Page Break

[26. 26-2948A Authorize acquisition of three single-family dwellings and two vacant lots, containing a total of approximately 28,178 square feet of land located near the intersection of McGowan and Nolen Streets for the Cadillac Heights Phase II Project (list attached to the Agenda Information Sheet) - Not to exceed $800,500.00 ($786,000.00, plus closing costs and title expenses not to exceed $14,500.00) - Financing: Land Acquisition in Cadillac Heights Fund (2006 General Obligation Bond Fund)]

AGENDA ITEM 26. ITEM 26. AUTHORIZED ACQUISITION OF THREE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND TWO VACANT LOTS, CONTAINING A TOTAL OF APPROXIMATELY 28,178FT² OF LAND.

LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF MCGOWAN AND NOLAN STREETS FOR THE CADILLAC HEIGHTS PHASE TWO PROJECT.

NOT TO EXCEED $800,500. THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. LOOKING FOR A MOTION? I HEARD A MOTION AND A SECOND.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION FROM CHAIRWOMAN? WHO PULLED THIS? MR. MENDELSOHN, THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN. OKAY. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU.

I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SOURCE OF FUNDS.

GOOD MORNING, JOHN JOHNSON. HI. CAN YOU SHARE WITH US THE SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR THIS? THESE ARE FROM THE 2006 LAND ACQUISITION BOND FUND AND THAT ITEM.

WAS TOLD TO VOTERS THAT THE LAND ACQUISITION WOULD BE.

FOR WHAT PURPOSE? FOR MAINTENANCE, MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE FACILITIES FOR CITY SERVICES.

AND THEN THERE WAS A PORTION IN 2003 FOR POLICE ACADEMY.

SO ON OCTOBER 30TH, 2006, EIGHT DAYS BEFORE THAT NOVEMBER 7TH BOND ELECTION, THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS RAN AN ARTICLE BY EMILY RAMSHAW AND THE HEADLINE READ, BOND PACKAGE WOULD INVEST IN DALLAS PUBLIC SAFETY.

AND IT DISCUSSED THE 24 MILLION FOR CADILLAC HEIGHTS AND REPEATEDLY FRAME THE ACQUISITION AS A FIRST STEP TOWARDS A NEW DALLAS POLICE ACADEMY. WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED? I'M NOT SURE THAT I CAN SPEAK ON SOMETHING FROM 2006 I HAVEN'T READ, I APOLOGIZE.

OKAY. WELL, I WOULD SAY THAT THE VOTERS APPROVED THE CADILLAC HEIGHTS LAND ACQUISITION FOR A POLICE ACADEMY, AND WE ARE USING IT FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE. AND THEREFORE, I WILL NOT BE VOTING FOR THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU. JOE MORENO, ARE YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES? THIS IS ITEM 26. THANK YOU MAYOR. I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBER FOR FOR THAT DISTRICT.

I KNOW THAT HE'S WORKING CLOSELY WITH HIS COMMUNITY TO BRING SOMETHING THAT THOSE NEIGHBORS WOULD LIKE TO SEE ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.

[00:50:01]

AND AGAIN, JUST GLAD THAT WE'VE HAD OUR GROUNDBREAKING FOR OUR POLICE ACADEMY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN RIDLEY, RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 26.

SO, DIRECTOR JOHNSON, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE FOR THIS LAND ACQUISITION FOR MAINTENANCE AND CITY SERVICE CENTERS? SO WHAT DEPARTMENTS WILL OPERATE THIS FACILITY? MANY. THERE WOULD BE FLEET, POLICE, FIRE, TRANSPORTATION, SANITATION IS CURRENTLY IN THE CODE IN THE CENTRAL SERVICE CENTER. IT'S A VARIETY OF DEPARTMENTS THAT LOCATE IN A SERVICE CENTER.

SO WILL THIS FACILITY REPLACE ANOTHER EXISTING FACILITY? SO IN THEORY, YES. HOWEVER THIS IS THE FIRST STEP IS TO COMPLETE THE ASSEMBLAGE.

WE DO NOT HAVE THE DESIGNS OR THE FUNDING FOR THAT NEXT PHASE.

THAT'S YET TO BE APPROVED BY THE VOTERS. WHAT FACILITY WOULD IT REPLACE? IT'S ENVISIONED THAT IT WOULD BE CANTON STREET, BUT THAT AGAIN HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE VOTERS, HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THIS BODY. CITY ATTORNEY, COULD YOU OPINE AS TO WHETHER THESE BOND FUNDS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY APPROVED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER CAN NOW BE REALLOCATED TO A CITY SERVICE CENTER? MR. MAYOR, THE BOND FUNDS. I BELIEVE THE PROPOSITION.

I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I BELIEVE IT OFFERED THREE THINGS. IT WAS A MAINTENANCE CENTER. IT WAS A POLICE TRAINING CENTER, AND IT WAS ALSO POSSIBLY A PARK USE.

I'M LOOKING AT CONNIE TO GET A NOD OR NOT. SO IT WAS FOR THOSE THREE USES AND IT IS ALLOWED.

OH, HOLD ON ONE SECOND. CONNIE, DO YOU WANT TO COME OUT? I GOT A NOD AND A. CONNIE TANKERSLEY WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

THE FIRST TWO THAT YOU LISTED WERE CORRECT, BUT THEN LATER THE CITY COUNCIL REPURPOSED THE THE LAND.

THE BOND PROPOSITION IS LIMITED TO JUST THE ACQUISITION OF LAND.

AND WITH THE PURPOSE IT CAN BE REPURPOSED IF, IF THE, IF OTHER MONIES CAN BE USED FOR THAT.

AND SO THERE WAS A LATER, LATER ACTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PARK WITH SOME OF THE LAND THAT WAS ACQUIRED THERE.

JOHN IS CORRECT. THE BOND PROPOSITION ALLOWED WOULD ALLOW FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE REMAINDER LOTS FOR THE SECOND PURPOSE, WHICH IS THE SERVICE FACILITIES. THANK YOU. MAYOR.

MISS BLACKMON RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. ITEM 26.

THANK YOU. SO, JOHN, IN THIS 2006 BOND PROPOSITION, HOW MUCH IS STILL IN THAT PROPOSITION? THE LAST THAT WE LOOKED AT WAS APPROXIMATELY $10 MILLION REMAINING.

SO THERE'S $10 MILLION OF THAT AND YOU'RE GOING TO BE USING 800 OF IT.

CORRECT. THERE ARE A FEW PARCELS THAT REMAIN AFTER THIS ITEM.

THERE WOULD BE NINE, AND THEN THERE WOULD BE THE DEMOLITION THAT WOULD OCCUR AT A LATER DATE AS WELL.

AND THAT IS GOING TO COME FROM THIS. CORRECT.

OKAY. SO YOU MENTIONED ABOUT FLEET SERVICES, AND I KNOW THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION AND IT WAS KIND OF PUT ON HOLD.

IS THERE AN INTENTION WAS DURING FINANCE, I BELIEVE AND I BELIEVE THE FORMER COUNCILWOMAN FROM THAT ERA WANTED IT TO BE A PARK.

THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION. WHAT IS THE IDEA MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS? WE'RE GOING TO VACATE THESE PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR HOMES, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO BUILD SOMETHING ELSE FOR FLEET SERVICES.

THERE WOULD BE CITY SERVICE OR CITY SERVICE CENTER.

OKAY. AYE. ISN'T THIS IN A FLOODPLAIN? I'M SORRY.

ISN'T THIS IN A FLOODPLAIN? I DON'T BELIEVE THIS PORTION.

WE WOULD NEED DWU TO BE, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE WERE BUYING THEM OUT IS BECAUSE THEY WERE IN A FLOODPLAIN.

BECAUSE THERE WAS PREVIOUS BONDS FOR AYE IN THE TRINITY PACKAGE FOR THIS.

BUT I BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE REMEDIATED THAT OR THESE PORTIONS. BUT AGAIN, DWU WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU. I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE THAT. AND SO HOW AND THESE ARE TWO LEGITIMATE. THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY, ANY EMINENT DOMAIN OR IS IT TO TRULY HAVE WE GOT A DEAL WITH THE LAND OWNER TO PURCHASE IT FOR THESE PROPERTIES ON THIS ITEM.

TODAY WE HAVE A DEAL. THERE WILL BE SOME EMINENT DOMAIN THAT'S REQUIRED IN THE FUTURE THAT WILL COME BACK TO THIS BODY FOR A DECISION.

AND SO THAT THERE'S FIVE TOTAL PARCELS BECAUSE THIS ITEM.

YES, MA'AM. AND SO DO YOU KNOW WHICH ONES ARE IMMINENT THAT WE HAVE TO DO? NONE OF THESE ITEMS. NONE OF THESE TWO. BUT THIS.

GO AHEAD. GOOD MORNING, ASHLEY EUBANKS. HI, ASHLEY.

MISS BLACKMON OUT OF THIS ITEM, THERE MAY BE THREE ACTUAL THREE PARCELS THAT MAY NEED TO COME BACK FOR EDI.

AS FAR AS PART OF OUR POLICY, WE COME BACK WITH ONE ACTION TO DO THE ACQUISITION.

AND THEN IF THERE'S A NEED FOR EDI, WE'LL COME BACK WITH A SECOND ACTION.

OKAY. SO IT'S APPROPRIATE THE MONEY THEN COME BACK FOR E FOR EMINENT DOMAIN AND THEN EXECUTE I GUESS THE ACTION.

[00:55:06]

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND I GUESS AND SO WE STILL HAVE 10 MILLION LEFT.

SO WE'LL HAVE ABOUT 9 MILLION LEFT. IS THERE ANY MORE PARCELS THAT WILL NEED TO BE, ACQUIRED.

THERE ARE A TOTAL OF NINE PARCELS THAT REMAIN. NINE AFTER THIS.

FIVE. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. SO THEN THAT MEANS THERE'S 14 IN ALL AT THIS MOMENT BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T.

CORRECT. OKAY. AND AND IT'S ALL TO THEN LOOK AT BUILDING NEW A NEW FACILITY IN THIS LOCATION.

AND SO WE'RE SCRAPPING THE WHOLE. SO THIS WOULD BE TO COMPLETE THE ASSEMBLAGE WITH THE IDEA THAT THE VOTERS APPROVED IT FOR A FUTURE CITY SERVICE CENTER FOR MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE. OKAY. SO THAT IS THE INTENT. YES. AND YET, BUT WE HAVEN'T DECIDED IF THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING, EVEN THOUGH THE VOTERS HAVE GIVEN US THE NOD FOR MONEY IN 2006, WE AS A COLLECTIVE UNIT HAVE NOT DECIDED THAT THAT IS THE DIRECTION IN WHICH WE ARE GOING.

WELL, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MOVE TO THE NEXT STEP OR DESIGN A FACILITY IF WE DON'T OWN THE DIRT THAT WE WOULD BE BUILDING ON.

SO THE FIRST STEP IS TO COMPLETE THIS ASSEMBLAGE SO THAT WE HAVE ALL THE PARCELS.

SO WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DECIDE NOT TO? DO WE JUST OWN THE LAND AND JUST MAINTAIN IT? WE WOULD THEN NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. IF IT'S NOT GOING TO BE USED WITH THAT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO DIFFUSE THE BONDS BACK WITH WHATEVER THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS, OR IT WOULD NEED TO BE USED FOR THE STATED PURPOSE.

OKAY. BECAUSE, I MEAN, I DO KNOW THAT SOME OF THIS LOCATION IS IN A FLOODPLAIN.

SOME OF IT'S BEEN ALLOCATED TO A PARK. SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE LANDSCAPE OF THIS AREA BECAUSE I REMEMBER THERE WAS LIKE THREE BONDS FOR THIS AREA WITH THE TRINITY RIVER. AND SO, AND IT WAS THE WHOLE INTENT WAS TO BE A POLICE ACADEMY AND MOVED PEOPLE OUT OF IT TO BUILD IT UP INTO A POLICE ACADEMY. SO WE'VE ABANDONED THAT. AND NOW IT'S LOOKING TO BE A IN ONE OF THE PROPOSITIONS IS JUST TO BE A FLEET IS TO BE A CITY, CITY SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE CENTER. OKAY. SO BE.

AND SO WOULD IT. AND SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT SERVICE CENTERS WOULD BE RELOCATED FROM THERE UNTIL WE GET THE LAND AND THEN START PLANNING FOR IT.

WELL, IT'S BEEN ENVISIONED THAT IT WOULD BE A REPLACEMENT FOR THE CANTON SERVICE CENTER.

HAS THAT BEEN BRIEFED TO ANYBODY? IT'S BEEN BRIEFED SEVERAL TIMES.

SO IF I SEVEN TIMES I KNOW AND BUT IT WAS NOT.

BUT I THOUGHT WE HAD PUT IT ON PAUSE BECAUSE THE COUNCILWOMAN FROM THAT AREA WAS NOT.

MISS ARNOLD WAS NOT HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IT CAME THROUGH FINANCE AND I THOUGHT IT WAS KIND OF LIKE IT WASN'T.

NO. BUT IT WAS LIKE WE NEEDED TO MASSAGE IT MORE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE QUESTIONS. COUNCILWOMAN.

BLACKMON. AND THANK YOU TO THE TEAM FOR THE RESPONSES THAT THEY'VE GIVEN TO THIS POINT.

SO WE'VE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS THROUGHOUT THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS THAT I'M AWARE OF SINCE I'VE BEEN IN THIS ROLE ABOUT THE WHOLE FUTURE OF CADILLAC HEIGHTS.

WE ARE WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON.

WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS TO ACTIVATE THE THE DEVELOPABLE PARTS OF CADILLAC HEIGHTS, AND WE'VE HAD SOME COMMUNITY MEETINGS. AND SO A LOT OF WHAT MR. JOHNSON IS REFERRING TO IS SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT WITH THE COMMUNITY RELATED TO SERVICE CENTER COMPONENTS, WHETHER IT'S AN ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A STOREFRONT THAT SUPPORTS PUBLIC SAFETY.

SOME OF THE COMPONENTS AROUND FUNCTIONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY AT THE CANTON STREET LOCATION.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE HAVE TO EVENTUALLY MONETIZE THE SERVICE CENTER DOWN THE STREET.

SO THIS IS ALL PART OF THE PLANNING, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO BRIEF AND UPDATE THE CITY COUNCIL ABOUT THE PLANS OVERALL.

BUT THERE'S A COMMUNITY WORK AND ENGAGEMENT THAT'S CURRENTLY HAPPENING THAT WE KNOW THAT DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON IS WORKING WITH US ON.

SO I DO REMEMBER THE CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU ALSO REMEMBER WITH THE FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER, BUT WE ARE WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON.

AND SO, I GUESS, WOULD YOU BRING THE WHOLE VISIONING OF THAT AREA TO THE FULL COUNCIL? ABSOLUTELY. TO FINISH ACQUIRING THE NINE OTHER PARCELS AND UNDERSTANDING, BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS MORE ABOUT THE TRUCKS COMING IN.

EXACTLY. THAT WAS A CONCERN. AND ABOUT AND YOU SAID YOU'VE HAD COMMUNITY MEETINGS.

WE'VE HAD. HOW MANY HAVE YOU HAD? I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NUMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

WE HAVE A LOT OF MEETINGS, BUT I CAN PROVIDE YOU THE SUMMARY OF THE MEETINGS THAT WE'VE HAD OUTSIDE OF THE CURRENT CONVERSATION.

I DO KNOW THAT DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON HAS ASKED FOR US TO CONTINUE TO EVEN LOOK AT THE PLANS AROUND THE PARK, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I KNOW THAT THE PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT THAT THEY'RE CONTINUING TO BE A PART OF AS WELL.

SO THERE'S MULTIPLE PIECES WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WHAT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE MADE SURE IS THAT IN THE PARCELS THAT WE'RE STILL ACQUIRING, THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHICH OF THOSE WOULD GO INTO THE DEVELOPABLE PARTS FOR THE SERVICE CENTER AND WHICH ONES CANNOT. SO I KNOW SARAH STANDIFORD IS HERE, SO I'M GOING TO ASK HER TO COME OUT AND TALK ABOUT THE FLOODPLAIN FLOOD FLOODPLAIN

[01:00:06]

PIECES THAT I KNOW ARE ALSO PART OF THIS EQUATION.

GOOD MORNING SARAH, STANDING FOR DALLAS WATER UTILITIES.

AND WITH RESPECT TO CADILLAC HEIGHTS, WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS FOR SEVERAL DECADES.

THERE ARE TWO BIG INITIATIVES THAT ARE ONGOING RIGHT NOW. SO WE CONTINUE TO ACQUIRE THE LAND THAT WILL FACILITATE THE CADILLAC HEIGHTS LEVEE UNDER THE DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION PROJECT. WHEN THAT LEVEE IS IN PLACE, THERE WILL BE NO FLOODPLAIN LAND THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH CADILLAC HEIGHTS.

THERE WILL JUST BE SOME AREAS RIGHT BEHIND THE LEVEES LIKE OUR CONSISTENT TODAY. WHAT HAS OCCURRED, THOUGH, IS AS PART OF THE UPPER CHAIN OF WETLANDS PROJECT THAT ACTUALLY REDUCED THE FLOODING BY ABOUT FOUR FEET.

IT SHRUNK WHAT THE ORIGINAL FLOODPLAIN LOOKED LIKE, TOOK IT ABOUT IN HALF.

AS WE'VE WORKED WITH EVERYBODY TO KIND OF PLACE WHAT COULD BE THERE, WHAT COULD GO IN NOW, WHAT COULD GO IN LATER. THOSE CONTINUE TO BE COORDINATED EFFORTS.

SO IT IS A MUCH SMALLER FLOODPLAIN TODAY THAN IT WAS TWO DECADES AGO.

IT WILL BE A SMALLER ONE ONCE THE CORPS COMPLETES THEIR CONSTRUCTION. THEY. THEY ARE CURRENTLY SCHEDULED AROUND 2031 2032 TO HAVE THAT CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE.

OKAY. AND THEN WITH THE REMAINING 9 MILLION WHAT WOULD IT'S JUST LAND ACQUISITION, IS THAT CORRECT? YES. IT'S ACQUISITION. I DO BELIEVE THAT THE BUILDING WILL BE USED.

I THINK THERE'S A DEMOLITION COMPONENT AS WELL THAT WE HAVE INCLUDED IN THAT AMOUNT.

THAT IS REMAINING. AND ONE OF THE COMMITMENTS THAT WE DID MAKE, AND IT WAS DURING THE TIME THAT I KNOW ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, FORMER ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER GIBSON WAS HERE, IS THAT WE WOULD CONTINUE TO MOVE IN THE DIRECTION OF ACQUIRING WHAT WE STILL NEED, AND THAT WE WOULD CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THOSE UPDATES TO THE FULL CITY COUNCIL.

SO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WILL IT COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL? YES. AND WHEN WE COME BACK, WE WILL BE ABLE TO LAY OUT THE FULL PLAN.

NOW THAT WE'VE GOTTEN ALL THE PARCELS COMBINED TO WHERE WE CAN NOW DEVELOP THE SERVICE CENTER ON THIS SITE.

AND DO Y'ALL HAVE A TIMELINE OF WHEN THE NEXT ROUND OF NINE PARCELS WILL BE ACQUIRED.

MRS. BLACKMON. OUR INTENT IS TO COME BACK WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS TO COMPLETE THE ACQUISITION PROCESS. YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. AND I WOULD COMMIT COUNCILWOMAN BLACKMON THAT WHEN WE BRING THAT BACK, WE WILL ALSO COME AND THEN GIVE AN UPDATE TO KIND OF GIVE YOU THE FULL PICTURE OF WHAT ALL WE'VE DONE SINCE THE LAST BRIEFING THAT WE HAD, I THINK IT WAS THE END OF 2025.

WILL IT BE TO FULL COUNCIL OR JUST TO A COMMITTEE? I WILL DEFER TO THE THE PLEASURE OF THIS BODY, AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT AS A FULL COUNCIL BRIEFING, BUT I'M HAPPY TO GO TO A COMMITTEE MEETING AS WELL.

THANK YOU. I RECEIVE IT, THANK YOU, MISS MENDELSOHN.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR. I'M SORRY. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES FOR DISCUSSING THIS MATTER.

WE HAVE BEEN HAVING COUNTLESS OF MEETINGS CONCERNING THIS PROPERTY OVER AT CADILLAC HEIGHTS.

IT'S BEEN VERY INTIMATE CONVERSATION WITH OUR CEDAR CREST COMMUNITY.

A LOT OF CONVERSATION, A LOT OF MEETINGS THAT I'VE HAD SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE COUNCIL CONCERNING THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHEN I FIRST GOT ELECTED, I DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY MANAGER CAN REMEMBER THAT WAS THE FIRST THING I CAME IN TALKING ABOUT WAS CADILLAC HEIGHTS. AND THE VISION THAT I HAD FOR CADILLAC HEIGHTS CONCERNING WHAT THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN SAYING, KNOWING WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE POLICE ACADEMY AND THINGS THAT WAS PROMISED YEARS AGO WHEN, WHEN I WAS EVEN PROBABLY A TEENAGER GETTING THIS STUFF TOGETHER AND TALKING ABOUT IT.

SO I DID, I THINK I HEARD MR. JOHN SPEAK ABOUT SOME OF THE, THE, THE CANTON PROPERTIES THAT'S GOING OVER THERE. I KNOW WE WAS TALKING ABOUT THOSE ITEMS AS WELL AS MAKING SURE THE COMMUNITY DID NOT WANT THE CEMETERY.

THE TRUCKS THERE HOWEVER, THEY WAS OKAY WITH EVERYTHING ELSE.

SO I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A WORK IN PROGRESS. IF JOHN IS THERE, CAN CAN YOU GIVE US GIVE ME AN UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE WITH THIS? I KNOW WE HAD A BRIEF CONVERSATION, BUT AGAIN, COUNTLESS OF MEETINGS SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE COUNCIL.

SO WHERE WE ARE NOW WITH THOSE OTHER AMENITIES.

AND I AND OUR FORMER MAYOR PRO TEM COUNCILMAN MORENO AS WELL.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING TOGETHER SINCE I CAME INTO THE CITY CONCERNING THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, BECAUSE I KNOW THOSE, THOSE COLD AND ALL THOSE CITY OFFICES IS ALSO IN HIS DISTRICT AS WELL.

SO THIS HAS BEEN A, A COLLABORATION, NOT JUST SOME, NOT JUST ME WORKING IN SILOS, BUT DEFINITELY A COLLABORATION WORKING WITH THE CITY ADMINISTRATION AND OUR COUNCIL MEMBER, KENT, WHERE WE ARE WITH THAT, SIR.

SO YES, YOU ARE CORRECT, SIR. WE HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH YOUR OFFICE AND A NUMBER OF COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A SPECIFIC DECISION THAT HAS BEEN MADE TO WHICH SPECIFIC DEPARTMENT OR SERVICES WOULD BE RELOCATED,

[01:05:03]

OTHER THAN IT WOULD JUST BE USED FOR A MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE FACILITY.

AND THOSE DECISIONS WOULD BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE FOR THEIR OPINION, AND THEN BE BROUGHT BACK TO THIS BODY FOR THEIR ULTIMATE APPROVAL.

AND THEN BEFORE ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN, IT WOULD NEED TO GO TO THE VOTERS SO THAT THEY COULD APPROVE THE FUNDING THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE USED TO CONSTRUCT THESE FACILITIES THAT WE ARE SPEAKING ABOUT. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

AND I KNOW IN AND AGAIN, WE'VE HAD COUNTLESS COMMUNICATION, COUNTLESS MEETINGS WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, MR. JOHN JENKINS WITH THE CITY MANAGER AS WELL AND YOURSELF.

THIS, THERE'S A, THERE'S A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO RIGHT IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA ALL THE WAY DOWN CEDAR CRESCENT HEIGHTS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO OUR COMMUNITY. WE'RE WORKING ON NOW TRYING TO GET A MASTER PLAN TOGETHER AND BRINGING THE COMMUNITY TOGETHER SO WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE WE'RE GOING TO BE TRYING TO GET AND HAVING COMPLETE COMMUNICATION WITH OUR COMMUNITY.

I DON'T DO ANYTHING WITHOUT SPEAKING WITH OUR COMMUNITY ABOUT MAJOR PROJECTS OR PROJECTS THAT'S GOING ON IN DISTRICT FOUR.

WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING COMMUNITY WITH THE COMMUNITY, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I REALLY BELIEVE IN. AND THAT'S WHY THIS CONVERSATION TODAY IS VERY IMPORTANT. AND AGAIN, I WANT TO APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUES FOR HAVING THIS CONVERSATION.

SO WE CAN HEAR WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT THIS IS GOING TO BE A VERY IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT THAT'S GOING ON, THAT'S GOING TO GO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO 11TH STREET.

BUT IT STARTS THERE. WE HAVE MAJOR PLANS FOR THAT, THAT THE COMMUNITY IS WANTING.

I KNOW THIS IS GOING TO BE A PROCESS, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO GET THIS TAKEN CARE OF BECAUSE PROMISES THAT WAS MADE WASN'T KEPT YEARS AGO.

AND SO IT HAS FELL INTO MY LAP. SOME THAT THE CITY MANAGER SAID IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN MY FAULT, BUT IT BECOMES MY RESPONSIBILITY. AND SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE LISTENING TO THE COMMUNITY, WORKING WITH OUR ADMINISTRATION AND THAT WE THAT WE ARE DOING.

I ALSO WANT TO APPRECIATE COUNCILMAN JESSE MORENO AGAIN, SINCE I'VE BEEN IN COUNCIL THAT'S ONE OF THE FIRST CONVERSATIONS I HAD WITH HIM.

HE'S BEEN A BIG SUPPORT IN HELPING ME NAVIGATE THROUGH SOME OF THE TURBULENCE THAT WE'VE, THAT I'VE HAD CONCERNING THIS MATTER.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THIS PROJECT THROUGH AND WORKING WITH OUR COMMUNITY AS WE GET WHAT WAS DUE TO OUR COMMUNITY, WHICH IS GOING TO BE A WONDERFUL AT THE END OF THE DAY, A WONDERFUL MAJOR PROJECT NOT JUST FOR DISTRICT FOUR, BUT THE CITY OF DALLAS AS A WHOLE. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH, CITY MANAGER, FOR ALL YOU DOING CONCERNING THIS PROJECT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. MAYOR. MR. ROTH, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ITEM 26.

THANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN FOR BRINGING THIS TO THE FOREFRONT.

I'M NEW TO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT AND HAD SOME QUESTIONS JUST ON THE, ON THE DETAILS OF IT.

THE NINE ADDITIONAL PARCELS THAT NEED TO BE ACQUIRED.

IS THAT JUST LAND OR ARE THERE ARE THERE HOMES ON THAT ALSO? IT'S A COMBINATION OF BOTH. MR. ROFF AND SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AND ARE THEY BASICALLY SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

SO THOSE THAT NINE DOES, THE 9 MILLION OR $10 MILLION TOTAL INCLUDE JUST ACQUISITION COSTS.

OR DOES THAT ALSO INCLUDE DEVELOPMENT COSTS OF WHATEVER FACILITY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO, TO TRY TO PUT IN ON THERE? SURE. AS JOHN PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, IT'S FOR ACQUISITION, THE DEMOLITION FOR THESE PARCELS AND FOR WHAT? DEMOLITION FOR THESE PARCELS, NOT DEVELOPMENT.

SO I'M A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT THE DOLLARS.

IT SEEMS LIKE $10 MILLION FOR FOR EACH OF THESE LOTS WOULD BE ABOUT $1 MILLION LEFT FOR EACH LAWN.

SEEMS A LITTLE BIT EXPENSIVE TO ME, BUT I DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS ABOUT THE TYPE OF AND QUALITY OF THE LAND AND THE BUILDINGS ON THERE.

CAN YOU SORT OF IS THAT NUMBER? WAS THAT IS THAT NUMBER SORT OF PLANNED? WAS IT SORT OF ANTICIPATED? SO THAT WAS WHAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE 2006 BOND FUND FOR THE ACQUISITION AND DEMOLITION.

BUT THAT IS LIKELY. WE WILL NOT SPEND NEAR THAT FOR THE REMAINING NINE.

SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THESE FIVE PARCELS HERE TOGETHER TOTAL $800,000, INCLUDING CLOSING COSTS.

THAT WAS MY THAT WAS MY POINT IS THAT IF WE WERE BUYING FIVE FOR 800, THE OTHER THE OTHER NINE SHOULDN'T BE 9 MILLION.

WE WOULD ONLY USE WHAT WE WOULD NEED. YES, SIR. OKAY.

AND AND THEN THE SECOND THING IS IS THE SINCE THE USE IS REALLY NOT DEFINED YET IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SORT OF REVERSE THE PROCESS TO SOME EXTENT TO BASICALLY TIE UP THESE, THESE FIVE PROPERTIES AND THEN ALLOW YOU TO TRY TO TIE UP THE OTHER NINE AND THEN BRING THE WHOLE PACKAGE TO US AS A, AS A COMPLETE PACKAGE OF 14 PROPERTIES. IF YOU FEEL LIKE IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITHIN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS,

[01:10:04]

AND THEN YOU'VE THEN AT THAT POINT, YOU COULD, YOU KNOW THAT YOU'VE GOT THE PROPERTIES TOGETHER.

IF YOU ONLY END UP WITH FIVE, YOU'RE GOING TO END UP WITH AND HAVE DIFFICULTY GETTING THE REST.

ARE YOU GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A MEANINGFUL DEVELOPMENT OF WHATEVER YOU'RE TRYING TO PUT THERE? SO THE USE HAS BEEN DEFINED AND THAT WAS WHAT WAS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS FOR CITY SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE FACILITIES.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE ARE ACQUIRING THESE UNDER FOR A FUTURE USE.

WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE THESE FUNDS IF THAT WERE NOT.

SO AND THEN AS MISS EUBANKS MENTIONED, THERE MAY BE SOME REMAINING PARCELS THAT WILL COME BACK TO THIS BODY FOR USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO COMPLETE THE REMAINING PIECES THAT ARE NEEDED FOR THE ENTIRE ASSEMBLAGE. AND IT IS THERE.

AND AGAIN, IS THERE A, AN OPPORTUNITY TO REPURPOSE THESE BOND FUNDS IF THEY WERE ORIGINALLY FOR A POLICE ACADEMY, IS THERE NOT, IS IT PROPER OR ALLOWABLE TO USE THESE FUNDS TOWARDS THE POLICE ACADEMY DEVELOPMENT THAT WE ARE GOING FORWARD WITH DOWN BY U. N T NO, IT WOULD ONLY BE FOR THE ACQUISITION AND DEMOLITION OF THE PARCELS IN THIS PROPERTY.

IT COULD NOT BE USED IN A DIFFERENT AREA OR FOR A DIFFERENT PROJECT.

MR. MAYOR MR. ROTH, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I MENTIONED THIS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT IT TO BE PERCEIVED THAT STAFF CHANGE THE USE OF THE FUNDS. THIS WAS A DECISION OF THE COUNCIL, AND WHAT STAFF IS DOING NOW IS FOLLOWING WHAT COUNCIL HAS ASKED FOR US TO DO.

WE'RE MOVING THAT FORWARD. SO STAFF DID NOT CHANGE AND MAKE A DECISION ON OUR OWN TO REDIRECT.

AND LOOK AT THIS ONLY BEING A SERVICE CENTER THAT WAS AT THE DIRECTION OF THIS BODY.

I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION. YEAH, NO, MY MY INTEREST WAS NOT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENED.

MY INTEREST WAS TO SEE IF THOSE FUNDS COULD BE REALLOCATED TO A PROJECT THAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN THE GROUND.

AND, AND THAT'S MOVING FORWARD AND, AND IS ALREADY NEEDS SOME ADDITIONAL FUNDS.

SO I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION ON THE FLOOD, THE FLOOD ZONE.

DOES THIS THE EMINENT DOMAIN, WOULD THAT BE PART OF THE FLOOD ZONE ISSUE TOO? I'M NOT. IS THERE FLOOD ZONE PROPERTY IS SOME OF THIS PROPERTY IS IN A FLOOD ZONE? YES. AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE SARAH COULD PROBABLY DO A BETTER JOB. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. SARAH STANDIFER. SO WITH RESPECT TO CADILLAC HEIGHTS AND THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, MANY OF THE PROPERTIES THAT WE HAVE ACQUIRED ALREADY, AND PERHAPS A FEW OF THESE STILL RESIDE WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN.

THAT WASN'T THE PURPOSE OF THE ACQUISITION, THOUGH.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACQUISITION WAS LAID OUT IN THOSE BOND PROPOSITIONS FOR A FUTURE SERVICE FACILITY AND OR POLICE FACILITY RELATED ACTIVITY.

AND THE OTHER PART OF THE PROJECT THAT YOU SEE COME FORWARD ON ACQUISITIONS IS RELATED TO THE DALLAS EXTENSION, WHICH IS SPECIFIC TO BUILDING A LEVEE. SO YOU'RE SEEING TWO DIFFERENT TWO DIFFERENT AVENUES OF ACQUISITION WITHIN THE CADILLAC HEIGHTS AREA.

OKAY. THANK YOU. MISS CADENA. YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 26.

I DO RECALL THE LEVEE. I WAS AT THE RIBBON CUTTING WHEN THAT HAPPENED.

BUT I DON'T I, I DON'T RECALL THE CANTON AND THE ACQUISITION OF THESE PROPERTIES.

SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. DO, WERE PEOPLE LIVING IN THESE HOMES AND DID THEY AGREE TO WELL.

GOOD MORNING. THIS PARTICULAR ITEM THERE ARE THREE IMPROVED OCCUPIED DWELLINGS.

AND THEN THERE ARE TWO VACANT. CURRENTLY WE DO HAVE DEALS ON THREE ONE IMPROVED AND TWO VACANT.

AND THEN THE OTHER TWO ARE NOT WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH.

OKAY. SO THE AND THEN THE OTHER ONES ARE THE ONES THAT YOU SAID YOU MAY NEED TO DO EMINENT DOMAIN.

IT'S A POSSIBILITY AND PEOPLE ARE LIVING IN THOSE HOMES.

CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. MISS MENDELSOHN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. WELL, FIRST I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY FOR SAYING ON THE RECORD THAT THE, QUOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL REPURPOSED THE BOND FUNDS.

ACCURATE STATEMENT. AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR SAYING IT OUT LOUD.

SECOND, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM RECOGNIZES THAT WHILE ALL THIS CONVERSATION SEEMS TO BE FOCUSED ON DISTRICT FOUR.

DISTRICT TWO IS SITTING OVER THERE VERY EAGER TO GET RID OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.

PLEASE FIND OUT WHY THEY WANT TO GET RID OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.

THERE'S A LOT OF REASONS. WHAT'S INCLUDED THERE.

BY THE WAY, INCLUDES OUR BACKUP 911 CENTER. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REBUILD AN ENTIRE BACKUP 911 CENTER.

[01:15:06]

OUR RADIO ROOM. EVERYTHING WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE WITH THAT.

THAT'S THE HEADQUARTERS FOR CODE COMPLIANCE. THE SANITATION HEADQUARTERS, EQUIPMENT AND FLEET.

IS THERE FIRE PREVENTION FOR DFR? IS THERE? CITY MARSHAL'S OFFICE IS THERE.

PARKING ENFORCEMENT IS THERE. THERE'S SOME TRANSPORTATION FUNCTIONS.

I THINK IT'S LIKE THE THE STREET STRIPING AREA.

THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THERE. THAT SANITATION PORTION.

THERE'S A LOT OF TRUCKS COMING AND GOING. AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT AS THIS IDEA HAS BEEN FLOATED, BUT NEVER FULLY BRIEFED ON WHAT IT IS AND WHAT IT WOULD BE YET, WE'RE COMMITTING ALL THESE FUNDS TO PURCHASING LAND WITH NO ACTUAL PLAN OF WHAT'S COMING OR WHAT THE COST COULD EVEN POTENTIALLY BE.

CAN YOU IMAGINE? WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO THE VOTERS AND IT WON'T BE US.

IT'LL BE THE NEXT COUNCIL AND SAY, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO DO A BOND TO REBUILD ALL OF THE THINGS THAT, OH, WE ALREADY HAVE, BECAUSE WE WANT TO MOVE THEM OUT OF DEEP ELLUM TO REDEVELOP IT.

AND SO WHAT YOU HAVE IS A CITY THAT HAS A MINDSET OF TAKING PERFECTLY GOOD BUILDINGS AND TEARING THEM DOWN AND MOVING THEM SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE NAME OF DEVELOPMENT. AND THE TAXPAYERS BOUGHT AND BUILT THE CANTON CENTER.

IT'S NOT CLASS A PROPERTY, BUT IT'S PERFECTLY SUITABLE.

I'VE BEEN IN MANY OF THOSE BUILDINGS. IT LOOKS LIKE A GOVERNMENT BUILDING.

IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE FOUR SEASONS. SO I THINK THERE ARE VERY STRONG FISCAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ENTIRE PLAN.

BUT ACTUALLY THERE ISN'T A PLAN. SO IT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT.

I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS IS WHAT THE PLAN WILL BE.

I'VE SEEN A MAP THAT SHOWS ACTUALLY QUITE A BIT OF FLOODPLAIN.

I'M GLAD TO HEAR IT'S CHANGED. BUT WE ACTUALLY GAVE AWAY THE BEST LAND FOR THE PARK WITH THE BEST ACCESS.

SO ALL THESE TRUCKS ARE GOING TO DRIVE BY THAT PARK.

I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS HERE, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY IT'S ABOUT THE MONEY.

LIKE WHERE'S THIS ALL COMING FROM? HOW'S THIS GOING TO WORK AND HOW THIS MONEY HAS BEEN REPURPOSED.

THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN MORENO, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. WELL, THESE BUILDINGS ARE DEFINITELY NOT GOOD BUILDINGS.

THESE BUILDINGS, WHETHER THEY ARE MOVED TO A NEW LOCATION OR THEY STAY IN THE DEEP ELLUM AREA, NEED TO BE REBUILT. THESE BUILDINGS ARE FALLING APART.

WE HAVE OUR SWAT TEAMS. WE HAVE OUR 911 CENTERS.

WE HAVE OUR POLICE CENTRAL LOCATED THERE. THESE SERVICES, SANITATION, PARKING, ARE ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY THAT COME IN AND OUT. AND THEY'RE ACTUALLY A BENEFIT TO THOSE BUSINESSES THAT ARE IN THE AREA.

I WOULD GLADLY TAKE THIS IN A DIFFERENT PART OF DISTRICT TWO.

IT IS NOT A NUISANCE. IT'S ACTUALLY ADDITIONAL EYES FROM CITY STAFF IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND THE DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS.

THIS IS DEFINITELY A CITY WIDE DECISION, SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO ENCOMPASS ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS.

BUT I THINK IT STARTS WITH MAKING SURE THAT THE DISTRICTS ARE THAT ARE GOING TO BE IMPACTED ARE HAVING THOSE COMMUNITY MEETINGS THAT WE ARE WORKING WITH EACH OTHER.

AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM AND I WHEN HE FIRST CAME IN, SAID, THIS IS THE PROJECT THAT WE WANT TO WORK ON.

AND SO THESE ARE BUILDINGS THAT NEED TO BE REDEVELOPED.

IT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED AS OUR NUMBER ONE SITE FOR POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT IN OUR FINANCE COMMITTEE.

AND SO I APPRECIATE STAFF'S WILLINGNESS TO BRING THIS FORWARD.

AND YES, THIS IS A MULTI-STEP PROCESS. IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG PROCESS, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT THAT I FULLY SUPPORT.

AND I HOPE THAT WE HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATIONS ON HOW THIS IS ALL GOING TO, TO WORK OUT.

BUT NONETHELESS, THESE BUILDINGS NEED TO BE REPLACED.

THEY ARE BUILDINGS THAT ARE THAT ARE ROOFS NEEDS TO BE REDONE.

THEY'RE NOT ATTRACTIVE BUILDINGS, NOT THAT THEY NEED TO BE THE FOUR SEASONS, REASONS, BUT OUR STAFF DESERVE A BUILDING TO BE ABLE TO GO TO WORK EACH AND EVERY DAY. THAT IS CONDUCIVE TO TODAY'S ENVIRONMENT.

AND SO I HOPE WE ARE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU. MAYOR CHAIRMAN GRACEY RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. AND I'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SIT BACK AND LISTEN.

AND THE FIRST THING I'VE NOTICED AND HEARD IS, IS ONE BOTH DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON AND CHAIR MORENO HAVE HAVE TALKED AND DISCUSSED THIS AND ARE WORKING TOGETHER TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.

[01:20:01]

AND I'VE HEARD THESE, THESE ANGLES OF, OF, OF THE WHY BEHIND ALL OF IT.

BUT WHAT I CAN SEE IN THIS, AND THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT WHERE I CAN SEE THAT THIS IS A BENEFIT.

THIS IS SOMETHING WHERE TWO DISTRICTS POTENTIALLY.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT'S TRUE. BUT THESE ARE TWO DISTRICTS THAT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BENEFIT IN VERY DIFFERENT WAYS.

FROM AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE. WE SPENT ALL OF THIS TIME TALKING ABOUT THE SHORTFALLS AND HOW WE CAN CREATE OPPORTUNITIES TO BRING MORE TAXES INTO THIS, INTO THIS AREA DOWNTOWN, IF IT IS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MOVE, WHAT THAT DOES IS MOVE WHAT IS NOW CURRENTLY TAX FREE LAND MOVES IT OUT THE WAY TO CREATE SOME TYPE OF TAX GENERATING DEVELOPMENT IN AND AROUND THE AREA, WHICH CONTINUES TO CONNECT EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO, FROM DOWNTOWN TO THE CEDARS AND DEEP ELLUM AND ALL OF THAT.

SO THAT IS A BENEFIT THERE. OVER HERE, IF IT COMES THROUGH WITH A DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON'S COMMUNITY, AND THEY'RE ABLE TO BENEFIT AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THAT WORK WITHIN THAT COMMUNITY, THEY RECEIVE THE SAFETY, THEY RECEIVE SOME ADDITIONAL PARKLAND AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WHICH WILL ALSO CONTINUE TO DRAW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN A VERY DIFFERENT WAY IN THIS DISTRICT. SO REGARDLESS OF THE UNDERLYING TONES, AND BY THE WAY, WHAT WE'VE ALL BEEN SAYING, PUBLIC SAFETY, ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES WHOM WE SAY WE CARE ABOUT, THEY WILL ALL GET POTENTIALLY NEW AREAS, NEW NEW THINGS TO WORK IN. WE HAVE A VERY OLD INFRASTRUCTURE FROM CITY HALL TO ALL OF OUR EXISTING FACILITIES.

WE TALK ABOUT THESE INDIVIDUALLY, BUT THEY'RE ALL OLD, AND THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO UPGRADE SOME OF THEIR WORKING CONDITIONS AS WELL.

SO THERE ARE TOO MANY LAYERS OF BENEFIT NOT TO SUPPORT THIS.

SO THANK YOU ALL FOR THE CONVERSATIONS AND YOUR PERSPECTIVES.

BUT I REALLY DO SEE TOO MANY LAYERS OF BENEFITS TO BE HAVING THIS LONG OF A DISCUSSION OVER THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN WEST, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR, I THINK THAT WE'VE HAD A GREAT DISCUSSION FROM BOTH SIDES OF THIS.

I DON'T THINK TODAY WE HAVE TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISION ON IF THE THE FACILITY IS GOING TO MOVE OR NOT.

THE THE BEGINNING OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE LOTS AT CADILLAC HEIGHTS, I THINK, HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR DECADES, LONGER THAN MY TIME HERE, LONGER THAN MINE AS WELL.

WOW. OKAY, SO NOW I'VE SEEN THE MAP. LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, I FEEL LIKE WE WENT THROUGH THIS DISCUSSION A SIMILAR ONE AND IT IS A MASSIVE AREA WITH A FEW LITTLE PEPPER SPRINKLES OF WHAT WE DON'T OWN AT THIS POINT.

IF WE STOP THE ACQUISITION TODAY, WE SAID FORGET IT NO MORE.

WE'RE LEFT WITH A SITE THAT YOU CAN'T DEVELOP ANYTHING ON BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT SPORADIC HOMES AROUND THE SITE.

WE'VE GOT TO COMPLETE THE ACQUISITION SO THAT WE CAN EITHER PACKAGE IT AND SELL IT AND GET OUR MONEY BACK AS A CITY, OR WE REDEVELOP IT INTO A FACILITY. THOSE ARE OUR TWO OPTIONS.

STOPPING IT IS THE LEAST FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE OPTION THAT WE HAVE ON THE TABLE.

SO I'M SUPPORTING THIS ITEM. I WILL SUPPORT THE REMAINING CADILLAC HEIGHTS ITEMS WHILE I'M ON COUNCIL.

OR HOPEFULLY WE FINISH IT WHILE I'M ON COUNCIL, BUT I DOUBT WE WILL.

I THINK IT'S GOING TO CONTINUE INTO YEARS IN THE FUTURE.

THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO GO TO THE DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THERE'S A NARRATIVE AND NOTION OUT HERE HEAR THAT I HEAR FROM MY COLLEAGUES THAT IT'S OKAY FOR OUR STAFF TO WORK IN SUPPORT BUILDINGS AND MAKE STATEMENTS LIKE FOUR SEASONS. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR STAFF IS WORKING IN ADEQUATE AND QUALITY BUILDINGS, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. THIS HAS BEEN A CONVERSATION THAT WE'VE HAD FOR OVER A YEAR IN OUR COMMUNITY DECADES.

AND WHEN I CAME ON THE COUNCIL. THIS IS AGAIN, MY ONE OF MY PRIORITIES BECAUSE I WAS SENT TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER AND TO PUSH THIS FOR OUR COMMUNITY. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CITY SERVICE, POLICE SUBSTATIONS, CODE OFFICES THAT, THAT MY COMMUNITY WHEN HAVE BEEN MEETING ABOUT AND THEY'RE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. THEY DIDN'T WANT THE SANITATION TRUCKS.

SO WE'RE NO, I KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. SO TO MAKE A STATEMENT LIKE, LET'S FIND OUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN DISTRICT TWO, WHY HE'S SO EAGER. IT'S NOT HIM BEING EAGER. I CAME TO HIM AND ASKED HIM FOR HIS SUPPORT.

AND HOW DID HE FEEL ABOUT THIS? I WENT TO THE CITY MANAGER AND ASKING THEM, HOW DID THEY FEEL ABOUT THIS AND THE PROMISES THAT WE MADE TO OUR COMMUNITY.

AND SO I'M VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE OF WHAT'S GOING ON.

AND I DON'T I DON'T GET CAUGHT. I DON'T GET CAUGHT OFF GUARD.

WHEN IT COMES TO DISTRICT FOUR, I, I, I'M VERY WELL READ AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON.

AND SO TO, TO MAKE THAT, THAT COMMENT I JUST WANT TO CLEAR THAT UP FOR OUR COMMUNITY BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON, NOT JUST ME, MY COMMUNITY KNOWS WHAT'S GOING ON BECAUSE WE'RE IN CONSTANT CONVERSATION.

WE HAVE AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STEERING COMMITTEE IN DISTRICT FOUR.

WE HAVE A QUALITY OF LIFE STEERING COMMITTEE IN DISTRICT FOUR, AND WE HAVE A PUBLIC SAFETY STEERING COMMITTEE FOR OUTSIDE OF THE COMMISSIONS.

SO I'M VERY INVOLVED WITH OUR COMMUNITY, AND THEY'RE VERY INVOLVED WITH EVERY PROJECT THAT'S GOING ON IN DISTRICT FOUR.

[01:25:02]

SO WE'RE SUPPORTING THIS. WE CANNOT GET MAJOR DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA WITHOUT THIS PROCESS.

AND I'M I'M GOING TO DO MY BEST TO REMAIN ON THIS COUNCIL AND CONTINUE TO WORK WITH OUR COMMUNITY SO WE CAN GET THE MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THAT DISTRICT FOUR IS IN NEED OF. WE'RE GOING TO GET THIS THING DONE BECAUSE OUR COMMUNITY DESERVES IT.

SO WE'RE NOT LOST. WE'RE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON, AND I WANT TO APPRECIATE COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO AND THE CITY MANAGER AND HER STAFF FOR WORKING NOT JUST WITH ME, BUT WORKING WITH OUR ENTIRE COMMUNITY AND COMING INTO THESE MEETINGS AND DISCUSSING THESE MATTERS AND BEING VERY TRANSPARENT WITH OUR COMMUNITY. SO THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. BUT WE I APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUES FOR THIS DISCUSSION.

IT'S VERY IT WAS VERY NEEDED, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THAT ON ON THE RECORD.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. MISS BLACKMON, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. AND WITH THIS, ARE WE GOING TO BE USING ANY UNUSED.

IF IT MOVES AND WE WE DECIDE WE WANT TO BUILD.

IS IT A FUTURE BOND OR WILL IT BE ANY UNUSED BOND MONEY THAT WE HAVE OR.

IT DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH THE FACILITY IS. I THINK IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE FACILITY AND THE USES OF THE PREVIOUS BONDS THAT WERE USED.

AND IF THE VOTERS WERE TO APPROVE SUCH. SO YOU'D PUT A PACKAGE TOGETHER, BASICALLY. I THINK. OKAY.

AND I AND MY STAFF REMEMBERED OR BROUGHT MEMORIES BACK BECAUSE I REMEMBER WE TALKED ABOUT IT IN FINANCE AND MY HEARTBURN WAS YET AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO PUT A SERVICE CENTER THAT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED WITH ALL THOSE THINGS INTO THE SOUTH.

AND I REMEMBERED, I REMEMBER SAYING, I DON'T WANT TO PILE ON AND KEEP PUTTING THESE TYPES OF SERVICES IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF OUR CITY, BECAUSE THAT AND THAT WAS THE CONCERN OF THE FORMER COUNCILWOMAN WOMAN WAS BECAUSE THERE WAS GOING TO BE ALL THE TRUCKS, ALL THE. IT'S NOT JUST A A POLICE ACADEMY ANYMORE.

IT WAS GOING TO BE A SERVICE CENTER. I GET THAT THIS LAND COULD SWAP OUT AND IT MAKES BETTER SENSE.

BUT AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PUSHING THESE TYPES OF ITEMS THAT THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTO THE SOUTHERN SECTOR OF OUR CITY, BECAUSE IT'S EASY, AND I'M HOPING THAT IT WOULD BE DONE WITH SOME REALLY GOOD, ROBUST DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES.

