[Consider/Discuss/Act on a Site Plan for Indoor Commercial Amusement (Tivona Event Center), Located at the Southwest Corner of South Lake Forest Drive and Virginia Parkway]

KNOW. ITEM 20020 SP THREE CONCERN ACT ON A SITE PLAN FOR INDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH LAKE FOREST DRIVE IN VIRGINIA PARKWAY. UNDERSTAND WE PULLED THE DAMP BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF CONVERSATION. UM FOR THOSE WHO MAY BE WONDERING WHY WOULD HAVE BEEN ON CONSENT, BECAUSE, UH, THE WAY THIS PROPERTY ALREADY HAS ENTITLEMENTS AND ZONING. FOR THIS USE. IT WOULD BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE MINISTERIAL.

PROCESS PROCEDURE, NOT NOT GENERALLY DELIBERATED ON, BUT WE UNDERSTAND THERE'S QUESTIONS WE WANT TO WAS PULLED DOWN. TO DISCUSS JENNIFER. THANK YOU, MR MAYOR. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. UM AS YOU MENTIONED, UH, THIS IS A SITE PLAN. IT DID SHOW UP ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. UM, TYPICALLY, SITE PLANS CAN BE APPROVED AT THE STAFF LEVEL. UM SO LONG AS THEY MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY. UM THIS PARTICULAR SITE PLAN DOES MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY AND ALL DEVELOPMENT CODES OF THE CITY. HOWEVER THE OVERARCHING PLAN DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRES THE ADMIN OF APPROVAL THROUGH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL. UM, IT IS.

THIS IS A CARRYOVER FROM 1997 ORDINANCE FOR THE PROPERTY. SO THIS WAS CONSIDERED BY THE

[00:25:02]

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AT THEIR LAST MEETING, THEY DID RECOMMEND THEY MADE THEIR APPROVAL STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. WE HAVE REVIEWED THE SITE PLAN. I'M HAPPY TO WALK THROUGH SOME OF THE SPECIFICS OF THAT SITE PLAN, HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE AS A STAFF ON APPROVAL. I KNOW THERE ARE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS REGARDING WHAT IS REQUIRED ON SITE VERSUS WHAT IS BEING BUILT. SO IF YOU WANT TO THROW THE SITE PLAN UP TO NIRA, I'D BE HAPPY TO KIND OF WALK THROUGH IT. MR ARNOLD. THANK YOU. WELL SHE'S PUTTING THAT UP. BUT WILL YOU GO AHEAD AND ADDRESS THE HISTORY OF THIS MATTER COMING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL? SURE I THINK THE BIGGEST DISTINCTION IS TO WALK THROUGH WHAT HAPPENED IN 2020, THE REZONING EVENT VERSUS WHAT WE HAVE TODAY. SO IN 2020, THERE WAS A REQUEST BROUGHT FORWARD TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM THE CURRENT ZONING THAT 1997 PD ZONING ORDINANCE TO A NEW PD ZONING THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED FOR SOMETHING DIFFERENT TO DEVELOP ON THE SITE IN TERMS OF THE CONFIGURATION OF THE PROPOSED EVENT CENTER WAS THEN IN 2020. IT WAS 2019 20. 20 YES, SIR. AND I THINK ONLY THE MAYOR AND I WERE ON THE COUNCIL THE FIRST FEW TIMES THIS ISSUE CAME BEFORE US, AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO CLEAR UP FOR OUR SPEAKERS. IS SATAN. ABSOLUTELY YES. YES SO I INTERRUPT. NO YOU'RE YOU'RE FINE, SO THE 2020 EVENT WAS A RESOUNDING EVENT THAT IS A COMPLETELY DISCRETIONARY REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE COMFORTABLE WITH THE REZONING OR NOT ULTIMATE THAT REZONING REQUEST WAS WITHDRAWN AND THE APPLICANT HAS SPENT THE LAST TWO YEARS OR SO WORKING TO DEVELOP THE SITE UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING ON THE PROPERTY, SO I REFER TO THAT 1997 ZONING. THAT EXISTING ZONING ON THE PROPERTY.

I THINK ONE IMPORTANT THING TO POINT OUT. THANK YOU IS THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY? UM ACTUALLY, TENNIS. WOULD YOU MIND THERE'S A SITE PLAN. THERE SHOULD BE A IT SHOULD BE CALLED SITE PLAN EXHIBIT. UM, THE ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY EXTENDS BEYOND JUST THE 114 ACRES THAT'S BEING PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT AS PART OF THIS SITE PLAN, AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF, UM UM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDED WITHIN THAT ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THIS PARTICULAR TRACT. UM THE THREE MOST NOTEWORTHY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN, UM, SORT OF QUESTIONED A LOT OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS IS ONE THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED EVENT CENTER USES ON THIS PARTICULAR ZONING EVENT CENTER USES ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT VIA THAT 1997 ZONING ORDINANCE ONLY ON THE REAR PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER ANY EVENT CENTER USES OR ANY USES OR BUILDINGS ON THAT PROPERTY ARE LIMITED TO LESS THAN 15,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE IN THE SITE PLAN BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, THAT IS WHY YOU SEE THE THREE INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS ALL UNDER THAT 15,000 SQUARE FOOT SIZE. UM THE PD ZONING ON THE PROPERTY ALSO DOES REQUIRE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE CREEK. THAT SORT OF RUNNING, UM, WEST TO EAST OR EAST TO WEST THROUGH THE PROPERTY. YOU WILL SEE NOTED ON THE SITE PLAN THAT THE PROPOSED CREEK OR THE CREEK IS PROPOSED TO BE PRESERVED. DO SHOW RETAINING WALLS AND ALONG THE BANKS OF THE CREEK BED.

