CONTENTION, AND LET'S PROVIDE TOOLS SO THAT THERE ARE SOME GUARD RAILS, IF YOU WILL.
IF LOOKING AT THE FUTURE OF OUR CITY AND PLANNING THE LAND USE COULD BE DONE WHEN GUARD RAILS ARE PUT IN PLACE AND ALLOW FOR SOME OF THOSE FEARS TO BE PACIFIED, TO BE ADDRESSED, THEN THAT'S WHERE WE SHOULD BE MOVING TOWARDS.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN I'D LIKE TO SEE THIS ITERATION, IF YOU WILL, NOT GET HELD UP, BUT LET'S DRAW BACK A LITTLE BIT.
LET'S LOOK AT THOSE OPTIONS SO THAT WE CAN ADDRESS.
I THINK THAT THERE'S A GOOD COMPROMISE RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR FACE AND LOOKING AT THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY USES.
IF WE WERE TO MAKE THAT SWITCH, WE COULD STILL PASS FORWARDDALLAS 2.0 AND NOT IGNORE THE PROGRESS THAT WE WOULD MAKE ON TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENTS, NOT IGNORE THE PROGRESS WE WOULD MAKE ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, NOT IGNORE THE PROGRESS WE WOULD MAKE ON REVITALIZING SHOPPING CENTERS AND THE ARTERIAL ROADS THAT WOULD HAVE MAJOR BENEFIT.
I KNOW SPECIFICALLY IN DISTRICT 7 AND OTHER MOST DISTRICTS IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF OUR CITY WOULD BENEFIT GREATLY FROM THOSE COMPONENTS OF THIS PLAN.
I DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS GET DERAILED WHEN WE HAVE A LOT OF GOOD IN IT.
BUT BY MOVING THAT AND FOCUSING ON SOME CODE REFORM THAT CAN PROVIDE SOME OTHER TOOLS AND RELIEF MOVING FORWARD.
THEN WE CAN LOOK AT WHAT MIDDLE MISSING, MOVING INTO A PRIMARY PLACE GOING FORWARD COULD LOOK AT A LATER DATE, GIVE US MORE TIME IN THE COMMUNITY, GIVE US MORE TIME TO SPEAK AND EDUCATE THE CONSTITUENTS, BUT ALSO QUITE FRANKLY, SHOW THAT BY DOING NOTHING, WE'RE DOING NOTHING.
I THINK THAT THAT'S THE BEST LESSON AN EXAMPLE THAT WE CAN GIVE WITH WHAT'S BEING ASKED, BECAUSE DOING NOTHING ESSENTIALLY DOES NOTHING, AND THAT'S WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO.
WE NEED TO PROVIDE TOOLS FOR DESIGN STANDARDS.
WE NEED TO FOCUS ON WHAT WE'VE HEARD, THERE BE THE BIGGEST CONCERNS FROM, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT SHOULDN'T BE AT THE EXPENSE OF ALL OF THE OTHER GREAT WORK THAT THIS WOULD ACCOMPLISH FOR OUR CITY AND MOVING US FORWARD.
THAT'S LITERALLY IN THE NAME OF WHAT THIS PLAN IS, IS MOVING OUR CITY FORWARD.
ANYTHING THAT WOULD KEEP US STILL OR MOVE BACKWARDS, WE DIDN'T DO OUR JOB.
THAT'S WHAT THIS PLAN IS SUPPOSED TO DO.
I'M ASKING COLLEAGUES TO LOOK AT THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY USES AND LET'S FIND A TRUE COMPROMISE INSTEAD OF US WANTING TO BE A ZERO SUM APPROACH TO SUCH AN IMPORTANT DOCUMENT FOR OUR CITY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
>> COUNCILWOMAN, BLACKMON. [BACKGROUND]
[01:30:02]
BECAUSE I KNOW YOU ATTEND A MULTIPLICITY OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS.I KNOW AT LEAST IN DISTRICT 11 YOU PRESENTED WHAT WAS PROPOSED IN FORWARDDALLAS 2.0 FOR EACH DISTRICT.
DID YOU HAVE NEIGHBORHOODS WHO SAID, WOW, YOUR MATH IS WRONG ABOUT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE WANT SOMETHING DIFFERENT?
>> COUNCILWOMAN IN DISTRICT 11?