AND I THINK THAT WAS WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THAT MEETING THAT IT WOULDN'T BE LIKE WE HAVE IN BONTON WHERE IT'S BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, A, A BLOCK THAT HAS A WALL AND NO IN AND OUT.

AND IT'S GOT, YOU KNOW, WIRE ON IT AND LOOKING VERY YOU KNOW, VERY NOT WELCOMING AND THAT WE MAKE IT AN OPPORTUNITY IF WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS, THAT IT BECOMES A MORE AND I GUESS I'M KIND OF GOING OFF TOPIC BECAUSE IT'S NOT POSTED, BUT I DO FEEL THAT IT'S WORTH THE CONVERSATION.

I JUST DON'T KNOW. IN, IN, IF WE'RE GOING OUT FOR MORE MONEY THAN IT NEEDS TO BE, NOT JUST TWO PEOPLE HAVING THAT CONVERSATION, IT SHOULD BE ALL OF US HAVING THE CONVERSATION BECAUSE WE'RE ALL GOING TO HAVE TO VOTE TO PUT IT ON A BOND PACKAGE OR CHANGE ZONING OR WHATNOT.

SO I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD KEEP US, YOU KNOW, IN THE LOOP.

I APPRECIATE THEM WORKING TOGETHER, BUT IT'S GOING TO TAKE ALL OF US TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE BOND CAPACITY TO GET IT DONE AND THAT IT'S DONE RIGHT, AND THAT WE'RE NOT JUST FORCING IT INTO A COMMUNITY.

AND I'M HOPING THAT THE COMMUNITY IS UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS IN THE SERVICE CENTER IN DEEP ELLUM.

AND THAT COULD COME THERE, BECAUSE I REMEMBER THAT WAS THE THAT WAS THE KEY OF HER HEARTBURN.

WAS THAT IT COULD IT WAS GOING TO BE THE TRUCKS COMING THROUGH.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE COUNCILWOMAN BLACKMAN'S COMMENTS REGARDING THE VARIOUS COMPONENTS AT THE SERVICE CENTER.

THAT IS WHY WE HAVE BEEN OUT IN THAT COMMUNITY WORKING TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S NO MISINFORMATION ABOUT WHAT A SERVICE CENTER ACTUALLY ENTAILS. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SEVERAL DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT MIGHT ALLOW FOR US TO STILL HAVE QUALITY SERVICES THAT ARE CONNECTED TO THE RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA. AND A WAY TO DO IT TO WHERE IT DOES BECOME AN ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY.

AND SO I'M, I REMEMBER THE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE TRUCKS.

AND I THINK THAT'S THE REASON WHY DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON HAS ASKED FOR US TO BE OUT THERE.

WE'VE HAD A RECENT MEETING THAT I JUST RECALLED THAT WAS ALL ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL.

WE TOOK OUR ENTIRE ENVIRONMENTAL DIRECTOR, OUR DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.

WE TOOK OUR TEAM OUT THERE BECAUSE THERE WERE QUESTIONS THAT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD ALSO ADDRESSED AROUND THE OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AROUND THE AREA.

AND SO OUR COMMITMENT IS WE WILL BE MAKING SURE THAT THE FULL COUNCIL IS ABREAST.

I'M GOING TO SEND BACK THE MEMO THAT WE HAD OUT RECENTLY ABOUT CADILLAC HEIGHTS, AND WE WILL ALSO SCHEDULE A FUTURE BRIEFING SO WE CAN GIVE THE FULL BODY AN OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND THE FULL PLAN OF WHAT WHERE WE ARE NOW AND WHERE WE HOPE TO GO IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS ON SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL ACQUISITION AS WELL AS THE PLANS.

[01:30:05]

SO WE ARE NOT WORKING IN A SILO. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THAT. THANK YOU.

CHAIRWOMAN STEWART, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MAYOR JOHNSON.

JUST I'M JUST GOING TO INSERT A LITTLE BIT OF PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT SERVICE CENTERS AND RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

THERE WAS A HOUSE OF ROB AND I AND OUR FAMILY LIVED IN FOR 20 YEARS.

IT WAS PROBABLY A QUARTER OF A MILE FROM THE NORTHEAST SERVICE CENTER.

AND I KNOW THIS IS GOING TO SOUND ODD TO YOU ALL, BUT WE SAW THAT AS A BENEFIT.

WE HAD DPD CARS DRIVE BY OUR HOUSE MULTIPLE TIMES A DAY ON THEIR WAY TO GO GET GAS OR REPAIR.

AND IT WAS, IT WAS JUST LIKE A LITTLE SAFETY NET.

WE KNEW THEY WERE GOING TO COME DOWN WHITE ROCK TRAIL AND, AND SEE OUR HOUSE RIGHT THERE AT THE CORNER.

AND THE OTHER THING IS, AND THIS IS, THIS IS MOSTLY ROB.

HE LOVED THE FACT THAT THE SANDING TRUCKS ALSO WERE OUT FIRST IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN WE HAVE ICY CONDITIONS.

AND HE WOULD ALWAYS BRAG ABOUT THAT BECAUSE WE LIVED IN A SORT OF HILLY PART OF THE CITY.

AND HE WAS LIKE, OH, WE'RE ALWAYS GOOD BECAUSE THE SANDING TRUCKS ARE RIGHT THERE IMMEDIATELY COMING ALONG WHITE ROCK TRAIL, AND SOMEHOW IT SEEMS TO SPILL OVER INTO SQUARE DRIVE.

AND WE'RE GOOD TO GO AND CAN CAN GET OUT AND ABOUT.

SO I KNOW THOSE ARE VERY SMALL, BUT JUST THE QUALITY OF LIFE, OUR QUALITY OF LIFE WAS NOT DIMINISHED BY BEING NEAR A SERVICE CENTER.

IN FACT, THERE WERE A FEW PERKS. THAT'S ALL I JUST WANTED TO ADD.

THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN RIDLEY, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR, HAVE ANY LOTS ALREADY BEEN ACQUIRED THROUGH THIS BOND PROPOSITION FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUILDING THIS FACILITY, OR ARE THESE THE FIRST LOTS? A NUMBER OF THEM HAVE BEEN COMPLETED ALREADY.

HOW MANY OR WHAT ACREAGE. THE TOTAL AREA COMPRISED OF 270 PARCELS.

AND THESE ARE FIVE. AND WE HAVE NINE MORE. WELL, WHAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE 270 PARCELS? HAVE YOU ALREADY ACQUIRED THOSE? SO THE TOTAL GIVE THE TOTAL.

AND OF THE TOTAL WHAT WE'VE COMPLETED AND WHAT'S REMAINING.

JUST MAKE IT VERY, VERY CLEAR FOR THIS FACILITY.

OKAY. OKAY. WE HAVE A SO THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 270 PARCELS.

WE HAVE ACQUIRED 255 AND REMAINING IS 14. WELL, DO YOU NEED 270 PARCELS FOR THIS SERVICE FACILITY? SO THE FIRST PORTION OF THAT WAS FOR THE PARK PIECE THAT WAS MENTIONED.

AND THEN THE REMAINING PIECES ARE PART OF THE ASSEMBLAGE FOR THE CITY SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY.

WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. HOW MANY LOTS HAVE YOU ALREADY PURCHASED FOR THE SERVICE FACILITY? I THINK WE WOULD NEED A FEW MINUTES TO BREAK DOWN THE 270 SEPARATED FROM THE FIRST PORTION VERSUS WHAT WAS REMAINING.

WELL, I I'M LOOKING FOR HOW MANY HAVE BEEN PURCHASED WITH THIS BOND PROPOSITION.

YOU HAVEN'T PURCHASED PARKLAND WITH THIS BOND PROPOSITION, HAVE YOU KNOW.

ALL PARCELS WERE PURCHASED WITH EITHER 2003 AND 2006 BOND PROPOSITIONS, ALL PARCELS.

BUT THIS SPECIFIC ONE WAS EITHER FOR A LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER OR A SERVICE FACILITY.

CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. WELL, IF YOU CAN GET ME THAT INFORMATION, I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW MANY OTHER LOTS.

WHAT'S THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF AREA THAT YOU NEED FOR THIS SERVICE FACILITY? NOW, HAVE THESE LOTS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A THIRD PARTY APPRAISAL WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THIS $800,000 PURCHASE.

YES, SIR. ALL HAVE BEEN INDEPENDENTLY APPRAISED.

HOW MANY ARE IN THE FLOODPLAIN? I WOULD PROBABLY NEED HELP FROM DW ON THAT, BUT I COULD PROBABLY GET IT BROKEN OUT FROM YOU.

WE DO HAVE A MAP THAT KIND OF SHOWS WHERE THAT LINEAGE, THAT LINE IS, AND I CAN PROVIDE THAT TO YOU.

OKAY. AND WAS THAT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WITH THE APPRAISALS? YES, SIR. IT WAS. WHY NOW? WHY PURCHASE THESE PROPERTIES NOW WHEN WE DON'T HAVE FUNDING FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION, AND WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A PROGRAM YET FOR A NEW FACILITY? WHY NOT WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE THAT FUNDING? WELL, THIS ASSEMBLAGE HAS BEEN IN PROCESS, AS I MENTIONED, FOR A FEW DECADES NOW. SO WE EITHER NEED TO FINISH WHAT WE HAVE AND COMPLETE THE ASSEMBLAGE AND THEN MAKE THE DECISION, BUT IT DOES NOT BENEFIT THE CITY TO HAVE POCKETS THAT WE OWN AND THAT THERE ARE THEN INDIVIDUALS LIVING IN THIS AREA AND THAT WE DON'T OWN.

[01:35:05]

SO WE NEED TO COMPLETE THIS ASSEMBLAGE BEFORE WE WOULD EVEN BE ABLE TO CONTEMPLATE WHAT WOULD BE DESIGNED OR WHAT SPACE WE WOULD HAVE, OR WHAT WOULD GO IN THIS PARTICULAR SERVICE CENTER.

WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE ABLE TO DO THAT UNTIL WE OWNED ALL THE DIRT THAT WE WOULD BE CONTEMPLATING DEVELOPING ON.

WELL, I THINK THAT'S PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE, FRANKLY.

WHY SHOULD WE BE SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY FOR A FACILITY THAT'S NOT PROGRAMED, THAT ISN'T DESIGNED, AND WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO DO THOSE THINGS FOR IT, WE MAY NEVER HAVE THE MONEY.

WE DO RESPECTFULLY HAVE THE MONEY, SIR. IN THE 2006, WE HAVE THE $10 MILLION THAT IS REMAINING FOR THE ACQUISITION AND DEMOLITION THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS, BUT WE CAN'T USE THAT FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION USE.

CORRECT. BUT WE DO HAVE THE MONEY AVAILABLE TO COMPLETE THE ASSEMBLAGE THAT WE WERE APPROVED TO DO SO BY THE VOTERS.

THAT'S THE FIRST STEP. I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE THE MONEY IN THIS BOND PROPOSITION, BUT THAT'S NOT MY POINT.

MY POINT IS, WHY ARE WE ACQUIRING THESE PROPERTIES NOW, BEFORE WE HAVE ANY INSIGHT INTO WHAT WE WANT TO LOCATE THERE AND ANY MONEY TO DESIGN OR CONSTRUCT IT. SO SO IF I CAN THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CAN I SPEAK, PLEASE? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTIONS, COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY.

AND SO, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THIS COUNCIL ASKED US THROUGH AN OFFICIAL ACTION OF THIS BODY TO COMPLETE THE ASSEMBLY OF THE PARCELS REMAINING, TO BE ABLE TO COME BACK AND THEN DEVELOP THE PLAN.

AND SO WHAT WE'RE LAYING OUT TODAY IS THAT THERE ARE REMAINING PARCELS THAT ARE NEEDED IN ORDER FOR US TO EVEN DEVELOP THE PLAN THAT WE'RE ASKING COUNCIL TO APPROVE. SO THE ACTION BEFORE YOU I THINK WE'VE HAD FIVE OTHER ACTIONS IN THE LAST TWO YEARS THAT THIS BODY HAS APPROVED TO TELL US TO KEEP GOING.

SO WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY IS EXACTLY WHAT COUNCIL HAS ASKED US TO DO.

WHAT WE BELIEVE IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE CITY AND THE VOTERS HAVE MADE A COMMITMENT THROUGH THAT BOND PROGRAM FOR US TO DEVELOP THIS SITE, WE CANNOT DEVELOP THE SITE WITHOUT THE REMAINING PARCELS THAT ARE NEEDED.

SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. AND IT'S THE WILL OF THIS BODY.

IF YOU WANT US TO STOP, THEN THAT'S THE ACTION THAT YOU NEED TO GIVE US TODAY.

BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WE WERE TOLD TO DO WHEN WE BRIEFED THIS PREVIOUSLY.

I'M GOING TO AGAIN, I KNOW THAT THERE'S A MEMORANDUM I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER IF IT WAS IN APRIL OR MARCH OF THIS YEAR THAT WE SENT TO COUNCIL, EXPLAINING THE REMAINING PARCELS THAT WERE NEEDED.

I THINK WE ALSO INCLUDED SOME MAPS BECAUSE WE WERE ASKED TO SHOW THE PARTS OF THE PARCELS THAT ARE STILL IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

WE WERE ASKED TO SHOW ALL THE PIECES THAT WE HAVE ACTUALLY ASSEMBLED ALREADY, AND WHERE THE REMAINING OPPORTUNITIES WERE WITHIN THE AREA, AND SO WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT WE RECIRCULATE THAT TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

BUT TODAY'S ACTION IS THE CONTINUATION OF WHAT COUNCIL HAS ASKED US TO MOVE FORWARD AND DO.

SO, JOHN, IS THERE ANY FUNDING IDENTIFIED IN THE 2006 BOND PROPOSITIONS OR ANY SUBSEQUENT BOND PROPOSITIONS TO FUND THE DESIGN OR DEVELOPMENT OF A SERVICE FACILITY AT THIS LOCATION? NOT THAT I'M AWARE, JUST THE ACQUISITION AND DEMOLITION.

AND IS THERE ANY MONEY SET ASIDE IN THE 2011 BUDGET FOR THAT PURPOSE? I'M NOT AWARE. NO, SIR. AND IS THERE ANY PLAN TO ADD THIS TO A 2029 BOND PROGRAM? THOSE DISCUSSIONS HAVE NOT YET OCCURRED, AND THAT WOULD BE A DECISION THAT THIS BODY WOULD ALSO MAKE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. MAYOR. MISS ANY RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

I JUST HAVE TO SAY MY MAIN HESITATION WITH THIS IS ABOUT THE POSSIBLE EMINENT DOMAIN FOR THE FAMILIES LOSING THEIR HOMES.

THIS HAPPENED IN WEST DALLAS EVEN TO MY OWN GREAT GRANDMOTHER'S HOME IN WEST DALLAS.

DAVID JENSEN LOST HIS HOME FOR THE PROPOSED THREE HOLE PUNCH, AND TEN YEARS LATER, NOW IT'S BECOME A ONE HOLE PUNCH AND WE STILL DON'T HAVE IT.

AND SO IF YOU'LL NOTICE, I TYPICALLY VOTE AGAINST EMINENT DOMAIN.

AND I KNOW THIS IS NOT EMINENT DOMAIN HERE. I'M GUESSING THAT THIS ONE'S NOT.

BUT THERE IS STILL THE POTENTIAL FOR IT. SO THAT'S MY HUGE HESITATION FOR THIS IS PEOPLE LOSING THEIR HOMES.

THANK YOU. I THINK WE ARE ON. OKAY. I'M SORRY.

I NEED TO GO TO WHERE EVERYBODY IS ON A THIRD ROUND NOW.

SO DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, I'M GOING TO RECOGNIZE YOU FOR ONE MINUTE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WE DO HAVE A PLAN. AND I'M AT THE REQUEST OF MY MY MY REQUEST, MY OFFICERS REQUEST THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CAME OUT AND SPOKE WITH OUR COMMUNITY. THE COMMUNITY MADE IT VERY CLEAR WHAT THEIR, WHAT THEIR PLANS ARE AND WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT THAT, THAT WE NEED OVER HERE. FOR TOO LONG IN SOUTHERN DALLAS, WE ALWAYS HAVE TO HEAR, WE HAVE TO WAIT TO GET THIS DONE OR WE DON'T HAVE NO MONEY FOR

[01:40:08]

THIS. AND THAT'S BEEN PRETTY MUCH THE STORY OF OUR LIVES.

AND SO WE'RE, WE ARE AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON AGAIN, TO HAVE A POLICE STOREFRONT, A POLICE STATION COMING INTO DISTRICT FOUR, CODE OFFICE, SOMETHING THAT I PROMISED OUR COMMUNITY WHEN I WAS RUNNING FOR THIS PARTICULAR SEAT.

AND THANKFULLY, WE DO STILL HAVE THAT PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CODE THAT IT DOES COME INTO OUR OFFICE AND POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT DOES COME AND PARTNER WITH US IN OUR OFFICE.

BUT TO HAVE THE OFFICE HERE IN DISTRICT FOUR AND THE COURT OFFICE HERE IN DISTRICT FOUR IS SOMETHING THAT THE COMMUNITY IS SUPPORTING, ALONG WITH THE OTHER MAJOR DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO AT CADILLAC HEIGHTS.

AND WE CANNOT GET IT DONE UNTIL WE OWN ALL THE PARCELS AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING.

SORRY, THAT IS YOUR TIME. I KNOW YOU'RE A REMOTE AND CAN'T SEE.

I KNOW YOU CAN'T SEE THE CLOCK, SO I APOLOGIZE.

THAT'S NO PROBLEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU.

MISS MIDDLETON, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE. THANK YOU.

THE COMMENT WAS MADE THAT THE BUILDINGS ARE SUBSTANDARD.

CAN YOU TELL US HOW OLD THEY ARE? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE CANTON SERVICE CENTER? CANTON? YES, I DON'T HAVE. THEY ARE A VARIETY OF AGES.

CAN YOU GIVE THE YEARS THEY WERE BUILT? I'M NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

I'M SORRY. SO I THINK THE OLDEST ONE WAS 1982.

MAYBE THEY WENT THROUGH 1984, WHICH MAKES THEM BETWEEN 43 AND 45 YEARS OLD.

IF WE'RE GOING TO REPLACE EVERY BUILDING IN THE CITY THAT EXCEEDS 40 YEARS, WE WILL WE WILL GO BANKRUPT.

HOW MANY DIFFERENT BUILDINGS ARE THERE IN CANTON? GOOD MORNING. BRIAN THOMPSON, INTERIM DIRECTOR OF FACILITIES AND REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT. THERE ARE TEN BUILDINGS WITHIN THE CANTON SERVICE CENTER.

TEN BUILDINGS. SO WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT, FOLKS, IS ANOTHER BILL THAT'S GOING TO SAY, HEY, ANOTHER BILLION DOLLAR DEAL FOR DALLAS TAXPAYERS.

SO THAT WHAT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORK IN A 45 YEAR OLD BUILDING.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES HERE. HOW MANY ACRES IS THE CADILLAC HEIGHTS PUT WHEN IT'S ASSEMBLED? IT'S A TOTAL OF 77. ZERO. AND TODAY, CAN YOU TELL US HOW MANY ACRES CANTON IS? I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. IT'S 20 ACRES.

SO WHY WOULD WE NEED TO GO FROM 20 ACRES TO 70 ACRES? WELL, A PORTION OF THAT IS THE PARK. SO IT'S NOT ALL FOR THE SERVICE CENTER THAT'S IN THAT NUMBER FOR 70.

HOW MANY ACRES IS THE PARK? AND THAT'S YOUR TIME FOR THIS ROUND.

ARE YOU ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION? IT'S APPROXIMATELY 35 ACRES.

THE FIRST SECTION FOR THE PARKS, WHICH LEAVES 40 ACRES FOR THE SERVICE CENTER.

THANK YOU. CHAIR MORENO, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.

THANK YOU, MAYOR CHAIR STEWART. THANK YOU FOR FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

I'VE RECEIVED ZERO COMPLAINTS FROM THE DEEP ELLUM SERVICE CENTER.

TO THE ADJOINING COMMUNITY MEMBERS. BUT I CONSTANTLY HEAR ABOUT THE BENEFITS THAT COME WITH IT.

I LOOK FORWARD TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SPUR IN DISTRICT FOUR.

WE HAVE OUR. ANYTHING FROM SOMEONE RIDING A SANITATION TRUCK TO OUR DIRECTORS OUT OF THE CANTON.

SERVICE CENTER. I HAVE A QUESTION. THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT COULD COME THROUGH THE SALE OF THE SERVICE CENTER IN DEEP ELLUM. IF THIS COUNCIL WERE TO DIRECT THROUGH RESOLUTION TO OUR CITY MANAGER TO USE SOME OF THOSE PROCEEDS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SERVICE CENTER. WOULD THAT BE POSSIBLE, MADAM CITY MANAGER? IF THAT'S THE WILL OF THE BODY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON, FOR OR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM 26? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. THAT'S TO CLOSE I FROM ON VOICE. LET'S GO AHEAD AND RECORD VOTE IT.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES, IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

NO. IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCIL MEMBER WEST. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

MORENO. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. GRACEY. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER CADENA.

NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. BAZALDUA IS ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN.

COUNCIL MEMBER. BLAIR. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLACKMON.

COUNCIL MEMBER. STEWART. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH.

NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. MENDELSOHN. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

[01:45:04]

WILLIS. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY. NO. DEPUTY MAYOR.

PRO TEM JOHNSON. YES. MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU, MAYOR JOHNSON.

YES. WITH NINE VOTING IN FAVOR, FIVE OPPOSED, ONE ABSENT, ONE VOTE TAKEN. THE ITEM PASSES, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT, LET'S KEEP MOVING. AGENDA ITEM 27.

[27. 26-2296A Authorize a two-year architectural and engineering services contract with Tetra Tech, Inc. to perform a Facilities Condition Assessment at various City of Dallas facilities - Tetra Tech, Inc., the most advantageous proposer of five - Not to exceed $3,493,200.60 - Financing: 2017 General Obligation Bond Funds ($1,868,127.00), 2024 General Obligation Bond Funds ($253,515.00), and ARPA Redevelopment Fund ($1,371,558.60) *In alignment with Capital Improvement Program.]

AUTHORIZED A TWO YEAR ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT WITH TETRA TECH, INC.

TO PERFORM A FACILITIES CONDITION ASSESSMENT AT VARIOUS CITY OF DALLAS FACILITIES NOT TO EXCEED $3,493,200.60. THIS ITEM WAS CORRECTED AND HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS, BLACKMON WEST AND MENDELSOHN. THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS TO DENY? ALL RIGHT. THERE'S A MOTION TO DENY BY CHAIRMAN WEST AND SECONDED BY MISS BLACKMON.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON YOUR MOTION. THANK YOU. MAYOR. AND THIS WAS BROUGHT TO ME AS A REQUEST FROM STAFF.

THIS CAME TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AS WELL. THE THE SHORT VERSION IS THAT A RESIDENT BROUGHT UP A CONCERN WITH THIS PARTICULAR VENDOR.

IN A PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING. STAFF TOOK THE INITIATIVE TO GO RESEARCH THE VENDOR DISCOVERED THAT THE VENDOR HAD APPLIED FOR THIS PARTICULAR CONTRACT AND WAS ACTUALLY NOT STILL RESIDING IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

SO THE POINT SYSTEM WOULD NOT HAVE THEORETICALLY ENDED UP IN THEIR FAVOR IF THAT HAD BEEN DISCLOSED CORRECTLY IN THEIR APPLICATION, WHICH IS WHY STAFF, I BELIEVE, WANTS TO RE NOTICE THIS, BUT I WILL DEFER ANY QUESTIONS TO THEM IF IF FOLKS HAVE IT.

THANK YOU. MISS MIDDLETON. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ACTUAL ITEM.

MY FIRST QUESTION IS WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME A FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED? GOOD AFTERNOON. BRIAN THOMPSON, INTERIM INTERIM DIRECTOR OF FACILITIES MANAGEMENT. THE LAST FACILITIES CONDITION ASSESSMENT WAS IN 2017 ON 220 FACILITIES. AND WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE AT THAT TIME OF COMPLETING A FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT.

DO YOU KNOW? THE SAME PURPOSE THAT WE WOULD COMPLETE ONE TODAY TO GIVE US A CLEAR PICTURE OF THE CONDITION OF OUR FACILITIES, DRIVE OUR CAPITAL PLANNING PROCESS AND REINVESTMENT PROCESSES.

SO THERE'S ACTUALLY A LOT OF CONVERSATION AT THE CITY COUNCIL ABOUT THIS ASSESSMENT.

AND THE REASON THEY DID IT WAS TO PREPARE FOR THE 2017 BOND SO THEY COULD BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CAPITAL NEEDS WERE.

AND DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THE COST WAS FOR THAT 2017? IF I RECALL JUST A LITTLE OVER 2 MILLION. THAT'S WHAT I HAVE AS WELL.

AND IN FACT, DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT FUNDS THEY USE TO COMPLETE IT.

WHERE DID THAT 2 MILLION CAME FROM? DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? I DON'T REMEMBER. SO IT CAME FROM THE 2006 BOND.

THEY TOOK MONEY FROM THE 2006 BOND THAT WAS NOT ALLOCATED FOR A FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT.

AND THE COUNCIL REDIRECTED THE FUNDS FROM THAT.

THE FUNDS WERE ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO REPAIR THE SOUTHEAST SERVICE CENTER FLEET MAINTENANCE SHOP.

DO Y'ALL REMEMBER THAT ITEM THAT WE HAD TWICE? THE REASON WE HAD TO HAVE THAT ITEM WAS BECAUSE WE TOOK THE MONEY.

AND OF COURSE, NONE OF US WERE HERE THEN, BUT THAT COUNCIL DIVERTED THE FUNDS, REALLOCATED THE FUNDS TO DO A FLEET.

I'M SORRY TO DO THIS FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT.

WE WOULDN'T HAVE EVEN BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT. THE GUYS WORKING THERE WOULD HAVE AIR CONDITIONING.

THEY WOULDN'T HAVE PAINT PEELING. THEIR TOILETS WOULDN'T BE OVERFLOWING INTO THE SHOP.

SO THEY ADDED DEBT, 20 YEAR DEBT TO DO A REPORT.

NOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT EVER PASSED MUSTER BECAUSE OF COURSE WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS AGAIN, RIGHT? BECAUSE PART OF THE FUNDING FOR THIS ITEM IS DEBT FOR A REPORT.

IT'S NOT A CAPITAL EXPENSE. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT EVEN PASS MUSTER FOR A BOND, BUT IT'S A TERRIBLE PRACTICE TO TAKE DEBT TO GET A REPORT.

THIS REPORT, WHICH WAS DONE, AS YOU SAY, IN 2017, IT MIGHT EVEN BE LATE 2016 TO PREPARE FOR THE 2017 BOND.

IS IT STILL IN DATE? NO COUNCIL MEMBER, SO IT'S NOT EVEN USEFUL.

[01:50:01]

BUT WE'RE STILL PAYING INTEREST ON THAT REPORT TODAY.

YOUR TAX DOLLARS ARE PAYING FOR REPORT WE CAN'T EVEN USE.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHY IT'S A TERRIBLE USE OF FUNDS.

AND THIS THIS ITEM WAS INTENDED TO HAVE $253,515 FROM THAT BOND.

THE 2017 BOND, WHICH AGAIN NEVER CONSIDERED IN A 2017 BOND WHERE THEY GOT THE FACILITY IN AN ASSESSMENT IN 2016 TO DO IT AGAIN IN $2,017, IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED WE WOULD BE REDIRECTING THOSE FUNDS.

DO YOU SEE HOW IT WORKS WITH BONDS AND REDIRECTING FUNDS? HERE'S TWO ITEMS IN A ROW FOR MULTIPLE BONDS WHERE ITEMS ARE BEING REDIRECTED BY THE COUNCIL.

THE OTHER IS 1.37 MILLION OF ARPA. WE'VE GOT A BUDGET AMENDMENT COMING.

I'M GOING TO BE ASKING ABOUT THE ARPA. I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THAT IS A GOOD USE OF ARPA FUNDS.

IT'S A ONE TIME EXPENSE. IT'S SOMETHING WE WE DO NEED.

I'M FOR HAVING A CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF OUR FACILITIES.

I'M FOR THAT. BUT I HIGHLY OBJECT TO USING AND REDIRECTING BOND FUNDS TO THIS.

IT'S A TERRIBLE USE TO USE BOND FUNDS, NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER TWO.

I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT BOND FUNDS AND REDIRECTING RIGHT NOW.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION TO DENY ITEM 27.

SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE AYE. OPPOSED THE EYES.

HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 41. IS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER

[41. 26-2959A An ordinance amending Ordinance No. 33230, previously approved on September 17, 2025, as amended by Ordinance No. 33463, previously approved on June 24, 2026, authorizing (1) certain transfers and appropriation adjustments for FY 2025-26 for the maintenance and operation of various departments and activities; and (2) the City Manager to implement those adjustments - Not to exceed $5,967,988,552 - Financing: General Fund ($1,983,739,927), Enterprise Funds, Internal Service, and Other Funds ($1,868,683,364), Grants, Trust, and Other Funds ($275,759,007), and Capital Funds ($1,839,806,254)]

33230. PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER 17TH, 2025, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 33463 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ON JUNE 24TH, 2026, AUTHORIZING ONE CERTAIN TRANSFERS AND APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS FOR FY 2020 526 FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AND ACTIVITIES, AND TO THE CITY MANAGER TO IMPLEMENT THOSE ADJUSTMENTS.

NOT TO EXCEED $5,967,988,552. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN AND COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON. IS THERE A MOTION? 27. I'M SORRY.

ON 41. MOVE TO APPROVE. IS THERE A SECOND? ALL RIGHT.

IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. WHO PULLED IT? COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN AND BLACKMON.

EITHER OF YOU LIKE TO GO FIRST? OKAY. OKAY. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED, MISS MENDELSOHN, FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MY FIRST QUESTION IS THIS WAS AN AGENDA ITEM FOR THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.

I'M WONDERING IF STAFF OR THE COMMITTEE CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO CHARACTERIZE THE DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM.

THIS IS OUR YEAR END BUDGET ITEM, CORRECT? GOOD AFTERNOON OR GOOD MORNING.

JEANETTE WHEATON, BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES. THAT'S CORRECT. THIS ITEM WAS BRIEFED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE ON AUGUST 24TH.

THIS IS OUR END OF YEAR APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT ORDINANCE.

SO PER CITY CHARTER, THE CITY CITY DEPARTMENTS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO EXCEED THEIR APPROPRIATION.

SO EACH YEAR WE PREPARE AND PRESENT TO YOU ALL END OF YEAR APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE, WHERE WE REALLOCATE FUNDING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE END THE YEAR AT BUDGET OR UNDER BUDGET. AND WHAT WAS THE COMMITTEE'S DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS ITEM? SO THERE WAS A BRIEFING. WE TALKED ABOUT DEPARTMENTS THAT WERE FORECAST TO BE OVER BUDGET, HOW WE WERE USING SAVINGS, AND THE ITEM WAS MOVED FORWARD.

WAS THERE ANY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION? YES. AND WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THAT DISCUSSION? SO THEY ASKED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT DEPARTMENTS THAT WERE LINE ITEMS THAT WE WERE FORECASTED TO BE OVER BUDGET.

WE TALKED ABOUT HOW, HOW WE WERE GOING TO COVER THE REVENUE AND THE REVENUE SOURCE ASSOCIATED WITH COVERING THE SHORTFALL.

SO THERE WERE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.

OKAY. AND CAN YOU TELL US AS YOU LOOK THROUGH THIS ORDINANCE, CAN YOU TELL ME.

WHAT ENDED UP THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF ARPA FUNDS USED IN FISCAL YEAR 26? SO THE. THE FISCAL YEAR 26 BUDGET ORDINANCE INCLUDED ARPA, ARPA APPROPRIATIONS OF ABOUT 22.3 MILLION IN THE ARPA REDEVELOPMENT FUND. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ARPA REDEVELOPMENT FUND, THE TOTAL INCEPTION TO DATE BUDGET IS ABOUT 192.4 MILLION.

IF YOU ALL RECALL THAT THAT FUND WAS SET UP IN 2024 FROM A REALLOCATION FROM THE GRANT FUND.

[01:55:02]

SO AS WE HAVE EARNED INTEREST IN THAT PARTICULAR FUND, WE'VE APPROPRIATED THAT INTEREST.

AND SO THE 26 BUDGET THAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU ALL LAST YEAR INCLUDED ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR DIFFERENT PROJECTS.

WOULD YOU THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT THE ARPA FUND IS BEING USED TO SUPPLEMENT GENERAL FUNDS FOR RUNNING SOME DEPARTMENTS? NO, I WOULD SAY THAT THE ARPA REDEVELOPMENT FUND IS BEING USED FOR ONE TIME INITIATIVES THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS DETERMINED TO BE A PRIORITY.

SO I'M JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH A COUPLE OF THEM.

MAYBE YOU COULD HELP ME. THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 150 000 OF ARPA WAS PROPOSED.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT ONE? AND THE NEXT ONE IS GOING TO BE CODE COMPLIANCE FOR 161,000. SO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WAS FOR CONSULTATION.

SO ANYTIME YOU HAVE DIFFERENT PROJECTS THAT ARE PART OF THE ARPA REDEVELOPMENT FUND OR EVEN THE ARPA GRANT FUND THAT REQUIRE CONTRACT, SOME OF THOSE CONTRACTS MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL.

ASSISTANCE IN TERMS OF FORMULATING THE CONTRACT.

SO THAT'S WHAT THAT WAS FOR. FOR CODE COMPLIANCE THAT TYPICALLY A GENERAL FUND EXPENSE.

SO AGAIN, THE ARPA REDEVELOPMENT FUND, AS WELL AS THE ARPA GRANT FUND REFLECTS ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR DIFFERENT INITIATIVES.

SO IF A PROJECT OR A CONTRACT IS GOING FORWARD AND IT'S FUNDED BY ARPA, THEN IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO USE ARPA FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT CONTRACT. OKAY. AND CAN YOU SHARE WITH US THE 161 000 FOR ARPA? SO THE THE CO COMPLIANCE ITEM IN A PRIOR YEAR, THERE WAS A PROJECT, THE TRI CITY HOSPITAL DEMOLITION WAS SET UP.

THAT PROJECT WAS ABOUT $1 MILLION. AND IT ENDED UP BEING SLIGHTLY MORE THAN WHAT THE ORIGINAL BUDGET WAS FOR.

SO THE ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION WAS COVERING THE OVERAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PROJECT.

AND THEN FOR FACILITY AND REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT, 7.5 MILLION.

SO 7.5 MILLION IS A COMBINATION OF DIFFERENT THINGS.

I THINK IT WAS MAJOR MAINTENANCE AT CENTRAL PATROL SOME MAJOR MAINTENANCE ITEMS AT THE LIBRARY AND I'D HAVE TO, I CAN SHARE A FULL LIST. I DON'T HAVE A FULL LIST WITH ME.

THE TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THAT PARTICULAR LINE ITEM IS 15 MILLION, BUT THE FISCAL YEAR 26 APPROPRIATION WAS 7.5 MILLION.

AND WAS ANY OF IT RELATED TO CITY HALL? NO, ACTUALLY, CITY HALL IS A SEPARATE LINE ITEM.

IT'S AR 61. SO FOR CITY HALL, IT WAS GENERATION AND ELECTRICAL UPGRADES.

OKAY. AND I'M SORRY. BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES 319,000.

SO THAT IS ACTUALLY WHAT LINE ITEM ARE YOU ON.

OH THAT'S. 19,000 ACTUALLY. OH THAT'S ARPA SUPPORT.

SO THAT'S ARPA COMPLIANCE AND SUPPORT. SO JUST LIKE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WE HAVE STAFF IN OUR OFFICE THAT ARE FUNDED OUT OF THE ARPA REDEVELOPMENT GRANT FUND.

AND SO THEY ARE FACILITATING THE WORK ASSOCIATED WITH ARPA DOLLARS.

AND SO THIS ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR COMPLIANCE AND SUPPORT.

WE DO HAVE A VENDOR THAT WE USE TO GO OUT AND RESEARCH BEST PRACTICES TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE COMPLIANT WITH US TREASURY GUIDANCE.

AND SO THAT'S THAT LINE ITEM. SO WHEN THE ARPA FUNDS ARE EXPENDED, ARE YOU EXPECTING TO REDUCE STAFF.

OH ABSOLUTELY. SO ONCE THE GRANT ENDS AND IF YOU RECALL FC 18 IS THE GRANT FUND.

AND SO WE ARE REQUIRED TO SPEND THOSE DOLLARS BY SEPTEMBER 30TH.

IF YOU LOOK IN, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE ARPA REPORT, APPENDIX A IS THE GRANT FUND.

WE WE ARE WELL ON OUR WAY TO SPENDING ALL OF THOSE FUNDS.

BY THE END OF THE FIRST QUARTER OF FISCAL YEAR 27.

WE EXPECT CLOSEOUT TO BE COMPLETE. AND SO ALL OF THE STAFFING ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PROJECT WILL END.

AND FOR PARK AND REC, YOU HAVE 935 000 FOR ARPA.

SO PARK AND RECREATION, THAT WAS A END OF YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT.

THAT WAS USING IT DID A COUPLE DIFFERENT THINGS.

IT REDUCED THE GENERAL FUND TAX RATE AND THEN IT SWAPPED OUT ONGOING DOLLARS WITH ARPA DOLLARS.

SO IT WAS A CITY COUNCIL BUDGET AMENDMENT AT THE, DURING BUDGET DEVELOPMENT OF FISCAL YEAR 26.

AND IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE USED FOR AQUATICS, BUT IT WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN GENERAL FUND.

CORRECT. BUT IT WAS A CITY COUNCIL BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT RECEIVED MAJORITY SUPPORT.

[02:00:03]

I'M NOT POINTING A FINGER AT STAFF ON THIS. OKAY.

THANK YOU. FOR PROCUREMENT SERVICES. 500 000.

SO THIS IS ONE WE TALKED ABOUT LAST WEEK AS PART OF THE FISCAL YEAR 27 BUDGET.

SO WE ARE USING ARPA DOLLARS IN THE CURRENT YEAR FOR THE YES.

DALLAS ACCELERATION PROJECT. AND FOR TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS, WE'VE GOT 2 MILLION.

THAT WAS ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR STREET MAINTENANCE.

THIS ONE I TOTALLY SUPPORT. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO NOW MOVING ON TO DEBT.

CAN YOU TELL US BECAUSE IT'S ALSO INCLUDED IN THIS ORDINANCE, WHAT IS THE COST FOR DEBT SERVICE? SO THE FISCAL YEAR 26 BUDGET FOR DEBT SERVICE EXPENSE IS 491 MILLION.

WE'RE FORECAST TO SPEND ABOUT IT'S ACTUALLY 491.

SO SACHSE 490,776,611. SO I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT NUMBER.

I HAVE TWO MINUTES LEFT. $491 MILLION IS BEING SPENT, 491 MILLION IS BEING SPENT ON DEBT SERVICE FOR FISCAL YEAR 26. IF WE DIDN'T HAVE SUCH HIGH DEBT, WE WOULD HAVE A LOWER AMOUNT AND WE WOULD HAVE MORE MONEY IN OUR GENERAL FUND. WELL, WE HAVE TOO MUCH DEBT.

WELL, THIS IS THE DEBT SERVICE, RIGHT? YES. AND IF I MAY.

SO. OR WE'D HAVE A LOWER TAX RATE. CORRECT. SO CITY COUNCIL APPROPRIATES A SEPARATE TAX RATE FOR BOTH THE DEBT SERVICE SIDE OF THE TAX RATE AND THE GENERAL FUND PORTION OF THE TAX RATE. SO AND THE GENERAL FUND PORTION OF THE TAX RATE IS CAPPED AT 3.5%.

SO YOUR DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE IS USED TO COVER DEBT SERVICE.

THIS BODY HAS CONSISTENTLY APPROVED A BOND PROGRAM EVERY 5 TO 6 YEARS.

AND SO WE USE THE DEBT SERVICE PORTION OF THE TAX RATE TO SUPPORT THE BOND PROGRAM.

IF IT IS THE WILL OF THE BODY TO NO LONGER HAVE A DEBT BOND PROGRAM, THEN OF COURSE, YES, WE COULD REDUCE OUR DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE, OR WE COULD LET SOME DEBT EXPIRE AND LOWER THAT TAX RATE FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

I WOULD SUGGEST TO OUR LEGISLATIVE CHAIR THAT ONE OF THE SOLUTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS WE OFFER TO THE TEXAS LEDGE IS TO INCENTIVIZE THE CITY TO REDUCE OUR DEBT BY ALLOWING US TO PERHAPS STAY ON THE ADJUSTED TITLE, THE POSTED ITEM, AND NOT DIRECT THE LEGISLATIVE CHAIR.

WELL, I'M TALKING ABOUT DEBT SERVICE. I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE TIME TO GIVE THE LEGISLATIVE CHAIR AN AGENDA.

THANK YOU. WELL, I THINK OUR DEBT SERVICE IS WAY TOO HIGH AND I HOPE THAT SOMEBODY WILL CHANGE AND INCENTIVIZE CITIES SO THAT THEY WILL REDUCE THEIR AMOUNT OF DEBT SO THAT WE DON'T SEE THIS KIND OF NUMBER NEXT YEAR, WHICH WE WILL. AND INSTEAD, WE WILL REDUCE OUR DEBT.

AND PERHAPS WE WOULD BE INCENTIVIZED TO BE ABLE TO MOVE SOME OF THAT TO GENERAL FUND.

THANK YOU. MISS BLACKMON. RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. AND THANKS, JEANNETTE, FOR, I MEAN, I PULLED THE BRIEFING THAT YOU HAD, SO I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.

THE APPROVED AMOUNT FROM LAST YEAR WAS 5.8 BILLION, RIGHT.

FOR THE 2020 526. WE'RE NOW ABOUT TO APPROVE A 5.967 BILLION AMENDMENT, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND THEN WE JUST APPROVED A 5.66 BILLION.

SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE PRESENTATION THE MIDYEAR PRESENTATION.

SO THE TOTAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 26 WAS 5.8 BILLION.

AND SO THAT INCLUDES ALSO YOUR INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS.

SO IT'S ALMOST A DOUBLE COUNT BECAUSE THOSE DOLLAR AMOUNTS APPEAR IN YOUR OPERATING FUNDS AS WELL.

IT ALSO INCLUDES CAPITAL. THIS END OF YEAR BUDGET APPROPRIATION AMENDMENT WILL AMEND THE BUDGET BY 139.4 MILLION.

KEEP IN MIND, 103.4 MILLION OF. THAT IS CAPITAL THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY THIS BODY.

OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU. THAT WAS KIND OF ALARMING.

I WAS GOING I DON'T KNOW IF WE. OKAY, SO IS THAT SO THE 103 HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED AND ON ITS WAY.

AND WHEN YOU SAY CAPITAL, THAT'S USUALLY FROM A BOND.

CORRECT. OKAY. IT'S IT'S BOND PROGRAMS. IT'S YOUR DWU YOU YOUR WATER CAPITAL AVIATION.

SO YOU HAVE ALREADY APPROVED THOSE ITEMS. THE END OF YOUR ORDINANCE IS A CULMINATION OF THAT ACTIVITY THAT HAS OCCURRED THIS YEAR, BUT ALSO ADJUSTMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED TO END THE YEAR.

[02:05:02]

BECAUSE BECAUSE MY QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE, ARE WE GOING TO SEE THIS NEXT YEAR AS WELL WHEN WE DO THIS BECAUSE WE ARE WE GOING TO GO OVER, YOU KNOW, 6 BILLION MAYBE WHEN WE. AND I'M JUST WONDERING, DO WE HAVE.

AND YOU'RE SAYING MOST OF IT HAS BEEN APPROVED AND THROUGH BONDING.

IT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE TO COME OUT OF RESERVES. THAT WAS WHAT I WAS KIND OF QUESTIONING. OH NO.

SO THE ITEMS THAT WENT BEFORE YOU AS CAPITAL ITEMS, THEY WERE ITEMS THAT WERE EITHER PART OF THE THERE'S FUNDING ASSOCIATED WITH IT, SO THERE'S NO RESERVES USED.

SO ANY RESERVES WOULD HAVE BEEN THE MAYBE DALLAS WATER UTILITY FUND BALANCE RESERVES WHERE THEY HAVE THE FUNDING TO DO IT.

SO THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE. I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK THROUGH EVERY SINGLE ITEM TO TELL YOU WHERE THE REVENUE CAME, BECAUSE THAT WAS MY QUESTION BECAUSE I SAW THE 100/100.

I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER SEEN IT LIKE THAT. SO OKAY, THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU MISS CADENA. YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. SO ON PAGE 19, WHERE IT SAYS TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE DIFFERENT TAX TIF DISTRICTS, AT THE END, IT SAYS REIMBURSEMENT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING, ADMINISTRATION COST.

SO IS THAT GOING TO A SPECIFIC DEPARTMENT THAT GOES TO THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT? AND IS THIS A CHANGE FROM WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST? NO. THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT APPEARS ON THE ORDINANCE EVERY YEAR.

SO AS PART OF FACILITATING THAT PARTICULAR TAX INCREMENT PROGRAM, THERE'S STAFF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT AND WE'RE ABLE TO PROVIDE REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE FOR THE TIME SPENT FACILITATING THAT PROGRAM.

OKAY. AND THEN ON PAGE 23. ITEM E. IT TALKS ABOUT THE FORT WORTH AVENUE TIF DISTRICT AND MONEY BEING AUTHORIZED FOR DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.

IS THAT NEW? NO. SO THE THE WAY TO READ THIS ORDINANCE, THE ORDINANCE WILL PICK UP ITEMS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.

WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY REPRESENTS UNDERLINES AND STRIKETHROUGHS.

SO THE SECTION THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS ACTUALLY WAS ACTUALLY PART OF THE ORIGINAL ITEM THAT WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL BACK LAST SEPTEMBER.

BUT THIS REFLECTS ACTIVITY FOR TIF DISTRICT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY THIS BODY.

IT STATES THAT IT WAS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 241401.

AND SO BECAUSE IT STARTS WITH THE. 24 THAT ACTIVITY, THAT AUTHORIZATION OCCURRED IN 2024.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM 41? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 42. ITEM 42 AUTHORIZE AN

[42. 26-2919A Authorize an amendment to Resolution No. 26-0896, previously approved on May 27, 2026, to authorize a secured, zero percent interest, forgivable loan agreement in the amount of $800,000 to First Presbyterian Church of Dallas, Texas dba The Stewpot to provide for rehabilitation of the property located at 1610 South Malcolm X Boulevard, Dallas, Texas 75226 to (1) revise the term of the agreement to October 1, 2026 through September 30, 2026 2027; (2) identify the specific building upon which the lien and deed restrictions shall be imposed, Partner Building 350; and (3) clarify the terms of the forgivable loan agreement - Financing: This action has no cost consideration to the City (see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with HUD Consolidated Plan.]

AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NUMBER 26-0896 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ON MAY 27TH, 2026, TO AUTHORIZE A SECURED 0% INTEREST FORGIVABLE LOAN AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $800,000 TO FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF DALLAS, TEXAS, DBA. THE STEWPOT TO PROVIDE FOR REHABILITATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1610 SOUTH MALCOLM X BOULEVARD, DALLAS, TEXAS 7522621. REVISE THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT TO OCTOBER 1ST, 2026 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2027 TO IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC BUILDING UPON WHICH THE LIEN AND DEED RESTRICTIONS SHALL BE IMPOSED.

PARTNER BUILDING 350 AND THREE CLARIFY THE TERMS OF THE FORGIVABLE LOAN AGREEMENT.

THIS ITEM WAS CORRECTED AND WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

IS THERE A MOTION? YES, MAYOR. I MOVE TO DEFER THIS ITEM UNTIL DECEMBER 9TH, 2026.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT. IT'S BEEN MOVED. AND SECOND, YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? YES.

FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. THIS WAS A REQUEST FROM STAFF.

IF ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES. I'LL ASK STAFF JUST TO GIVE A BRIEF EXPLANATION AND TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND YES, IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH REPRESENTATIVES, THEY HAVE REACHED OUT AND ASKED US TO MOVE THIS ITEM TO DECEMBER SO WE COULD HAVE ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS REGARDING THE AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION TO DEFER? ON ITEM 42.

SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM PLEASE. THANK YOU, MR.

[48. 26-2726A Consideration of appointments to boards and commissions and the evaluation and duties of board and commission members (List of nominees is available in the City Secretary's Office)]

MAYOR. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO YOUR ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, BEGINNING WITH AGENDA ITEM 48.

AGENDA ITEM 48 IS CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

THIS MORNING YOU HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL NOMINEE AND CHAIR APPOINTMENTS.

THE CHAIR APPOINTMENTS WILL BE BY SEPARATE VOTE TO ALLOW THE MAYOR TO ABSTAIN.

YOUR NOMINEE FOR INDIVIDUAL APPOINTMENT TO THE YOUTH COMMISSION, GEMMA E HOGARTH, IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLAIR.

[02:10:09]

THIS IS YOUR NOMINEE, MR. MAYOR. LOOKING FOR A MOTION? I HEARD A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT.

CONGRATULATIONS. YOUR CHAIR APPOINTMENTS. THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS HAVE BEEN NOMINATED CHAIR BY MAYOR JOHNSON TO THE COMMISSION ON DISABILITIES. O-GLYCAN JOHN CONLEY IS BEING NOMINATED CHAIR AGAIN TO THE COMMISSION ON DISABILITIES. DERRICK J.

SANDLER IS BEING NOMINATED CHAIR OF THE REINVESTMENT ZONE 19 BOARD CYPRESS WATERS AND LEANDER T JOHNSON IS BEING NOMINATED CHAIR OF THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK OPPORTUNITY FUND BOARD. AGAIN, ALL BY MAYOR JOHNSON. THESE ARE YOUR NOMINEES, MR. MAYOR. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? EYES. HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

[49. 26-2915A A resolution authorizing the approval and adoption of the Dallas Cultural Plan 2018, Revised and Restated 2026, attached as Exhibit A, to replace the Dallas Cultural Plan 2018 - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

I ABSTAINED, NOTED AGENDA ITEM 49. AUTHORIZE IS AS A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE DALLAS CULTURAL PLAN 2018 REVISED AND RESTATED 2026 ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT A TO REPLACE THE DALLAS CULTURAL PLAN 2018. THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. LOOKING FOR A MOTION? MOVED IN SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? MISS MENDELSOHN RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. THERE'S ACTUALLY A REALLY INTERESTING CONVERSATION AT THE QUALITY OF LIFE COMMITTEE ABOUT THIS, AND THE PLAN NEEDS A LOT OF UPDATING. IT LOOKS LIKE ALL WE'RE APPROVING RIGHT NOW ARE CHANGES BASED ON FEDERAL LAW AND THE WHOLE DEI ISSUE. SO I'M FINE WITH SAYING YES, BUT WE CAN'T SAY YES WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THAT MANY OF THE THINGS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THAT PLAN ARE NO LONGER RELEVANT. SO I DON'T WANT TO BLINDLY AFFIRM THIS PLAN THAT CALLS FOR PROVIDING NEW SPACES AND NEW BUILDINGS AND DEVELOPING NEW LOCATIONS FOR ARTS.