THERE IS A BRIDGE GOING OVER THE CREEK THAT IS CONNECTING THE NORTH PORTION OF THE SITE TO THE SOUTH PORTION OF THE SITE. HOWEVER IN THE REVIEW THAT WAS CONDUCTED BY BOTH PLANNING, STAFF AND ENGINEERING STAFF, AND WE DID FIND THAT THEY ARE PRESERVING THAT CREEK TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION RECENTLY ABOUT THE INTENT STATEMENTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THAT ZONING ORDINANCE AND SORT OF THE THAT HAS BEEN DEFINED, AND, UNFORTUNATELY, THOSE INTENT STATEMENTS AND CHARACTER STATEMENTS ARE REALLY CONTEXT STATEMENTS THEY ARE NOT GENERALLY ENFORCEABLE AT THE STAFF LEVEL OR THE CITY. UM, IF THERE IS, YOU KNOW, AN INTENSE STATEMENT THAT IS THEN BACKED UP BY VERY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OR STANDARDS IN THAT PD ZONING. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE HELD TO.

SO THERE CONCERNS ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE. THIS PD ZONING DEFINES THAT NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE AND NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE. BASED ON THAT BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE CAP OF 15,000 SQUARE FEET. THERE IS NOT DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OR AUTHORITY BY THE CITY TO DETERMINE WHAT MEETS THAT DEFINITION INCLUDED IN THAT INTENT, STATEMENT OR CHARACTER STATEMENT, SO IT STAFFS REVIEW AS PNZ HAS FILTERED IT THE GAUGE OR THE THINGS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT? ARE THOSE VERY SPECIFIC STANDARDS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE BODY OF THE PD.

UM AND THANK YOU. TRES. UM SO THIS IS THE PD YOU WILL OR THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. YOU WILL SEE THE THREE INDOOR BUILDINGS HERE. I'LL PUT A DIFFERENT COLOR HERE. WELL HERE I'LL DO HERE. 00. IF

[00:30:08]

YOU, UM WHAT'S THE MAGIC BUTTON TO MAKE IT GO FULL SCREEN. THIS IS FINE. THIS THIS WILL WORK.

JUST FINE. WORRY ABOUT IT. UM THESE ARE THE BUILDINGS DOWN HERE. WELL. YOU WILL SEE. THE LIMITS OF THE CREEK. ARE DEFINED HERE. WITH THAT DOTTED LINE, YOU WILL SEE THIS IS THE BRIDGE THAT'S GOING OVER THE CREEK THAT WE THAT I TALKED ABOUT. THAT WASN'T THE GREAT BEST COLOR TO USE, BUT FOR ITS GOING OVER THERE, UM I KNOW THAT SOME OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT HAVE KIND OF COME UP OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS OR MONTHS. MAYBE UM, ARE RELATED TO PARKING AND WE DO WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT REQUESTING ANY SORT OF PARKING VARIANCE WITH THIS SITE PLAN. UM THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO UTILIZE A STANDARD SHARED PARKING AGREEMENTS BECAUSE THERE ARE THREE DISTINCT LOTS SHOWN ON THIS INDIVIDUAL SITE PLAN. AND WHEN YOU HAVE INDIVIDUAL LOTS, UM AND PARKING, UM, IS GOING BETWEEN ONE LOT TO ANOTHER. WE DO AS A STANDARD REQUIREMENT OF THE CITY. UM REQUIRE THAT SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT TO ENSURE THAT THE PARKING SPACES THAT ARE PROVIDED ARE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE MINIMUM PARKING STANDARD OF THE CITY. SO IN THAT REVIEW, YOU'LL NOTICE ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. IT IS CONDITIONED ON THE FINAL EXECUTION OF THAT. SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT BEFORE BUILDING PERMIT CAN GET ISSUED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE. SO WE HAVE ASSURANCES THAT THAT WILL BE IN PLACE. UH, BEFORE THEY START MOVING DIRT OR GOING VERTICAL. UM AND THEN, UM, I'M TRYING TO THINK THROUGH TRAFFIC TRAFFIC, SO I DO HAVE ENGINEERING HERE WITH US AS WELL. I DO KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND THE COMPLETION OR LACK OF COMPLETION OF A TRAFFIC STUDY AS ENGINEERING REVIEWS THESE SITE SITE PLAN REQUESTS THEY ARE LOOKING AT ANTICIPATED ROADWAY IMPACTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SHOULD BE REQUIRED IN LOOKING AT THIS PROPOSED USE THAT IT DID NOT RISE TO THAT LEVEL. ESPECIALLY KNOWING THAT THE UM DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSING TO PROVIDE THE RIGHT TURN LANES IN AND OUT OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED, BUT IT DOES SIT AT THE INTERSECTION OF TWO ARTERIAL ROADWAYS, WHICH AS MASTER PLANNED THOROUGHFARES ARE DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC. SO I'M GONNA STOP PRETENDING TO BE AN ENGINEER. UM, AT THIS POINT, IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT TI A REQUIREMENT AND WHAT TRIGGERS IT OR WHAT DOESN'T, UM, MAT WITH OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IS HERE.

JUST CONFIRM FOR ME BECAUSE WE HAD SOME EMAIL EXCHANGES TODAY. SO FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND THERE WAS AN ANALYSIS DONE ON THIS. AND AT LEAST SOME SEGMENT OF VIRGINIA NEAR HERE THAT SHOWED AT LEAST 34,000 CARS THAT PASSED THIS AREA. SO IF WE HAVE PARKING SPACES IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF 458, THEN THE OVERALL IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T SEEM TO NECESSITATE. A SEPARATE TRAFFIC STUDY. IS THAT CORRECT? UM, THAT'S A THAT'S THAT'S ONE WAY TO LOOK AT IT. YES I MEAN, WE HAVE A SIX LANE ROADWAY ON THE BOUNDARY THAT CARRIES 36,000 VEHICLES. 34,000 VEHICLES PER DAY. EXCUSE ME. WE HAVE A FOUR LANE ROADWAY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF LAKE FOREST DRIVE THAT CARRIES SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 15 TO 18,000 VEHICLES PER DAY. THE 500 APPROXIMATELY VEHICLES THAT CAN PARK ON THIS PROPERTY WHEN YOU HAVE MULTIPLE ACCESS POINTS TO THOSE ROADWAYS. THAT'S A RELATIVELY ALL IMPACT ON ON ON ON THE TWO ROADWAYS OF THAT SIZE. THE ROADS, OF COURSE, HAVE BEEN DESIGNED IN ANTICIPATION OF COMMERCIAL BUILD OUT AND DEVELOPMENT AND CURB THE REASON WHY IT IS CORRECT. THEY WERE DESIGNED FOR YOU KNOW THIS THAT THIS COULD HAVE BEEN, UM, UM, COULD HAVE BEEN OFFICE RETAIL USES THAT ONCE BUILT OUT COULD HAVE HAD A SIMILAR SIMILAR LEVEL OF TRAFFIC. SO THE ACCESS POINTS THAT ARE ON VILLAGE DRIVE. THOSE ARE FOR FIRE ACCESS. ONLY CORRECT. IS THERE ONE POINT OR TWO POINTS OF ACCESS THERE THE THERE'S TWO POINTS OF ACCESS ON VILLAGE DRIVE. UM WE JUST SCOOCH TO THE LEFT A LITTLE BIT ON THAT SECOND, MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE GATED ONE, THE ONE THAT IS MORE INTERIOR TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS GATED, THE ONE THAT IS CLOSER TO VIRGINIA PARKWAY IS OPEN FOR PUBLIC TRAFFIC IS RIGHT THERE. THERE. THIS ONE HERE IS GATED. THIS ONE IS OPEN TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO VIRGINIA PARKWAY. THANK YOU. AM GOING TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS AND I AM NOT MAKING THESE COMMENTS.