>> ANYWHERE. I'M SAYING ANYWHERE IN THE CITY, DID YOU HAVE NEIGHBORHOODS WHO SAID, WE DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU'VE GOT HERE ON THIS PROPOSED MAP.
WE WANTED TO BE SOMETHING ELSE.
>> MOST OF THE TIME, THOSE CLARIFICATION POINTS WERE, YOU'VE GOT THE STREET WRONG.
IT NEEDS TO BE, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD INCLUDES THE STREET AS WELL, OR IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THIS AREA AS WELL.
THIS IS ACTUALLY A DIFFERENT AREA THAN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT ESPECIALLY EARLY ON, WE HAD A LOT OF THAT FEEDBACK.
WE DO, AGAIN, WE DID GET PEOPLE COMING IN AND SAYING, NO, I DON'T LIKE ANY OF THIS BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE ANYTHING.
>> YOU DID GET SOME OPPOSITION OVERALL, BUT YOU DID YOU GET SOME THAT SAY, I DON'T WANT TO BE COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL, WE WANT TO BE SMALL TOWN OR WHATEVER.
DID YOU GET THAT FEEDBACK? DID THOSE MAPS CHANGE WHEN YOU GOT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FEEDBACK?
>> OH, ABSOLUTELY. WE'VE BEEN, WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE ITERATIONS OF THE MAP.
>> SINCE THEN, HAVE THERE BEEN NEIGHBORHOODS AS A WHOLE TO SAY, I DON'T WANT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE THIS?
>> I THINK THEY SAID, YES, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS YELLOW.
WE MADE SOME CHANGES WHERE WE SAID, THIS SHOULD BE BROWN, THIS SHOULD BE YELLOW AS IN, WE HAD SOME FEEDBACK THAT SAID, NO, LOIS GREENVILLE ENDS HERE.
HERE'S WHERE THE M STREET START, AND SO WE MADE THOSE CHANGES.
>> BECAUSE WHAT I'M HEARING, OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE ALL GETTING A TON OF OPPOSITION.
BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYONE SAY, YOU GOT MY NEIGHBORHOOD WRONG.
WHAT I'VE HEARD IS I DON'T WANT, I WANT A SINGLE FAMILY DESIGNATION, BUT NOT LIKE THE MAP IS WRONG.
INSTEAD, WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THE CONTENT OF FORWARDDALLAS IS WRONG, BUT OUR MAP IS IN TERMS OF RESIDENTIAL.
I WAS JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THAT.
MY SECOND QUESTION IS DIRECTLY TO THE POINT OF THE PEOPLE WHO WANT A SINGLE FAMILY ONLY DESIGNATION.
>> BECAUSE LAND USE, SO THAT ZONING.
A LAND USE PLAN PROVIDES A RANGE OF OPTIONS.
NOW, YOU HONE IN THOSE OPTIONS, YOU PROVIDE BUMPERS TO THOSE OPTIONS, AND THEN YOU PROVIDE CONTEXT TO THOSE OPTIONS THROUGH THE RECOMMENDED TEXT.
BUT, THAT A SINGLE FAMILY PLACE TYPE IS YOUR ZONING.
IF YOU HAVE YOUR SINGLE FAMILY ZONING, YOU BASICALLY HAVE YOUR SINGLE FAMILY PLACE TYPE.
I WILL SAY THIS THAT IT IS, SO IT'S ALMOST LIKE YOU'RE YOU'D BE DOUBLY SAYING NO AND NO TO ANYTHING ELSE.
>> I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO SOMEBODY WHO'S NOT DON'T PUT IT IN PLANNER.
HELP ME UNDERSTAND IT FROM LAWRENCE, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'VE GOT A WAY TO ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING, I'M NOT PUTTING IT DOWN ON ANDREA, I JUST WANT TO GET IT AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE, WHY WE CANNOT.
>> I GUESS THINK ABOUT IT AS LAND USE GENRES LIKE MUSIC GENRES.
TYPICALLY, WHEN YOU HAVE A MUSIC GENRE, YOU HAVE A PLETHORA OF DIFFERENT ARTISTS OR DIFFERENT TYPES OF SONGS THAT ARE WITHIN ONE PARTICULAR GENRE.