WHEN I THINK WE ARE IN A VERY, VERY DIFFERENT PLACE FINANCIALLY, WE'RE PERHAPS IN THE SAME PLACE.

ACTUALLY, WE JUST DIDN'T EVER TALK ABOUT IT THEN AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT NOW.

SO I'M GOING TO VOTE YES. WE NEED TO MAKE THESE CHANGES.

BUT IT CAN'T BE DONE WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THERE ARE VERY PROBLEMATIC THINGS THAT ARE IN THERE TODAY.

THAT DON'T FIT OUR CURRENT SITUATION. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOUR AGAINST 49.

SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 50 IS AN ORDINANCE APPROVING DALLAS FORT WORTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.

[50. 26-3067A An ordinance approving Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport Board Resolution No. 2026-08-207, adopted on August 6, 2026, for the purpose of amending Appendix 1 of the Code of Rules and Regulations of the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport Board to reduce the posted speed limit on blocks 1500 through 3400 (north and south) of International Parkway from 55 miles per hour to 45 miles per hour - Financing: No cost consideration to the City (This item was deferred on September 9, 2026)]

BOARD RESOLUTION NUMBER 2026-08-207, ADOPTED ON AUGUST 6TH, 2026, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING APPENDIX ONE OF THE CODE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE DALLAS FORT WORTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BOARD TO REDUCE THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT ON BLOCKS 1500 THROUGH 3400 NORTH AND SOUTH OF INTERNATIONAL PARKWAY FROM 55 MILES PER PER HOUR TO 45MPH.

THIS ITEM, MR. MAYOR, LOOKING FOR A MOTION ITEM 50 MOVED AND SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 51.

[51. 26-2910A Authorize a Resident Company Use Agreement between (1) Cara Mia Theatre Co. (CMTC), as licensee, and the City of Dallas, as licensor; and (2) Teatro Hispano de Dallas (TD), a licensee, and the City of Dallas, as licensor, to enable CMTC and TD, individually and separately but on the same Use Agreement terms, to license the Latino Cultural Center multi-form theater and Oak Farms Dairy Performance hall and associated supporting spaces, at the Latino Cultural center for 12 to 20 weeks each annually, over a five-year term, for the period October 1, 2026 through September 30, 2031 (the “Initial Term”), with three five-year renewal options for the period October 1, 2031 through September 30, 2046, to carry out the City’s cultural public purpose in accordance with the Use Agreements - Estimated Annual Revenue: General Fund $36,000.00]

AUTHORIZE A RESIDENT COMPANY USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ONE CARA MIA THEATER COMPANY, MTC AS LICENSEE AND THE CITY OF DALLAS AS LICENSOR AND TWO TEATRO ESPANOL DE DALLAS TD, A LICENSEE, AND THE CITY OF DALLAS, A LICENSOR TO ENABLE SI, MTC AND TD INDIVIDUALLY AND SEPARATELY, BUT ON THE SAME USE AGREEMENT TERMS TO LICENSE THE LATINO CULTURAL CENTER, MULTI-FORM THEATER AND OAK FARMS DAIRY PERFORMANCE HALL AND ASSOCIATED SUPPORTING SPACES AT THE LATINO CULTURAL CENTER FOR 12 TO 20 WEEKS EACH ANNUALLY OVER A FIVE YEAR TERM FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1ST, 2026 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2031. THE INITIAL TERM WITH THREE FIVE YEAR RENEWAL OPTIONS FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1ST, 2031 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2046 TO CARRY OUT THE CITY'S CULTURAL PUBLIC PURPOSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE USE AGREEMENTS.

YOU DO HAVE TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

SARAH CARDONA. AND DAVID LOZANO. BUT, MISS CARDONA, YOU MAY COME FORWARD.

YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. GOOD MORNING.

[02:15:02]

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. I AM THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR TEATRO DALLAS AND FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND HAVE WORKED ON THIS WITH THE LCPS OIC STAFF SINCE THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION IN 2019.

I SAW THAT THE BENEFIT IN TERMS OF THE GENERAL FUND IS $36,000, AND I DON'T THINK THAT TELLS THE WHOLE STORY.

SO I WANT TO FILL IN AND REALLY GIVE YOU A SENSE OF THE IMPACT THAT OUR TWO THEATERS HAVE, NOT JUST FOR AUDIENCES IN DALLAS AND COMMUNITY, BUT ALSO FOR OUR ARTS ECOSYSTEM IN GENERAL.

AND BEHIND ME, I HAVE A GROUP OF ARTISTS WHO ARE OUR FUTURE CULTURAL LEADERS.

MANY OF THEM HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH BOTH OF OUR THEATERS FOR MANY YEARS AND ARE STEPPING INTO FUTURE LEADERSHIP ROLES.

SO OUR INITIAL RESIDENCY BEGAN WHEN WE RAISED COLLECTIVELY HALF $1 MILLION IN A JOINT CAPITAL CAMPAIGN, WHICH WAS EXCEEDED. AND WE PROVIDED CAPITAL INVESTMENTS IN THE LCC TO OUTFIT THE BLACK BOX THEATER WITH STATE OF THE ART LIGHTS AND SOUND PACKAGES, AS WELL AS SEATING SOMETHING THAT EVERY ARTS GROUP, NOT JUST OURS, BENEFITS FROM WHEN THEY USE THE LCC.

COMBINED, TATRA, DALLAS AND CARAMIA HAVE 70 YEARS OF THEATER MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE, AND OUR THEATER COMPANIES TOGETHER PROVIDE ANNUALLY $700,000 WORTH OF PROGRAMING AT THE LCC. AND FOR CONTEXT, THE LCC STAFF HAS AN ANNUAL BUDGET OF $100,000 FOR ITS PROGRAMS. SO WE'RE BRINGING CLOSE TO $1 MILLION, HOPEFULLY, IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS OF OF PROGRAMS THAT BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY. WE'RE NOT JUST AN ARTS GROUP PROVIDING THEATER, THOUGH.

WE DO SERVE THOUSANDS OF AUDIENCES EVERY YEAR.

WE PROVIDE A REASON FOR TALENT TO STAY IN DALLAS.

40 YEARS WE'VE TRAINED AND PROVIDED AN ENTIRE NEW GENERATION OF THEATER LEADERS WHO CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW, HEAD UP AT LEAST FOUR OF THE OTHER THEATER COMPANIES, PROFESSIONAL THEATERS IN DALLAS.

AND WE PRAY, PROVIDE WELL-PAID WORK FOR OUR ARTISTS.

AND WE HAVE WORKFORCE TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR DESIGNED FOR LOW INCOME YOUNG ADULTS THAT HAVE, I HAVE DOCUMENTED RESULTS OF JOB PLACEMENT AND COLLEGE READINESS PROGRAMS THAT WE'VE PROVIDED.

THEY'VE BEEN ENTERING REGIONAL COLLEGES IN THE ARTS PROGRAMS. WE PROVIDE AN INTERNATIONAL THEATER FESTIVAL, A NEW DIRECTORS FESTIVAL THAT IS SUPPORTED BY THE TCA CULTURAL DISTRICT FUNDS IN RECOGNITION OF OUR CULTURAL TOURISM CONTRIBUTIONS, ATTRACTING VISITORS FROM ACROSS THE STATE, FROM ACROSS THE UNITED STATES AND GLOBALLY. BECAUSE OUR FESTIVAL IS INTERNATIONAL.

IT IS THE OLDEST IN THE SOUTHWEST, AND WE CONNECT OUR ARTISTS DIRECTLY WITH OTHER COUNTRIES THROUGH PROGRAMS WHEN WE TAKE THEM ABROAD.

OUR RESIDENCY AT THE LCC SUPPORTS OUR GROWTH AND STABILITY AND OUR ABILITY TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMMUNITY IN THE FUTURE.

THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CAN I JUST ALLOW THEM TO STAND UP? I WANT TO RECOGNIZE THEM BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN HERE TO SUPPORT US.

SURE. GO AHEAD, STAND UP AND LET US SEE IT. OH! IT'S EVERYBODY. OKAY. DAVID LOZANO.

GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS DAVID LOZANO AND I'M THE EXECUTIVE ARTISTIC DIRECTOR OF ACADEMY OF THEATER.

AND I WANT TO THANK THIS COUNCIL AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE COMMITTEE IN PARTICULAR FOR YOUR SUPPORT.

AND WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO BE HERE TALKING ABOUT THIS RESOLUTION.

AND I DO WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO THANK THE STAFF THAT REALLY PUT IN OVERTIME TO GET THIS RESOLUTION TOGETHER FOR THIS MEETING.

SO WE ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS. THIS IS IN IN 2019, THIS COUNCIL MADE HISTORY BECAUSE WITH OUR RESIDENCES AT THE LATINO CULTURAL CENTER, WE PUT OURSELVES ON PAR, THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THE CITY OF DALLAS OFFICE OF ARTS AND CULTURE.

WE PUT OURSELVES ON PAR WITH LOS ANGELES AND WITH NEW YORK CITY, WITH TWO COMPANIES LIKE OURS AS RESIDENTS OF CITY ARTS FACILITIES. AND THIS IS UNIQUE IN THE UNITED STATES.

AND THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE THIS RESIDENCY AND THIS KIND OF WORK IN DALLAS.

I DO SAID A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS GOING TO SAY, BUT I DO WANT TO MENTION THE MUTUAL BENEFIT OF THIS RESIDENCY FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THE LATINO CULTURAL CENTER. WHAT SADA IS TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF THE INVESTMENT THAT WE PUT INTO THE PROGRAMING OF THE LATINO CULTURAL CENTER, IT'S SIGNIFICANT WITH THE NUMBER OF WEEKS THAT WE'RE PERFORMING THERE.

FOR EXAMPLE, KADHIMIYA THEATER THIS FISCAL YEAR WILL INVEST HALF $1 MILLION OF PROGRAMING, AND THIS SUPPORTS THE $100,000 OF PROGRAMING ALLOCATED TO THE LCC STAFF.

SO THIS IS A GREAT PARTNERSHIP THAT BRINGS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, AN INTERNATIONAL THEATER FESTIVAL.

[02:20:06]

I'M CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT OTHER CITY ARTS FACILITY IN THE COUNTRY HAS TWO INTERNATIONAL THEATER FESTIVALS.

BETWEEN OUR TWO GROUPS, OUR FESTIVAL IS THE LARGEST IN NORTH TEXAS, AND WE ARE ALSO BRINGING IN SEVERAL GROUPS.

AND SO SO FAR WE'VE SOLD, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO TRACK OVER 175 HOTEL ROOMS. NIGHT STAYS IN LESS THAN THREE WEEKS UP TO NOW, AND THE FESTIVAL HASN'T EVEN BEGUN.

SO WE'RE BRINGING TOURISM AND PEOPLE FROM AROUND THE CITY, FROM AROUND THE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY, THE STATE, NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY. I ALSO WANT TO MENTION THAT WE SERVE THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS EVERY YEAR.

WE HAVE STRONG PARTNERSHIPS, ESPECIALLY WITH DALLAS ISD, BUT ALSO WE'RE DEVELOPING ONE WITH IRVING ISD, AND WE'RE BRINGING THEM TO THE LATINO CULTURAL CENTER FOR WORKSHOPS AND PERFORMANCES.

AND WITH THAT SAID, WE ARE READY TO MOVE FORWARD AND WE ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN VOTING FOR THIS RESOLUTION AND PROVIDING A HOME FOR OUR TWO THEATERS SO THAT WE CONTINUE TO GROW AND WE CONTINUE TO HELP THE LCC GROW AND BE AND MAINTAIN ITS STATUS AS A NATIONAL DESTINATION FOR THEATER.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. THERE ARE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM, MR. MAYOR. LOOKING FOR A MOTION? IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 52.

[52. 26-2898A Authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with an international sports organization to provide for the City of Dallas’ participation in and support of a future major international sporting event initiative, including planning, coordination, public safety, transportation, use of City facilities, and other municipal services as necessary, approved as to form by the City Attorney - Financing: This action has no cost consideration to the City (see Fiscal Information)]

AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH AN INTERNATIONAL SPORTS ORGANIZATION TO PROVIDE FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS PARTICIPATION IN AND SUPPORT OF A FUTURE MAJOR INTERNATIONAL SPORTING EVENT INITIATIVE INCLUDING PLANNING, COORDINATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, TRANSPORTATION, USE OF CITY, CITY FACILITIES AND OTHER MUNICIPAL SERVICES AS NECESSARY.

APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. MOTION. MOVE FOR MOVE TO APPROVE. IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND DISCUSSION.

CHAIRMAN WEST, I'M GOING TO ASK. YES. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

ASK DIRECTOR FLEMING TO COME UP. EXPLAIN THIS ITEM.

GOOD MORNING. ROSA FLEMING, DIRECTOR OF CONVENTION AND EVENT SERVICE.

SO THIS IS A FUTURE ITEM SIMILAR TO FIFA THAT OFFERS US AN OPPORTUNITY TO MARKET THE CITY IN A IN A LARGE WAY.

ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU ABLE TO GIVE US ANY MORE DETAILS AT THIS POINT, OR WHEN WILL WE BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THIS PUBLICLY? SO WE CAN WE CAN ACTUALLY TALK. I'LL BRING ADDITIONAL ITEMS BACK IN THE FUTURE.

THERE'S NO COST FOR THIS. THE INITIAL AGREEMENT, WHICH IS PRIMARILY FOR PLANNING AN AGREEMENT TO PLAN.

AND THEN WE'LL BRING SEVERAL ITEMS BACK SIMILAR TO HOW WE DID THE FIFA PROCESS.

WE DID AN INITIAL AGREEMENT THAT ALLOWED US TO DISCUSS AND PLAN IT OUT, AND THEN WE BROUGHT BACK ANYTHING THAT HAD TO DO WITH LOGISTICS AND ANYTHING THAT HAD TO DO WITH COST TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. SO IF THERE'S ANY COST BEFORE THERE'S ANY INCURRENCE OF COST BY THE CITY, WE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AS COUNCIL TO TO WEIGH IN ON THAT.

ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MENDELSOHN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MY QUESTION IS ALSO ABOUT COST. SO WE OFTEN HAVE AGENDA ITEMS THAT SAY NO COST CONSIDERATION TO THE CITY.

AND I FREQUENTLY OBJECT SAYING, OF COURSE THERE'S A COST.

YOU'RE SPENDING TIME EVEN PRESENTING THIS. IT WAS PUT ON OUR AGENDA.

THERE'S TIME SPENT. HOW CAN YOU SAY THERE'S NO COST CONSIDERATION? WELL, FOR THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, THERE'S NOT A COST ATTACHED.

IT HAS TO BE ENCUMBERED. THIS IS A PLANNING AGREEMENT WHERE WE GO FORWARD AND THEN ALLOW POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE MADE ON HOW WE MOVE FORWARD. AFTER WE HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ORGANIZATION WITH WHICH WE'RE PLANNING.

AND SO THE PEOPLE DOING THE PLANNING WORK FOR THE CITY.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. AND THEY'RE PAID BY THE CITY? ABSOLUTELY. SO HOW IS THERE NO COST CONSIDERATION? BECAUSE IT'S IN A NORMAL DELIVERY OF OUR DAY TO DAY JOB.

SO MY JOB, OBVIOUSLY IS TO BRING IN TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY TO THE CITY.

SO THIS FALLS WITHIN THAT. SO IT'S WITHIN THE NORMAL PARAMETERS OF MY JOB.

SO IF THIS WASN'T GOING FORWARD YOU'D HAVE NO CHANGE OF STAFF NO CHANGE IN EXPENSES IF IT DIDN'T GO FORWARD.

CORRECT. BUT NOW YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND NOT NEED ADDITIONAL STAFF OR PRIMARILY, AS WITH FIFA, THIS WOULD BE DONE THROUGH OUR CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH VISIT DALLAS AND THE VISIT DALLAS SPORTS COMMISSION.

AND SO IT WOULD BE WITHIN THEIR WHEELHOUSE TO BE ABLE TO PUT TOGETHER COMMITTEES AND THE FUNDRAISING AND SPONSORSHIP ETC.

[02:25:09]

THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH A LARGER. SO SINCE WE MANAGE VISITDALLAS ALREADY CONTRACTUALLY, IT WOULDN'T CHANGE THE TONE OF WHAT WE DO WITH THEM CURRENTLY.

SO I'M JUST GOING TO SAY I APPRECIATE CHAIRMAN WEST BRIEFING ME ON WHAT THE SITUATION IS.

I'M SUPPORTIVE OF IT, BUT I JUST FIND IT VERY UNCOMFORTABLE THAT WE PUT THESE ITEMS AS NO COST CONSIDERATION.

AND WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS IT'S GOING TO MOVE DOWN THE ROAD.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SAY YES BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE ALREADY SUBMITTED APPLICATIONS.

THINGS WILL HAVE HAPPENED. THERE WILL BE A COST TO OUR CITY.

ABSOLUTELY. THERE WILL BE A COST IF WE GET IT, IF IT ALL HAPPENS.

AND I JUST THINK IT'S NOT TRANSPARENT TO TO SAY THAT, WHY DON'T WE JUST SAY WHAT THE COST WOULD BE? AND THAT'S, THAT'S MY CONCERN WITH THIS ITEM.

I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR IT. I HOPE IT ALL HAPPENS, BUT I WISH THAT WE WOULD POST THINGS WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY OF WHAT THE ACTUAL EXPENSES ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.

THANK YOU. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES IF YOU'RE STILL THERE.

THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

I'VE BEEN HEARING A LOT OF THE CONVERSATION. MISS ROSA, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THIS IS? AS THE NEW CHAIR OF THE PROFESSIONAL SPORTS. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THIS.

WHAT IS THIS ITEM SUGGESTING? IT JUST. IT CAME ACROSS A LITTLE VAGUE, AND SO I WAS TRYING TO GET MORE INFORMATION ON IT.

ABSOLUTELY. SO IT IS A PLANNING AGREEMENT TO WORK WITH AN ORGANIZATION THAT'S GOING TO BRING SOMETHING SIMILAR TO FIFA.

NOT AS MANY DAYS, A SHORTER TERM. BUT PART OF THE AGREEMENT ASKED THAT WE GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO ANNOUNCE THE ACTUAL NAME OF THE EVENT. AND SO AS A CROSS COUNTRY EVENT. AND SO WE ASKED AND RECEIVED GUIDANCE FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEY ON HOW WE COULD ACHIEVE THAT. AND WE FOLLOWED ALL THOSE STEPS.

BUT ANY ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT COME THROUGH THAT HAVE TO DO WITH PLANNING COST OR ANYTHING ELSE, WE'LL COME BACK TO THIS BODY FOR A POLICY RECOMMENDATION OR AN UPDATE, SIMILAR TO HOW WE DID WITH FIFA, WHERE WE UPDATED BY MEMO OR BY IN PERSON THROUGH A BRIEFING QUARTERLY SO THAT YOU ALL WERE AWARE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON STEP BY STEP AS WE PROCEEDED.

AND YOU SAID AN ORGANIZATION, DO YOU IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR ORGANIZATION THAT YOU GUYS ARE WORKING WITH? SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAME THROUGH TO US THROUGH VISIT DALLAS.

WE WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THE NAME, I BELIEVE, UP THROUGH TOMA AND AN EXECUTIVE SESSION IF WE WERE TO PROVIDE THE NAME MR. MAYOR. MR. MAYOR, I WANTED TO ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE FOR DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON, WHO I KNOW IS ALSO THE CHAIR OF THE THE SPORTS AD-HOC COMMITTEE. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON.

OFTENTIMES WHEN WE ARE WORKING AND IN COMPETITION WITH OTHER POTENTIAL LOCATIONS OR CITIES, WE ARE ASKED DURING THE TIME THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH A COMPETITIVE PROCESS TO MAINTAIN CERTAIN INFORMATION IN A WAY THAT IT DOES NOT JEOPARDIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR THEM TO NEGOTIATE AND BE ABLE TO MAKE THEIR SELECTION.

SO WE HAVE TO TREAT THIS IN A LOT OF WAYS AS IF IT'S AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE NOT ABLE TO GO INTO A LOT MORE DETAIL THAN WHAT'S PRESENTED ON THE AGENDA ITEM. IT IS NOT TO SUGGEST THAT STAFF IS NOT BEING TRANSPARENT, BUT THIS OFTEN COMES TO US IN THIS FASHION WHEN WE'RE COMPETING WITH OTHER CITIES.

AND SO IN THIS PARTICULAR ONE, THIS IS TO ALLOW FOR US TO BEGIN THE PLANNING WORK.

AS COSTS ARE IDENTIFIED, AS WE DID WITH FIFA, WE WILL BE BRINGING THAT BACK TO COUNCIL ONCE WE KNOW THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE SELECTED.

BUT UNTIL WE KNOW THAT, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO GO THROUGH A COMPLETE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF WHAT COST MIGHT BE.

AND SO WE WILL BE WORKING OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, AND HOPEFULLY WE WILL GET MORE CLARITY AND MORE INFORMATION FROM THIS PARTICULAR ORGANIZATION, AND WE WILL BRING A MORE IN DEPTH CONVERSATION TO TO YOUR COMMITTEE SO COUNCIL CAN ASK QUESTIONS BEFORE YOU'RE ASKED TO MOVE US FORWARD IN SPENDING ANY TYPES OF FUNDS THAT WOULD SUPPORT THIS PARTICULAR OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY.

SO WE'RE TREATING IT AS WE'VE DONE MANY TIMES BEFORE.

WE HAD SOME HICCUPS WHEN WE CAME WITH OUR DALLAS.

AS COUNCIL MIGHT RECALL, THE DALLAS WINGS ANNOUNCEMENT, WE WERE TOLD TO, TO HOLD THAT TIGHT AND WE DID SOME CONVERSATIONS.

[02:30:04]

AND THEN A COUPLE OF DAYS LATER, IT WAS ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE NEWSPAPER.

SO WE HAVE BEEN ASKED TO HOLD TIGHT AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO COMPETE EFFECTIVELY.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR QUESTIONS. THANK THANK YOU, CITY MANAGER, FOR EXPLAINING THAT.

THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET TO WHILE I WAS SO VAGUE. AND I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE, THE AGENDA ITEM. BUT I APPRECIATE YOU NOW UNDERSTANDING.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. MAYOR. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST ITEM 52? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? I HAVE IT, MADAM SECRETARY. AGENDA ITEM 53 AUTHORIZED THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT WITH GLOBAL SPECTRUM L.P.

[53. 26-2940A Authorize the Second Amendment to the Management Agreement with Global Spectrum, LP to extend the term of the agreement for an additional five-month period beyond September 30, 2026, and to revise Section 1.02 of the Agreement to state the initial term shall expire as of 11:59 p.m., February 26, 2027, unless terminated earlier, in an amount not to exceed $2,529,646.00 for staff and operations and a management fee in an amount not to exceed $145,833.00 - Total not to exceed $2,675,479.00 - Financing: Convention and Event Services Fund]

TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT FOR AN ADDITIONAL FIVE MONTH PERIOD BEYOND SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2026 AND TO REVISE SECTION 1.02 OF THE AGREEMENT TO STATE THE INITIAL TERM SHALL EXPIRE AS OF 11:59 P.M. FEBRUARY 26TH, 2027, UNLESS TERMINATED EARLIER IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,529,646 FOR STAFF AND OPERATIONS, AND A MANAGEMENT FEE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $145,833 TOTAL, NOT TO EXCEED $2,675,479. THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. LOOKING FOR A MOTION? 53 MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

ALL RIGHT. IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND DISCUSSION. YES, CHAIRMAN. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. ROSA.

SO THIS IS FOR SERVICES AT THE CONVENTION CENTER.

THANK YOU. ROSA FLEMING, DIRECTOR OF CONVENTION AND EVENT SERVICES.

AND YES, IT IS FOR SERVICES AT THE CONVENTION CENTER.

SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE HAVING REDUCED CONVENTIONS, SMALLER FOOTPRINT.

SO WE'VE DEALT WITH THIS ORGANIZATION PREVIOUSLY AND DIFFERENT VENUES.

NOT THE BEST TRACK RECORD IN MY OPINION. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE NOT LEFT WITH INVOICES AND RECEIPTS THAT ARE UNPAID? WHAT SORT OF AUDIT IS GOING TO BE CONDUCTED? AND THEN HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE TRANSITION PERIOD.

AGAIN, UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CONVENTION CENTER IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

YES. THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. SO THE CONVENTION CENTER TO YOUR TO YOUR POINT, IS BEING REDUCED TO A FUNCTIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 300,000FT² OF EXHIBITION HALL 30 MEETING ROOMS AND TWO DIVISIBLE BALLROOMS. SO WE'LL BE ABLE TO USE THAT FOR THE INTERIM AS WE ERECT THE THE NEW CENTER.

AND SO WITH THAT COMES AN OBLIGATION FROM STAFF TO BE ABLE TO COME TO COUNCIL AND SAY THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT ALL OF THE CONTRACTS THAT ARE ASSIGNED TO OBG CURRENTLY HAVE THOSE REASSIGNED TO THE CITY AT A AT A RATE THAT IS COMMENSURATE WITH 300,000FT² OF FUNCTIONAL SPACE, BECAUSE NOW WE'LL HAVE A FUNCTIONAL CONVENTION CENTER THAT IS THE SIZE OF A PITTSBURGH OR FORT WORTH VERSUS THE 2,000,000 SQUARE FOOT ONE WE HAD BEFORE.

AND SO AS WE GO THROUGH, WE AUDIT EACH FILE. WE'LL LOOK AT ALL OF THE EVENTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY BOOKED INTO THAT COMPRESSED SPACE, WHAT THOSE LOOK LIKE, LOOK AT THE CONTRACTS. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DO ANYWAY.

WE HAVE A PRETTY HEFTY CONTRACT COMPLIANCE GROUP WITHIN OUR STAFF, AND WE'VE PASSED EVERY AUDIT RELATIVE TO THE CONVENTION CENTER TO DATE BECAUSE WE DO CO OFFICE WITH THEM AND HAVE CONTINUOUS INTERACTION WITH THEM, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN HOW THE OTHER CONTRACT WAS STRUCTURED. AND SO WE'LL PROVIDE AN UPDATE TO COUNCIL AS WE MOVE FORWARD ACROSS THOSE FIVE MONTHS.

OKAY. SO I GUESS WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR AS WELL IS WHAT SORT OF NEGOTIATION OR CHARGES WILL BE PUT FORWARD TO, YOU KNOW, THESE GROUPS USED TO, WHETHER IT'S JANITORIAL OR WHETHER IT'S PUTTING UP SIGNAGE OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE. IS THERE NOW HAVE A MUCH SMALLER FOOTPRINT.

AND SO ARE WE GOING TO BE PAYING THEM THE SAME AMOUNT? SO THAT IS THAT'S THE REQUEST FOR THE FIVE MONTH EXTENSION.

AND SO THAT THOSE CONTRACTS ARE CURRENTLY ASSIGNED TO OAK VIEW GROUP.

AND SO WE'LL NEED TO NEGOTIATE DOWN THE EXISTING CONTRACTS WHICH ARE FOR THE MOST PART COMING UP FOR FOR TERM.

THEY'RE TERMING OUT ANYWAY. AND SO WE'LL NEGOTIATE DOWN MAGS, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, MAXIMUM GUARANTEES AND ALL OF THAT DOWN TO THAT SMALLER FOOTPRINT.

[02:35:02]

AND SO A SAVINGS TO THE CITY, SAVINGS TO THE CONVENTION EVENT CENTER BUDGET AS WELL.

AND SO WE'LL HAVE THEM, WE'LL TAKE THEIR CONTACTS APART, BUT THAT TAKES SOME TIME TO DO.

SO THAT'S WHAT THE REQUEST IS FOR THE FIVE MONTH EXTENSION.

WELL, I EXPECT OUR DUE DILIGENCE TO, TO BE PUT IN HERE.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE AVOID SITUATIONS THAT WE'VE BEEN IN PREVIOUSLY, BUT THAT WE STILL ALLOW FOR A TRANSITION PERIOD TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE HAVING OUR, OUR CONVENTIONS BECAUSE WE ARE HAVING CONVENTIONS.

I MEAN, I KNOW THAT WE HAD ONE AT LEAST A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.

AND SO THEY ARE HAPPENING. AND SO I HOPE THAT WE ARE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THOSE AUDITS SO THAT WE ARE NOT LEFT ON THE HOOK FOR INVOICES THAT ARE UNPAID FOR. THANK YOU. ABSOLUTELY. MISS MENDELSOHN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. THE TRUTH IS THAT WITH ALL OF THE THINGS DISCUSSED ABOUT THIS VENDOR.

I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY OF THEM COME FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION AND HOW MANY OF THEM ARE PUBLIC, BUT I KNOW THAT MY OPINION IS FORMED FROM THE COMBINATION OF BOTH.

AND SO I WILL JUST SAY, THERE'S NO WAY I'M GOING TO SUPPORT DOING ANYTHING WITH THIS VENDOR BASED ON THEIR INTEGRITY, THE LACK OF RECORDS BEING TURNED OVER TO FAIR PARK VENDORS LEFT UNPAID, AND THE MAINTENANCE THAT WAS NOT DONE.

THESE ARE ALL IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, AND IT'S OUTRAGEOUS TO THINK WE WOULD REWARD ANYBODY WITH A SINGLE DOLLAR AFTER THAT KIND OF PERFORMANCE. AND I WOULD LIKE A RECORD VOTE AND I WILL BE VOTING NO.

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN RIDLEY, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

SO, ROSA, WHAT IS THE LONG TERM PLAN FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF THESE SERVICES BEYOND THIS FIVE MONTH EXTENSION? ARE YOU GOING TO BE PUTTING THIS CONTRACT OUT FOR BIDS FROM ALTERNATIVE VENDORS.

SO THE LONG TERM PLAN WILL BRING THAT BACK TO COUNCIL AS WE WORK TOWARDS THAT FIVE MONTH PERIOD.

BUT WE'LL BE RETURNING. MY TEAM TO SOME OF THIS WORK AS WELL AS TURNING OVER THE.

SO IN THE CONTRACT, THERE'S A LONG TERM WHAT ARE CALLED CITY WIDE THAT ARE SOLD BY VISIT DALLAS WHO ARE HERE TODAY.

AND THEN THERE'S A SHORTER TERM THAT ARE SOLD BY OVG.

AND SO WHAT WE'LL DO IS TURN THAT SHORTER TERM.

THAT'S THE PLAN OVER TO VISIT DALLAS. SO WE'LL HAVE TO BRING THAT ACTION BACK TO COUNCIL IN ORDER FOR YOU TO APPROVE THAT WITHIN THAT FIVE MONTH PERIOD. AND SO WE WANT TO AUDIT AND MAKE SURE ALL OF THOSE SMALLER EVENTS THAT ARE TYPICALLY FILL EVENTS IN BETWEEN THE LARGER EVENTS THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT ALL OF THEM AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE NOT MISSED ANYTHING IN TERMS OF THE SERVICES THAT ARE DELIVERED AT THE BUILDING.

YOU'RE LOOKING AT FOOD SERVICE, RIGGING, TECHNICAL AND AV.

SO TECHNOLOGY AND AV, AS WELL AS JANITORIAL AND PARKING, WHICH ARE THE FIVE MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES.

AND THEN THERE ARE ADDITIONAL SMALLER CONTRACTS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE DELIVERY OF HVAC AND THE THINGS THAT MAKE THE BUILDING FUNCTION AND FUNCTIONAL.

AND SO WE'LL NEGOTIATE THOSE TO THE SMALLER FOOTPRINT.

LONG TERM, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE NEW BUILDING, YES, THERE ARE RFPS THAT WILL GO OUT INTO THE COMMUNITY TO PROCURE SERVICES FOR THE NEW BUILDING. WELL, I AM CONCERNED FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN IS ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE OF OVG FOR THIS CITY.

AND I'M NOT PREPARED TO EXTEND THEIR SERVICES BEYOND THIS FIVE MONTH PERIOD.

SO I WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU USE THAT PERIOD TO TRANSITION TO AN ALTERNATE VENDOR WHO CAN BE A RESPONSIBLE SERVICE PROVIDER TO THE CITY. THANK YOU. GENTLEMEN. STEWART, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MAYOR JOHNSON. I TO AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

WE'VE HAD EXPERIENCES HERE THAT WELL, WE WON'T GO.

WE WON'T GO BACK OVER THEM, BUT THEY'RE NOT GOOD.

AND WE WERE LEFT WITH INVOICES AND A LOT OF THINGS THAT WOULD INFORM THIS BODY REALLY TO NOT PURSUE ANOTHER CONTRACT. BUT THERE'S SOMETHING UNIQUE HERE AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

AND IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN WHY SHOULD WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS FIVE MONTHS? ABSOLUTELY. AND SO IT WAS TWO SEPARATE CONTRACTS.

THE CONTRACT WITH FAIR PARK WAS NOT BUNDLED WITH THIS ONE.

AND SO THE MANAGEMENT OF THE CONTRACT TOOK PLACE.

AND THE NATURE OF THE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT WAS DIFFERENT.

WE COOPERATED WITH THEM. WE HAD CONTINUOUS MEETINGS WITH THEM WEEKLY, MONTHLY AND QUARTERLY.

WE ASKED FOR WEEKLY REPORTS FROM THEM, WHICH THEY HAVE ALWAYS PROVIDED, AND WE HAD A DOUBLE DUE DILIGENCE ON HOW WE LOOKED AT THE FINANCIALS WITH THEM.

[02:40:07]

AND SO THE THE NATURE OF CONTRACT COMPLIANCE ISSUES DIDN'T PERSIST AT THE CONVENTION CENTER.

AND WE'VE SUCCESSFULLY PASSED AUDITS ALL THE WAY THROUGH.

AT THE CONVENTION CENTER RELATIVE TO OUR FINANCES RELATIVE TO HOW WE FUNCTION.

AND SO I THINK IT WAS JUST THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY THE TWO AGREEMENTS WERE, WERE WRITTEN.

I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE ACTUAL DIFFERENCES, BUT IN TERMS OF THE PERFORMANCE AT THE CONVENTION CENTER VERSUS FAIR PARK, IT WAS JUST DIFFERENT BECAUSE OF THE CONTRACT COMPLIANCE ADDITIVES THAT WE HAD.

WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE WERE VERY DIFFERENT APPROACHES BETWEEN THE TWO.

BUT I THINK WHAT HAPPENED AT FAIR PARK HAS REALLY IMPACTED OUR TRUST WITH RESPECT TO THE COMPANY.

I MEAN, IT JUST HAS IT'S VERY HARD TO LOOK AWAY FROM THAT AND SAY THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

AND YOU DIDN'T LEAVE US HOLDING THE BAG AND INVOICES UNPAID AND ALL OF THAT.

SO I WOULD YOU, AT THE END OF THE FIVE MONTHS, WOULD YOU CONSIDER THIS PARTICULAR VENDOR FOR, WOULD YOU RENEGOTIATE A CONTRACT WITH THEM FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER? I THINK I'D LIKE TO BRING BACK A PLAN THAT INVOLVES THAT INVOLVES WHAT WE REALLY NEED FOR A 300 ZERO ZERO ZERO SQUARE FOOT FACILITY. AND SO AT PRESENT, I THINK WE'RE TRANSITIONING IMMEDIATELY AS SOON AS WE CAN GET BACK TO COUNCIL WITH AN ITEM, THE ACTUAL SALES, THAT'S THE BIGGER PART OF IT.

AND THEN AS WE TAKE APART AND UNPACK THE COLLATERAL CONTRACTS, THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND UPDATE UPDATE COUNCIL.

COUNCIL MEMBER. STEWART. I JUST WANTED TO ADD AND THANK YOU FOR THAT ANSWER. DIRECTOR FLEMONS, I THINK BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THE THE UNIQUENESS OF WHAT OUR NEW CONVENTION CENTER IS GOING TO PROVIDE WHEN IT COMES TO OPPORTUNITY, I THINK WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT OUR CURRENT ENVIRONMENT GOING FORWARD AND THAT WE'RE BRINGING BACK A THE BEST POSSIBLE DECISION ON WHAT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AND WHO IT SHOULD BE.

AND SO I THINK AS I'VE TALKED TO THE TEAM, I THINK WE REALLY WANT TO DO A COMPLETE EXPLORATION OF THE MARKET, AND WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT THE NEEDS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REALLY MAKE, WE KNOW THAT THIS CONVENTION CENTER IS GOING TO TRULY BE AN ECONOMIC ENGINE FOR THE CITY THAT WE'RE BRINGING BACK A, A, A, A, A SELECTED VENDOR THAT WILL BE ABLE TO HELP US MOVE THAT FORWARD. SO RIGHT NOW WE CAN'T SAY WHO IT WILL BE, BUT I THINK WE WANT TO GO THROUGH A VERY DETAILED, COMPREHENSIVE PROCESS. LOOKING AT OUR NEEDS, WE KNOW THE ROLE THAT VISIT DALLAS PLAY AS A PARTNER TO THE CITY.

BUT I THINK WE WANT TO GO BACK AND MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE COME BACK, WE CAN BRING YOU WHAT WE BELIEVE IS OUR PATH FORWARD WITH THE BEST PARTNERSHIP THROUGH ANOTHER VENDOR. DON'T KNOW IF IT'LL BE THIS VENDOR OR NOT.

WE KNOW WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS, BUT WE ALSO DID NOT WANT TO HAVE A MAJOR DISRUPTION.

AND WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE NEED IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS TRANSITION AS EFFICIENT AS IT SHOULD.

SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE WERE REQUESTING JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT ALL OF OUR DOCUMENTATION.

WE KNOW WHAT, WHAT'S CURRENTLY IN THE PIPELINE, AND WE DON'T MISS THINGS THAT WE KNOW WOULD TAKE US IN THE DIRECTION THAT WE WERE AT FAIR PARK. SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE EXTENSION TODAY.

SO I UNDERSTAND TRANSITION, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.

AND YOU NEED FIVE MONTHS. BUT IN TERMS OF MOVING FORWARD WITH ANYTHING THAT'S LONG TERM OH, V G WILL HAVE TO RESTORE TRUST. THEY WILL HAVE TO RESTORE TRUST.

AND IF WE NEED TO START ARTICULATING WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, WE COULD PROBABLY DO THAT.

BUT BUT THERE ARE SOME SIGNIFICANT STEPS. THERE WERE SO MANY MISSTEPS AND MISTAKES WITH FAIR PARK.

AND I THINK, AGAIN, INVOICES THAT THE CITY HAD TO PICK UP.

SO MY MESSAGE TO OVG IS IF YOU WANT A LONG TERM CONTRACT WITH THE CITY, YOU HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO TO RESTORE THAT TRUST.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CHAIRWOMAN WILL IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. SO YOU JUST POINTED OUT THIS IS A SEPARATE CONTRACT THAN WHAT WAS HELD AT FAIR PARK, AND IT'S SEPARATE STAFF TO THAT. YOU'RE WORKING WITH ABSOLUTELY SEPARATE STAFF.

OKAY. COMPLETELY SEPARATE TEAM. SO I THINK WE'RE ALL DUBIOUS ABOUT ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH OVG.

IT'S IRONIC TO ME THAT SPECTRA REBRANDS TO OVG, AND NOW THEY'VE PRETTY MUCH TANKED THEIR NAME IN DALLAS.

AND WITH THIS BODY BY THE BEHAVIOR THAT WE SAW AT FAIR PARK.

HOWEVER, I WAS VERY EXCITED. I THINK WE WERE VERY EXCITED AT FINANCE COMMITTEE TO YOU KNOW, TALK ABOUT THE CONVENTION CENTER STAYING ONLINE FOR TWO MORE YEARS, ALMOST THREE MORE YEARS WITH OUR 300 ZERO ZERO ZERO SQUARE FEET OF SPACE.

[02:45:06]

AND THEN ACTUALLY, THAT MAKES US A SECOND TIER TYPE OF CONVENTION CENTER WITH FORT WORTH AND SAN JOSE.

AND YOU, YOU NAMED A FEW OTHERS. AND SO WHEN WE THOUGHT WE WERE NOT GOING TO BE HAVING THOSE VISITORS AND THAT SALES TAX REVENUE, ALL OF A SUDDEN WE GET A LITTLE BIT OF A LIGHT SAYING, YES, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT.

AND SO I WOULD BE VERY CONCERNED AT GOING INTO A FREEFALL OVER A FIVE MONTH CONTRACT WITH A DIFFERENT GROUP, WITH A GROUP THAT HAS A DIFFERENT CONTRACT AND IT'S A DIFFERENT STAFF.

IN FACT, I REMEMBER WHEN ALL OF THIS CAME ABOUT AT FAIR PARK, THE CONCERN THAT VISIT DALLAS HAD BECAUSE THEY SAID THIS IS TWO SEPARATE TEAMS, AND THE TEAM WE HAVE AT THE CONVENTION CENTER IS DOING A REALLY GOOD JOB.

NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD EVER BE ENOUGH TO CARRY THEM THROUGH INTO THE FUTURE, BECAUSE WE ALL HAVE CONCERNS WITH THAT, THAT FIRM AND THE CONDUCT, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THIS COULD DO DALLAS MORE HARM THAN GOOD TO LET THIS LAPSE.

AND WHAT THE ANSWER IS HERE IS OVERSIGHT. AND YOU TALKED ABOUT AUDIT AND THAT SORT OF THING.

SO WE'VE GOT TO HAVE THAT OVERSIGHT. AND INDEED, OVERSIGHT IS WHAT GOT US INTO THIS REPUTATIONAL ISSUE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CONTRACTS WITH TWO DIFFERENT STRUCTURES OF BODIES THAT WERE OVER THEM, A NONPROFIT. WE HAD PARK BOARD MEMBERS ON THAT NONPROFIT BOARD TO BE WATCHING THIS, AND WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

AND THEN WE HAVE THIS SIDE, WHICH IS YOU UNDER THE CITY MANAGER, A DIFFERENT KIND OF PROCESS, A DIFFERENT KIND OF OVERSIGHT. SO OBVIOUSLY, WE WANT THE SCRUTINY.

WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE ARE HAWK EYEING THIS AND THAT.

NOTHING GOES WRONG. BUT I WOULD SAY THAT WE'D KIND OF BE CUTTING OFF OUR NOSE TO SPITE OUR FACE, AND THAT WE ALL HAVE OUR QUALMS, THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP THIS UP AND RUNNING, TO GET THE REVENUE THAT IT WILL GENERATE AS WE MOVE TOWARD THE BIG CONVENTION CENTER IN THREE AND A HALF YEARS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. JIM WAS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID.

I HAVE THE SAME RESERVATIONS AS EVERYBODY ELSE ON THE, THE VENDOR.

AND I AGREE THAT THEY HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO TO, TO CORRECT THE MISTAKES OF THEIR OTHER DIVISION.

THIS, IN ADDITION TO EVERYTHING ROSA HAS STATED AND WHAT SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE BROUGHT UP, THIS WAS ALSO A REQUEST BY VISIT DALLAS TO HAVE THIS EXTENSION PERIOD GRANTED.

MR.. MR. DAVIS HAD CALLED ME AND BASICALLY SAID VISIT DALLAS NEEDS THIS THIS TRANSITION TIME TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ON THE CONVENTION CENTER WORK.

AND I KNOW THAT WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE, AND I WOULD JUST IN.

MR. SANCHEZ, IF YOU WANT TO COME DOWN AND CONFIRM THAT YOU CAN.

I'M NOT TRYING TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT THAT THAT IS A.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS IS SOMETHING SUPPORTED BY YOUR ORGANIZATION AND AND VERY MUCH IMPORTANT TO THE TRANSITION OF YOU TAKING OVER THE CONTRACT.

GARY SANCHEZ SENIOR DIRECTOR OF IMPACT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS AT VISIT DALLAS.

I'M JOINED BY MY COLLEAGUE, MICHAEL RUDOFSKY, VICE PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH AND INSIGHTS.

AND SO, YES, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

AS WE MENTIONED YESTERDAY, AS ROSA MENTIONED YESTERDAY, WHAT WE ARE SEEKING IS LITTLE TO NO DISRUPTION IN SERVICE.

THE CONTINUED CONTINUATION OF SERVICE AT THE CONVENTION CENTER AS WE SHARED YESTERDAY OUR CLIENTS, OUR CUSTOMERS ARE EXTREMELY EXCITED KNOWING NOW THAT WE HAVE HALLS A, B, AND C 300,000FT² TO SELL THROUGH 2029.

WE HAVE STATS READY TO SHARE, BUT CHAIRMAN WEST.

YES, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MR. DALLAS SUPPORTS.

SIR, IS IT OKAY, CHAIRMAN GRACEY, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. AND, ROSA, HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN.

FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS GREAT NEWS THAT THAT A, B, AND C WILL STILL BE OPERATING.

HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT VISIT DALLAS WILL BE DOING AND WHAT OVG IS CURRENTLY DOING AND WHAT THEY'LL BE DOING AFTER THIS. ABSOLUTELY. SO IN THE AGREEMENTS THAT WE HAVE WITH VISIT DALLAS AND WITH OAK VIEW GROUP, THE OAK VIEW GROUP IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAY TO DAY MAINTENANCE OF THE FACILITY AS WELL AS THE MANAGEMENT.

OKAY. AND I'M SORRY, I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY THAT.

SO I DON'T WANT TO WASTE ANYONE'S TIME. I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO, WILL THEY AT WHAT POINT DOES THEIR CONTRACT END? SO IT WOULD IT IF THIS IS SUCCESSFUL TODAY, IT WOULD END FEBRUARY 26TH, 2027.

AS WE TRANSITION THE OTHERS. NOW WHAT I WOULD NEED TO DO IS BRING ANOTHER ACTION TO YOU.

IF TODAY'S VOTE IS SUCCESSFUL AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS RECEIVED BY THIS BODY TO CHANGE HOW VISITDALLAS INTERACTS WITH

[02:50:06]

THE CONVENTION CENTER. SO THAT WOULD LAY OUT THE THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR HOW THE SALES PORTION OF IT.

RIGHT. AND THEN WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD PROBABLY IN JANUARY AS WE WORK THROUGH ALL THE OTHER CONTRACTS WITH ANY OTHER TRANSITION.

AND WE WOULD BRING IT THEN. BUT IMMEDIATELY I WOULD NEED TO BRING ONE THAT ALLOWS FOR THIS DALLAS TO SELL THOSE SHORT TERM.

ABSOLUTELY. IN BETWEEN CONFERENCES BECAUSE THEIR CURRENT AGREEMENT DOES THE CITY WIDE AND THE LARGER EVENTS, BUT NOT THOSE SMALLER YEAR IN THE YEAR FOR THE YEAR IS HOW WE TERM IT.

THEY SELL WITHIN THE FISCAL YEAR OR THE CALENDAR YEAR.

THEY'D BE ABLE TO DO THAT. OKAY. BUT THE, AGAIN, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE OBJECTIVE IS IN THE IS TO AGAIN, PUT VISIT DALLAS IN PLACE. AND AGAIN, EVENTUALLY IN FEBRUARY 27TH, OVG'S TERM WOULD BE ENDING.

SO WE'D BRING YOU THE PLAN. SO, SO THAT WE CAN OUTLINE THE SCOPE AND BRIEF YOU THE SCOPE OF WHAT VISIT DALLAS WOULD BE DOING, AND THEN WHAT CITY STAFF WOULD BE DOING WITHOUT EXPANSION OF MY EXISTING TEAM AT ALL.

SO WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF WHAT WE DO AND PROVIDE THAT TO YOU, OUR GOAL IS TO PROVIDE THAT TO YOU QUICKLY, LIKE IN DECEMBER OR JANUARY, TO GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A POLICY RECOMMENDATION AND A VOTE ON HOW WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.

NOW, THE VISIT DALLAS CONTRACT, I NEED TO BRING THAT THAT SCOPE CHANGE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

OKAY. AND I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I HAVE CLARITY THAT THE INTENT IS NOT TO CONTINUE ONGOING RELATIONSHIP WITH VISIT DALLAS BECAUSE OF THE POINTS I SHARE WITH MY COLLEAGUES AS WELL. IN TERMS OF THE BUSINESS, REGARDLESS OF WHO IT WAS, THAT WAS A REPRESENTATION FROM THERE.

SO I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT CONTINUES ON WITH THAT RELATIONSHIP.

THANK YOU. MISS MIDDLETON, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. CITY ATTORNEY, IS THERE AN EXISTING LAWSUIT WITH THIS VENDOR? I BELIEVE THERE IS. DO WE GENERALLY DO BUSINESS WITH VENDORS WHO ARE SUING US OR WE ARE SUING THEM? I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S UNHEARD OF. WOULD YOU SAY IT'S A GOOD PRACTICE? I WOULD LET THE BODY MAKE THAT DECISION. OKAY, I'LL SAY IT'S NOT.

IS PARKS HERE TO SPEAK? I HAVE A QUESTION. IF THEY ARE CONDUCTING A FORENSIC AUDIT OR PAYING FOR A FORENSIC AUDIT AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PARK BOARD, SPECIFICALLY MAYOR YOUR APPOINTEE, THE PARK BOARD CHAIR, I THINK, HAS CHAMPIONED THIS ITEM.

I'M GOING TO DO A POINT OF ORDER ON THAT. MAYOR. I THINK THE AUDIT INVOLVES THEIR WORK ON FAIR PARK, NOT ON THIS. AND I LIKE THE QUESTION, BUT IT'S NOT GERMANE.

WHO'S DIRECTING THE QUESTION TO PARKS DIRECT? JUST TO CONFIRM THE EXISTENCE OF A FORENSIC AUDIT ON THIS COMPANY, I'LL ASK THE QUESTION AT PARKS.

I'M NOT ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION. WELL, WHILE WE WAIT FOR THEM, I'LL JUST SAY THIS, Y'ALL, WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT KIND OF COMPANY THIS IS.

WE KNOW WE'VE EXPERIENCED IT. WE KNOW HOW THEY TREATED US WHILE THEY HAD ANOTHER CONTRACT FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER.

THEY DID THAT KNOWING THAT THAT WAS AT RISK. I CONTINUE TO SAY WE NEED A NAUGHTY LIST FOR OUR VENDORS.