[00:35:02]

IT IS TRULY NOT. I TOLD YOU KIND OF THING. IT'S BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE'S GOING TO MOST PROBABLY BE ANOTHER ZONING COMING UP ON WHAT WAS MENTIONED THE 38,000 SQUARE FOOT, UM, USE BECAUSE THEY ASSUMING THAT THE OWNER DEVELOPER OF THAT PARCEL UNDERSTANDS THAT THERE'S THE SAME RESTRICTION. ON SIZE OF BUILDINGS, SO IF, IN FACT THERE IS A 38,000 BUILDING BEING FLOATED. OUT THERE PUBLICLY. UM IT IS NOT ENTITLED THAT THIS POINT AND WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK FOR ZONING. AND I WOULD SAY THAT WHEN WE EVALUATE THAT AT LEAST I WILL SPEAK FOR MYSELF.

EVALUATE THAT VERY SIMILARLY, TO THE WAY I EVALUATED THIS, AND I THINK SOME OF YOU I PROBABLY SPOKE TO BECAUSE I CAME OUT TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD YEARS AGO WHEN IT WAS FIRST PROPOSED. THEY WERE LOOKING FOR A ZONING VARIANCE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BUILD THREE SEPARATE BUILDINGS.

THEY WANTED TO BUILD ONE BUILDING AND IF THEY WERE ABLE TO BUILD IF THEY WERE ABLE TO BUILD ONE BUILDING WITH MULTIPLE FLOORS, THEY WERE WILLING TO PUT THAT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CREEK. THAT WAS ANOTHER PART OF THE ZONING REQUEST, AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT 100 FT FROM THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THEY SAID AT THAT TIME IF THEY ARE UNABLE TO DO THAT, AND THEY HAVE TO BUILD SEPARATE BUILDINGS, THEN BASED ON THE FLOOR PLATE THEY NEEDED, IT WOULD MOVE TO THE BACK. PART OF THE PROPERTY, AND IT WOULD BE ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL. ADVOCATED FOR IT. I HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AND SEE IF I IN FACT VOTED TO APPROVE IT. I MOST PROBABLY DID BECAUSE I KNOW I ADVOCATED FOR IT. I CAME OUT TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I IMPLORED EVERYONE THERE TO CONSIDER THIS BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE WOULD BE WHERE WE ARE. AND HERE WE ARE. I JUST WANT TO GIVE MY COMMENTS IF I COULD, UM, MAY I SPEAK TO THAT POINT? NO, SIR. IT IS UNFORTUNATE. I DO NOT MEAN TO BE DISRESPECTFUL. IT'S JUST NOT A DIALOGUE AT THIS POINT. YOU SPOKE FOR YOUR THREE MINUTES. I'M I'M GONNA THE UM BUT THERE WERE THREE PLANS AND THEY SHOWED DEVELOPMENT IN THE LOWER PART AGAIN. NOT A BACK AND FORTH, BUT, UM SO WE ARE GOING TO BE FACED WITH A SIMILAR DISCUSSION COMING UP, PROBABLY ON THAT OTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY AND ANYONE OUT THERE? THAT'S CONCERNED ABOUT THAT PIECE. YOU KNOW, I HOPE THAT EVERYONE COMES WITH THE SAME UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE ARE ENTITLEMENTS TODAY AND THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE WITH A DEVELOPER TO GET SOME THINGS THAT MAY ENHANCE AND MITIGATE CONCERNS WHEN A REZONING WHEN THERE IS NO REZONING. THERE IS NO LEVERAGE. THERE IS NO ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE OR MITIGATE. UM, I WILL JUST SAY FOR YOU KNOW, THE COMMENT WAS MADE ON 48,000 FT. 45,000 FT I.

I GET THAT. IN THAT SAME AREA OF LAND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE'S ABOUT A QUARTER OF A MILLION SQUARE FEET OF HOMES JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME RELATIVITY AND SCALE. UM SO 45,000 DOES SOUND LIKE A LOT OF MASS. BUT ON THAT ACREAGE, UM, YOU'VE GOT FIVE TIMES THAT IN IN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. JUST POINT OF INTEREST. A FEW MORE THINGS TO BRING FORWARD JENNIFER , IF YOU DON'T MIND ANSWERING A FEW MORE QUESTIONS, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE EVERYTHING DOCUMENTED IN AN OPEN SESSION SO THAT THE RESIDENTS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK AND VIEW THIS. BUT THERE WAS DISCUSSIONS ALSO ABOUT LIGHT POLLUTION AND SOUND POLLUTION.

