Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Call to Order]

[00:00:03]

>> [BACKGROUND] IT'S FOUR O'CLOCK, THIS IS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9TH AND THIS IS THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE.

I'M DEBORAH MORSE, THE CHAIR, AND WITH ME ARE COUNCILMAN ROBERT BAER AND DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM B J WILLIAMS, AND CITY ATTORNEY BRIAN ENGLAND, AS WELL AS A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT STAFF MEMBERS.

ITEM 1 ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 11TH, 2021 MEETING.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO READ OVER THEM AND REVIEW THEM?

>> [LAUGHTER] YEAH.

>> DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THEM?

>> YES I HAVE HAD CHANCE TO PERUSE THEM. [OVERLAPPING] MADAM CHAIR.

>> YES.

>> I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

[OVERLAPPING]

>> IN FAVOR, AYE?

>> AYE.

>> THEY ARE APPROVED.

ITEM 2 IS TO REVIEW THE FALL 2021 NEIGHBORHOOD VITALITY MATCHING GRANT APPLICATIONS, AND SCOTT, YOU ARE UP.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, SCOTT. [INAUDIBLE] NEIGHBORHOOD VITALITY MANAGER.

I BELIEVE IN PREVIOUS CYCLES, WE HAD TAKEN THESE ONE AT A TIME AND GOTTEN FEEDBACK, IS THAT HOW YOU WANT TO DO IT TODAY? WE HAD SIX QUALIFIED APPLICATIONS FOR THE FALL CYCLE, THEY'RE LOCATED ALL THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

I JUST HAVE THESE PRESENTED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER.

THE FIRST IS CAPTAIN'S QUARTERS HOA, REPLACE FOR LARGE RETAINING WALLS WITH ENHANCED DRAINAGE AND INSTALL FOR HEAVY-DUTY PARK BENCHES.

THEY STATED THEIR MAINTENANCE WOULD BE A BI-ANNUAL INSPECTION PERFORMED BY THE INSTALLER AND MAKE REPAIRS AS NECESSARY.

THIS IS LOCATED IN SOUTH GARLAND AND IT'S A CONTAINED HOA RIGHT OFF AT MARINA DRIVE.

[Mayoral Proclamations, Recognitions and Announcements]

THE APPLICATION COMMENTS FROM APRIL VITALITY, THIS WOULD BE AN ELIGIBLE PROJECT WHERE WE'LL SAY COMMENTARY AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NEW CONSTRUCTION ARE CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE, REPAIRS OR MAINTENANCE TO EXISTING STRUCTURES ARE NOT ELIGIBLE.

ON SEPTEMBER 28TH WITH THE DIRECTION FROM THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, I REQUESTED EXACT LOCATIONS OF WHERE THE RETAINING WALLS WOULD BE SINCE WE HAD ALSO SENT THAT AS PART OF THE LETTER OF INTENT FEEDBACK, AND TODAY, I HAVE NOT GOTTEN THOSE LOCATIONS FROM THE APPLICANT.

THAT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFY THEM, BUT JUST THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH INFO TO PROVIDE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS PART OF THIS PROCESS AS POSSIBLE.

IT WOULD REQUIRE BUILDING PERMIT AND ONE OTHER COMMENT THAT I DIDN'T PUT IN THE PACKET, THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO WINDJAMMER HOA, WHICH WAS DENIED, I BELIEVE THAT WAS FALL 2020.

THE BASIC ISSUE THERE WAS, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE RETAINING WALLS WOULD RESOLVE ANY OF THE DRAINAGE ISSUES.

I BELIEVE YOU ASKED FOR A FUNCTIONALITY REPORT THE COMMITTEE DID FOR THAT ONE AND NONE WAS RECEIVED.

THE SAME PERSON THAT APPLIED FOR WINDJAMMER IS THE SAME PERSON THAT'S APPLYING FOR CAPTAIN'S QUARTERS, SO WINDJAMMER ALSO HAD SEVERAL OTHER REQUESTS INCLUDING THINGS LIKE WILLSTOP.

I THOUGHT THAT MIGHT BE USEFUL INFORMATION AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT CAPTAINS QUARTERS.

>> NO QUESTION.

>> QUESTION?

>> YES, SCOTT, DO HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT ENGINEERING HAS REQUESTED, IS THERE A TIMELINE FOR THEM TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION?

>> I BELIEVE, LET ME DOUBLE-CHECK, YES.

WHEN THEY SUBMITTED THEIR LETTER OF INTENT, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN IN JULY, WE REQUESTED THEY PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION.

THEY DIDN'T WHEN THEY SUBMITTED THEIR APPLICATION, SO I REQUESTED IT AGAIN ON SEPTEMBER 28TH, AND NO RESPONSE TO DATE, I HAVEN'T GOTTEN IT.

IN ORDER TO PREPARE FOR THIS MEETING, I HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANYTHING, NOR HAS ENGINEERING HAD THE INFORMATION TO REVIEW IT FOR THEMSELVES, SO THEY REALLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO COMMENT ON.

>> WHAT DOES THAT LEAVE THIS APPLICATION SCOTT AT THIS POINT?

>> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IN THE PAST, THE COMMITTEE HAS REQUESTED A FUNCTIONALITY REPORT, YOU COULD TAKE THAT ROUTE OR YOU COULD SIMPLY DENY THIS ONE AND I CAN PROVIDE THE INFORMATION ON WHY AND THEY CAN REAPPLY IN THE SPRING.

[00:05:05]

>> WE REQUESTED THIS INFORMATION TWICE RIGHT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> THE MOST RECENT WAS IN SEPTEMBER, RIGHT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> WE STILL GOT NO RESPONSE.

>> THAT'S CORRECT

>> WELL, I KNOW WHAT MY RECOMMENDATION IS, BUT THAT WILL PUT IT FOR THE CHAIR.

ASK FOR RECOMMENDATIONS. KNOW WHAT?

>> COUNCILMAN THERE DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I DO SEE THAT PART OF THEIR REQUEST INVOLVES INSTALLING FOUR HEAVY DUTY PARK BENCHES.

IS THERE A PROBLEM THAT YOU FORESEE WITH THAT?

>> NO.

>> ANOTHER OPTION MIGHT BE THAT WE WOULD APPROVE THE PARK BENCHES AND DENY THE REST OF THEIR REQUESTS RELATING TO THE RETAINING WALL AND LET THEM TRY AGAIN NEXT YEAR AND SEE IF THEY'RE MORE FORTHCOMING.

IF IT'S THE SAME PERSON AND WE ASKED FOR A FUNCTIONALITY REPORT BEFORE AND THEY JUST IGNORED US, I'M NOT PARTICULARLY INCLINED TO EVEN GO THAT ROUTE.

I GUESS MY THOUGHT IS TO UNLESS THERE'S ANOTHER PROBLEM ON OUR END TO LET THEM PUT IN THEIR PARK BENCHES AND DENY THE REST.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE A MOTION MADAM CHAIR?

>> SURE.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE TAKE THE ACTION THAT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED BY THE CHAIR.

>> SECOND.

>> IN FAVOR, AYE.

>> AYE.

>> THANK YOU, SCOTT, AND YOU'RE FILLING IN THE PREVIOUS INFORMATION BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU THAT AND YOU PROVIDED IT, THAT IS VERY HELPFUL AND WITH LAST NIGHT, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR ANALYTICAL APPROACH TO THESE THINGS THAT MAKES MY LIFE MUCH EASIER I TELL YOU.

>> I'LL TRY TO KEEP THAT IN MIND GOING FORWARD.

>> OKAY.

>> SECOND ONE IS CRYSTAL LAKE ESTATES.

THIS IS ALSO IN SOUTH GARLAND.

INSTALL 164 LINEAR FEET OF RIP RAP RETAINING WALL ALONG THE EASTERN SHORE LINE.

THEY STATE THAT THEY'RE USING NIGHT EROSION AND THE CITY USES NIGHT EROSION ACTUALLY FOR A LOT OF THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS.

IT'S LITTLE DIFFICULT TO SEE ON HERE, BUT TOWARDS THE CENTER OF THIS MAP ON THE EASTERN SHORE LINE IS SPECIFICALLY WHERE THEY WOULD LIKE TO INSTALL THE COMMON AREA IMPROVEMENTS.

COMMON AREA IMPROVEMENTS ARE ALLOWED JUST AS NEIGHBORHOOD PARK IMPROVEMENTS ARE.

FOR THIS, WE WOULD PROBABLY OBTAIN A LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS MADE AND ENSURE THAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, NOT CLOSED OFF BY HOA MEMBERSHIP.

IT'S LISTED HERE SOME OF THE TECHNICAL STANDARDS THINGS, BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY THAT IT'S IN OUR PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SO WE'D HAVE TO PROVIDE A LICENSE AGREEMENT AND WE HAVE RETAINED THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN THAT RIGHT AWAY FOR OUR PURPOSES,

[Consent Agenda]

BUT WE'VE GRANTED PROJECTS LIKE THIS IN THE PAST ON THAT BASIS AND THEY HAVE BEEN VERY COMMUNICATIVE THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS AND ARE HAPPY TO PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION YOU MAY REQUEST.

>> SCOTT WILL YOU SHARE IN CASE MY COLLEAGUES ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE TERM RIP RAP RETAINING WALL.

>> IT'S LIKE THE THE CONCRETE ROCKS THAT ARE STACKED UP IN CAGED IN ESSENTIALLY AND THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS TO DO THAT.

THERE'S ALSO LIKE A CONCRETE BAGS THAT YOU CAN PUT OUT AND THEN AS THEY ERODE, IT LOOKS LIKE RIP RAP THAT'S [INAUDIBLE] AT NIGHT EROSION USES.THAT'S THE BASIS OF IT.

IT HELPS WITH DRAINAGE OF IN THIS CASE, A SHORELINE.

>> QUESTIONS?

>> NO QUESTION.

>> SCOTT, I'M ASSUMING WITH THIS PARTICULAR USE THAT THERE IS NOT ANY QUESTION THAT THIS WOULD PERFORM THE FUNCTION OF EROSION CONTROL.

>> WE BELIEVE IT WOULD, YES. THAT'S CORRECT.

>> I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THIS SO IF SOMEONE HAS A MOTION, I'LL TAKE IT.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM WILLIAMS.

>> I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST FROM CRYSTAL LAKE ESTATES.

>> SECOND.

>> ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.

>> AYE.

>> THE THIRD IS FALL CREEK ESTATES HOA.

THEY HAVE A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS PLANNED HERE.

A SHADED PICNIC WITH TABLES AND BENCHES, GATED PLAYGROUND, CONTINGENCY IS ALSO INCLUDED IN THAT.

THEY'VE STATED THAT THIS IS THE FIRST OF THREE IMAGINED PHASES.

[00:10:03]

THEY WOULD PERFORM THEIR OWN SAFETY INSPECTIONS BASED ON THEY SAID THREE YEARS OR AS ADVISED BY THE PLAYGROUND MANUFACTURER, WHICHEVER IS MORE FREQUENT.

WE OWN THIS PARCEL, SO THE GREEN SPACE, THE TREE SPACE HERE, THE CITY OF GARLAND OWNS THAT.

SIMILAR TO OTHER PROJECTS, WE WOULD GRANT A LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

WE WOULD CONSIDER THIS LIKE A PARKING PERMIT.

ONE THING WE DO WITH THAT IS WE MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN ERECT A GATE FOR SAFETY PURPOSES, BUT THEY CANNOT LOCK THE GATE OR RESTRICT ACCESS BASED ON MEMBERSHIP OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

IT'S ALSO RECOMMEND THEY INCLUDE SIGNAGE BECAUSE THEY CAN KEEP PARK-LIKE HOURS FOR THE SAME PURPOSES.

I DIDN'T MAKE A, JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE, THE TIMELINE THERE.

THEY'RE ELIGIBLE FOR A LITTLE OVER $59,000 BASED ON SOME OF THEIR PREVIOUS PROJECTS.

WE HAVE THAT 100,000 EVERY FIVE YEARS TIME-FRAME.

I INCLUDED SOME OF THAT INFORMATION HERE, SO THEIR ENTIRE REQUEST WOULD BE ELIGIBLE.

AS FEEDBACK TO THEM, IF THIS IS APPROVED, I WOULD ALSO ASK THEM TO INCLUDE A MAINTENANCE PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRASH BINS.

THERE'S SOME PERMITTING THAT MAY BE REQUIRED.

I MENTIONED THE LICENSE AGREEMENT EARLIER.

THIS IS THE FALL CREEK HOA APPLICATION.

>> I SEE THAT FABRIC IS NOT AN APPROVED ROOFING MATERIAL.

WAS THAT THEIR ORIGINAL INTENT?

>> IT WAS, YES.

>> HAVE THEY REVISED THAT?

>> THEY HAVE.

>> WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT A GATE AROUND THE PLAYGROUND, AM I ASSUMING THAT MEANS A FENCE?

>> YES.

>> WITH A GATE?

>> SORRY. YES. I MEANT TO PUT FENCE WITH [OVERLAPPING] ONE GIANT GATE.

YEAH. [LAUGHTER]

>> WITH NO FENCE. [LAUGHTER]

>> JUST HANGING THERE. COMMITTEE, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, CONCERNS ABOUT THIS ONE?

>> SCOTT, WOULD YOU EXPLAIN A BIT MORE? IN THE ENGINEERING SECTION, I'M PICKING IT UP MID-SENTENCE.

THE CITY OF GARLAND WOULD NEED TO EXECUTE THE LICENSE AGREEMENT THROUGH ENGINEERING.

[7. Consider a resolution naming the Garland Municipal Court Building, located at 1791 W. Avenue B, as the "Brad Neighbor Municipal Court Building;" and providing an effective date.]

IT TALKS ABOUT THE AREA AT THE END OF THE HARVEST RUN CALLED A [INAUDIBLE] BY THE CITY.

IT SAYS, "WOULD NEED TO EXECUTE A LICENSE AGREEMENT THROUGH ENGINEERING," AND I HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO APPENDIX D YET TO SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

CAN YOU JUST BRIEFLY IN LAYMAN'S TERM TELL ME WHAT THAT'S ABOUT?

>> SURE. SINCE THE CITY OWNS IT, WE CAN PROVIDE A LICENSE AGREEMENT OR A LICENSE FOR A DIFFERENT USE WITHOUT GIVING UP OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY, SO IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE INTERESTED IN PURSUING, THEY CAN PUT THIS PARK AND PLAYGROUND ON OUR PROPERTY BY USE OF THAT LICENSE AGREEMENT THAT GRANTS THEM TO DO SO.

>> SINCE IT'S CITY PROPERTY, DO WE HAVE ANY LIABILITY IN CASE OF INJURY, EQUIPMENT FAILURE, THIS THING? DO WE HAVE ANY LIABILITY AT ALL IF WE SIGN ONE THE LICENSE AGREEMENT, MR. CITY ATTORNEY?

>> I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.

ARE YOU ASKING IF THERE'S ANY LIABILITY IF SOMEBODY WERE TO GET HURT?

>> IF SOMEBODY GETS HURT, THERE'S THE EQUIPMENT FAILURES SIMILAR TO ANOTHER.

I'M JUST USING THE EXAMPLE OF THE SLAB BREAKS AND CUTS SOMEBODY'S CHILD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> NO, THERE WOULD NOT BE LIABILITY IN THAT CASE BECAUSE IN ORDER TO ATTACH LIABILITY TO THE CITY, IT WOULD BE A NEGLIGENCE CLAIM OR A PREMISES DEFECT, AND IN BOTH THOSE CASES, THE CITY WOULD EITHER HAVE TO ACTIVELY BE INVOLVED, IN OTHER WORDS, OPERATING SOME MOTOR-DRIVEN EQUIPMENT OR A PREMISES DEFECT AND THAT WOULDN'T BE THE CASE IN THIS SITUATION WHERE WE'VE ISSUED A LICENSE FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO OPERATE.

WE'RE BEING GIVEN THE LICENSE, AREN'T WE?

>> WE'RE PROVIDING THE LICENSE.

>> WE'RE PROVIDING LICENSE.

EITHER WAY, IT WOULDN'T FALL ON THE CITY UNDER THAT SITUATION.

>> THE HOA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 100 PERCENT FOR MAINTENANCE?

>> CORRECT. YES.

>> ARE THERE ANY MAINTENANCE CONDITIONS OR DO THEY SET THE MAINTENANCE PROTOCOL

[00:15:05]

FOR THIS OR HOA DOES?

>> I'M NOT SURE. THEY HAVE STATED THEY WOULD FOLLOW THE MANUFACTURER'S GUIDELINES FOR THE PLAYGROUND.

I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD GET INTO.

>> NOW, TYPICALLY SPEAKING IN PRIVATE PLAYGROUNDS, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WOULD REGULATE AS LONG AS THEY'RE FOLLOWING MANUFACTURER GUIDELINES.

IF THERE WERE TO BE AN INCIDENT, THAT WOULD BE A PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION BETWEEN THE PERSON.

DON'T GET ME WRONG, WE CAN ALWAYS BE SUED BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN A CAUSE OF ACTION WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL AGAINST THE CITY.

>> OF COURSE, IT GOES THROUGH THE CITY AND THE CHURCH. THANKS, SCOTT.

>> ANYONE CAN BE SUED FOR ANY REASON. [OVERLAPPING]

>> WHAT A CHEERFUL ATTORNEY.

>> I MEAN, WE CAN'T BE SUED, BUT ANYBODY CAN SUED FOR ANYTHING.

IT WON'T LAST LONG. [OVERLAPPING]

>> THANKS, SCOTT.

>> YES, SIR. [LAUGHTER]

>> COMMITTEE, I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THIS ONE MOVING FORWARD IF YOU BOTH AGREE.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT WE NEED A FORMAL MOTION, BUT IS THIS SOMETHING YOU WOULD BOTH BE COMFORTABLE WITH SEEING MOVE FORWARD? DONE. OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> NEXT ONE IS THE [INAUDIBLE] AT FIREWHEEL.

THEY HAVE A LOT OF LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS PLANNED AS PART OF THEIRS.

AS PART OF OUR LETTER OF INTENT FEEDBACK, I DID MENTION THIS IS KACI SENT THIS EMAIL, BUT THE CITY COUNCIL, AS OF AUGUST 2ND, HAD VOTED THAT SOFTSCAPE IS NOW INELIGIBLE FOR THE PROGRAM, BUT THEY CHOSE NOT TO ALTER THEIR APPLICATION BASED ON THAT.

THEY DID NOT INCLUDE A MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR THE NEW VEGETATION.

AS I JUST STATED WITH SOFTSCAPE OR LIVE VEGETATION NOT BEING AN ELIGIBLE, PROGRAM EXPENDITURE USING THEIR ESTIMATE PROVIDED, 56,000 OR ABOUT HALF OF THEIR APPLICATION WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE BASED ON THE CURRENT GUIDELINES.

I ALSO WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE FIVE-YEAR COMPLETION AND THEY ARE ELIGIBLE FOR A NEW $100,000 FIVE-YEAR CYCLE AND ENGINEERING HAD SOME COMMENTS ABOUT PLACEMENT OF TREES AND WHERE THOSE WOULD GO WITH RELATIVE TO PUBLIC UTILITIES.

BUT THE MAIN QUESTION HERE, I THINK IS THE LANDSCAPING.

>> SCOTT, SINCE WE'RE NOT GOING TO APPROVE ANY SOFTSCAPE OR LIVE VEGETATION AND YOU SAID THAT 56,850 OF THIS IS ELIGIBLE, I'M ASSUMING THE BALANCE OF THAT IS ALL LANDSCAPE AND VEGETATION?

>> YES.

>> WHAT EXACTLY IS IN THE 56,000? I WAS TRYING TO READ THROUGH THIS AND FIGURE IT OUT BUT [OVERLAPPING]

>> I SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED MORE DETAIL THERE.

IT'S MAINLY THE WROUGHT IRON FENCE AND SOME HARDSCAPING WAS INCLUDED.

A LOT OF HARDSCAPING ALONG THE SCREENING.

WELL, IT'S HARDSCAPING IN COMBINATION WITH SOFTSCAPING THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION BUT A GOOD PORTION OF IT WAS LIVE VEGETATION.

>> IF WE ONLY APPROVED THE HARDSCAPING AND THESE ELIGIBLE THINGS, WILL THEY STILL WANT ON THEIR OWN DOLLAR TO DO ALL THE OTHER STUFF, HAVE YOU ASKED THEM?

>> I HAVE ASKED THEM, THEY CHOSE NOT TO ALTER THEIR APPLICATION.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEY WOULD DO.

>> CHAIRMAN. [NOISE] DID THEY SAY WHY THEY WON'T ALTER THEIR-

>> NO. THEY DIDN'T.

>> I GUESS THEY DON'T WANT TO PUT MONEY IN IT.

>> I MEAN, IT COULD BE, IF YOU LIKE, THIS IS JUST A SUGGESTION, THAT YOU APPROVE IT ON THE THINGS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE AND THEN THEY CAN ALWAYS DROP IT.

THEY CAN ALWAYS SAY, WELL, NEVER MIND, WE'RE CANCELING AND WE WANT TO REDO THE WHOLE THING. THEY CAN ALWAYS DO THAT.

APPLICANTS CAN ALWAYS DROP OR CUT THINGS FROM SCOPE.

THEY JUST CAN'T ADD TO, SO IF THEY DECIDE TO JUST ABANDON THE PROJECT AND TRY SOMETHING ELSE IN THE SPRING, THEY CAN DO THAT.

>> EJ, YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

[00:20:02]

>> I'VE NO, MADAM CHAIR. I'M GOOD.

THE BOTTOM LINE, IT WOULD BE THE 56 PLUS, RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> I'M GOOD WITH THAT, MADAM CHAIR.

>> OKAY.

>> ME TOO.

>> GOOD WITH THAT? WE ARE GOOD WITH THE ELIGIBLE EXPENSES ON THIS ONE.

>> OKAY. NEXT UP, RAINBOW STATES.

THEIR APPLICATION HAD A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS IN IT, ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE DETAIL IS MISSING.

THEY STATED OUR GOAL AS BEAUTIFICATION WITH MORE DOWN HOME LOOK AND FEEL TO THE COMMUNITY.

IF YOU'RE NOT AWARE OF WHERE RAINBOW STATES IS, IT'S AT THAT SPLIT OF B AND D. SINCE THIS IS ONE OF THOSE VOLUNTARY NEIGHBORHOOD $10,000 PROJECTS, I JUST SUGGEST THAT MY TEAM WORK WITH THEM ON THE SPECIFICS AND GET THEM UP TO AS MUCH AS WE CAN GET FOR THEM UNDER THE 10,000.

WE KNOW SOME OF THE THINGS THEY WANT BASED ON THEIR APPLICATION.

I THINK JUST WORKING OUT SOME OF THOSE DETAILS, WE WERE PLANNING ON WORKING WITH THEM IN THE FUTURE ANYWAY, THIS APPLICATION JUST CODIFIES THAT.

I THINK WE'RE EXCITED TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH THEM, SET ASIDE SOME FUNDING IN THE CIP JUST FOR THEM.

[8. Consider an ordinance amending Chapter 10, "Administration," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Garland, Texas relating to Council District boundaries; providing a Savings Clause, and a Severability Clause; and providing an effective date.]

>> COMMITTEE, JUST BACKGROUND ON THIS.

RAINBOW NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WHICH IS A VERY LONGSTANDING ASSOCIATION IN THE CITY.

IT'S A VOLUNTARY ONE, NOT AN HOA.

THE LONG TERM PRESIDENT, EMMA CREIGHTON, PASSED AWAY.

IN THE INTERIM, THEY HAVE JUST ONLY RECENTLY ELECTED A NEW PRESIDENT WHO IS WORKING HER WAY THROUGH THIS APPLICATIONS FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER.

I THINK WHAT SCOTT JUST SUGGESTED IS A GOOD SUGGESTION JUST TO LET NEIGHBORHOOD VITALITY WORK CLOSELY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO HELP THEM REACH THEIR BEAUTIFICATION GOALS WITHIN THE $10,000 LIMIT.

IF THAT'S SUITABLE, THAT'S NOT AS NAILED DOWN TO DETAIL AS WE OFTEN GET, BUT THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION.

ARE WE GOOD WITH THAT? THANK YOU, SCOTT.

>> YES, MA'AM. LAST ONE, TOWN NORTH.

IF YOU REMEMBER, TOWN NORTH IS THE HOA WE WORKED WITH THAT HAS THE METAL PANELS AFFIXED TO THE SCREENING ALL OVER IN WEST GARLAND.

THEY BROUGHT THIS ONE FORWARD A LITTLE BIT LIKE PROVANT, THEY HAVE SOME SOFT SCAPE IN THERE THAT WOULD BE AN ELIGIBLE.

IT'S NOT NEARLY THE SAME PERCENTAGE OF THEIR $12,000 PROJECT COST.

11,748 WOULD STILL BE ELIGIBLE.

MAINLY, THEY'RE DOING FLOWER BEDS WITHIN THEIR HOA VILLAGE, HEART SCAPING, THINGS LIKE THAT.

THERE'S NO GATE OR RESTRICTED ACCESS WITHIN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, SO THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE.

ENTRY FEATURES AND COMMON ERA IMPROVEMENTS ARE TYPICALLY ELIGIBLE ANYWAY.

THAT'S THE TOWN NORTH HOA APPLICATION.