THE COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL IS A LAND USE GENRE THAT GENERALLY FOCUSES ON A PARTICULAR TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
WHEN YOU ISOLATE THAT GENRE TO BE ONE ARTIST OR ONE SONG, THAT'S DOUBLY SAYING THAT POP SHOULD BE JUST MICHAEL JACKSON OR SHOULD JUST BE ONE PARTICULAR SONG.
IT'S HIGHER LEVEL IN TERMS OF JUST PROVIDING A GENERAL OVERVIEW.
>> IF WE ADD A SINGLE FAMILY ONLY INSTEAD OF SAY COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL, WHAT WE WOULD BE SAYING IS THE ONLY THING THAT CAN BE THERE IS SINGLE FAMILY.
WE COULDN'T HAVE SCHOOLS OR PARKS OR CHURCHES OR ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS BECAUSE WHAT SINGLE FAMILY DOES IN A ZONING IS PROTECT THOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES.
IN ZONING, IT DOES PROTECT THAT.
THAT'S WHY SCHOOLS HAVE TO COME TO US WHEN THEY WANT TO CHANGE OR A PARK OR A COMMUNITY SERVICE BECAUSE IT'S PROTECTED AS SINGLE FAMILY, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THE ZONING TAKES CARE OF THAT PROTECTION.
>> I'LL GIVE YOU ONE MORE. MS. MILSON.
I GOT TWO MORE SECOND, WRAP ON.
>> LET ME JUST ASK ONE LAST QUESTION IF I MAY.
WHO IN OUR CITY GETS HURT IF WE DON'T PASS THIS?
>> DON'T PASS IT AT ALL? WE DON'T WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PLAN AT ALL.
>> WE DON'T MOVE FORWARD? WHO GETS HURT THE MOST?
>> LARGELY THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FOLKS.
WE ALSO DON'T GET THE TYPE OF RESIDENTIAL THAT WE SAY WE WANT? WE WANT MORE MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL.
WE DON'T GET THAT, OR AT LEAST WE HAVE LESS DIRECTION TO GET IT.
WE'RE NOT FOCUSING ON OUR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT.
[01:35:04]
THOSE ARE SOME OF THE KEY RECOMMENDATIONS COMING OUT OF THIS PLAN OR WHAT WE NEED TO FOCUS.>> THANK YOU. IS IT A POSSIBILITY THAT WE CAN VOTE JUST ON SECTIONS OF THIS PLAN? IS THAT AN OPTION?
>> IF THE PLAN COMES TO US AS JUST ONE ITEM, I'LL BE VOTING NO, AND IT WILL BE ABOUT RESIDENTIAL.
THERE IN MY OPINION, SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY NO SECONDARY USES FOR OUR RESIDENTIAL ITEMS, AND IT IS ACTUALLY BETTER TO DO NOTHING THAN TO DO HARM, WHICH IS WHAT I BELIEVE WILL HAPPEN.
I'M EXTREMELY TIRED OF OF THIS CONDESCENDING NARRATIVE THAT'S GOING AROUND THAT OUR RESIDENTS DON'T UNDERSTAND OR ARE MISCONSTRUING THIS DOCUMENT.
I ACTUALLY THINK THEY HAVE A MUCH DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE PLAN IS AND WHAT IT DOES THAN MOST THINGS THAT COME TO CITY COUNCIL.
WHEN THERE WAS A DISCUSSION EARLY ON BEFORE I HAD TO LEAVE, THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE ABOUT THE TAX VALUE OF SINGLE FAMILY AND THE VALUE OF SINGLE FAMILY TO THE CITY.
I'LL JUST SAY I THINK THOSE ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARE CONTINUING TO EXEMPT PROPERTY THAT'S ALREADY PAYING TAXES ON OUR CITY, AND I'M TALKING ABOUT PSCS AND SOMETIMES HSCS.
BUT WE'RE DOING THAT. WE'RE ACTUALLY TAKING IT COMPLETELY OFF THE TAX ROLLS FOR 75 YEARS.
WE CAN'T REALLY LOOK AT THE VALUE OF HOUSING IN TERMS OF ITS TAX REVENUE ONLY.
WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT SINGLE FAMILY IS IT'S OUR MOST STABLE PART OF OUR CITY.
ARE YOU AWARE OF WHAT THE HIGHEST CRIME RATE AREAS ARE IN OUR CITY? THE NUMBER 1 THAT DPD REPORTS EVERY TIME WE DO THIS PRESENTATION.
