This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
End of dialog window.
[00:00:01]
GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.[Permit and License Appeal Board on February 20, 2025.]
LAURA TORRES.I AM VICE CHAIR OF THE PERMANENT AND LICENSE APPEAL BOARD, AND WE'LL BE, UM, CHAIRING IT THIS MORNING.
WELCOME TO THE HEARING OF THE PERMANENT AND LICENSE APPEAL BOARD FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.
IT IS CURRENTLY 8 44 ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20TH, 2025.
WE HAVE ONE HEARING ON TODAY'S AGENDA THAT BEING FOR PETER PAN'S BACKYARD, APPEALING THE REVOCATION OF SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT.
AT THIS TIME, I WILL DO A ROLL CALL IF PRESENT, PLEASE SAY, HERE.
AND MS. JENNIFER SHANNON HERE.
ABSENT FROM THIS HEARING ARE, UM, CHAIR NIK, MR. ILLA AND MR. JONES.
WE HAVE ONE NEW MEMBER, MS. THOMAS, WHO WILL BE OBSERVING THIS HEARING TODAY.
WE HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT AT THIS MEETING, AND THIS MEETING IS NOW CALLED TO ORDER.
WILL OTHERS PRESENT AT TODAY'S HEARING? PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF, STARTING WITH THE BOARD'S GENERAL COUNSEL.
DANIEL MOORE, BOARD GENERAL COUNSEL.
MR. MOORE, THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE NEAR ESLAVA MARTINEZ, DONNA BROWN.
UM, THE APPELLANT OR APPELLANT'S REPRESENTATIVE.
AT THIS TIME, WE DO NOT HAVE, UM, REPRESENTATION FROM THE APPELLANT.
THERE HAVE BEEN EFFORTS ON OUR END TO CONTACT, UM, THE APPELLANT, PHONE CALLS, EMAILS, ET CETERA.
AND SO WE DO BE BELIEVE THAT WE ARE READY TO MOVE FORWARD.
UM, IF EVERYONE IS OKAY WITH THAT NOW WE WILL HAVE THE CITY PRESENT, UM, AND MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THE CITY'S, UM, REPRESENTATION TODAY.
UM, ANYONE FROM THE CITY HERE? UM, CAN YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELVES? YES.
MY NAME IS ALMA GARCIA TORRES, UM, WITH THE CITY, ANDREW SKINNER, ALSO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
ROSA FLEMING WITH THE CONVENTION AND EVENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
AND JACQUELINE JUSTICE, ALSO WITH CONVENTION AND EVENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
WE, THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS THAT HAVE REGISTERED TO ADDRESS TODAY'S BOARD, SO WE WILL SKIP THE PUBLIC SPEAKERS, UM, SECTION NOW.
OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FROM JANUARY 16TH, 2025.
IS THERE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR REGARDING MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 16TH, 2025? I MOVE.
WE APPROVE THE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED.
I'M SORRY, BY WHAT? SECOND, MR. JEFFS.
UH, DO ANY OF THE MEMBERS WISH TO COMMENT ON THE MOTION? OKAY, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[00:05:02]
OKAY.THE MOTION PASSES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, AND THAT IS THE, THE APPEAL HEARING FOR PETER PAN'S BACKYARD.
SO THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS TO HEAR THE APPEAL REQUESTS.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR THIS HEARING IS ON THE APPELLANT.
SO IF THE, IF NO ONE FROM THE APPELLATE SIDE HAS SHOWN UP, ARE WE ABLE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT? GREAT QUESTION.
AND WE HAVE SPOKEN TO BOARD COUNCIL AND WE CAN HAVE, UM, WHAT HE SAYS ON RECORD.
UH, THE DUTY OF THIS BOARD IS JUST TO LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCE THAT'S PRESENTED AND RECOGNIZE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THE TESTIMONY AND THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED AT TODAY'S HEARING.
AND IT WAS SUBMITTED, UM, TO THE BOARD, THERE IS NO, UH, DEFAULT JUDGMENT THAT COULD BE ENTERED.
IT'S JUST CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED TODAY.
I JUST THOUGHT WE'RE KIND OF GOING THROUGH SOMETHING WHERE NO ONE'S HERE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.
I THOUGHT MAYBE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT COULD BE ENTERED.
THE, AGAIN, THE, THE, THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE, TO OVERTURN, TO, TO CONVINCE YOU ALL WHY THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION SHOULD BE OVERTURNED AND YOU JUST CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE AND MAKE YOUR DECISION BASED ON THAT.
UH, WE, EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT IS NOT HERE, IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT THE, THE WRITTEN EVIDENCE THEY SUBMITTED, UH, PART OF THE CONSIDERATION? YES.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN AND SHOULD CONSIDER.
AND SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE HAS BEEN COMMUNICATION INITIALLY AND AS OF, AND YOU KNOW, THEY WERE AWARE OF TODAY'S HEARING, THE TIME LOCATION, THERE HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTS, UM, ON OUR END TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEM WITHOUT ANY KIND OF, UM, THEY'VE NOT BEEN TRUTHFUL AT THIS TIME.
SO WE WILL, UM, BE MOVING FORWARD.
BUT I DID HAVE A POINT OF ORDER, I GUESS, UM, COUNSEL, DO WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION AS A BOARD TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT THE APPELLANT OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT NO, YOU JUST MOVE FORWARD LIKE YOU WOULD ANY ORDINARY MEETING ASSU, IF, IF THE APPELLANT WAS HERE THAT YOU WOULD GIVE EACH SIDE X NUMBER OF MINUTES AND WE WOULD PROCEED.
AND IF THE APPELLANT IS HERE, THEY CAN USE THOSE MINUTES.
IF NOT, WE CAN JUST SKIP TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE AS A RESULT OF THE ABSENCE, WE STILL MOVE FORWARD AND, UM, IF THEY COME IN AT ANY TIME DURING THIS HEARING, THEY'RE WELCOME TO, AT THAT TIME, TAKE THEIR TIME, CORRECT IT.
IF, IF THAT, IF, IF WE HAVE PASSED THAT POINT, LIKE IF WE'RE MOVING ON TO WHERE YOU GUYS ARE DEBATING A MOTION OR SOMETHING MM-HMM.
AND THEY SHOW UP, IT'S TOO LATE, LIKE WE SORT OF CROSS THE RUBICON AT THAT POINT, BUT THEY CAN PARTICIPATE WHEN THEY SHOW UP, THEY CAN PARTICIPATE AS IF THEY WERE HERE THE WHOLE TIME.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION.
YEAH, IT JUST, I GUESS DEPENDS AT WHAT TIME THEY SHOW UP.
IF THEY SHOW UP, YOU WANT ME? GOT IT.
