Aug 09, 2023 City Council Agenda Meetings

I'D LIKE TO ASK STAFF, PERHAPS MR. PERKINS, TO GIVE A BRIEF, FACTUAL SYNOPSIS OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IN THIS CASE SO THAT WE CAN CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THIS MATTER.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER.

THE COMMISSION WAS ABLE TO ASCERTAIN WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND I HAVE TO SAY THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL DID A FANTASTIC JOB OF INVESTIGATING THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT AND EXPLAINING TO THE TO THE COMMISSION WHY HE BELIEVED THAT THE SANCTIONS WERE WARRANTED BECAUSE HE FOUND EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE OR ACTUALLY A MISREPRESENTATION OF HOURS WORKED WITH RESPECT TO TIME CARDS, TIME PROCEEDINGS.

I MEAN, TIME THAT WAS RECORDED ON HIS CITY WORK, WORK, PROGRESS, AND THAT'S BASICALLY THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE FINDINGS WAS THAT HE MISREPRESENTED HIS TIME ON CERTAIN DAYS AND TIMES AND THAT WAS THE BASIS FOR THE RECOMMENDATION TO SEEK THE CITY ATTORNEY'S ASSISTANCE IN RECOUPING THAT AMOUNT THAT WAS NOT PROPERLY RECORDED, AND WHAT WAS THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN SUPPORT OF THAT ACTION? THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED WAS THE INVESTIGATION BY THE BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

HE SHOWED TIMESHEETS THAT WERE ALLEGEDLY AND WE BELIEVED PROPERLY THAT PRESENTED THAT SHOWED THAT HE MADE ALLEGATIONS OR MADE EFFORTS TO COLLECT TIME MONIES FOR HOURS THAT HE HAD NOT WORKED, AND HE SUFFICIENTLY PROVED THAT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMMISSION, AND THEREFORE, THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COUNCIL SEEK TO RECOUP OR AT LEAST REFER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO RECOUP THOSE HOURS THAT WERE NOT WORKED, AND DID THE SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION PUT ON ANY DEFENSE ON HIS OWN BEHALF? YES, HE DID. HE WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

I THINK HE HAD TWO ATTORNEYS WHO WERE REPRESENTING HIS INTERESTS, AND I THINK HE BASICALLY SAID THAT THERE WAS SOME MISUNDERSTANDING ON HIS PART ABOUT THE TIME ENTRIES.

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONCLUDED OTHERWISE, AND WE AS A COMMISSION BELIEVED THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONCLUDED PROPERLY THAT HE HAD NOT PROPERLY RECORDED TIME FOR THE TIME IN QUESTION, AND DID THE SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION AT ANY TIME OFFER TO REFUND THE ALLEGED OVERPAYMENT OF OVERTIME? NO, HE DID NOT, COUNCIL MEMBER.

THEN, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS SORT OF SANCTION SINCE HE IS NO LONGER A CITY EMPLOYEE? WHAT EFFECT DOES THIS HAVE? DOES IT LIMIT HIS ABILITY TO APPLY TO THE CITY FOR REEMPLOYMENT IN THE FUTURE, FOR EXAMPLE? BERT VANDENBERG CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THE REPRIMAND THAT THE EAC RECOMMENDED WILL GO INTO HIS PERSONNEL FILE, IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT HIM FROM REAPPLYING, BUT IT WILL BE IN HIS FILE.

THE RECOUPMENT IS THE REFERRAL FOR RECOUPMENT WOULD JUST BE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE GOING AFTER THAT MONEY.

IT WOULD NOT AFFECT HIS FUTURE EMPLOYMENT.

SO HE COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR EMPLOYMENT, BUT THIS RECORD OF REPRIMAND WOULD FOLLOW HIM IN HIS EMPLOYMENT RECORDS AND COULD BE CONSIDERED IN ANY DECISION TO RE-EMPLOY HIM, I TAKE IT.

[00:40:06]

THE WE BELIEVE HE WAS ALREADY MARKED INELIGIBLE FOR REHIRE.

SO, IN FACT, IT PROBABLY WOULD NOT AFFECT THAT.

OKAY. SO THAT WAS JUST A PERSONNEL DECISION AT THE TIME OF HIS SEPARATION.

THAT IS CORRECT.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. COUNCILWOMAN JAYNIE SCHULTZ, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

MY QUESTION IS JUST IN TERMS OF THE LONG TERM IMPLICATIONS OF PURSUING BACK, AND THIS MAY BE FOR THE CITY STAFF, I'M NOT SURE IF OUT OF, WE HAVE 14,000 EMPLOYEES AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY LEAVE EVERY YEAR.

IS THIS PLANNED TO BEGIN TO PURSUE SOME OF THESE NOW THAT WE HAVE THIS OFFICE IN PLACE? LIKE HOW OFTEN WILL WE BE SEEING THESE FORMER EMPLOYEES? I KNOW YOU CAN'T PROJECT THAT, BUT WHAT'S THE TREND THAT YOU'RE SEEING? WHEN THE COMPLAINT CAME IN TO THE IG DIVISION, THIS PARTICULAR RESPONDENT WAS A CURRENT EMPLOYEE.

HE AT THE TIME CURRENTLY WORKED FOR DALLAS WATER UTILITIES.

IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE IG PURSUED THE INVESTIGATION AND I BELIEVE IT MIGHT HAVE ALSO BEEN AFTER THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED WITH THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION TO MOVE FORWARD TOWARD A HEARING.

I THINK IT WAS ONLY AFTER THAT POINT THAT HE HAD RESIGNED HIS POSITION.

THANK YOU. SO WE WON'T BE PURSUING FORMER EMPLOYEES.

THAT I CANNOT ANSWER THAT.

THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

OKAY. MAYBE WE COULD GET THAT IN SOME SORT OF.

I DON'T KNOW HOW, BUT I'D LIKE TO JUST KNOW.

I'D LIKE TO JUST KNOW IN GENERAL IF THAT'S PART OF OUR PLAN OR IF WE'RE ONLY WORKING WITH CITY EMPLOYEES, YOU KNOW, GOING, YOU KNOW, DOING THIS INVESTIGATION.

THERE ARE SECTIONS OF THE CODE OF ETHICS THAT DO APPLY TO FORMER EMPLOYEES.