>> IS THIS THE ONE EAST WROTE ON BUCKINGHAM?

[9. Citizen comments]

>> YES.

>> ACROSS WALMART?

>> YES.

>> OKAY.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> OKAY. THEY ALWAYS WORK TO FIX IT PRETTY GOOD.

>> YEAH. ENGINEERING HAD SOME COMMENTS ABOUT JUST BE CAREFUL ABOUT UTILITIES AND STUFF AND WE'LL MAKE SURE ALL THAT'S TAKEN CARE OF.

BUT GENERALLY, THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN ELIGIBLE PROJECT.

>> LET'S SEE. BUILDING INSPECTIONS, WE SAID WE'D NEED TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE DOING WITH THE ENTRANCE WALL.

HAVE THEY BEEN GENERALLY RESPONSIVE?

>> VERY RESPONSIVE, YES.

>> OKAY.

>> I'VE WORKED WITH BARBARA L├╝BECK AND SHE'S BEEN VERY RESPONSIVE THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.

>> I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS. MOVING FORWARD TO THE OTHER QUESTIONS. NO, WE'RE GOOD.

>> THOSE WERE THE SIX. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[NOISE] ITEM 3 IS TO DISCUSS NEIGHBORHOOD VITALITY MATCHING GRANTS FOR SIDEWALKS, AND TRAFFIC CALMING.

SCOTT, YOU'RE STILL GOING TO BE UP?

>> I THINK I AM.

>> OKAY. COMMITTEE, JUST TO MAKE THIS CLEAR, AND SCOTT, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG PLEASE.

I BELIEVE THAT WE USED TO, WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD VITALITY MATCHING GRANTS, ALLOW NEIGHBORHOODS TO APPLY FOR GRANTS TO HELP PAY THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAUSE DO WITH COST-SHARING ON THINGS LIKE SPEED HUMPS?

[00:25:03]

I THINK ALSO SIDEWALKS.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> A COUPLE YEARS AGO?

>> 2015.

>> 2015, TIME FLIES WHEN YOU'RE HAVING FUN.

[LAUGHTER] 2015, I GUESS WE CHANGED THAT BECAUSE WE WERE MOVING UP SOME OTHER THINGS.

BUT WHAT WE BASICALLY DID IS WE PULLED THE RUG OUT FROM UNDER THE POOR NEIGHBORHOODS WHO REALLY CAN'T EVEN AFFORD THEIR PERCENTAGE FOR SIDEWALKS EVEN THOUGH WE'VE MADE IT MUCH MORE AFFORDABLE FOR MANY PEOPLE, NOT NECESSARILY FOR ALL.

WITH SPEED HUMPS, WE BASICALLY TOOK AWAY NEIGHBORHOODS ABILITY WHO ARE NOT WELL-HEELED TO GET A SPEED HUMP BECAUSE THEY CANNOT, WITH THE PETITION PROCESS, GET PEOPLE TO SIGN THE PETITION AND SAY, YEAH, I'M GOING TO CHIP IN $300 FOR IT.

THIS IS TO DISCUSS PERHAPS REVERSING WHAT WAS DONE IN 2015 AND PUTTING THOSE POSSIBILITIES MAKING THAT ELIGIBLE FOR GRANTS AGAIN THAT NEIGHBORHOODS CAN APPLY FOR. YOU'RE ON.

>> FOR SPEED HUMPS, YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT.

THEY'RE ELIGIBLE UNTIL 2015.

WE COULD USE NEIGHBORHOOD VITALITY BOND FUNDING TO PAY FOR THEM, ASSUMING THERE'S A PREREQUISITE IN THAT THERE'S A STREET CLASSIFICATION.

IF IT MEETS A CERTAIN STREET HELP CLASSIFICATION, I THINK IT'S A TYPE F STREET OR ABOVE IT, YOU CAN HAVE A SPEED HUMP THERE.

BUT IF IT DOESN'T MEET THAT, THEN THEN YOU CAN AND THEN THEY ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW A PROCESS.

I'M NOT PERFECTLY FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCESS, BUT IT'S SOMETHING LIKE GET 80 PERCENT SIGNATURES OR APPROVAL WITHIN A CERTAIN MILE RADIUS OF WHERE YOU WANT TO PUT IT.

THAT PROCESS WOULD STAY IN PLACE NO MATTER WHAT YOU WOULD DO AS FAR AS FUNDING WITH THE MATCHING GRANT.

ALTHOUGH I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER THAT IF THEY'RE ABLE TO GO THROUGH THAT ENTIRE PROCESS, MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, IT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT THE CITY COULD JUST PAY FOR.

THAT WE DON'T TRY TO SHOEHORN IT INTO THE MATCHING GRANT PROCESS.

WE COULD DO THAT, BUT ESPECIALLY IF IT'S A VOLUNTARY NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT'S UNDER $10,000, IT WOULD BE AT NO COST TO THEM ANYWAY UNDER THE CURRENT GUIDELINES.

IT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT IF THEY CAN FOLLOW ALL OF THOSE PROCESSES ON THE SPEED HUMPS, MAYBE IT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER IS THAT ON THE FUNDING SIDE, IT JUST GETS TAKEN CARE OF.

>> THROUGH THE GRANT FUNDING?

>> SURE. THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD VITALITY BOND FUNDING.

>> OKAY.

>> THAT'S ONE POSSIBILITY OR WE CAN RESTORE IT THROUGH THE MATCHING GRANT.

BUT LIKE I SAID, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THESE THINGS COST.

BUT IF IT'S UNDER $10,000, IT WOULD BE 100 PERCENT FUNDED ANYWAY.

>> THEN AS FAR AS THE COST GOES, THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE HUMPS IS $700 SO IT'S NOT A LOT OF MONEY.

AGAIN, I'D READ WHAT SCOTT SAID IN TERMS OF PROBABLY BEST TO WORK THAT THROUGH SOME OTHER PROCESS.

THE FUNDING IS THERE, BUT IT WOULD BE A WHOLE LOT EASIER TO PULL IT OUT SEPARATE FROM THE MATCHING GRANT PROCESS AND CONSIDER IT SEPARATELY.

>> THAT HASN'T BEEN HAPPENING, IS THE PROBLEM.

THERE ISN'T RIGHT NOW A WAY TO DO THAT.

>> SURE.

>> YES.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT WE HAD TO HIT 80 PERCENT APPROVAL?

>> I'M NOT SURE. I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

>> BUT, SAY LIKE BOBBY LANE FROM JUPITER TO WESTERN, [NOISE] DO ALL THOSE PEOPLE ON BOBBY LANE HAVE TO SIGN IT UP TO 80 PERCENT?

>> I THINK IT'S 80 PERCENT WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE OF THE SPEED HUMP, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THE DISTANCE IS.

>> PROPERTY OWNERS.

>> YEAH. THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

>> I'M TALKING ABOUT THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON EACH SIDE OF THE STREET, THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

>> YES.

>> WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE NEIGHBOR ON THE OTHER STREET OR?

>> NO.

>> NO.

>> OKAY.

>> IT'S WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE [NOISE] ON THAT STREET WHERE THE SPEED HUMP IS GOING TO BE INSTALLED.

>> DO WE KNOW HOW FAR?

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT OFF HAND.

>> I'M JUST CURIOUS.

BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO PUT SPEED BUMPS, AND THEN THEY SAY, YOU GOT TO PITCH IN A LITTLE BIT.

NO. I AIN'T GOING TO PUT MONEY IN IT.

>> THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

>> THEY THINK THAT THE CITY OUGHT TO DO IT.

BUT EACH SPEED BUMP COSTS $700?

>> THAT'S WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTRIBUTES IF THEY GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND

[00:30:03]

THERE'S A NEED DEMONSTRATED.

THEY HAVE TO PUT IN $700.

THAT'S REALLY MEANT TO COVER THE COST OF THE ASPHALT.

THERE'S MORE LABOR COSTS AND OTHER COSTS INVOLVED, BUT THIS WAS MORE OR LESS A WAY TO GET THE NEIGHBORS TO PUT SOME MONEY IN THE FIELD BASICALLY AND HAVE SOME OWNERSHIP IN THE SPEED HUMP.

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS MORE THAN THAT.

[LAUGHTER] I DIDN'T KNOW 700 WAS THE AMOUNT.

>> IT WAS 750 RECENTLY, BUT MAYBE IT'S STILL 700.

>> YEAH.

>> THEY SAY 80 PERCENT OF PEOPLE IN THE SURVEY AREA, AND THIS, IT'S NOT TELLING ME WHERE THE SURVEY AREA IS, BUT I THINK IT'S GENERALLY THE BLOCK.

>> YEAH. IT'S IN THE BLOCK.

>> IT'S THE BLOCK.

>> OKAY.

>> ONE OF THE RECENT SURVEYS ON THE SOUTH WALL, IT'S THE BLOCK.

THE FOLKS THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY IMPACTED BY WHATEVER TRAFFIC DEVICE YOU PUT, IT'S THE BLOCK, NOT NEIGHBORS TO THE BLOCK.

>> NO.

>> OKAY.

>> IF WE PUT OPTION A AND OPTION B, FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE, WHAT DO YOU RECOMMEND? WHAT OPTION DO YOU LIKE?

>> WELL, ALL I WAS MEANING TO SAY IS IF THEY APPLIED FOR IT AS A NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THEY'RE A VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION, THEN IT WOULD BE COVERED 100 PERCENT ANYWAY UNDER THE CURRENT MATCHING GRANT GUIDELINES.

>> SO THE 700 WOULDN'T COME INTO PLAY?

>> NO, IT WOULDN'T.

>> BUT SINCE 2015, THIS HASN'T BEEN UNCOVERED.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> WE HAVE NOT ALLOWED PEOPLE TO FUND THEIR STREET HUMPS THROUGH THIS PROGRAM.

THAT'S WHY THIS ISSUE IS BEFORE US.

>> NOT EVERY STREET THAT BELIEVES THEY NEED A STREET HUMP IS PART OF A VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION EITHER.

>> TRUE.

>> I GUESS WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY, OPTION A, PUT IT BACK IN THE MATCHING GRANT AND THEY FOLLOW THAT PROCESS WHILE ALSO HAVING TO FOLLOW THE SURVEY PROCESS AND PUT THOSE THINGS TOGETHER AND THEY WOULD GET 100 PERCENT COVERED.

OR PERHAPS ANOTHER OPTION IS THAT THEY STILL FOLLOW THE SURVEY PROCESS.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S IN QUESTION RIGHT NOW.

THEY STILL FOLLOW THE SURVEY PROCESS AND THEM TURNING THAT IN THE CITY CAN THEN, MAYBE THERE'S SOME REVIEW PROCESS THAT GOES ON TOP OF THAT, BUT THEN IT JUST GETS FUNDED OUT OF MY FUNDING ANYWAY.

>> HAS YOUR OFFICE GOTTEN INQUIRIES FROM NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS ASSOCIATIONS?

>> YES.

>> WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE?

>> WELL, IT'S HARD TO SAY. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY SEE THAT THERE'S A $700 AMOUNT AND THEY GIVE UP.

I'M SURE THAT IS HAPPENING, THEY'RE SELF-SELECTING THAT WAY, BUT OTHER TIMES THE PROCESS OF DOING THE SURVEY IS ENOUGH FOR THEM NOT TO PURSUE IT.

I CAN'T SAY FOR SURE, BUT YES, WE GET INQUIRIES.

I WOULD SAY THREE TO FOUR TIMES A YEAR FROM DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS ABOUT SPEED HUMPS.

>> BECAUSE YOU FIND ABOUT THESE SURVEY SIGNATURES, AND NO ONE IS EXACTLY RIGHT.

IN THE CLIMATE, PEOPLE WERE REQUESTING THE VOLUNTEER NEIGHBORS TO SOLICIT THE SIGNATURES, THAT'S ONE THING.

THEN PEOPLE SIGNING A PIECE OF PAPER AND NOT KNOWING WHERE THAT PIECE OF PAPER IS GOING TO END UP WITH THEM.

PEOPLE ARE BECOMING VERY SENSITIVE TO SIGNING SOMETHING THAT THEY SEE IT GOES TO THE GOVERNMENT.

THINK THAT WAS ALL IN ONE BIG [INAUDIBLE].

>> SURE.

>> BUT ALSO, WHICHEVER WAY WE GO, THERE WOULD STILL HAD TO BE A DETERMINATION.

TRAFFIC WILL STILL HAVE TO GET INVOLVED IN TRANSPORTATION.

WE JUST WANT TO GET SOMEBODY ELSE TO ASK FOR SPEED HUMPS ON THAT STREET.

THAT NECESSARILY MEAN, EVEN TO THIS PROGRAM, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY AUTOMATICALLY GET SPEED HUMPS.

THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME WORK THROUGH TRANSPORTATION AND SPACE.