IT'S NOT JUST NUMBER 1, IT'S NUMBER 1 BY FAR.
FOR A COUNCIL THAT'S CONSTANTLY SAYING, PUBLIC SAFETIES ARE NUMBER 1, THIS COUNCIL KEEPS ADDING IN MULTI FAMILY HOUSING.
I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THAT PEOPLE DESERVE TO HAVE THE HOUSING OPTION THAT DOES INCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY ONLY.
WHEN I SAY SINGLE FAMILY ONLY, I MEAN PARK, CHURCH, SCHOOL INCLUDED.
THAT SHOULD STILL BE AN OPTION.
BY PUTTING IN THESE SECONDARY USES, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE REMOVED THAT ASSURANCE FROM PEOPLE.
WHAT YOU'RE ASKING RESIDENTS TO DO IS TO CONSTANTLY COME DOWN HERE AND FIGHT OFF A ZONING CASE.
ALL IT'S GOING TO TAKE ARE EIGHT VOTES.
EVEN IF THE COUNCIL MEMBER AGREES, AND MAYBE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS AGREE, YOU ONLY NEED EIGHT VOTES TO OVERRIDE THE WILL OF THE COMMUNITY, WHICH WE SHOULD BE REPRESENTING.
IF WE ARE NOT REPRESENTING THE WILL OF THE COMMUNITY, WE SHOULD NOT BE RE-ELECTED.
THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT OUR JOB IS TO BE THE REPRESENTATIVE.
THIS PLAN IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF AT LEAST MY COMMUNITY.
I'VE BEEN TO MANY OF THE OTHER FORWARDDALLAS MEETINGS.
I'M NOT HEARING A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR THIS PLAN.
THE NEXT THING, I WANT TO ASK YOU, IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION, AND I'M JUST GOING TO ASK THIS FOR YOU, ANDREA, DO YOU THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE IN A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD FOR ONE HOUSE RANDOMLY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO SWITCH INTO A DUPLEX OR A FOR PLEX?
>> I WOULD HAVE TO DO AN ANALYSIS ON THE AREA.
I WILL TELL YOU IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION, I DO NOT BLINDLY BELIEVE IN EVERY SINGLE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE.
THEREFORE, I HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL OF THE FACTORS, NOT JUST WHAT THE PLAN SAYS, BUT ALL OF THE OTHER FACTORS THAT IN MY PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY I TAKE A LOOK AT.
>> IF THE DUPLEX BLENDS WITH SINGLE-FAMILY, GIVEN THE PRESENTATION YOU GAVE IN DECEMBER, I'M TAKING AWAY THE OPINION THAT YOU WOULD SAY, THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM.
THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT BECOMING DUPLEX, IT'S JUST ONE HOUSE.
I AM NOT CLOSED OFF TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT THAT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE USE THERE.
>> MISS MELISON, ONE MORE QUESTION.
>> I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE FAIR FOR YOU TO VERY SUCCINCTLY EXPLAIN WHAT THE CRITERIA FOR THAT APPROVAL WOULD BE.
[01:40:01]
DOES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN INFORM ZONING?>> IT IS ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT INFORMS ZONING.
>> AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHY THOSE SECONDARY USES NEED TO COME OFF. THANK YOU.
WE NEED TO JUST BE CAREFUL HOW WE REFER TO OUR RESIDENTS, OUR CONSTITUENTS.
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE OUR STAKEHOLDERS HERE IN THE CITY WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THIS DOCUMENT.
IT'S A LOT OF EDUCATION THAT'S GOING ON.
JUST A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, MOST OF US, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ALL OF YOU ALL, BUT I DID SAY IT.
I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT THERE WAS A 2006 VERSION OF THIS.
ONCE I GOT THAT, THAT WAS THE KEY FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO EDUCATE.
THIS DOCUMENT, ALL IT DOES IS, IT'S TRYING TO SAY, HOW DO WE GET MORE DENSITY IN THE CITY? FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, ABSOLUTELY.
WE WANT TO PROTECT THEM, WE WANT TO KEEP THEM PROTECTED, BUT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO AT THE SAME TIME IS VERY LIGHT DENSITY AND THAT VERY LIGHT DENSITY GIVES DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITIES TO DIFFERENT FAMILIES, DIFFERENT PEOPLE, AND DOESN'T OVERWHELM A COMMUNITY, DOESN'T OVERWHELM A NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK WE'RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MAJOR CORRIDORS.