SO THAT DOES COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

IF HE RECEIVES A COMPLAINT HAVING TO DO WITH A FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE, THAT CAN BE INVESTIGATED.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. ACTUALLY, I HAD MY NAME IN THE QUEUE TO MAKE A MOTION, AND SO I FAILED TO TAKE IT OFF, BUT WHILE I'M HERE, I GUESS THE QUESTION I WOULD ASK, I NEED CLARITY AROUND THE SUM OF $1,300, OUR WE'RE STILL IN A POSITION TO RECOUP THAT ? WELL, THE MATTER HAS BEEN REFERRED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND I THINK THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS GOING TO MAKE THE JUDGMENT ON WHAT AVENUES THEY'RE GOING TO PURSUE BASED UPON THE RECOMMENDATION.

ALL RIGHT. SO COULD SOMEONE I DON'T KNOW.

I KNOW THIS IS KIND OF A TENDER, SENSITIVE AREA, BUT I THINK WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS WILL WE BE SEEKING TO GET REIMBURSEMENT? WILL HE EXCUSE ME? ARE WE GOING TO PUT A LIEN OUT OR HOW DOES THAT WORK? SO CAN SOMEONE SPEAK TO THAT? WE WILL. THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, IF YOU CHOOSE TO REFER IT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WE WILL EXPLORE ALL THE AVENUES OF HOW TO RECOUP THE MONEY AND WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE MEANS TO DO SO.

ALL RIGHT, AND SO THE OTHER PIECE WOULD FOR FUTURE EMPLOYMENT.

HOW DO I MEAN WILL THIS PROHIBIT HIM FROM, NUMBER ONE, GETTING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITY? NOT A RECOMMENDATION, BUT A RESPONSE FROM THE CITY IF HE APPLIES FOR A JOB ? I'M JUST LOOKING LEGALLY.

THAT'S A PERSONNEL MATTER THAT I WOULD DEFER TO.

I WAS WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO JUMP UP AND SAY THEY HAD THE ANSWER.

RIGHT.

THE CITY HAS A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION POLICY ALREADY.

AGAIN, IT WAS STATED EARLIER THAT HE'S BEEN MARKED INELIGIBLE FOR REHIRE TO THE CITY BUT WE DO HAVE A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION POLICY SO THAT IF SOMEONE CALLS SOMEONE, IF HE APPLIES FOR A JOB SOMEWHERE ELSE, YOU WILL GIVE A YOU SAID A NEUTRAL RESPONSE. IT'S PLAIN INFORMATION.

DATES OF HIRE.

OH, OKAY JUST SOMETHING THAT SAYS SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T REALLY SAY ANYTHING.

I GOT YOU, BUT WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS, I GUESS ONE OTHER THING I NEED CLARITY ON.

THERE WAS SOMETHING ABOUT A MISUNDERSTANDING.

COULD WE SPEAK TO THAT? DID HE STATE WHAT THE MISUNDERSTANDING.

CAN THAT BE DISCUSSED NOW? WHO WAS CONFUSED? WAS THE EMPLOYEE CONFUSED ABOUT HIS ENTRY, OR WERE WE CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT HE HAD WRITTEN? NO. I THINK THE INSPECTOR GENERAL THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT HE INAPPROPRIATELY AND INCORRECTLY MADE ENTRIES, TIME

[00:45:07]

ENTRIES WHEN HE HAD NOT WORKED AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO BE PAID FOR THOSE HOURS.

SO I THINK MY QUESTION WAS, WHO MADE THE STATEMENT THAT THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING? WAS IT THE EMPLOYEE? YES, THE EMPLOYEE.

SO DID HE GIVE EVIDENCE AS TO WHY HE FELT THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING? WELL, HE HAD TWO LAWYERS WHO REPRESENTED HIS INTERESTS AT THE HEARING, AND WE BELIEVED THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL PROPERLY CONCLUDED THAT HE HAD MISREPRESENTED THE TIME ENTRIES, AND WE DEFERRED TO WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS A VERY CONVINCING ARGUMENT AND CONVINCING PROOF BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S INVESTIGATION THAT HE HAD, IN FACT, MADE MISREPRESENTATIONS ON TIME RECORDS.

SO I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND SUPPORT WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

I JUST FOR ME, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF HE HAD TWO LAWYERS, THIS INDIVIDUAL HAD TWO LAWYERS.

NEITHER OF THEM OFFERED ANY CLARITY ABOUT THE LANGUAGE OF THE EXPRESSION OR THE STATEMENT OF MISUNDERSTANDING ON HIS BEHALF. THEY ATTEMPTED TO ESTABLISH THAT HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT HE WAS DOING, AND I BELIEVE THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ESTABLISHED WHAT HE BELIEVED WAS PROOF THAT HE, IN FACT, MADE A CONSCIOUS EFFORT TO MAKE INCORRECT OR UNFACTUAL STATEMENTS ON HIS TIME RECORDS.

SO THERE WAS THE CONFUSION ABOUT THE LANGUAGE ON THE DOCUMENT THAT HE HAD TO COMPLETE THE FORM OF.

I DON'T THINK THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL THOUGHT THAT THE FORM WAS CONFUSING, BUT RATHER THAT THE EMPLOYEE INTENTIONALLY MISSTATED THE HE DOCUMENTATION OF TIME WHEN IT WAS NOT WORKED.

WAS THIS HIS FIRST TIME COMPLETING A DOCUMENT OF THIS NATURE? WAS THIS THE FIRST TIME THAT HE COMPLETED HIS TIME? RECORDS EMPLOYEE THE EMPLOYEE.

WAS THIS HIS FIRST TIME? NO. I'M ASSUMING THAT THE EMPLOYEE HAD BEEN SUBMITTING HIS TIME RECORDS FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT HE HAD BEEN WORKING FOR THE CITY, BUT THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME HE WAS THIS THE FIRST TIME HE HAD COMPLETED AN OVERTIME DOCUMENT.

I CAN'T ANSWER WHETHER IT WAS THE FIRST TIME HE'D DONE THAT.

I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER. CAN ANYONE ANSWER? I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY HE WAS CONFUSED.

IF THIS WAS HIS FIRST TIME COMPLETING IT, WAS IT WRITTEN? WAS IT WAS IT AN ONLINE DOCUMENT? I'M JUST TRYING TO GIVE SOME CLARITY BECAUSE I KNOW THESE THINGS POP UP.