JUST BECAUSE I WANT TWO SPEED HUMPS,

[00:35:02]

FROM WORD OF MOUTH THAT MEAN I GET SPEED BUMPS.

>> THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.

>> YEAH. BRIAN LOOKED IT UP, IT'S A 500 FOOT DISTANCE FROM THE SPEED HUMP.

UNLESS THE STREET CONTINUES INTO THE NEXT BLOCK, THEN YOU HAVE TO CONTINUE THE SURVEY DOWN THE STREET.

>> THERE'S GENERALLY THREE REQUIREMENTS.

ONE, WHEREVER THE SPEED HUMP IS PLACED, THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO IT HAVE TO AGREE.

THE SECOND IS IT'S WITHIN 500 FEET.

IT'S THE ENTIRE BLOCK OR WITHIN 500 FEET, MEANING IF IT'S THEIR BLOCK AND 500 FEET GOES INTO THE NEXT BLOCK THEN IT'S ALSO THAT BLOCK.

SO THAT'S THE THIRD REQUIREMENT.

>> IT'S INTENTIONALLY A PRETTY ONEROUS PROCESS SO THAT YOU'VE GOT TO CREATE NEIGHBORHOOD BUY-IN AND THAT WE DON'T JUST GO BUILD A WHOLE BUNCH OF SPEED HUMPS OUT WHERE THEY DON'T NEED TO BE.

ONCE THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED, TRANSPORTATION DOES TRAFFIC STUDIES TO TEST THE SPEEDS AND WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DRAINAGE AROUND THE SPEED HUMP AND A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS.

IT'S PRETTY ONEROUS PROCESS.

>> BUT IT'S ONLY 750.

>> 750.

>> 750.

GET IN SIGNATURES.

IF ONE GUY WANTS TO PAY 750 AND I BET YOU HE CAN GET ALL OF THE SIGNATURES.

[LAUGHTER].

>> MY NEIGHBORHOODS ARE BY AND LARGE.

THEY DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ON THE BLOCK THAT HAS 700 BUCKS TO PUT UP FOR THIS.

THE STOPPING POINT FOR MY NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THIS ISN'T TRUE CITYWIDE, BUT IT IS TRUE IN MY NEIGHBORHOODS WHICH ARE DEMOGRAPHICALLY MORE CHALLENGED.

IT IS THE DOLLARS BECAUSE SIGNING THAT MEANS I AGREE TO CHIP IN TO PAY FOR THIS, AND THEY DON'T HAVE MONEY.

SO THE FUNDING, ALL THE OTHER PROCESSES NEED TO STAY IN PLACE.

THERE ARE SOME STREETS NOT QUALIFIED BECAUSE FIRE TRUCKS AND AMBULANCES NEED TO BLAST DOWN THEM REALLY FAST AND THEY'RE JUST NOT QUALIFIED.

THERE ARE ONLY SOME STREETS, RESIDENTIAL STREETS, THAT WOULD EVEN BE APPROVED FOR A STREET HUMP THROUGH OUR PROCESS.

BUT THE STOPPING POINT AND WHAT I KEEP BUMPING INTO IS I HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE IN NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE JUST DESPERATE AND THEY'VE GOT PEOPLE JUST SPEEDING THROUGH, CRASHING INTO CARS ON EITHER SIDE.

THIS IS HAPPENING A LOT AND THEY JUST DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO EVEN DO THIS PROCESS.

I'M LOOKING FOR A SANE FUNDING PROCESS.

SINCE WE USED TO DO IT THROUGH NEIGHBORHOODS VITALITY, I JUST THOUGHT MAYBE WE SHOULD UNWIND AND GO BACK TO THE WAY WE DID IT BEFORE.

BUT SCOTT, I'M HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING YOUR OPTION B, JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE DON'T HAVE THAT PROCESS SET UP RIGHT NOW.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. WE DO NOT.

>> WE WOULD HAVE TO SET UP A SEPARATE AVENUE FOR THAT.

>> WELL, I THINK THE TRANSPORTATION PROCESS, THE SURVEY AREA, THAT WOULD ALL REMAIN THE SAME AND I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SURVEY THING SAYS, BUT IF IT SAYS THAT YOU NEED TO CHIP IN AND WHAT I'M SUGGESTING WITH OPTION B IS THAT IT WOULDN'T SAY THAT ANY LONGER THAT THE COST OF IT WOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF BY THE CITY.

WHEN THEY TURN IN THEIR SURVEY WITH ALL THE SIGNATURES, THEY'VE DONE ALL THAT WORK, THEN THE PAYMENT FOR IT IS HANDLED INTERNALLY.

WE WOULD BE INSTALLING IT ANY WAY, THAT WOULD BE PUTTING MONEY IN ONE POCKET AND PUT IT IN THE OTHER.

I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW THAT WORK, BUT IT WOULD BE VERY SIMPLE, I THINK, TO SET UP INTERNALLY HOW TO PAY FOR THAT $700 OR CHARGING IT INTO AN ACCOUNT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> BUT THE MAIN THOROUGHFARES LIKE WESTERN LOLER.

>> [OVERLAPPING] I DON'T KNOW THE STREETS TIES BUT LIKELY NOT.

>> NO, BUT THOSE ARE MAIN THOROUGHFARES.

>> YEAH.

>> OKAY.

>> I'M WONDERING, GIVEN THE NUMBER OF CALLS I GET EVERY WEEK FROM PEOPLE WHO WENT STRAIGHT ON.

I'M JUST WONDERING HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD BE BLOWING OUT THE DOOR IF THIS WAS OPEN TO THE WHOLE CITY AND SAY FREE STRAIGHT HUMPS, JUST GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

I'M JUST WONDERING IF MAKING IT MORE OF A SIMPLE PROCESS LIKE THAT WOULD ALMOST BE OPENING A PANDORA'S BOX.

>> WELL, I THINK AGAIN, THE BIG HURDLE IS GOING TO BE THE EXISTING PROCESS TO QUALIFY FOR A SPEED HUMP.

THAT'S GOING TO WEED MOST OF THE PEOPLE OUT.

NOW, I THINK IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, SCOTT, BASICALLY THEY GO THROUGH THAT SAME PROCESS,

[00:40:03]

BUT ON THE APPLICATION FORM, WE PUT A BOX WHERE YOU SAY, CHECK HERE, IF YOU NEED HELP WITH COMING UP WITH THE $700 TO ACTUALLY PAY FOR THE SPEED HUMP.

WE'RE NOT BUILDING A NEW PROCESS, IT'S JUST USING THE EXISTING PROCESS AND THEN WE QUALIFY THEM FOR HELP TO PAY FOR IT.

IF THEY QUALIFY FOR THE SPEED HUMPS AFTER ALL THAT WORK.

>> WHO WOULD NOT IF THERE'S A CHECKBOX TO SAY, DO YOU WANT TO PAY THIS OR DO YOU WANT THE CITY TO PAY THIS? WHAT'S THE POINT?

>> THERE'S A FEW WAYS YOU COULD DO THAT.

ONE IS OKAY.

IS THE STREET IN A LOW-INCOME CDBG CENSUS TRACT? WE USE THAT FOR CRITERIA FOR OTHER STUFF.

SO YOU QUALIFY BECAUSE YOU'RE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S LOW TO MODERATE INCOME, THAT COULD BE AN EASY WAY TO QUALIFY.

THIS WOULD BE A LOT MORE ONEROUS FOR THEM, BUT SUBMIT KIND OFF INCOME VERIFICATION FOR THE AREA. I DON'T KNOW.

THAT'S THE EASIEST WAY TO DO IT.

JUST ARE YOU IN A CDBG CENSUS TRACT AND IF YOU ARE, THEN YOU QUALIFY FOR THE ASSISTANCE.

>> WE'RE ALREADY DOING THAT WITH SIDEWALKS.

BUT WE COULDN'T MAKE IT A LEVEL THING LIKE WE DO WITH SIDEWALKS, WITH SENIORS AND DISABLED AND CDBG AND HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION, HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION.

BUT JUST A BLACK AND WHITE.

IF IT'S A CDBG AREA, THEN THEY ARE NOT CHARGED FOR STREET HUMPS.

IF THEY GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, THAT WOULD SEEM FAIRLY CLEAN.

>> YOU KEEP IMPLEMENT?

>> YEAH.

>> WE'RE GOING TO MODIFY GOING BACK TO THE CITY TAKING THE 700, THAT'S A BIG CHANGE THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT.

YOU KNOW WHAT? I'D LIKE TO SEE US GO ALL OR NONE.

I DIDN'T WANT TO SEE TWO BOXES ON THERE TO SAY, DO YOU WANT TO PAY OR [LAUGHTER] CHECK IF YOU CAN, THEN YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT PROOF OF INCOME AND ALL OF THAT.

I THINK THAT'S TOO ONEROUS FOR NOT ONLY [INAUDIBLE] BUT FOR SCOTT'S TEAM, FOR STAFF.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSELOR.

>> YES. [LAUGHTER]

>> CAN WE GO THROUGH ALL THAT? BECAUSE THEY'LL BE A LIMITED NUMBER OF DOLLARS ANYWAY.

I THINK WE EITHER ALL IN OR NONE IN.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO START PUTTING BOXES AND CONDITIONS THAT I THINK THEY'LL MAKE THE PROCESS TOO ONEROUS.

I'M GOOD WITH GOING STRAIGHT WITH AND LET SCOTT AND HIS TEAM MANAGE THAT.

IF WE DO IT FOR SIX MONTHS, HE COMES BACK AND GIVES US FEEDBACK AND SAY THIS AIN'T WORKING THAT KIND OF THING.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS, I LIKE TO SEE US GO ALL OR NONE WITHOUT ALL OF THAT.

>> NOT EVEN CDBG, WHICH IS A VERY SPECIFIED AREA? YOU DON'T WANT THE CDBG TO HAVE A CATEGORY OF ITS OWN LIKE WE DO WITH SIDEWALKS?

>> I'M JUST FILLING THE TEMPERATURE, THE MORE BOXES WE START DRAFTING INTO.

IF WE WANT TO TEST THIS AND SEE HOW IT GOES AND THEN COME BACK REVISIT IT IN SAY, I'M JUST DOING AN EXAMPLE, IN SAY SIX MONTHS OR 10 MONTHS AND IF IT'S NOT WORKING, OR WE HAD PEOPLE WHO FIND WHAT THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO DO, THEN I THINK WE CAN DO MODIFICATIONS, BUT IF WE GOT TO CHANGE IT, I LIKE TO SEE THE ROLLOUT BE CLEAN RATHER THAN HAVING A BUNCH.

THEN MADAM CHAIR, IF WE WANT TO GO CDBG, LOOK AT THAT PIECE DOWN THE ROAD.

>> YEAH, I WOULD RATHER GO THE OTHER WAY BECAUSE IF YOU SAY IT'S OPEN TO EVERYBODY AND THEN YOU TAKE IT BACK FROM THEM, THAT MAKES THEM MAD. [OVERLAPPING]

>> IT'S LIKE TAKING A BALL FROM THE BABY. BABY GETS MAD.

>> I'M SAYING IF WE START WITH THE CDBG AND THEN WE SEE HOW IT GOES, WE COULD ENLARGE IT.

BUT I THINK IF WE START WITH, IT'S OPEN TO EVERYBODY ALL OVER THE CITY AND THEN WE SAY, WAIT A MINUTE, THAT'S GOING TO LOOK CRAZY.

WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE IT BACK IN AND SAY ONLY CDBG AREAS.

I'M CONCERNED.

>> YOU HAVE A GOOD POINT. I'M GOOD EITHER WAY.

WHICHEVER WAY WE GO, WHAT I'M SAYING IS WHEN WE WERE TALKING EARLIER ABOUT 700 CHILDREN YOU CAN DO IT, AND THEN DO YOU WANT TO PAY?

>> NO, NO, NO, NO.

[00:45:01]

>> I GET THAT. BUT I'M GOOD IF YOU WANT TO START SMALL AND THEN GO UP.

I'M GOOD EITHER WAY BUT I JUST DON'T WANT A LOT OF BOXES TO CHECK [OVERLAPPING] AND A BUNCH OF WORK FOR THE STAFF OR FOR THEM. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

>> SCOTT DOES LOOK LIKE HE HAS A LOT OF TIME ON HIS HANDS THAT HE'S GETTING ALL THESE KUDOS.

MAYBE WE SHOULD FILL UP HIS SCHEDULE.

>> GOOD. THANK YOU.

>> COUNCILMAN [INAUDIBLE], DID YOU HAVE?

>> I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

>> OKAY.

>> I THINK WE SHOULD GO SMALL AND THEN GO LARGE.

>> IS THAT GOING TO POTENTIAL WORK? [OVERLAPPING]

>> LIKE COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS IS SAYING OR MAYOR PRO TEM, I'M SORRY.