THEY WOULD BE ON THE NAUGHTY LIST. BECAUSE FRANKLY, COUNCIL NEEDS TO BE BARRED FROM ITSELF FROM APPROVING ANOTHER CONTRACT WITH A KNOWN BAD ACTOR. WE'RE WE'RE ACTUALLY REWARDING BAD BEHAVIOR AND SAYING, OH, YOU NEED TO EARN MY TRUST.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? WE HAVE A LAWSUIT GOING, A FORENSIC AUDIT.

THERE'S MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AT STAKE. EARN OUR TRUST.

LIKE WE'RE LITERALLY EVERY PARABLE OF KNOWING WHO SOMEBODY IS AND CONTINUING TO PUT OURSELVES AND OUR TAXPAYERS AT RISK.

AND THIS VENDOR HAS PROVEN TO HAVE AN UNACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE.

I CAN'T THINK OF ANY REASON WE WOULD DO THIS.

AND YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENED WITH FAIR PARK IS THE PARKS DEPARTMENT HAD TO STEP UP.

SO YOU SEEM TO HAVE EXTRA TIME TO WORK ON AN INTERNATIONAL SOMETHING.

I WOULD HOPE YOU WOULD WORK ON THIS BECAUSE THIS IS NOT AN OKAY VENDOR.

AND IT'S FRANKLY SHOCKING THAT YOU WOULD EVEN ASK US TO APPROVE A CONTRACT EXTENSION FOR THIS VENDOR,

[02:55:03]

WHO I DON'T EVEN THINK WE SHOULD HAVE CONTINUED A DAY AFTER THE FAIR PARK THING HAPPENED.

SO I SEE RYAN. RYAN, THE QUESTION WAS, IF THERE'S A FORENSIC AUDIT HAPPENING WITH OVG FROM THE DIRECTION OF THE PARK BOARD AND THE ADVOCACY OF OUR PARK CHAIR. AND BEFORE HE DOES, I THINK THE CITY ATTORNEY, I THINK, HAD AN ANSWER OR RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION.

MR. MAYOR, I DO WANT TO APOLOGIZE. WE HAVE ACTUALLY NOT BEEN SERVED, AND WE DON'T BELIEVE A LAWSUIT HAS BEEN FILED WITH OVG YET.

I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION AND I GOT MY LAWSUITS CONFUSED.

OKAY, OKAY. MR.. YOU CAN ANSWER. THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS, YES, MA'AM.

WE HAVE INITIATED AN AUDIT. WE HAVE RECEIVED THE PHASE ONE FINDINGS, AND WE ARE STILL WORKING THROUGH WHETHER TO PROCEED TO A PHASE TWO, WHICH WOULD BE A A MORE IN-DEPTH STUDY. BUT THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS YES.

OKAY. WELL, MY INPUT TO YOU IS I HOPE YOU GO WITH A PHASE TWO, BECAUSE WE CANNOT HAVE VENDORS AND CONTRACTORS FLEECING OUR TAXPAYERS AND HARMING OUR CITY, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENED.

YOU KNOW, I MEAN, FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU.

GUESS WHO IT IS WHEN IT'S THE SECOND TIME IT'S GOING TO BE THIS BODY THAT WILL VOTE FOR THIS, AND I HOPE THAT YOU WILL DO IT WITH A VERY CLEAR HEAD.

THANK YOU. MISS BLACKMON, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. SO IF THIS DO WE HAVE A PLAN B IF THIS FAILS? OR IS THIS THE EASIEST OPTION FOR WHAT THE TIME FRAME IS? AND IT'S ONLY FIVE MONTHS. IN ADDITION, I MEAN, WE BECAUSE WE WE STILL HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THEM.

SO FROM A STAFF RECOMMENDATION, THIS IS THE FISCALLY SOUND OPTION BECAUSE IT WILL ALLOW US TO TREAT THE COLLATERAL VENDORS, THE VENDORS WHO PROVIDE THE SERVICES IN THE BUILDING, SUCH AS FOOD SERVICE, RIGGING, ACE PARKING, THE OTHER ITEMS THAT KEEP THE CONVENTION CENTER RUNNING, BE ABLE TO TRANSFER THEM RESPECTFULLY BACK TO THE CITY, NEGOTIATE THE TERMS FOR THE SMALLER FOOTPRINT, AND BE ABLE TO DO THAT WITHOUT ANY OF THE WITHOUT HAVING TO GO BACKWARD AND DO IT IN A WAY WHERE YOU'RE REQUESTING THINGS AFTER YOU'VE COMPLETELY TERMINATED A COMPANY.

THEY'LL BE ON SITE, WE'LL BE ABLE TO LIVE AUDIT, WE'LL BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE CLIENTS IN THE FACE, NEGOTIATE FACE TO FACE WITH THESE SERVICE PROVIDERS, ETC..

SO I THINK FROM A CONTINUATION PERSPECTIVE, IT MAKES SENSE TO DO IT THIS WAY AND THEN CONTINUE WITH FURTHER ACTION AFTER THAT. SO IT'S A TRANSITION PERIOD, BUT ALSO IT ALLOWS YOU TO CONTINUE SOME ACTIVITIES AT THE CONVENTION CENTER IN THIS TIME. THAT'S KIND OF A BUILDING AND TRANSITION.

YES. IT'S IT'S VERY DIFFICULT. COULD WOULD WE MAKE IT HAPPEN IF IF IF SOMETHING WERE TO GO DIFFERENTLY ON THIS VOTE.

OBVIOUSLY. BUT THE E DELIVERY TO CLIENTS WHO WILL BE RETURNING IN A MUCH BIGGER SENSE IN THE LARGER BUILDING, AND TO BE RESPECTFUL TO THE SERVICE PROVIDERS WHO ARE CURRENTLY IN THE BUILDING.

WE BELIEVE THIS IS THE BEST PATH FORWARD. SO WHAT ASSURANCES CAN YOU GIVE US FOR THE FIVE MONTHS OR EVEN FOR THE, YOU KNOW, FOR THE PERIOD? I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

AND I DON'T NECESSARILY NEED ANOTHER MEMO OR A REPORT.

BUT TELL US WHAT CHECKS IN JUST TO GIVE US SOME ASSURANCES THAT WE KNOW THAT YOU'RE ON TOP OF IT.

WE'VE WE'VE NOT FAILED AN AUDIT. I THINK I SAID THAT EARLIER.

WE'VE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN ACTUALLY BEING A REVENUE GENERATING FROM AN EVENT PERSPECTIVE CONVENTION CENTER.

AND I THINK THAT THAT DAY TO DAY MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT THAT WE BRING TO THE TABLE FROM THE WAY THAT OUR CONTRACT COMPLIANCE UNIT IS STRUCTURED AT THE CONVENTION CENTER AND WITHIN CONVENTION AND EVENT SERVICES PERIOD.

BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN SUCCESSFUL ON ALL OF OUR AUDITS IS BECAUSE WE TAKE THAT DEEPER DIVE AND WE TAKE THE TIME TO LOOK, WE ASK QUESTIONS. IF YOU PULLED AN OPEN RECORDS, YOU WOULD SEE OUR QUESTIONS BACK AND FORTH.

YOU WOULD SEE THE WEEKLY REPORTS THAT WE ASK FROM FOR THEM AND THE QUESTIONS BACK TO THEM AND THE END OF YEAR REPORT AND THE TIME THAT WE TAKE TO GO THROUGH THAT INTERVIEW REPORT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE NOT MISSED A MISSED A STEP.

AND SO THAT WILL CONTINUE. THAT WOULD ABSOLUTELY CONTINUE.

AND THE MINUTE YOU SEE SOMETHING GOING YOU KNOW, GOING OFF THE TRACK, YOU WILL SOUND THE ALARM.

ABSOLUTELY. BECAUSE, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S FIVE MONTHS AND YOU'VE GOT WORK TO DO.

[03:00:04]

AND IT'S ALMOST LIKE IF YOU DON'T, IF THEY DON'T DO IT, SOMEBODY ELSE WILL HAVE TO.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE GOT ENOUGH TIME TO GET IT DONE. WE NEED, YOU KNOW, WE NEED WE SAW YESTERDAY.

YOU DO NEED SOME REVENUE TO MAKE YOUR YOUR YOUR SLOTS WORK YOUR MONEY SLOTS.

AND SO I MEAN, I'M JUST SO JUST MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE ON TOP OF IT AND THAT YOU ARE REALLY IN COMPLIANCE THERE.

EVERYBODY'S IN COMPLIANCE AND THAT IT, IT IS SOUNDED IF IT EVER GOES.

NOT THAT WAY. ABSOLUTELY. BECAUSE I DON'T THINK FOR YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST FOR FIVE MONTHS.

IT'S, IT'S KIND OF, BUT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GO A DIFFERENT DIRECTION WHEN THE TIME COMES. SO IT'S IT'S OKAY.

THANK YOU. MR. MORENO, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. OBVIOUSLY THIS AGENDA GIVES ME HEARTBURN.

I THINK IT GIVES EVERYBODY HEARTBURN AROUND THIS HORSESHOE.

I DO WANT TO THANK OUR PARK BOARD LEADERSHIP FOR HIGHLIGHTING THE ISSUES THAT WERE OUT AT AT FAIR PARK.

IF THIS ITEM WERE TO FAIL, HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE TO PROCURE NEW SERVICES? HOW MANY CONVENTION CENTERS ARE ON THE BOOKS BETWEEN NOW AND FEBRUARY? YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT THE REWARDING OF A AN OPERATOR WITH A CLOUDY RECORD, BUT WHAT TYPE OF HARM WOULD IT DO TO THE CITY IF WE DON'T MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ITEM TODAY? SO VISITDALLAS HAS BOOKED APPROXIMATELY 24 IMMEDIATE EVENTS WHEN FIFA LEFT ON AUGUST 24TH.

OUR IMMEDIATE NEXT CONVENTION STARTED SEPTEMBER 8TH WITH THEIR MOVE IN, SO TRANSITIONING THOSE CONTRACTS TO VISIT DALLAS WOULD TAKE UP A LITTLE BIT OF TIME. I DON'T WANT TO SAY A WEEK OR 2 OR 3, BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE AND I'D BE MISSTATING.

I WANT TO BE TRUTHFUL AND HONEST AND TRANSPARENT.

AND SO WE WOULD HAVE TO TRANSITION, THAT THERE WOULD BE AN EMERGENCY NEED TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL IMMEDIATELY TO TRANSITION ALL OF THE CONTRACTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ATTACHED TO OAK VIEW GROUP.

AND SO IT'S IT'S QUITE A BIT OF, OF WORK TO DO THAT AND THEN GO BACK AND RENEGOTIATE THEM AFTER A REASSIGNMENT.

I'M NOT SURE I WOULD HAVE TO CONSULT OUR, OUR CITY ATTORNEY.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WOULD HAVE AN ANSWER IMMEDIATELY ON WHAT THAT WOULD DO TO THE TURNOVER OF THESE CONTRACTS EITHER.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION FOR A SHORT TERM TO MAKE SURE THAT WE RESPECTFULLY DO NOT FIND OURSELVES IN A POSITION THAT WE DROP FROM NUMBER FIVE AS A TOURISM CITY, WHICH WE'VE MAINTAINED EVEN THROUGH ALL OF THE TRANSITION TO SOMETHING DIFFERENT BECAUSE OUR, OUR TREATMENT OF OUR CLIENTS HAS TO CHANGE.

AND IT SOUNDS LIKE SOME OF THESE CONTRACTS WITH OVG.

THERE'S SOME SUBCONTRACTING GOING ON WITH LOCAL BUSINESSES.

IS THAT FAIR TO SAY? THAT'S FAIR TO SAY. OKAY.

SO I MEAN, COLLEAGUES, AGAIN, I THINK THIS ITEM IS WE HAVE TO MAKE THE BEST OF IT.

AND I FEEL THAT IN ORDER TO STAY COMPETITIVE, IN ORDER TO FULFILL OUR OBLIGATION WITH THE CONVENTIONS THAT WE'VE BOOKED, WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS AGENDA ITEM BEFORE US TODAY AND THEN LOOK FORWARD TO A VERY INTENSIVE RFP WHEN WE GO OUT FOR A LONG TERM DEAL. LOOKING LOOKING FORWARD TO. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

CHAIRMAN RIDLEY RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

SO ROSA, SINCE MANY OF THE SERVICES, IF NOT MOST OF THEM PROVIDED BY OVG ARE THROUGH SUBCONTRACTORS.

IF WE VOTE THIS ITEM DOWN, COULDN'T YOU JUST CONTRACT WITH THOSE SUBCONTRACTORS, CONTINUING THE SERVICES WITH THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING THEM NOW? THEY WOULD HAVE TO. AND I WOULD NEED A LITTLE BIT OF HELP FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE PROCESS.

EXACTLY. BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE REASSIGNED.

AND THAT IS A COUNCIL ACTION, A POLICY. IT IS NOT.

IF CONNIE TANKERSLEY COULD COME AND HELP ME WITH THIS ONE, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE TRANSITION OF THEM.

EXACTLY. THAT WAS THE NEXT STEP. CONNIE TANKERSLEY, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

UNDER THE CURRENT MANAGEMENT CONTRACT, THE DIRECTOR HAS THE DISCRETION TO ASSUME CONTRACTS ON THE TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT WITH OVG.

SO ANY OF THOSE VENDORS THAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE UNDER CONTRACT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO AN ASSIGNMENT THAT SHE WOULD EXERCISE TO ASSUME THEM. OKAY. SO THE SUBCONTRACTORS, WE COULD ASSUME THEIR AGREEMENTS WITH OVG AFTER THE OVG AGREEMENT EXPIRES.

[03:05:06]

THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. SO THEY WOULD BE WORKING ON EXISTING PAY SCALES, SCOPE OF WORK, ETC.. WE WOULD JUST ASSUME THOSE CONTRACTS SO YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO RENEGOTIATE THEM, WOULD YOU? ROSA IT'S POSSIBLE THAT SHE MAY HAVE TO RENEGOTIATE SOME TERMS JUST BECAUSE OF THE SCOPE OF WORK.

IT WOULD PROBABLY BE ADVANTAGEOUS FOR HER TO BECAUSE SHE WOULD BE PAYING RATES ON A LARGER VENUE.

SO BUT BUT YOU'RE RIGHT. SHE WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO.

OKAY. WELL, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT TRANSITION HAPPEN.

IF WE DID THAT, THAT WOULDN'T INTERRUPT THE SERVICES THAT ARE NECESSARY TO RUN THE CONVENTION CENTER, WOULD IT? SO WE'VE WRITTEN THE CONTRACT LANGUAGE TO ALLOW FOR A TRANSITION.

WE DID PUT A FEBRUARY DATE, BUT THE LANGUAGE THAT IS IN THERE SAYS UNLESS TERMINATED SOONER.

SO AS WE START THE TRANSITION, IT'S, YOU KNOW, AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN WORK THROUGH SOME OF THESE ITEMS, WE WOULD BE BACK AT COUNCIL, BUT THE OVG CONTRACT EXPIRES AT THE END OF THIS MONTH, CORRECT? YES, SIR. AND THE CITY HAS THE RIGHT TO ASSUME THE SUBCONTRACTS AT THAT POINT AND CONTINUE WORKING WITH THEM GOING FORWARD.

WE DO, BUT NOT ALL OF THEM. SO THERE ARE SOME HVAC CONTRACTS, SOME ELEVATOR ESCALATOR CONTRACTS THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY WITH THEM.

THAT WOULD TAKE A LITTLE BIT MORE TO DO THAN JUST A SIMPLE ASSUMPTION.

THE LARGER CONTRACTS WERE IN PLAY ALREADY AND IN PLACE WHEN WE HIRED THEM IN FEBRUARY OF SEVERAL YEARS.

FEBRUARY 19TH, SEVERAL YEARS AGO IN 2019. AND SO THE THINGS THAT HAD TO DO WITH FOOD SERVICE, THE THINGS THAT HAD TO DO WITH PARKING AND TECHNOLOGY WERE ALREADY IN PLACE.

WE ASSIGNED THOSE CONTRACTS TO THEM. THEY SINCE CAME BACK.

THEY RENEGOTIATED THE JANITORIAL. SO THAT IS A DIFFERENT COMPANY THAT WAS IN PLACE IN 2019.

LARGER COMPANY THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO NEGOTIATE DOWN WITH AS WELL.

THERE WAS NOT A RIGGING CONTRACT IN PLACE. SO THAT CAME ON BOARD AS THEY WENT THROUGH.

I THINK THAT'S ONLY LIKE 2 OR 3 YEARS OLD. THERE'S A CONTRACT RELATED TO MEDICAL AND SOME OF THE OTHER, THERE'S A WHOLE, THERE'S A PLETHORA OF CONTRACTS THAT FUNCTION TO AS SERVICES FOR THE BUILDING, WHICH IS WHY WE ASKED FOR THE SHORT FIVE TERM, FIVE MONTH PERIOD TO DO ALL OF THE TRANSITION SO THAT WE DON'T MISS ANYTHING.

I WOULD HATE TO HAVE SOME OF THE LARGER CONFERENCES THAT VISIT DALLAS HAS BROUGHT IN FOR THIS, EVEN THIS CALENDAR YEAR, TO NOT GO OFF WELL BECAUSE WE MISSED SOMETHING.

AND THAT'S MY, MY BIGGEST FEAR IS FALLING AND STANDING BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GIVE IT OUR FULL DUE DILIGENCE.

WELL, ARE YOU ASKING FOR THIS FIVE MONTH TRANSITION PERIOD TO TRANSITION AWAY FROM OVG, OR IS IT SIMPLY TO TRANSITION THE CONTRACT WITH OVG TO A SMALLER FOOTPRINT? SO TO TRANSITION AWAY, PERIOD.

SO IN THIS FIVE MONTHS, YOU'LL BE PUTTING OUT WHAT A NEW RFP FOR THE SERVICES THAT OVG IS CURRENTLY PROVIDING.

SO I'VE ALREADY ASKED OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HOW FAR WE COULD GO IN TERMS OF OF VISIT DALLAS AND A CHANGE OF SCOPE TO THAT.

I'VE LOOKED AT OUR TEAM WHO ALREADY HAS THE EXPERIENCE.

MOST OF MY STAFF WAS THERE IN 2019 WHO HAVE WORKED AND RUN A CONVENTION CENTER BEFORE.

SO WITH A SMALLER SPACE, BUT I CAN'T. I CAN'T STAND HERE AND GIVE YOU THE WHOLE PLAN.

I NEED SOME TIME TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE TRANSITIONS AND TELL YOU WE'RE GOING TO HAVE 24 CONVENTIONS IN X, Y, Z TIME THERE OF THIS SIZE. OUR FOOD SERVICE PROVIDER IS GOING TO SWITCH TO CONCESSIONS VERSUS PLATED.

THERE'S PRICE POINTS FOR ALL OF THESE THINGS.

AND SO THE NEGOTIATIONS ARE A LITTLE MORE THAN THAN SIMPLY THE TRANSITION OF A CONTRACT.

IT'S REALLY GETTING DOWN INTO THE ESSENTIAL, ESSENTIAL SERVICES THAT WILL BE NEEDED IN THE BUILDING ON A SMALLER FOOTPRINT.

AND A LOT OF THAT HAS TO BE DONE IN TANDEM WITH VISIT DALLAS SITTING AT THE TABLE WITH US SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND THE SIZING OF THE EVENTS AND THE ACTUAL NEED.

AND IF WE'RE ONLY GOING TO HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, A KITCHEN AND A HALF LEFT.

SO WHAT CAN WE PROVIDE WITH THAT? AND HOW DO WE REDUCE THAT CONTRACT TO BE ABLE TO WORK WITH THE CLIENTELE THAT'S COMING IN? SO AND I USE FOOD SERVICE BECAUSE THAT'S PROBABLY THE MOST.

WELL, IS THIS FIVE MONTHS GOING TO BE USED TO NEGOTIATE THE REDUCTION IN PHYSICAL FOOTPRINT WITH OVG?

[03:10:05]

OR IS THIS TO PROVIDE TIME TO NEGOTIATE WITH A NEW VENDOR TO TAKE OVER OVG'S ROLE? YEAH, IT'S. GOOD AFTERNOON. SOMETIMES IT HELPS TO HEAR IT FROM A DIFFERENT PERSON.

RIGHT. SO WE'RE TAKING UP TO FIVE MONTHS TO TRANSITION ALL OF THE SUB VENDOR AGREEMENTS AWAY FROM OVG TO EITHER VISIT DALLAS OR THE CITY.

AT THAT TIME, THE OVG CONTRACT WILL WIND DOWN AND THEY WILL NO LONGER BE THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY AT THE CONVENTION CENTER FOR THE NEW CONVENTION CENTER, WE'RE GOING TO PROCURE A BRAND NEW MANAGEMENT COMPANY IN THE FUTURE TO MANAGE THAT LARGER SPACE.

SO THIS IS REALLY JUST AN ORDERLY WIND DOWN TO GET ALL OF THE FOLKS THAT ROSE WAS TALKING ABOUT UNDER SMALLER SCOPE AGREEMENTS TO CONTINUE OPERATING THE LITTLE BIT OF HALLS A, B, AND C THAT ARE LEFT WHILE WE ARE IN CONSTRUCTION.

SO I THINK ROSA SAID ALL OF THAT IN DIFFERENT WAYS, BUT SOMETIMES IT HELPS TO HEAR IT AGAIN.

SO OKAY, ROBIN, THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

SO THE PURPOSE IS TO TRANSITION AWAY FROM OVG SO THAT THE CITY CONTRACTS DIRECTLY WITH THE VENDORS THAT ARE PROVIDING THE SERVICE NOW OR WITH VISIT DALLAS.

CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU MAYOR. MISS MENDELSOHN, BEFORE YOU CALL ME, I HAVE A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.

STATE YOUR INQUIRY. WOULD A MOTION TO AMEND BE IN ORDER IF THE MOTION WAS STATING THAT THE VENDOR WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION FOR FUTURE CONTRACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONVENTION CENTER? NO, IT WOULD NOT BE IN ORDER. THANK YOU. YOU RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.

I JUST WANT TO REQUEST A RECORD VOTE. THANK YOU.

NOTED. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST? AGENDA ITEM 53. SEEING NONE. RECORD VOTES REQUESTED.

MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES, IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

NO. IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCIL MEMBER WEST. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

MORENO. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. GRACEY. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER CADENA.

NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. BAZALDUA IS ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN.

COUNCIL MEMBER. BLAIR. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLACKMON.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. STEWART. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

ROTH. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. MENDELSOHN. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

WILLIS. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. RIDLEY. NO. DEPUTY MAYOR.

PRO TEM. JOHNSON. NO. MAYOR. PRO TEM. RESENDEZ.

NO. MAYOR. JOHNSON. YES.

WITH SIX. VOTING. WITH EIGHT VOTING IN FAVOR, SIX OPPOSED.

ONE ABSENT VOTE TAKEN. THE ITEM PASSES, MR. MAYOR.

ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY MORE? MR. MAYOR, THIS CONCLUDES YOUR AGENDA FOR THIS SESSION.

OKAY, THEN WE'LL START RECESS UNTIL 131 30. OKAY.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I'M TOLD WE HAVE A QUORUM, AND WE ARE BACK UP AND RUNNING ON OUR BROADCAST.

[Z13. 26-3062A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting an amendment to Planned Development District No. 94 with consideration for a CS Commercial Service District or RR Regional Retail District on property zoned Planned Development District No. 94, on the north line of West Camp Wisdom Road, between South Cockrell Hill Road and American Way, [AKA 4201 West Camp Wisdom Road] Recommendation of Staff: Approval of an RR Regional Retail District, in lieu of an amendment to Planned Development District No. 94 Recommendation of CPC: Approval of an amendment to Planned Development District No. 94, subject to amended conditions Z-26-000073 Note: This item was deferred by the City Council at the public hearing on September 9, 2026, and is scheduled for consideration on September 23, 2026. *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

SO, MADAM SECRETARY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND PICK UP WITH OUR ZONING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA.

THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR. BEFORE WE MOVE TO YOUR ZONING AGENDA, MR. MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ITEM Z 13.

GO AHEAD, CHAIRMAN GRACEY MR. MAYOR, I'D MOVE TO DEFER THIS ITEM TO OCTOBER 28TH, 2026.

IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

THIS IS WHICH ITEM Z13Z13. THE MOTION WAS TO DEFER TO OCTOBER 28TH, SECOND.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? YES, SIR. THIS IS A.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WITH THIS ITEM ONE, I HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THEY'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.

BUT WITH ALSO THE CREATION OF THE RED BIRD PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT FITS IN WITH THE ENTIRE PLAN FOR THAT AREA.

AND THEY HAVE YET HAVE NOT MET WITH THEM AS WELL.

SO I'M DEFERRING TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO BOTH. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON.

OKAY, MISS MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT THIS WOULD BE THE THIRD DEFERRAL.

AND SO IS THERE A COMMITMENT TO NOT DEFER IT A FOURTH TIME WHEN IT COMES IN OCTOBER? THERE'S NO COMMITMENT TO DO THAT. WELL, OKAY.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT GETTING OUR PERMITS THROUGH QUICKLY, PART OF THAT RELIES ON THE COUNCIL MEMBER NOT DEFERRING IT.

THANK YOU. ELSE WE SHOULD BE GOING FOR AGAINST THE MOTION TO DEFER ON ITEM Z 13.

SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. ITEMS DEFERRED. MADAM SECRETARY, THANK YOU, MR.

[Z11. 26-2900A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting a new planned development district for R-5(A) Single Family District uses on property zoned R-16(A) Single Family District, on the north line of Walnut Hill Lane and the east line of Betty Jane Lane, east of Marsh Lane Recommendation of Staff: Approval, subject to a conceptual plan and conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval, subject to a conceptual plan and conditions Z-25-000224 Note: This item was deferred by the City Council at the public hearing on August 25, 2026, and is scheduled for consideration on September 23, 2026. *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

MAYOR. AGAIN, BEFORE WE MOVE TO YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA, WE WILL TAKE UP YOUR INDIVIDUAL ZONING ITEM,

[03:15:05]

ITEM Z 11. I'LL READ THAT ITEM INTO THE RECORD.

ITEM 11 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW PLAN.

DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR R-5. A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT USES ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTH LINE OF WALNUT HILL LANE AND THE EAST LINE OF BETTY JANE LANE, EAST OF MARSH LANE. MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 76 PROPERTY, 76 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST. WE RECEIVED FIVE REPLIES IN FAVOR AND 42 REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.

YOU DO HAVE 23 INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

EACH SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

I WILL CALL SPEAKERS IN TWO GROUPS. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, I ASK THAT YOU COME FORWARD AND HAVE A SEAT ON THE FIRST THREE ROWS OF THIS CENTER SECTION. FRANCIS BEALL, JOHN WIMBERLEY, JORGE GUERRERO, DAVE ROGERS, ROSS CUTLER, VIRGINIA.

WORLEY, JULIA. HART, KATIE. FORD, CATHERINE. RAFTER, CHRISTINA.

WILKERSON. PETER. SOMERVILLE. PHILIP. KINGSTON.

FRANCIS. BEALL. HI. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.

YOU MAY. WE CAN SEE YOU AS WELL. YOU MAY CONTINUE.

GOOD AFTERNOON. FRANCIS BELL 10141, BETTY JANE LANE.

I'D LIKE TO THANK THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY.

AND THANKS TO ALL OUR NEIGHBORS WHO TRAVELED DOWNTOWN AGAIN TO DEFEND OUR POSITION.

WE ALREADY HAD A STRONG NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY BEFORE IN THE LAST THREE, THREE YEARS, HAVE STRENGTHENED OUR RESOLVE TO STAY ORGANIZED AND KEEP OUR COMMUNITY BETTER. THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO MAKE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BETTER AS DESIGNED.

THE DEVELOPER HAS WORKED WITH US OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS, BUT HE'S GIVEN MULTIPLE EXCEPTIONS FROM OUR CITY ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION.

THAT, FRANKLY, IS JUST MYSTIFIES US ON HOW THIS COULD EVEN BE ACCEPTED AND APPROVED.

EVEN SOME OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE SAID THEY'RE BAFFLED AT HOW ALL THESE EXCEPTIONS CAME THROUGH TO OUR DEVELOPMENT.

NOW, WHILE WE WANT A DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE LOOK TO WELCOMING OUR NEW NEIGHBORS THAT CAN ENJOY OUR WONDERFUL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE LIVE IN. WE ASK THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS IS BECAUSE IT'S TOO DENSE, IT'S TOO TALL. THE STREETS AND THE ROADS CAN FRANKLY PROBABLY NOT HANDLE THIS MUCH OVERLOAD INTO OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.

I'D LIKE TO PERSONALLY THANK COUNCILMEMBER WILLIS FOR OVER THE TWO YEARS, BEING SUPPORTIVE TO ALWAYS HAVING AN OPEN EAR, LISTENING TO BOTH OF THE HOA PRESIDENTS. IT'S BEEN IMPORTANT TO US TO FEEL LIKE OUR VOICES HAVE BEEN HEARD.

SO WE ASK THE CITY COUNCIL IF YOU COULD PLEASE DENY THIS DEVELOPMENT.

HOWEVER, IF YOU FEEL LIKE THE NEED THAT YOU HAVE TO APPROVE IT, WE IMPLORE UPON YOU TO PLEASE APPROVE IT WITH EXCEPTION THAT IT NOT BE HIGHER THAN 30FT.

THAT'S JUST ENTIRELY TOO TALL FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND WHILE OUR NEIGHBORS, WE LOVE BEING NEIGHBORHOODS FIRST AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO US, WE ASK THAT YOU DENY IT.

BUT IF YOU HAVE HAVE TO APPROVE IT, PLEASE. NO HIGHER THAN 30FT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, JOHN WIMBERLEY. LET ME MAKE SURE MY NAME, MY FACE IS CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE MICROPHONE.

MY NAME IS NOT. MY NAME IS JOHN WIMBERLEY. AND I LIVE AT 25 WIMBERLEY COURT, WHICH IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY.

THE FIRST I BUILT THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE FIRST HOME I BUILT ON THE STREET WAS FOR MY PARENTS AT 28 WIMBERLEY COURT.

FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, MORE THAN A YEAR AGO, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN CLEAR THAT WE WOULD SUPPORT A PROPOSAL THAT WOULD STILL MORE THAN TRIPLE THE DENSITY ALLOWED IN THIS PROPERTY.

CURRENT ZONING, WHICH IS OUR 16, BUT STILL MUST MAINTAIN THE EXISTING HEIGHT LIMIT OF TWO STORY 30FT, WHICH IS THE SAME AS ALL THE OTHER SINGLE FAMILY ZONING THROUGHOUT OUR WALNUT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALL THE OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND US FOR MILES.

THE VERY FIRST THING WE DID A YEAR AGO WHEN THIS WAS PRESENTED TO US WAS WE PRESENTED AN ALTERNATE.

THAT GATE WAS WITHIN THOSE STANDARDS, BUT MISS WILLIS TOLD US THAT WE COULDN'T EVEN OFFER THAT BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER DIDN'T WANT IT.

THE PREVIOUS REZONING PROPOSAL FOR 50 PATIO HOMES, THE MAJORITY OF WHICH WERE STILL THREE STORY WAS DENIED BY THIS COUNCIL LAST NOVEMBER.

THIS CURRENT PROPOSAL IS THE THIRD TIME THE DEVELOPER HAS SUBMITTED SOMETHING TO THE CITY WITHOUT FIRST DISCUSSING IT WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

WHILE FALSELY CLAIMING THAT THEY'RE LISTENING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN WE FINALLY GET TO MEET THEM AFTER FINALLY SEEING THEIR PROPOSAL,

[03:20:02]

THEY REFUSED TO CHANGE ANYTHING. OUR ONLY ASK RIGHT NOW IS THAT ALL HOMES HAVE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF TWO STORY 30FT.

HOW MUCH MORE REASONABLE CAN WE BE? THEY CONTINUE TO FALSELY CLAIM THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING PD IS AN UNDERLYING ZONING IS R5, BUT THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT THIS PD THAT IS R5.

THEY'RE REALLY REQUESTING TOWNHOUSE THREE, WHICH IS THE MOST DENSE TOWNHOUSE ZONING THAT YOU HAVE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS AND PURPOSELY MISLABELING IT AS R5.

IT'S ASKED FOR THE SAME HEIGHT LIMIT OF THREE STORY 36FT.

IT'S TOWNHOUSE THREE AND A MINIMUM. MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 1980FT², WHICH IS EVEN LESS THAN THE 2000FT² MINIMUM IN TOWNHOUSE THREE.

THAT'S EIGHT TIMES AS DENSE AS THE CURRENT R 16 ZONING.

THAT'S NOT R5 ZONING. SO LET ME REPEAT THERE ARE NO SINGLE FAMILY ZONING IN OUR ENTIRE WALNUT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD OR ANY OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ALLOWS LOTS. THIS SMALL R THREE STORY, 36FT TALL SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

SO PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THE PROPOSAL UNLESS THE AMENDMENT IS ADDED.

THAT HONORS OUR VERY REASONABLE, SIMPLE REQUEST TO LIMIT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF ALL HOMES IN THIS DEVELOPMENT TO TWO STORY 30FT.

THAT SO WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH OUR WALNUT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THEN WE CAN ALL SUPPORT IT.

THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

JORGE GUERRERO. IT'S NOT ONLINE. NONE OF THE AUDIENCE NOT PRESENT.

DAVE RODGERS. DAVE RODGERS NOT ONLINE. NOT IN THE AUDIENCE.

NOT PRESENT. ROSS. KOTLER. COLTON COLTER. ROSS.

COLTER. NOT PRESENT. VIRGINIA. WORLEY. VIRGINIA WORLEY NOT PRESENT. JULIA HART. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M JULIA HART.

THERE'S A LITTLE BUTTON DOWN THERE AT THE BASE OF THAT MICROPHONE. OR IF YOU GET CLOSER, SEE IF IT'S ON.

HOW'S THIS? NO, HE WAS ON BEFORE. JUST THERE.

OKAY. THERE YOU GO. ALL RIGHT. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M JULIA HART. THANK YOU TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR HAVING US HERE TODAY.

MY FAMILY HAS LIVED IN WALNUT HILL FOR 21 YEARS.

TODAY I'M ASKING YOU TO VOTE NO. FORWARD. DALLAS PROMISED GENTLE, EQUITABLE.

INCREMENTAL GROWTH. GROWTH THAT RESPECTS WHAT IS ALREADY BUILT.

THIS PROPOSAL DOES THE EXACT OPPOSITE. IT LEAPFROGS SEVEN ZONING DISTRICTS ENTIRELY.

IT FORCES HIGH DENSITY TOWNHOME USE ONTO AN R16A NEIGHBORHOOD.

HOW. BY EXPLOITING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT LOOPHOLE DISGUISING TOWNHOME DENSITY AS PATIO HOMES.

NORMALLY CRAMMING 37 HOMES ONTO 3.75 ACRES. REQUIRES TOWNHOME ZONING, BUT WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT LOOPHOLE. IT'S AN AR FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT USING R FIVE RULES.

THE RESULT? THEY GET THREE STORY HIGH AND TOWNHOME DENSITY, BUT THEY COMPLETELY DODGE TOWNHOME STRUCTURAL AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. WIN WIN FOR THE DEVELOPER. A PD SHOULD PROTECT US, NOT EXPLOIT US.

SO LOOK AT THE RESULT. THREE STORY HOMES CRAMMED ONTO TINY 1980 SQUARE FOOT LOTS.

WORSE YET, IT IGNORES OUR INFRASTRUCTURE. NO DRIVEWAYS TO PARK ON NARROW PRIVATE DRIVES WITH NO STREET PARKING.

THIS ISN'T INCREMENTAL GROWTH. IT'S OVERDEVELOPMENT.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY. MELCHER PARK ALSO TRANSITIONED FROM OUR 16 AYE TO TO AYE PD.

BUT HOMES THERE WERE CAPPED AT TWO STORIES AND ON LARGER 4300 SQUARE FOOT LOTS.

WE ARE NOT AGAINST PROGRESS. WE ARE AGAINST DECEPTION.

SO PLEASE PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. PLEASE VOTE NO.

THANK YOU. KATIE FORD. MY NAME IS KATIE FORD. I LIVE AT 22 WIMBERLY COURT. BEFORE YOU GUYS VOTE TODAY, I WANT TO CLEARLY EXPLAIN.

[03:25:01]

EXPLAIN WHERE THE CASE STANDS. THE CURRENT PROPOSAL CONTAINS 37 HOMES.

25 OF THEM. TWO STORY. 12 OF THEM THREE STORY.

THAT MEANS NEARLY ONE THIRD OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS STILL THREE STORIES.

THESE 123 STORY HOMES WOULD SIT ON THE SMALLEST PADS OF ONLY 945FT².

THE HEIGHT AND MASS ARE NOT COMPATIBLE TO THE SURROUNDING SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

WE SUPPORT NEW HOUSING AND WE OFFERED A REASONABLE COMPROMISE.

33 HOMES, ALL LIMITED TO TWO STORY WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 30FT.

THAT IS JUST FOUR FEWER HOMES, BUT IT ELIMINATES THE THREE STORIES.

OUR DISTRICT COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE AND THE DEVELOPER DEVELOPER KNEW THIS BEFORE THE AUGUST 25TH 25TH DEFERRAL.

THAT THREE THREE STORY HOMES WERE THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S MAIN CONCERN.

YET THE LATEST PLAN STILL INCLUDES 12 OF THEM.

WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO STOP DEVELOPMENT. WE ARE NOT.

WE ONLY ASK FOR ONE CLEAR PROTECTION. NO THREE STOREY HOMES NEXT TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

PURCHASING A HOME IS IS THE SINGLE LARGEST INVESTMENT MOST OF US MAKE.

THE FINAL PD MUST STATE IN WRITING A MAXIMUM OF TWO STOREYS AND A MAXIMUM OF 30FT IN HEIGHT.

WE RESPECTFULLY ASK OUR DISTRICT 13 REPRESENTATIVE TO STAND WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SUPPORT THESE TWO STOREYS.

IF THIS CASE CANNOT BE APPROVED WITH THOSE PROTECTIONS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK COUNCIL TO VOTE AGAINST IT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. CATHERINE RAFTER.

CATHERINE RAFTER. ON.

HELLO? HELLO. CAN YOU. YES. OH, WE CAN HEAR YOU AND SEE YOU.

YOU MAY CONTINUE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY NAME IS CATHERINE RAFTER.

I'M AT 10141 BETTY JANE LANE. AND THAT IS 278.

FITBIT STEPS FROM THE PROPERTY'S DRIVEWAY. AT THE BETTY JANE LANE IS ACTUALLY SEVEN.

FITBIT STEPS WIDE. SO THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE AND HAD ALL ALONG ARE AROUND TRAFFIC, INCREASED TRAFFIC. RIGHT NOW, TRASH TRUCKS, WHEN THEY'RE ON OUR STREET, CARS HAVE TO WAIT FOR THEM TO GO BY BECAUSE IT'S NOT WIDE ENOUGH FOR THE TRASH PICKUP AND A CAR TO PASS THE OTHER DIRECTION. YOU'VE HEARD THE OTHER ISSUES THAT WE ALL AGREE WITH AND THE PEOPLE HERE AGREE WITHIN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT'S TOO MUCH, TOO DENSE, TOO HIGH. AND AND THAT THE I LOVE IT.

WHAT JULIA SAID, THE LEAPFROGGING OF ZONING REGULATIONS JUST KIND OF APPALLS US.

AND THAT TAKES AWAY CREDIBILITY FROM CITY GOVERNMENT, ACTUALLY.

SO WE'RE ALL HERE PLEADING WITH YOU SAYING, PLEASE DENY THIS.

WITH THE EXCEPTION, PLEASE ACCEPT IT. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE THREE STORIES WE ARE REALLY PUSHING FOR TWO STORIES.

THE OTHER THING I WANT TO MENTION IS WE ARE SO SORRY THAT, THAT OUR COUNCIL MEMBER WAS PUT IN THAT SITUATION THE LAST TIME WE MET. AND THE FIRST THING I THOUGHT ABOUT WAS, OKAY THE DEVELOPER WAS LUCY AND PULLED THE FOOTBALL AWAY FROM CHARLIE BROWN. AND, AND WE THOUGHT THAT, BY THE WAY MEMBER.

WILLIS, WE THINK YOU DID A GREAT JOB IN KEEPING US INFORMED AND LETTING US KNOW WHAT THE NEXT STEPS WERE, SO WE DON'T BLAME YOU AT ALL. WE KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

YOU HAD OUR BEST INTEREST IN MIND IN TRYING TO RESOLVE THIS.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S ALL MY TIME. AND AGAIN NO TWO STORIES.

THANK YOU, CHRISTINA WILKERSON. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU AND SEE YOU. YOU MAY CONTINUE.

HI. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. MY NAME IS CHRISTINA WILKERSON, AND I LIVE AT 23 WIMBERLY COURT, RIGHT NEXT TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. MY HUSBAND AND MYSELF ARE RAISING TWO YOUNG CHILDREN AT OUR HOUSE.

[03:30:02]

I WANT TO FOCUS ON TWO THINGS THAT'S WRONG WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT THE LIVABILITY PROBLEMS THIS PLAN CREATES, AND THE FACT THAT IT DOESN'T FIT INTO THE EXISTING ZONING LAWS THAT IT CLAIMS TO FOLLOW, STARTING WITH THE DENSITY.

THIS PLAN HAS 37 HOMES ONTO 3.7 ACRES, WITH ONLY FIVE ISH FEET BETWEEN, AND STANDS THREE STORIES TALL ON A LOT OF THESE ON A LOT OF THESE THREE STORY HOUSES.

THAT'S NOT A NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S MORE OF A CANYON.

RESEARCH LINKS CROWDING LIKE THIS TO ELEVATED STRESS AND WORSE MENTAL HEALTH OUTCOMES.

A REAL RISK FOR FAMILIES AND SCHOOL CHILDREN WHO LIVE BESIDE IT.

THE IDEA OF PARKING IS ALSO BROKEN. 101 SPACES FOR 37 HOMES SOUNDS FINE UNTIL YOU REALIZE THAT EVERY RESIDENT PARKED IN THEIR OWN GARAGE, ONLY 19 GUEST SPACES REMAIN AND THERE'S NOT A LOT OF STREET PARKING ALLOWED.

IT GETS EVEN TIGHT AROUND OUR AREA, ESPECIALLY ON BETTY JANE AT NIGHT.

THE ZONING DOESN'T HOLD UP EITHER. STAFF CALLS THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT BASED ON THE R5, BUT IT CARRIES SO MANY EXCEPTIONS TO LOT SIZE, HEIGHT AND THE UNIT COUNT THAT A COMMISSIONER ON THIS BODY ALREADY SET ITS SKIRTS AROUND OUR ZONING LAWS.

OUR ZONING EXISTS TO PROTECT IMMEDIATE DENSITY, SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

THIS PLAN'S DESTINY CONTRADICTS THAT. IT DOESN'T FIT WITHIN IT.

AND FINALLY, SOMETHING THAT I AM PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE TRAFFIC.

THIS DEVELOPMENT COULD DOUBLE THE TRAFFIC ON BETTY JANE LANE, A STREET THAT HAS NO SHOULDERS AND NO SIDEWALKS.

THIS IS THE SAME STREET THAT MY KIDS AND MYSELF WALKED DOWN EVERY SINGLE DAY.

WE'RE HOPING TO EVEN WALK TO SCHOOL WITH NO LEFT HAND TURN EXIT ONTO WALNUT HILL.

THAT'S EVEN MORE TRAFFIC GETTING PUSHED ONTO BETTY JANE LANE.

THIS PLAN, AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS, FAILS THE PEOPLE WHO ALREADY LIVE HERE WITH LIVABILITY, ZONING INTEGRITY, AND STREET SAFETY. I'M ASKING THE COUNCIL TO REJECT IT AS WRITTEN AND IF TO APPROVE THAT, THEY APPROVE IT, WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THERE ARE NO THREE STOREY HOMES ON THIS DEVELOPMENT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. PETER SOMMERVILLE.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. I'M HERE TO OPPOSE THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND PLAN CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL TODAY.

THE MAIN OBJECTION THAT I HAVE IS DO OTHERS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS THAT NO THREE STOREY DETACHED TOWNHOME THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED. IT'S ALSO MISLEADING TO CALL THIS DEVELOPMENT A DEVELOPMENT OF PATIO HOMES, WHICH BY DEFINITION ARE 1 TO 1 AND A HALF STORIES IN HEIGHT.

WE WOULD WELCOME PATIO HOMES, YOU KNOW, IN LIEU OF WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED.

EVEN THE TWO STORY HOUSES WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, HAVE OFFERED THAT, YOU KNOW, ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS.

OUR AREA RESIDENTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY OPPOSED THE THREE STORY HOMES, AND THERE ARE NO.

OTHER THREE STORY HOMES WITHIN THE RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREAS OF WALNUT HILL OR SURROUNDING.

COMMUNITIES. AS I MENTIONED, ALSO, 36 FOOT DWELLINGS ARE NOT PERMITTED IN OUR 16 TO R5 ZONING.

SO IT'S A. YOU KNOW, THIS DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T EVEN MEET THE R5 STANDARDS.

THE ONLY WAY FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT TO BE COMPLIANT IS TO IGNORE THE R5 STANDARDS FOR SETBACKS, SIDEWALK STREET BUILDING HEIGHTS, AND TO CREATE A NON-CONFORMING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH A SHARED ACCESS DRIVEWAY.

THE CITY HAS NO STANDARDS FOR SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT.

THAT IS A PROBLEM THAT WAS RECOGNIZED IN A STUDY THAT THE CITY COMMISSIONED LAST YEAR, AND I BELIEVE THAT THE CITY SHOULD WITHHOLD APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS WITH SHARED ACCESS DRIVEWAYS UNTIL THEY DEVELOP SOME STANDARDS.

SO I REQUEST APPROVAL TO BE CONDITIONED TODAY ON A CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT SATISFIES ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF R5 ZONING AND ABSENT THAT, THAT THE COUNCIL DENY THE APPLICATION.

IN ADDITION, AS I MENTIONED, THE CITY SHOULD CEASE CONSIDERING PLANNED OR SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT UNTIL STANDARDS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, HONORABLE PHILIP KINGSTON.

[03:35:12]

HI, ALL. PHILIP KINGSTON, 3701 TURTLE CREEK. MEANT TO HAVE A SHINY PRESENTATION FOR YOU, BUT OF COURSE, THE WEBEX LINK DOESN'T WORK. THE THIS PROJECT HAS OVER TIME DEVELOPED, I THINK, SIGNIFICANTLY BENEFICIALLY IN THE INTEREST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE ARE NOW AT 37 HOUSES. ONLY A FEW OF THEM ARE THREE STORY.

THE ONES IN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE DEVELOPMENT, RIGHT NEXT TO THE CITY'S FIRE STATION AT 40FT TALL.

NEIGHBORS IN THE WALNUT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WILL ONLY BE ABLE TO SEE THESE HOUSES FROM WALNUT HILL, NOT FROM THEIR HOUSES. AND SO I THINK, I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT TO MAKE.

ADDITIONALLY, WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THERE ARE NO OTHER THREE STORY HOUSES IN THE WALNUT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THERE ARE MANY THAT ARE UP TO 36FT TALL. AND SO IN SOME WAYS, WE WERE BEING ASKED TO ACCEPT LESS THAN THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS THE RIGHT TO DO. SO I THINK WE HAVE REALLY WORKED WITH THE COMMUNITY TO BRING THIS INTO COMPLIANCE.

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WAS UNFORTUNATELY CREATED BY THE TORNADO IN FORWARD DALLAS.

THE VERY SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS THAT WERE MADE TO THE COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL PLACE TYPE WERE TO EXCLUDE MULTIFAMILY AND TO RELY ON SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING OR DUPLEX IN THIS CASE, JUST SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING.

AND THIS IS AT THE EDGE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH WAS ANOTHER VERY SPECIFIC AMENDMENT TO FORWARD DALLAS.

THIS IS THE BORDER BETWEEN A COMMUNITY RETAIL PLACE TYPE AND COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL.

SO IT DOES ACT AS A BUFFER, WHICH IS A WORD MANY OF YOU USED IN ADOPTING FORWARD DALLAS TO THE EXISTING STABLE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.

I CANNOT EMPHASIZE ENOUGH THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WILL LIVE HERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE IN THIS EXCELLENT NEIGHBORHOOD.

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THEY CHOOSE TO LIVE.

THEY WILL BE OWNERS. THEY WILL HAVE HOA RULES PROHIBITING SHORT TERM RENTAL, SOMETHING, AGAIN, THAT IS NOT PROHIBITED IN THE WALNUT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

AND SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS CREATING AN ADDITION TO THIS COMMUNITY THAT WILL IMPROVE EVERYONE'S POSITION IN THE COMMUNITY.

THESE ARE, I THINK AFTER WORKING THROUGH THIS FOR SO MANY ITERATIONS, I THINK WE HAVE REACHED SOMETHING THAT COULD BE A GOOD EXAMPLE FOR OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED NEIGHBORHOODS. THANKS SO MUCH.

I'M AROUND FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. I'LL NOW CALL THE NEXT GROUP OF SPEAKERS.

WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND HAVE A SEAT ON THE FIRST THREE ROWS OF THIS INTERSECTION AND ANY VIRTUAL SPEAKERS.

PLEASE HAVE YOUR CAMERA AND VIDEO READY. ROBERT BRECHT, MALA MALA HARTSELL.

TRISHA PITTMAN AND BAUM. CHRISTINA GOFF, TINA KELLY, DEBBIE BECK, SARA FULMER, LAURA BAGGETT, JEFFREY CARGILE, AND ALEX ESHEL.

BRENNER. ROBERT BRECHT. YOU MAY COME TO THE PODIUM.

ROBERT BRECHT IS NOT PRESENT. MARLA HARTSELL.

I'M HERE. CAN YOU HEAR ME AND SEE ME? YES WE CAN.

YOU MAY CONTINUE. WONDERFUL. I ALSO WANT TO JUST SPEAK ON BEHALF OF DAVE ROGERS.

HE WAS NOT ABLE TO JOIN TODAY. YOU HEARD HIS NAME CALLED EARLIER.

HE HAD AN ISSUE WITH HIS SON'S HEALTH. SO I'M GOING TO READ A LETTER THAT HE ACTUALLY SHARED WITH ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS LAST NIGHT.

SO I STAY ON SCRIPT, BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SHARE.

SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE SEEN IT THIS MORNING. HOPEFULLY. I AM THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE WALNUT HILL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, AND DAVE IS THE PRESIDENT. AND OUR BOARD CREATED THIS TOGETHER.

WALNUT HILL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION APPRECIATES THIS IS TO COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS YOUR CONTINUED ASSISTANCE TO THE REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION,

[03:40:02]

YOUR FACILITATION OF MULTIPLE MEETINGS WITH CRESCENT ESTATES, WILLINGNESS TO LISTEN TO NEIGHBORHOOD QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS, AND EFFORTS TO KEEP RESIDENTS INFORMED HAVE BEEN HELPFUL AND CONSTRUCTIVE OVER THE PAST YEAR.

AS WE ALL KNOW, CRESCENT ESTATES HAS ENGAGED WITH THE COMMUNITY AND MADE SEVERAL MEANINGFUL CHANGES FROM THE ORIGINAL PLAN, INCLUDING MODIFICATIONS THAT ADDRESS CONCERNS RAISED BY NEARBY RESIDENTS ALONG WIMBERLEY COURT AND BEETLE COURT, AND MORE RECENT CHANGES RESULTING FROM YOUR REQUEST TO DEFER THE CASE TO TODAY, THE WHA RECOGNIZES THOSE IMPROVEMENTS AND BELIEVES THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL RESULT IN DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD MAKE A POSITIVE IMPACT TO THE SURROUNDING AREA.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, OUR BOARD CONTINUES TO HAVE SPECIFIC CONCERNS REGARDING THE PROPOSED THREE STORY SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES.

SEVERAL EXISTING PROPERTIES THAT ARE LIKELY TO BE REDEVELOPED IN THE NEXT 5 TO 10 YEARS ARE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO OR NEAR THIS SITE, AND OUR BOARD IS CONCERNED THAT APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT COULD BE CITED AS PRECEDENT FOR SIMILAR HEIGHT AND DENSITY REQUESTS ON OTHER NEARBY PROPERTIES.

THIS CONCERN IS NOT INTENDED TO REDUCE THE PROGRESS MADE.

RATHER, THE BOARD ASKED THAT THE CITY CAREFULLY CONSIDER WHETHER APPROPRIATE LIMITATIONS OR SITE SPECIFIC SAFEGUARDS COULD ADDRESS NEIGHBORS CONCERNS, ALLOWING A WELL-DESIGNED DEVELOPMENT TO MOVE FORWARD CONSISTING OF TWO STORY HOMES ONLY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY INPUT.

WE CONDUCTED A NEIGHBORHOOD POLL JUST THE LAST FEW DAYS.

THE RESULTS ARE SUMMARIZED AND I'M GOING TO SHARE THEM WITH YOU HERE.

BASICALLY, WE DISTRIBUTED TO OUR ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE HAD 271 PEOPLE OPEN THE SURVEY. THE QUESTIONS WERE, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS? AND THEN BASED ON WHAT YOU KNOW, WHAT IS YOUR POSITION? WE HAD 85% SAY THEY'RE FAMILIAR. 15% WAS NOT WERE NOT FAMILIAR.

AND WE HAD 66% IN OPPOSITION, 21% IN SUPPORT AND 13% UNDECIDED.

SO I WANT YOU TO SEE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD OVERWHELMINGLY.

AND THE FURTHER AWAY YOU MOVE, PROBABLY PEOPLE ARE NOT AS INTERESTED IN THIS, BUT THEY OPPOSE THIS DEVELOPMENT.

AS IT STANDS, THE BOARD RECOGNIZES THAT RESIDENTS THAT IS YOUR TIME.

THAT'S FINE. THANK Y'ALL. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.

TRICIA PITMAN. TRICIA PITMAN. IT'S NOT.

OKAY. HI, I'M TRICIA PITMAN AT 22 WIMBERLY COURT.

AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE AGENDA, WE HAVE A LOT TO COVER. SO LET'S WORK TOGETHER TO BUILD AND PROTECT HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS.

HERE'S A SUMMARY OF WHAT WE ARE OPPOSING. BOTH PARTIES HAVE MADE CONCESSIONS, BUT THERE IS ONE ISSUE REMAINS, WHICH IS THE PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT. THE COMMUNITY HAS SUPPORTED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, AND WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN WILLING TO SUPPORT A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN DENSITY.

THE ISSUE IS WHETHER ONE DEVELOPER SHOULD RECEIVE A SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR EXCEPTION TO BUILD HOMES TALLER THAN EVERY OTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH WILL ONLY OPEN THE DOOR THAT WE CANNOT CLOSE FOR ALL OTHER DEVELOPERS.

THE DEVELOPER'S TOWNHOMES BEING BUILT NEARBY SHOULD NOT BE USED TO JUSTIFY THE HEIGHT OR DENSITY FOR THIS PROJECT.

THOSE ARE TOWNHOMES, SO DIFFERENT PRODUCT. NO DIRECT ACCESS TO RESIDENTIAL STREETS, ADJACENT PROPERTIES OF MUCH HIGHER USE.

AND BECAUSE OF THE SEVERITY OF THE SLOPE OF THE PROPERTY, THE HEIGHT WILL HAVE VERY LITTLE IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORS.

AND BY THE WAY, BECAUSE OF THAT, THESE NEIGHBORS HERE SUPPORTED THAT PROJECT.

THE EXTRA SIX FEET IS A SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURE FROM THE ESTABLISHED STANDARD THAT APPLIES TO EVERYONE ELSE.

IT ENABLES GREATER DENSITY ON MUCH SMALLER LOTS, RESULTING IN MORE TRAFFIC, MORE PARKING PRESSURE, AND HOMES THAT ARE OUT OF SCALE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS HIGHLY SOUGHT AFTER NEIGHBORHOOD OFFERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD YOUR DREAM HOME WITHOUT LEAVING THE CITY FOR THE SUBURBS.

KNOWN FOR ITS LARGE LOTS AND TREE LINED STREETS, IT IS A PLACE WHERE RESIDENTS WALK THEIR DOGS AND BIKE WITH THEIR CHILDREN.

THERE ARE NEW MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR HOMES GOING IN ALL OVER THE PLACE THAT ARE CONSTANTLY IMPROVING THE LANDSCAPE.

THERE ARE ACTUALLY MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR HOMES THAT FACES THIS PROPERTY.

THEY REFLECT A DIVERSE MIX OF ARCHITECTURAL STYLES, AND YET ALL OF THEM ARE HELD TO THE EXISTING STANDARDS.

WE ASK FOR ONE SIMPLE, REASONABLE CONDITION AND HOLD THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE SAME 30 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AS SURROUNDING HOMEOWNERS.

LIMITING THE HEIGHT PRESERVES NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY, PROTECTS EXISTING RESIDENTS AND STILL SHOWS MEANINGFUL GROWTH AT DENSITY FAR GREATER THAN WHAT EXISTS TODAY. SIX FEET MAY NOT SOUND LIKE A LOT, BUT IN THIS CASE, THOSE SIX FEET MAKE ALL THE DIFFERENCE.

[03:45:05]

AND IT IS THAT ONE CONDITION THAT WOULD MAKE THIS PROPOSAL MORE BALANCED, MORE COMPATIBLE, AND MORE FAIR. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU DO NOT APPROVE THE DEVELOPER'S APPLICATION WITHOUT THIS ONE ESSENTIAL CONDITION.

PLEASE LIMIT IT TO MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 30 FOR ALL UNITS.

AND SINCE I'M THE NEIGHBORHOOD SPOKESPERSON, I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AFTER THIS PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

AND, BAUM. HI. I'M ANNE BAUM. I LIVE AT 26 WIMBERLY COURT.

ORIGINALLY, I WAS GOING TO WALK YOU THROUGH THE PROPOSED PLAN BY THE DEVELOPER, BUT EVERYBODY KNOWS.

WE ALL KNOW IT'S 37 HOMES ON VERY SMALL LOTS.

AND ORIGINALLY WE WERE VERY OPPOSED TO THAT. AND WE'VE COMPROMISED ON THAT POINT NOW.

AND WE'VE COMPROMISED ON NO FRONT YARDS AND SMALL SIDE YARDS AND A SMALL SHARED ACCESS STREET AND SMALL DRIVEWAYS WITH LIMITED PARKING.

THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN SHOWS 19 VISITOR PARKING SPACES.

HOWEVER, THE LANGUAGE OF THE PD ONLY GUARANTEES ABOUT 13.

THE HEIGHT OF THE HOMES IS OUR MAJOR ISSUE, AND IT'S ONE THAT WE REALLY DON'T WANT TO BUDGE ON.

12 OF THE HOMES WILL BE THREE STOREYS HIGH, AND THESE HOMES ARE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET ACROSS WALNUT HILL FROM DISTRICT SIX. AND THERE ARE MANY EXISTING HOMES IN THESE AREAS IN DISTRICT SIX AND IN WALNUT HILL THAT ARE BEING TORN DOWN AND REPLACED WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION.

SO IF THREE STOREY HOMES ARE ALLOWED IN THIS DEVELOPMENT, WHO'S TO PREVENT FUTURE TEAR DOWNS FROM BECOMING THREE STORY HOME HERE AND HERE AND HERE AND HERE, JUST WHEREVER THEY WANT TO BE. IF THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID SO, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THIS, THIS NEXT SLIDE, THE DEVELOPERS CONCEPTUAL PLANS ON THE LEFT, AND WE KIND OF SEE A SOLUTION ON THE RIGHT HERE.

AND THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE REMOVAL OF ONE HOME IN EACH OF THE ROW OF THREE STORY HOMES WOULD INCREASE THE PAD SIZE OF THE STRUCTURES AND BRING THE DEVELOPMENT ENTIRELY TO TWO STORIES. THIS SOLUTION WAS SUGGESTED TO THE DEVELOPER AND THE RESPONSE WAS NO, THE NUMBERS DON'T WORK. IT IS NOT OUR JOB TO MAKE THEIR NUMBERS WORK.

IT'S NOT THE JOB OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE THEIR NUMBERS WORK.

ZONING CODES EXIST TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY, CHARACTER, AND QUALITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, NOT TO MAXIMIZE A DEVELOPER'S PROFIT MARGIN. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. CHRISTINA. GOFF. HI, MY NAME IS CHRISTINA GOFF.

I LIVE AT 3851 BEUTEL COURT, WHICH IS THE HOME IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE ALLEY FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT.

SO WHEN WE FIRST WERE PRESENTED WITH THIS PROPOSAL LAST YEAR, LAST FALL, THE 500 FOOT RADIUS NEIGHBORS WERE ASKED TO VOTE AND 97% OF US OPPOSED THE PROPOSAL. BY THE WAY, OF THE 3%, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT TWO OF THOSE LOTS ARE OWNED BY THE DEVELOPER. SO THE REASON WHY PEOPLE SAID THEY OPPOSED THIS VERY CLEARLY WAS THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT THREE STORY HOMES.

AND IT'S NOT, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT THREE STORY HOMES.

I'LL TELL YOU, I DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT THREE STORY HOMES, BUT THE CURRENT PROPOSAL DOESN'T HAVE ME LOOKING AT THREE STORY HOMES.

I DON'T WANT TO SET THE PRECEDENT THAT THREE STORY HOMES CAN BE BUILT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND SO WHILE YOU KNOW A FEW. BUT BY MY MATH, 12 IS.

A THIRD OF THE PROPOSED HOMES ARE THREE STORY.

THE PRECEDENT IS SET EVEN IF ONE IS THREE STORY.

RIGHT. AND FRANKLY AS AN REFERENCED, THERE'S, THERE'S NO ASSURANCE THAT THAT WON'T START HAPPENING EVERYWHERE IF WE ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN HERE. THE NUMBERS DON'T WORK, JUST DOESN'T WORK FOR ME BECAUSE WE WENT FROM 60 TO 37.

I'M PRETTY SURE THE MATH ISN'T SO CLOSE OF A MARGIN THAT 33 NOW DOESN'T WORK.

AND OUR OPPOSITION ISN'T LIMITED, RIGHT? IT'S NOT MY STREET AND WIMBERLY COURT THAT SAYS, OH, WE DON'T LIKE THIS. IT'S THE ENTIRE WALNUT HILL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AS REPRESENTED JUST JUST A MINUTE AGO BY MARLEY, THE WIMBERLY COURT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, THE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION OF DALLAS, THE CHURCHES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.

IT IS A VERY BROAD OPPOSITION. RIGHT. AND OUR CONCERNS ARE THE SAME ACROSS THE ENTIRE DISTRICT ABOUT ALL OF THIS REZONING THAT IS BEING BUILT UPON AND WHAT DIRECTION IT'S TAKING US IN. WE WANT GROWTH, WE WANT MORE DENSITY.

WE WANT SOMETHING THOUGH THAT IS SAFE FOR THE EXISTING NEIGHBORS, FOR THEIR FAMILIES, FOR THE TRAFFIC THAT WE ALL CONTEND WITH EVERY DAY.

WE WANT SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO SET A PRECEDENT THAT IS SUSTAINABLE AND IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO CREATE AND REAFFIRM THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE LIVE IN,

[03:50:03]

AND NOT OPEN US UP TO A COMPLETELY NEW TREND IN DEVELOPMENTS.

AND SO WHAT IT ULTIMATELY BOILS DOWN TO, AS REITERATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR US, IS THAT WE WOULD LIKE, YES, LESS DENSITY A LITTLE BIT, JUST A LITTLE BIT.

WE WOULD LIKE LESS TRAFFIC AND MORE THOUGHTFUL PLANNING FOR PARKING.

BUT MORE THAN ANYTHING, WE JUST DON'T WANT THE PRECEDENT TO SET THAT THREE STORY HOMES ARE ACCEPTABLE.

WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE CONSIDER APPROVING THIS ONLY WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THERE BE NO THREE STOREY HOMES.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. TINA TOUCHILY.

SHE'S NOT HERE. I'M SORRY. TINA. NO SHE'S NOT.

SHE'S NOT PRESENT. OKAY. NOT PRESENT. DEBBIE.

BECK. HER EITHER. DEBBIE BECK NOT PRESENT. SARA FULMER.

SO YOU'RE STUCK WITH ME. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON. BOARD.

MY NAME IS SARA FULMER, AND I LIVE AT 26 WIMBERLY COURT.

I'M ACTUALLY PRESENTING TODAY ON BEHALF OF LAURA BAGGETT OF COPPEDGE LANE, WHO IS AN ARCHITECT BY TRADE, AND SHE HAS SPOKEN AT EVERY HEARING LEADING UP TO TODAY, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, SHE COULD NOT BE WITH US DUE TO A FAMILY EMERGENCY.

SO I'M SPEAKING FOR BOTH OF US. IF YOU'LL LOOK AT THE FIRST SLIDE HERE FROM THE BEGINNING, NEIGHBORS. NEIGHBORS WERE PREPARED TO ACCEPT DENSITY THAT WAS DOUBLE OR TRIPLE WHAT EXISTS AROUND US.

BUT EVEN WITH THE WITH THE LATEST PROPOSAL, THE PLAN STILL VIOLATES THE DENSITY LIMITS IN THE DEVELOPER'S OWN ZONING APPLICATION.

I KNOW WE'RE REPEATING OURSELVES, BUT THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

AND FREQUENCY MATTERS. WE'RE ALL HAVE A CONSENSUS OF BEING ON THE SAME PAGE HERE.

WE HAVE COMPROMISED ON EVERY PART OF THE PD EXCEPT ONE NO THREE STORY HOMES.

LOT SIZE DISCREPANCY. THE PROPOSED LOTS REMAIN FAR SMALLER THAN BOTH THE BASE ZONE AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, IN SOME CASES DIFFERING BY MORE THAN 14,000FT².

WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR THE STATUS QUO. WE ARE ASKING FOR DENSITY THAT FITS THE CHARACTER AND SCALE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE KIND OF CHANGE THAT STRENGTHENS IT RATHER THAN OVERWHELMS IT.

THE REAL QUESTION IS HOW MUCH INTENSITY CAN THIS SITE ABSORB WHILE STILL PROTECTING THE HEALTH CONDITIONS OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS? HEIGHT IS MEASURED FROM MIDPOINT OF A ROOF, NOT THE LOWEST POINT.

THIS IS A TECHNICAL DETAIL I WAS NOT AWARE OF, AND IT'S OFTEN OVERLOOKED AND MISUNDERSTOOD.

A 36 FOOT HOME IS SIMPLY NOT COMPATIBLE. A 36.

THREE STORY HOME IS SIMPLY NOT COMPATIBLE, ESPECIALLY FOR RESIDENTS ALONG WALNUT HILL AND DISTRICT SIX, WHO WILL NOW FACE THESE OUT OF SCALE STRUCTURES EVERY DAY.

MR. KINGSTON DIDN'T MENTION THAT PART. HE MENTIONED THE HOMES NEXT TO THE FIRE STATION, BUT NOT THE PEOPLE ACROSS THE STREET THAT HAVE TO LOOK AT THESE HOMES.

AND ALLOWING EVEN ONE THREE STORY HOME SETS A PRECEDENT THAT SHOULD NEVER BE INTRODUCED HERE.

OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO ENSURE LONG TERM NEIGHBORHOOD STABILITY.

STABILITY THAT ALIGNS WITH FORWARD DALLAS 2.0 RATHER THAN CONTRADICT IT.

THAT IS THE STANDARD WE SHOULD APPLY, NOT THE DEVELOPER'S FINANCIAL MODEL OR THEIR DESIRE TO MAXIMIZE PROFIT.

THOSE OF US OPPOSING THREE STORY HOMES HAVE NEVER MADE THIS ABOUT PROPERTY VALUES, EVER.

SO WHY SHOULD PROFIT OVERRIDE REASONABLE CONTEXTUAL POLICY ALIGNED DENSITY? OUR COMPROMISE IS BALANCED, CONSISTENT WITH CITY POLICY AND RESPECTFUL OF NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH.

THE DEVELOPERS IS JUST NOT. THANK YOU. LAURA BAGGETT IS NOT PRESENT.

JEFFREY CARGILE. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M JEFFREY CARGILE.

I'M AT 10336 COPPEDGE LANE. AND I'M HERE TO ADDRESS THE PROPOSED PD AND THE STAFF'S CONCLUSION THAT IT IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH FORWARD DALLAS 2.0. I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. STAFF'S ANALYSIS APPEARS TO GIVE TOO MUCH WEIGHT TO THE PROJECT'S SINGLE FAMILY LABEL, AND NOT ENOUGH WEIGHT TO WHAT FORD DALLAS ACTUALLY REQUIRES COMPATIBILITY, NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT, INCREMENTAL CHANGE, AND MEANINGFUL CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNITY INPUT FOR DALLAS SUPPORTS INCREASED INCREASING HOUSING, BUT WAS MEANT TO SET GUARDRAILS. COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

CHANGE IS SUPPOSED TO BE GENTLE, EQUITABLE, INCREMENTAL, AND SENSITIVE TO THE EXISTING CONTEXT.

THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT GENTLE OR INCREMENTAL. IT ALLOWS 37 HOMES ON APPROXIMATELY 3.7 ACRES, WITH MINIMUM LOT SIZES OF LESS THAN 2000FT². 60% LOT COVERAGE.

REDUCED SETBACKS AND HEIGHTS UP TO 36FT IN AN AREA SURROUNDED BY ESTABLISHED R TEN, R 16 AND SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

[03:55:04]

THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURE FROM THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERN OF DISTRICT 13 AND DISTRICT SIX, WHICH IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FOR DALLAS FOCUSES ON WHETHER A PROJECT FITS THE NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT SIMPLY WHAT IT IS CALLED HERE. THE DENSITY, LOT, DIMENSIONS, HEIGHT, AND OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN ARE MUCH CLOSER TO A TOWNHOME STYLE PROJECT RATHER THAN THE SURROUNDING SINGLE FAMILY CONTEXT.

STAFF ALSO FAILED TO GIVE MEANINGFUL WEIGHT TO THE COMMUNITY'S OPPOSITION, EVEN THOUGH FORD DALLAS EXPRESSLY SAYS COMMUNITY INPUT SHOULD RECEIVE SIGNIFICANT WEIGHT IN DECISIONS AFFECTING COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

THESE CONCERNS ARE NOT INCIDENTAL COMPATIBILITY, SCALES, DENSITY, TRAFFIC, NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS, CHARACTER, AND THE PRESERVATION OF STABLE RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SHOULD NEVER BE TREATED AS A BOX TO CHECK, AND THEN DISREGARDED WHEN THE RESIDENTS RAISED THE VERY ISSUES FOR DALLAS REQUIRES DECISION MAKERS TO CONSIDER IF FORD DALLAS IS GOING TO BE CITED AS SUPPORT FOR THIS PD, THEN IT MUST BE APTLY APPLIED, INCLUDING GIVING MEANINGFUL WEIGHT TO THE RESIDENTS MOST DIRECTLY AFFECTED.

FOR THESE REASONS, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT COUNCIL NOT ACCEPT STAFF'S CONCLUSION THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH FORWARD DALLAS 2.0. THE PROJECT IS TOO DENSE, TOO INTENSE, AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERN.

AT A MINIMUM, I URGE YOU TO GIVE THE COMMUNITY'S OPPOSITION THE SIGNIFICANCE IT DESERVES BY ACCEPTING OUR REQUEST TO LIMIT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF ALL UNITS TO 30FT. THANK YOU FOR SAFEGUARDING OUR COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. ALEX ASCHENBRENNER.

ALEX XULRUNNER 10155 BETTY JANE LANE. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL MEMBERS.

WHEN WE STOOD BEFORE YOU LAST TIME, WE EXPRESSED THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WAS NOT OPPOSED TO CHANGE.

WE WERE ASKING FOR SOMETHING SIMPLE THOUGH BALANCE, SAFETY AND REASON.

AND THAT REMAINS TRUE TODAY. WE ARE PRO DALLAS AND WE ARE PRO DEVELOPMENT SO LONG AS IT'S REASONABLE.

WE HAVE SPENT MONTHS TRYING TO BE COLLABORATIVE IN GOOD FAITH.

WE HAVE LISTENED AND WE HAVE COMPROMISED, AND WE HAVE CONTINUED SEARCHING FOR A SOLUTION THAT ALLOWS THIS PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED, WHILE ALSO RESPECTING THE FAMILIES WHO ALREADY CALL THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HOME.

AND IMPORTANTLY, THIS COUNCIL HAS CONSIDERED THIS REZONING BEFORE AND VOTED IT DOWN.

WE BELIEVE THAT YOU GOT THAT DECISION RIGHT. THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU TODAY HAS CHANGED JUST SLIGHTLY, BUT THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM HAS NOT 36FT AND THREE STORIES.

THAT HEIGHT SIMPLY DOES NOT BELONG ALONGSIDE AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD OF ONE AND TWO STORY HOMES, NOT TO MENTION THE PROPOSED DENSITY. NEARLY TEN HOMES PER ACRE IS DRAMATICALLY GREATER THAN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS IS STILL 3.6 TIMES AS DENSE AS OUR EXISTING PROPERTIES.

AND I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WE'RE ASKING, BECAUSE IT'S NOT FOR THE PROPERTY TO REMAIN UNTOUCHED.

WE WANT HOMES BUILT. WE WANT THE PROPERTY DEVELOPED, BUT IT HAS TO BE DONE REASONABLY.

LIMIT THE HEIGHT TO 30FT AND TWO STORIES, AND LET A THOUGHTFUL BUILDER CREATE SOMETHING THAT ADDS NEW HOMES WHILE RESPECTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND THEM.

THAT IS GOOD DEVELOPMENT. FORWARD DALLAS CALLS FOR CHANGE IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS TO BE INCREMENTAL AND SENSITIVE TO THE EXISTING CONTENT.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO PROTECT.

THERE IS A REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT WAITING TO HAPPEN ON THIS PROPERTY, AND WE WANT TO SUPPORT IT.

BUT REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES REASONABLE LIMITS.

SO TODAY WE ASK FOR YOUR CONSISTENCY. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU STAND WITH US.

AGAIN, REJECT THIS PROPOSAL AS WRITTEN OR REQUIRE A 30 FOOT TWO STORY MAXIMUM.

GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO WELCOME A DEVELOPMENT THAT BOTH DALLAS AND THIS NEIGHBORHOOD CAN BE PROUD OF.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME, FOR YOUR ATTENTION, AND FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR CITY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THOSE WERE YOUR REGISTERED SPEAKERS.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE WHO HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM.

ITEM Z 11. NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT.

CHAIR WILLIS? FOR WHAT PURPOSE? MOTION. ALL RIGHT.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THAT PURPOSE. I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE.

ANIMAL PRODUCTION. COMMERCIAL STABLE AND PRIVATE.

STABLE. MAIN USES ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT FOR SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES.

MINIMUM ROOF PITCH IS THREE BY 12 FOR A SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT.

MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS IS 37. MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 30FT FOR LOTS ADJACENT TO LOT THREE AND CITY BLOCK C 6224.

[04:00:04]

IF SIDEWALK BUFFERS ON ADJACENT PORTIONS OF RIGHTS OF WAY ARE LESS THAN FIVE FEET, THE BUFFER MAY BE REDUCED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ADJACENT SIDEWALK SEGMENTS AND SIDEWALKS ARE NOT REQUIRED ALONG BETTY JANE LANE. SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

CHAIRMAN WILSON. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. FIRST OF ALL, THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO CAME TO CITY HALL TO SPEAK AND TO THOSE NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE EMAILED AND CALLED AND HAD MEETINGS SINCE THE DEVASTATING 2019 TORNADO.

THIS 3.7 ACRE SITE, WHICH ONCE HELD A VIBRANT SCHOOL AND CHURCH, HAS STOOD EMPTY.

TODAY, WE HAVE A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO BREATHE NEW LIFE INTO THIS CORNER.

THE PROPOSED PLAN INCLUDES A POCKET OF MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING, 37 THOUGHTFULLY DESIGNED PATIO HOMES TAILORED FOR YOUNG FAMILIES, DOWNSIZERS AND WORKING PROFESSIONALS WHO WANT TO CALL OUR DISTRICT HOME.

I KNOW THIS CASE HAS BROUGHT OUT PASSIONATE OPINIONS, PARTICULARLY REGARDING BUILDING HEIGHTS AND SETBACKS.

I'VE MET WITH THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS AND I HEAR YOUR CONCERNS CLEARLY.

GOOD GOVERNANCE MEANS LISTENING TO THOSE VOICES, BUT IT ALSO MEANS WORKING TOWARD A FAIR COMPROMISE THAT SERVES THE GREATER GOOD.

THROUGH COLLABORATION, WE HAVE ACHIEVED EXACTLY THAT.

THE DEVELOPER HAS ALREADY MADE SIGNIFICANT CONCESSIONS TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF THE NEAREST RESIDENTS.

DENSITY IS REDUCED. THE PROJECT WAS SCALED BACK BY NEARLY A THIRD, FROM 60 UNITS DOWN TO 37.

IT'S MORE THAN A THIRD HEIGHT. PROTECTIONS. THE DEVELOPER AGREED TO A STRICT TWO STORY CAP ALONG THE NORTHERN AND WESTERN BOUNDARIES TO ENSURE IT TRANSITIONS SEAMLESSLY INTO EXISTING BACKYARDS. ENHANCED BUFFERS THE PLAN FEATURES A 19 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK, MORE THAN TRIPLE THE SIX FOOT SETBACK THAT THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS HAVE ON THEIR SIDE OF THE FENCE. IT ALSO INCLUDES MORE TREES THAN REQUIRED, WITH ONE EVERY 25FT ALONG THE NORTHERN SHARED FENCE LINE.

THE PLAN WE ARE VOTING ON TODAY IS THE 24TH VERSION SINCE THIS PROJECT STARTED 24TH.

THAT'S A LOT OF INPUT. THAT'S A LOT OF COFFEE.

FURTHERMORE, THIS SITE IS UNIQUELY SUITED FOR THIS MINI MIX OF MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING.

IT SITS IN A HEAVILY TRANSITIONAL POCKET DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO A FIRE STATION, A LARGE CHURCH, A MAJOR FOUR LANE THOROUGHFARE, A PUMP STATION AND A COMMERCIAL RETAIL CORNER.

I HEARD THE REQUEST FOR ALL TWO STORY AND WORKED TO SEE IF WE COULD GET THERE.

WE GOT CLOSE. WHAT WE HAVE TODAY IS STILL A SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN OVERALL HOMES, WITH FEWER THAN A THIRD AT THREE STORY, AND THEY ARE CONCENTRATED AWAY FROM EXISTING NEIGHBORS.

IN A CORNER BY THE FIRE STATION ALONG WALNUT HILL, WHICH SEES 22,000 CARS PER DAY.

WHEN THE COUNCIL PASSED OUR CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FORWARD DALLAS, WE PLEDGED TO TACKLE OUR HOUSING SHORTAGE BY CREATING SMART INFILL OPTIONS RIGHT NEXT TO EXISTING TRANSIT AND RETAIL CORRIDORS. IN FACT, I'LL QUOTE MY COLLEAGUE CHAIR RIDLEY, WHO SPOKE OF THE PROTECTIONS FOR SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS BY PROVIDING SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR WHERE INCREASED DENSITY SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED ACROSS THE CITY, WHICH IS ALONG COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS. IF WE CAN'T BUILD MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING ON A VACANT LOT NEXT TO A COMMERCIAL STRIP CENTER AND A FIRE STATION, THEN FORWARD DALLAS IS JUST A PIECE OF PAPER.

I APPRECIATE THAT THE WALNUT HILL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LETTER SENT THIS MORNING ACKNOWLEDGING MULTIPLE MEETINGS WERE HELD, AND THAT IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH THIS REVIEW PROCESS. THANK YOU FOR THAT, AND THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD MAKE A POSITIVE IMPACT TO THE SURROUNDING AREA.

MY RESPONSIBILITY AS YOUR COUNCIL MEMBER IS TO HEAR YOU AND ALSO TO LOOK AT THE BIGGER PICTURE.

I MUST BALANCE THE PREFERENCES OF A FEW ADJACENT HOUSEHOLDS WITH THE LONG TERM ECONOMIC, HEALTH, VITALITY AND HOUSING NEEDS OF NORTH DALLAS. TRUE LEADERSHIP MEANS LISTENING TO THE NEIGHBORS, BUT ULTIMATELY VOTING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S FUTURE.

I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT COLLEAGUES IN HELPING TO REBUILD THIS COMMUNITY.

MISS MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THIS IS ITEM Z 11.

THANK YOU. I MOVE TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES FOR ALL STRUCTURES.

I BELIEVE IT'S ALREADY BEEN SAID. MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 30FT MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES IS TWO, A MINIMUM OF 19. OFF STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR GUEST PARKING AND AT LEAST 16.8% OF THE DISTRICT MUST BE OPEN SPACE.

IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. WE'RE NOW ON A MOTION TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION BY MISS MENDELSOHN.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON YOUR AMENDMENT. THANK YOU.

I THINK YOU KNOW, JUST TODAY YOU HAVE HEARD OVER AND OVER AGAIN TWO STORIES, TWO STORIES, 30FT. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY EMAILS WE'VE GOTTEN.

THERE'S A LOT OF TALK IN THE ENTIRE CITY THAT INCLUDES THIS CASE.

THERE ARE NO THREE STORY HOMES IN THIS AREA. AND HERE WE PASS THE VERY CONTROVERSIAL, I THINK, FORWARD DALLAS. I'LL JUST SAY TO ANYBODY WHO'S GOING TO VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE IN THE NEXT YEAR.

[04:05:08]

YOU MIGHT WANT TO ASK WHERE THEY STAND ON IT, BECAUSE MAYBE THAT THING NEEDS TO BE REPEALED.

I DIDN'T VOTE FOR IT, BUT FORWARD DALLAS, WHICH DID INCLUDE QUITE A BIT OF COMPROMISE, IS SUPPOSED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE CHARACTER. WELL, THE CHARACTER IS VERY LARGE LOT HOMES, EXCEPTIONALLY LARGE LOT HOMES.

AND NOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LOT HOMES THAT ARE LESS THAN 1000FT, LIKE THE ENTIRE LOT.

THAT'S SMALLER THAN THE AVERAGE TWO BEDROOM APARTMENT IN MY DISTRICT.

I BET MOST OF YOU LIVE IN A HOME THAT IS MORE THAN 2000 OR MORE THAN 1000FT².

SO I THINK THAT IS CRAZY. THE TERM MISSING MIDDLE WAS USED ABOUT HOUSING.

AND I'M JUST GOING TO TAKE EXCEPTION BECAUSE I AM UNFAMILIAR WITH THE TERM MISSING MIDDLE TO INCLUDE 900 ZERO ZERO 0 TO $1.2 MILLION HOMES.

THAT IS NOT THE MIDDLE IN DALLAS. THAT IS FAR FROM THE MAP.

GENTLE DENSITY. THE HOMES ARE GOING TO BE FIVE FEET APART.

YOU KNOW, I WOULD BE ABLE TO TOUCH EITHER SIDE JUST STANDING THERE.

COMPATIBILITY. THIS ISN'T GOING TO LOOK ANYTHING, ANYTHING REMOTELY LIKE ANYTHING NEARBY BECAUSE OF SCALE. ANOTHER FEATURE OF FORWARD DALLAS. IT IS OUT OF SCALE.

AND THEN YOU GET TO NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT, WHICH ACTUALLY.

COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY THAT WAS YOU WHO GOT THAT PUT IN THERE, THAT PHRASE.

WELL, THE NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT HAS BEEN OVERWHELMINGLY NEGATIVE.

SO IN THE CARDS THAT WERE THAT WERE RETURNED, FIVE PEOPLE WERE IN FAVOR OF WHICH WE HEARD SOME ARE ALREADY OWNED BY THE DEVELOPER AND 42 WERE IN OPPOSITION. BUT THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE HOWEVER MANY HUNDRED EMAILS WE'VE GOTTEN ABOUT THIS.

SO WHEN ARE WE GOING TO ACTUALLY DO OUR JOB TO BE A REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR DISTRICTS AND OUR CITY, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO IMPOSE OUR OWN IDEA OF WHAT WE THINK IS BEST? AND I'M JUST GOING TO TELL YOU, I WAS ELECTED TO BE A REPRESENTATIVE, BOTH OF MY DISTRICT AND OF THE CITY.

AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, WE TELL PEOPLE, COME, BE INVOLVED.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE COMMUNITY MEETINGS SO WE CAN LISTEN TO YOU. AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO ACTUALLY IGNORE YOU.

AND WHAT IS THE POINT OF COMING DOWN HERE AND ADVOCATING WHEN YOU ARE NOT LISTENED TO OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN? AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT FIVE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DO A, B, OR C, I'M TALKING ABOUT LEGITIMATE HOMEOWNERS.

LIKE THESE ARE THEIR VERIFIED ADDRESSES. THIS IS THEIR ACTUAL NEIGHBORHOOD TELLING, YOU KNOW, AND WE CAN SEE IT WITH OUR OWN EYES. IT DOES NOT FIT.

SO THIS IS THIS IS NOT SOME EMOTIONAL APPEAL BY PEOPLE.

I HEARD THE WORD EMOTION. I'M SORRY. THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING.

THESE ARE REASONABLE, THOUGHTFUL PEOPLE WHO'VE ALREADY MADE COMPROMISES.

I ACTUALLY SAW VERY LITTLE EMOTION. SO I THINK IT'S TIME FOR US TO LISTEN TO OUR PEOPLE.

ARE WE GETTING THE MESSAGE? HOW MANY DIFFERENT ISSUES HAVE TO COME UP FOR US TO CONTINUE IGNORING WHAT THE RESIDENTS ARE SAYING? SO THE MOTION I'M BRINGING FORWARD IS EXACTLY WHAT THE RESIDENTS HAVE ASKED FOR.

I HAD HOPED THE COUNCILWOMAN WOULD DO IT HERSELF.

I'M SORRY SHE DIDN'T. I HOPE SHE'LL SUPPORT THIS.

IT'S NECESSARY. IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR YOU TO DO THIS.

DON'T ADDRESS HER DIRECTLY. PLEASE. WELL. I'M DONE.

THANK YOU. JOHN STEWART, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MAYOR JOHNSON. I'M JUST GETTING MY ACT TOGETHER WITH THE TWO AMENDMENTS, AND I'M JUST GOING TO GET BACK TO.

MY ORIGINAL COMMENTS. LET ME EXPLAIN. I REPRESENT DISTRICT TEN AND THAT'S LAKE HIGHLANDS.

AND WE ARE RESIDENTIAL. A LOT OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

WE'RE ALL ABOUT SCHOOLS, PARKS, TRAILS AND HOMES.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO LIKE WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY THOUGH. I'M GOING TO PREPARE YOU FOR THAT. WE HAVE THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT IN LAKE HIGHLANDS AND IT HAS BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL. SO LET ME READ THE STATEMENT AND THEN I WISH WE COULD HAVE DIALOG BECAUSE IT REALLY HAS BEEN AN ASSET.

IT HAS BEEN AN ASSET. IT BACKS UP TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

SEVERAL OF THEM DO. AND IT HAS IT IS NOT CREATED CONFLICT.

[04:10:02]

THEY'RE VERY WELL CARED FOR, VERY WELL CARED FOR.

THEY HAVE HOA'S, YOU KNOW, THEIR LANDSCAPING, YOU KNOW, JUST THEY'RE JUST IMMACULATE.

SO LET ME LET ME READ THIS. SO I DO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT.

LAKE HIGHLANDS HAS SEVERAL SIMILAR HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE PROVIDED INCREASED DENSITY WHILE FITTING IN WELL WITHIN THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.

MANY ARE LOCATED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO MORE TRADITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS AND HAVE PROVEN TO BE SUCCESSFUL ADDITIONS.

THESE DEVELOPMENTS OFFER AN IMPORTANT HOUSING OPTION, ATTRACTING FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS AS WELL AS LONG TIME RESIDENTS LIKE ME WHO ARE READY TO DOWNSIZE BUT WANT TO STAY IN THE COMMUNITY. I SEE THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AS AN ASSET IN LAKE HIGHLANDS.

IT FILLS AN IMPORTANT HOUSING NEED WHILE PROVIDING MORE CHOICES FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO CALL LAKE HIGHLANDS HOME.

SO, AS I HAD MENTIONED, WE HAVE AT LEAST 3 OR 4 OF THESE.

THEY'RE MOSTLY DONE BY DAVID WEEKLEY. TWO OF THE DEVELOPMENTS DO BACK UP TO TRADITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

ONE OF THE DEVELOPMENTS HAS 51 TOWNHOMES IN IT.

I CAN TELL YOU JUST SOME PERSONAL ANECDOTES. I'M 68 YEARS OLD.

A LOT OF MY FRIENDS ARE LOOKING TO DOWNSIZE. THEY'RE TIRED OF THE BIG YARD AND THE POOL.

AND SO THEY HAVE MOVED INTO THIS HOUSING PROJECT.

IT'S BEEN VERY GOOD FOR THEM. AND THEY GET TO STAY IN LAKE HIGHLANDS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO THAT.

I'VE ALSO I MEAN, I CAN TELL YOU, THE MINISTER AT MY CHURCH WANTED TO MOVE INTO LAKE HIGHLANDS, AND SHE AND HER HUSBAND FOUND A HOME IN ONE OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS.

THEY'RE GREAT PEOPLE. THEY'RE THEY'RE PEOPLE LIKE ME.

I MEAN, THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY JUST WANT TO LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THIS HAS BEEN A GOOD OPTION FOR THEM.

SO I'M JUST SHARING THAT WITH YOU BECAUSE IT HAS WORKED OKAY.

I MEAN, IT'S WORKED WELL. IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT BEEN ANYTHING DISRUPTIVE.

I CAN SAY THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN DISRUPTIVE. SO MR. MAYOR, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO SAY AT THIS POINT.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, EVERYONE, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WE ARE ON AN AMENDMENT RIGHT NOW THAT CHANGES THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

SO IF YOU COULD LIMIT YOUR DEBATE TO THE THE CONTENTS OF THE AMENDMENT, YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEBATE THE UNDERLYING MOTION LATER IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT. SO GO AHEAD, MAYOR. POINT OF INFORMATION.

OH, IS THAT WHO IS THAT, MR. WEST? YES, SIR. POINT OF INFORMATION.

I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THE AMENDED MOTION. I KNOW COUNCILWOMAN MENDELSOHN ADDED PARKING AND RESTRICTED HEIGHT.

THERE WAS A THIRD THING. CAN WE GET THAT REPEATED? OKAY. SOMEONE'S GOING TO GET IT TO YOU RIGHT NOW.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MISS CADENA, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT BY MISS MENDELSOHN.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO I REPRESENT DISTRICT SIX, AND THE MAJORITY OF THE HOMES IN MIDWAY HOLLOW ARE 1 TO 2 STORIES.

THERE ARE MANY NEW BUILDS IN THE AREA, AND THEY BLEND INTO THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS PRO-DEVELOPMENT. HOWEVER, A HEIGHT HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT OTHER PARTS OF DISTRICT SIX HAVE ALSO HAD CONCERNS ABOUT.

FOR INSTANCE, LA BAJADA ELM THICKET, NORTH PARK.

THAT'S BEEN THE NUMBER ONE CONCERN THAT THEY HAVE HAD IN FACING GENTRIFICATION.

AND MIDWAY HOLLOW IS EXPERIENCING ITS OWN GENTRIFICATION.

MANY RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT COMPLEMENTS THEIR COMMUNITY.

BUT I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE IN THIS AREA ARE CONCERNED BECAUSE IT WOULD BEGIN TO CHANGE.

JUST YESTERDAY, I RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM A DEVELOPER THAT IS ACQUIRING PROPERTY ON THE DISTRICT SIX SIDES NOT FAR FROM THIS AREA AS WELL.

SO FOR THAT REASON, I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE MOTION.

THANK YOU. WAS THAT ALL OKAY, MISS BLACKMON, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. SO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 30FT ON THE AMENDED MOTION.

WHAT IS THE HEIGHT IN THE SURROUNDING AREA OF THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ON.

SO I KNOW THERE'S A PD AND THERE'S SOME ARE OTHER ARE 16.

I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THE SITE, WHAT IS THE ROOF LINES.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE THAT INFORMATION. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

HEY, MEGAN. HI. MEGAN WEIMER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.

YES. THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL IS ALLOWS 30FT.

THE, THE PD THAT IT'S IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT IS 30FT ARE 16 IS 30FT.

I WILL MENTION THAT THERE'S THE, THE, THE, THE CHURCH WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO ANY HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IF IT WERE TO

[04:15:04]

REDEVELOP AND THE ADJACENT COMMUNITY RETAIL ALLOWS FOR 54FT IN HEIGHT.

SO JUST TO KIND OF PROVIDE THE RANGE OF HEIGHT IN MOST, IN MOST OF THE HOMES ARE TWO STORY.

YES. OKAY. CORRECT. AND THEN WHAT IS USUALLY OUR MINIMUM? DO WE HAVE A FORMULA FOR OFF STREET PARKING FOR, FOR GUEST PARKING IN DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THIS.

SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS, THERE IS FOR MULTIFAMILY.

I'M LOOKING FOR HELP. I KNOW THAT THE, THE APPLICANT PROPOSED ONE QUARTER SPACE PER UNIT WHICH IS AND THE AMENDMENT GOES UP TO 19 AND I BELIEVE IT'S. TEN SO.

BUT IT'S. 19 YES. I'M JUST WONDERING, IS IT TOO MUCH, TOO LITTLE OR JUST.

RIGHT. BECAUSE I LIVE IN A TOWNHOME AND IT'S THERE'S NEVER ENOUGH.

I'M JUST GOING TO BE HONEST. AND SO THAT'S MY QUESTION IS WHAT.

AND IF THERE'S GOING TO BE WHAT STILL 37 UNITS.

IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S, I GUESS HALF OF ONE PER UNIT AT THIS POINT.

IF YOU WANT TO LIKE DO THAT MATH, THAT SIMPLE MATH. YEAH. SO I THINK FOR THE GUEST PARKING THAT'S BEING PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT, I THINK IT COMES UP TO ABOUT NINE SPACES AND THEN.

COUNCIL MEMBER. MENDELSOHN. RIGHT? YEAH, THIS ONE'S 19 THAT SHE'S PROPOSING SPACES.

YEAH. AND I DON'T KNOW. THE APPLICANT MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON HOW THEY DID THE MATH AND HOW THEY CAME UP WITH THE REQUIREMENT FOR THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.

AND THEN THE OPEN SPACE LOOKED LIKE IT DIDN'T CHANGE OR DID IT CHANGE? 16.8, 16.8. SO IN THE, IN THE CONDITIONS AND I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE MY NOTEBOOK IN FRONT OF ME.

I WASN'T EXPECTING TO GET INTO QUESTIONS. THE, THE CONDITIONS REQUIRE AT LEAST 10% I THINK IS WHAT IT ENDED UP WITH WITH 20,000FT² OF CONTIGUOUS OPEN SPACE.

SO I THINK THE OPEN SPACE ACTUALLY EXCEEDS 10%.

HERE COMES YOUR NOTEBOOK. YEAH. THERE'S YOUR ARE YOU COMING? OKAY. THANK YOU. OH, THANK YOU SO MUCH. YES, YES, YES.

AND SO THERE'S A LARGE CONTIGUOUS OPEN SPACE AND THEN SOME SMALLER POCKETS ADJACENT TO BETTY JANE LANE.

BUT BUT I GUESS I'M ASKING IS 16.8, IS THAT WHAT IT IS NOW? BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THIS SHEET AND I IT'S FUZZY AND IT SAYS 16.8 OPEN SPACE, BUT IT'S BEING PERCENT IS, BUT IT'S, I'M JUST WONDERING, IS THAT NEEDED IN THE AMENDMENT? THE AMENDMENT THAT COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN REQUESTED IS MORE OPEN SPACE THAN IS PROVIDED FOR IN THE CONDITIONS. IF THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTIONS, I THINK THE CONDITIONS STILL REFER TO 10% BECAUSE IT SAYS RIGHT HERE, AT LEAST 16.8% OF THE DISTRICT MUST BE OPEN SPACE.

AND THEN THIS I'M GETTING A 16.8 IS OPEN SPACE.

I'M WONDERING WHAT IT I GUESS I CAN ASK THAT IF IT FAILS.

AND I'M SORRY. CAN YOU CLARIFY PLEASE? WHAT EXHIBIT ARE YOU LOOKING AT, THE CONDITIONS OR THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN? OR I THINK THIS ONE THING THAT WAS IN THE PAPER.

OH, OKAY. I GOT A MAP. I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THAT IN FRONT OF ME.

I'M LOOKING AT SOMETHING THE APPLICANT PROVIDED.

OPEN SPACE IS LABELED, BUT IT DOES NOT PROVIDE THE PERCENTAGE.

SO I'M SURE THEY CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION BETTER THAN I CAN.

WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT, DOES THE APPLICANT KNOW WHAT IS THE CURRENT? I GUESS I. IT IS 16.8. OKAY. OKAY. SO IT'S 16.8.

OKAY. WHAT? CAN I GO AHEAD AND SHE CAN USE MY TIME.

OKAY. MENDELSOHN. IF YOU WANT TO, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S STILL. IT'S A SWAP.

IT'S 16. SO THE FIRST THING YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT IS THE 19 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES.

THAT'S THE SECOND THE SECOND BULLET. THE REASON IT'S 19 IS BECAUSE THAT'S THE IMAGE THE DEVELOPER HAS SHOWN THE COMMUNITY.

IT'S GOT 19 SPACES IN IT. OKAY. THAT'S THE PHOTO.

THAT'S THE DRAWING THEY'RE SHOWING THEM. OKAY.

THAT'S WHY IT SAYS 19. NOW, IT'S NOT WHAT THEY ACTUALLY PUT IN THE DOCUMENT, BUT IT'S WHAT THEY'RE SHOWING ON MY TIME.

THE SECOND PART IS THE OPEN SPACE AGAIN, IS FROM THE DEVELOPER'S DOCUMENT.

IT'S NOT IT'S NOT ANYTHING I MADE UP. GOT IT.

IT'S CODIFYING WHAT THEY'VE ALREADY SAID. BUT OF COURSE THEY CODIFIED SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THEIR DOCUMENT SAID.

OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. AND BUT EVERYTHING ELSE STAYS THE SAME.

I'LL WHEN WE GET TO THE UNDERLYING MOTION, I'VE GOT SOME, BUT I'LL JUST ASK QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. OKAY.

MR.. ACTUALLY, WE'LL GO BACK TO CHAIRMAN WILLIS ON THE AMENDMENT FOR FIVE MINUTES.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, I THINK I'D LIKE TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT.

CAN I DO THAT? I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT THE MINIMUM OF 19 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR GUEST

[04:20:07]

PARKING, AND THE 16.8% OF THE DISTRICT MUST BE OPEN SPACE, ADDING THAT TO THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE IN THIS AMENDMENT, IS IT NOT? BUT I'M DROPPING SOMETHING OFF OF THIS.

OKAY. YOU HAVE TO VOTE IT DOWN. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT.

OKAY. SO WHAT WHAT DO WHAT WOULD YOU DO IN THIS AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT THAN THE AMENDMENT? WELL, THE POINT IS, IF WE WANT TO CODIFY THIS BECAUSE THIS ALREADY THIS ALREADY EXISTS IN THE PLAN.

SO, YOU KNOW, I'M FINE WITH THAT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S ALREADY PLANNED.

WHAT'S REQUIRED ON PARKING? MISS BLACKMON WAS THE TEN UNITS.

IT'S AT 19 UNITS AND THEN 16.8% OPEN SPACE. THAT'S ALREADY PART OF THIS PLAN.

IN FACT, THAT'S PART OF WHY THE TWO STORY DOESN'T WORK IS BECAUSE IT WOULD GO YOU WOULD GET RID OF GREEN SPACE.

AND I MEAN, THAT'S THAT WOULD NEVER GO BACK THROUGH PLAN COMMISSION.

SO THAT'S WHY IT'S EASY TO SAY THIS, BUT YOU CAN'T DO IT.

SO I'M JUST SAYING TWO ASPECTS OF THIS. I'M FINE WITH, BUT THE 30FT WE HAVE TRIED, IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK.

THIS IS GOING TO BE SITTING VACANT FOR YEARS. OKAY, SO HERE'S WHAT I'M SAYING THEN.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. I THINK UNLESS I'M INCORRECT, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING YOU WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO STRIKE THE FIRST BULLET POINT. THANK YOU. THAT'S MUCH MORE SIMPLE. MAYOR.

THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT? OKAY, SO NOW WE'RE ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT, WHICH JUST FOR EVERYBODY, CAN FOLLOW THIS. IT'S CHAIRWOMAN MISS MENDELSON'S AMENDMENT WITHOUT BULLET POINT ONE.