I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE AN EXCUSE FOR ANYONE WHO MISREPRESENTS TIME THAT THEY DIDN'T WORK , BUT I DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE TIMES EVEN NOW, WHEN WE HAVE TO COMPLETE THESE TIME SHEETS, THERE CAN BE SOME CONFUSION.

SO I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION JUST FOR CLARITY, THAT'S ALL, AND I KNOW WE'LL MAKE OUR DECISION AS A COUNCIL, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND, AND MAYBE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR MYSELF WOULD BE TO LOOK INTO THIS MATTER A LITTLE BIT MORE, LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE, AND THEN SO THAT PERHAPS FUTURE IN THE FUTURE, IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE IT MIGHT BE QUESTIONABLE THAT OTHER EMPLOYEES ARE NOT CAUGHT UP IN IT.

SO I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT LIKE THAT BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE I MAY BE GOING TOO DEEP INTO THE HEARING.

I'M NOT TRYING TO BE ON THE ETHICS COMMITTEE, BUT I DON'T WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL HOPEFULLY WILL WILL BENEFIT FROM THIS EXPERIENCE AND BE ABLE TO GET EMPLOYMENT IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU.

I DON'T WANT TO PUT YOU--I'LL LEAVE IT LIKE THAT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

GAY DONNELL WILLIS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND I BELIEVE THIS IS THE FIRST ISSUE THAT'S COME BEFORE COUNCIL THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HAS INVESTIGATED AND REFERRED TO US AND SO I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE INVESTIGATION THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL DID AND THEN ADDING THE LAYER OF SCRUTINY THAT THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION HAS GIVEN TO THIS SITUATION.

SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMITMENT TO THAT AND YOUR YOUR PANEL'S COMMITMENT.

I'M PREPARED TO SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION THAT NOT ONLY ADDRESSES THE REPRIMAND, BUT ALSO REFERS TO CITY ATTORNEY TO WORK ON RECOVERING DAMAGES TO THE CITY.

SO I'M PREPARED TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION.

I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY ALSO IS GOING TO COLLECT OR MOVE TO COLLECT THE ATTORNEY'S FEES THAT WERE THE FEES FOR THE ATTORNEYS THAT WERE PROVIDED TO THE HE ACCUSED PARTY HERE.

SO THAT WILL ALSO BE REFERRED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

THEN LET ME REDOUBLE MY SUPPORT FOR THIS.

THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE WHO HASN'T SPOKEN YET ON THIS BEFORE I GO BACK TO COUNCILMAN RIDLEY FOR A SECOND ROUND?

[00:50:04]

MR. RIDLEY, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

MR. PERKINS, IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYEE DID WELL, DID THE EMPLOYEE DISPUTE THAT HE RECEIVED MONEY THROUGH OVERTIME PAYMENTS THAT HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO? YES, HE DID. HIS ATTORNEYS BASICALLY ARGUED THAT HE HAD NOT MISREPRESENTED HIS TIMESHEETS.

THE COMMISSION BELIEVED THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL PROVED THAT HE HAD, IN FACT, KNOWINGLY MISREPRESENTED HIS TIMESHEETS, AND THAT IS THE BASIS FOR THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR.

ONE FURTHER QUESTION.

WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION ONCE THE COMMISSION HAD DETERMINED THAT THE EMPLOYEE HAD COMMITTED WRONGDOING UNDER 12A OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTION REFERRAL FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION? AND IF NOT, WHY NOT? THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT WE SEEK REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE WHATEVER THE AMOUNT WAS THAT WAS ALLEGEDLY THE TIMESHEETS THAT WERE ALLEGEDLY MISAPPLIED.

THAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, AND WE FOLLOWED THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

COUNCIL MEMBER. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION ON ITEM 73 MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEST TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION.

I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE, SO ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY.

THE AYES HAVE IT. THE MOTION PREVAILS.

NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU.

YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 74.

[74. Authorize (1) the ratification of $8,578,629 to pay invoices due to various vendors for emergency purchases of hardware, software, professional services, consultants and monitoring services to maintain continuity of City operations as the result of the cyber-attack which occurred on May 3, 2023; (2) a transfer in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000 from Liability Reserve Fund to the Information Technology Equipment Fund; (3) a transfer in an amount not to exceed $5,578,629 from General Fund Contingency Reserve Fund to the Information Technology Equipment Fund; (4) an increase in appropriations in the Information Technology Equipment Fund in the amount of $8,578,629; and (5) deposit of any funds received as reimbursement from insurance into the General Fund Contingency Reserve Fund - Not to exceed $8,578,629 - Financing: Information Technology Equipment Fund (see Fiscal Information) ]

AGENDA ITEM 74.

AUTHORIZE ONE THE RATIFICATION OF $8,578,629 TO PAY INVOICES DUE TO VARIOUS VENDORS FOR EMERGENCY PURCHASES OF HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, CONSULTANTS AND MONITORING SERVICES TO MAINTAIN CONTINUITY OF CITY OPERATIONS AS THE RESULT OF THE CYBER ATTACK, WHICH OCCURRED ON MAY 3RD, 2023.

TWO, A TRANSFER AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $3 MILLION FROM LIABILITY RESERVE FUND TO THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT FUND.

THREE, A TRANSFER IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $5,578,629 FROM GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND TO THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT FUND FOR AN INCREASE IN APPROPRIATIONS IN THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,578,629 AND FIVE DEPOSIT OF ANY FUNDS RECEIVED AS REIMBURSEMENT FROM INSURANCE INTO THE GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND NOT TO EXCEED $8,578,629.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. MR. WEST, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? MR. WEST? YES, MAYOR.

RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANKS. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.

I'VE BEEN HEARING FROM THE DALLAS POLICE RETIRED OFFICER ASSOCIATION ON WHETHER OFFICERS WILL BE WHO ARE RETIRED ARE GOING TO BE COVERED FOR FOR ANY DATA THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED FOR THEM, AND BECAUSE WE KNOW OUR CURRENT OFFICERS ARE.

OBVIOUSLY, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE RETIREES? CAN YOU PLEASE ADDRESS THAT? YES, I CAN.