[00:10:01]
UM, AFTER SPEAKING TO COUNSEL, UH, LET'S RECESS UNTIL ABOUT 9:00 AM UH, OH, EXACTLY.9:00 AM YES, EXACTLY 9:00 AM SO THAT GIVES US AND THE APPELLANT A FEW MORE MINUTES.
ALTHOUGH NORMALLY, UH, WE WOULD BEGIN AT EIGHT 30.
SO WE WERE, WE ARE POSTPONING, UM, GOOD 30 MINUTES.
UH, SO LET'S RECESS UNTIL NINE AND COME BACK AND WE WILL MAKE A FINAL ATTEMPT VIA PHONE AND EMAIL TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE APPELLANT IN HOPES THAT THEY, UM, ARE ABLE TO, TO SHOW UP.
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE ON CAMERA.
WE WILL, WE WILL COME BACK AT NINE.
IF I CAN HAVE EVERYBODY, UM, TURN THEIR CAMERAS BACK ON.
IF I CAN HAVE EVERYBODY TURN THEIR CAMERAS BACK ON.
IT IS NOW 9 0 2 AND WE ARE READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE, UM, THIS HEARING.
WE'RE WAITING ON MS. WILLIS AND MR. JEFFERSON.
WE, WE HAVE MADE ATTEMPTS, UM, OUR FINAL ATTEMPTS TO COMMUNICATE, UM, WITH APPELLANT.
WE'VE NOT HEARD BACK FROM APPELLANT, UH, AFTER MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS.
AND THEN FINALLY THIS LAST ATTEMPT, WE'VE EMAILED, WE'VE CALLED THE PERSON THAT WE HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH WHAT THE CITY HAS BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH.
SO AT THIS TIME, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE PAST THE APPELLANT'S SECTION AND START WITH THE CITY.
NOW, IF THE CITY HAS ANY WITNESSES WHO WISH TO TESTIFY IN THIS HEARING, UH, WE WILL SWEAR YOU IN AT THIS TIME.
UH, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THE TESTIMONY YOU'LL GIVE BEFORE THIS BOARD TODAY WILL BE THE TRUTH? THANK YOU.
WE WILL NOW MOVE FORWARD TO THE EXHIBITS.
EXHIBITS HAVE BEEN, UH, THE BOARD HAS ACCEPTED INTO EVIDENCE THE, THE DOCUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE APPELLANT AND NUMBERED THEM.
THE BOARD HAS ACCEPTED INTO EVIDENCE THE DOCUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE CITY AND HAS NUMBERED THEM AS WELL.
NOW, WOULD THE CITY ATTORNEY PLEASE READ THE RELEVANT ORDINANCE? TODAY YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU A REVOCATION OF A SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT.
IT IS THE DUTY OF THIS BOARD TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY OFFERED BY ANY INTERESTED PERSON PRESENTED BEFORE YOU TODAY.
THE APPEAL BOARD SHALL DECIDE THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TODAY'S HEARING AND THE EXHIBITS THAT WERE JUST ACCEPTED INTO EVIDENCE.
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE MEANS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THE BOARD SHALL AFFIRM OR REVERSE THE ACTION OF THE DIRECTOR BY A MAJORITY VOTE.
FAILURE TO REACH A MAJORITY DECISION ON THE MOTION LEAVES THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNCHANGED.
DALLAS CITY CODE SECTION 42 A DASH 20 B.
LIST SEVEN REASONS WHY THE DIRECTOR OF CONVENTION AND EVENT SERVICES MUST REVOKE A SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT AND THE DIRECTOR'S DECEMBER 24TH, 2024 LETTER, THE DIRECTOR REVOKED THE SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT BECAUSE THE DIRECTOR DETERMINED THE APPLICANT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH, OR THE SPECIAL EVENT WAS IN VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF THE SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT, A CITY ORDINANCE OR ANY OTHER APPLICABLE LAW.
AND THE PERMIT HOLDER MADE A FALSE STATEMENT OR OMISSION OF MATERIAL FACT ON THE APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT.
IF YOU FIND THAT THE DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION WAS CORRECT, YOU MUST AFFIRM THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION.
HOWEVER, IF YOU DETERMINED THAT THE DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION WAS INCORRECT, YOU MAY REVERSE THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION.
UM, NOW JUST FOR THE RECORD, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU ANTICIPATE NEEDING TO PRESENT THE CASE? UM, THIS IS QUESTION FOR THE CITY.
UM, DO YOU HAVE A BRIEF OPENING STATEMENT? YES.
[00:15:01]
HAVE NEXT PLEASE.UH, VICE CHAIR CORRES AND ESTEEM BOARD MEMBERS, I WANNA THANK YOU ON BEHALF OF CITY DALLAS FOR, UM, YOUR TIME AND COMMITMENT THIS MORNING.
UM, THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL EVENTS REVOKE THE SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT IN DALLAS FOR THE DALLAS FELLOW OF LIGHT ON AN EVENT HOSTED BY PETER PAN'S BACKYARD DURING THE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY OF 2024.
TODAY THAT THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE THIS PERMIT FOR THIS EVENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED BY THIS BOARD.
YOU WILL LIKELY HEAR, UH, WELL THAT THE APPELLANT, UH, SHOULD, THAT THE DECISION SHOULD BE OVERTURNED DUE TO THEIR ATTEMPTS TO CORRECT THESE VIOLATIONS.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED, OR IT WAS NOT ENOUGH.
THE APPELLANT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 42 A OF THE DALLAS CODE THAT OUTLINED THE SPECIAL EVENTS ORDINANCE.
AND AS A RESULT, THE RECKLESS ACTIONS PLACED THE PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELLBEING AT RISK.
FURTHERMORE, FROM THE START, THE APPELLANT MADE MISREPRESENTATIONS AND OMISSIONS OF MATERIAL FACT ON ITS PERMIT APPLICATION, WHICH ITS ROUNDS FOR DENIAL AND REVOCATION.
THE EVENT WHICH HAPPENED IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER AT 700 SPORTS STREET WITHIN THE CITY OF DALLAS, UH, TOOK PLACE AT A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNED BY HUNT REALTY INVESTMENTS AT THE REUNION, UH, ARENA LAWN.
THE EVENT WAS SCHEDULED TO GO ON FROM DECEMBER THE FOURTH THROUGH THE 25TH.
TODAY, YOU WILL HEAR TESTIMONY FROM JACQUELINE JOBS JUSTICE FROM THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL EVENTS ABOUT HER COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE APPELLANT REGARDING THE PERMIT AND HER GENERAL INVOLVEMENT WITH THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
WE WILL ALSO PROVIDE YOU WITH A TIMELINE OF THE PER PERMITTING PROCESS AND THE COMMUNICATIONS THAT LED UP TO THIS EVENT.
FIRST, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT FROM THE START, THERE WERE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT SANITATION AND THE APPELLANT'S FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE OSC AND MAKE ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR CLEANING UP THE DESIGNATED AREA OR THE ROUTE TO THE EVENT.