CAN WE TALK ABOUT HOW WE REGULATE THAT AND WHAT THE SOUND REQUIREMENTS ARE? SURE? WELL, I'LL START WITH THE LIGHTING BECAUSE I THINK IT'S THE EASIER, EASIER ONE SO THE CITY DOES HAVE A LIGHTING ORDINANCE. ALL ALL DEVELOPMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO THAT AND THAT LIGHTING ORDINANCE. IS A FAIRLY STANDARD IN THAT IT DOES LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF LIGHT POLLUTION. ALL LIGHTS HAVE TO BE ORIENTED AND SHIELDED AWAY FROM BOUNDING PROPERTY LINES TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS NO UM WHAT'S THE WORD OVERLAP OR SPILLOVER OF LIGHT? UM SO, UM, THIS, UH, PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THOSE EXACT SAME STANDARDS, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ELIMINATION PLANS THAT GET, UM, REVIEWED BY OUR BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE THAT THEY COMPLY WITH THE CITY STANDARDS ON THE NORTH SIDE. I WILL TELL YOU WE HAVE TWO UM, WELL, ACTUALLY, WE JUST RELOCATED THEM. THERE'S UM, CHAPTER. I'M LOOKING AT HOUSE OR IS IT 60 OR 70 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES? I THINK IT'S CHAPTER 70 CHAPTER 70 OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCE IS OUR NOISE ORDINANCE, AND THERE ARE TWO PARTS TO THAT NOISE ORDINANCE. ONE IS THE BASIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY, AND THE OTHER IS WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER THE NUISANCE LAWS. SO THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS LIMIT ANY DEVELOPMENT FROM HAVING LOUD NOISES EXCEED A CERTAIN DECAL LEVEL AT A BOUNDING PROPERTY LINE, AND THERE'S A DAYTIME DECIBEL LEVEL AND A NIGHT TIME DECIBEL LEVEL AND I BELIEVE IT'S 65. AT THE BOUNDING PROPERTY LINE DURING THE DAY AND 55 DURING THE EVENING HOURS, SO IF AT ANY POINT A DEVELOPMENT IS EXCEEDING THOSE DUSTABLE LEVELS. THEY WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THOSE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND SUBJECT TO WHATEVER LEGAL AUTHORITY THE CITY HAS OR LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS. THE CITY HAS TO

[00:40:06]

ISSUE A CITATION A VIOLATION TAKE THEM TO COURT, THE NUISANCE LAW SIDE OF IT OUTSIDE OF THOSE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, UH, PROVIDES PROTECTIONS FOR ANY RESIDENT. MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY WHO IS EXPERIENCING A NOISE DISTURBANCE, AND THERE'S CLEAR DEFINITIONS OF WHAT THAT IS INCLUDED IN THAT, UM AND THAT INCLUDES REVVING OF ENGINES. LOUD MUSIC AMPLIFIED MUSIC DOGS BARKING FOR A CONSISTENT PERIOD OF TIME. UM AND THINGS OF THE LIKE. SO IF IT EVER A TIME THERE IS A CONCERN WITH A NOISE NUISANCE COMING FROM A PROPERTY THIS ONE OR EVEN YOUR NEIGHBOR WHO HAS A LOUD DOG YOU CAN CALL CITY AND MAKE A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE NOISE NUISANCE AND THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO COME OUT AND EVALUATE THE LEVEL OF DISTURBANCE DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT IS EXCEEDING THOSE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OF THE CITY OR IS IN FACT, UM, HITTING THAT THRESHOLD OF BEING A NOISE DISTURBANCE, AND THEN THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE ACTION FROM THERE. SO, UM, WE DO HAVE SOME PROVISIONS IN OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES THAT HELP TO PROTECT ALL PROPERTY OWNERS SO THAT WE ARE ALL GOOD NEIGHBORS TO EACH OTHER, WHETHER IT'S AN EVENT CENTER OR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OR GARAGE OR ANYTHING OF THE LIKE. HAD ONE RESIDENT REQUEST THAT WE HAVE THE EVENTS THAT ARE MANDATE THAT THEY HAVE A POLICE OFFICER. DIRECT TRAFFIC. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT AND WHY WE DON'T DO IT? SURE MATT MAY BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT BETTER. BUT IF WE'RE HAVING TO, UM REQUIRE POLICE AND TRAFFIC CONTROL? UM THEN THAT MEANS I DON'T THINK THAT WE'VE DONE OUR JOBS CORRECTLY IN REVIEWING THE TRAFFICKED IMPACTS AND THE SITE PLAN AGAINST WHAT THE CITY REQUIRES, BECAUSE THE CITY'S CODES SHOULD BE ARE THERE TO ESTABLISH THE MINIMUM EXPECTATION FOR HOW COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS FUNCTION AND DEVELOP. SO IF THERE IS EVER A EVENT OR A TIME WHERE A PRIVATE OWN NEEDS TO PROVIDE THAT SORT OF POLICE AND TRAFFIC CONTROL THAT IS OF THEIR OWN VOLITION. IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE AS A CITY REQUIRE, BECAUSE THIS MAT SAID IN LOOKING AT THE RIGHT TURN LANES THAT ARE REQUIRED THE CAPACITIES OF THE ROADWAY, THE AMOUNT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE SITE. IF IT MEETS THE STANDARDS OF THE CITY, IT IS SHOULD BE FUNCTIONING AS THE CITY HAS ESTABLISHED. IT WANTS IT TO FUNCTION. SO THOSE ARE ALL PRIVATELY DONE IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY WANTS TO DO. SO ST GABRIEL'S CHURCH IN MIST STADIUM , THEY CHOOSE TO HIRE POLICE OFFICERS. THAT IS NOT A CITY MANDATED, MA'AM. THAT LAST QUESTION. PARKING SIGNS. NO THROUGH TRAFFIC SIGNS. AT WHAT POINT DO WE EVALUATE THE NEED FOR THAT? I'M GONNA DEFER THAT TO MATT. HE CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HOW THAT CIVIL REVIEW WORKS. THANK YOU, JENNIFER. YEAH, WELL, UM, WHEN, WHEN THE ENGINEERING PLANS DO COME IN FOR ACTUAL FOR FOUR FOR THE PERMIT REVIEW WILL TAKE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER. LOOK AT SOME OF THAT STUFF, UM, SEE, SEE IF THERE ARE OPTIONS AVAILABLE FOR THOSE SIGNS. ONE THING THAT WILL BE HAPPENING WITH THIS PROJECT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED IS THE IS FROM FROM THIS ENTRANCE UP HERE TO VIRGINIA PARKWAY. THAT PORTION OF THE ROADWAY IS GOING TO BE RESTED. SO THAT SO, UM UM SO THAT IT PROVIDES, UM SEPARATE LEFT AND RIGHT TURNS AT VIRGINIA PARKWAY AND A SEPARATE INBOUND LANE. SO THE COMBINATION OF THAT REST STRIPING, UM UM WOULD WOULD WOULD END UP DISCOURAGING ANY ANY PARKING, AT LEAST ON THAT MOST CRITICAL SECTION OF THE ROADWAY AT THE INTERSECTION. IF FOR SOME REASON, AFTER THE FACT IT WERE TO BE A PROBLEM STILL, WE WOULD LOOK AT LOOK AT PUTTING UP UP. NO, UM, NO PARKING SIGNS AT THAT TIME. WE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY AS A COUNCIL. IF WE DETERMINE THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM. WE FEEL THERE IS A PROBLEM BASED ON RESIDENT FEEDBACK IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT . SOMETHING WOULD BE NOT. I BELIEVE COUNCIL COULD. I BELIEVE THE DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING EVEN HAS THE POWER TO ENFORCE PARKING REGULATIONS ON STREETS? I BELIEVE SO EVEN AT THE STAFF LEVEL ARE ACTUALLY A TWO MORE QUESTIONS. ONE MORE. ONE MORE FOR YOU. UM THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE NEED FOR RETAINING VOTE AT WHAT POINT WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS IT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NOT AN ISSUE WITH EROSION FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO ARE ON THAT PROPERTY LINE? TERMS OF PUTTING UP A RETAINING WALL. IF IT NEEDS TO BE THERE. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WOULD INTERVENE ON OR IS THAT THAT THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTY. I BELIEVE ALONG THAT REAR PROPERTY LINE. I BELIEVE THEY DO HAVE A NUMBER OF RETAINING WALLS ALONG THAT REAR PROPERTY LINE AS THE DEVELOPER GRADES THE PROPERTY. IT WILL BE, UM UM UM, IT WILL BE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO ONCE