[LAUGHTER] WHAT HAPPENS IS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING AND WHAT HE'S SAYING.

WE'LL HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE MAD AT US IF WE DO ALL AT ONCE.

I THINK WE SHOULD GO SHORT, SMALL AND THEN WOULD CAN OPEN IT UP. YES.

>> I'M NOT HEARING COMPLAINTS FROM NORTH GARLAND AND FROM HOAS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO HAVE STREET HOMES.

THEY GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND THEY GET THEIR STREET HOMES.

[OVERLAPPING] IT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT DON'T HAVE THE MONEY AND IT'S ELDERLY NEIGHBORHOODS.

THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO DO THAT.

I AM INITIALLY MORE CONCERNED WITH THE ONES THAT I THINK ARE IN FINANCIAL DISTRESS THAN I AM SAYING CITYWIDE.

>> EVEN IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO PAY 750, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN THAT EVERYBODY'S GOT TO PITCH IN SO MUCH.

>> THAT CANNOT BE CHANGED.

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO PAY 750, ONE GUY IN THAT STREET, WELL, I THINK ALL THE OTHERS WHEN THEY SIGNED THE PAPERS, THEY SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR IT.

[OVERLAPPING] IN CASE THIS GUY RENEGES OR SOMETHING.

THAT'S WHAT I'M DRIVING AT.

BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO HELP NEIGHBORHOODS.

>> TRUE. YEAH. ABSOLUTELY.

>> I'M ONE OF THEM.

>> YEAH, YOU ARE.

>> YOU WANT TO MOVE TO MY DISTRICT? I HAVE SEVERAL NEIGHBORHOODS THEY WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOU LIVING THERE, HELPING THEM.

>> I'M TRYING TO CLEAN MINE.

[LAUGHTER]

>> COUPLE OF FINAL THOUGHTS.

ONE IS THAT I'D LIKE TO LOOK AT THE CDBG CENSUS TRACKS.

THEN LET YOU ALL LOOK AT IT AS WELL.

MAYBE WE COME BACK ON THIS SIDE AND BRING YOU THE MAPS BECAUSE THERE MAY BE AREAS THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT HAVE REQUESTED SPEED BUMPS, THAT MAYBE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE IN THERE.

LET'S ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE MAP TO MAKE SURE IT MEETS WHAT WE'RE THINKING IN OUR HEAD RIGHT NOW.

THE MAP WILL CHANGE PROBABLY NEXT YEAR BASED OFF OF THE 2020 CENSUS DATA.

THEY HAVEN'T DONE THAT YET, BUT IT WILL SOON.

THEN THE OTHER THING I WAS GOING TO MENTION IS THE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MOBILITY COMMITTEE IS LOOKING AT SPEED HUMPS RIGHT NOW FROM A DESIGN PERSPECTIVE, NOT THE FUNDING SIDE OF IT, BUT WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO BE CHANGING WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE, HOW THEY LAYOUT, WHERE THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS RIGHT NOW.

I THOUGHT I'D JUST MENTION THAT IF WE CAN RUN THESE TWO IN PARALLEL AND COORDINATE A LITTLE BIT THERE IT MIGHT BE WORTH OUR WHILE SO WE CAN COME BACK WITH THE MAPS AND LET YOU ALL LOOK AT THAT AND MAKE SURE WE'RE GOOD TO MOVE AHEAD, IF THAT SOUNDS OKAY.

>> THAT SOUNDS FINE TO ME AND I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE CURRENT CDBG MAP FOR MY DISTRICT, BUT CERTAINLY NOT FOR THE CITY AT LARGE.

A GREAT AMOUNT OF MY DISTRICT IS ACTUALLY IN THERE AND A GREAT AMOUNT OF DISTRICT 5, AND I THINK DISTRICT 6, AND PORTIONS OF DISTRICT 4.

>> THAT'S A GOOD IDEA JADE I'M GOOD FOR.

ANOTHER THING THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO BRING IT BACK, BUT IS GOING TO BE I THINK CONSIDERED, IS STREET PLANS.

LONG AND SHORT-TERM. YOU LOOK AT THOSE MAPS.

YOU DON'T WANT TO DROP FREE LAMPS ON THE STREETS.

IF STEVE HAS IT IN THIS PACKAGE [OVERLAPPING] WE'LL GO AHEAD AND REDO THE STREETS BOTH ABOVE GROUND AND UNDERGROUND WHERE YOU DON'T WANT TO GO AND PUT A SPEED BUMP THERE.

THAT ALSO NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT.

>> IT IS PART OF THEIR PROCESSES.

>> IT'S PART OF THE PROCESS.

>> I BELIEVE TWO OR THREE SPEED BUMPS ON [INAUDIBLE], I THINK THAT WAS DONE BY THE CITY.

>> YEAH.

>> BECAUSE WE WERE HAVING RACES ON [INAUDIBLE] FROM SHILOW TO JUPITER.

[00:50:08]

THEY PUT THOSE PITS ABOUT HOMEOWNER.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

THERE ARE SOME MAIN STREETS THAT WE MIGHT HAVE TO DO THAT.

>> YEAH. THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES LIKE ON THAT STREET AND OTHERS THAT THE CITY INITIATES IT AND IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC SAFETY.

[OVERLAPPING] BUT FOR THE MOST PART, THE EYES AND EARS OF OUR RESIDENTS HELP GUIDE OTHERWISE, THAT'S WHAT WE RELY ON.

>> BETWEEN LAWLER BETWEEN JUPITER TO YALE AND YALE TO PLANO ROAD IS WIDE OPEN.

THEY HAVE RACES OVER THERE.

THEY ON THE CORNERS OF YALE AND LAWLER, THEY DO WITH THEIR LITTLE SPIN.

>> AVENUE H BY CENTRAL PARK HAD THE SAME THING AND WE PUT IN SPEED HUMPS THERE BECAUSE IT WAS A TOTAL RACE TRACK.

DID WE HAVE OTHER COMMENTS? I WANTED TO ASK SCOTT.

IF WE LOOK AT TAKING YOUR OPTION B AND MAKING THIS A SEPARATE COMPLETELY ASIDE FROM REGULAR NEIGHBORHOOD VITALITY GRANTS, WOULD THIS HAVE A PROGRAM NAME WITH THIS STREET CALMING? IF WE CARRY THROUGH WITH THIS AND WE COME BACK AND WE MAKE A DECISION, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF IDENTIFYING FACTOR.

>> OKAY, SURE.

>> STRAIGHT CALMING IS THE PHRASE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO USE RATHER THAN SPEED HUMPS BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER SPEED CALMING THINGS THAT ARE INTERESTING THAT ARE OUT THERE AND SOME OF THEM ARE REMOVABLE SPEED HUMPS, WHICH ARE AN INTERESTING THING.

THERE ARE ACTUAL STRIPING THAT MAKES PEOPLE HAVE THE SENSATION OF SPEED.

HAVING A PROGRAM UMBRELLA, MAYBE YOU CAN THINK UP A KICKY NAME FOR US AND BRING IT BACK TO US NEXT TIME.

>> ALL RIGHT.

>> WE'LL HAVE PAUL [INAUDIBLE] COME NEXT TIME AS WELL AND YOU GUYS CAN PROBABLY TALK OFFLINE ABOUT SOME OF THOSE OPTIONS TOO.

>> THEY SPENT MANY LONG HOURS WITH PAUL [INAUDIBLE] TALKING ABOUT SPEED CALMING OPTIONS.

ARE WE GOOD WITH SPINNING THIS BACK, BRINGING IT BACK AND GET HEARING, GET LOOKING AT THE MAPS, HEARING WHAT BRAINSTORMS THAT SCOTT COMES UP WITH IN THE [INAUDIBLE] AND THEN SEE IF BRIAN AND JADE COME UP WITH ANY THINGS TO SHOOT THEM DOWN, MODIFY THEM, WHATEVER, THAT WORK? [BACKGROUND] OKAY.

LAST BUT NOT LEAST, ITEM 4, DISCUSS THE REGULATION OF FOOD TRUCKS AND TRAILERS.

THIS WOULD BE RICK BARKER.

THANK YOU, SCOTT.

>> THANK YOU, SCOTT.

>> NOW I'M GOOD.

THANK YOU [NOISE] [LAUGHTER].

>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, COUNCIL, ERIC BARKER, DIRECTOR OF CODE COMPLIANCE.

AS YOU RECALL, THE TASK WE WERE GIVEN AT THE LAST MEETING WAS TO COME BACK WITH A POSSIBLE MATRIX OF CURRENT CITY ORDINANCES AROUND OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES.

WE'VE DONE THAT FOR YOU TONIGHT AND I DO HAVE AN ACTUAL HARD COPY FOR YOU THAT MIGHT HELP YOU SEE THAT BETTER.

BUT ANYWAY, BASICALLY, THE MATRIX INCLUDES JUST SOME COMMON REGULATION VARIABLES THAT WE SAW ACROSS THE CITY ORDINANCES THAT WERE REVIEWED.

THEN THOSE ARE AT THE TOP HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE.

THERE'S ABOUT 12 COMMON REGULATION VARIABLES THAT WE POINTED OUT THAT WE THOUGHT WERE VERY PERTINENT TO THIS TOP SITUATION.

[00:55:01]

THEN ALSO IN YELLOW, ARE PRETTY MUCH THE SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS THAT WE AT GALLEN MIGHT WANT TO INCORPORATE.

I KNOW THAT'S YOUR DECISION, ITS JUST A SUGGESTION AT THIS POINT IF WE WANT TO GO THIS ROUTE.

I'VE ALSO INCLUDED HERE OUR CITY DOWN AT THE BOTTOM, WHICH WE CURRENTLY HAVE SOME REGULATIONS THAT ARE PERFORMED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT DURING THEIR PERMITTING PROCESS.

I'VE INCLUDED THOSE AS WELL JUST TO GIVE US A COMPARISON OF WHERE WE ARE AND WHERE WE MIGHT WANT TO GO.

IF YOU GO ACROSS THE TOP OF THE MATRIX, WE LOOKED AT HEALTH PERMITS, ADDITIONAL PERMITS, ACCESSORY LAND USE, RESTAURANTS, AND PRIMARY BUILDINGS, DISTANCES THAT THESE MOBILE FOOD UNITS WOULD BE LIMITED TO BE WITHIN BY FEET.

CONSENT OF THE OWNERS AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

POSSIBLE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT ARE ALLOWED TO BE ON THESE PROPERTIES AS AN ACCESSORY USE.

THE ACCESSORIES THAT ARE ALLOWED LIKE TABLES, CHAIRS, LIGHTS, SIGNAGE, THINGS OF THAT NATURE, THE HOURS OF OPERATION.

A LOT OF THE CITIES DO LIMIT THE HOURS OF OPERATION FOR MOBILE FOOD UNITS AT SOMEONE'S PROPERTY.

A COMMISSARY TYPE SITUATION REQUIREMENT THAT THEY EACH DAY GO BACK TO THEIR GROUND ZERO AND UNLOAD CLEAN, SANITIZE, RESTOCK, WHATEVER IS A REQUIREMENT.

ALSO, ZONING DISTRICTS.

MOST CITIES DO REQUIRE AND ALLOW THESE IN NON-RESIDENTIAL AREAS, PRIMARILY THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, AND MAKE SURE THEY ARE A MOBILE, SELF-CONTAINED UNIT AND THEN ALSO PARKING GUIDELINES.

MOST OF THE PARKING GUIDELINES THAT WE SAW ACROSS THE BOARD AND RELATED TO FIRE LANES, PARKING SPACES, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

INTERESTING ENOUGH, DOWN THE CITY OF FORT WORTH AS YOU SEE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW, THEY WERE ABOUT THE ONLY CITY THAT REALLY SPECIFIED BASICALLY BEING ON AN IMPROVED SURFACE.

THAT I THOUGHT WAS AN INTERESTING REGULATION THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME.

TO ME, YOU DON'T WANT FOOD TRUCKS AND FOOD TRAILERS OUT THERE RUNNING UP THE GROUNDS AND CAUSING A MASS.

BUT ANYWAY, I KNOW DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, WILLIAMS HAD REQUESTED FROM THE LAST MEETING THAT WE RANK THINGS BASICALLY, WE DIDN'T RANK THEM BUT WE JUST BASICALLY TOOK A HYBRID OF EACH ONE AND GAVE A SUGGESTION OF AN AREA THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO INCORPORATE AS A REGULATION.

BUT IF I WERE TO RANK ALL THESE CITIES, THE NUMBER ONE ORDINANCE THAT I FELT LIKE IT WAS VERY WELL-WRITTEN, IT WAS VERY FAIR AND VERY SPECIFIC, WAS THE CITY OF FORT WORTH.