IT'S JUST BULLET POINTS TWO AND THREE. IF THAT WERE TO PREVAIL.

SO YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON YOUR AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT. SO GOING BACK TO THIS, I MEAN, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME STATEMENTS MADE THAT ARE JUST NOT REALLY ACCURATE HERE. SO I HOPE YOU'LL LOOK AT THE PLAN THAT YOU'VE GOT. THESE ARE NOT ALL SMALL LOTS ACTUALLY.

THE TWO STORY HOMES ARE ON MUCH LARGER LOTS. SO IT'S, IT'S JUST NOT ACCURATE TO SAY THESE ARE THOUSAND FOOT SQUARE FOOT LOTS. THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT THE SMALLEST WITH THE 12 STORY UNITS ARE ALMOST 2000FT².

I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE IS GOING TO HAND US WHEN WE COME BACK AT THE END OF THIS YEAR.

BUT THIS IS A MIX OF SIZES OF LOTS AND THEY HAVE BEEN INCREASED IN RESPONSE TO THE NEIGHBORS REQUESTS.

THE SECTION OF THESE HOMES, I REALIZE THEY ARE ACROSS A FOUR LANE STREET AND THAT PEOPLE ACROSS THE STREET MAY NOT NECESSARILY WANT THIS, BUT THE, THE THREE STORY UNITS ARE ACROSS MOSTLY FROM A PUMP STATION AND BY A FIRE STATION.

SO THAT'S NOT REALLY SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT.

AND THIS IS ONE BUILDER. THERE ARE DESIGN GUIDELINES.

SO I REALIZE WE MAY DRIVE THROUGH SOME NEIGHBORHOODS AND SEE A ONE OFF STRUCTURE.

AND IT LOOKS ODD, BUT THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD.

I MEAN, THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE. AND SO I WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE ARE TREATING IT THAT WAY.

YOU KNOW, AND ONE POINT MADE, I THINK MISS STEWART I APPRECIATE YOU SHARING THAT BECAUSE I'VE DRIVEN THROUGH THERE.

I'VE DRIVEN THROUGH MULTIPLE EXAMPLES AROUND THE CITY WHERE IT IS WORKING VERY WELL KEPT.

LOVELY. HERE'S A SUPPORTIVE MESSAGE FROM ONE NEIGHBOR OF THIS PROJECT WHO SAID, NOW THAT HE AND HIS WIFE ARE EMPTY NESTERS, WE ARE BEGINNING TO CONSIDER THE NEXT STAGE OF LIFE, POTENTIALLY DOWNSIZING TO A NEWER, SMALLER HOME THAT REQUIRES LESS MAINTENANCE WHILE ALLOWING US TO REMAIN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WE VALUE.

SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MISSING MIDDLE, IT'S NOT ABOUT THE COST OF THE HOME.

IT'S SAYING THAT DALLAS, TEXAS HAS A WHOLE LOT OF SINGLE FAMILY.

IN FACT, WE ARE MOSTLY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND WE ALSO HAVE A LOT OF MULTIFAMILY.

AND THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF OUR PRODUCTION IS. WHAT WE DON'T HAVE ARE EXAMPLES LIKE THIS THAT HAVE A LITTLE MORE DENSITY, THAT MAY NOT HAVE THE YARD, THE MAINTENANCE THAT THIS, THIS NEIGHBOR IS TALKING ABOUT.

AND THE DUPLEXES AND QUADRUPLEXES, THAT IS WHAT MISSING MIDDLE IS DEFINED AS.

SO I WANT TO BE SURE THAT IN LISTENING TO THE NEIGHBORS, IN MAKING THE DEVELOPMENT TWO THIRDS TWO STORY IN RESPONSE TO WHAT THEY WANTED, TAKING THE LOT SIZE UP TO WHAT THEY WANTED THAT WE'RE ALSO RESPECTING OTHER NEIGHBORS WHO SAY, I DON'T WANT A YARD, I DON'T WANT, I WANT A DIFFERENT FORMAT.

AND THESE CAN ALL WORK TOGETHER TO WHAT I'VE SEEN IN LAKE HIGHLANDS AND AREAS LIKE THAT, WHERE YOU CAN HAVE A NICE MIX OF THAT IN OUR GROWING CITY.

THANK YOU. MR. WEST. WERE YOU TRYING TO GET IN ON THE AMENDMENT BY MISS MENDELSOHN, OR DO YOU WANT TO GET ON THIS AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT ORIGINALLY? MENDELSOHN, BUT I'LL JUMP ON THIS ONE IF.

OKAY. I'LL RECOGNIZE YOU FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT. OKAY.

[04:25:02]

AND THE EFFECTIVENESS, THE EFFECTIVE RESULT OF THIS AMENDMENT, THE WAY IT WAS JUST EXPLAINED.

IF I CAN GET THE CITY ATTORNEY TO CLARIFY, IS THAT WE'RE BASICALLY BACK ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION BECAUSE THE SECOND TWO BULLETS ADDED BY COUNCILWOMAN MENDELSOHN ARE ALREADY PART OF THE ORIGINAL PLAN. IS THAT RIGHT? OR MEGAN CAN ANSWER THAT. WE ARE ON THE AMENDMENT.

WE ARE ON COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS'S AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN AMENDMENT OF THE MAIN MOTION.

THE STRIKING OF THE FIRST BULLET POINT REMOVES THE 30 FOOT HEIGHT REQUIREMENT AND THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES BEING TWO.

IT IS APPARENTLY THE 16.8% OF DISTRICT OF THE OPEN SPACE AND THE 19 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES ARE PART OF THE ORIGINAL PLAN.

HOWEVER, THAT WAS PART OF COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN'S MOTION.

SO HER MOTION ON THOSE TWO POINTS WAS DUPLICATIVE OF WHAT WAS ALREADY IN THE PLAN, CORRECT? IT APPEARS SO. OKAY. THAT'S HELPFUL. I ACTUALLY WHEN THAT WHEN WE WERE ON THAT AND SINCE IT'S STILL PART OF THIS MOTION BECAUSE IT'S BEEN STRICKEN, I STARTED LOOKING THROUGH EMAILS FROM MR. SOMMERVILLE, WIMBERLEY, MISS PITTMAN, THE WALNUT HILL HOA NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION, AND NOBODY WAS ASKING FOR THAT. SO I WAS GOING TO BRING UP WHY ARE WE ADDING THIS IN ON ON A RANDOM AMENDMENT? AND I'M GLAD THAT THAT'S BEEN CLARIFIED. SO I'M JUST GOING TO FOCUS ON THE HEIGHT ISSUE BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE THE LAST ITEM THAT'S HERE.

BUT I DO WANT TO COMMEND MY COLLEAGUE CHAIR WILLIS FOR REALLY WORKING THROUGH THE TRAPS ON WHAT APPEARS TO BE A VERY DIFFICULT ZONING CASE. I'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF EMAILS FROM NEIGHBORS.

I KNOW A COUPLE OF THEM PERSONALLY. AND SO I TOOK EXTRA TIME ON THIS CASE THAT I DON'T ALWAYS HAVE TIME TO DO IN OTHER CASES.

AND I JUST WANT TO SAY I HAVE BEEN THOUGHTFUL ABOUT IT.

I'VE DRIVEN BY THE SITE. I'M FAMILIAR WITH IT.

I'M STILL LISTENING TO BOTH SIDES OF THIS, BUT I WILL TELL YOU, THIS DEVELOPMENT REMINDS ME A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT WE HAVE IN NORTH OAK CLIFF IN FRONT OF A HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD. STEVENS PARK VILLAGE WHERE WE HAVE IT'S AN ACTUAL TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS A MIX OF TWO STORY AND THREE STORY STRUCTURES, AND IT SERVES AS A BUFFER ON FORT WORTH AVENUE, A VERY BUSY ROAD THAT HAS SOMETHING LIKE 22,000 CARS A DAY ON IT, ACTUALLY MAYBE MORE. AND IT SERVES AS A SOUND AND LIGHT BUFFER FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY HAVING THAT THAT THREE STORY AND THEN TWO STORY BUFFER BETWEEN THE SINGLE FAMILY, MOSTLY ONE STORY NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND, AND THAT ROAD. SO I DON'T THINK THAT THE HEIGHT IS, I KNOW IT'S, IT'S A CHANGE, IT'S A LITTLE SCARY.

THE FACTS, THE FACT THAT IT'S ALONG THAT BUSY ROAD GIVES ME A LITTLE BIT MORE COMFORT IN, IN SUPPORTING IT.

AND SO I'M LEANING THAT WAY, BUT I'M, I'M DEFINITELY STILL GOING TO LISTEN TO THE ARGUMENTS HERE.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MISS MENDELSOHN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. I'M WONDERING IF PLANNING AND ZONING CAN COME BACK UP.

SO BEFORE I MADE THE AMENDMENT, YOU WERE MENTIONING THAT THERE WAS 10% GREEN SPACE NECESSARY.

YOU WERE MENTIONING LESS PARKING SPACES. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY? YES, I WILL MAKE CLARIFICATIONS. SO PURSUANT TO THE CURRENT CODE FOR SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT, A QUARTER SPACE IS REQUIRED PER UNIT FOR GUEST PARKING.

SO NINE THAT COMES BASED ON THE MATH. IT WOULD REQUIRE NINE GUEST PARKING SPACES.

REGARDING THE OPEN SPACE. THE CONDITIONS THAT I AM LOOKING AT THAT WERE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.

ROB HAS JUST TOLD ME THAT IT IS INCORRECT. IT STILL REFERENCES 10% OPEN SPACE, BUT THE APPLICANT HAS SAID THAT THEY INTENDED FOR IT TO BE 15% OPEN SPACE. SO THEY MAY WANT TO MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION ON THE RECORD.

BUT I WAS LOOKING AT WHAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME.

OKAY. WELL, THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS ACTUALLY WHAT IS IN WRITING, NOT WHAT THEIR INTENT IS.

AND EVEN IF THEY SAY IT VERBALLY HERE, WE KNOW THAT THEY ARE NOT HELD TO THAT STANDARD.

BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN THROUGH CASES LIKE THAT AND YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THOSE CASES.

SO IF IT'S NOT IN WRITING, IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER WHAT IS SAID.

WE CAN'T JUST HAVE THESE PROMISES. THAT'S WHY IT'S INCLUDED IN MY AMENDMENT.

[04:30:03]

BOTH THOSE BULLETS THAT ARE NECESSARY. BUT THANK YOU THAT THOSE HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED.

12 PEOPLE SPOKE 12. ALL OF THEM ASKED FOR ONE THING.

AND IT WAS HEIGHT, THE VERY THING THAT IS NOT THAT IS TRYING TO BE CIRCUMVENTED.

THEY HAVE ALL SAID WE MUST HAVE THE TWO STORY.

THEY DIDN'T EVEN GO ABOUT THE OTHER ITEMS. THEY WANT THEM, BUT THEY WEREN'T GOING TO ASK BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO PUT ALL THEIR CHIPS ON THE ONE THING THAT IS MOST IMPORTANT TO THEM AND CONSISTENTLY PERSON AFTER PERSON, NOT JUST TODAY.

GO THROUGH ALL THE EMAILS. PLEASE STOP AT TWO STORIES.

IF IT WORKS IN ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD, GREAT. IT'S NOT WORKING THERE.

LISTEN TO THEM. THEY KNOW. AND PLEASE GET OFF THIS IDEA THAT MISSING MIDDLE INCLUDES $900,000 HOMES TO $1.2 MILLION HOMES. BECAUSE WE ALSO HEAR MISSING MIDDLE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LY TECH.

SO LIKE COME UP WITH A DEFINITION. BUT THIS PULL ON THE HEARTSTRINGS MISSING MIDDLE.

THIS OTHER IDEA OF DOWNSIZING. AS SOMEBODY WHO IS NOW AN EMPTY NESTER, LIKE OFFICIALLY ALL THREE JOBS FOR ALL THREE KIDS OUT OF THE HOUSE, OFF THE CAR INSURANCE. I AM AM AN EMPTY NESTER, BUT I GUARANTEE YOU PEOPLE ARE NOT LOOKING TO DOWNSIZE TO A THREE STORY BUILDING A THREE STORY HOME. WE CAN'T HAVE THAT.

SORRY, GUYS. WE JUST DON'T DO THE OUTBURST. THEY MIGHT DO A TWO STORY IF THE MAIN BEDROOM COULD BE DOWNSTAIRS.

RIGHT. THROW THE KIDS UPSTAIRS WHEN THEY COME VISIT.

THIS. THIS IS NOT WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS. SO IF YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THE COMMUNITY, I GUESS YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE FOR IT.

AND YOU MUST HAVE BEEN IMPARTED WITH SOME SORT OF MIRACULOUS KNOWLEDGE THAT I DIDN'T GET WHEN I BECAME A COUNCIL MEMBER.

I'VE LEARNED A LOT OF THINGS HERE A LOT THAT I DIDN'T KNOW WHEN I STARTED, BUT I ALSO STUCK WITH STUCK WITH THE IDEA THAT IT IS MY JOB TO LISTEN TO THE RESIDENTS AND THAT THEY MIGHT KNOW SOMETHING A LOT BETTER THAN I DO.

IN THIS CASE, YEAH, I'VE DRIVEN IT. I, I KNOW THIS AREA AND I AGREE WITH THEM.

IF I LIVE THERE, I WOULD NOT WANT A THREE STOREY BUILDING, A THREE STOREY HOUSE, NOW A THREE STOREY CHURCH, I WILL SAY IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BECAUSE SOMEBODY'S NOT LIVING IN THAT BEDROOM LOOKING DOWN INTO MY BACKYARD.

AND WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.

IT'S PRIVACY IS AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF HOME OWNERSHIP.

SO I'M FOR THE MOTION I MADE. I AM NOT FOR REMOVING THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION, WHICH IS THE NUMBER ONE THING EVERY SINGLE PERSON HAS ASKED FOR. IF IF YOU'RE GOING TO IGNORE THE HEIGHT.

HONESTLY, JUST TO PROVE THE MAIN MOTION AND TELL THE PEOPLE THE TRUTH THAT YOU DON'T CARE HOW MANY EMAILS YOU GET, HOW MANY COMMUNITY MEETINGS THERE ARE, HOW MANY TIMES THEY COME DOWN HERE. YOU DON'T ACTUALLY CARE WHAT THEY SAY.

AND IN FACT, YOU'LL SAVE THEM A WHOLE BUNCH OF TIME AND WE WON'T HAVE SO MANY EMAILS.

IT'LL BE GREAT. BUT I THINK OUR JOB ACTUALLY IS TO LISTEN TO THEM.

THANK YOU. MISS BLACKMON, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.

THANKS. OKAY, SO IF WE STRIKE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 30FT.

BUT WE KEEP THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES AS TWO, HOW DOES THAT RECONCILE IN DEVELOPMENT EASE? AND LIKE HOW, HOW DO YOU BUILD SOMETHING WITH THAT? BECAUSE THEN YOU CAN TECHNICALLY HAVE 2220 FOOT STORIES.

OR DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? IT'S LIKE I SEE THEM GOING TOGETHER.

BUT IF YOU STRIKE ONE, THEN HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE OTHER? I'M SORRY. HOW DID HOW DOES THE HOW DOES STRIKE.

THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 30FT AFFECT A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES IS TWO.

I WILL SAY THAT WELL. SO IF THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES IS TWO AND THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS THREE.

NO, THERE'S NO MAXIMUM HEIGHT. OH THERE'S NO MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND STRIKE.

OH WAIT. IS GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL. OH IT'LL EVENTUALLY GO BACK.

SO I GUESS IT GOES BACK TO TWO STORIES AT 37.

BUT WE'RE NOT ON THAT MOTION. SO THAT'S WHAT IT.

THANK YOU. I ANSWERED MY OWN QUESTION. THANK YOU. AND AND IF I MAY ADD SOMETHING ELSE.

SO CPC DID RECOMMEND 15% OPEN SPACE. THAT WAS IN THOSE CONDITIONS.

THE LATEST VERSION I RECEIVED DID NOT SAY THAT, BUT THE INTENT ON THE RECORD AT CPC WAS 15%.

[04:35:05]

SO THAT HELPS. MR. ROTH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO COMPLIMENT MY COLLEAGUE FOR TRYING TO NAVIGATE THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE HOMEOWNERS AND WITH THE DEVELOPERS OVER THIS LONG PERIOD OF TIME. IT'S BEEN THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF ITERATIONS ON THIS THING.

SHE'S EXPRESSED IT AND SHE'S GONE THROUGH 26 DIFFERENT NEGOTIATIONS ON THIS THING.

AND I COMMEND YOU FOR TRYING TO, TO GET THIS THING RESOLVED.

I'M GOING TO VOTE AND, AND EXPRESS MY OPINION AGAINST THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.

I THINK THAT IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE RETAIN THE HEIGHT LIMITATION AND THAT WE DO HAVE A MAXIMUM TWO STORIES HERE.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS EXPRESSED TO US VERY, VERY CLEARLY THAT THIS IS THE THE ISSUE.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IN MY OPINION, GETS THE THE BENEFIT OF OF THE DOUBT WHEN THERE'S A CONTROVERSY.

I THINK THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME COMPROMISE. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF COMPROMISE BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME. AND I, AND I THINK THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, THIS AMENDMENT THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN IN ITS ORIGINAL STATE REALLY SOLVES THE PROBLEM FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ALLOWS THE DEVELOPMENT TO PROCEED. AND, AND I THINK WOULD, WOULD BE A SATISFACTORY COMPROMISE FOR EVERYBODY INVOLVED.

WHEN I WOULD SUGGEST THAT, THAT THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT BE REJECTED AND THAT THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT BE BE PROMOTED. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN WEST, ARE YOU STILL TRYING TO GET BACK IN FOR ANOTHER ROUND OR. NO? YES, MAYOR. OKAY. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.

I HAVE. THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR I THINK THE ATTORNEYS IT WAS BROUGHT UP IN A RESPONSE TO A QUESTION, I BELIEVE. AND MAYBE THIS IS FOR MEGAN. THE, THAT IF THE CHURCH LIKE, I GUESS IF THIS DEVELOPMENT GOES AWAY, IT'S DENIED WHATEVER THE CHURCH COMES BACK IN, THEN THEY'RE ALLOWED TO BUILD.

WHAT ARE THEY ALLOWED TO DO BY RIGHT UP TO 56 OR 65FT? CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT? YEAH. I'M NOT, I'M SORRY.

I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE 55 OR 65FT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS THROWN AROUND, BUT MY POINT WAS THAT INSTITUTIONAL USES AND CHURCHES, INCLUDING CHURCHES, DO NOT, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, SO THEY CAN PRETTY MUCH BE ANY LEGAL HEIGHT. IS THERE A WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO BUILD LIKE IS STATE LAW NOW ALLOW RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS TO BUILD HOUSING ON IT? IS THAT NOT A THING YET? I KNOW IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED.

SB 840 DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT, BUT I SORRY, I DID HAVE THE THOUGHT ABOUT THE KRE BEING ABLE TO DEVELOP MULTIFAMILY BY.

RIGHT. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? SORRY. YEAH. THE ADJACENT KRE NOW WOULD ALLOW MULTIFAMILY BY.

RIGHT. NOT THAT THAT'S NECESSARILY RELEVANT TO YOUR QUESTION, BUT STATE LAW IS APPLICABLE THERE.

SO IF WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT DENSER HOUSING THAT COULD ALREADY HAPPEN BY RIGHT ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.

WE'VE BEEN TALKING. I MEAN, I THINK IT IS RELEVANT TO MY QUESTION BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT SETTING A PRECEDENT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND SO WHAT'S THE PARCEL THAT'S ADJACENT AND WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT THAT'S ALLOWED THERE.

AND THERE'S, AND YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S NO HEIGHT MAXIMUM FOR THE CHURCH.

COULD BE, COULD BE AS TALL AS IT WANTS TO BE.

IT COULD BE. YEAH. IT, IT COULD BE. AND SINCE IT IS ALSO ZONED R 16, IT WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO RPS.

SO RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL DOESN'T ORIGINATE RPS.

SO YOU COULD GET HEIGHT THERE. AND I BELIEVE THE FIRE STATION WHICH IS ADJACENT ON THE OTHER SIDE IS 40FT IN HEIGHT. SO AGAIN, JUST TO GIVE, GIVE SOME CONTEXT ON EXISTING AND ALLOWABLE HEIGHT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

OKAY. OKAY. THAT'S HELPFUL. THAT WAS. THAT'S IT.

THANKS. GENTLEMEN, WILL YOU RECOGNIZE FOR THREE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT?

[04:40:06]

THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT REGARDING HEIGHT, BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT MORE THAT COULD BE COMING THAT WOULD BE FAR GREATER THAN 36FT.

BUT WHAT I WANTED TO ASK IS IT'S EASY FOR US TO PUT NUMBERS ON PAPER AND JUST COME UP WITH A MOTION.

I WANT TO ASK THE APPLICANT, WOULD IT COME ON DOWN? I MEAN, IS WE TRIED THIS AND YOU KNOW, IF IT'S NOT DOABLE AND WE SIT WITH VACANT LAND AND NO HOUSES ON IT, I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT HELPS US MEET OUR GOALS.

SO CAN YOU HELP ME WITH WHETHER THIS WORKS? BECAUSE WE TRIED.

THIS IS WHAT I TRIED LAST TIME. HERE IS THE PROBLEM FOR YOU.

FOR ALL OF YOU. MAYOR. THE THE FINAL VERSION OF THE CONDITIONS DIDN'T MAKE YOUR PACKET.

SO THE ABSOLUTE COMMITMENT WE'RE MAKING IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD IS THE LAYOUT YOU'VE SEEN AS 24.

THAT INCLUDES 16.8% OPEN SPACE, 19 GUEST SPACES PROVIDED.

AND ANY, ANY FORM. I BELIEVE THAT THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT THAT WHAT IS ON THE FLOOR AT THIS MOMENT DOES THAT IT, IT, IT CONFORMS THE ULTIMATE ORDINANCE TO THE DESIGN.

BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 30FT ASPECT OF THIS.

WE TRIED WE TRIED THE TWO STORY TO MAKE 30, 30FT IS NOT A MARKETABLE PRODUCT AT THE, AT THE FOOTPRINT SIZE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. YOU'VE SEEN ALL OVER TOWN THAT THREE STORY IS THE STANDARD FOR TOWNHOUSE.

THERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF TWO STORY TOWNHOUSES.

THEY TEND TO BE LARGER FOOTPRINT. AND SO WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY DISGUISING IN A MOTION TO LIMIT TO 30FT IS ACTUALLY A MOTION TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF UNITS ON THE, ON THE ACREAGE. AND WE ARE AT 9.9 UNITS PER ACRE FOR CONTEXT.

R SEVEN FIVE, WHICH IS THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE SINGLE FAMILY IN DALLAS, IS ALMOST SIX PER ACRE.

SO THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY SMALL DENSITY BUMP OVER REGULAR R SEVEN FIVE SINGLE FAMILY.

WELL, YEAH, I JUST WANT TO. HELLO. I'M LEO. I'M THE APPLICANT WITH PHILIP KINGSTON HERE.

BUT WE'VE TRIED TO ACTUALLY DECREASE THESE TO TWO STORIES, BUT IT DOES NOT WORK ON THE FOOTPRINT.

NOW I JUST WANT TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE IN MIND THAT LOTS ONE THROUGH 11 ARE 3900FT².

LOTS 33 TO 37 ARE 3500FT² AVERAGE. LOTS 24 TO 32 ARE ABOUT 3600FT² AVERAGE.

SO IT'S NOT TRUE THAT THESE ARE 800FT². THEY'RE NOT THE AVERAGE FOR LOTS 12 THROUGH 23, WHICH WOULD BE THE ONLY 12 HOMES THAT ARE THREE STORIES ARE AN AVERAGE OF 1919 84FT². SO IF WE DECREASE THOSE TO TWO STORIES, WE'RE GOING TO BE HAVING A 1200 SQUARE FOOT PRODUCT, WHICH IS A CRACKER JACK BOX, AND NO ONE WILL EVER BUY IT FROM ME OR FROM, YOU KNOW, FROM ANYONE, BECAUSE NOBODY CAN LIVE IN SOMETHING SO SMALL. SO THAT'S THE REASON THAT WE ARE REQUESTING THE 36FT AND THE THREE STORY ONLY ON THOSE 12 LOTS, NOT THE REST. THE REST IS ALL TWO STORY. WHICH IS A HUGE COMPROMISE OF THE 63 STORY HOMES THAT WE HAD PROPOSED.

NOW ACROSS THE STREET, ACTUALLY ON MARSH LANE, I'M ACTUALLY BUILDING 36 FOOT TOWNHOMES THAT THEY GET TO SEE EVEN CLOSER THAN WHAT THEY WOULD SEE ON THIS PROPERTY. SO WE ARE ALREADY DOING 3636 STORY, SORRY, 36 FOOT PRODUCT ON WHERE THE OLD CITY OF DALLAS BUILDING WAS AT. SO WE ALREADY HAVE THAT, RIGHT? SO THE HEIGHT, I KNOW IT'S A DIFFERENT FORMAT.

IT'S TOWNHOME OR THIS SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED, BUT YEAH, THE HEIGHT IS SOMETHING THAT IS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE NORTH WAY CHURCH THAT WAS ALSO HIT BY THE TORNADO HAS BUILT JUST A TWO BLOCKS DOWN OR MAYBE EVEN LESS THAN THAT.

THAT'S AT THREE STORIES. AND SO IT EXISTS. THIS IS SOMETHING WE PURSUED.

I MEAN, I DROVE YOU CRAZY AND, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I WASN'T HAPPY TO GET THAT ANSWER BACK.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, I MEAN, WE THESE NEIGHBORS, THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY DESERVE TO HAVE SOME GREEN SPACE. I DON'T THINK A PLAN COMMISSION WOULD PUT THIS THROUGH WITH THE TOTAL ABSENCE OF THAT.

IS THAT WHO WE WANT TO BE AS A CITY? SO I DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS SIT VACANT.

I DON'T WANT TO SEE US FORCED THROUGH SOMETHING THAT NO ONE'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO BUILD A MARKETABLE PRODUCT ON, THAT WILL SIT VACANT AND NOT HELP US AND NOT REALLY HELP THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

BECAUSE THERE'S SOME OTHER IDEAS OUT THERE THAT I REALLY DON'T WANT, I WOULDN'T WANT TO COME ABOUT.

AND SO THAT'S WHY I THINK A QUALITY PRODUCT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD IN A FORMAT THAT'S MIXED, KIND OF LIKE WE'VE HEARD OTHER COLLEAGUES TALK ABOUT IS, IS SOMETHING THAT'S DOABLE. AND THAT'S THE, THE PUSH THAT.

YES. AND THIS IS ALSO HOLD ON. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR THEM OR.

NO. NO. I THINK I NEED TO EXTEND THIS TIME WITH MORE.

I APPRECIATE. NO, I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHO THAT GENTLEMAN IS IN THE IN THE AISLE, BUT HE CAN SIT DOWN. THAT'D BE GREAT. LET'S GET SOME ORDER GOING IN HERE.

THANK YOU MAYOR. SO, I MEAN, THE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE TO COLLEAGUES IS JUST THAT, YOU KNOW,

[04:45:04]

IT'S ONE THING TO JUST START MOVING NUMBERS AROUND.

BUT IF YOU DON'T PUT THE APP, IF YOU DON'T INVOLVE THE APPLICANT AND YOU FIND THAT IT JUST CAN'T WORK.

AND THAT THAT IS WHAT I'VE BEEN PUSHING FOR SINCE THE, SINCE WE CEASED THE LAST MEETING, THAT IT MAY NOT HAPPEN.

AND HOW DOES THAT HOW DOES THAT BENEFIT THE CITY? SO PLEASE ASK YOURSELF THAT QUESTION. AND I'M, I'M FINE WITH CODIFYING THESE THINGS.

I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE A DOCUMENT DIDN'T MAKE IT INTO THE PACKET, BUT I JUST, I THINK FORCING THAT 30FT ONTO THIS OTHER PARCEL IS NOT GOING TO HELP WHEN SO MANY CONCESSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE REST OF THE LOT.

THANK YOU. MR. BAZALDUA, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. I'D LIKE TO ASK THE APPLICANT A QUESTION AS WELL.

SO STAY CLOSE, FELLAS, BUT. DON'T STAY AT THE MIC BUT STAY CLOSE.

SO ON THE 36FT I'M TRYING TO FIND IT ON THE PLAN AND I, I'M, I'M STRUGGLING ON THE, THE FINDING THE LOTS. SO I'M LOOKING AT THE CPC'S RECOMMENDED CONCEPTUAL PLAN.

WHAT, WHICH LOTS ARE THE ONES WHICH LOT NUMBERS ARE THE ONES THAT ARE APPLYING FOR THE 36 WITH AS, AS THE MOTION. THEY'RE THE ONES IN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT AND THEY'RE NUMBERED.

12 THROUGH 2012 THROUGH 21, 12 THROUGH 23 THROUGH 23.

RATHER OKAY I SEE. OKAY.

AND THEN CAN YOU HELP ME ORIENT MYSELF TO Y'ALL'S SITE MAP ON WHERE THE FIRE STATION IS THAT YOU HAVE HAVE BROUGHT UP? IT'S DIRECTLY TO THE EAST AT THE CORNER ON ON WALNUT HILL, DIRECTLY TO THE EAST OF OUR LOT. AND IS SO ARE THESE PROPOSED TO HAVE A HIGHER HEIGHT ADJACENT TO THAT STRUCTURE? THESE 12 ARE ARE TALLER THAN THE OTHER STRUCTURES PROPOSED ON THE LOT. I, I GET THAT, BUT ARE THEY THE CLOSEST LOTS ORIENTED TO THE 40 FOOT FIRE STATION BUILDING? ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. I, I'D LIKE TO ASK STAFF WHAT PROCESS? IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN, I UNDERSTAND PROXIMITY SLOPE AND DIFFERENCE IN RESIDENTIAL, ETC.. BUT WHAT WHY IS THIS? WHY WAS THIS FIRE STATION HAVE A HIGHER HEIGHT THAN WHAT IS DESIRED IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD? WE WILL WE ARE LOOKING INTO THAT RIGHT NOW. MY, I SUSPECT IT'S BECAUSE IT'S AN INSTITUTIONAL USE.

NO, IT'S A UTILITY. WE'LL GET BACK WITH YOU ON THAT QUESTION WAS AND WHEN WAS THIS FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTED? YES, WE WILL. WE WILL HAVE THAT ANSWER MOMENTARILY.

I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

WE'LL HOLD YOUR TIME AT 326 AND YOU CAN COME BACK TO YOU. THAT WHAT YOU WANT? THANK YOU. YES, SIR.

ALRIGHT, SO I'M GOING TO GO TO CHAIRMAN WEST FOR ONE MINUTE.

DID YOU YOU HAVE YOUR LITTLE HAND DEAL THERE? DO YOU WANT TO GET IT BACK? I FORGOT TO TAKE IT DOWN. NO, I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION.

ALRIGHT. THEN WE'LL STAND AT EASE FOR A MINUTE OR TWO UNTIL WE GET A RESPONSE.

WELL, MR. BAZALDUA, HIS TIME IS AT 326.

[04:50:21]

OKAY. WE'RE BACK. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. YES. SO WE DID VERIFY THAT THE QUICK VERIFICATION THAT THE FIRE STATION IS ALSO ZONED R 16. IT HAS AN CEP WHICH DOESN'T MODIFY HEIGHT.

AND SO LOOKING AT IT IT APPEARS TO BE IF WE HAD TO EYEBALL IT PROBABLY 25FT.

IT'S LIKE A STORY AND A HALF. SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE 40FT CAME FROM THAT THE APPLICANT REFERENCED.

I MAYBE THEY HAVE, THERE'S, THERE ARE CHURCHES THAT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF 30FT, BUT THAT, THAT INFORMATION BASED ON WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS MAYBE NOT ACCURATE.

OKAY. I, I JUST SO I GUESS THE CHURCH AS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED.

WHEN I'LL GO THERE THEN, RIGHT. HEIGHT ON THE CHURCH.

THAT WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS.

WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT, BUT IT'S EXEMPT. THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M ASKING.

OH. I'M SORRY. WHAT WERE YOU ASKING, COUNCIL MEMBER? I JUST WANT I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHEN IT WAS CONSTRUCTED AND WHAT THE HEIGHT IS OF IT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THESE EXAMPLES MAY HAVE NOT BEEN.

BOUND TO HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, BUT I AM CURIOUS AS TO WHEN THEY CAME UP AND WHAT RECORD HAS BEEN CREATED OF NUISANCE OR I GUESS PROBLEMS PROBLEMATIC LIKE COMPLAINTS.

I, I'M TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND, I, I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS THOUGHT PUT INTO THIS, I BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE SOME CONCESSIONS. I, I STILL WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND FROM THE APPLICANT YOU KNOW, ONE THING I ABSOLUTELY HATE IS WHEN AN APPLICANT THREATENS THAT THEY, THE, THE LOT IS GOING TO STAY VACANT.

I THINK THAT THAT'S BS QUITE FRANKLY, WE KNOW THAT YOU'RE GOING TO AMEND IT AND, AND MAKE WHAT YOU CAN IN THAT PARCEL.

SO THAT REASONING TO ME DOESN'T SIT REALLY WELL.

BECAUSE YOU'RE HERE ASKING US FOR ZONING AND AND YOU'RE SPENDING MONEY TO DO THIS.

AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT'S GOING TO BE AN ALL OR NOTHING.

BUT I AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE TRUE CONCERN IS.

IF IT LOOKS AS IF ON THIS SITE PLAN, ANY OF THE ADDED HEIGHT IS ALONG OR ADJACENT TO THE MAIN CORRIDOR. AND IT'S ALSO SURROUNDING TWO STRUCTURES THAT BOTH FROM, FROM WHAT I CAN TELL TOWER OVER THE TWO STORY HOMES OR ONE STORY HOMES ANYWAY.

AND SO I GUESS I, I GUESS IF YOU COULD GIVE A MORE HONEST ANSWER, THE APPLICANT, IF YOU CHOOSE TO ON WHAT THE TRUE IMPLICATIONS WOULD BE ON MOVING THIS SIX FEET FROM 36 TO 30. WOULD THAT CHANGE THE ABILITY TO HAVE THE FULL 12 IN THESE PARCELS, WOULD YOU HAVE TO REPLAT IN ORDER TO GET LESS? LIKE WHAT? WHAT WOULD BE THE OUTCOME? WELL, COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA.

WE NEVER THREATENED TO LEAVE THE PROPERTY VACANT.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE CONTINUALLY BROUGHT UP.

THAT'S NOT OUR ARGUMENT. I THOUGHT THAT I HEARD I HEARD YOUR CLIENT SAY THAT, SO I APOLOGIZE, BUT I THOUGHT THAT THAT'S SOMETHING HE SAID ON THE PODIUM JUST A SECOND AGO.

THE PRACTICAL RESULT OF REDUCTION IN HEIGHT WILL BE A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF UNITS, BECAUSE AT THE FOOTPRINT THOSE HOUSES ARE DESIGNED FOR, TWO STORIES IS NOT A MARKETABLE PRODUCT.

I GUESS I, I'M IN NO WAY WANTING TO BE ARGUMENTATIVE, BUT EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THERE ARE TWO STORY DWELLINGS WITHIN YOUR DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND HOW THEY ARE ANY MORE MARKETABLE THAN WHAT TWO STORIES WOULD BE IN THESE PARTICULAR PARCELS.

THEY'RE ON LOTS THAT ARE GREATER THAN 50% LARGER AND HAVE GREATER THAN 50% FOOTPRINT INCREASE.

SO IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S THE END RESULT ON BEING ABLE TO GET THE LIVING SPACE SQUARE FEET.

YES, EXACTLY. AND IT'S ALSO, IT'S A, IT'S A TRICKY MATH QUESTION.

IT, IT, IT'S WHAT CAN YOU SELL? WHAT BELONGS HERE? 37 UNITS IS ENOUGH TO MAKE THIS A PROJECT WORTH DOING, AND YET NOT ENOUGH TO TURN THIS INTO SOMETHING

[04:55:07]

THAT IS BEYOND WHAT WAS CONTEMPLATED IN BOARD DALLAS.

OKAY. WELL, I WILL JUST SAY I WILL SUPPORT THE COUNCIL MEMBER WITH THIS AMENDMENT.

I DO APPLAUD COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN FOR FOR BRINGING FORWARD WHAT SHE BELIEVED TO BE RIGHT.

I, I JUST I'M NOT. THE HEIGHT IS SOMETHING THAT REALLY ALWAYS STICKS WITH ME WHEN IT COMES TO THESE CASES.

I, I SEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING DEVELOPMENT TO AN AREA.

I THINK YOU KNOW, I, I SIT RIGHT NEXT TO, TO BRAND NEW SUBDIVISIONS, BOTH THAT HAVE THREE STORY DWELLINGS THAT DON'T EXIST ANYWHERE ELSE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS SEEMS TO WORK PRETTY WELL HERE QUITE FRANKLY.

SO I APPRECIATE THE EXAMPLES YOUR TIME, SIR. SORRY.

I KNOW YOU CAN'T SEE IT, BUT THAT WAS YOUR TIME.

OKAY, I'M GOING TO RAISE MY HAND AGAIN, THOUGH. OKAY. I'M PROBABLY GOING TO COME RIGHT BACK TO YOU IN JUST A MINUTE. MISS MIDDLETON, FOR THREE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT. THANK YOU.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT KIND OF PRECEDENT IT SETS TO ALLOW A THREE STORY BUILDING IN THIS AREA? I WOULD SAY THAT IT DOES NOT THAT EACH ZONING CASE IS CONSIDERED ON ITS OWN MERITS.

WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CONTEXT AND FORWARD DALLAS AND THE OTHER FACTORS WE CONSIDER, AND WE WOULD LOOK AT IT INDIVIDUALLY, SIDE BY SIDE.

BUT YOU ALREADY THINK THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT FITS THE FOUR DALLAS PLAN, CORRECT? WE DO. YES. SO I WOULD COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THAT.

AND I WOULD ALSO DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THE PRECEDENT BECAUSE EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS WE'LL HAVE A NEW SET OF PEOPLE THAT WILL COME AND EMAIL US AND SIT IN MEETINGS, MEETING AFTER MEETING, GO TO COMMUNITY MEETINGS, AND THEY WILL TRY TO FIGHT THE THREE STORY ISSUE.

AND THEY'LL SAY, BUT LOOK, YOU DID IT HERE, THEREFORE IT MUST BE OKAY.

THE WORLD DIDN'T END. SEE? AND THE WORLD WON'T END, BUT IT WILL BE DIFFERENT.

AND IT'S NOT THE KIND OF DIFFERENT THAT THEY EVER SIGNED UP FOR.

IT'S NOT WHAT WAS PASSED IN FORWARD DALLAS. IT'S NOT WHAT WAS ENVISIONED FOR THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN IT WAS BUILT.

SO I THINK THERE'S A BIG PRECEDENT SETTING SUDDENLY WHEN THEY'RE DOING COMPS ON THEIR HOME, WHICH THEY HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THE IMPACT ON THEIR HOME VALUES, THESE ARE GOING TO BE VERY EXPENSIVE HOMES, BUT THOSE HOMES WILL BE PART OF THAT COMP IN THAT AREA.

AND IT'S A VERY, VERY DIFFERENT PRODUCT. I AGREE, I DON'T I DIDN'T HEAR THE APPLICANT THREATEN TO NOT BUILD ANYTHING.

I DID HEAR THAT MAYBE IT WOULD BE MULTIFAMILY.

SO THAT'S ALWAYS SORT OF A REFLEX. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BAZALDUA WAS ASKING A GOOD QUESTION. I'M NOT SURE HE ACTUALLY GOT THE ANSWER FROM THE APPLICANT.

AND THE QUESTION, I BELIEVE, WAS, WHAT'S THE CONSEQUENCE OF GOING TO THE TWO STORIES FOR THOSE 12 HOMES? SO IF MR. KINGSTON'S AVAILABLE, I MEAN, IS IT CORRECT TO SAY THAT.

WELL, IF IT WAS LIMITED TO THE 30FT. AND SO YOU HAD TO BUILD THEM AT TWO STORIES, AND YOU'VE GOT THOSE 12 UNITS THAT YOU'VE CONSIDERED SO FAR.

WOULDN'T YOU JUST MAKE A BIGGER FOOTPRINT AND MAYBE INSTEAD OF 12, YOU WOULD THEN FILL IN, FILL IN THE NUMBER. HOW MANY UNITS WOULD THAT BE? WOULD THAT THEN BE EIGHT? WOULD THAT BE SIX? I MEAN, LIKE, WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE TO DO TO FILL THAT SPACE? NOT HAVING LAID IT OUT, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT IT WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY FEWER UNITS TOTAL.

SO INSTEAD OF 12 WOULD IT BE EIGHT? THAT'S THE PART I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT ANSWER TO.

IT WOULDN'T BE. IT WOULDN'T BE 11. IT WOULDN'T BE TEN.

IT WOULD BE SOMEWHAT LESS THAN THAT. SO IT WOULDN'T BE TEN.

WOULD IT BE NINE? I MEAN, LIKE, ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT? YEAH, THAT'S AN UNFAIR QUESTION. OKAY. WELL THEN I'M GOING TO ASSUME IT'S GOING TO BE NINE BECAUSE YOU'RE YOU'RE A SMART GUY AND YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO SAY NINE, BUT YOU ARE WILLING TO SAY IT WOULDN'T BE TEN. SO TO GIVE UP THREE UNITS FOR THEM TO HAVE THE THE TWO STORIES THAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM HAS ASKED FOR. I THINK THAT'S REASONABLE.

AND AGAIN, THREE UNITS NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MR. BAZALDUA, I THINK YOU'RE BACK UP FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU MAYOR. SO I GUESS WHERE WHERE I STRUGGLE IS THAT WE ARE DEBATING OVER SIX FEET. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S DESIRE OF THE COMMUNITY TO NOT SEE AN OVER

[05:00:07]

OVERLY DENSE DEVELOPMENT. AND I THINK THAT A LOT OF THOSE ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED HERE.

I, I DO UNDERSTAND THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ABOUT LISTENING TO THE COMMUNITY AND.

AND HEARING. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE. WE CAN'T IGNORE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS ARGUMENT AS WELL.

AND SO WHENEVER IT'S PRESENTED, AS, YOU KNOW, WE, WE.

SURE, THERE'S BEEN A MAJORITY, BUT BUT I'M NOT I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S EVER.

IT'S EVER BENEFICIAL TO US TO MINIMIZE THE VOICES THAT WE HAVE HEARD THAT ARE IN, IN, IN SUPPORT.

I HAVE HEARD FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE IN SUPPORT. IT MAY HAVE BEEN MORE ORGANIZED ON THE OPPOSITION SIDE, BUT WITH THAT SAID IS SIX FEET REALLY THE MAKE OR BREAK I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

I JUST, I'M, I'M REALLY NOT UNDERSTANDING THE EXAMPLES THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN ABOUT IT.

TOWERING OVER THE SITE PLAN DOESN'T SHOW ME THAT THERE WOULD BE THE, THAT OPPORTUNITY WHERE THESE LOTS ARE SITTING FOR THEM TO BE TOWERING OVER ANYONE'S SINGLE FAMILY HOME. AND, THIS IS THE NEW PRODUCT THAT WE'RE GETTING.

IN, IN NEW SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENTS, WE'RE GOING TO SEE LOT SIZES BE MAXED OUT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

AND A LOT OF THE BUILDING IS GOING TO BE GOING UP.

I KNOW THAT WE JUST INCREASED OUR AREA PLAN AND ALL OF SOUTH DALLAS FROM WHAT IS, WHAT WAS A 36 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION TO BEING MUCH MORE THOUGHTFUL AND GRANULAR, SPECIFICALLY WHEN IT COMES TO ALONG THE MAIN CORRIDOR.

SO EVEN IN THE PHILOSOPHY THAT WE HAVE USED IN MY DISTRICT AND WITH ZONING CHANGES IN AREA PLANS, THIS SEEMS TO STILL FIT THAT THE SITE AFFORDS ITSELF TO ONE SIDE THAT'S ALONG A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, AND THE OTHER PORTIONS THAT ARE MORE INTO THE RESIDENTIAL.

AND BECAUSE OF THOSE CONCESSIONS AND BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS TO BE THOUGHTFUL AND IT'S ONLY A PORTION OF THAT, I, I THINK THAT THIS IS A, A OVERALL WIN. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE UPSET NEIGHBORS.

I AM ALSO ONE THAT BELIEVES THAT A ZONING CHANGE, SUCCESSFUL ZONING CHANGE IS ALMOST GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE UPSET ON BOTH SIDES.

IF WE HAVE SUCCESSFULLY FOUND SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE, IT CAN'T BE A ZERO SUM OF WHAT WE HEAR.

THE ADVOCATES OF A NEIGHBORHOOD SAYING THAT IT HAS TO BE, AND WE CAN'T GIVE THE DEVELOPERS EVERYTHING THAT THEY WANT IN THE KITCHEN SINK.

SO I AM RIGHT NOW TRYING TO REALLY UNDERSTAND THE OPPOSITION AND I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH IT.

THANK YOU. YOUR TIME. ALL RIGHT. MISS MENDELSOHN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. SO I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO HOW MUCH COMMUNITY INPUT WE HAVE HEARD.

OF THE REQUIRED CARDS, 89% OF THEM ARE OPPOSED.

THAT'S NOT JUST A LITTLE BIT OF A MAJORITY. THAT'S A BIG NUMBER OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE JUST WRITTEN INTO US.

IT'S HIGHER THAN THAT. SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT IT'S SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE.

AND SO I CAN I CAN BOTH SIDES. IT THERE'S A VERY DISTINCT MESSAGE.

AND THE THING THAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IS WE ARE RADICALIZING, RADICALIZING OUR OWN RESIDENTS AGAINST US.

DO YOU NOT REALIZE HOW FRUSTRATED PEOPLE ARE ABOUT BEING IGNORED, THAT THEY'RE NOT SITTING THERE SAYING, YOU KNOW WHAT, I HAVE TO BE INVOLVED IN THE POLITICS OF THIS CITY WAY BEYOND MY DISTRICT BECAUSE I CAN'T GET ANYTHING.

I CAN'T EVEN BE HEARD. THAT'S ALL I'M GOING TO SAY.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT BY CHAIRWOMAN WILLIS? SEEING NONE, MR. MAYOR. JUST FOR A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

YES. COULD WE RESTATE WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON WITH ALL THIS DISCUSSION QUICKLY, I'LL MAKE IT SUPER FAST FOR YOU.

SO WHAT? WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU THAT SAYS MOTION FOR THE FOR COUNCILWOMAN MENDELSOHN CARA MENDELSOHN.

THAT MOTION HAS THREE BULLET POINTS. IT'S JUST THIS AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT WOULD JUST LEAVE YOU WITH THE LAST TWO.

THE LAST TWO WOULD BE THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD BE REMAINING.

SHE WOULD. SHE'S STRIKING THE FIRST BULLET POINT AND THE TWO SUB BULLET POINTS UNDERNEATH IT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO PRELIMINARY. SO A VOTE YES REMOVES THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION.

A YES VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS WOULD LEAVE ONLY THE LAST TWO.

AND STRIKE EVERYTHING THAT'S UNDER THAT FIRST BULLET POINT THAT SAYS FOR ALL STRUCTURES MAXIMUM HEIGHT 30FT, MAXIMUM STOREYS. RECORD VOTE HAS BEEN REQUESTED. MADAM SECRETARY, GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE SAY YES IF

[05:05:01]

YOU'RE IN FAVOR. NO. IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCILMEMBER WEST.

YES. COUNCILMEMBER MORENO. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

GRACEY. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BAZALDUA. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLAIR. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BLACKMON. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. STEWART. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

ROTH. NO. AMERICAN AIRLINES. COUNCIL MEMBER. MENDELSOHN.

NO LARGER THAN THE OVERHEAD COMPARTMENT. SMALL LIGHTWEIGHT ITEMS WITH.

COUNCIL MEMBER. WILLIS. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. RIDLEY.

YES. DEPUTY MAYOR. PRO TEM. JOHNSON. YES. MAYOR.

PRO TEM. RESENDEZ. YES. MAYOR. JOHNSON. YES. WITH TEN VOTING IN FAVOR, FIVE OPPOSED. THE MOTION PASSES, MR. MAYOR. OKAY. WE'RE ON THE AMENDMENT BY MISS MENDELSOHN AS IT'S BEEN AMENDED.

WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON, FOR OR AGAINST THE AMENDMENT BY MISS MENDELSOHN? MISS BLACKMON, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

OKAY. AND JUST FOR BELTS AND SUSPENDERS, THESE NUMBERS THAT'S IN THIS WILL TAKE THE PLACE THAT'S IN THE ORDINANCE.

OKAY. JUST TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A IT SAYS 0.35 ON THE PARKING.

IS THAT NOW JUST GOING TO BE A STATEMENT THAT SAYS IT'S A MINIMUM OF 19, OR IS IT GOING TO BE A MINIMUM OF 19 PLUS THE THREE POINT OR 3.5, WHICHEVER IS GREATER? WE WILL PROBABLY IT WILL PROBABLY NEED TO REFLECT WHAT THE NUMBER THEY'RE SAYING THEY'RE COMMITTING TO IS.

SO IF IT WAS 19, THE ORDINANCE WILL SAY 19 SPACES MUST BE PROVIDED.

WELL, THAT'S WHAT THIS IS GOING TO SAY. BUT IT SAYS IN THIS ORDINANCE ON 13 IT SAYS A MINIMUM OF 0.35.

I'M JUST MAKING SURE THAT THEY WILL GET THE THE THE MAXIMUM THE MAXIMUM IT WILL REPLACE THAT.

YES. AND THEN THE 16.8 ON PAGE 14 WILL REPLACE THE 15%.

CORRECT. OKAY. JUST MAKING SURE YOU GOT IT. THANK YOU FOR GETTING THAT ON THE RECORD.

MR. ROTH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

AMENDMENT BY MISS MENDELSOHN. THE AMENDED MOTION DOES NOT INCLUDE THE 30FT AND THE MAXIMUM TWO STORIES.

AND I THINK THAT'S A HUGE, HUGE MISTAKE TO TO ELIMINATE THOSE TWO THINGS.

AND I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THAT AMENDMENT WITH.

IF IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE 30FT AND THE TWO STORY LIMITATION.