JON FORTUNE, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

SO AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE HIRED A THIRD PARTY FORENSICS COMPANY TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE POTENTIAL FOR DATA THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN EXPOSED RELATED TO SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS, BOTH CURRENT PAST AS WELL AS DEPENDENTS AND AS WELL AS ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

SO THE FIRST PHASE OF THE DATA REVIEW, AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE PREPARED NOTICE TO APPROXIMATELY 27,000 PEOPLE.

MOST OF THOSE ARE EMPLOYEES, FORMER CITY EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING RETIREES, AND SO IF AN INDIVIDUAL HAD WAS IDENTIFIED OR DETERMINED THAT AN INDIVIDUAL'S DATA WAS ACCESSED THROUGH THIS INCIDENT, THEY WOULD RECEIVE A LETTER THAT WOULD PROVIDE AN OFFER FOR THEM TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF TWO FREE YEARS OF CREDIT MONITORING, AND SO THE LONG ANSWER TO A VERY SHORT QUESTION, BUT THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS YES.

IF THEIR DATA WAS AFFECTED AND THEY RECEIVED THAT LETTER, THEN THEY CAN CONTACT THE CREDIT MONITORING COMPANIES WITH THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, AND SO I THINK I

[00:55:05]

UNDERSTOOD THIS. SO IF ANY ANY DATA THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY.

SO NO MATTER WHEN THE OFFICER WAS RETIRED, IF IT WAS FIVE YEARS OR TEN YEARS AGO OR WHAT HAVE YOU, OR EVEN MORE, IF THEY WILL GET A LETTER, IF THERE WAS ANY ACCESS TO THEIR DATA.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE IF YOU RETIRED IN 2010, YOU WOULDN'T BE ELIGIBLE FOR ANY OF THAT.

OKAY. THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S NOT SET TO A SPECIFIC TIME.

IT'S REALLY THE SPECIFICS IS THE DRIVER OF THIS IS THE DATA THAT WAS TIED TO A SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL.

ALL RIGHT THAT'S WHAT I WAS HOPING TO HEAR.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON, FOR, OR AGAINST ITEM 74? MR. RIDLEY, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MR. FORTUNE, COULD YOU COME BACK TO THE PODIUM? THE DETERMINATION OF THE UNIVERSE OF PEOPLE TO SEND THE CREDIT MONITORING OFFER LETTERS TO.

WAS THAT BASED UPON AN INDIVIDUALIZED INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE WHAT INDIVIDUALS' INFORMATION MAY HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED? OR WAS IT BASED UPON AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE SUCH AS ALL CURRENT CITY EMPLOYEES, ALL RETIREES? IT WAS INDIVIDUALS.

IT'S TIED TO THE INDIVIDUAL.

OKAY. SO IF YOU GET A LETTER, IT'S LIKELY THAT'S AN INDICATOR THAT YOUR INFORMATION WAS.

EXCUSE ME. THE LETTER WILL BE VERY SPECIFIC TO YOU AS A PERSON AS TO WHAT SPECIFIC DATA WOULD HAVE BEEN POTENTIALLY ACCESSED.

I SEE. THANK YOU.

MR. WEST, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. SORRY, JON, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION, AND THIS MAY NOT BE FOR YOU.

IT MAY BE FOR PROCUREMENT OR SOMEONE.

WHY DID WE JUST DECIDE ON TWO YEARS OF CREDIT MONITORING? WHO CAME UP WITH THAT NUMBER INSTEAD OF LIKE THREE YEARS, FOUR YEARS OR BEYOND? WAS THAT US, THE COUNCIL? I THINK INITIALLY, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT YOU TYPICALLY SEE WITH A RESPONSE LIKE THIS, AND I WOULD UNLESS I'M WRONG.

BILL, YOU WANT TO YOU WANT TO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU TYPICALLY SEE IN A RESPONSE LIKE THIS, AND THAT'S THE KIND OF THE INDUSTRY STANDARD FOR RESPONSE.

OKAY. IF WE WERE TO DEEM THAT WE WERE INTERESTED IN EXTENDING THAT, WOULD THAT BE APPROPRIATE? I GUESS WE WOULD HAVE THAT DISCUSSION MAYBE IN A YEAR SO WE COULD LOOK.

YEAH, I THINK THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT THE CITY COULD DECIDE TO DO ON ITS OWN.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE SOMETHING COVERED BY INSURANCE OR ANY OTHER ELEMENTS RELATED TO THE RECOVERY OF THOSE COSTS, BUT CERTAINLY IF THAT WAS THE COUNCIL'S PREROGATIVE, AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, WE COULD EVALUATE THAT.

OKAY. I'D LIKE TO JUST EXPLORE THAT, YOU KNOW, A YEAR FROM NOW.

SO I'LL JUST SET A CALENDAR AND BRING IT BACK UP.

THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN JAYNIE SCHULTZ, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

SORRY, MR. FORTUNE, ONE MORE.

AS WE ON COUNCIL GET INQUIRIES FROM INDIVIDUALS IF THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED A LETTER, WHAT IS THE MESSAGE THAT WE NEED TO SHARE WITH THEM? SO FIRST I WOULD TELL YOU THAT THE LETTERS WENT OUT LATE LAST WEEK, AND WE KNOW THEY WENT OUT VIA US MAIL.

SO THE FIRST THING I WOULD TELL EMPLOYEES TO DO IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ADDRESS AND CURRENT INFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE ON FILE WITH THE HUMAN RESOURCES OR THROUGH THEIR DEPARTMENT IS CURRENT BECAUSE THAT'S THE ADDRESS THAT WE WOULD BE USING.

THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST THING THAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO DO.

THE SECOND THING IS WE HAVE PROVIDED SOME THERE'S A CALL CENTER THAT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED AND INDIVIDUALS, IF THEY BELIEVE THEY WERE POTENTIALLY IMPACTED EMPLOYEES OR FORMER EMPLOYEES, THEY CAN CALL THAT CALL CENTER, AND WE'VE PROVIDED THAT NUMBER TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR YOUR OFFICES TO USE IF YOU GET INQUIRIES, AND THEN WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO MAY BE IN THE CITY SYSTEM LIKE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONERS, BUT THEY'RE NOT EMPLOYEES OR EVEN GENERAL RESIDENTS IN THE CITY, WHAT MESSAGE SHOULD WE BE SHARING WITH THEM? SO I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THIS IS STILL AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION.