THIS IS A REQUIREMENT THAT WAS IN EFFECT BOTH DURING AND UPON COMPLETION OF THE EVENT.
CRASH WAS LEFT SCATTERED OUTSIDE OF THE PERIMETER PARKING.
UH, THERE WAS PARKING THAT WAS DONE ILLEGALLY AND BY, AND THERE WERE BICYCLE BARRICADES THAT WERE LEFT IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
SECOND, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE PERMIT, UH, APPROVAL WAS VERY SPECIFIC TO OUTLINE WHAT WAS ALLOWED AT THIS EVENT.
THE APPELLANTS MISREPRESENTED TO THE CITY THAT FOOD WOULD NOT BE SOLD OR OFFERED AT THIS EVENT.
THERE WERE NO PERMITS ISSUED FOR FOOD VENDORS.
THE CITY HAS EVIDENCE THAT THERE WERE FOOD TRUCKS, PICNIC TABLES, AND OTHER FOOD PRODUCTS PRESENT AT THE EVENT.
THE THIRD CITY HAS EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT DURING ROUTINE INSPECTIONS OF THE EVENT, CITY EMPLOYEES ENCOUNTERED DIESEL FUEL LEAKING ONTO THE GROUND AND ABOVE GROUND AND AN ABOVE GROUND FUEL TANK THAT WAS NEVER DISCLOSED TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
THERE'S EVIDENCE OF STYROFOAM PEANUTS THAT WERE ILLEGALLY DISCHARGED INTO THE CITY DRAINS.
ALL OF THESE EGREGIOUS VIOLATIONS NOT ONLY PUT THE SAFETY OF THE PA PATRONS, UH, AT THE EVENT IN DANGER, BUT THEY CAUSED SERIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS AS WELL AS FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.
THERE WAS ALSO, UM, AN ISSUE WITH THE, THE EVENT BEING PERMITTED FROM DECEMBER 4TH THROUGH THE 25TH.
THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE APPELLANTS MARKETED AND SOLD TICKETS OUTSIDE OF THE DATES THAT WERE, UH, APPROVED BY THE PERMIT.
AND FINALLY, UH, WE WILL SHOW THAT THE APPELLANTS THROUGH THEIR DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FAILED TO TIMELY RESPOND TO MULTIPLE CALLS, UH, THAT WERE MADE BY THE CITY WHEN THE VIOLATIONS WERE DISCOVERED AT THE SITE.
SO IN CLOSING, IT'S THE CITY'S POSITION THAT THESE VIOLATIONS TO THE CITY OF DALLAS CHAPTER ORDINANCE 42 A COMMITTED BY THESE APPELLANTS ARE GROUNDS FOR RE REVOCATION.
THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL EVENTS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.
AND THE PERMIT FOR PETER PAN BACKYARD FELLOW LIGHTS SHOULD BE REVOKED.
UM, THANK YOU FOR THAT OPENING STATEMENT.
NOW WE ARE READY TO BEGIN PRESENTATION, ESPECIALLY SINCE, UM, WE ONLY HAVE THE CITY PRESENT TODAY.
UM, NOW, SO THE CITY MAY BEGIN ITS PRESENTATION.
UH, WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO CALL MS. JACQUELINE JUSTICE A MORNING.
MS. JUSTICE, UH, WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU PLEASE, UH, STATE YOUR NAME? JACQUELINE JUSTICE.
AND WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT OCCUPATION? I'M THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IN THE CONVENTION AND EVENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THE CITY OF, UH, SPECIAL EVENT? ALMOST EIGHT YEARS.
AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR? ALMOST THREE YEARS.
AND WHO DO YOU REPORT DIRECTLY TO? ROSA FLEMING, THE DIRECTOR OF CONVENTION AND EVENT SERVICES.
AND WHAT ARE YOUR DUTIES, UM, IN YOUR PROVISION? UH, THANK YOU.
I OVERSEE THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL EVENTS, UM, AND THAT STAFF, UH, FOR THE OPERATIONS OF THE OFFICE AND FOR, UM, CARRYING OUT CHAPTER 42 A.
AND SPEAKING OF CHAPTER 42 A, UH, WHO MAKES A DETERMINATION THAT A PERMIT SHOULD BE REVOKED? THE DIRECTOR OF CONVENTION AND EVENT SERVICES.
AND AND THAT'S UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY? WHAT? OH, UH, CHAPTER
[00:20:01]
42, A DASH 20.AND IS THE DIRECTOR BRIEFED ON THE CASE ROUTINELY TO DETERMINE IF THE APPLICANT WAS, HAS VIOLATED ANY CITY ORDINANCE? YES, WE HAVE VERY OPEN COMMUNICATION AND CONVENTION EVENT SERVICES, UM, FROM TOP TO BOTTOM.
UM, SO YES, WE, WE BRIEF REGULARLY, WEEKLY, UM, AND SOMETIMES DAILY IF NECESSARY.
AND WHEN A NOTICE OF VERIFICATION IS ISSUED, EVEN THOUGH, UH, THE DIRECTOR DOESN'T SIGN IT DIRECTLY, IS IT UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE DIRECTOR? YES, MA'AM.
NOW, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD, I GUESS, UM, WHAT A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT IS? SURE.
UH, A SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT IS, UM, FOR ANY KIND OF TEMPORARY OUTDOOR ACTIVITY WITH AN ATTENDANCE OF 100 PEOPLE OR MORE ON PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY, UM, IN WHICH THESE NORMAL ACTIVITIES WOULDN'T REALLY BE PROHIBITED.
UH, IT ALSO HAS TO HIT ONE OF OUR TRIGGERS, WHICH IS, UH, RESTRICTING ACCESS TO PUBLIC PROPERTY, THE SALE OF MERCHANDISE, FOOD OR BEVERAGE, THE ERECTION OF A TENT LARGER THAN 399 SQUARE FEET, OR AN ERECTION OF MULTIPLE TENTS WITH A CUMULATIVE, UM, OF THAT, UH, INSTALLATION OF A TEMPORARY STAGE BANDSHELL, OUTDOOR PROJECTION TRAILER VAN GRANDSTAND OR PUBLIC, UH, RESTROOMS. THE USE OF CITY HEALTH PLAZA, UH, ALL MOVING EVENTS, RUN WALKS AND RIDES, UM, OR PLACEMENT OF EVENT SIGNAGE, UH, TEMPORARY, NO PARKING, DIRECTIONAL, OVERSIZED OR SPONSORSHIP, UH, CLEAN ZONE ACTIVATION AND CLOSING OR RESTRICTING A PUBLIC STREET LANE, ALLEY, OR SIDEWALK.