VERY WELL-WRITTEN DOCUMENT AND COVER A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT I BELIEVE WE'RE LOOKING FOR IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT YOU WANT TO GO.

JIM IS NOT HERE TONIGHT.

I DID VISIT WITH JIM ABOUT THIS.

JIM WALK ABOUT A POSSIBILITY OF ADDING AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT TO THIS SITUATION.

CURRENTLY, THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT ISSUES A HEALTH PERMIT FOR THESE MOBILE FOOD UNITS AND TRAILERS.

ONCE THEY ARE INSPECTED ABOUT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, WE FILL OUT THEIR SAFE UNIT.

I GUESS THE CONCERN NOW IS WHERE THEY GO, REGULATING WHERE THEY'RE AT, WHAT THEY'RE DOING, WHERE THEY'RE AT, AND HOW LONG THEY'RE DOING IT.

ANOTHER INTERESTING SITUATION ENOUGH THAT THOUGHT WAS VERY PERTINENT, WAS I LIKED THE FORT WORTH ADDITIONAL PERMIT.

THEY CALL IT A VENDOR CEO.

BASICALLY IT'S BASICALLY ANOTHER PERMIT BUT THE MOBILE FILLED UNIT VENDOR WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GO GET A VENDOR CEO, WHICH WOULD INCORPORATE AN APPLICATION PROCESS AND THEN THEY WOULD ALSO INCLUDE IN THAT APPLICATION PROCESS A SITE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE, THE LOCATION ON THE PROPERTY AND MAKING SURE THEY'RE NOT BLOCKING FIRE LINES, THEY'RE NOT TAKING UP SPACES.

IT'S A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR BOTH THE PEDESTRIANS AND VEHICLE TRAFFIC.

[01:00:01]

AGAIN, THAT'S JUST SOME TIDBITS THAT I WANTED TO SHARE IT WITH YOU.

I HOPE THIS MEETS THE NEED AND THE REQUEST THAT WAS MADE FOR US TO COME BACK WITH THE ANALYSIS OF THE CITY'S WITNESSES.

I DIDN'T GO INTO A LOT OF DETAIL.

THERE'S SOME YES. YES AND NO'S.

THE NAS ON HERE BASICALLY MEANT THAT IT WAS EITHER NOT APPLICABLE, OR IT WAS NOT FOUND IN THE ORDINATES REVIEW.

SOMETIMES IT MIGHT NOT BE THERE.

IT MIGHT BE AN INTERPRETATION THROUGH THE ORDINATES BUT ANYWAY, MOST OF THE CITIES DO REQUIRE DISTANCES FROM LIKE AN EXAMPLE, THE MINIMUM OF 500 FEET.

ONE OTHER INTERESTING SITUATION IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE SAIGON MALL, WHICH I KNOW IS A CONCERN BASED ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT ARE OUT THERE.

IF YOU NOTICE AND IF YOU RECALL, THEY ARE LOCATED NEAR THE STREET NEAR JUPITER.

BUT IF YOU WERE TO MEASURE FROM WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED TO THE MAIN BUILDING, IT'S ABOUT 400 FEET.

IF WE WENT WITH THE 500 FEET REQUIREMENT, THEY WOULD STILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT.

JUST TO GIVE YOU A PERSPECTIVE OF THE DISTANCE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BUT ANYWAY, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. GO AHEAD, SIR.

>> GREAT. I LIKE THAT VENDORS CEO [INAUDIBLE] BECAUSE ON APOLLO AND JUPITER, THEY DON'T HAVE NO CEOS AND ON THAT CAR WASH, THEY DON'T HAVE NOTHING.

>> CORRECT.

>> THE GUY THAT HAS THAT CAR WASH, THEY'RE GOING TO PERMIT SUP FOR CAR WASH, BUT NOTHING FOR WHAT WE'RE DOING THAT NAME.

>> CORRECT. MOVING FORWARD, AND I'M JUST OFFERING A SUGGESTION, IF YOU DID LIMIT THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT ARE AT A PROPERTY AS AN ACCESSORY, TOP USE.

AN EXAMPLE, IF YOU GO MORE THAN TWO UNITS AT ONE PROPERTY, THEN WE MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT INCORPORATING SOME TOP OF FOOD TRUCK PARK, FOOD TRUCK PROPERTY THAT WOULD, IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT BALLGAME.

YOU'D HAVE TO GO PROBABLY THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS TO RESOLVE SOMETHING, MAYBE ESTABLISH AN ORDINANCE SO THAT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING AT THIS TIME TO ADDRESS THAT.

>> THE OTHER ONE IS HERE, RESTROOMS. WHAT IS THIS?

>> THE REGULATION VARIABLE OF RESTAURANTS AND PRIMARY BUILDINGS.

IF THEY ARE SET FOR IT THERE THE CONVENIENCE STORE, THEY WOULD NEED TO BE LOCATED WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE FOR THE PATRONS AND THE EMPLOYEES OF THE FOOD UNIT TO BE ABLE TO GO TO A RESTAURANT FACILITY.

>> RESTROOMS IN THAT CAR WASH.

>> I UNDERSTAND.

>> NOTHING. THEY ARE IN THE CORNER WHERE IT BLOCKS ALL THE TRAFFIC.

>> THAT MIGHT GET INTO A PARTICULAR SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT AND IT MIGHT BE A DIFFERENT TOP PERMITTING, TOP SITUATION AS OPPOSED TO JUST TO ONE AND TWO UNIT SITUATION AS AN ACCESSORY USE.

>> MY MAIN CONCERN WAS PUBLIC SAFETY AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE SOMETHING BESIDES WHAT WE GOT RIGHT NOW.

I THINK THERE'S NO REGULATION AND IF SOMEBODY GET SICK, SOME CUSTOMERS GET SICK, WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO GO, TO COMPLAIN OR ANYTHING.

WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. THAT'S MY CONCERN.

>> BJ, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

>> RICK, THANKS FOR THIS INFORMATION, VERY GOOD, TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.

WITH THE VENDOR CEOS, YOU SAID THAT'LL BE TIED TO LOCATION.

IF THEY GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS THAT WE ESTABLISHED THAT, WOULD THEY HAVE TO THEN BE AT A FIXED LOCATION AND LIMITED TO THAT LOCATION ONLY?

[01:05:06]

>> WELL THEY COULD. AGAIN, I'M JUST OFFERING SUGGESTION.

OTHER CITIES REQUIRE THAT IF YOU VISIT OR YOU VAN FROM MORE THAN ONE LOCATION, YOU WOULD REQUIRE A SEPARATE VENDOR CEO FOR THAT OTHER LOCATION AS WELL.

SAY I'M A VENDOR AND I FREQUENT THREE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, I WOULD NEED THREE DIFFERENT PERMITS WHICH I WOULD APPLY FOR AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT AND I WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE A SITE PLAN OF WHERE I'M GOING TO BE LOCATED AT THAT LOCATION.

THAT SIDE PLAN WOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE SAFETY FEATURES OF TRAFFIC, PEDESTRIAN, PARKING, FIRE LANES, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

>> THE CASE IS THAT YOU FOR ME WITH RICK OVER MY DISTRICT.

MY MAIN CONCERN IS HEALTH AND JASON'S TEAM AS LONG AS WITH YOUR TEAM.

MY MAIN CONCERN IS HEALTH.

I LIKE THE VENDOR CEO, BUT MANY OF THESE I DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT, BUT JUST BASED ON OBSERVATION, MANY OF THESE FOOD TRUCKS, THEY JUST SHOW UP.

THEY SHOW UP HERE THEN THEY SHOW UP THERE.

IF THEY OWN A PRIVATE PARKING LOT, BUT TO DEAL IN AND AS THE HEALTH INSPECTOR GOES OUT AND CHECKS AMOUNT.

IF THEY'VE GOT THE PROPER NECESSARY HEALTH DOCUMENTS, THEY STAY THERE.

THE NEXT TIME YOU SEE THEM, THEY ARE DOWN ON ANOTHER CAR.

THEY'RE VERY MOBILE.

I GUESS WITH THIS VENDOR CEO, WHAT WOULD BE THE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY'RE SITTING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

IF WE WANT THE VENDOR CEOS, WE SAY YOU'VE TO GET A CEO.

IF YOU GOT TO DO BUSINESS AT THREE DIFFERENT SITES, WE SAY YOU HAVE TO GET THREE DIFFERENT CEOS.

HOW WOULD WE POLICE ENFORCE THAT? I'D LOVE THIS ACTIVITY TO TAKE PLACE ON WEEKENDS.

WHAT ARE OTHER CITIES DOING RICK?

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

WE HAVE DISCUSSED THAT INTERNALLY.

I'VE DISCUSSED IT WITH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.

JIM AND I DISCUSSED THAT AS WELL.

ONCE THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT ISSUES THEIR PERMIT, THEN THEY COULD REFERENCE THE VENDOR TO THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS TO GET THEIR VENDOR CEO.

THEN THAT'S WHERE WE AT CODE COMPLIANCE WOULD COME IN AND DO THE MONITORING OF THESE MOBILE FOOD UNITS.

WE CAN MONITOR TO THEM PROACTIVELY.

IF WE GET A COMPLAINT OBVIOUSLY, WE CAN GO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT.

WE CAN VERIFY THAT THEY HAVE A HEALTH PERMIT, THEY HAVE THEIR VENDOR CEO.

THROUGH THOSE PERMITTING PROCESSES, IT WOULD BE REQUIRED THAT THEY HAVE PERMISSION TO BE THERE FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER.

IF THEY'RE AT A VACANT LOT OR SOMEWHERE WHERE THEY SHOULDN'T BE, THEN WE WOULD ENFORCE THAT.

>> WOULD THIS JUST APPLY TO FOOD VENDORS, BECAUSE WE HAVE A VARIETY PARTICULARLY GOING INTO THIS SEASON AND THE WINTERTIME.

WE HAVE A NUMBER OF FIREWOOD VENDORS THAT JUST SHOW UP, THEY GOT TO PICK UP, TRAILER AND THEY STOP.

THIS PLACE, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

>> YES SIR.

>> WITH THIS, JUST APPLY TO FOOD TRUCK TYPE VENDORS.

>> THAT WOULD BE YOUR DECISION.

[LAUGHTER].

>> JUST RAISE THAT. I DON'T KNOW [INAUDIBLE], BUT I KNOW I'VE SEEN THAT THERE.

I'D RATHER START SMALL, BUT I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT IT SHOULD OR IT SHOULD NOT.

I JUST THOUGHT I'D ASK THAT QUESTION.

>> JUST A CLARIFICATION ON YOUR QUESTION.

WHEN YOU SAY FOOD TRUCK VENDORS, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT CATERING TRUCKS AND

[01:10:02]

FOOD PREPARATION TRUCKS OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING DIFFERENT OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT BOTH, BECAUSE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CATERING TRUCK AND A FOOD PREPARATION TRUCK.

>> I'M TALKING ABOUT A TRUCK THAT PULLS UP ON PARKING LOT X, THEY OPEN THE WINDOW, YOU WALK UP AND YOU ORDER A SANDWICH.

THEY HAND YOU THE SANDWICH.

>> THAT COULD BE A CATERING TRUCK OR A FOOD PREPARATION.

>> I GUESS, ALL I KNOW IS THAT THERE IS [INAUDIBLE] IN LINE AND THEY'RE BUYING FOOD.

>> HERE'S WHY I'M ASKING BECAUSE IT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION IN WHAT YOU ALL ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.

THE CATERING TRUCKS OR THE TRUCKS THAT YOU SEE THAT GENERALLY HAVE A CIRCUIT WHERE THEY START HITTING CONSTRUCTION SITES AND THEY FEED CONSTRUCTION WORKERS ON SITE.

>> THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

>> THAT'S FOOD THAT'S BEEN PRE-PREPARED AND PRE-PACKAGED.

THEN YOU HAVE YOUR FOOD TRUCKS WHERE YOU'RE ON-SITE ACTUALLY COOKING FOR ORDER.

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M IS TALKING ABOUT.

>> THAT'S WHY I WAS JUST MAKING SURE.

>> THANKS. I'M NOT AFTER THE GUYS WHO SHOW UP AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE [INAUDIBLE].

THE SECOND GROUP, THAT'S THE GROUP THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT AND I ONLY ASKED THAT QUESTION.

I'M AFTER FIREWOOD, BUT I WANT TO START SMALL, BUT I LIKE THE VENDOR CEO.

THE CEO [INAUDIBLE] AND YOU HAVE ANSWERED MY QUESTION ON THE TRACKING BECAUSE THESE OR THEY ARE SHOWING UP IN INCREASING NUMBERS.

THEY'RE ALSO INVITING SOME OTHER THINGS THAT'S NOT A PART OF THIS DISCUSSION.

>> RICK I APPRECIATE THIS.

[INAUDIBLE] I WANT TO COME BACK.