WE'RE STILL EVALUATING THE MAGNITUDE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN IMPACTED AND SO WHAT WE KNOW RIGHT NOW IS, IS WHAT I SAID PREVIOUSLY IS ABOUT 27,000 NOTICES HAVE GONE OUT, AND WE WOULD EXPECT THAT IF WE DETERMINE THAT THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT LEADS US TO NOTIFY THOSE INDIVIDUALS, WE WILL FOLLOW UP WITH ADDITIONAL LETTERS GOING TO THOSE FOLKS.

SO IN YOUR EXAMPLE OF A BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THEY MAY HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE FIRST PHASE OF THIS, AND IF THEY HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANYTHING AT THIS POINT, THEN THERE'S NO REASON FOR THEM TO FEEL ALARMED, BUT THEY CAN CONTACT THAT NUMBER AND THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET CONFIRMATION WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE IMPACTED, AND SO WHAT IT'S TAKEN US THAT'S WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING OVER THE SUMMER, IS US GATHERING THAT DATA OF THE PEOPLE THAT WE KNOW MAY HAVE BEEN COMPROMISED, BUT THEY HAVEN'T, BUT EVEN IF YOU GOT THE LETTER DOESN'T MEAN YOU WERE COMPROMISED.

[01:00:01]

[INAUDIBLE] IF YOU GOT THE LETTER, IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU WERE A VICTIM OF FRAUD OR THAT YOU WERE THERE'S ANY CONCERN THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE AS IT RELATES TO SOMEONE WHO IS USING THAT INFORMATION, ALTHOUGH WE CAN'T RULE THAT OUT.

OBVIOUSLY, THE LETTER IS INTENDED TO NOTIFY YOU THAT VERY SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT THAT INDIVIDUAL WAS ACCESSED, AND WE'RE ENCOURAGING FOLKS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE FREE CREDIT MONITORING AS WELL AS THERE'S INSTRUCTIONS ON OTHER THINGS YOU CAN DO IN THE LETTER TO TRY TO PROTECT YOURSELF TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY.

GREAT. OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. FORTUNE.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM 74.

SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR.

SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM.

MR. MAYOR, THIS CONCLUDES YOUR ITEMS FOR THIS SESSION.

OKAY, THEN I'M GOING TO READ SOME LANGUAGE INTO THE RECORD SO WE CAN GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND THEN WE'LL RECONVENE AFTER LUNCH AND TAKE UP OUR

[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

ZONING AGENDA.

IT IS 10:43 A.M.

ON AUGUST 9TH, 2023.

THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOW GO INTO CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTION 551.076 AND 551.089 OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT ON THE FOLLOWING MATTER DESCRIBED IN TODAY'S AGENDA.

DELIBERATION REGARDING SECURITY DEVICES OR SECURITY AUDITS, INCLUDING ONE SECURITY ASSESSMENTS OR DEPLOYMENTS RELATING TO INFORMATION RESOURCES, TECHNOLOGY.

TWO, NETWORK SECURITY INFORMATION.

THREE, THE DEPLOYMENT OR SPECIFIC OCCASIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SECURITY PERSONNEL, CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE OR SECURITY DEVICES OR FOUR A SECURITY AUDIT.

REGARDING A RECENT RANSOMWARE ATTACK SECURITY INCIDENT RELATING TO THE CITY'S INFORMATION RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY AND UNDER SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT ON THE FOLLOWING MATTER DESCRIBED ON TODAY'S AGENDA, SEEKING THE ADVICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING THE RANSOMWARE ATTACK, AND WITH THAT, WE ARE NOW RECESSED UNTIL 1 P.M..

OKAY. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HAS COMPLETE ITS CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTION 551.076, 551.089 AND 551.071 OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETING ACT, AND IT'S AT 1:18 ON AUGUST THE 9TH, WE HAVE RETURNED TO OPEN SESSION.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR ZONING AGENDA, BUT BEFORE WE GET TO YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA, MR. MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ITEM Z4.

THANK YOU, MADAM SECRETARY.

I MOVE TO DEFER THE ZONING MATTER UNTIL OCTOBER 11TH, 2023.

THANK YOU, AND THIS IS JUST TO ALLOW MORE COMMUNITY DISCUSSION THAT IS NEEDING IT.

SO THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

THAT'S THE EXTENT OF IT. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? ALL IN FAVOR. ANY OPPOSED? NONE OPPOSED.

I PASS.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MR. MAYOR, AT THIS TIME, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM ARNOLD WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ITEM Z7.

THANK YOU.

I MOVE TO DEFER THE ZONING MATTER UNTIL OCTOBER 11TH, 2023.

ANY QUESTION? NO, I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THE FAVORS CARRY.

ITEM PASSED. MR. MAYOR, AT THIS TIME, COUNCILMEMBER WEST WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ITEM PH2.

MR. WEST. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I MOVE TO DEFER THIS ITEM UNTIL SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2023.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ITEM PASSED.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WE'LL NOW GO BACK TO YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA.

[ZONING CASES - CONSENT]

YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTED OF ITEMS Z1 THROUGH Z12.

ITEM Z3 IS BEING PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RESENDEZ.

ITEM Z FOUR WAS PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED.

ITEM Z SIX IS BEING PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER WEST.

ITEM Z SEVEN WAS PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED AND ITEM Z11 WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER MORENO.

THEREFORE, YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF ITEM Z ONE, Z TWO, Z FIVE, Z EIGHT THROUGH

[01:05:01]

TEN AND Z12.

I'LL READ THOSE ITEMS INTO THE RECORD.

ITEM Z ONE IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT AND RENEWAL OF SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 1530 FOR AN INDUSTRIAL OUTSIDE USE LIMITED TO A CONCRETE PLANT ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JOE FIELD ROAD AND DENTON DRIVE.

ITEM Z TWO IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 665 BOUNDED BY MIDBURRY DRIVE, SAINT JUDE'S DRIVE, MASON DELLS DRIVE AND TUNICA DRIVE.

ITEM Z FIVE IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND ONE AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL MERCHANDISE OR FOOD STORE GREATER THAN 3500FT², AND TWO AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A D-1 LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY ON PROPERTY AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH HAMPTON ROAD AND BURLINGTON BOULEVARD.