AND, UM, HOW DOES THE PERSON APPLY FOR THIS SUMMIT? YES, WE USE, UM, WE HAVE A WEBSITE, DALLAS SPECIAL EVENTS.COM, AND ON THAT WEBSITE WE HAVE ALL OF THE PROCEDURES THERE.
WE USE APPROVAL, WHICH IS AN ONLINE APPLICATION AND PORTAL SYSTEM.
UM, WE IMPLEMENTED THAT ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO.
UM, AND THAT, UM, OFFERS COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY FOR THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY TO COMMUNICATE BACK AND FORTH.
AND I WAS GONNA ASK YOU ABOUT THAT.
DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS, IS THERE ACTIVE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE STAFF? YES.
ANY APPROVAL OR SPECIAL EVENT APPLICATION CONTAINS WHAT WE CALL AS DRAWERS, WHICH ARE SECTIONS OF THE APPLICATION.
AND, UM, WHEN THE APPLICANT TELLS US WHAT THEY'RE DOING, THOSE DRAWERS OPEN UP AND, UM, EACH RELATIVE DEPARTMENT, UM, THAT IS ASSIGNED TO EACH DRAWER.
SO IF IT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, A TINT PERMIT PERHAPS FOR D-F-R-D-F-R IS PULLED INTO THAT DRAWER TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT, UM, THE APPLICANT HAS APPLIED FOR AND THAT COMMUNICATION HAPPENS IN COMMENTING.
AND JUST FOR REFERENCE ON PAGE 25 OF OUR EXHIBITS, UH, THE BOARD CAN JUST KIND OF LOOK THROUGH THE APPLICATION IF THEY'D LIKE TO SEE THAT.
UM, AND WHAT, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED TO PETER PAN'S BACKYARD FOR, UM, DALLAS TRAIL OF LIFE? YES, MA'AM.
AND WHO WAS THE APPLICANT? UH, BLAINE TOWNSEND.
AND WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THAT PERMIT? UH, THAT PERMIT WAS TO HAVE, UH, TEMPORARY OUTDOOR ACTIVITY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, NO STREET CLOSURES, NO FOOD.
UM, IT DID HAVE AN AERIAL PRESENTATION APPROVED BY OUR DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION, UM, AND OUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ALSO APPROVED SOME OF THE TEMPORARY STRUCTURES.
AND YOU SAID IT WAS PRIVATE PROPERTY, WHO WAS THE LANDOWNER? HUNT REALTY.
AND, UM, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HAS THE CITY OF DALLAS EVER ISSUED A PERMIT TO THIS APPLICANT IN THE PAST? NO, MA'AM.
AND WHEN WAS THE INITIAL PERMIT ISSUED? UH, DECEMBER 4TH, 2024.
AND FOR HOW LONG WAS THAT PERMIT? UH, THAT WAS A FIVE FIVE DAY PERMIT.
AND ARE THERE USUALLY EXTENSIONS TO THE PERMITS? YES, WE ARE ABLE TO ISSUE PERMITS FOR UP TO 10 DAYS AT A TIME AND 60 DAYS IN A CALENDAR YEAR.
SO TRADITIONALLY WE'LL ISSUE A PERMIT FOR 10 DAYS AND THEN WE CAN EXTEND IT, UM, FIVE TIMES.
AND ON THIS PARTICULAR, UH, APPLICATION, WERE THERE EXTENSIONS MADE TO THESE PERMITS? YES, MA'AM.
WE EXTENDED THE PERMIT FOUR TIMES.
AND AGAIN, DURING THE EVENT, THERE WAS ONGOING COMMUNICATION BETWEEN YOUR OFFICE, THE APPLICANT, AS WELL AS THE PROPERTY OWNER, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND WHO WAS, UH, THE MAIN POINT OF CONTACT IN YOUR OFFICE WITH THIS? A, UH, LAURA FLORES AND, UM, THE EVENT, OUR, OUR EVENT COORDINATOR.
WHO WAS ASSIGNED TO THAT APPLICATION? DINA GAR.
AND WERE YOU ALSO MADE AWARE OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH LAURA FLORES BETWEEN LAURA FLORES AND, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER? YES, BECAUSE, YES.
UH, WHAT WERE SOME OF THE INITIAL CONCERNS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP TO YOUR ATTENTION ABOUT THIS EVENT? UM, WELL, WE HAD SOME CONCERNS DURING THE APPLICATION PERIOD, BUT, UM, WE, WE WERE ABLE TO OVERCOME THOSE CONCERNS WITH, WITH THE RIGHT, UM, COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT.
[00:25:01]
EVENT ACTIVATED AND OPENED TO THE PUBLIC, UM, THE FIRST CONCERN WE HAD WAS, UH, THE TRASH ON OUR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.AND I'D LIKE TO, UM, SO THERE WAS TRASH.
AND DID YOU COMMUNICATE THAT WITH THE APPLICANT? YES.
SO, YOU KNOW, FIRST WE WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT THE TRASH BELONGED TO THAT APPLICANT.
AND AFTER WE WERE ABLE TO CONFIRM THAT WE, UM, CALLED THE APPLICANT SEVERAL TIMES AND WE SENT WRITTEN EMAILS TO THE APPLICANT, UH, WITH NO RESPONSE, UH, THEN WE, OUR NEXT COURSE OF ACTION IS TO CALL THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH WE DID.
AND WITH THEIR HELP, WE WERE ABLE TO FINALLY GET IN CONTACT WITH THE APPLICANTS.
ABOUT HOW LONG DID THAT TAKE? UH, TWO TO FOUR DAYS.
AND THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE PICTURES, UH, THAT YOUR OFFICE TOOK OF, OF THE TRASH THAT WAS ON SITE AND THE PARKING, THE ILLEGAL PARKING, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
UM, ON ON DECEMBER 13TH, THERE WERE ALSO COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT SOME SNOWFLAKES THAT WERE HUNG OVER A CITY VIADUCT, UH, UH, WITHOUT FIRE AUTHORIZATION.
TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT.
THE CITY VIADUCT IS CITY PROPERTY, UM, AND NO, UH, REQUEST OR PERMISSION WAS GRANTED TO THE APPLICANT TO HANG, UM, THOSE SNOWFLAKES OVER OUR RIGHT OF WAY WHERE PEOPLE WILL BE PASSING UNDER.
UM, AND SO WE REACHED OUT TO THE APPLICANT AND MADE SURE FIRST THAT THEY HAD HUNG THEM UP AND, UM, THEY DID SAY THEY WERE THEIRS AND THAT THEY WOULD EVENTUALLY, UM, THEY EVENTUALLY TOOK THEM DOWN.
UM, AND SO THEN ON DECEMBER 19TH YOU GET A, YOU GET COMMUNICATION FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER.
THERE WERE, UH, THEY HAD SOME CONCERNS OF THEIR OWN.