THIS IS THIS IS ABSOLUTELY SURPRISING TO ME THAT WE ARE NOT LISTENING TO THE NEIGHBORS.

THE NEIGHBORS HAVE PRIORITY. WHEN SOMEBODY COMES AND ASKS FOR A FAVOR, IT.

AND THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATING, TALKING, COMMUNICATING PROPERLY.

THE THE PRIORITY LIES WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE CAN'T GET OVER THIS.

THE DEVELOPER, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THEY'RE ENTITLED TO MAKE MONEY, THEY'RE ENTITLED TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT, BUT THEY HAVE GOT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THAT PROPERTY WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN MIND.

AND, AND TO ME, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S NOT, IT'S, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW A, A SMART, THOUGHTFUL DEVELOPMENT CAN'T ACCOMMODATE THIS KIND OF A REQUEST.

AND IF, IF THE DEAL DOESN'T WORK, THEN SOME OTHER DEAL WILL WORK THERE.

AND I THINK THAT THAT THE COMPROMISE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS MADE, THE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR I THINK THIS HAS BEEN ALMOST A YEAR SINCE WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS, AND IT'S BEEN AND IT STARTED OUT AS A HUGE NUMBER OF, OF, OF HOUSE OF, OF BUILDINGS. NOW WE'RE DOWN TO THIS. THERE'S BEEN TO ME, THERE'S SOMETHING MISSING HERE IN THAT THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE BEGINNING AND THE END DOESN'T SHOW TO ME THAT THERE'S BEEN THOUGHTFUL ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THIS SITUATION.

AND, AND IF, IF YOU CAN'T DO A TWO STORY BUILDING BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT A GARAGE DOWNSTAIRS OR YOU'VE GOT TWO LITTLE LOTS, YOU GOT TO FIGURE IT OUT AND YOU GOT TO MAKE IT WORK.

AND IT'S TO YOUR BENEFIT. IT'S TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S BENEFIT.

IT'S TO THE CITY'S BENEFIT. HELP US GET THIS THING OVER THE OVER THE GOAL LINE.

THIS IS IN YOUR IT'S IN YOUR YOUR PURVIEW. YOU CAN DO IT.

YOU NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO IT. PLEASE HELP THE NEIGHBORHOOD MAKE IT HAPPEN.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE VOTE AGAINST THIS, THIS MOTION, AND I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THE OTHER MOTION.

[05:10:01]

IF IF IT'S WHEN IT COMES UP, IF WE DO NOT HAVE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT ON THIS SITUATION.

THANK YOU, MISS MENDELSOHN. YOU RECOGNIZE FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. WONDERING IF THE APPLICANT CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

GIVEN HOW CLOSE THE HOUSES ARE AND THE DRIVEWAYS, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT HOW MANY CURB SPOTS ARE AVAILABLE BEYOND THIS GUEST PARKING? I SUSPECT NO ONE WILL WANT TO PARK ON THE CURB IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THERE.

IT'S GOING TO BE TWO. I THINK YOU'LL BE BLOCKING SOMEBODY'S DRIVEWAY.

OKAY, SO IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO PARK ON THE CURB, WHICH IS WHY THERE'S SO MANY WHY THIS GUEST PARKING IS SO ESSENTIAL.

WOULD YOU AGREE? I DEFINITELY AGREE WITH THAT.

YES. OKAY. SEE, WE AGREE ON SOMETHING. SO I, I WOULD ENCOURAGE COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH, I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS AMENDMENT BECAUSE AT LEAST IT IS GIVING THEM THAT PARKING AND THEN I WILL VOTE NO ON THE UNDERLYING MOTION.

BUT GIVEN THAT THERE WERE TEN PEOPLE THAT VOTED TO TAKE AWAY THAT MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 30FT, IT'S POSSIBLE THIS WHOLE THING PASSES AND AT LEAST THIS WILL IMPROVE THE SITUATION.

SO IN AN EFFORT NOT TO CUT OFF MY NOSE DESPITE MY FACE, I'M GOING TO VOTE YES FOR THIS AMENDMENT.

SO AT LEAST THEY HAVE SOME GUEST PARKING THAT WILL IMPROVE IT FOR NOT THESE FOLKS, BUT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WILL ACTUALLY LIVE THERE.

THE THE, THE OPEN SPACE, I THINK IS RELATIVELY UNCHANGED BY, I GUESS 1%.

IT'S A DIFFERENCE. BUT THE UNDERLYING MOTION I WILL DEFINITELY NOT BE SUPPORTING BECAUSE WE HAVE IGNORED THE NUMBER ONE REQUEST OF EXISTING RESIDENTS, WHICH IS THE TWO STORY, THREE STORY QUESTION.

SO THANK YOU. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO ONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON, FOR OR AGAINST THE AMENDMENT BY MISS MENDELSOHN BEFORE WE HAVE A RECORD VOTE. SEEING NONE, MADAM SECRETARY, GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE SAY YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

NO. IF YOU'RE OPPOSED. COUNCIL MEMBER WEST. COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

YES. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER. MORENO. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

GRACEY. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BAZALDUA. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLAIR. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BLACKMON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. STEWART. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

ROTH. OKAY. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. MENDELSOHN. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. WILLIS. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. RIDLEY.

YES. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON. YES, MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ.

YES. MAYOR JOHNSON YES. WITH 14 VOTING IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED.

THE MOTION PASSES, MR. MAYOR. OKAY. WE'RE NOW IN THE ORIGINAL MOTION BY CHAIRWOMAN WILLIS, AS AMENDED BY MISS MENDELSOHN. ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK? I SEE, MR. BAZALDUA. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR, I JUST WANTED TO GET SOME UNDERSTANDING ON THE A COUPLE OF THE BULLET POINTS.

IF IF MISS WILLIS IS WILLING TO ANSWER, MAY I ADDRESS HER? MAYOR? ABSOLUTELY. THE FIRST BULLET POINT SAYS ANIMAL PRODUCTION, COMMERCIAL STABLE AND PRIVATE.

STABLE. MAIN USES ARE PERMITTED BY PERMITTED BY.

RIGHT. WHAT IS THE INTENT HERE? THAT IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT.

AND I'M GOING TO LET AN ATTORNEY EXPLAIN THAT.

CITY ATTORNEY. MR. MAYOR, THAT REQUIREMENT COMES FROM, I BELIEVE IT'S HB 1750.

IT'S FROM THE AGRICULTURAL CODE. WE CANNOT PREVENT THAT.

AND YOU'LL SEE IT LATER TODAY TOO. AND SO THIS IS JUST SHORING UP THE NEW LEGISLATION TO MAKE SURE IT'S IT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT.

THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. AND THEN IT ALSO TO MISS WILLIS ON THE SIDEWALKS, NOT REQUIRED ON BETTY JANE LANE. CAN CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT TO ME? I THINK IT'S TOO LATE.

YEAH. YES. THAT ACTUALLY HAS TO DO WITH THE BAR DITCHES, BUT GO AHEAD AND EXPLAIN THAT FURTHER.

YEAH, THAT THAT'S CORRECT. YES. THERE ARE BAR DITCHES EXISTING THERE AND WITH CONVERSATIONS WITH TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS, IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO INSTALL SIDEWALKS IN THAT LOCATION BASED ON THE CONDITIONS AS THEY EXIST TODAY.

OKAY. WELL, I DON'T I DON'T LOVE THAT PART. I WILL TELL YOU, THAT'S THE ONE THING THAT STICKS OUT TO ME.

[05:15:03]

IT'S NOT ENOUGH FOR ME TO, TO, TO NOT SUPPORT THIS.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US LEVERAGE OUR PRIVATE SECTOR AND DEVELOPERS AS MUCH AS WE CAN TO IMPROVE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND ALTHOUGH THERE ARE DITCHES THERE, THERE COULD BE A GOOD DRAINAGE SYSTEM THAT'S BUILT IN UNDERNEATH A SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION THAT WE KNOW THE CITY CAN'T AFFORD AND IS NOT GOING TO BE PUTTING THERE. SO I JUST WANTED TO GET CLARITY ON THAT.

I, I DO WISH THAT WE WOULD BE MORE INTENTIONAL OF LEVERAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO HELP WITH OUR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.

AND I KNOW THIS AREA ALREADY LACKS SIDEWALKS, SO THAT'S NOT ENOUGH FOR ME TO, TO GO AGAINST THIS, BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD START, YOU KNOW, ENCOURAGING SIDEWALK INFRASTRUCTURE IN ALL PARTS OF OUR CITY.

THANK YOU. MADAM SECRETARY, I SEE. I DON'T THINK MISS MIDDLETON HAS SPOKEN ON THE UNDERLYING MOTION.

SO YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES, MISS MENDELSOHN. THANK YOU.

I'M GOING TO BE VOTING NO. AND JUST TO BE VERY CLEAR, A NO VOTE IS TO STAY WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND SAY THREE STORIES IS INAPPROPRIATE IN THIS AREA. AND SO THAT IS WHY I'LL BE VOTING NO. I THINK I'VE GONE THROUGH MY REASONS IN TALKING.

AND ACTUALLY, I THINK I'M PROBABLY THREE MINUTES BECAUSE I THINK I DID GO THROUGH THE FOUR DALLAS ITEMS ON HOW IT DIDN'T FIT.

PERHAPS I WAS WITH MY OWN AMENDMENT. HE'S CONFIRMING IT WAS I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT IT AGAIN.

I THINK I'VE TALKED ABOUT IT WITH SEVERAL OF THESE AMENDMENTS, BUT I HOPE THAT ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL PAUSE FOR A MOMENT AND QUESTION WHETHER THEY JUST FOLLOW THE LEAD OF THE COUNCIL MEMBER WHOSE DISTRICT IT IS.

OR DO THEY ACTUALLY LISTEN TO WHAT THE RESIDENTS ARE TELLING YOU? I WILL SAY FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO SAY, I'M GOING TO TAKE THE LEAD OF THE COUNCIL MEMBER WHO'S THERE? YOU DON'T DO THAT UNIFORMLY. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN RIDLEY.

RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. QUESTION FOR STAFF.

SO WHAT? LOTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT ARE REFERENCED AT THE THIRD BULLET SUB BULLET TWO REFERENCING MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 30FT FOR LOTS ADJACENT TO LOT THREE AND CITY BLOCK C OVER 6224.

SO THE LIMITATION. IS INTENDED TO. APPLY TO ALL THE LOTS EXCEPT THE ONES IN THE CORNER, WHICH WOULD BE LIMITED TO 36FT.

SO. OR WOULD BE ALLOWED 36FT. OKAY, THE MOTION I DON'T HAVE IN FRONT OF ME, BUT IT'S INTENDED TO REFERENCE THE LOTS ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY. SO WHERE IS LOT THREE IN THE CITY BLOCK REFERENCED? LOT THREE IS ON THE NORTHERN. THAT'S THE CHURCH.

YES, SIR. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON. MARTIN BATES, SENIOR PROJECT COORDINATOR, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT. THE LOT THREE, BLOCK C THAT WAS OVER THERE. THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE PULLED OUT THROUGH DCAD, THE DCAD RECORDS FOR THE CHURCH LOT TO THE WEST.

SO THIS PART OF THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, THAT'S WHAT DCAD HAS DESIGNATED AS BASED ON WHAT THE APPLICANT HAD PROPOSED IN ORDER TO LIMIT THE HEIGHT ON THOSE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST.

THEY HAD ORIGINALLY USED THE LANGUAGE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE. HOWEVER, JUST GIVEN THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT. OKAY, SO IT APPLIES TO ALL OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPED SITES EXCEPT THOSE IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER.

YES, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. ROTH, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. AGAIN, I WANT TO COMPLIMENT MY COLLEAGUE, COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS, FOR ALL OF HER EFFORTS IN TRYING TO GET THESE FOLKS TOGETHER. I AM GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS MOTION.

I THINK THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS TO BE LISTENED TO.

I THINK THEY NEED TO BE ACCOMMODATED. AND I THINK THAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE NOT UNREASONABLE.

I WOULD I WOULD STRONGLY ASK THAT THE THAT THE DEVELOPER TRY TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MAKE THIS PROPERTY WORK WITHOUT WITHOUT FORCING THE ISSUE ON THE HIGHER LIMIT.

AND IF IF THIS MOTION IS DENIED THAT THEY TRY TO COME BACK WITH A, WITH A PROPOSAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THAT WOULD ALLOW TO THE ACCOMMODATION TO WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING.

[05:20:02]

AND AGAIN, THIS IS THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS IMPOSING UNREASONABLY.

I DON'T THINK IT'S UNFAIR. I DON'T THINK I THINK IT'S BEEN A SENSITIVE, SERIOUS MESSAGE AND NEED.

THESE ARE THE FOLKS THAT LIVE NEXT DOOR TO THIS THING.

THIS THESE ARE THE FOLKS THAT HAVE GOT STABLE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT, THAT THEY THINK REQUIRES THE HARMONY AND UNIFORMITY OF, OF THE DEVELOPMENTS AROUND THEM.

AND I RESPECT THAT. AND I THINK THAT THAT'S REAL IMPORTANT.

AND I THINK A STRONG NEIGHBORHOOD IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD PROMOTE THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

I THINK STRONG NEIGHBORHOODS MAKE A STRONG CITY, AND I THINK IF WE DENY THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT RESPECT AND THAT ACCOMMODATION, THAT WE'RE DOING A DISSERVICE TO OUR CITY GENERALLY I CERTAINLY RESPECT THE DEVELOPERS ATTEMPTS TO TRY TO, TO HELP OUT HERE AND TO DO IT. BUT I THINK THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD GET PREFERENCE.

THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN GRACEY RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. AND I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES AND AND, AND THE RESIDENTS FOR BEING HERE AND APPRECIATING THE CIVIC ENGAGEMENT.

AND I SINCERELY HOPE THAT YOU ALL DO NOT FEEL THAT YOU WEREN'T HEARD IN THIS.

AND I THINK I'VE HEARD SOME OF YOU MENTION THE FACT THAT COUNCILWOMAN HAS HAS BEEN HAVING MEETINGS AND LISTENING TO YOU ALL.

WE'RE LISTENING, ASKING QUESTIONS AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE CAN UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF THIS TOO.

SO I JUST WANT TO JUST GO ON RECORD JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ALL UNDERSTAND OUR SUPPORT IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NOT LISTENING TO YOU ALL.

YOU HAVE BEEN HEARD IN THIS. I SEE YOUR FACE.

YOU HAVE BEEN HEARD. BUT SOMETIMES WE ALSO HAVE AN.

THE THE ABILITY TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ADDRESSING OUR HOUSING NEEDS.

WE JUST SPENT, YOU KNOW, TIME IN HOUSING COMMITTEE AND THIS IS BRINGING HOUSING TO THE COMMUNITY.

AND IT MAY NOT ALWAYS FIT. BUT I THINK THROUGH I THINK THEY SAID, THIS IS THE 26TH.

SO THIS IS THE 26TH RENDERING PLUS SOME AMENDMENTS TO TRY TO GET US TO WHAT COULD WORK HERE.

SO I WANT YOU ALL NOT TO WALK AWAY FEELING LIKE THIS WAS A LOSS, BUT THIS WAS GOVERNMENT IN, YOU KNOW, IN, IN ACTION, TRYING TO HEAR AND COMPROMISE AND GET TO A SOLUTION THAT COULD WORK ACROSS THE BOARD.

AND IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THE DEVELOPER COMING IN AND SAYING, HEY, WE WANT TO PUT THIS HERE.

IT'S HOW DOES THIS FIT INTO THE COMMUNITY? AND WHAT ARE YOU BRINGING TO MAKE SURE IT RESPECTS AND REFLECTS THE CHARACTER OF THAT COMMUNITY.

SO AGAIN, I JUST HAVE TO GO ON RECORD. I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF EFFORT ON ALL PARTS TO, TO FIND A RESOLUTION HERE. SO AGAIN, JUST THANK YOU FOR THAT AND THANK YOU FOR GETTING US TO THIS POINT.

THANK YOU. MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO REQUEST A RECORD VOTE, PLEASE.

DULY NOTED. MR. BAZALDUA RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR, I WOULD JUST WANT TO ECHO THAT SENTIMENT AND JUST CLARIFY.

THERE WAS A COMMENT THAT WAS MADE THAT THAT THAT WE ARE BLINDLY OR THAT SOME OF US ARE BLINDLY SUPPORTING THE COUNCIL MEMBER.

IT'S NOT THE CASE FOR ME. THESE ARE THESE ARE CASES THAT ARE VERY INTRICATE.

AND WE HAVE TO DIG INTO THEM AND WE HAVE TO HAVE OUR OWN VOICE.

WE HAVE TO USE REFERENCE TO CASES IN OUR OWN DISTRICTS.

I HAVE, I HAVE HEARD FROM THE THE RESIDENTS AS WELL.

I'VE HEARD RESIDENTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE, AS I'VE MENTIONED.

I ALSO KNOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE ITERATIONS.

I'VE SPOKEN WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABOUT CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.

WE'VE MET WITH THE GROUP. DUE DILIGENCE IS DONE.

AND I BELIEVE REAL DUE DILIGENCE IN THE WORK THAT WE DO HAS TO GO BEYOND JUST TRYING TO LISTEN TO THE LOUDEST VOICES IN THE ROOM.

AND THAT'S THE REALITY. WE ARE, WE CONTINUE TO MAKE REFERENCE ON THIS HORSESHOE TO COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE.

AND WE, AND WE ARE ATTRIBUTING IT TO AN AYE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.

AND I THINK THAT THAT'S UNFAIR. I THINK IT'S VERY DISINGENUOUS, MR. MAYOR, TO HAVE THIS CHARACTERIZED AS IF IT'S A CLEAR CONSENSUS AND THAT IT'S UNANIMOUS.

IF IT'S NOT UNANIMOUS, YOU CANNOT BLANKET THAT THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T WANT IT.

IF I HAVE IN MY INBOX EMAILS FROM NEIGHBORS OF YOURS THAT WE'VE HEARD IN OPPOSITION THAT IS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS, THEN WE CAN'T MAKE STATEMENTS THAT THIS IS GOING AGAINST THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.

AND SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT IS NOT WHAT THE INTENT IS HERE.

I BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS CONCESSIONS MADE. I THINK THAT THERE WAS DUE DILIGENCE MADE.

I THINK THIS IS A VERY THOUGHTFUL PLAN. AND I DO WANT TO SAY THAT, THAT THIS IS THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE FIEFDOM.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH GOING AGAINST ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES. AND I THINK EVERYONE HERE KNOWS THAT. SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS AND WANTED TO CLEAR THE RECORD FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE THERE. AND I DO WANT TO ALSO SAY THANK YOU FOR STAYING CIVICALLY ENGAGED.

[05:25:04]

THE ONLY REASON WE'RE SPENDING TWO HOURS DEBATING THIS, OR HAVING ANY ISSUE ON WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GOING TO SUPPORT IT OR NOT, IS BECAUSE OF Y'ALL'S ADVOCACY AND BECAUSE YOU HAVE FORCED US TO DO MORE DUE DILIGENCE THAN THAN THE AVERAGE ZONING CASE IN THIS REGARD.

SO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR VOICES. BUT I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION BY CHAIRWOMAN WILLIS? SEEING NONE. RECORD REQUEST. MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE SAY YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR. NO. IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. MORENO. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

GRACEY. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BAZALDUA. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLAIR. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BLACKMON. COUNCIL MEMBER. STEWART. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

ROTH. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. MENDELSOHN. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

WILLIS. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. RIDLEY. YES. DEPUTY MAYOR.

PRO TEM. JOHNSON. DEPUTY MAYOR. DEPUTY MAYOR.

PRO TEM JOHNSON. I'LL COME BACK. MAYOR PRO TEM.

YES. THANK YOU, MAYOR JOHNSON? YES. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON.

I'M SORRY. WAIT TO SEE YOUR VIDEO. AND WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE WORDS.

OKAY. I AM GOING TO. OKAY. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON.

YEAH, WE CAN HEAR YOU. YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU AND YOUR VOTE.

OKAY. OKAY. IT'S ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN.

WITH NINE VOTING IN FAVOR, FIVE OPPOSED. ONE ABSENT VOTE TAKEN.

THE MOTION PASSES, MR. MAYOR. OKAY, HOLD ON ONE SECOND.

TALK. AGENDA REAL QUICK. HOLD ON.

ALL THOSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET INVOLVED IN EVERY RACE NOW.

[PH1. 26-2921A A public hearing to receive comments regarding a proposal to change the name of North Harwood Street, between Woodall Rodgers Freeway and Harry Hines Boulevard, to “Exchange Place” and an ordinance granting the name change - STNAME-26-000006 - Financing: This action has no cost consideration to the City (see Fiscal Information for potential future costs) *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

BEFORE WE MOVE TO YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA, WE HAVE ONE MORE ITEM.

WE'LL GO TO YOUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING ITEM, PH ONE.

PH ONE IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS REGARDING A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE NAME OF NORTH HARWOOD STREET BETWEEN WOODALL RODGERS FREEWAY AND HARRY HINES BOULEVARD TO EXCHANGE PLACE AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING THE NAME CHANGE.

ALL RIGHT, MR. MAYOR. WE SENT 115 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS ABUTTING THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED ONE REPLY IN FAVOR AND ONE REPLY IN OPPOSITION.

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 FF ONE? NO SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES, MAYOR. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE STREET NAME CHANGE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, WITH THE WAIVER OF THE FOLLOWING STANDARD. SECTION 51 AYE DASH 9.304 C ONE, WHICH PROVIDES THAT A HISTORIC STREET NAME MAY NOT BE CHANGED.

IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

ANY DISCUSSION? CHAIR MORENO NOT AT THIS TIME A DISCUSSION ANYONE.

RIDLEY RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. I CANNOT SUPPORT.

I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS MOTION. THIS IS AN HISTORIC STREET NAME THAT HAS BEEN IN DALLAS FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS. IN FACT, SINCE 1872, THIS IS NAMED AFTER ALEXANDER HARWOOD, AN EARLY DALLAS CIVIC LEADER AND COUNTY OFFICIAL. I THINK IT'S CRITICAL THAT WE MAINTAIN A SENSE OF HISTORY WHEN WE HAVE A NAME FOR A STREET THAT HAS BEEN ON OUR STREET ROSTER, OUR THOROUGHFARE PLAN FOR OVER 150 YEARS.

[05:30:10]

WE SHOULD PAY A LOT OF RESPECT TO THAT. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WILL DISRUPT ADJACENT LANDOWNERS WHO HAVE ADDRESSES ON HARWOOD. WE'LL HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR LETTERHEAD, ALL OF THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION.

AND INDEED, THAT WAS THE BASIS FOR THE OPPOSITION THAT WAS RETURNED FROM GRANITE PROPERTIES, STATING HARWOOD BOUNDS THE SOUTH SIDE OF OUR BUILDING AND IS THE ENTRY TO OUR PARKING STRUCTURE.

THIS WILL LEAD TO CONFUSION FOR OUR VISITORS AND WILL NECESSITATE UPDATING OUR SIGNAGE, WEBSITE AND OTHER EXPENSES.

I COULD SUPPORT SIGN TOPPERS IN LIEU OF A NAME CHANGE FOR THE STREET, BUT I JUST DON'T SEE THE JUSTIFICATION, PARTICULARLY WHERE WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT THIS COUNCIL PASSED THAT SAYS IT PROHIBITS CHANGES TO HISTORIC STREET NAMES UNLESS THERE IS A SUPERMAJORITY SUPPORTED WAIVER.

I JUST CAN'T SUPPORT THAT WAIVER. MR. ROTH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY'S FOR POSITION AND THE ELOQUENCE OF HIS.

HIS ARGUMENT. I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY THE RIGHT APPROACH.

I LOVE THE IDEA OF MAINTAINING THE HISTORIC NAME OF THE OF THE STREET, BUT I LIKE THE THE SUGGESTION OF POTENTIALLY HAVING A SOME KIND OF A SIGN TOPPER, WHICH WOULD ACTUALLY ALLOW THE, THE DISTRICT TO, TO OBTAIN SOME KIND OF A, A, A DESIGNATED IDENTITY. BUT I THINK THAT HE'S COME UP WITH A GREAT COMPROMISE.

AND, AND IF THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING I WOULD SUPPORT SOMETHING LIKE A SIGN TOPPER ON TOP OF THE THE MAIN SIGN.

THANK YOU. MISS MENDELSOHN RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I'VE ACTUALLY NEVER REALLY BEEN INTO HISTORIC PRESERVATION, BUT LATELY SEEMED TO BE ALL ABOUT IT.

AND I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT HARWOOD ISN'T JUST A NAME FOR OUR CITY.

IT'S ACTUALLY THE ENTIRE DISTRICT NAME OF THAT AREA.

LIKE, PEOPLE KNOW WHERE TO GO. AND YOU SAY, OH, IT'S IN THE HARWOOD DISTRICT AND WE'VE GOT ALL THE COWS.

SO I'M NOT FOR CHANGING THIS NAME. I ALSO LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER, ROTH AND RIDLEY WOULD VERY MUCH SUPPORT SOME SORT OF SIGN TOPPER, BUT I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO, NUMBER ONE, HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR ADDRESS UNNECESSARILY FOR THERE TO BE CONFUSION ON DIRECTIONS OR NUMBER THREE, TO LOSE THAT HARWOOD NAME. AND I'M NOT WILLING TO GO THERE.

THAT'S UNNECESSARY. I THINK THIS IS WHAT MAKES DALLAS WHO WE ARE.

AND WE SEEM TO BE FORGETTING THAT. THANK YOU.

CHAIRWOMAN WILLIS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. WELL, I HEARTILY SUPPORT THIS CHANGE BECAUSE IT IS FOR A SEGMENT OF HARWOOD.

IT DOES NOT DO AWAY WITH HARWOOD AS A WHOLE. I WAS HAPPY TO JOIN YOU IN THIS MAYOR.

I THINK THE CRITICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CEREMONIAL STREET TOPPER IS THAT YOU DON'T NECESSARILY SEE THAT ON A LETTERHEAD OR ON A WEBSITE, OR IN THIS CASE, LITERALLY ON THE MAP, BECAUSE Y'ALL STREET IS ON THE MAP AND THOSE BUSINESSES THAT ARE COMPRISE OUR NEW Y'ALL STREET NEED TO BE EXCHANGE PLACE. AND I THINK THAT MAKES A BIG STATEMENT AS PEOPLE LOOK NOT JUST ACROSS THIS COUNTRY, BUT GLOBALLY AT DALLAS, TEXAS. AND THAT'S WHY MAKING THIS SEGMENT OF THE STREET EXCHANGE TO HELP IDENTIFY Y'ALL STREET, MAYBE THE TOPPERS ARE Y'ALL STREET AND THE STREET IS EXCHANGE.

BUT I, I HEARTILY SUPPORT THIS. THANK YOU. JIM MORENO, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

I THINK IT'S FIVE MAYOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU.

SO I AM EXCITED ABOUT THIS NAME CHANGE. IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY PUTTING DALLAS ON THE MAP AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT Y'ALL STREET.

AND I BELIEVE THIS IS ACTUALLY AN AREA SOUTH OF THE HARWOOD DISTRICT, NOT IN HARWOOD DISTRICT.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR. IT'S NOT AFFECTING THE HARWOOD DISTRICT ITSELF, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY GOING TO HELP IDENTIFY DALLAS AS WE TAKE THAT HUGE STEP INTO Y'ALL STREET. AND I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES WILL SUPPORT THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU. I WANT TO SAY ON THIS, I THINK THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT.

[05:35:05]

I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANIES THAT ARE RELOCATING TO THE CITY IN THAT AREA REALLY WANT.

I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THEY UNDERSTAND IS GOING TO HELP THEM MARKET THE AREA.

I THINK IT'S GOING TO HELP BRING MORE OF THOSE TYPES OF COMPANIES TO THE AREA.

AND I THINK NOT DOING SOMETHING THIS EASY AND THIS SIMPLE WOULD BE THE DEFINITION OF IRRESPONSIBLE.

THE DEFINITION OF SHORTSIGHTED AND THE DEFINITION OF PETTY, FRANKLY, IN SOME CASES.

SO YEAH, I'M GOING TO GO ON RECORD RIGHT NOW AS SAYING, IF YOU ACTUALLY WANT TO DO SOMETHING TO BENEFIT THE CITY AND ALL THAT TALK THAT WE HEAR ALL THE TIME ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO BENEFIT THE CITY. THIS IS ABOUT AS EASY OF A LIFT AS THERE IS, BUT WE ALL KNOW WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON WITH SOME FOLKS AND, AND, AND THEIR INTENT AND THEIR STATEMENTS.

SO LET THE VOTE BE WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE, BUT OWN THAT, OWN THAT VOTE.

MADAM SECRETARY. YEAH. REQUEST A RECORD VOTE, PLEASE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES, IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

NO. IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCILMEMBER WEST. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

MORENO. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. GRACEY. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BAZALDUA. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BLAIR. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLACKMON. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

STEWART. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

MENDELSOHN. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. WILLIS. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY.

NO. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON IS ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN.

MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ. YES. MAYOR JOHNSON. YES.

WITH NINE VOTING IN FAVOR, TEN OPPOSED. ONE ABSENT VOTE TAKEN.

THE ITEM FAILS, MR. MAYOR, AS IT REQUIRES. THAT'S 19 VOTES.

NINE AND TEN EQUALS 19, WITH NINE VOTING IN FAVOR.

FIVE OPPOSED, ONE ABSENTEE VOTE TAKEN. THE ITEM FAILS, MR. MAYOR, AS IT REQUIRES 12 VOTES FOR APPROVAL. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A AMENDMENT THAT WE TABLE THIS TO TWO WEEKS FROM NOW. PARLIAMENTARY.

IT'S IT'S IN ORDER TO HOLD IT UNDER ADVISEMENT FOR TWO WEEKS. IF THERE'S A SECOND PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.

STATE YOUR INQUIRY. HASN'T THE ITEM ALREADY BEEN DISPOSED BY A VOTE? HE SAYS IT CAN BE HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T GONE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. IS IT DEBATABLE? IS WHAT WE NEED TO ASK NEXT? IT IS DEBATABLE TO HOLD IT UNDER ADVISEMENT FOR TWO WEEKS.

IS THE MOTION WAS SECONDED. THAT IS A DEBATABLE MOTION.

MR. BAZALDUA, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE MOTION TO HOLD IT UNDER ADVISEMENT.

YEAH, I AM NOT REALLY SURE WHAT HOLDING UNDER ADVISEMENT FOR TWO WEEKS WOULD DO TO CHANGE THE WILL OF THIS BODY.

I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE GOOD POINTS MADE ON THIS BEING MORE APPROPRIATE FOR A STREET TOPPER.

I ALSO DON'T LOVE THAT WE HAVE BEEN PUSHING TO MARKET THIS AREA FOR TO BE BRANDED AS Y'ALL STREET AND AND THEN THE STREET NAME DOES NOT REFLECT THAT. WALL STREET, FOR INSTANCE, IS NOT A STREET TOPPER.

IT IS WALL STREET. AND AT THE ACTUAL STOCK EXCHANGE.

SO THE, THIS JUST TO ME IS PERFORMATIVE. IT IS NOT MOVING THE NEEDLE FOR OUR CITY.

AND IF IT'S AN EASY LIFT, WE SHOULD HAVE HAD AN EASY WILL TO GET THIS PASSED.

AND WE DON'T HAVE IT. SO HOLDING IT FOR TWO WEEKS, IF WE WANT TO GET ANOTHER L IN TWO WEEKS, THEN I GUESS WE'LL SEE WHERE THAT IS. BUT I WILL DEFINITELY NOT BE SUPPORTING IT NOW OR IN TWO WEEKS.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO BE ON, FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION TO HOLD UNDER ADVISEMENT FOR TWO WEEKS? SORRY.

HOLD ON ONE SECOND. WE'RE GETTING SOME CLARIFICATION ON THE TIMING.

HOLD ON. IN THE MEANTIME, CHAIR STEWART, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MAYOR JOHNSON. I THINK THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT DECISION.

I THINK A LITTLE MORE TIME TO DIGEST IT TO THINK ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS AND AND TO JUST REFLECT ON THE PURPOSE OF IT GIVES US WOULD BE GOOD. SO I THINK TWO WEEKS JUST TO WORK THROUGH THAT THOUGHT PROCESS IS IMPORTANT.

AND I, THAT'S I WOULD SUPPORT THE TWO WEEKS. AS A TECHNICALITY, I THINK THE MOTION WOULD NEED TO BE AMENDED FOR THREE WEEKS, NOT TWO. MOVED TO AMEND THIS TO THREE WEEKS. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED IT.

[05:40:01]

I HAVE NO OBJECTION. I SECOND, TO MAKE IT TECHNICALLY CORRECT.

ANY OBJECTION? HEARING NONE, THE AMENDMENTS SUBSTITUTED TO BE ACCURATELY REFLECTING THAT WHEN WE MEET AGAIN FOR ACTION.

SO THREE WEEKS, NOT TWO. WHAT'S THE MEETING DATE? JUST EVERYBODY CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT THE. THAT WOULD BE. OCTOBER 14TH. OCTOBER 14TH. IS THE DATE CERTAIN. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK? CHAIRMAN WEST, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE MOTION TO HOLD UNDER ADVISEMENT.

THANK YOU. I DO AGREE WITH MR. BAZALDUA THAT I DON'T SEE US GETTING TO THE VOTE THRESHOLD OF 12 VOTES ON THIS IN 2 OR 3 WEEKS. BUT I, I DO THINK THAT IT IS AN IMPORTANT DECISION.

I DON'T SEE THE HARM IN REVISITING IT AFTER FOLKS HAVE HAD TIME TO TALK, YOU KNOW, TALK THROUGH THEIR CONCERNS.

FOR EXAMPLE ARE THERE ACTUAL COMPANIES THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT CHANGING THEIR LETTERHEAD? YOU KNOW, I THINK THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT MIGHT GIVE SOME FOLKS COMFORT. SO I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM.

I DON'T SEE THE HARM. THANK YOU. MR. BAZALDUA RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

YOU'RE MUTED. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES. CITY ATTORNEYS.

DOES THIS TWO WEEKS CHANGE THE THRESHOLD OF VOTE THAT IS NEEDED FOR THIS TO PASS? IT DOES NOT. SO THIS WOULD JUST BE ADDING, OH, THREE WEEKS.

I GUESS THIS WOULD JUST BE ADDING TIME TO GO THROUGH THE SAME EXACT PROCESS THAT WE JUST HEARD FROM THE BODY.

THE ITEM WOULD BE ON THE AGENDA FOR FOR A VOTE.

YES. OKAY. WELL, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR, FOR EVERYONE TO SEE THAT IF THIS DOESN'T HAVE THE WILL HERE.

NOW LET'S SEE WHAT CHANGES. LET'S SEE WHAT VOTES CHANGE.

AND LET'S SEE WHAT DYNAMICS CHANGE. IS THIS GOING TO BE UP TO ADVOCACY AND TO FILL THE CHAMBERS UP WITH THE POWERS TO BE OF OUR CITY, TO TELL US WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO? OR IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE DEPENDENT ON THE POLITICAL WILL OF THE BODY THAT WAS ELECTED FOR THIS CITY? I, I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT THIS DELAY WOULD BE.

OTHER THAN QUITE FRANKLY ANOTHER, AGAIN, ANOTHER OUTCOME OF EXACTLY WHAT WE HAD HERE TODAY.

IF THIS WAS SO IMPORTANT AS SEVERAL COMMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR OUR CITY, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MAYBE SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN LOBBIED IN THE LEAST BIT.

I HADN'T BEEN TALKED TO ABOUT THIS AT ALL. SO FOR THIS TO BE CONSIDERED TO BE SO IMPORTANT IS VERY INTERESTING TO ME, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THERE IS, IS THERE HAS BEEN CONCERN ON JUST ABOUT EVERY STREET NAME CHANGE WE'VE HAD AND HOW IT WOULD IMPACT PROPERTY OWNERS AND. AND I HAVE HEARD NO ONE ADVOCATE FOR THIS TO HAPPEN, EXCEPT FOR THE THREE SIGNATURES THAT WERE ON A MEMO THAT CAME FORWARD.

SO I JUST DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE GETTING A DIFFERENT VOTE OUTCOME THAN WHAT WE HAVE HERE TODAY.

SO I THINK IT'S VERY POINTLESS. AND IT'S, IT'S, IT'S SOMEWHAT EMBARRASSING AS WELL.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MISS MENDELSOHN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

I THINK THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE FUNNIEST THINGS I HAVE HEARD A COUNCIL MEMBER SAY IN A LONG TIME, WHICH IS COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA SAYING, WHO'S GOING TO FILL UP THE CHAMBERS? BECAUSE ALL I CAN SEE IS RANDOM BILLIONAIRES AND BUSINESS OWNERS AND FORMER MAYORS COMING DOWN TO TELL US HOW WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS NAME.

I CAN ALREADY SEE IT, AND I THINK THAT IS HILARIOUS.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE EFFORT IS OVER THE NEXT THREE WEEKS, WHAT THE TRADE WILL BE TO GET SOME OF US TO SWITCH VOTES.

I AM WILLING TO TRADE, BUT THE ONLY THING I WILL TRADE FOR WILL BE A CESSATION OF EFFORTS TO LEAVE CITY HALL.

THANK YOU. THAT SOUNDED BORDERLINE IMPROPER, BUT I WILL SAY THIS.

THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY LOBBYING EFFORT ON MY PART.

I THINK I SAID EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO SAY TODAY ABOUT ABOUT WHAT MESSAGE THIS SENDS.

AND I THINK THAT IT'S A LEVEL WE'VE REACHED A LEVEL OF PETTINESS AT THIS POINT THAT I THINK IS UNPRECEDENTED AND PRETTY DETRIMENTAL.

EVERYBODY HEARD AND EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT THIS SECTION OF THE HARWOOD IS NOT THE ENTIRE THING.

IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE HARWOOD DISTRICT AND IS ACTUALLY A GREAT THING FOR THAT AREA.

AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY ACTUALLY WANTED. AND TO PRETEND LIKE SOMEHOW THIS IS A CONSPIRACY BEING LED BY THE BILLIONAIRES OF THE CITY OR WHATEVER.

IT MAKES FOR GREAT POLITICAL THEATER. BUT THAT'S NOT IT'S NO WAY TO RUN A CITY.

[05:45:02]

AND I THINK YOU KNOW THAT. SO. ALRIGHT. WE'LL SEE.

WE'LL WE'LL HAVE THE VOTE AFTER WE DISPOSE OF THIS MOTION.

WE'LL HAVE A VOTE, I GUESS, ON THE MOTION TO HOLD UNDER ADVISEMENT.

IF THERE'S NO ONE ELSE, I THINK I'M IN THE QUEUE AGAIN.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN IN THIS SITUATION, BUT YOU'RE DRIVING ON A ROAD AND IT'S GOT ONE NAME, AND THEN IT SWITCHES TO ANOTHER NAME, AND THEN IT EITHER SWITCHES BACK OR MAYBE THERE'S EVEN A THIRD NAME.

WE HAVE SEVERAL ROADS LIKE THAT IN DALLAS, BUT I WILL SAY THANK YOU.

TWO WEEKS AGO. I'M SORRY. SIX WEEKS AGO WHEN Y'ALL APPROVED THE STREET NAME CHANGE IN DISTRICT 12, WHICH ACTUALLY CAUSED THE STREET TO BECOME A CONTINUOUS NAME INSTEAD OF RANDOMLY SWITCHING IN THE MIDDLE.

WE SHOULD TRY TO LOOK AT ALL STREETS THAT CURRENTLY CHANGE THEIR NAME SOMEWHERE AND MAKE THEM POINT OF ORDER.

WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? WEST. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL STREET NAMES HERE.

THIS IS NOT GERMANE. I MEAN, THIS IS ABOUT A DELAY.

THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. FIGURED YOU'D EVENTUALLY GET THERE, SO WE'LL LET HER GET THERE.

GO AHEAD. YEP. SO I'M JUST GOING TO SAY NOT FOR HAVING IT CALLED HARWOOD.

ANOTHER NAME HARWOOD. THIS SOUNDS CONFUSING. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE DRIVE DOWNTOWN, BUT I KNOW WHEN PEOPLE FROM DISTRICT 12 ARE COMING DOWN HERE, THEY'RE SOMETIMES TURNED AROUND, SO IT'S ALREADY HARD ENOUGH. WE DON'T NEED TO MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR FOLKS.

SO I THINK WE SHOULD JUST KEEP IT AS IT IS AND ADD A STREET TOPPER.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION TO HOLD UNDER ADVISEMENT FOR WHAT IS ACTUALLY CLOSER TO THREE WEEKS, I BELIEVE, NOT TWO. OCTOBER 14TH. SEEING NONE.

GO AHEAD AND HAVE A RECORD VOTE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE SAY YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR. NO. IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCILMEMBER WEST.

YES. COUNCILMEMBER MORENO. YES. COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY.

YES. COUNCILMEMBER CADENA NO. COUNCILMEMBER BAZALDUA.

NO. COUNCILMEMBER BLAIR. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BLACKMON. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. STEWART. YES. COUNCILMEMBER ROTH NO.

COUNCILMEMBER MENDELSOHN. NO. COUNCILMEMBER WILLIS.

YES. COUNCILMEMBER RIDLEY NO. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON IS ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN.

MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ. YES. MAYOR JOHNSON. YES.

WITH EIGHT VOTING IN FAVOR, SIX OPPOSED, ONE ABSENT VOTE TAKEN.

THE MOTION PASSES, MR. MAYOR. OKAY. NEXT ITEM.

[ZONING CASES - CONSENT]

LET'S GO BACK TO THE ZONING CONSENT AGENDA. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WE WILL GO BACK TO YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA.

FOR THREE WEEKS. YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTED OF ITEMS Z ONE THROUGH Z NINE.

ITEM Z TWO HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH.

ITEM Z FIVE HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO AND ITEM Z NINE HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO AND REQUIRES A THREE FOURTHS VOTE.

THEREFORE, YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF ITEMS Z ONE, Z THREE, Z FOUR AND Z SIX THROUGH Z EIGHT.

I'LL READ THOSE ITEMS INTO THE RECORD. ITEM Z ONE IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT WITHOUT DRIVE IN OR DRIVE THROUGH SERVICE ON PROPERTY BETWEEN SAMUEL BOULEVARD AND EAST I-30 FREEWAY, EAST OF NORTH MILLER ROAD, AKA 6465 SAMUEL BOULEVARD.

ITEM Z THREE IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING ON PROPERTY ON THE WEST LINE OF BONNYVIEW ROAD, SOUTH OF TELEPHONE ROAD, AKA 9300 BONNYVIEW ROAD.

ITEM Z FOUR IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 439 ON THE EAST LINE OF SOUTH POLK STREET BETWEEN WEST BROOKLYN AVENUE AND WEST PEMBROKE AVENUE, AKA 1002 WEST BROOKLYN AVENUE.

ITEM Z SIX IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN R-5, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ELM ROAD AND NORTH MASTERS DRIVE. ITEM Z SEVEN IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SUB DISTRICT FOR DASH TWO.

SUBDISTRICT USES AND STANDARDS ON PROPERTY ON THE WEST CORNER OF CARLISLE STREET AND BOEING STREET,

[05:50:01]

AKA 3109 CARLISLE STREET IN ITEM Z EIGHT IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL MERCHANDISE OR FOOD STORE GREATER THAN 3500FT² ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTH LINE OF BROUGHTON ROAD, WEST OF PRAIRIE CREEK ROAD, A KA9009 BROUGHTON ROAD.

YOU DO HAVE ONE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON CONSENT.

YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA ITEM Z EIGHT. GERALDINE ROGERS YOU MAY COME FORWARD, MISS ROGERS.

YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK ON ZONING ITEM Z EIGHT.

THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS GERALDINE ROGERS.

LIVE AT 2602 EAST 11TH STREET. AND I'M STANDING IN BEHALF OF MY CHURCH, STEPHEN'S TEMPLE.

THEY WANT TO OPEN UP TO SELL ALCOHOL NEXT DOOR TO THE CHURCH.

AND WE HAVE A LITTLE. I'M SORRY, MA'AM, THAT ITEM IS, I BELIEVE, PAGE THREE.

WE'RE ON Z EIGHT, ITEM Z EIGHT. THAT ITEM PAGE THREE.

STEPHEN TEMPLE CHURCH WILL COME UP LATER AND YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AT THAT TIME.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ANY OF THE ZONING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS THAT WERE JUST READ INTO THE RECORD ITEM Z ONE. Z3Z4 AND Z63Z8ICIC2 INDIVIDUALS. YOU MAY COME FORWARD AND ONE.

ONE SPEAKER AT A TIME AT THE PODIUM. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND WHICH ITEM YOU'LL BE SPEAKING ON.

HELLO. MY NAME IS JEFF. IT'S THE CASE NUMBER IS Z-26-000084.

IT IS ON 9300 BONNYVIEW ROAD, DALLAS, TEXAS. ITEM Z THREE.

YOU MAY CONTINUE. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS JEFF AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY.

I'M HERE TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF THIS PROPERTY AS A COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING FACILITY. OUR GOAL IS TO DEVELOP AND OPERATE THIS PROPERTY RESPONSIBLY, PROFESSIONALLY, AND IN A WAY THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEEDS OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY AND THE CITY OF DALLAS.

AND WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING CAN RAISE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS REGARDING TRAFFIC SAFETY, NOISE, APPEARANCE, SECURITY, AND THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

WE TAKE THOSE CONCERNS SERIOUSLY. OUR INTENTION IS TO MAINTAIN CLEAN, SECURE, WELL MANAGED FACILITY WITH APPROPRIATE FENCING AND LANDSCAPING.

I HOPE WE CAN GET YOUR APPROVAL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND WHICH ITEM YOU'LL BE SPEAKING ON.

HELLO. THIS IS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME ITEM 9300 BONNYVIEW ROAD.

I JUST WANT TO SAY ABOUT THAT. WE GOT A RECOMMENDATION FROM CITY STAFF APPROVAL FOR TEN YEARS WITH AUTO RENEWAL.

AND WE GOT APPROVAL FROM CPC FOR FIVE YEARS PERIOD ON THE SAME CASE.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE ZONING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS? NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. LOOKING FOR A MOTION ON ZONING CONSENT? I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH ITEM Z FOUR AMENDED TO COMPLY WITH TEXAS AGRICULTURE CODE CHAPTER 251 AND ITEM Z SEVEN AMENDED TO COMPLY WITH CHAPTER 218 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.

SECOND MOVED AND SECONDED. YOU CARE TO EXPLAIN THAT? YES. GO AHEAD. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE. LOOK TO THE GENTLEMAN TO YOUR LEFT.

THESE ARE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW WITH WHICH OUR ZONING ITEMS MUST COMPLY.

AND THAT IS WHY I'VE INCLUDED THEM IN THE CONSENT AGENDA MOTION.

VERY WELL DONE. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE ZONING CONSENT AGENDA? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM, MADAM SECRETARY. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO YOUR FIRST PULLED ZONING ITEM.

[Z2. 26-2890A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting an amendment to Planned Development District No. 17, on the southeast corner of Alpha Road and Preston Road, AKA 13410 Preston Road Recommendation of Staff: Approval, subject to staff’s recommended conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval, subject to staff’s recommended conditions Z-26-000079 *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

ITEM Z TWO. ITEM Z TWO IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 17 ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF

[05:55:09]

ALPHA ROAD AND PRESTON ROAD. ALL RIGHT, MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 75 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

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

THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM. ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS? I SEE AN INDIVIDUAL COMING FORWARD. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU MAY BEGIN.

GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

MY NAME IS ROB BALDWIN. 3904 ELM STREET, SUITE B.

AND I'M REPRESENTING THE THREE DIFFERENT PROPERTY OWNERS ON THIS PROPERTY.

THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT PROPERTY OWNERS, SIX TRACKS.

AND THE PURPOSE IS THIS IS A PD 17, WHICH IS VERY, VERY OLD.

IN FACT, IT'S REFERS TO A ZONING DISTRICT THAT WAS LAST USED IN THE LATE 1950S.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO BRING IT UP TO A CR ZONING DISTRICT AND AMEND THE PARKING TO ONE SPACE PER 300FT² OF FLOOR AREA THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. WE'VE HAD NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS. THERE'S NO OPPOSITION TO THIS CASE THAT WE KNOW OF.

THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO NOT FOLLOW THE APPLICANT'S RECOMMENDATION OR REQUEST, BUT GO TO THE CITY CURRENT PARKING CODE. WE DO NOT SUPPORT THAT.

WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO SUPPORT WHAT THE APPLICANT BEING ME OF REQUEST.

AND THAT'S ONE SPACE FOR 300FT² THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AND I ALSO HAVE JOHN HETZEL WHO'S ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS HERE.

UNFORTUNATELY, HE HAS TO RUN TO A SOCCER GAME OR SOCCER PRACTICE.

I'M GOING TO ASK HIM TO SPEAK, BUT HE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STAY AROUND FOR QUESTIONS FOR A LONG TIME.

SO IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. HETZEL, LET'S GET THEM DONE RIGHT OFF THE TOP OF THE BAT.

BUT I'LL STAY AROUND FOR AS LONG AS I'M NEEDED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS? SEE ONE MORE SPEAKER COMING FORWARD. HI. I'LL MAKE IT QUICK.

JOHN HETZEL, 2622 COMMERCE STREET, MADISON PARTNERS.

WE ARE ONE OF THE THREE PROPERTY OWNERS. WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS.

WE DO SUPPORT THE 1 TO 300 INSTEAD OF GOING TO BASE, BASICALLY NO PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THIS PD.

SO WE ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER THAT, AS ROB MENTIONED.

I WANTED TO STICK AROUND FOR QUESTIONS, BUT I'M ALREADY 15 MINUTES LATE TO TAKING MY SON TO HIS SOCCER PRACTICE, SO ROB CAN PROBABLY ANSWER HIM BETTER THAN ME.

BUT THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM Z TWO? NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. LOOKING FOR A MOTION Z TWO.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. GO AHEAD. I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CHANGES. AGRICULTURAL USES ARE PERMITTED BY.

RIGHT. AND A PARKING REQUIREMENT OF ONE SPACE FOR 300FT² OF FLOOR AREA IS REQUIRED FOR ALL USES.

IT'S BEEN MOVED TO SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION, MR. ROFF? I'D JUST LIKE TO THANK THE THE APPLICANT AND FOR, FOR THEIR RESPONSE JUST TO LET YOU ALL KNOW, THE OWNERS, ALL THREE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE INVOLVED HAD AGREED TO THIS.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS, WAS WAS APPROACHED. THEY BASICALLY AGREED TO THIS.