[00:45:02]

THEY MAKE THAT CUT. IT'LL BE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO BE SURE THEY BUILD THAT WALL BEFORE THAT SOIL STARTS SLOUGHING OFF. UM, IF OUR INSPECTORS SEE SOMETHING START TO HAPPEN, WE WILL POINT THAT OUT TO THEM. AT THE END OF THE DAY. IT IS THE DEVELOPER'S RESPONSIBILITY. TO BE SURE THEY BUILD THOSE RETAINING WALLS ARE NOT LEGALLY LIABLE FOR WHATEVER DAMAGES OCCUR IF THEY DO. I WOULD IMAGINE IF THE SOIL SLOUGHED OFF. I MEAN, THAT THAT'D BE BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT I'M SURE THERE'S SOME SOME LIABILITY THERE SO AND LAST QUESTION IS FOR MARK HAUSER. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE ON THIS. YES, MA'AM. IS THERE ANY LEGAL REASON WHY WE WOULD DENY THIS PLAN. I MEAN, I YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, THE FEEDBACK FROM FROM THE RESIDENTS ARE, YOU KNOW THEY DON'T WANT AN EVENT CENTER THERE, WHICH I UNDERSTAND. IT'S A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN A GREEN SPACE FOR A LONG TIME. UM, OF COURSE, WE WOULD ALL LOVE TO MANDATE THAT ONLY OFFICE SPACE COULD GO THERE. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S YOU KNOW? THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS A LOT MORE RIGHTS THAN THAT. BASED ON THE 1997 ORDINANCES. THOSE PLAN. DO YOU SEE ANY LEGAL REASONS WHY WE COULD POSSIBLY SAY I THINK THE APPLICANT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION. THE APPLICANTS MET STANDARDS IN THE ORDINANCE. THE STAFF HAS REVIEWED ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED. IT MEETS ALL THOSE STANDARDS. AS SUCH. THIS IS A MINISTERIAL APPROVAL, WHICH SHORT OF THAT WOULD HAVE RAMIFICATIONS FOR THE CITY FROM LIABILITY STANDPOINT. I DON'T KNOW. THANK YOU. YES SIR. MR. HAUSER UH, I WANT TO ASK YOU SOME PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS. UM P. WE'RE PROHIBITED FROM ENGAGING IN CONVERSATIONS WITH MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE HERE THIS EVENING. WHO THEY'RE THEY'RE ENTITLED TO SPEAK FOR THREE MINUTES ON EACH ITEM, BUT WE'RE PROHIBITED, INCLUDING THE MAYOR FROM ENGAGING IN DIALOGUE. THAT IS THAT IS THE RULES THAT YOU'VE ADOPTED. YES SIR. AND THE STATE LAW AND I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP FOR MR GIBSON AND MR JACKSON. UH, NEXT, I WANNA GO THROUGH THE WE'RE AT THE SITE PLANNING. APPROVAL PROCESS. YES AND YOU JUST SAID IT'S MINISTERIAL, WHICH I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN. BUT ARE YOU TELLING US WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO APPROVE THIS ITEM OR RISK BEING SUED BY THE LANDOWNER WHO'S INVESTED MILLIONS IN THIS PROJECT, AND IT IS LIKELY TO DROP OFF A FEW MILLION, WHICH IS GONNA INCREASE OUR BUDGET FOR LEGAL FEES. IF WE DISAPPROVE THIS I AM SAYING YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE WHATEVER ACTION YOU CHOOSE, BUT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT RAMIFICATIONS BASED ON THE APPLICATION IN FRONT OF YOU. WHICH IS WHY IT IS A MINISTERIAL ACT. AT THIS POINT. WE ARE RECOMMENDING STAFF. IF YOU ASK ME, I'M RECOMMENDING THAT YOU DO SO FOR REASONS, STATED TONIGHT. WE ARE ONLY APPROVING OR NOT APPROVING A SITE PLAN AND THAT'S THE ONLY ONE STEP IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING TO A FINAL PROJECT.