WHAT WERE THOSE CONCERNS? UM, THEY, THEIR CONCERNS WERE THAT THE APPLICANT HAD ADVERTISED THE EVENT PAST, UM, THE PROPERTY AUTHORIZATION DATES.
UM, AND THEY, THEY WERE VERY CONCERNED THAT THEY WERE SELLING TICKETS TO THE PUBLIC, UM, ON DAYS THAT THEY WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ACTIVATING.
AND, UM, SO THIS IS, IS THIS A CORRECT, UM, PICTURE OF THE COMMUNICATIONS AND THE EVENT THAT WAS BEING, UH, MARKETED PAST THE, THE PERMITTED TIME? YES.
YOU CAN SEE OUR LAST, UM, DATE FOR THE APPLICATION FOR THIS EVENT WAS DECEMBER 25TH.
AND YOU CAN SEE THEY WERE SELLING THEM THROUGH AT LEAST JANUARY 4TH.
SO DID WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT? DID THE PROPERTY OWNER THEN COMMUNICATE WITH, WITH THE, THE APPLICANT AND DID THEY, DID, DID THE CITY DECIDE TO EXTEND THE PERMIT? UM, YES.
THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE APPLICANT HAD COMMUNICATION THAT, UH, WE WERE NOT EXACTLY PRIVY TO, BUT THE PROPERTY OWNER DID COME BACK AND SAY THEY WOULD, UM, REAUTHORIZE THE USE OF THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY, UM, FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS.
AND YOU GUYS EXTENDED TO WHAT DAY THE PERMIT? UM, THAT PERMIT WE EXTENDED THROUGH THE 22ND.
UM, DID THIS PERMIT ALLOW FOR FOOD AT ANY TIME? DID THE PERMIT ALLOW FOR ANY FOOD TO BE OFFERED AT THE EVENT? IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION THAT THEY APPLIED FOR, THEY DID SAY THEY WOULD LIKE FOOD, BUT THEY WERE UNABLE TO GET THEIR TEMPORARY FOOD PERMITS THROUGH CONSUMER HEALTH.
AND SO ON DECEMBER 3RD, UM, THEY REALLY WANTED TO GET THEIR PERMIT AND SO THEY ASKED US TO REMOVE A TEMPORARY FOOD FROM THEIR EVENT.
AND THAT WAS DONE, THAT COMMUNICATION WAS DONE THROUGH, UH, THROUGH A PHONE CALL.
IS THAT CORRECT? UH, AT FIRST IT WAS A PHONE CALL AND THEN WE ASKED THEM TO PUT IT IN WRITING IN THE APPLICATION, WHICH YOU WOULD FIND THAT UNDER THE FOOD SECTION.
UM, AND THEN YOU GUYS WENT INTO THE EVENT AND ACTUALLY TOOK SOME PICTURES WHERE THERE WAS FOOD TRUCKS, UM, AT THE EVENT, CORRECT? YES.
WHEN WAS, YOU REMEMBER ABOUT WHEN THE PICTURES WERE TAKEN? YES, IT WAS DECEMBER 24TH.
SO ON DECEMBER 24TH WHEN YOUR OFFICE WENT OUT THERE, THERE WAS THESE PICTURES THAT WERE SEEN HERE ON THE, ON THE SCREEN? CORRECT.
WE HAD, UM, RECEIVED A COMMUNICATION, UM, THAT THERE WAS A CONCERN, UM, AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN, AND SO WE WENT TO INVESTIGATE AND THAT'S WHEN WE DISCOVERED THERE WERE ALSO FOOD TRUCKS PRESENT.
WELL, LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT, UM, ABOUT THAT, UH, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN.
SO YOU SAID YOUR TEAM CONDUCTED ROUTINE INSPECTIONS, YOU GUYS WENT OUT, UM, ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES? ABOUT SEVEN TIMES.
AND BASED ON WHAT YOU OBSERVED DURING THOSE TIMES, ONE OF 'EM, YOU HAD SOME SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT YOU.
ON DECEMBER 25TH, 24TH, SORRY, UH, WHEN WE WENT OUT, UH, TO THE PROPERTY, WE HAD RECEIVED, AGAIN, THE COMMUNICATION ABOUT, UM, STYROFOAM, PEANUTS BEING SPREAD THROUGHOUT, UM, WELL OUTSIDE OF THE PERIMETER OF THE EVENT, UM, INTO THE STREET AND INTO THE STORM DRAINS.
SO WE WENT TO INVESTIGATE THAT.
[00:30:01]
WE WERE SHOWING UP TO INVESTIGATE, UM, THE EVENT STAFF, UH, CLOSED.THEY, THEY LOCKED, THEY PADLOCKED THE GATES AND LEFT.
UM, SO WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW MANY C PEANUTS THERE WERE.
AND WE ALSO, UM, WANTED TO DO A SITE INSPECTION, SO DFR CAME AND THEY CUT THE PADLOCK, SO WE WERE ABLE TO ACTUALLY GO INSIDE THE EVENT.
AND THAT'S WHERE, UM, WE DISCOVERED MANY OTHER VIOLATIONS.
LET'S TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE.
SO YOU GUYS WENT ALONG WITH WHAT, WHAT THREE OTHER DEPARTMENTS WERE? UM, WE WENT WITH DALLAS FIRE, WE WENT, WENT WITH OEQS, AND WE WENT WITH CODE.
AND, UM, YOU GUYS DISCOVERED THE, THE DIESEL FUEL THAT WAS WITH YOU, CORRECT? YES.
ONCE WE WERE INSIDE THE GROUNDS, UM, BEHIND THE FENCING, UH, DFR DISCOVERED AN ABOVE GROUND FUEL TANK.
UM, AND, UH, THEY WERE ACTUALLY VERY ILLEGALLY SIPHONING THE, UH, FUEL INTO, UM, AS YOU CAN SEE THERE, LIKE A TEMPORARY PORTABLE, UH, FUEL CONTAINERS.
AND I GUESS THEY WERE TAKING IT AROUND TO THEIR OTHER GENERATORS, WHICH ABOVE GROUND FUEL TANKS NEED A SPECIAL PERMIT THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T TELL DFR THEY WERE GONNA HAVE THAT.
AND ANYTIME FUEL IS SPILLED, YOU'RE ALSO SUPPOSED TO CONTACT DFR SO THEY CAN MAKE SURE IT'S CLEANED UP PROPERLY.
UM, AND IT WAS SPILLED AROUND THERE AND, UM, IT OBVIOUSLY THEY HAD NOT BEEN NO NOTIFIED.
SO THOSE WERE, UH, TWO VIOLATIONS, UM, THAT DFR ISSUED.
WHAT ABOUT CODE? WHAT WOULD, WHAT WOULD, WHAT WERE THEIR VIOLATIONS? CODE CAME, UM, AND ISSUED VIOLATIONS FOR THE FOOD TRUCKS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT, UH, PROPERLY PERMITTED EITHER.