I THINK EAST DALLAS IS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HAVING A LARGE COMPONENT OF DIFFERENT HOUSING THROUGHOUT THAT WHOLE AREA, THEY HAVE VERY SMALL APARTMENT COMPLEXES, FOURPLEX, DUPLEXES, LOTS OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND SOME BIG APARTMENTS.
AT THE SAME TIME, I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE DONE ANY FOCUS ON THE BUSINESSES, THE COMMERCIAL, AS WELL AS INDUSTRIAL.
I KNOW WE'VE TOUCHED ON IT, AND MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE EVERYBODY JUST AGREES ON IT ALREADY.
BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS ALL TAKEN OVER BY SINGLE-FAMILY.
I'M IN THAT BOAT AS WELL, AND I THINK YOU'VE HEARD A LOT OF THINGS THAT I'VE ASKED TO HAPPEN BECAUSE THAT WILL PROTECT THE SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, WE CAN PROBABLY DO MORE, AND AT THE SAME TIME, IF WE GET THIS RIGHT, WE HAVE TO GROW OUR TAX BASE BECAUSE EVERYBODY SAYS THAT THEY DON'T LIKE THAT THEIR PROPERTY TAXES ARE GOING UP AND THAT THEIR LAND VALUES ARE GOING UP.
WELL, THIS IS HOW IT WORKS MAYOR PRO TEM IS THAT IF WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH HOUSING, IT GETS MORE EXPENSIVE [NOISE] BECAUSE IT'S NOW A PREMIUM.
BY BUILDING MORE HOUSING, WE DID CATCH UP ON APARTMENTS.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE STILL SHORT ON THEM, BUT I LIVE IN AN APARTMENT.
I'M A RENTER, AND I'M ONE OF THE 60% IN THE CITY THAT DOES NOT OWN THEIR HOME.
THERE ARE TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THIS BODY WHO DO NOT OWN THEIR HOMES, THEY RENT.
>> IS THAT A QUESTION? [NOISE] CHAIRMAN NARVAEZ.
IS THAT A QUESTION OR A STATEMENT? WE'VE GOT TO MOVE ON.
>> CHAIRMAN NARVAEZ, YOU GOT MUTED.
>> FOR HOME OWNERSHIP AS WELL.
[OVERLAPPING]. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS WE CAN DO.
[OVERLAPPING] LET'S REMEMBER THAT 60% OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE CITY ARE RENTERS.
IT'S NOT US VERSUS THEM OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THIS IS ONE DALLAS, AND WE CAN WORK ON THIS, AND LET'S KEEP WORKING ON IT.
BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY WE'RE GOING TO GET THERE MAYOR PRO TEM.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIRMAN
>> STAFF MISS GILLIS, YOU POINTED TO THE STATEMENT THAT THIS PLAN DOES NOT RECOMMEND A CITY-INITIATED REZONING OF SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS IN RESPONSE TO MS. ARNOLD'S COMMENTS.
WELL, THAT IS A NECESSARY STATEMENT.
IN THE ORIGINAL FORWARDDALLAS, SIX PAGES WAS DEVOTED TO GAL 7.1, WHICH WAS TO PROMOTE VIBRANT AND VIABLE NEIGHBORHOODS.
YOU'RE BASICALLY GIVING LIP SERVICE TO THE FEARS OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTS THAT THEIR NEIGHBORS' PROPERTY WILL BE REZONED AROUND THEM.
WHY DID WE DROP THAT GOAL OF PROMOTING
[01:45:01]
VIBRANT AND VIABLE NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?>> SO A COUPLE OF THINGS, I DON'T THINK WE'VE DROPPED IT.
I THINK IT'S PART OF THE CHARACTER DESCRIPTION.
I WILL SAY THIS FROM A LIP SERVICE PERSPECTIVE.
I THINK NOT BEING DIRECT IS MORE LIP SERVICE THAN BEING DIRECT AND DIRECTLY STATING THAT THERE IS NOT AN INTENT AT THIS PLAN FOR CITY-INITIATED REZONING, WHICH IS MORE DIRECTIVE AND CLEAR, THAN SAYING WE SHOULD PROMOTE VIBRANT NEIGHBORHOODS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS FROM AN ACTION STATEMENT.