IF WE WERE TO ADOPT THE SEALED PIECE OUT OF FORT WORTH, WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP? I THINK, WOULD WE POSE AN HONEST TO WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE, HOW WOULD THAT LOOK RICK?

>> WELL, I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR BRIAN, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST OR RECOMMEND THAT WE GET TOGETHER WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND SIT DOWN AND DRAFT AN ORDINANCE, A ROUGH DRAFT TO BRING BACK TO YOU FOR REVIEW, AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS THE DETAILS AND THE LIKES AND DISLIKES AND GO FROM THERE.

>> COULD YOU ALSO BRING A COPY OF THE FORT WORTH ORDINANCE TO SHARE WITH?

>> I CAN DO THAT.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU MY CHAIR.

>> YES. [INAUDIBLE].

>> MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU SAID TRUCKS SELLING WOOD, DID YOU SAY THAT?

>> YEAH. BUT THAT'S WAS A QUESTION.

>> I JUST WANT TO STRAIGHTEN THAT OUT THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT.

>> NO.

>> LIKE BRIAN SAID THE PREPARATION ALREADY THAT DON'T INCLUDE HERE BECAUSE THEY GET PERMITS AND ALL THAT.

WHAT MOSTLY CONCERNS ME WITH THESE TRAILERS.

THE FOOD TRUCKS ARE ONE THING, BUT THE TRAILERS IS ANOTHER BECAUSE THE GUYS GO OVER THERE AND THEY'VE PARKED THE TRAILER.

WHAT I RECOMMEND, THEY DON'T HAVE TO GET THREE OR FOUR CEOS.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS, THEY GET A CEO, ONE CEO, BUT THEN THEY HAD TO HAVE A CHARGE LIKE WHERE THEY PARK.

>> A SITE PLAN.

>> YEAH, SITE PLAN. THAT'S OKAY.

AS LONG AS THEY HAVE PERMISSION FROM THE OWNERS.

YOU CAN'T JUST PARK A TRAILER IN OUR PARKING LOT OUT HERE. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

>> I THINK THAT THE VETTING OF THAT COULD BE AT THE APPLICATION PROCESS, WHEN YOU FILL OUT YOUR APPLICATION, YOU PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION AND IT GETS APPROVED BEFORE YOU GET YOUR PERMIT.

THEN BACK TO DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM'S QUESTION ABOUT WHO WOULD ENFORCE THAT.

THAT'S HOW WE CURRENTLY DO SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS NOW, IF WE GET A COMPLAINT ON THAT, THEN WE'LL GO OUT.

NUMBER 1, MAKE SURE THEY HAVE A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT.

THEN WE'LL VERIFY THAT THEIR SITE PLANS ARE BEING FOLLOWED AND THEY'RE DOING WHAT THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO.

THAT'S HOW WE CURRENTLY ENFORCE THE SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS [OVERLAPPING].

>> I THINK THAT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD BEAR LITTLE CEO,

[01:15:07]

GIVEN THEM PERMISSION TO DO THAT.

>> I ENVISION THAT. HERE'S AN EXAMPLE.

THEY'VE GIVEN, SAY, THREE VENDORS PERMISSION TO BE THERE AT ANY GIVEN TIME.

BUT WE CREATED AN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS YOU CAN ONLY HAVE TWO AND FIRST ONE FIRST COME FIRST SERVE.

THAT'S JUST SOMETHING TO CONSIDER THAT WE PROBABLY HAVE TO DISCUSS AND WORK THROUGH SOMETHING THAT'S ENFORCEABLE.

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

>> SURE.

>> THE CEO, LIKE THE CAR WASH THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ON APOLLO AND JUPITER.

THEY DON'T HAVE A CEO FOR TRADERS, WOOD TRADERS.

THEY JUST LET HIM PARK THERE.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THE RESTROOM.

THAT BOTHERS ME THAT AN OWNER BECAUSE THE CAR WASH WASN'T DOING VERY GOOD, HE STARTED PUTTING ALL THESE TRAILERS THERE.

DON'T GET ME WRONG.

I'M NOT TRYING TO SHUT HIM DOWN.

I JUST WANT TO PERMIT TO MAKE SURE THAT IN CASE THERE'S AN ACCIDENT OR SOMETHING, SOMEBODY GOT TO BEAR THE COST.

I'M MORE OF PUBLIC SAFETY LIKE MAYOR PRO TEM TALKED ABOUT. THAT'S MY CONCERN.

>> I THINK WE CAN INCORPORATE THAT INTO THE PERMITTING PROCESS BECAUSE I KNOW THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT WHEN THEY DO THEIR INSPECTIONS, THEY LOOK AT, FIRE SAFETY.

WE CAN INCORPORATE THE ELECTRICAL CODES, THINGS OF THAT NATURE [OVERLAPPING].

>> NUMBER 1 RIGHT THERE BECAUSE WHEN I BROUGHT THIS UP, YOU ALL WENT OUT THERE TO INSPECT IT.

WHAT DID YOU FIND ON THE ELECTRIC?

>> THEY WERE HARD WIRED IN.

[LAUGHTER]

>> USING EXTENSION CORDS. [OVERLAPPING].

>> SURE.

>> USING BUTANE GENERATORS AND ALL THAT.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LITTLE REGULATION I'M TALKING ABOUT.

DON'T GET ME WRONG, I'M NOT TRYING TO PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS.

I'M GLAD THAT EVERYBODY'S DOING OKAY.

BUT MINE IS A PUBLIC CONCERN. THAT'S ALL.

>> UNDERSTOOD.

>> THANK YOU.

>> I ALSO LIKE THE CONCEPT OF THE VENDOR CEO.

I LIKE THE IDEA OF MAKING THEM HAVE A SEPARATE CEO FOR ANY SITE THAT THEY PLAN TO VEND FROM.

I THINK THAT ONLY MAKES SENSE AND THAT WAY WE HAVE A SITE PLAN AND WE KNOW WHERE THEY WILL PARK AND ON WHAT THEY WILL PARK.

WE'LL KNOW WHETHER THEY'RE LIVING UP TO THEIR CEO OR NOT WITH A PRETTY EASY CHECK.

THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

LOOKING AT THE YELLOW SQUARES WHERE YOU NOTED SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS.

YOU HAVE THE NOT APPLICABLE UNDER ACCESSORY LAND-USE, YOU HAVE THAT YELLOWED? DOES THAT SIGNIFY THAT SOMETHING ELSE SHOULD BE THERE BESIDES NOT APPLICABLE?

>> THAT MEANS WE CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE THAT.

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE CITY OF GARLAND?

>> IT'S YELLOW. SHOULD WE HAVE THAT?

>> I'M SAYING WE SHOULD HAVE THAT. YES.

>> THAT SHOULD SAY YES.

>> YES. WELL, NOW THIS IS THE CURRENT STATE.

>> GOT IT.

>> IF WE WANT TO INCORPORATE THAT AND WE GO THAT ROUTE, THEN WE WOULD MOVE THAT TO YES.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> THE ACCESSORY LAND-USE, CAN YOU STATE WHAT THAT EXACTLY MEANS?

>> WELL, IT'S LIKE, AT, A CONVENIENT STORE.

RETAIL, GAS SALES, WHATEVER.

AN ACCESSORY WOULD BE NOT THE PRIMARY USE OF THE LAND, BUT A SECONDARY USE.

>> MS. MADAM CHAIR, I HATE TO CIRCLE AROUND, BUT OCCASIONALLY I HAVE A THOUGHT THAT POPS IN MY HEAD.

IN REGARD TO THE VENDOR CEOS.

AS I THINK THROUGH THIS AND THE COMPLICATIONS THAT MIGHT COME FROM REQUIRING EACH FOOD TRUCK TO CONTAIN MULTIPLE CEOS.

I THINK WHAT YOU-ALL MAY WANT TO CONSIDER,

[01:20:02]

IS THAT THE PROPER, CONCERN IS, DO THEY HAVE, PROPER AUTHORITY, FROM THE OWNER, CONSENT FROM THE OWNER.

WHAT IF WE REQUIRED THE OWNER OF A PROPERTY TO ISSUE A SITE PLAN TO OBTAIN A VENDOR CEO FOR SAY TWO FOOD TRUCKS AND AS LONG AS THOSE FOOD TRUCKS HAVE BEEN ISSUED HEALTH PERMITS, THEN WHY DID WE CARE WHERE THEY GO AS LONG AS THEY'RE AT AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION THAT'S BEEN ISSUED A CEO.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? BECAUSE THEN THE FOOD TRUCKS ARE ONLY GETTING ONE PERMIT.

THAT'S THE HEALTH PERMIT.

WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT THE FOOD THAT THEY'RE SERVING HAS BEEN PREPARED IN A HEALTHY MANNER AND THAT THEY'VE PASSED THEIR HEALTH PERMIT.

BUT IT'S EASIER TO TRACK BECAUSE THEN IF YOU REQUIRE IT FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT NUMBER ONE, THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER CAME IN AND SAID, HEY, I WANT THIS CEO, BECAUSE I HAVE THESE TWO SPOTS ON MY SITE AND THEY ALL ALREADY HAVE A SITE PLAN FOR WHEN THEY CAME IN TO GET THEIR CEO FOR THEIR BUSINESS.

I WOULD LIKE THEM TO GO HERE THEN WE CAN REVIEW THAT, BUILDING INSPECTION CAN REVIEW THEIR SITE PLAN AND SAY YES, YOU CAN HAVE BASED ON THE SITE PLAN YOU SUBMITTED, WE SAY THAT YOU CAN SAFELY PUT TWO FOOD TRUCKS OR TWO MOBILE TRAILERS AT THIS LOCATION.

THEN THEY CAN PUT, THERE AT THE LOCATION, WE HAVE A RECORD OF WHERE IT'S BEEN ISSUED.

BUILDING A SPECTRAL HAVE A DATABASE, THEY CAN SAY, WELL, WE KNOW THAT THE CEOS HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THESE LOCATIONS.

IF WE SEE A FOOD TRUCK SOMEWHERE THAT'S NOT AT ONE OR AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION.

IT'S NOT IN THEIR DATABASE AND THEY KNOW WHEN THERE'S A VIOLATION HERE.

>> IT WOULDN'T MATTER WHICH FOOD TRUCK AS LONG AS THEY HAD A HEALTH PERMIT.

>> AS LONG IT HAS A HEALTH PERMIT.

>> IT WOULD BE UP TO THE PROPERTY. I LIKE THAT.

THAT'S CLEAN. THAT SEEMS MUCH LESS FUSSY.

>> NOW WE'RE MAKING PROGRESS BECAUSE THE PROPERTY OWNER GOT THE CEO. [OVERLAPPING]

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR. [OVERLAPPING]

>> YEAH.

>> THAT'S A REALLY GREAT IDEA.

>> THAT WAS WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR BECAUSE IN CASE THERE'S AN ACCIDENT, SOMEBODY GOT TO TAKE THE PUNISHMENT OR WHATEVER.

>> CERTAINLY A PROPERTY OWNER IS GOING TO HAVE INSURANCE.

>> INSURANCE, ALSO THEY CAN ALLOW A TRAILER OR TRUCK ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS.

>> IF IT'S APPROVED BY BUILDING INSPECTION.

>> YEAH. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

I LIKE THAT BETTER. YOU'RE RIGHT.

>> COMMITTEE, I'M WATCHING THE CLOCK.

WHAT I WANTED TO DO SINCE WE ARE GOING TO TASK BRIAN AND JED WITH COMING BACK TO US WITH A DRAFT.

I WANTED TO RUN THROUGH THIS MATRIX QUICKLY AND GIVE THEM A GENERAL IDEA OF OUR THOUGHTS.

STARTING WITH THAT, LOVE THAT IDEA.

THE ACCESSORY LAND USE.

ARE YOU ALL GENERALLY AT THIS POINT TENTATIVELY IN FAVOR OF HAVING GARLAND COME INTO ALIGNMENT WITH EVERY OTHER CITY TO SAY YES, IT WOULD BE AN ACCESSORY LAND-USE?

>> CAN I ASK BRIAN SOMETHING?

>> YES.

>> IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? THE LAND USE?

>> YES. IT WOULD BE AN ACCESSORY LAND USE IN OTHER WORDS THAT CANNOT BE A PRIMARY LIKE YOU'RE DESCRIBING TO WHERE YOU HAVE A PROPERTY THAT DOESN'T CONTAIN A BUSINESS, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN IT TURNS INTO A CATERING TRUCK PARK, THEN THAT WOULD BE A PRIMARY LAND USE.

WE MAY WANT TO COME UP WITH THE ZONING USE OR A LAND-USE FOR FOOD COURTS, MOBILE FOOD COURTS. [OVERLAPPING].

>> THE PARK IS GOING TO FOOD COURT BUILT INTO IT.