THE I THINK IT'S A GOOD USE FOR THE, A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR THE WHOLE AREA TO, TO CREATE THIS CHANGE.

AND I, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS.

ANYONE ELSE WISHES TO BE CALLING FOR? MR.. WEST, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU MAYOR.

I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS AND THE COLLABORATION FROM FROM EVERYONE HERE.

I JUST HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS BECAUSE THIS APPEARS TO BE GOING A LITTLE BIT BACKWARDS ON OUR PARKING REFORM.

AND SO I KIND OF WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHY IF THE PERSON WHO HANDLED THE CASE OR IF WE CAN GET SOMEONE FROM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT TO COME ANSWER A COUPLE QUESTIONS, THAT'D BE GREAT. YES, SIR. I CAN CERTAINLY TRY.

OKAY, SO AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL, I UNDERSTAND THAT CPC VOTED TO TO SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR 51 A PARKING REQUIREMENTS. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY? YES THAT'S CORRECT.

SO TO TO YOUR POINT, THE PROPOSAL STAFF CONSIDERED THAT TO BE GOING BACKWARDS AS WELL.

WE RECENTLY ADOPTED A CITY WIDE PARKING REFORM AND COUNCIL APPROVED THAT.

SO THAT SET THE POLICY FOR THE CITY. SO STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT WE JUST FOLLOW THE CODE AND CPC SUPPORTED THAT THE MOTION IN

[06:00:10]

THE STAFF REPORT, IT GOT A LITTLE MESSY, BUT ULTIMATELY THAT'S WHAT IT ENDED UP WITH, WAS TO FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND GO WITH THE 5051 A PARKING REQUIREMENTS, WHICH SOMEONE HAD MENTIONED IT WAS EITHER THE APPLICANT OR MR. BALDWIN, THAT IT WAS A. IT WAS A NO PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS STRIP MALL.

IS THAT RIGHT? YES. UNDER UNDER THE CURRENT CODE, RETAIL USES WOULD NOT REQUIRE ANY PARKING.

RESTAURANTS HAVE A SMALL DEPENDING ON THEIR FLOOR AREA WOULD HAVE A 1 TO 200 PARKING REQUIREMENT AFTER A 2000FT². SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT IT COULD HAVE A ZERO PARKING REQUIREMENT.

SO BY US CHANGING THIS TODAY, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT COMING IN TO TELL PRIVATE INDUSTRY HOW MUCH PARKING THEY SHOULD HAVE AND LEGISLATING PARKING AND HOW TO DO BUSINESS FROM THE HORSESHOE IS KIND OF WHAT I'M READING INTO THIS HERE.

WHAT IS IS THERE SOME INDICATION OF WHY 1 TO 300 SPACES IS NECESSARY? MEGAN THE APPLICANT? I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.

IN THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, IT WAS STATED THAT THERE IS PLENTY OF UNUSED PARKING.

AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF UNUSED PARKING. SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE 1 TO 300.

WHAT THE HOW THAT'S YOU KNOW, THE RELEVANT NUMBER.

THE PD CURRENTLY HAS PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE RANGED FROM, I THINK 150 TO 200.

SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR A 200 OR 300 ACROSS THE BOARD FOR ALL USES.

MEGAN, DO YOU THINK IT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S ROLE TO OVERREGULATE AND REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PARKING THAT APPLICANTS DON'T NEED? I DO NOT THINK SO. I BELIEVE THAT WAS KIND OF THE POINT OF THE PARKING REFORM, TO LET THE APPLICANTS AND BUSINESSES DECIDE WHAT THEIR BUSINESS NEEDS FOR PARKING. ALL RIGHT. I MEAN, THESE ARE JUST QUESTIONS I HAD WHEN I WHEN I READ THIS CASE.

I WILL SAY THIS THOUGH I DON'T KNOW MR. ROTH'S DISTRICT, I DON'T I DON'T KNOW DISTRICT ELEVENS, I DON'T KNOW THE SITE. AND I, YOU KNOW, I TEND I'M GOING TO TEND TO DEFER TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER HIS JUDGMENT ON WHAT PARKING IS NEEDED IN THIS AREA, AND THE FACT THAT I KNOW HE'S DONE HIS DUE DILIGENCE.

AND THERE IS YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S THE APPLICANT AGREES.

I TEND TO SUPPORT THIS EVEN THOUGH THIS, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING I WOULD DO IN MY DISTRICT.

I DON'T THINK IT WOULD GO WELL IF I TRIED TO DO IT IN MY DISTRICT.

ADD MORE PARKING IN MOST PLACES. SO I WILL BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE MOTION.

AND THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN WILL IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. I JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

SO WE'RE HEARING THAT THEY'RE OKAY WITH THIS EVEN THOUGH THIS IS IN EXCESS.

AND I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA, AND IT DOES SEEM LIKE THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF UNUSED PARKING.

SO TELL ME HOW THAT IS HOW THEY ARRIVE AT THAT.

YEAH. YOU HAVE TO PUT THIS IN CONTEXT OF SITUATIONAL CONTEXT.

THE SHOPPING CENTER WAS BUILT AND THEN AFTERWARDS THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEHIND US ON DILBECK WAS BUILT.

AND DURING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, THE NEIGHBORS WERE CONCERNED THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME PARKING THERE AND THAT THERE WAS CONCERN THAT IF IF THERE WASN'T ENOUGH PARKING, THEN PARTS OF THE SHOPPING CENTER WOULD GET MORE PAD SITES AND PEOPLE WOULD BE PARKING IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO WE CAME UP TO THE 1 TO 300 BASED ON ANALYSIS OF HOW MANY PARKING SPACES ARE THERE.

THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT'S OUT THERE. AND TO ALLOW FOR A A GOOD COMBINATION OF USES, SOME RESTAURANTS, SOME RETAIL, SOME OFFICE, SOME MEDICAL USES. RIGHT NOW, THE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THE THREE DIFFERENT OWNERS, SIX DIFFERENT LOTS. IT GETS COMPLICATED IN SOME LOTS.

THEY CAN'T SUPPORT ANOTHER RESTAURANT. YOU KNOW, THEY CAN HAVE A TAKEOUT, BUT THEY CAN'T HAVE A SIT DOWN RESTAURANT.

AND BEING THIS IS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM WHERE HOPEFULLY THE MAVS WILL GO, THEN THAT WILL.

WE THINK THAT THE CLIENTELE OF THE WHOLE CENTER WILL GO UP AND WE WANT THE FLEXIBILITY.

SO THE 1 TO 300 ALLOWS A LOT OF THE SPACES TO GO TOWARDS RESTAURANTS, BUT THEY CAN'T NOW.

SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORS AND MY CLIENTS.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. MISS MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. WELL DISTRICT 12 ONLY HAS ONE NEIGHBORING DISTRICT, AND IT'S DISTRICT 11.

[06:05:03]

I ACTUALLY GET I FILL UP MY CAR ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT.

AND USED TO HAVE A FAVORITE RESTAURANT THAT CLOSED DOWN THE MARKET WHERE WE ACTUALLY DID STRUGGLE FOR PARKING TO BE NEARBY.

CERTAINLY YOU COULD, YOU COULD WALK. BUT IF YOU WANTED A NEARBY SPOT, YOU LIKELY WEREN'T GETTING IT BECAUSE AGAIN, SAME ISSUE SIT DOWN RESTAURANT. I DEFINITELY SUPPORT THIS.

I SUPPORT COUNCILMEMBER ROTH. LOOKING FORWARD TO WHAT'S NEEDED.

IF THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN, I THINK YOU END UP IN A SITUATION LIKE GREENVILLE WHERE THE PARKING GOES ALL INTO THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND IT'S JUST CONSTANT ANNOYANCES. AND FRANKLY, THE RESIDENTS WILL BE DOWN HERE AND A MILLION DIFFERENT PATCHWORK BAND-AIDS WILL BE PUT IN PLACE TO TRY TO ADDRESS IT.

THIS WILL PROACTIVELY RESOLVE THE ISSUE FOR THE NEIGHBORS, ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO THRIVE IN WHAT THEY CAN LEASE OUT AND MAKES PERFECT SENSE. HOPEFULLY THEY WILL ALSO PUT MONEY INTO SOME REDEVELOPMENT OF THAT SHOPPING CENTER.

IT'S DEFINITELY READY FOR IT, BUT I WAS REALLY HAPPY TO SEE IT.

DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS HAPPENING. BUT AS I WAS STANDING THERE GETTING GAS YESTERDAY AT KUTI WRONG CUP TODAY I, I CERTAINLY WAS LOOKING AT IT GOING, THIS IS REALLY NEEDED AND I THINK THE STARBUCKS PEOPLE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT AS WELL.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I STILL SEE A HAND UP. CHAIRMAN WEST, IS THAT INTENTIONAL OR OR.

NO. CHAIRMAN WEST, CAN YOU HEAR ME? UNINTENTIONAL.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST Z TWO? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU. AGENDA ITEM Z FIVE.

[Z5. 26-2893A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting a new Specific Use Permit for an alcoholic beverage establishment limited to a bar, lounge, or tavern and an inside commercial amusement use limited to a dance hall, on property zoned Tract A within Planned Development District No. 269, the Deep Ellum/Near East Side District, on the south line of Elm Street, east of North Good Latimer Expressway, west of North Crowdus Street, AKA 2638 Elm Street Recommendation of Staff: Approval, subject to a site plan and staff’s recommended conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval for a one-year period, subject to a site plan and conditions Z-26-000136 *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

ITEM Z FIVE. IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT LIMITED TO A BAR, LOUNGE OR TAVERN AND AN INSIDE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT USE.

LIMITED TO A DANCE HALL ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH LINE OF ELM STREET, EAST OF NORTH GOOD LATIMER EXPRESSWAY, WEST OF NORTH CROWDED STREET, A KA2638 ELM STREET.

ALL RIGHT, MR. MAYOR. WE SENT 15 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED ONE REPLY IN FAVOR AND THREE REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.

YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY REGISTERED SPEAKERS. ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE.

I SEE ONE RIGHT THERE. MAY COME FORWARD. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES.

AUDRA BUCKLEY, 1414 BELLEVUE STREET, SUITE 150, DALLAS, TEXAS 75215.

HERE TO REPRESENT THE APPLICANT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS THIS DOES HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE DEEP ELLUM FOUNDATION FOR A ONE YEAR PERIOD.

THE ONE THAT IS IN OPPOSITION WAS THE ONE MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF THE DEEP ELLUM FOUNDATION WHO WAS OPPOSED TO GRANTING THE ONE YEAR.

IT'S THE SAME FOR THIS ONE AND XENON AS WELL.

SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M AVAILABLE. THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM Z FIVE? NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. LOOKING FOR A MOTION ON Z FIVE? I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.

IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

ANY DISCUSSION? CHAIRMAN MORENO? YES. FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. THIS IS A SUP THAT I AM GOING TO SUPPORT.

IT'S NOT ONE THAT I TAKE LIGHTLY. I DO WANT TO THANK STAFF SUPPORT FOR GETTING CLEAR DEFINITIONS ON RESTAURANT USE AND ENSURING THAT THOSE IN THE ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTS ARE GETTING THOSE SUPS AS REQUIRED.

THE APPLICANT ORIGINALLY DID NOT GET AN SUP AND WAS ACTING AS A BAR INSTEAD OF A RESTAURANT.

THERE IS A LAUNDRY LIST OF DPD AND FIRE WITH OVERCROWDING, MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS FROM NEIGHBORS.

AND SO WE WANT TO, WE DO WANT TO THANK THE APPLICANT FOR APPLYING FOR AN SUP AND TRYING TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE.

AND SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO THIS NEXT YEAR WATCHING THEM VERY CLOSELY.

I KNOW THAT THEY'RE LIMITED TO THE HOURS OF OPERATION OUTDOOR SPEAKERS KEEPING THE PROPERTY IN GOOD STANDING ORDER AND FOLLOWING FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS.

I DO WANT STAFF TO COME UP TO LET US KNOW IF THERE ARE CONCERNS FROM NEIGHBORS IN VIOLATION OF ANY OF THESE ITEMS THAT I

[06:10:03]

JUST READ. WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE FOR A NEIGHBOR OR A PROPERTY OWNER TO PUT IN A A COMPLAINT? TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING TO RESCIND THE THE SAPSUP.

EXCUSE ME. YES. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. SO TO RESCIND OR TO REEVALUATE AN SUP, THAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. SO THE MECHANISM WOULD BE TO AUTHORIZE IT BY EITHER A THREE SIGNATURE MEMO FROM CPC OR A FIVE SIGNATURE FROM COUNCIL.

WE WOULD THEN HOLD A, YOU KNOW, AFTER AUTHORIZATION, WE WOULD HOLD A COMMUNITY MEETING FOR INPUT AND WE WOULD SCHEDULE THE ITEM FOR CPC AND COUNCIL. SO IT WOULD GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS AGAIN.

AND THAT THAT IS A POSSIBILITY. THANK YOU. SO I HOPE THE APPLICANT TAKES THIS NOTE BACK TO THE OPERATOR AND ENSURES THAT WE ARE HAVING A THRIVING BUT SAFE NIGHTTIME INDUSTRY.

AND SO I ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT A THE SUP BEFORE US.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOUR AGAINST FIVE? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. ITEM Z NINE IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A BAR,

[Z9. 26-2897A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting a new Specific Use Permit for a bar, lounge, or tavern on property zoned Planned Development District No. 269 Tract A, the Deep Ellum/Near East Side District, on the northeast corner of Elm Street and North Malcolm X Boulevard, AKA 2901 Elm Street Recommendation of Staff: Approval, subject to a site plan and staff’s recommended conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval for a one-year period, subject to a site plan and conditions Z-26-000152 *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

LOUNGE OR TAVERN ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ELM STREET AND NORTH MALCOLM X BOULEVARD.

A KA2901 ELM STREET, RIGHT. MR. MAYOR. MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 20 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST. WE RECEIVED ONE REPLY IN FAVOR AND ONE REPLY IN OPPOSITION.

THIS ITEM REQUIRES A THREE QUARTERS VOTE DUE TO 31.47% OPPOSITION WITHIN THE 200FT.

THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM, BUT I DO BELIEVE I SEE A SPEAKER COMING FORWARD.

AUDRA BUCKLEY 1414 BELLEVIEW STREET, SUITE 150, DALLAS, TEXAS.

THIS ONE IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE LAST ONE. THE DEEP ELLUM FOUNDATION HAD VOTED TO APPROVE OR TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A ONE YEAR'S U.

P FOR THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT. WE DID HAVE ONE ON THE BOARD THAT WAS OPPOSED, AND THEY TURNED IN ALL OF THEIR THEIR FORMS IN OPPOSITION.

SO THAT'S HOW WE GOT HERE WITH A THREE QUARTER VOTE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, LET ME KNOW. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM Z NINE? NO SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? I'M SORRY, IS THERE A MOTION FIRST ON Z NINE.

I WOULD LIKE TO HOLD THIS TO LATER IN THE MEETING.

OKAY, THAT'S FINE WITH ME. THANK YOU. LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.

YOUR NEXT ITEM? ONE SECOND, MR. MAYOR.

OKAY, I WILL GO AHEAD AND GET GET STARTED. OH, SORRY.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM Z TEN.

[Z10. 26-2255A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for MU-3 Mixed Use District, with consideration for FWMU-5 Form subdistrict, on property zoned FWMU-3 Form subdistrict with a shopfront overlay within Planned Development District No. 595, the South Dallas/Fair Park Special Purpose District, on the north corner of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Colonial Avenue Recommendation of Staff: Consideration of FWMU-5 Form Subdistrict within Planned Development District No. 595 Recommendation of CPC: Denial Z245-200(TB)/Z-25-000073 Note: This item was deferred by the City Council at the public hearings on January 14, 2026, March 25, 2026, and June 24, 2026, and is scheduled for consideration on September 23, 2026. *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

ITEM Z TEN IS A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR MU DASH THREE MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH CONSIDERATION FOR FWMU5 FORM SUBDISTRICT ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTH CORNER OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BOULEVARD AND COLONIAL AVENUE.

MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 17 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ONE REPLY IN OPPOSITION.

I WILL NOTE THAT APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM WOULD REQUIRE A THREE QUARTERS VOTE.

THANK YOU. YOU DO HAVE 12 INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

I'LL CALL THOSE SPEAKERS AND WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, I WILL ASK THAT YOU COME FORWARD.

BABATUNDE OLORUNFEMI. SIDNEY WALKER. JOHN MCGUINNESS.

TITILAYO. AMOR. ESTHER. ADEBAYO. JACOB. AJAYI.

RAPHAEL. ADEBAYO. AUSTIN. ANITA. KAREN. ISAAC.

[06:15:04]

YETUNDE. MAKU. TIMOTHY. KENNY. YEMI. AND FRANK.

MAY. FOR ANY OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS PRESENT. OKAY.

OKAY. ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT'S NOT REGISTERED? YOU MAY COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. ITEM Z TEN.

THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JULIE. I LIVE AT 2230 KESSLER PARKWAY.

DALLAS AND I LEAD THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WORK AT SAINT PHILIPS SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY CENTER IN THE FOREST DISTRICT.

SAINT PHILIPS IS ACTIVELY LEADING NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT EFFORTS THROUGHOUT THE FOREST DISTRICT, INCLUDING PROPERTIES DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SITE BEING DISCUSSED TODAY.

WE ARE DEEPLY INVESTED IN THE GROWTH OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND WORK ALONGSIDE RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORING ORGANIZATIONS TO ADVANCE COMMUNITY DRIVEN GROWTH AND THOUGHTFUL INVESTMENT.

I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF SERVING ON THE TASK FORCE FOR THE SOUTH DALLAS AREA, SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK AREA PLAN, AND LATER ON THE TASK FORCE FOR THE RECENT REVISIONS OF PD 595.

I WANT TO THANK COUNCILMAN BAZALDUA FOR THE PRIORITY HE PLACES ON COMMUNITY INPUT AND FOR HOSTING MANY MEETINGS ON THIS TOPIC.

IN OUR LAST MEETING THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT, AND I AM ASKING THE COUNCIL TODAY TO DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR MU THREE. AND I ALSO DO NOT SUPPORT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THIS PROPERTY TO FWMU5.

JUST THREE MONTHS AGO, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE REVISED PD 595, WHICH ESTABLISHED THIS AREA AS FWMU3, AND THAT ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS IN THE FOREST.

THE FORWARD DALLAS PLAN, WHICH SHOWS THIS AREA AS NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE AND BOTH THE PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE REVISED ZONING, WERE THE PRODUCT OF YEARS OF WORK AND COMMUNITY INPUT.

IMPORTANTLY, THESE PLANS DO PROVIDE FOR GREATER DENSITY AND THEY INTENTIONALLY WHERE IT IS APPROPRIATE, THEY INTENTIONALLY TRANSITION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE TO COMMUNITY MIXED USE, AND THEN TO A REGIONAL MIXED USE.

AS YOU GET FARTHER CLOSER TO FAIR PARK AND THE DART TRANSIT CENTER, WHERE GREATER INTENSITY IS APPROPRIATE.

THE EXISTING MU3 ZONING ALREADY ALLOWS MEANINGFUL DEVELOPMENT UP TO 50FT AND THREE AND A HALF STORIES.

AND THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL TO GO MUCH FURTHER, AS WELL AS THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

NEITHER OF THESE CHANGES, IN MY VIEW, REFLECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE VISION THAT WAS ESTABLISHED THROUGHOUT THIS THOUGHTFUL PLANNING PROCESS THAT LITERALLY TOOK US FIVE YEARS.

A 80 FOOT BUILDING ALONE WOULD INTRODUCE A SCALE THAT DOES NOT CURRENTLY EXIST IN THE FOREST DISTRICT.

IT'S A SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURE FROM PREDOMINANTLY ONE AND TWO STORY CONTEXT, AND IT WOULD DWARF IMPORTANT HISTORIC BUILDINGS SUCH AS THE FOREST THEATER, WHICH IS CURRENTLY BEING RESTORED. WHAT CONCERNS ME MOST WOULD BE THE PRECEDENT OF DEPARTING FROM THIS FRAMEWORK ONLY MONTHS AFTER COMPLETING YEARS OF COMMUNITY AND CITY PLANNING. IF WE ESTABLISH ZONING, ZONING THROUGH EXTENSIVE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, AND THEN IMMEDIATELY INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE SCALE THROUGH INDIVIDUAL ZONING CHANGES, WE RISK UNDERMINING THE VALUE OF THAT PLANNING PROCESS AND THE COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION THAT WENT INTO IT.

WE ARE SUPER EXCITED ABOUT THE GROWTH IN THE FOREST DISTRICT.

I'M REALLY THANKFUL FOR THE SUPPORT THAT WE HAVE GOTTEN FROM THAT TIME.

BAZALDUA. SO I ENCOURAGE YOU TO DENY THE ZONING REQUEST.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? ITEM Z TEN. NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. LOOKING FOR.

A MOVE TO FOLLOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND DENY THE ZONING CHANGE.

IT'S BEEN MOVED. AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION, MR. BAZALDUA? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. FIVE MINUTES. THIS IS ITEM Z TEN.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. THIS CASE FIRST CAME BEFORE THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION IN OCTOBER OF 2025.

SINCE THAT TIME, THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE COMMUNITY MEETINGS, EACH OF WHICH PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR DIRECTLY FROM RESIDENTS, BETTER UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERNS, AND RECEIVE VALUABLE FEEDBACK ABOUT THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE.

I APPRECIATE THE TIME AND EFFORT THAT HAS GONE INTO THIS PROCESS.

I WANT TO SPECIFICALLY THANK THE WITNESS TOWER CORPORATION FOR THEIR CONSISTENT COMMITMENT TO MEETING WITH THE COMMUNITY, FOR ANSWERING QUESTIONS AND LISTENING TO THE FEEDBACK THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS.

I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE SOUTH DALLAS COMMUNITY FOR CONTINUING TO SHOW UP AND TO MAKE YOUR VOICES HEARD.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE ZONING PROCESS, AND THE FEEDBACK PROVIDED AT THESE MEETINGS HAS HELPED INFORM MY CONSIDERATION OF THIS

[06:20:04]

CASE. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THIS PROPOSAL, THE HISTORY OF THIS CASE AND THE FEEDBACK THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED THROUGH THESE COMMUNITY MEETINGS, I HAVE DECIDED TO FOLLOW THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION AND DENY THIS ZONING CASE.

I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR. I TRIED TO DO JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING I COULD TO FIND SOME MIDDLE GROUND.

I DID NOT WANT TO SEE A STRAIGHT DENIAL, WHICH IS WHY I DELAYED THIS CASE AFTER IT CAME TO US WITH A DENIAL.

THE ORIGINAL ITERATION OF THIS PLAN WAS FOR 30 PLUS STORIES WHICH WAS GROSSLY INCOMPATIBLE AS MISS DIANE RAGSDALE WOULD HAVE SAID, AND WE KNEW THAT IT WASN'T COMPATIBLE IN ALIGNMENT WITH BOTH THE AREA PLAN AND FORWARD DALLAS.

I DO WANT TO CORRECT ONE THING THAT JULIE SAID, AND I LOVE JULIE, AND SHE IS ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE ADVOCATE FOR THE COMMUNITY.

BUT I WOULD HAVE BEEN WILLING TO PUSH THE ENVELOPE A BIT BECAUSE THE MIXED USE PLACE TYPE DOES AFFORD FOR THIS TO GO ALL THE WAY UP TO 100FT AND STILL BE IN THE SAME PLACE TYPE.

HOWEVER I DIDN'T HAVE MUCH TO FIGHT FOR, AND I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE GROUP DID NOT COME WITH CONCRETE PLANS. AND THAT'S WHERE THE HOLES REALLY GOT POKED INTO WHEN WE HAD COMMUNITY MEETINGS.

THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS ON WHAT THE ACTUAL PLANS WERE.

ZONING IS SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT STICK WITH A PLAN.

IT STICKS WITH THE LAND. AND SO WITHOUT A CONCRETE PLAN AND GIVING A BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO THE GOOD PEOPLE THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE, AND IGNORING THE COMMUNITY'S CONCERNS, BUT PUSHING TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE HEIGHT THAN THIS WOULD BE AFFORDED FROM OUR AUTHORIZED HEARING AND THE BY RIGHT ZONING IN SOUTH DALLAS IN THIS PARTICULAR PLACE WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE THAT WAS JUST BASICALLY PREPPING THIS LAND FOR A SALE BECAUSE I STILL DID NOT SEE ANY PLAN FROM THIS THIS APPLICANT.

I WILL SAY THAT THERE ARE VERY FEW PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THIS DIRECT VICINITY.

AND THOSE WHO I DID HEAR FROM ON A REGULAR BASIS, INCLUDING THE RESIDENT WHO IS THE CLOSEST TO, WOULD HAVE BEEN OKAY WITH US GOING TO FIVE STORIES AND FINDING SOME SORT OF COMPROMISE.

AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE TO FIND.

HOWEVER, WITH ALL THE TIME THAT HAS GONE BY FOR US TO STILL NOT SEE CONCRETE PLANS WITH TRUE RENDERINGS AND A IN A IN A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE PUBLIC CAN EXPECT, I CAN'T, IN GOOD FAITH, PUT MY NECK OUT ON THE LINE FOR AN APPLICANT WHO HASN'T DONE THEIR DUE DILIGENCE. AND IT'S NOT MY PROJECT TO ADVOCATE FOR.

SO ULTIMATELY, I HAD TWO RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONSIDER, AND ONE WAS FROM STAFF AND ONE WAS FROM OUR PLANNING COMMISSION.

I DO BELIEVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION.

IT ENCAPSULATES THE SENTIMENT OF THE COMMUNITY IN THE WAY THAT IT HAS.

AND SO FOR THAT, I WILL BE PUSHING FOR THE DENIAL AND HOPE THAT MY COLLEAGUES WILL SUPPORT.

ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST Z TEN.

THE MOTION ON Z TEN, I SHOULD SAY. SEEING NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT.

MOTION PREVAILS. NEXT ITEM. MR. MAYOR I BELIEVE WE CAN GO BACK TO ITEM Z NINE.

THEN LET'S DO THAT. LET'S DO THAT. ITEM Z NINE WAS READ IN THE RECORD.

AND I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.

IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

DISCUSSION. YES, MAYOR. RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. THIS PARTICULAR SOUP IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE ORIGINAL ONE.

SORRY, THAN THE ONE THAT WE SAW EARLIER TODAY.

THIS APPLICANT HAS BEEN IN THE DEEP ELLUM COMMUNITY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND ONLY HAS A HANDFUL OF COMPLAINTS OVER A SPAN OF NUMBER OF YEARS. THEY WORK CLOSELY WITH THE FOUNDATION, AND THE ONLY REASON IT REQUIRES A SUPERMAJORITY IS THAT A ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS NEARBY DID A OPPOSITION. BUT IT IS A GOOD OPERATOR.

IT'S AN OPERATOR THAT THAT WE SUPPORT. AND SO I HOPE THAT I CAN HAVE YOUR SUPPORT.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION Z NINE? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED?

[06:25:02]

AYES HAVE IT. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO ITEM Z 12.

[Z12. 26-3063A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting a new planned development district for LI Light Industrial District uses on property zoned A(A) Agricultural District, on the south line of Cleveland Road, west of Lancaster-Hutchins Road Recommendation of Staff: Approval, subject to conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval, subject to conditions Z-25-000229 Note: This item was deferred by the City Council at public hearings on August 25, 2026 and September 9, 2026, and is scheduled for consideration on September 23, 2026. *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

ITEM Z 12 IS A PUBLIC. WAS THERE A RECORD VOTE TAKEN FOR THAT.

BECAUSE IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT WE HAVE. 12 I THINK WE DO.

AND I THINK AND THE ANSWER IS NO RECORD VOTE WAS TAKEN, BUT I BELIEVE WE HAD 12.

WELL WE DIDN'T. SORRY. SAY IT AGAIN. WE DID NOT.

I THOUGHT WE DID. WE DIDN'T WANT EVERYBODY AND EVERYBODY WAS.

AND ALL THE PEOPLE ON CAMERA TO SAY, SECRETARY SAYS, WE'RE GOOD.

WE WERE GOOD. YEP. I MEAN, IT'S ON CAMERA, RIGHT? CITY SECRETARY SAYS WE'RE GOOD. SO WE'RE MOVING ON. THANK YOU. ITEM Z 12 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW PLAN.

DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR LIGHT, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT USES ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH LINE OF CLEVELAND ROAD, WEST OF LANCASTER, HUTCHENS ROAD. MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 20 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST. WE RECEIVED ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND THREE REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.

THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM. ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS? I SEE AN INDIVIDUAL COMING FORWARD. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SANTOS MARTINEZ 2489 CAMINO PLATEAU LOOP, NORTHEAST RIO RANCHO, NEW MEXICO, 87144. I JUST WANT TO COMMEND THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER AND COUNCIL MEMBER FOR THIS DISTRICT AND WORKING WITH US IN CREATING THIS NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.

WE NOW HAVE A CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT WAS NOT ORIGINALLY IN OUR APPLICATION.

WE'VE MODIFIED SOME OF THE CONDITIONS ON LANDSCAPING, TREE MITIGATION, PARKING LOT TREES, THE SIZE OF TREES SOME ADDITIONAL BUFFERS FOR ALONG THE CREEKS.

STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS WE ASK FOR YOUR, FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS REQUEST.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM Z 12? NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. LOOKING FOR A MOTION? Z 12. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE AS RECOMMENDED BY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUBJECT TO A CONCEPTUAL PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES.

NUMBER ONE, THE GENERAL MERCHANDISE OR FOOD STORE 3500FT² OR LESS IN SAND, GRAVEL OR EARTH.

SALES AND STORAGE USES ARE PERMITTED. NUMBER TWO, PARAGRAPH FOUR, SUBSECTION A UNDER LANDSCAPING SHOULD READ.

EXISTING TREES MAY BE USED TO SATISFY THE SITE TREE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 51, A 10.125, SUBSECTION B, PARAGRAPH FOUR, SUBPARAGRAPH B ROMANET TWO AND REQUIRED LANDSCAPE. ISLAND TREES MUST BE A MINIMUM CALIBER OF FOUR INCHES.

MAY I ASK FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE MOTION? IS THAT APPROPRIATE? SURE. WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION? IF THE TWO USES LISTED FIRST WERE INTENDED TO BE PROHIBITED OR PERMITTED.

PROHIBITED. PROHIBITED. THANK YOU. YES. SO THAT WAS THE MOTION.

IS THERE A SECOND? ALL RIGHT. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

MR. BLAIR, DO YOU WANT YOUR FIVE MINUTES? WELL, YES.

OKAY. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THAT PURPOSE. YES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. DISTRICT EIGHT HAS A LOT OF CREEKS AND A LOT OF NATURAL TREES THAT CAN'T BE REPLACED. I TYPICALLY ALWAYS TRY TO TO PROTECT AS MANY OF THESE TREES AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE IT GIVES US THE THE IN THE HEAT, IT GIVES US NATURAL COVERING.

IT GIVES IT DOESN'T MAKE IT SUCH A HOT HEAT ITEM.

SO WITH THAT, I, I ASK THAT YOU GUYS SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE WHAT I AM DOING IS RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS A CREEK. AND THERE'S TWO CREEKS THAT CONVERGE ON EACH OTHER SO THAT IT HAS A LOT OF NATURAL GREEN SPACE.

I LIKE TO PROTECT MY TREES. SO I ASK THAT YOU ALSO VOTE FOR THIS.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST Z 12? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED?

[PH2. 26-2595A A public hearing (1) to receive comments regarding an application by Titanium Housing Partners, LLC and/or its affiliate(s) (collectively referred to as Applicant), to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) for 2026 4% Non-Competitive Low Income Housing Tax Credits for The Pemberton at Independence, a 257-unit multifamily residential development to be located at 4242 and 4150 Independence Drive and 4154 Preferred Place, Dallas, Texas 75237 (Project); (2) pursuant to Section 394.9025 of the Texas Local Government Code regarding bonds to be issued by the City of Dallas Housing Finance Corporation to finance the Project; and, at the close of the public hearing, (3) authorize a Resolution of No Objection for the Applicant, related to its upcoming application to TDHCA for the development of the Project - Financing: This action has no cost consideration to the City (see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with Dallas Housing Resource Catalog.]

EYES. HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU.

SORRY, MR. MAYOR. YOUR NEXT ITEM IS PF TWO. PAGE TWO IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

ONE TO RECEIVE COMMENTS REGARDING AN APPLICATION BY TITANIUM HOUSING PARTNERS LLC AND OR ITS AFFILIATE, COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS APPLICANT TO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS.

TDHCA FOR 2026 4% NON COMPETITIVE LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS FOR THE PEMBERTON PEMBERTON AT

[06:30:07]

INDEPENDENCE, A 257 UNIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOCATED AT 4242 AND 4150 INDEPENDENCE DRIVE AND 4154 PREFERRED PLACE TO BE LOCATED AT 4242 AND 4150.

INDEPENDENCE DRIVE AND 4154 PREFERRED PLACE, DALLAS, TEXAS 75237.

PROJECT TWO. PURSUANT TO SECTION THREE NINE, 4.9025 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE REGARDING BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION TO FINANCE THE PROJECT AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, AUTHORIZED A RESOLUTION OF NO OBJECTION FOR THE APPLICANT RELATED TO ITS UPCOMING APPLICATION TO TDHCA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT.

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 FF TWO? NO SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. LOOKING FOR A MOTION FF TWO.

MR. MAYOR, I MOVE APPROVAL. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

ANY DISCUSSION? CHAIRMAN GRACEY YES, SIR. JUST REALLY QUICK. THANK YOU.

REALLY QUICKLY. THIS IS THE CULMINATION OF EFFORTS THAT STARTED WAY BACK ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO.

AND WE'RE FINALLY GETTING TO A PLACE WHERE WE GET SOME TRACTION. IF MANY OF YOU REMEMBER, WE ORDERED OWNED 4150 INDEPENDENCE.

THIS IS NOW GIVING US THE ABILITY TO REALLY DEVELOP ALL THREE OF THOSE INSTEAD OF ONE MOTEL, WHICH WAS AS OPPOSED TO BECAUSE OF DEVELOPING PUBLIC PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.

IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT WAS GOING TO BE WAS NOT GOING TO BE THE GIVE US THE OUTCOMES THAT WE WANTED.

THIS NOW GIVES US THE ABILITY TO DO THAT AND ULTIMATELY REDUCE A LOT OF CRIME AND HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE RED BIRD AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

SO WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO BE SUPPORTING THIS, AND I APPRECIATE YOU ALL SUPPORT.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOUR AGAINST TWO SEEING NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT.

[PH3. 26-2923A A public hearing to receive comments on an application for and a resolution granting a variance to the alcohol spacing requirements from a church [Steven Temple Church] as required by Section 6-4 of the Dallas City Code to allow a mixed beverage permit pursuant to Chapter 28 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code, for a restaurant without drive-in or drive-through service with a food and beverage certificate [La Reyna Rental Properties, LLC - DBA La Reyna’s Micheladas], on the southeast corner of Alabama Avenue and East Saner Avenue - AV256-004/CPR-26-000301 - Financing: No cost consideration to the City *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

NEXT ITEM ITEM FF THREE IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON AN APPLICATION FOR AND A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE ALCOHOL SPACING REQUIREMENTS FROM A CHURCH. STEPHEN TEMPLE CHURCH AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 6-4 OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE TO ALLOW A MIXED BEVERAGE PERMIT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 28 OF THE TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE FOR A RESTAURANT WITHOUT DRIVE IN OR DRIVE THROUGH SERVICE WITH A FOOD AND BEVERAGE CERTIFICATE.

LORENA RENTAL PROPERTIES, LLC, DBA LORENA MICHELADAS ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ALABAMA AVENUE AND EAST CENTER AVENUE.

YOU DO HAVE FOUR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

YOUR FIRST SPEAKER IS CHARLES COX.

GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS CHARLES COX. I'M A MEMBER OF THE STEPHEN TEMPLE CHURCH, AND I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS AMENDMENT OR PROPOSAL. AND WHAT I HAVE RESEARCHED HERE IS UNDER TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE SECTION 109.3, THREE, LOCAL CITY COUNCILS AND COMMISSIONERS COURT CAN PROHIBIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WITHIN 300FT OF THE CHURCH.

THIS BUSINESS IS WANTING TO MOVE OR GET. THIS LICENSE IS ACTUALLY JUST ABOUT 16FT FROM OUR PROPERTY LINE.

SO IT WOULD BE IN CLEAR VIOLATION. AND ALSO, I HAVE READ UP ON RECENT STUDIES THAT SHOW THAT ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES IN THE PROXIMITY OF DIFFERENT LOCATIONS CREATE A LOT MORE CRIME AND DISRUPTION THAN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS IS BEGINNING TO BE A VIBRANT RESIDENTIAL AREA, AND I KNOW THAT MAYBE NOT ALL, BUT SOME REMEMBER WHAT ALL WENT ON WHEN WE HAD SUCH A BLIGHT OF THESE ALCOHOLIC SALES AREAS IN SOUTH DALLAS AROUND THE SOUTH AROUND THE FAIR PARK AREA. BACK IN THE LATE 70S, EARLY 80S WHERE IT JUST PUT A BLIGHT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

ALSO, I WAS READING THAT TWO TYPES OF ESTABLISHMENTS THAT CAUSE PROBLEMS WITH THIS AREA IS THE ON PREMISE AND OFF PREMISE, WHICH IF WE JUST OPEN A PLACE THAT HAS A LIQUOR LICENSE TO SELL TO THE PUBLIC, IT CREATES A LOT MORE DISORDER, PUBLIC DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND DISRUPTIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

ALSO, IT, IT HURTS WITH THE PROPERTY VALUE, THE TRAFFIC, PARKING, LITTER, PUBLIC SAFETY, CRIME, AND A DENSITY OF ALCOHOL RELATED OUTLETS CREATES ADVERSE EPISODES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

[06:35:10]

THIS ALSO ONE SOME MORE REASONS FOR THE RESTRICTIONS IN PROPER PROXIMITY OF THIS IS.

WE'D LIKE TO PRESERVE THE PEACE AND QUIET IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

PUBLIC ORDER. AND ALSO PUT A STOP TO SO-CALLED VICTIMLESS CRIMES.

THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS BEGINNING TO BE A VIBRANT NEIGHBORHOOD.

PEOPLE ARE MOVING THERE WITH FAMILIES NOT JUST TO STAY, BUT TO LIVE AND RAISE THEIR FAMILIES.

THEY'RE BUILDING UPSCALE HOMES. AND WITH. I THINK THAT THIS FACILITY WOULD BE JUST A.

IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A NO BRAINER PUTTING US IN AN ESTABLISHMENT THAT CAN SELL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO A CHURCH. THIS PROPERTY IS LITERALLY 16FT FROM OUR DOORSTEP.

AND THEY WANT TO SELL ALCOHOL OR HAVE A A LICENSE TO SELL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.

THAT'S GOING TO CREATE ALL KIND OF PROBLEMS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU GERALDINE ROGERS.

AGAIN. GOOD AFTERNOON. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT, WELL, I'M A MEMBER OF STEPHEN TEMPLE CHURCH AND WE HAVE LIKE SIX AND SEVEN YEAR OLD, YOU KNOW, MEETING FOR THE KIDS TO HAVE PROGRAMS. AND THEN WE GOT THE 16 AND THE 14, AND THIS PLACE THAT THEY'RE SELLING ALCOHOL WON'T BE RIGHT NEXT DOOR.

WE HAVE THE WOMEN'S MEETING, JUST THE LADIES THERE AT THE CHURCH.

AND THEN IT'S JUST NOT TO ME NOT SAFE BECAUSE.

AND WE ALSO GIVE FOOD TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE DON'T WANT THEM TO BE AFRAID TO COME BECAUSE RIGHT NEXT DOOR, YOU GOT PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, BUYING ALCOHOL AND SITTING PARKING RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE CHURCH.

THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO SAY. THANK YOU. TOMMY COLEMAN.

TOMMY COLEMAN IS NOT ONLINE. OKAY.

I'M TOMMY COLEMAN. I'M THE PASTOR THERE AT STEVEN TEMPLE CHURCH.

WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR OVER 50 YEARS. AND AS ALCOHOL RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THE CHURCH. WE HAVE BUILT TWO FACILITIES THERE FROM THE GROUND UP.

WE BUILT TWO FACILITIES THERE AT STEVEN TEMPLE.

SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO HAVE THAT PLACE, YOU KNOW, FOR WHEN PEOPLE COME TO OUR COMMUNITY, THEY WON'T BE AFRAID. AND RIGHT NEXT DOOR, WE'RE HAVING A PROBLEM WITH PARKING ON SUNDAY MORNING.

THEY'RE PARKING OUT ON THE STREETS THERE. AND WE DON'T HAVE THEY DON'T THE POLICE DON'T HAVE A A LOT OF PARKING AND THEY'RE NOT HAVING A LOT OF PARKING. THEY ARE USING SOME PARTS OF OUR PROPERTY.

WE GOT BACKING OUT OF OUR CHURCH PROPERTY. SO IT'S IT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM WITH PROBLEM WITH PARKING. IT WILL BE A PROBLEM WITH PARKING.

SO WE JUST WANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THAT PART FOR US.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. STACEY HENDERSON.

STACEY HENDERSON. YES. I'M HERE. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THOSE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID BY THE MY PREDECESSORS THAT THAT I AM A MEMBER OF STEVEN TEMPLE AND ALL THOSE THAT HAVE SPOKEN.

I REITERATE WHAT THEY SAY. THE PARKING IS BAD ALREADY.

WE FIND THAT SUNDAY MORNINGS THAT WE SEE TRACKS AND TRAILS THAT HAVE COME ACROSS THE CHURCH'S PARKING LOT OF THOSE THAT HAVE PARTICIPATED OR HUNG OUT IN THAT AREA THE PREVIOUS DAY OR PREVIOUS DAYS, THAT IT CAUSES PROBLEMS AND CONTINUED PROBLEMS WITH, WITH REPLANTING GRASS AND, AND REDOING THE ASPHALT AT THE PARKING LOT FOR VARIOUS REASONS.

[06:40:01]

SO I AM TOTALLY AGAINST ANY TYPE OF MEASURES THAT WILL GRANT A LICENSE FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES TO BE SOLD, OR EVEN A RESTAURANT THAT WILL SELL MIXED DRINKS IN THAT AREA.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THOSE ARE YOUR REGISTERED SPEAKERS.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL? I SEE TWO 1ST MAY COME FORWARD. OKAY. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU MAY BEGIN.

I'M BRIDGET ROBERSON, I I'M NOT JUST A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH.

I AM A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH, BUT I'M ALSO A RESIDENT THAT LIVES NOT FAR FROM THAT AREA.

AND TO HAVE A LIQUOR STORE JUST OF OUR DRINKING FACILITY OR WHATEVER YOU CALL IT, RIGHT THERE IN SUCH A NEIGHBORHOOD AS WE ARE TRYING TO IMPROVE AS IT IS IMPROVING, IT'S BETTER WE'RE NOT SO SCARED TO WALK OUT OUR DOOR AND COME TO CHURCH AND, AND NOT WE ALREADY HAVE A FACILITY RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO US THAT IS RACING CARS UP AND DOWN THE STREET.

AND AS THEY HAVE STATED, AND I WILL REITERATE NO VERY LITTLE PARKING.

AND IT WOULD JUST BE AND NOT TO MENTION THERE ARE SMALL CHILDREN IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE SCHOOL.

I'M ALSO A TEACHER, A RETIRED TEACHER, AND A SUBSTITUTE SUBSTITUTE TEACHER NOW, BUT I HAVE SEEN WHAT ALCOHOL FACILITIES RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM CHURCHES CAN DO. AND SO I'M JUST ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER THAT THAT'S NOT THE GREATEST PLACE TO SELL LIQUOR.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER. HI, MY NAME IS REINA SOLORZANO AND I AM THE OWNER OF THE RESTAURANT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO OPEN.

HERE AGAIN TO ASK FOR YOUR HELP. I ALREADY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET.

I OWN FIVE PROPERTIES ON THAT SAME CORNER I BOUGHT.

I'M GONNA HAVE A LOT OF PARKING. THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE A PROBLEM.

AND ALSO ABOUT THE TRASH. I AM THE ONE CLEANING THE WHOLE STREET.

I'M PICKING UP TIRES. I'M PICKING UP. THERE'S AN ITEM RIGHT NOW SITTING THERE FOR ONE WEEK, AND NO MEMBER OF THE CHURCH HAS GONE OVER THERE AND CLEANED IT.

I'M THE ONE CLEANING ALL BOTTLES NOW. I OWN A BARBER SHOP.

I OWN THE BUILDING. I OWN A RESTAURANT NEXT DOOR, AND I ALSO OWN A LOT NEXT TO THEIR CHURCH WHERE THE CHURCH MEMBERS PARKED THERE.

I DON'T MIND, WE OPEN AT 11 IN THE MORNING. THEIR SERVICE ALREADY FINISHED.

SOMETIMES THEY'RE STILL THERE, BUT I OPEN LATE FOR THE SAME REASON TO GIVE THEM OPPORTUNITY FOR THEIR CHURCH.

NOW I DON'T KNOW WHY I'M HITTING WALLS. I AM BUSINESSWOMAN, I'M TRYING TO TO BRING THAT COMMUNITY.

THAT VACANT LOT WAS EMPTY FOR SO MANY YEARS AND NOBODY HAS DONE ANYTHING.

I BOUGHT IT, I'M TRYING TO OPEN A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER, TRYING TO PUT THE COMMUNITY AND TRYING TO TAKE HOMELESS OUT OF THE STREETS, OUT OF THEIR AREA. I'M TRYING TO DO SOMETHING.

THE COMMUNITY OF THE CHURCH DON'T DO NOTHING. THEY JUST ASSUMING THINGS.

AND I AM THE ONE THERE ALL DAY WORKING ON THE BARBER SHOP, CLEANING, TAKE PICKING UP BOTTLES.

NOW IF I DON'T GET APPROVED, IT'S FINE. PEOPLE STILL GOING TO BRING BEER TO THE BARBER SHOP BECAUSE I HAVE A BIG SIGN SAYING BYOD BRING YOUR OWN BEER.

I ALLOW THEM TO BRING IT, BUT I'M TRYING TO DO IT LEGALLY.

I'M TRYING TO GET ALL THE PERMITS I NEED. I'M TRYING TO PAY TAXES.

I PAY TAXES FOR FIVE PROPERTIES IN THAT AREA RIGHT THERE.

I OWN THE CORNER FROM THE BARBER SHOP. I OWN THE NEXT CORNER ON THE OTHER SIDE, AND I ALSO OWN THE LOT, THE OTHER SIDE. SO I'M PAYING A LOT OF TAXES AND I'M TRYING TO PUSH BUSINESS UP AND I CAN'T DO IT WHEN I'M HITTING WALLS.

THIS IS THE THIS IS THE SECOND TIME I'M HERE, AND I WAS DENIED THE FIRST TIME FOR A PERSONAL ISSUE THAT SOMEBODY HAD AGAINST ME.

DON'T TAKE IT PERSONAL. THIS IS BUSINESS. I'M IN BUSINESS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? ITEM THREE. NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. IS THERE A MOTION ON PAGE THREE? YES, MR. MAYOR. I, I MOVE TO HOLD THIS UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL TEN, 14, 26.

SECOND. I'M SORRY, MR. MAYOR, BECAUSE THIS IS AN ALCOHOL VARIANCE.

IT WOULD REQUIRE TWO SECONDS ONLY TO APPROVE, NOT TO NOT TO HOLD UNDER ADVISEMENT.

THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU. THE MOTION IS TO HOLD UNDER ADVISEMENT HAS BEEN SECONDED.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ANYONE? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. TENNELL UNDER ADVISEMENT OF 1014.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YOUR NEXT ITEM. ITEM FOUR.

[PH4. 26-2899A A public hearing to receive comments on a proposed municipal setting designation to prohibit the use of groundwater as potable water beneath property owned by GoodRE Singleton Investments LLC and generally located near the intersection of Singleton Boulevard and Vinson Street and adjacent street rights-of-way; and an ordinance authorizing support of the issuance of a municipal setting designation to GoodRE Singleton Investments LLC by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and prohibiting the use of groundwater beneath the designated property as potable water - Financing: No cost consideration to the City Recommendation of Staff: Approval]

ITEM FOUR IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON A PROPOSED MUNICIPAL SETTING DESIGNATION TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF GROUNDWATER AS POTABLE WATER BENEATH PROPERTY

[06:45:10]

OWNED BY GOOD RE SINGLETON INVESTMENTS, LLC AND GENERALLY LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF SINGLETON BOULEVARD AND VINCENT STREET AND ADJACENT STREET RIGHTS OF WAY, AND AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING SUPPORT OF THE ISSUANCE OF A MUNICIPAL SETTING DESIGNATION TO GOOD RE SINGLETON INVESTMENT, LLC FOR THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND PROHIBITING THE USE OF GROUNDWATER BENEATH THE DESIGNATED PROPERTY AS POTABLE WATER. BECAUSE THIS IS A MUNICIPAL SETTING DESIGNATION, IT REQUIRES THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 51, A 6.108 G THREE OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THE APPLICANT OR LICENSOR REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT WHO IS FAMILIAR WITH THE APPLICATION, MUST BE PRESENT AND AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL.

PLEASE COME FORWARD TO THE PODIUM AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF, PLEASE.

YES, MY NAME IS DAMON JOHNSON. I'M THE PROFESSIONAL GEOSCIENTIST REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT ON THIS PROPERTY.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS NEEDED. THANK YOU.

THERE ARE NO FURTHER REGISTERED SPEAKERS. ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS? NOPE. THERE ARE NOT ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM.

MR. MAYOR, SO THIS IS YOUR ITEM. LOOKING FOR A MOTION? ALL RIGHT. IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION, MISS CADENA? ANY DISCUSSION? ANYONE? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. MADAM SECRETARY, MR. MAYOR, THIS CONCLUDES YOUR ITEMS ON YOUR AGENDA, YOUR VOTING ITEMS ON YOUR AGENDA.

HOWEVER, YOUR OPEN MICROPHONE. SPEAKER. OPEN MIC PERIOD IS IS NEXT.

BUT. DOLORES PHILLIPS. IS NOT PRESENT. HOSSAM HASSAN HAS CANCELED. THEREFORE THAT'S YOUR OPEN MICROPHONE SPEAKERS, MISTER MAYOR.