THEREFORE, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IT IS SOMEWHAT INSULTING TO SAY THAT WE'RE GIVING LIP SERVICE.
I THINK IN THE CHARACTER DESCRIPTION, WE TALK ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I WOULD ASK YOU TO GO BACK AND READ THROUGH AND WE CAN PULL THROUGH ALL OF THIS LANGUAGE AND HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THIS KEY LANGUAGE BECAUSE I THINK A LOT OF IT'S IN THIS PLAN.
MAYBE WE HAVEN'T ISOLATED OUT, AND WE CAN SEE WHAT'S MISSING IN THAT LANGUAGE.
THERE'S NO REASON IF THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO ADD IN, WE CAN CERTAINLY PUT THAT LANGUAGE IN THE PLAN, BUT I THINK THAT THERE'S SOMETHING VERY COMPARABLE IN THE CHARACTER DESCRIPTION OF THOSE RESIDENTIAL AREAS TO THAT LANGUAGE.
>> THE REASON THAT IT LOOKS LIKE LIP SERVICE AND GIVES LITTLE SOLACE TO NEIGHBORHOODS IS THE IMPLEMENTATION STEPS, PARTICULARLY ONE, TWO, THREE, AND FOUR, WHICH ALL TALK ABOUT CREATING AN INFILL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, PROMOTING DIVERSE AND AFFORDABLE MIX OF HOUSING TYPES WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS.
PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT LANGUAGE BECAUSE THAT'S IN THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE.
LET ME SUBMIT TO YOU THAT WHAT YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH AS THE STAFF OF CREATING AN INCREASED OPPORTUNITY FOR DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES IS REALLY COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT, THE NEIGHBORS AND SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS ARE SAYING.
IT'S COMPATIBLE BECAUSE THEY MAY NOT WANT THAT MIXTURE OF HOUSING TYPES WITHIN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT THEY'RE NOT OPPOSED TO PUTTING IT IN OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY WHERE WE HAVE VACANT LAND AROUND TRANSIT STATIONS ON HIGH-SPEED CORRIDORS.
THAT'S WHERE THIS IS APPROPRIATE.
WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THE NEED FOR MIXED HOUSING TYPES CITYWIDE, NOT FOCUSING ON JUST SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.
AT THIS POINT, MR. CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE RESUBMIT THIS FORWARDDALLAS DRAFT TO THE STAFF TO INCORPORATE THE COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE TODAY AND TO REPORT BACK WITH A NEW DRAFT AT OUR NEXT MEETING.
>> I TAKE THIS ON CONSIDERATION. GILLIS 1 MINUTE.
>> THANK YOU. I CAN GO A STEP FURTHER AND SAY THAT I'D LIKE TO SEE THIS GO TO THE FULL COUNCIL FOR US TO HAVE THAT DEBATE BECAUSE THIS IS CITED AS AN UPDATE, SO THERE IS NO ACTION.
I JUST WANTED TO AT LEAST BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT COUNTER TO WHAT WE JUST HEARD.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, I ALSO FIND IT INSULTING TO SAY ALL YOUR WORK AND ALL YOUR GENUINE RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY CONCERNS IS LIP SERVICE.
I THINK ELECTED OFFICIALS USING THEIR BULLY PULPIT FOR FEEL-GOOD SOUND BITES IS ACTUAL LIP SERVICE.
WE ARE HERE TO MAKE POLICIES THAT ARE ALSO GOING TO BE HARD DECISIONS OFTEN.
THOSE HARD DECISIONS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO COME WITH A COMPROMISE AND ALL PEOPLE AND THEIR OPINIONS.
I THINK THAT IT IS EXTREMELY DISHEARTENING TO HEAR SOMEONE WHO REPRESENTS OUR CITY, FRAME SOMEONE WHO HAPPENS TO LIVE IN A MULTIFAMILY DWELLING AS SOMEONE WHO IS MORE PRONE TO CRIME.
WHEN WE KNOW WE HAVE A LOT MORE DATA THAT SUPPORTS CONCENTRATION OF POVERTY.
BECAUSE WE'VE GOT MULTIFAMILY AND MORE AFFLUENT AREAS WHERE YOU DON'T SEE THOSE CRIME DATA TO PUBLIC SAFETY.
IF WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING, LET'S TALK ABOUT IT WITH TRANSPARENCY.
LET'S TALK ABOUT IT FROM THE ROOT CAUSE OF WHERE IT IS.
IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE LIVING WITHIN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AND THAT'S JUST INEVITABLY GOING TO BRING CRIME.
THAT IS INSULTING, THAT'S CONDESCENDING, AND IT IS ELITIST.
OUR CITY IS MADE UP OF RENTERS, IT'S MADE UP OF HOMEOWNERS.
IT'S MADE UP OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS, IT'S MADE UP OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN MILLION-DOLLAR MANSIONS.
DALLAS IS A GREAT CITY BECAUSE OF ITS DIVERSITY, AND NOT ONE POPULATION IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER.
THIS CONVERSATION, THIS PLAN, CANNOT BE AN ATTEMPT TO PIN ONE DEMOGRAPHIC VERSUS THE OTHER.
THIS NEEDS TO BE ABOUT MOVING OUR CITY FORWARD AS A WHOLE.
NONE OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT I'VE HEARD IN OPPOSITION HAS THAT CONSIDERATION.
WHATEVER IT IS THAT THIS BODY DECIDES, I HOPE THAT IT'S CONSIDERATE OF EVERY RESIDENT, NOT JUST THOSE BECAUSE IT'S ELECTION SEASON, AS IT WAS BROUGHT UP HERE THAT TRADITIONALLY VOTE, NOT JUST THOSE THAT YOU CAN RELATE TO, BECAUSE IT'S WHO COMES TO YOUR HOUSE ON FRIDAY FOR A DINNER.
EVERY RESIDENT OF DALLAS NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED ON PLANNING THE FUTURE OF OUR CITY.
[01:50:04]
>> THANK YOU [APPLAUSE]. I'M JUST GOING TO CLOSE.
I KNOW WE GOT ANOTHER MEETING AND I THINK THANK YOU TO ALL THE COMMITTEE AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ON THE COMMITTEE.
WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS SINCE 2006, ALMOST 20 YEARS.
SOME PEOPLE SAID, YOU KNOW, WINE IS BEST WHEN IT'S AGED, BUT SOMETIMES IT GOES SOUR IF YOU AGE IT TOO LONG, DEPENDS ON WHAT THE GRAPES ARE [LAUGHTER].
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE GRAPES CAN'T ROT.
BUT THE POINT IS THAT FOR CPC, THEY HAD IT FOR 3 YEARS.
A RESIDENT DESERVES AN ANSWER WHAT IS BEST FOR THE RESIDENT AND FOR THE CITIZEN.
BECAUSE WE ARE LOOKING AT THE RESIDENT.
WE HAVE NOT EVEN GOT THE FIRST BASE YET.
WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE FIRST BASE, WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE ALL OF THE PROBLEMS, BUT WE ALSO GOT TO TO THE RESIDENT.
FIRST, I WANT TO THANK ALL THE RESIDENTS WHO CAME HERE TODAY.
IS IT THE FIRST TIME THAT THIS MANY RESIDENTS CAME TO A COMMITTEE.
I KNOW IT'S YOUR CONCERN BECAUSE YOU'RE A CITIZEN, YOU'RE A RESIDENT, AND YOU DO CARE ABOUT THIS PLAN.
IF YOU DIDN'T, YOU WOULD NOT BE HERE TODAY.
BUT WE DO HAVE ANOTHER COMMITTEE MEETING ON TUESDAY.
THIS WOULD BE ON MY NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING BECAUSE I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE QUESTIONS THAT CHAIRMAN NARVAEZ HAND OUT, THEY NEED LEGAL CAUTION, THEY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTION, GET IT TO THE STAFF, AND THE STAFF HAVE GUARANTEED ME THEY WILL HAVE YOU ANSWER THE NEXT MEETING.
THEREFORE, IF WE ARE ASKED TO GO TO THE FULL COUNCIL, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO GO TO THE FULL COUNCIL AGAIN.
THEREFORE, THERE IS NO EXCUSE THAT WE AS A POLICYMAKER AND THERE IS A STAFF WILL ADDRESS ALL QUESTIONS.
IF YOU HAD ANY MORE QUESTIONS, PLEASE GIVE TO THE STAFF, AND STAFF HAS SAID SOMETIMES THAT THEY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO CONTACT SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT HAVE NOT RESPONDED.
IF YOU DO TRY TO RESPOND IF YOU CAN.