THERE ARE MANY CODES THAT THIS APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO MEET. THROUGHOUT THAT PROCESS. THERE ARE LOTS OF DIFFERENT APPROVALS ACROSS THE STREET THAT WILL BE REQUIRED OF THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT. AND OF COURSE, THE CONSTRUCTION WILL HAVE REVIEW AND INSPECTION AND AS SOMEONE JUST SAID, THERE COULD BE OTHER POTENTIALS FOR THE PROBLEMS IF THEY DO NOT BUILD PROPERLY. AND AFTER TONIGHT, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO COME BACK AND GET THE PROPERTY REPLANTED CORRECT. UH, I THINK THAT IS CORRECT. AND PART OF TONIGHT'S APPROVAL WILL INCLUDE THAT THEY HAVE TO ADDRESS ACCESS AND CIRCULATION. THEY HAVE TO REDRESS PARKING WITHIN OUR CODES. LO SPACES, SOLID WASTE CONTAINERS. LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, SCREENING REQUIREMENTS, LIGHTING AND GLARE REGULATIONS. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS, TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND ADDRESS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND DRAINAGE. ALSO PAY ANY PERMIT FEES AND GET APPROVAL OF THE PERMIT THROUGH THE STAFF BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE. YES, SIR. AND SO THIS IS A VERY, VERY SMALL STEP IN THE OVERALL PROCEDURE TO GET TO A FINAL BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY. THE FIRST STEPS. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME IN EXPLAINING THIS TO ME. THANK YOU. MR JOS IS JOS. OK? I ACTUALLY JUST WANNA ISSUE A PUBLIC APOLOGY. UM, THIS HAS

[00:50:04]

BEEN A LONG PROCESS FOR YOU. AND UM WE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS TODAY . THERE WERE PREVIOUSLY THINGS SAID TO HIM THAT WERE RACIALLY CHARGED, AND THAT IS NOT REALLY REFLECTIVE OF OUR COMMUNITY.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE AS COUNSEL DO NOT TOLERATE. I WANT TO APOLOGIZE ON BEHALF OF THE PERSON WHO SAID THAT TO YOU AND LET YOU KNOW THAT HERE IN MCKINNEY THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT TO BE REPRESENTED, AS SO I JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT PERSON PER PUBLICLY AND I HOPE MOVING FORWARD THAT YOU NEVER HAVE TO RUN INTO A PROBLEM LIKE THAT AGAIN. I SECOND THAT AND I TOOK ON THAT PERSON DIRECTLY. UM, IS THERE A MOTION MR MAYOR. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE SITE PLAN AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. SECOND SECOND THESE GESTURE VOTES.

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request by the City of McKinney to Enlarge and Extend the Boundary Limits of the City and to Annex (Case No. 24-0001A) the Subject Property, Located from the Road Centerline of Farm to Market Road 2478 (Custer Road) Right-of-Way to the Eastern Right-of-Way Boundary, from the North Side of State Highway 121 to the South Side of Westridge Boulevard into the City of McKinney’s Corporate Limits, and Accompanying Ordinance]

MOTION PASSES. NOW MOVE ON TO REGULAR GENDER PUBLIC HEARING ADAMS ITEM. 240001 A THREE CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND ACT ON A REQUEST BY CITY MCKINNEY TO ENLARGE AND EXTEND THE BOUNDARY LIMITS OF THE CITY TO ANNEX CASE NUMBER. 240 0018, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED FROM THE ROAD CENTER LINE OF FARM ROAD FARM TO MARKET ROAD, 2478 CUSTER ROAD, RIGHT AWAY TO THE EASTERN, RIGHT AWAY BOUNDARY FROM THE NORTH SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 121 TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST RIDGE BOULEVARD INTO THE CITY OF MCKINNEY'S CORPORATE LIMITS AND ACCOMPANY AND ORDINANCE. THANK YOU, MR MAYOR. AS YOU READ, THIS IS AN ANNEXATION. REQUEST BY THE CITY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. YOU'LL SEE HERE THAT THIS IS FOR THE UM , SOUTHERN PORTION OF CUSTER ROAD. FM 2478. THE REQUEST IS TO CLEAN UP IF YOU WILL, UM UH, THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE CITY OF MCKINNEY AND OUR NEIGHBORING CITY. UM, THIS WILL HELP TO CLEAR UP ANY AMBIGUITIES WITH POLICE ENFORCEMENT TRAFFIC CONTROL ENFORCEMENT ALONG THOSE ROADWAYS AND EMERGENCY SUPPORT.

UM, YOU DID HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THIS REQUEST AT A PREVIOUS MEETING. TONIGHT WE WOULD REQUEST THAT WE HAVE THE FINAL PUBLIC HEARING AS WELL AS ACTION ON THE REQUEST TO ANNEX I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE, UM, OTHERWISE THIS END THE SPEEDING ON CUSTER FOR MYSELF FOR FREE, AT LEAST, YES. ARE GOING TO BE PAYING MCKINNEY FOR IT NOW. NOT FRISCO.

ANY QUESTIONS? THE STAFF NO. COULD THE APPLICANT UH, CITY MANAGER COME UP FOR QUESTIONS? RIGHT THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IS ANYONE? IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE ITEM? SEEN NO I'D MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE ITEM AND THE ANNEXATION AS REQUESTED IN ITEM NUMBER 24-000183. ONE SECOND ROADS.

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Property from “AG” - Agriculture District and “HC” - Highway Commercial Overlay District to “C3” - Regional Commercial District, “MF30” - Multi-Family Residential District, and “HC” - Highway Commercial Overlay District, Located Approximately 450 Feet East of Terry Lane and on the South Side of West University Drive, and Accompanying Ordinance]

MOTION PASSES ITEM. 240011 Z TWO, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ACT ON A REQUEST TO RE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AND HC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT TO SEE THREE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT MF 30 MULTIFAMILY REGIONAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND HC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 450 FT EAST OF TERRY LANE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST UNIVERSITY, DRIVING A COMPANY ORDINANCE. I BELIEVE THIS HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO BE TABLED. YES, SIR. NEXT MEETING. I'M SORRY TO THE NEXT MEETING.