AND THERE WAS ALSO, UM, THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL, BUT THAT WAS THE
THEY ISSUED, UH, A FEW VIOLATIONS, ONE FOR THE FUEL SPILLAGE, UM, THEY CALLED IT HAZARDOUS WASTE.
AND THEN ALSO FOR, UM, POLLUTING THE STORM DRAINS BECAUSE THEY DID SEND A CAMERA DOWN THE STORM DRAINS, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THESE PHOTOS, UM, WHERE A LOT OF THE STYROFOAM PEANUTS HAD LEAKED INTO THOSE, THOSE AREAS.
AND UPON, UH, DISCOVERING THESE VIOLATIONS, WHAT DID YOUR, WHAT DID YOUR OFFICE DO? DID YOU TRY TO CONTACT? YES, WE DID.
WE, UH, WERE ON SITE AND WE CALLED HIM AND THEN WE EMAILED HIM, UM, SEVERAL TIMES AND IT WAS ACTUALLY RAINING THAT DAY, SO MY STAFF STOOD IN THE RAIN, UH, FOR AN HOUR TO WAIT TO SEE IF HE WOULD CALL THEM BACK OR SEND EVEN SEND SOMEBODY, UM, TO THE SITE.
UM, THERE WAS ALSO ONE OTHER THING WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE SNOWFLAKES EARLIER ON THE VIA DUCT, YOU GUYS WENT OUT THERE ON THE 24TH AND REALIZED THAT THE OWNER THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PAINTED THE, THE, THE CITY, UH, VIADUCT, DID THEY EVER PAINT IT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL COLOR? NO, THEY PAINTED OUR HISTORIC VIADUCT, UM, WHITE WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION, AND NO, THEY HAVE NOT RETURNED IT TO ITS, UM, ORIGINAL COLOR.
SO THERE WERE THREE NOTICES OF VIOLATION THAT WERE ISSUED AND AS OF TODAY, YOU GUYS HAVE NOT REALLY HEARD BACK FROM THE OWNER ON THOSE NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS, CORRECT? CORRECT.
ALRIGHT, WELL, I HAVE, UM, NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
THANK, UM, YOU'VE ONLY USED 14 MINUTES.
UM, DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER, WE HAVE A BRIEF CLOSING, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IF THE, THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO ASK QUESTIONS FOR OUR WITNESS.
BUT, BUT YOU'RE, THAT'S ALL WE'VE GOT.
WE WILL NOW TAKE, UM, QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AND I WILL GO IN ORDER.
SO IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND ASK IT NOW.
I WILL DO A SECOND RUN THROUGH THOUGH, SO SOMETHING COMES UP LATER.
YOU'RE WELCOME TO ASK IT AT THAT TIME.
UM, MS. STEPHANIE, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY? I DO NOT.
NO, I DON'T MS. JEFFERSON, NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
UM, IF YOU READ THE APPELLANT'S WRITTEN PRESENTATION, THEY SEEM TO TAKE A, A ATTACK THAT Y'ALL JUST SWOOPED IN ON DECEMBER 24TH WHEN THEY WERE CLOSED AND FOUND ALL THESE VIOLATIONS AND THEN AT THAT POINT RESCINDED
[00:35:01]
THE PERMIT, UH, ONCE THEY WEREN'T IMMEDIATELY CORRECTED.YEAH, AT ONE POINT YOU DID ISSUE AN EXTENSION FROM DECEMBER 23RD TO DECEMBER 29TH.
DO I'M SURE THAT SOMEWHERE IN THE MATERIALS, THE DATE THAT EXTENSION WAS GRANTED CAN BE FOUND, BUT I DIDN'T FEEL, FRANKLY FEEL LIKE DIGGING FOR IT RIGHT NOW.
WHEN WAS THAT EXTENSION THROUGH THE 29TH? GRANTED, IT WASN'T AN EXTENSION, BUT THOSE WERE THEIR TEAR DOWN DATES.
SO IT IS ISSUED FOR PUBLIC ACTIVATION THROUGH THE, IT WAS ISSUED THROUGH THE 25TH.
UM, AND THEN THEY WERE GIVEN FOUR DAYS TO TEAR THEIR, YOU KNOW, TEAR THEIR ACTIVATION DOWN AND REMOVE IT FROM THE PROPERTY.
WE ALWAYS INCLUDE OUR SETUP AND TEAR DATES, UM, AT THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE PERMIT JUST BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE FIND SOMETIMES IF PEOPLE WON'T LEAVE, WE, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THEY'RE, THEY'RE KEPT TO THEIR TIMEFRAME ALSO FOR INSURANCE PURPOSES.
UM, THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE DIESEL FUEL SPILL WAS MERELY A RESULT OF FILLING UP THE TANK AND IT WAS NOT AN ONGOING LEAKAGE ISSUE.
WOULD YOU DIFFER FROM THAT OPINION? UM, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A QUESTION FOR DFR, BUT, UM, DFR DID NOTE THAT THEY WERE NEVER TO SIPHON THE WAY THEY WERE SIPHONING, SO THAT THAT WAS NOT AN APPROVED PROCESS OR WOULD NOT HAVE EVER BEEN AN APPROVED PROCESS, UH, FOR FILLING, UM, THOSE SMALLER CONTAINERS.
SO IF I WERE TO SAY THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NEVER NOTIFIED OF ANY OF THESE DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO THIS DECEMBER 24TH DATE, I WOULD YOU, IN FACT REFUTE THAT IT SOUNDS FROM YOUR TESTIMONY AS IF THERE WAS ONGOING COMMUNICATIONS WELL PRIOR TO THEM? WOULD I BE CORRECT IN MAKING THAT STATEMENT? YES, SIR.
WE, WE HAD A LOT OF COMMUNICATION BACK AND FORTH, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE, THE TRASH WAS THE FIRST THING WE NOTICED.
UM, AND WHEN WE ISSUE A PERMIT, IT COMES WITH LIKE FIVE OR SIX PAGES OF ALL THE RULES, UM, AND REGULATIONS THAT WE EXPECT THEM TO UPHOLD.
SO, UM, DECEMBER'S A BUSY MONTH FOR US, BUT WE MADE LOTS OF VISITS TO ALL OF OUR EVENTS.
UM, NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AS THE CITY'S PRESENTATION WAS VERY CONCISE AND VERY COMPELLING.
MS. SHIN, UM, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VIADUCT.
WAS THAT INCLUDED IN THE PERMITTED AREA? I DO THINK YOU SAID NO, BUT I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
AND THEN, UM, YOU SAID IT'S A HISTORICAL VIADUCT.
IS THAT REGISTERED AS A HISTORICAL STRUCTURE? YES, MA'AM, IT IS.