IF YOU CANNOT RESPOND BACK TO THE COMMITTEE TO THE STAFF, PLEASE JUST SEND A MEMO, SEND A COURSE AND HEAR THE COURSE SO THEY CAN ADDRESS THOSE QUESTIONS.
>> CHAIR, POINT OF INFORMATION. I REQUEST, THAT THIS BE SET AS AN ACTUAL AGENDA ITEM SO WE COULD PUSH THIS FORWARD OR DECIDE NOT TO EITHER WAY AT THE MEETING.
>> WE CAN DO THAT FOR NEXT FOR THE NEXT ITEM.
>> BUT I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT CHAIRMAN NARVAEZ HAD A WHOLE LOT OF QUESTIONS, AND WAS A WHOLE LOT OF LEGAL.
THEREFORE, WHO IS THAT LEGAL ATTORNEY WHO YOU ARE WORKING WITH?
>> DANIEL, WILL YOU COME AROUND? EVERYONE KNOWS WHO YOU ARE BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE CHAIRMAN RIDLEY KNOWS WHO YOU ARE AND MAKE SURE YOU GOT HIS PACKAGE. NO PRESSURE.
>> WELL, I SEE BERT LURKING ON THE SIDE TO O.
>> BERT WANTS TO SLIDE? RUN IT TO, BERT.
IF ANY LEGAL QUESTION THAT YOU ALL HAVE, YOU HAVE TWO ATTORNEYS HERE, AND I KNOW CHAIRMAN RIDLEY DID HAVE SOME LEGAL QUESTION CONCERNS.
IF YOU HAD ANIMAL CONCERN, BE SURE YOU GET IT TO THOSE PARTICULAR ATTORNEYS AND TO THE STAFF AND THEY'LL GET IT BACK TO YOU.
>> CHAIR ATKINS, CAN I ASK THAT THE ANSWERS TO HIS QUESTIONS BE SHARED WITH EVERYONE?
>> YES. IT WILL BE SHARED TO THE WHOLE CITY COUNCIL, NOT TO THE COMMITTEE TO EVERYONE.
EVERY QUESTION, IF YOU'RE ON THE COMMITTEE, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS ALL THE QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
I KNOW IT WAS SOME QUESTION THAT CHAIRMAN RIDLEY WROTE AND THEY ANSWERED BACK TO YOU.
SO EVERY QUESTION THAT THE COMMITTEE ADDRESSED TO YA, I DID RESPOND BACK TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER.
MAKE SURE YOU RESPOND BACK TO ALL THE COMMITTEE AND ALL OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.
THEREFORE, ALL OF THE QUESTIONS THEY DID ADDRESS, YOU DID RESPOND BACK TO THEM.
THANK YOU FOR RESPONDING BACK TO THEM, BUT MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAVE THEIR ANSWERS.
WITH THAT, ANY OTHER QUESTION FOR THE LAST MINUTE? WITH THAT, AGAIN, THANK YOU, STAFF.
THANK YOU. THE CITIZEN, THANK YOU TO THE RESIDENTS.
WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE RESIDENTS, BUT ONE THING BEFORE I WANT TO CLOSE, ALL THE FALSE INFORMATION THAT IS AFTER, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT THE FALSE INFORMATION, HOW TO CORRECT THE CORRECT INFORMATION? PLEASE, STAFF WILL YOU ADDRESS THAT?
>> WE HAVE BEEN PRODUCING SEVERAL FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS, FACT SHEETS.
WE ARE CONTINUING TO BE AVAILABLE TO ANYONE WHO WANTS TO TALK TO US,
[01:55:02]
TO GO DOWN IN THE WEEDS LINE BY LINE ON THIS PLAN, ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ASK, AND HOW IT PROCEEDS.>> BUT ALSO, I KNOW SOME MISINFORMATION OUT TO THE COMMUNITY.
I THINK IN THE MARKETING TO THE MISINFORMATION OUT TO THE COMMUNITY, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT IN SOME KIND OF LITERATURE ON A NEWS LEVEL OR SOMETHING, SO YOU KNOW WHAT IS CORRECT, WHAT IS MISINFORMATION.
CAN YOU GET THAT DONE SOMETIME THIS WEEK TO GET OUT THERE?
>> NOW IT'S 1:10, THE ECONOMIC SPECIAL COMMITTEE COMMITTEE IS CALLED TO THEN ADJOURN.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.