UH, YES, THE APRIL 16TH MEETING. YES. AND HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. IS THERE ANYONE THAT CAME TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? MR ROER IS OUR APPLICANT. I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT HE IS HERE TONIGHT. NOPE. MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE THIS ITEM OF THE NEXT MEETING. SECOND IS CASH VOTES. WE NEED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. YES, YOU GOT IT. THANK YOU. MHM. MOTION PASSES

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Petition to Annex (Case No. 22-0004A) and a Request to Zone (Case No. 22-0119Z) the Subject Property to “PD” - Planned Development District, Generally to Allow for Multi-Family Residential and Single Family Attached Residential Uses, and to Modify the Development Standards, Located on the North Side of FM 1461 and Approximately 3,700 Feet East of FM 2478, and Accompanying Ordinances]

ITEM 200048822 Z CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ACT ON A PETITION TO ANNEX CASE NUMBER 220004 A AND A REQUEST HIS OWN CASE NUMBER 220119 Z, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT GENERALLY TO ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL USES AND MODIFY THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FM, 1461 AND APPROXIMATELY 3700 FT EAST OF 20, FM 2478 AND ACCOMPANYING ORDINANCE. MR MAYOR, THE SITE MAY LOOK FAMILIAR TO YOU. THIS IS THE 74 ACRES JUST WEST OF THE DEVELOPING ASTOR PARK AND MCKINNEY'S E TJ. UM, LATE LAST YEAR, THE COUNCIL ACTUALLY

[00:55:01]

CONSIDERED AN APPROVED A PRE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT THAT DEFINED THE TERMS OF THE ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF THIS PROPERTY, SO THE APPLICANT IS HERE. SERVING ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT HERE TONIGHT TO MAKE GOOD ON THE ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IN ALIGNMENT WITH THAT EXECUTED AGREEMENT, SO JUST AS A REMINDER , UM THE TRACT ITSELF IS PROPOSED FOR THERE WE GO. UH PD ZONING THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF TOWN HOMES ON A EASTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND, UH, MULTIFAMILY ON THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TRACKED TO, UM, STAFF HAS AS WELL AS THE DEDICATION OF PARK LAND. UM UH, WENT TO THE CITY'S PARKLAND REQUIREMENTS IN THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS EXECUTED LAST YEAR. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE REQUEST. UH, NUMBER ONE. WE FIND IT TO BE IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BUT WE ALSO FIND IT TO BE IN ALIGNMENT WITH THAT EXECUTED PRE ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR THE ANNEXATION REQUEST. THE CITY COUNCIL IS THE ONLY AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER ANNEXATION REQUESTS. HOWEVER THE ASSOCIATED ZONING WAS CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AT THEIR LAST MEETING. THEY ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS WELL.

AND I'M HAPPY TO ANY QUESTIONS, STATED IT BUT IN IN A SIMPLER FORM. AGREEMENT THAT WE ENTERED INTO WITH THEM. THIS IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT AGREEMENT. YES, SIR. CHANGING. ANY QUESTIONS FOR JENNIFER? I'M JUST CURIOUS WHEN WAS IT THAT THE I RECALL THE AGREEMENT? I'M JUST NOT SURE WHAT YEAR IT CAME BEFORE. I BELIEVE IT WAS IN NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR. IS A PUBLIC HEARING IS THE APPLICANT HERE? I DON'T KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT NEEDS HAVE TO SPEAK. I THINK IT'S HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR THAT. THANK YOU, SIR. DON'T WANT TO CUT YOU OFF IF YOU HAD, UH, THE DESIRE TO SPEAK, BUT MIGHT, YOU KNOW, MIGHT CHANGE THINGS FOR YOU. GOING WELL SO FAR. THIS PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? SEE NONE ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS, ADAM. SECOND EXTRA VOTES. PASSES OR FINAL ITEM. 241403 CONSIDER

[Consider/Discuss/Act on a Resolution Appointing a Member to the 9-1-1 Emergency Communications District Board of Managers within the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)]

DISCUSS ACT ON A RESOLUTION APPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE 911 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS WITHIN THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS.

RESTRAINT. GOOD EVENING. MAYOR FULLER COUNCIL MEMBER CITY SECRETARY OF THIS APPOINTMENT TO THE 911 EMERGENCY BOARD, UH, IS REQUIRED TO BE AN APPOINTMENT OF AN ELECTED OFFICIAL OF THE CITY.

UH THE 911 EMERGENCY BOARD KIND OF OVERSEES THE REGIONAL EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THAT RESOURCES ARE ALLOCATED TO THAT BOARD BY THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND THIS BOARD MEET QUARTERLY IN ARLINGTON. THE BOARD MEETS AGAIN QUARTERLY IN ARLINGTON. OUR MOST RECENT PARTICIPANT FROM THE CITY OF MCKINNEY IS COUNCILWOMAN FELL TO SHE SERVED THE LAST TWO YEARS. AND SO THE NEXT APPOINTMENT WILL BE FROM NOW UNTIL THE END OF 2025. UM, I'D ACTUALLY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE THIS UNTIL, UH, RICK FRANKLIN AND, UH, COUNCILMAN RICK FRANKLIN AND COUNCILMAN CLOUDIER ARE BACK WITH US. I'VE DONE IT FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS. UM IT'S JUST FOR ME A SCHEDULING ISSUE, TRYING TO GET OUT TO ARLINGTON. WE COULD APPOINT ONE OF THEM. CAN WE JUST APPOINT ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT HERE? IT SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING FRANKTON WOULD LIKE TO DO. SEE A FURTHER ELECTRIC VEHICLE. HE DEFINITELY CLIMATE WITH THAT. UNLESS THERE'S SOMEBODY THAT ON COUNCIL THAT WOULD LIKE TO TAKE IT ON. HAVE TOO MANY MEETINGS IN ARLINGTON AS IT IS SO I WILL NOT NOBODY. I REMEMBER. I REMEMBER PATRICK SAYING HE REALLY WANTED TO DO THIS. I THINK ALL RIGHT, LET'S TABLE THIS ITEM THE MOTION TO TABLE IT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.

SECOND ALL IN FAVOR. MAKE THIS ONE EASY. MEMBER OF NEITHER OF THEM. VOLUNTEER WE GAVE UP THE

[CITIZEN COMMENTS on Matters not on the Agenda]

OPPORTUNITY. THE POINT. RIGHT THAT IS THE END OF OUR REGULAR AGENDA IN PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS, WE NOW WILL HAVE CITIZEN COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA. LESLIE CUNNINGHAM.