SO WHAT WOULD THE PROCESS BE FOR, UM, GETTING PERMISSION TO PAINT THAT THAT WOULD'VE HAD TO HAVE GONE THROUGH, UM, UH, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.
AND I ALSO HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
UM, CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH, WHENEVER, WHENEVER SOMEONE, UM, IS GOING TO DO A SPECIAL EVENT IN DALLAS AND HOLD ON, LET ME RESET MY TIME.
WHEN SOMEONE'S GONNA DO A SPECIAL EVENT IN DALLAS, HOW MANY MONTHS IN ADVANCE SHOULD THEY BE DOING SOME OF THESE ITEMS? 'CAUSE IT FEELS OVERWHELMING.
JUST THINKING ABOUT HOW MANY, I GUESS, UM, IN YOUR OPINION, HOW MANY THINGS WENT WRONG? SO LIKE, SHOULD THIS HAVE BEEN DONE WITH MORE TIME IN ADVANCE? DID THEY GIVE YOU PLENTY OF HEADS UP? WAS TIMELINE AN ISSUE? WELL, THEY FOR NO.
SO WE HAVE THREE, UH, APPLICATION DEADLINES AND WE'VE KIND OF BUILT THOSE BECAUSE IT KIND OF USUALLY MATCHES THE COMPLEXITY OF THE EVENT.
UM, SO IT'S 120 DAYS FOR A STREET CLOSURE IN A HIGH IMPACT AREA.
WE CALL THOSE COMPLEX, UH, 60 DAYS FOR A STATIC STREET CLOSURE, MEANING LIKE A FESTIVAL THAT'S NOT MOVING.
AND THEN 30 DAYS FOR, UM, AN ACTIVATION WITH NO STREET CLOSURES, WHICH IS WHAT THIS FALL FELL UNDER.
UM, SO 30 DAYS, UM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENOUGH.
WE, WE HAD ACTUALLY SEVERAL OTHER EVENTS OF THIS SIZE, UM, APPLY IN A SIMILAR TIMELINE, AND THEY HAD NO ISSUES.
AND THEN DO WE KNOW IF, IF THIS APPLICANT, UM, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WITH THE CITY THAT IT'S DONE THIS EVENT, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
SO, UM, POTENTIALLY IF THEY WANTED TO DO IT AGAIN THIS YEAR, THEY
[00:40:01]
COULD, AS LONG AS THEY, WELL, I GUESS THEY GOTTA DO IT ON A YEARLY BASIS.IS THAT, IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING? UH, UH, A NEW APPLICATION HAS TO HAPPEN EVERY YEAR.
WELL, UNDER THIS RELOCATION, THEY WILL BE KEPT FROM, UM, HAVING THIS EVENT FOR 14 MONTHS, BUT AFTER 14 MONTHS THEY CAN APPLY AGAIN.
THANK YOU FOR CLEARING THAT UP.
SO IF WE AGREE WITH THE REVOCATION, THEN THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THIS EVENT FOR 14 MONTHS AND THEN THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT.
UM, AND THEN CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH, UM, WOULD YOU SAY THAT IN GENERAL IT'S, THE COMMUNICATION HAS BEEN DIFFICULT AND IN PARTICULAR WITH, WITH WHO? YES, MA'AM.
IT HAS BEEN DIFFICULT, UM, WITH MR. TOWNSEND.
SO IN CHAPTER 42 A, WE, WE KIND OF DEFINE THE APPLICANT AND WE KIND OF DEFINE THE EXPECTATIONS OF THAT COMMUNICATION.
SO IF YOU'RE THE APPLICANT, YOU ARE THE MAIN PERSON WE COMMUNICATE WITH MM-HMM
UM, WE ALSO OFFER ON THE APPLICATION A PLACE FOR THEM TO PUT AN ONSITE CONTACT.
SO THOSE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE YOU'RE DOING THE APPLICATION, BUT SOMEONE ELSE IS GONNA BE ON SITE.
AND IN THIS CASE, UM, PERHAPS THAT'S WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED, BUT NEVER WERE WE, YOU KNOW, TOLD WE'RE GONNA PUT SOMEONE ELSE ON SITE.
AND SO YES, IT WAS DIFFICULT, UM, TO COMMUNICATE WITH HIM AND, AND YOU HAD ONE, ONE PERSON THAT YOU WERE COMMUNICATING WITH.
WE WILL DO NOW ANOTHER ROUND OF BOARD QUESTIONING IF THERE'S ANY MS. KYLE.
UM, MS. WILLIS? NOT AT THE MOMENT.
MR. HAYES? NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
CHAIR, MS. CHEN, NO QUESTIONS, BUT I DID WANNA SAY, I USUALLY SAY THIS IN MY FIRST ROUND.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, UH, TO THE CITY AND TO THEIR WITNESSES.
THANK YOU, MS. UM, MY LAST QUESTION IS, UM, AND THIS IS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.
UH, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THE, THESE PERMITS WERE CONTINUOUSLY RENEWED.
SO LIKE, DO YOU ONLY PERMIT AN EVENT TO HAPPEN FIVE DAYS AT A TIME? AND THEN I GUESS WALK ME THROUGH WHY THERE WAS RENEWALS OF THE PERMIT.
SO, DESPITE THE ISSUES THAT WERE ONGOING, WE DO REQUIRE PROPERTY AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE THE PERMIT.
AND THERE WERE A FEW TIMES, UM, THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WANTED TO PULL BACK THAT AUTHORIZATION.
UM, BUT BECAUSE OF THE TICKET SALES TO THE PUBLIC, THEY KEPT DECIDING THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A COUPLE MORE DATES.
SO, UM, AS WE WOULD COME TO THE END OF AN EXTENSION, WE ALWAYS REACH OUT TO ALL THE DEPARTMENTS TO SAY, HEY, DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH US EXTENDING THIS PERMIT? AND, UM, AT THE TIMES, NONE OF THE DEPARTMENTS HAD ISSUES, BUT OUR PROPERTY AU OUR PROPERTY AUTHORIZATION WOULD KIND OF COME BACK AND FORTH.
SO THESE, UH, PERMIT DATES ARE, UM, IN LINE WITH THAT.
AND, UM, THEY MENTIONED, YOU MENTIONED THERE WAS FOOD TRUCKS, BUT THEY, IN THEIR RESPONSE, SUBMITTED A TEMPORARY SPECIAL AND FOOD PERMIT.
SO, UM, WHAT IS THIS, LIKE, WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE THEY PRESENTING THAT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE FOOD? SO IS THIS FAKE? I DON'T KNOW.
I CAN'T ANSWER THAT 'CAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN IT, BUT I CAN TELL YOU WHEN WE ASKED FOR ANYTHING, THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING.
AND WHEN CODE CAME OUT, UM, IT WAS A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CONSUMER HEALTH AND THEY HAD NOTHING ON FILE, UM, FOR, FOR TEMPORARY FOOD.