ITEM Z EIGHT IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A CHILD CARE FACILITY ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH CORNER OF FERGUSON ROAD AND DORRINGTON DRIVE.

ITEM Z NINE IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A TOWER ANTENNA FOR CELLULAR COMMUNICATION ON PROPERTY ON THE WEST LINE OF PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NORTH OF GAISFORD STREET.

ITEM Z TEN IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A-5A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF BURMA ROAD EAST OF KISKA STREET.

ITEM Z 11 I'M SORRY, ITEM Z 12 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN MF-2A SUB DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH EAST LINE OF SANGER AVENUE, SOUTH OF RIGGS STREET.

YOU DO HAVE A FEW INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA.

EACH SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

YOUR FIRST SPEAKER WILL BE JONATHAN VINCENT.

MR. VINCENT WILL BE SPEAKING ON ITEM Z ONE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

YOUR NEXT SPEAKER WILL BE CURTIS BROWN.

CURTIS BROWN WILL BE SPEAKING ON AGENDA ITEM Z TEN.

CURTIS BROWN. WE CAN SEE YOU, BUT WE CANNOT HEAR YOU.

HELLO, MR. BROWN, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YOUR AUDIO IS WE CANNOT HEAR YOUR AUDIO.

WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU.

MR. BROWN, I'M SORRY.

OKAY. WE'LL COME BACK TO MR. BROWN. YOUR NEXT SPEAKER WILL BE WILLIAM HARRIS.

WILLIAM HARRIS.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

WHILE WE WORK ON MR. BROWN'S AUDIO, ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ANY OF THE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? YOU MAY COME FORWARD, SIR.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. LET ME CHECK ON MR. BROWN'S AUDIO. YES, I'M HERE.

OKAY. MR. BROWN, WE CAN HEAR YOU. HOWEVER, YOUR VIDEO IS NOT DISPLAYING.

OKAY. YOU MAY BEGIN SPEAKING, MR. BROWN. YES.

HOW ARE YOU DOING? MY NAME IS CURTIS BROWN.

I'M LOOKING TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON [INAUDIBLE] 712 BURMA ROAD.

PREVIOUSLY, I BELIEVE IT WAS ZONED FOR COMMUNITY RETAIL.

I WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO BUILDING AN AFFORDABLE HOME ON THE PROPERTY.

I WOULD LIKE IF YOU CAN PLEASE GRANT ME PERMISSION TO BUILD ON THE LOT.

I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THERE ARE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS FOR YOUR ZONING CONSENT, MR. MAYOR. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. YOUR NEXT ITEM.

[Z3. A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting an amendment to Planned Development District No. 825, on property bounded by Palisade Drive, North Prairie Creek Road, Tonawanda Drive, and Greendale Drive, and on the north line of Palisade Drive, between North Prairie Creek Road and Greendale Drive Recommendation of Staff: Approval, subject to a development plan, a traffic management plan, and conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval, subject to a development plan, a traffic management plan, and conditions Z212-276(JA)]

Z THREE IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE.

Z THREE IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 825 ON PROPERTY BOUNDED BY PALISADE DRIVE NORTH OF PRAIRIE CREEK

[01:10:09]

ROAD, TONAWANDA DRIVE AND GREENDALE DRIVE, AND ON THE NORTH LINE OF PALISADE DRIVE BETWEEN NORTH PRAIRIE CREEK AND GREENDALE DRIVE.

MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 288 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED SIX REPLIES IN FAVOR AND SIX REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? ITEM Z THREE.

NO SPEAKERS IN PERSON AND NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS.

MR. MAYOR. CAN I GET A MOTION? YES, MR. CHAIR.

I MOVE TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE.

LIGHTING EXCEEDING 15FT IN HEIGHT MAY ONLY OPERATE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY BETWEEN 6 A.M.

AND 10 P.M.

SECOND. ANY QUESTIONS? NO, SIR. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AND AGAINST? ITEM CARRIES. MADAM SECRETARY.

YOUR NEXT ITEM IS Z SIX.

[Z6. A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting a new subarea on property zoned Subarea 4 within Planned Development District No. 316, the Jefferson Area Special Purpose District, on the northwest corner of Sunset Avenue and South Bishop Avenue Recommendation of Staff: Approval, subject to revised conditions and revised Exhibit 316A Recommendation of CPC: Approval, subject to revised conditions and revised Exhibit 316A Z212-321(JM)]

Z SIX IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SUBAREA ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SUNSET AVENUE AND SOUTH BISHOP AVENUE.

MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 87 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500FT OF THE AREA REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED THREE REPLIES IN FAVOR AND SIX REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.

[INAUDIBLE] THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM Z SIX? NO SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR.

CHAIRMAN WEST, QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, MAYOR.

MOTION AND COMMENTS.

I MOVE TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGES RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE.

HOTEL AND MOTEL AND LIVE WORK UNITS ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT.

REMOTE SURFACE PARKING LOTS ARE PROHIBITED FOR RETAIL USES.

AN ADDITIONAL 15 FOOT SETBACK IS REQUIRED FOR PORTIONS OF STRUCTURES ABOVE TWO STORIES THAT FRONT ON SUNSET AVENUE, ALL STREET FRONTING FACADES AND OPEN SPACE FRONTING FACADES MUST HAVE AT LEAST TWO WINDOWS AND AT LEAST ONE COMMON PRIMARY ENTRANCE FACING THE STREET OR OPEN SPACE AT STREET LEVEL AND AT LEAST 30% OF, AND THAT'S AN ERROR ON HERE OF STREET FACING DWELLING UNITS MUST HAVE INDIVIDUAL ENTRANCES FACING THE STREET. THE ENTRANCES MUST ACCESS THE STREET OR OPEN SPACE WITH AN IMPROVED PATH CONNECTING TO THE SIDEWALK.

DELETE QUOTE OF THE GROUND LEVEL FLOOR UNQUOTE FROM THE PARKING STRUCTURE SECTION.

INGRESS AND EGRESS ARE ONLY PERMITTED FROM THE ALLEY.

DELETE QUOTE IF RESIDENTIAL PARKING IS PROVIDED UNQUOTE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PARAGRAPH, ALL SIDEWALKS MUST BE CLEAR AND UNOBSTRUCTED FOR A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET IN WIDTH AND NO PARKING IS REQUIRED IF A DEVELOPMENT COMPLIES WITH THE DENSITY BONUS REQUIREMENT . ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.

GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

SO PLANNING COMMISSION DID A LOT OF WORK ON THIS.

THIS IS YET ANOTHER APARTMENT COMPLEX AND BISHOP ARTS DISTRICT, WHICH IS ALLOWED BY.

RIGHT. SO WE'RE GETTING SOME PUSHBACK THERE FROM THAT.

SO WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO MAKE ALL THE NEW APARTMENTS THAT COME IN AS AS ACTIVATED, STREET ACTIVATED AND PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY AND NEIGHBORHOOD FRIENDLY AS WE CAN, AND I THINK THIS DOES THIS, AND I WANT TO THANK MR. BALDWIN, HIS TEAM, FOR WORKING WITH US.

A FEW THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS ALLOWING SHORT TERM RENTAL AND LIVE WORK UNITS BY RIGHT WHICH MY SURVEY OF NEIGHBORS SAID THEY WANTED SHORT TERM RENTALS AND IT WAS ELIMINATED WITH OUR RECENT ORDINANCE BY COUNCIL BISHOP ARTS NEEDS THEM, AND IF THIS OWNER DECIDES TO PUT THEM IN, I THINK THEY WOULD BE WELCOME.

IF NOT, THAT'S FINE TOO.

IT PROHIBITS THIS FROM BEING USED AS A SURFACE PARKING LOT.

THERE IS A SETBACK ALONG SUNSET THAT HELPS IT.

THIS STRUCTURE HELPS IT KIND OF BE IN LINE WITH THE HOMES THAT ARE STILL THERE.

IT REQUIRES MORE OPEN SPACE AND STREET FUNDING FACADES SO IT ADDRESSES THE STREET.

WE'VE HAD SOME BAD DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE COME TO BISHOP ARTS WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE JUST A PRISON WITH WITH DOORWAYS ENTERING WITH NO TRANSPARENCY AT ALL, AND I THINK I'VE SEEN THE RENDERINGS.

[01:15:02]

THIS ONE LOOKS VERY NICE, AND SO I'M NOT ANTICIPATING THAT, BUT IT'S THE DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS, AND IF THEY FLIP THE PROPERTY TOMORROW, THEN WHOEVER BUYS IT WILL BE SUBJECT TO THIS.

LET'S SEE HERE WHAT ELSE IS IN HERE? WE'RE GOING TO BE ENTERING CARS FROM THE ALLEY AND EXITING FROM THE ALLEY, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, IF WELL, TWO MORE THINGS.

BOTH VERY IMPORTANT.

EXTENDING THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF THE SIDEWALK FROM FIVE FEET UP TO SIX FEET TO HELP WITH PEDESTRIAN, PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND WALKABILITY.

I DON'T KNOW WHY THE ORIGINAL PD ONLY REQUIRED FIVE FEET IN BISHOP ARTS, AND THEN LASTLY, ELIMINATING PARKING REQUIREMENTS IF THEY PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL IN FAVOR.

ANY OPPOSED.

AYES CARRY. NEXT ITEM, PLEASE.

I APOLOGIZE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S OKAY.

CAN I ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION ON THE MOTION? SO FOR THE FOURTH BULLET POINT, YOU SAID.

YES, AT LEAST 30% OF STREET FACING DWELLING UNITS TO HAVE.

YOU SAID 30. RIGHT? I DID SAY 30.

THANK YOU. MADAM SECRETARY, THE NEXT ITEM.

ITEM Z 11 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE LIMITED TO A LIVE MUSIC VENUE AND A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT

ITEM Z 11.

[Z11. A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting a Specific Use Permit for a commercial amusement inside limited to a live music venue and a commercial amusement outside on property zoned an RR Regional Retail District, on the south side of Samuell Boulevard, between Sibley Avenue and Owenwood Avenue Recommendation of Staff: Approval for a three-year period, subject to a site plan, a landscape plan, and conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval for a three-year period, subject to a site plan, a landscape plan, and conditions Z223-155(JM)]

OUTSIDE ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SAMUEL BOULEVARD BETWEEN SIBLEY AVENUE AND OWENWOOD AVENUE.

MISTER MAYOR, WE SENT 11 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED ONE REPLY IN FAVOR AND TWO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION OF THE REQUEST.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM Z 11? NO SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR.

DO I HAVE A MOTION? YES, MR. MAYOR.

I HAVE A MOTION. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGES AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, WITH ALL THE REFERENCE TO COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT AND REMOVED FROM THE ORDINANCE AND THIS SUP TO BE APPROVED FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YES, MR. MAYOR.

GO AHEAD. THIS IS AN EXCITING PROJECT THAT COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.

IT'S A PART OF THE CITY THAT WE'RE REALLY FOCUSED ON CLEANING.

IT'S BEEN A A BLIGHTED AREA FOR DECADES.

IT'S CONVENIENTLY LOCATED ACROSS FROM SAMUEL GRANT PARK.

SO ADD TO THE RECREATION ACTIVITY THAT WE HAVE PROMOTING IN THAT AREA.

WE RECENTLY OPENED UP A NEW FOOD TRUCK DOWN THE ROAD AND THIS WILL LOOK TO PROMOTE A BALANCED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND STRENGTHEN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND SO I'M FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PROJECT AND I WISH THEM THE BEST OF LUCK.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL IN FAVOR.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSED.

NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM Z 13.

[Z13. A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting an expansion of Planned Development Subdistrict No. 138 and for a Specific Use Permit for an outside open storage use on property zoned Planned Development Subdistrict No. 138 and a GR General Retail Subdistrict within Planned Development District No. 193, the Oak Lawn Special Purpose District, on the northwest and southeast corner of Maple Avenue and Vagas Street Recommendation of Staff: Denial Recommendation of CPC: Approval of expansion of Planned Development Subdistrict No. 138, subject to revised conditions; and approval of a Specific Use Permit for an outside open storage use five-year period, subject to a site/landscape plan and conditions Z212-301(JM)]

Z 13 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN EXPANSION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SUBDISTRICT NUMBER 138 FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR AN OUTSIDE OPEN STORAGE USE ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MAPLE AVENUE AND VEGAS STREET.

MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 145 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500FT OF THE AREA REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED RECEIVED THREE REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.