[01:00:01]

HI. I'M I'M LESLIE CUNNINGHAM AT 71 01 VIRGINIA PARKWAY. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE BEEN ABLE TO GET DOWN HERE. UH, SUPPORT ALL THESE FOLKS WHO HAVE BEEN COMING MEETING AFTER MEETING AFTER MEETING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT GAZA AND PALESTINE, AND THEY'RE NOT HERE OR SOME OF THEM WERE, BUT THEY WERE HERE FOR OTHER REASONS. UM HOWEVER, I JUST WANT TO SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS AND, UH, MAYBE I'LL BE ABLE TO GET DOWN AGAIN. I'M OLD. UH, I'M OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER. WHEN WE HAD A WHOLE LOT OF NON ZIONIST AND ANTI ZIONIST JEWISH PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES, SOME OF WHOM WERE VERY MUCH OPPOSED TO THE FORMATION OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL , THEY WERE WONDERING ABOUT SAFETY. HOW WHERE AND HOW CAN JEWISH PEOPLE BE SAFE AFTER THE HOLOCAUST WITH THEIR OWN NATION? WELL, THAT'S NOT GOING TO WORK. IF THEY PUT THE NATION WHERE THERE ARE ALREADY PEOPLE LIVING, AND THAT WAS THE START OF ALL THIS, OF COURSE. BEEN IN THE IDEAS OF PEOPLE BEFORE, BUT IT IT IT. IT HAPPENED AFTER WORLD WAR TWO AND AS FOR ME, UM I'M ALSO OLD ENOUGH TO HAVE HAD A PALESTINIAN REFUGEE AS A AS AN EIGHTH GRADE TEACHER IN THE MID 19 FIFTIES IN DAMASCUS, SYRIA.

SHE AND HER FAMILY WERE CHRISTIANS, AND THEY HAD BEEN DRIVEN OUT OF PALESTINE, A ALONG WITH THEIR MUSLIM NEIGHBORS, AND THEY LOST ALL THEIR PROPERTY IN THE KA 1948, SO THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH PROPAGANDA OVER YEARS LIKE THAT. THAT DIDN'T REALLY HAPPEN. PEOPLE JUST LEFT, YOU KNOW, ON THEIR OWN VOLITION, OR THEY WERE MADE TO LEAVE BY SOME ARAB LEADERS. GOOD LORD, YOU KNOW, VERY JUST RIDICULOUS, AS IS THE CONTENTION THAT ANY CRITICISM OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL IS ANTI-SEMITISM ANTI-SEMITISM CRITICIZE A GOVERNMENT. YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE THIS IS THE GOVERNMENT THAT YOU MAY HAVE HEARD TODAY BOMBED AN AID CONVOY AND KILLED SEVEN AID WORKERS. UH AND THIS IS, YOU KNOW, JUST THE LATEST IN THE KILLING OF OVER 33,000 PEOPLE. UH, I HAD JEWISH FRIENDS. WHEN I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL. SOME WENT TO WORK ON A KIBBUTZ IN THE, UH IN THE SUMMER. TOLD US HOW WONDERFUL ISRAEL WAS. I WAS A MINORITY OF ONE IN BEING SKEPTICAL. UH I'M NOT ANYMORE. THANK GOODNESS AND I HAVE I HAVE FRIENDS WHO ARE ARAB WHO WERE JEWISH. I HAVE A FRIEND WHO IS ACTIVE IN JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE. AND UH, YOU KNOW, YOUR TAX MONEY AND MINE IS 73 BILLION IN AID EVERY YEAR OR TWO. TO ISRAEL, AND THAT'S GOT TO STOP PEOPLE. WE NEED PEACE. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COME DOWN.

ANGELA WOODS. HAVE NEW MAYOR AND COUNCIL AND MR GRIMES UM ANGELA RICHARDSON WOODS. 23 01 SPO LANE. I COME HERE. I WANT TO FIRST SAY THANK YOU TO OUR GREAT LEADERS AND OUR PARTNERS IN THE CITY ON SATURDAY, SEVERAL FAITH BASED ORGANIZATIONS AND COUNCILMAN BELLER AND COUNCILMAN JONES AND IN OUR OWN MAYOR MAYOR CAME OUT TO THE WOODSIDE VILLAGE APARTMENT COMPLEX. AS WE CELEBRATED THE CHILDREN AND THE RESIDENTS AND WE DID AN EAST EGG. WE DIDN'T DO THE HUNT BECAUSE AS ONE OF THE BASKET ONE THE GOODS, BUT WE WERE ABLE TO DO THAT AND JUST LIVE ON THAT COMMUNITY. WE'VE BEEN DOING A SERIES OF JUST LOVE ON THEM SINCE DECEMBER, SO I WANNA SAY THANK YOU. I WANNA SAY THANK YOU TO COMMUNITY LIFELINE IN THEIR TEAM FOR COMING OUT AND PASSING OUT FOOD TO THE RESIDENTS THERE. THE CHILDREN WERE EXTREMELY ELATED TO HAVE THAT CONTINUED PARTNERSHIP THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. THE NEXT THING I WANT TO JUST RECOGNIZE, UH, MANY MAY NOT REMEMBER BACK IN ONE ORGANIZATION, ZETA PHI BETA SORORITY INCORPORATED THE GAMMA ALPHA OMEGA ZETA CHAPTER. UH, YOU ACTUALLY DID A PROCLAMATION FOR THEM. THEY CHARTERED HERE IN THE CITY OF MCKINNEY AS THEIR COUNTY SEAT IN THAT PARTICULAR YEAR, THEY HAD ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED ME AS THEIR WOMAN OF THE YEAR, SO EVERY YEAR THEY DO A RECOGNITION OF THEIR PARTNERS IN THE CITY, AND ON FRIDAY, THEY ALSO DID THEIR ANNUAL RECOGNITION OF PARTNERS IN THE CITY OF MCKINNEY WAS ONE OF THEIR PARTNERS. THEY RECOGNIZED, SO I WAS THERE TO PRESENT THEIR 2024 WOMAN OF THE YEAR WITH HER

[01:05:04]

RECOGNITION. I ALSO WANT TO RECOGNIZE LISA WASHINGTON. SHE WAS RECOGNIZED IN 2023 AS THE WOMAN OF THE YEAR. BUT I'M GOING TO READ THE RECOGNITION THAT THEY HAVE THE RECOGNITION.