SO THIS TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENT FOOD PERMIT THAT WE HAVE, THAT WE ARE PRIVY TO, YOU ARE NOT PRIVY TO.
THAT IS ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE.
UM, WE ARE NOW THE BOARD IS NOW READY TO HEAR CLOSING STATEMENTS.
THAT SHOULD BE PLENTY OF TIME.
UH, VICE CHAIR, UH, ON BEHALF OF THE DALLAS SPECIAL OFFICE OF SPECIAL EVENTS, UH, WE THANK YOU PERMIT VICE SENATE FIELD BOARD FOR THEIR TIME AND CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER.
UH, THE ORDINANCES ARE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS.
UH, SECTION 42 8 20 STATES THAT THE DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL EVENTS, AS YOU CAN SEE, SHALL REVOKE A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT IF THE APPLICANT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH, OR THE SPECIAL EVENT IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF, UH, NOT ONLY THE CITY ORDINANCES, BUT THE SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT ITSELF.
[00:45:01]
SHALL REVOKE A PERMIT IF THE PERMIT HOLDER MADE A FALSE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACT ON THEIR APPLICATION.UH, THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE CITY IS VERY SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD, AND IT'S ABUNDANT.
UH, THE PERMIT HOLDER STATED ON THE APPLICATION THAT, THAT THERE WOULD BE NO FOOD OR BEVERAGES, UH, THAT WAS, THAT WAS NEVER CHANGED FROM THE CITY'S SIDE.
UH, YET THERE WAS FOOD ON THE PREMISES.
UH, THE PERMIT HOLDER HOLDER ALSO STATED THAT HIS EVENT WOULD END ON DECEMBER 28TH, BUT WAS SELLING TICKETS FAR BEYOND THAT.
UH, ON TOP OF THAT, THERE WERE NUMEROUS CODE VIOLATIONS ON THE PROPERTY, FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS SOLD ONTO THE GROUND.
HAZARDOUS WASTE RELEASE INTO THE CITY STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
UH, THE CITY PROPERTY PAINTED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION, WASTE AND LITTER LEFT BEHIND.
UH, DUMPSTERS, BARRICADES AND HEAVY EQUIPMENT WERE PLACED IN THE CITY STREETS.
UH, THESE, THESE WERE IDENTIFIED AT DIFFERENT TIMES, AND, AND THE EARLIER VIOLATIONS WERE CORRECTED, UH, WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE TO THE, UH, TO THE PERMIT HOLDER.
UM, BUT, AND, AND THE NOTICES OF VIOLATIONS FOR THE, UH, VIOLATIONS THAT OCCURRED ON THE LAST DAY FROM FIRE, FROM OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND FROM CODE COMPLIANCE, UH, NOTICES OF THOSE VIOLATIONS WERE ISSUED TO THE PERMIT HOLDER.
HOWEVER, READING THE PERMIT MAKES IT CLEAR.
UH, NOTICES OF VIOLATION ARE NOT REQUIRED.
IT IS THAT, THAT THESE VIOLATIONS EXIST.
UH, THE, THE VIOLATION DID EXIST THERE.
UM, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT IN THE CODE FOR, UH, THE PERMIT HOLDER TO EVEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECTIFY THESE THINGS.
IF THEY'RE IN CONTRADICTION THE CODE, THEY, THE DIRECTOR SHALL REVOKE THEIR PERMIT.
SO, UH, IT ESSENTIALLY THE, THE DIRECTOR HAD NO CHOICE IN THIS MATTER.
THEY WERE COMPELLED TO REVOKE THIS PERMIT, UH, BASED ON THE CODE VIOLATIONS THAT EXISTED.
SO IN LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WE PRESENTED TODAY, UH, THE CITY RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD AFFIRM THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE THE PERMIT.
SO THE NEXT POINT OF ORDER, OR JUST NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS JUST MAY I HAVE A MOTION FROM THE BOARD REGARDING THE REVOCATION OF A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT OR PETER PENN'S BACKYARD? UM, YOU CAN EITHER AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF CONVENTION AND EVENT SERVICES, OR REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF CONVENTION AND EVENT SERVICES.
I MOVE TO AFFIRM THE DECISION, UH, TO REVOKE THE PERMIT FROM THE, UM, EVENT SERVICES.
I'LL SECOND, I BELIEVE, UM, SO MOTION BY MS. SHIN TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE RE THE DIRECTOR OF CONVENTION AND EVENT SERVICES, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS SECONDED, UM, INITIALLY BY MR. QUINT.
DO ANY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WISH TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS MOTION? I'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
YOU, UH, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THE CITY DID AN AB ADMIRABLE JOB DURING THE EVENTS THAT, UH, TOOK PLACE, AS WELL AS MAKING A VERY COGENT PRESENTATION TO US TODAY.
UM, WHILE SOME OF THE WRITTEN EVIDENCE SUBMITTED, SUCH AS THE PICTURE WE HAVE HERE OF THE SPECIAL EVENT FOOD PERMIT PERMIT MAY REFUTE OR CAST DOUBT UPON SOME OF THE VIOLATIONS, UH, THE STILL THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE IN PARTICULARLY THE SNOWFLAKES, IN MY OPINION, UM, WOULD SUPPORT UPHOLDING THE REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT.
ANY MEMBER WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION.
DO ANY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WISH TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THE MOTION AS WELL, OR MAKE OR SPEAK ON THE MOTION? I, I, I'D LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING.
I AM, I'M ALSO IN AGREEANCE, UM, WITH MS. SHIN AND MR. HAYES AND MR. PU.
UM, IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THERE'S A CONTINUED PATTERN FROM THE APPELLANT.
IT SEEMS OF, OF NO COMMUNICATION.
WE GOT TO SEE THAT AS A BOARD THIS MORNING BECAUSE WE MADE MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS TO, UH, GET THEM HERE.
WE STARTED THE MEETING A LITTLE BIT LATER.
UM, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CITY HAS BEEN DEALING WITH SIMILAR SITUATIONS, UH, WITH THIS APPELLANT.
UH, WE WERE PRESENTED WITH CERTAIN THINGS ON THEIR BEHALF, BUT UNFORTUNATE, AND, AND DEFINITELY KEN, WE HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT COME FROM THAT, BUT THE CITY'S PRESENTATION WAS MOST COMPELLING.
UM, AND WE ALSO WANNA THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME BEING HERE.
SO I THINK NOW WE ARE READY TO VOTE ON THE MOTION.
[00:50:01]
SO DO I, UH, SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF CONVENTION AND EVENT SERVICES, SAY, AYE.THE MOTION PASSES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE BOARD MEMBERS, PLEASE MONITOR YOUR EMAIL FOR THE FINDINGS.
THIS CONCLUDES TODAY'S HEARING.
THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR YOUR TIME.