I SEE AN INDIVIDUAL COMING FORWARD IN THE AUDIENCE.

YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

CARL CRAWLEY 2201 MAIN STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS, REPRESENTING THE OWNER OF THE PAINT BODY SHOP THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR OVER A DECADE. A LOCAL OWNED LOCAL EMPLOYEE BASE SORT OF BUSINESS THAT IS ACTUALLY DOING VERY WELL IS BOOMING AND THEY NEED SOME MORE SPACE, AND THE COUNCIL MEMBER SENT THIS.

YOU ALL SAW THIS A NUMBER OF MONTHS AGO.

SEND IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

WE WENT BACK THROUGH THEM.

SO NOW REQUIRES THE USE WE WANT TO DO IS BASICALLY A PARKING LOT FOR EMPLOYEES TO PARK OVER THERE SO THEY'RE NOT PARKING ON THE STREET BECAUSE HE NEEDS THE ROOM AND IN HIS FACILITY SO THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD A PARKING LOT AND IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE BEST LANDSCAPED LITTLE AREA IN THAT SECTION ON MAPLE AVENUE,

[01:20:05]

BECAUSE THAT SECTION IS AN OLDER SECTION OF MAPLE AVENUE, LOTS OF TREES, A NICE FENCE WITH BRICK PILASTERS AND LOTS OF LANDSCAPING LIMITED TO 20 PARKING SPACES.

THE HE'S PUTTING A HALF MILLION DOLLARS INTO THE LANDSCAPING AND THE PARKING LOT THERE.

SO WE HAD ASKED FOR A FIVE YEAR TIME PERIOD TO AUTOMATIC RENEWAL.

THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TOOK OUT THE AUTOMATIC RENEWAL AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S A NEW USE THERE, AND TO GIVE YOU A REFERENCE POINT, THERE'S A BIG TRIANGULAR PIECE THAT TXDOT, NOT TXDOT, MTTL OWNS RIGHT BEHIND US AND EVENTUALLY THAT SITE WILL DEVELOP INTO SOMETHING AND THAT WILL MAKE THIS SITE A LOT MORE VALUABLE, AND PROBABLY THIS USE WOULD GO AWAY, HOPEFULLY NOT ANYTIME SOON BECAUSE IT'S A THRIVING SORT OF BUSINESS THERE.

SO WE'RE IN FAVOR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION OF AN SUP.

GIVE US SOME TIME TO BUILD A PARKING LOT AND OUR LANDSCAPING, WHICH WILL PROBABLY TAKE A LITTLE OVER A YEAR, JUST GETTING ENGINEERING APPROVALS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE AND THEN WE CAN SHOW THAT WE'RE A GOOD NEIGHBOR AGAIN ACROSS THE STREET FROM WHERE WE ARE NOW AND CONTINUE TO GROW OUR OPERATIONS.

SO OTHERWISE THE OWNER IS HERE TO THE OWNER OF THE BUSINESS IS HERE, JEREMY LENNOX, TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE, BUT OTHERWISE WE'D ASK THAT YOU APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM Z 13? NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A MOTION.

GO AHEAD AND MOTION. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGES AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE: THE SUP IS APPROVED FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD.

YOU GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSE. MOTION CARRIED.

YOUR NEXT ITEM Z 14.

Z 14 IS A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR AN RR REGIONAL RETAIL DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH LINE OF RIVER FALLS DRIVE,

[Z14. A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for an RR Regional Retail District on property zoned an MU-1 Mixed Use District with deed restrictions volunteered by the applicant, on the south line of Riverfall Drive, west of North Central Expressway Recommendation of Staff: Denial Recommendation of CPC: Denial without prejudice. Z212-341(MP)]

WEST OF NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY.

MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 188 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE AREA REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION DUE TO THE CPC VOTE OF DENIAL.

THIS ITEM WOULD REQUIRE THREE QUARTERS TO PASS.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM Z 14? NO SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YES, MR. MAYOR.

IN THE MATTER OF Z TWO, ONE, TWO, THREE, ONE, FOUR.

I MOVE THAT WE FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SECOND. ANY QUESTIONS? ANY COMMENTS? ALL IN FAVOR. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. YOUR NEXT ITEM IS Z 15.

Z 15 IS A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR AN MF-1A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NORTH JIM MILLER ROAD AND ELAM ROAD.

MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 11 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION DUE TO THE CPC VOTE OF DENIAL.

THIS WILL REQUIRE A THREE QUARTERS VOTE TO PASS.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE? I SEE AN INDIVIDUAL COMING FORWARD.

YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

YES. MY NAME IS FOUAD HAMED AND MY ADDRESS IS 1328 GUARDIAN JOY TRAIL, LUCAS, TEXAS.

SO TODAY I'M VOLUNTEERING TO READ THE DEED RESTRICTIONS I SIGNED ON, WHICH IS THE FOLLOWING . ONE, MAXIMUM DWELLING UNIT DISTANCE DENSITY IS FOUR, TWO, ALL DWELLING UNIT MUST BE ATTACHED.

THREE, MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES IS TWO.

THAT'S IT. THANK YOU.

[01:25:02]

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM Z 15? NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YES, MAYOR.

I MOVE TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE FOLLOWING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION SUBJECT TO THE DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT.

SECOND. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL IN FAVOR. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. NEXT ITEM.

[Z16. A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting an WMU-5 Walkable Urban Mixed-Use District in lieu of an MU-2 Mixed Use District on property zoned an IR Industrial/Research District, on the southeast line of Empire Central Drive, northeast of Harry Hines Boulevard Recommendation of Staff: Approval of a WMU-5 Walkable Urban Mixed Use District, in lieu of an MU-2 Mixed Use District Recommendation of CPC: Approval of a WMU-5 Walkable Urban Mixed Use District, in lieu of an MU-2 Mixed Use District Z223-103(RM) Note: This item was deferred by the City Council before opening the public hearing on June 14, 2023 and is scheduled for consideration on August 9, 2023.]

ITEM Z 16 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN WMU-5 WALKABLE URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT IN-LIEU OF AN MU-2 MIXED USE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH EAST LINE OF EMPIRE CENTRAL DRIVE, NORTHEAST OF HARRY HINES BOULEVARD.

MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 35 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED ONE REPLY IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION OF THE REQUEST.