>>WE MAY WANT TO HAVE THAT, BUT YES, THAT'S WHAT THAT MEANS.

CURRENTLY, WE DON'T HAVE A LAND TO USE ON OUR CHART THAT I'M AWARE OF FOR A MOBILE FOOD COURT.

BUT SO THAT WOULD BE AS LONG AS THERE'S SOME OTHER BUSINESS THAT'S A PRIMARY BUSINESS ON LOCATION, THEN YOU CAN HAVE THESE AS ACCESSORY USES.

>> OKAY. SO NEXT ONE OVER RESTAURANTS AND PRIMARY [OVERLAPPING].

>> THAT WOULD BE YES.

>> YES.

>> FOR RANK USED TO BE YES.

>> AT LEAST TENTATIVELY FOR THEM TO USE IN DRAFTING.

>> OKAY.

>> IF YOU CAN, BUT WE'LL GET THERE IN A MINUTE.

THE NEXT ONE OVER RESTAURANTS AND PRIMARY BUILDINGS, IT LOOKS LIKE LESS THAN 500 FOOT DISTANCE FROM RESTAURANTS IN PRIMARY BUILDINGS, RICK, THAT APPEARS TO BE YOUR RECOMMENDATION?

>> THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION.

THAT WOULD COVER THE SAIGON MALL SITUATION. THANKS,

>> WE'RE TALKING WITHIN 500 FEET.

>> WITHIN 500 FEET, YES.

>> FIVE HUNDRED FEET OR LESS.

>> YEAH.

>> BECAUSE THERE ARE CONVENIENT STORES THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO HAVE THAT ON THE SIDE.

>> [OVERLAPPING] I'M GOOD WITH FORT WORTH ON THAT.

TO BE CLEAR ON THAT, RICK, WHEN YOU LOOK AT FORT WORTH'S LESS THAN 500 FEET,

[01:25:02]

THAT'S FOR RESTAURANTS THAT ARE ON THE SAME PROPERTY?

>> YES.

>> OKAY.

>> YES.

>> THAT WORKS.

>> CONSENT OF OWNER, IF WE DO THE VENDOR CO, AS BRIAN HAS SUGGESTED, THAT ALREADY WILL BE A GIVEN.

>> YES.

>> NUMBER OF UNITS ALLOWED, I SEE THEY HAVE HIGHLIGHTED TWO, AND THIS WOULD BE ALLOWED ON A SPECIFIC SITE?

>> CORRECT.

>> OKAY, AND I SEE THAT FORT WORTH SAYS ONE, EXCLUDING FOOD COURTS, WHICH IS ANOTHER WHOLE CATEGORY.

WE HAVE SPECIAL EVENTS, FOR INSTANCE AT CENTRAL PARK, WHERE WE'LL HAVE FIVE FOOD TRUCKS.

WE HAVE SPECIAL EVENTS HERE AND THEY'RE ACROSS THE CITY, WHERE MULTIPLE FOOD TRUCKS SHOW UP, MORE THAN TWO.

BUT THERE ARE ALSO [OVERLAPPING].

>> SPECIAL EVENTS ARE NOT.

>> RIGHT. I'M JUST VERIFYING FOR SPECIAL EVENTS, THIS WOULDN'T PROHIBIT US FROM PERMITTING SPECIAL EVENTS WHERE THERE WILL BE MULTIPLE FOOD TRUCKS?

>> WE'LL CLARIFY TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S EXCLUSIVE OF OUR SPECIAL EVENTS.

>> OKAY, AND ALSO KEEP IN MIND WHAT WE'RE HEADING TOWARD WITH REGARDING TO HAVING A SPECIFIC AREA THERE THAT'S LOOKED AT PROSPECTIVELY TO BE A FOOD TRUCK COURT.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T CUT OUR OWN THROATS WITH THAT.

ACCESSORIES ALLOWED, AND WE'VE HIGHLIGHTED ONE TABLE AND FOUR CHAIRS.

I SEE IT'S YES, NO, YES, NO, YES, NO, FORT WORTH SAYS,

>> I PREFER LEAVING THAT ALONE.

I DON'T SEE A BIG VALUE IN THAT.

BECAUSE IF WE WANT TO PUT SOMETHING IN IT, THEN WE'VE GOT TO ENFORCE IT, WE'VE GOT TO CHECK IT.

START COUNTING TABLES AND CHAIRS, I DON'T KNOW WHY, UNLESS YOU THINK IT'S PRETTY [OVERLAPPING].

>> MY THOUGHT WOULD BE, THEY WERE REALLY THE ONLY ONES THAT SPECIFIED COUNTING TABLES AND CHAIRS.

REST OF THEM WERE PRETTY VAGUE.

>> YEAH.

>> I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO COUNT TABLES AND CHAIRS, IT'S JUST, I DON'T.

>> IS THE CONCEPT BEHIND, YOU THINK WITH FORT WORTH, THEM SPECIFYING TABLES AND CHAIRS TO KEEP IT FROM BECOMING THIS HUGE OUTDOOR DINING AREA?

>> I BELIEVE IT'S A SAFETY FACTOR.

>> OKAY.

>> YEAH, PLUS FORT WORTH HAS A HUGE STOCK YARDS, WHERE THEY'VE GOT A LOT OF PERIMETER OPEN SPACE AND THAT MAY HAVE HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THIS.

BUT WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE THAT.

THEY'VE GOT THIS HUGE ENTERTAINMENT STUFF.

>> [OVERLAPPING] LAND A FEW DAYS AGO AND THEY HAVE A GIANT OUTDOOR PATIO.

THEY HAD A FOOD TRUCK THERE.

THEY HAD EXTRA TABLES AND CHAIRS SETUP.

THERE'S ALSO A TIRE PLACE OVER IN MY DISTRICT OR IT'S ACTUALLY A DISTRICT [INAUDIBLE] I PASS BY IT, THEY HAVE A FOOD TRUCK AND A TIRE PLACE ALL THE TIME AND THEY HAVE A BUNCH OF TABLES AND CHAIRS OUT.

THE QUESTION IS, DO WE CARE? WE CARE?

>> I DON'T WANT TO SIT AND WORRY ABOUT COUNTING TABLES AND CHAIRS.

>> CURRENTLY WE ARE NOT APPLICABLE.

WHERE ARE YOU ON THIS? DO YOU CARE?

>> I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE CHAIRS AND ALL THAT, BECAUSE THE SPECIAL EVENTS, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE OR TWO OR THREE TABLES, THEY'RE NOT SPECIAL EVENTS.

>> BUT THEY'LL BE PERMITTED SEPARATELY THOUGH, SO THIS WOULDN'T APPLY TO THEM.

>> THAT'S FINE.

>> WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE TRENDING TOWARD WE DON'T CARE.

KEEPING ON GOING, HOURS OF OPERATIONS.

YOU'VE HIGHLIGHTED PRIMARY BUSINESS HOURS, IT LOOKS LIKE FORT WORTH HAS SAID NO EVENT IN 2:00 AM TO 7:00 AM.

THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE, THEY DON'T WANT FOOD VENDORS TO BE OUT AT 2:00 AM.

>> NO.

>> PRIMARY BUSINESS HOURS, SO JUST WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

>> LET'S TIGHTEN THAT UP.

>> YEAH, WE CAN CERTAINLY TIE THAT UP.

>> BECAUSE LIKE IN SPECIAL EVENTS, YOU'RE GOING TO SAY FROM 11:00 IN THE MORNING TILL 9:00 AT NIGHT, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> THE SPECIAL EVENTS ARE SEPARATE.

>> THEY'RE SEPARATE FROM THIS.

THIS ONE INCLUDES SPECIAL EVENTS, PRIMARY BUSINESS HOURS.

>> MY NOTICE SAYS 7:00 AM TO 10:00 PM.

DOES THAT SOUND REASONABLE-ISH? 7:00 AM? I'M FINE.

7:00 -11:00? DO YOU WANT TO SAY 7:00 -11:00?

>> I DON'T CARE.

>> ANYBODY CARES?

>> PRIMARY BUSINESS HOURS.

>> OKAY, SO WE JUST HAVE TO PUT NUMBERS IN THERE SO THAT WE DON'T DRIVE OUR ATTORNEY CRAZY.

7:00 AM, 11:00 PM, GOOD?

>> I CAN LIVE WITH THAT.

>> GOOD PLACE TO START.

>> THIS IS SPECIAL EVENT.

[01:30:01]

>> THIS ONE APPLIES TO SPECIAL EVENTS.

>> YEAH.

>> ZONING DISTRICT, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS LIMITED, WHERE IT HAS TO BE NON RESIDENTIAL.

>> AT LEAST.

>> AT A MINIMUM.

>> I MIGHT FIND SOME OTHER ONES THAT MIGHT NOT BE APPROPRIATE, SO THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WE ALL CAN LOOK AT FOR US SPECIFICALLY.

>> OKAY.

>> WAIT A MINUTE, IF YOU SAY NON-RESIDENTIAL, WHERE ALL THE OTHERS OVER THERE ARE ALL IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

>> THEY'RE ACTUALLY IN NEIGHBORHOODS, NOT IN COMMERCIAL PLACES?

>> ARE THEY ZONED RESIDENTIAL?

>> THERE ARE CAR WASHES RIGHT THERE IN THE CORNER AND THERE ARE HOUSES ACROSS THE STREET, NO LAND.

>> BUT THE CAR WASH IS PROBABLY ZONED DIFFERENTLY THAN THE HOUSES.

>> YEAH.

>> THAT'S IT.

>> BUT IT'S INSIDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IS WHAT I'M SAYING.

>> BUT THE ZONING IS THE QUESTION.

>> YEAH.

>> THE CAR WASH IS PROBABLY ZONED DIFFERENTLY THAN THE FOLKS WHO LIVE IN THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR.

>> YEAH. WE'RE GOING TO LET YOU WORK ON THAT.

>> I'LL WORK WITH WILL AND THE COME UP WITH THAT.

>> OKAY.

>> FINALLY, PARKING GUIDELINES.

I SEE FORT WORTH, SAYS IMPROVED SURFACE AND I'M ASSUMING THEY SAY A LOT OF OTHER THINGS AS WELL.

[NOISE].

WE AREN'T GIVING CURRENTLY ANY PARKING GUIDELINES, SO WILL A LOT OF OUR CONCERNS ABOUT PARKING GUIDELINES BE TAKEN CARE OF BY HAVING COS?

>> YES.

>> IMPROVED SURFACE IS NOT A BAD PLAN BECAUSE A PROPERTY OWNER COULD OWN PROPERTY, INCLUDING A GRASS FIELD.

IF WE DON'T REQUIRE THAT IT'S AN IMPROVED SURFACE, I WOULD THINK THAT ADDING THAT IT HAS TO BE AN IMPROVED SURFACE, AND THAT WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT ON THE PROPERTY OWNER, THAT MAKES SENSE?

>> I'M GOOD WITH APPROVED SURFACE.

>> WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SPECIAL THEN?

>> NO, THEY'RE COMPLETELY SEPARATE.

>> OKAY.

>> WE WENT THROUGH THE MATRIX.

DID WE GIVE YOU ALL ENOUGH TO WORK UP A DRAFT FOR US?

>> ONE MORE QUESTION. WHAT ABOUT IF THEY'RE IN THE CORNER, AND PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO GET IN THERE, WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS THE ONE ON JUPITER, CAR WASH THAT IS RIGHT ON THE CORNER.

YOU GOT HERE AND JUPITER'S HERE.

THERE ARE PEOPLE ON JUPITER TRYING TO GET IN THERE, AND THEY BLOCK THE STREET.

THEY BLOCK THE CORNER OF APOLLO TO THE STOP SIGN.

THEY BLOCK THAT STREET BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO GET IN THERE AND THAT CAUSES A JAM.

YOU ALL HAVEN'T SEEN IT, I HAVE SEEN IT AND THE THING ABOUT IT IS, WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THAT?

>> THAT'S TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION.

>> THAT'S THE DOWNSIDE OF HAVING MOBILE FOOD TRUCKS IS TO EXPECT THEM FOR EACH SOUGHT THAT THEY'RE LOCATED ON TO COME UP WITH A TRAFFIC STUDY ON HOW IT MAY IMPACT IT, THAT MIGHT NOT BE REASONABLE UNLESS YOU'RE WANTING TO SAY UNLESS THE PUBLIC POLICY IS WE'RE TRYING TO LIMIT FOOD TRUCKS, WE DON'T WANT FOOD TRUCKS IN OUR CITY.

IF THAT'S THE CASE, THAT'S FINE, BUT OTHERWISE, THAT WOULD BE A DIFFICULT SITUATION TO RESOLVE.

>> BUT INSIDE THERE ARE SO, THERE ARE MANY PARKING SPACES TAKEN RIGHT NOW, AND THEN THEY JUST STAND RIGHT THERE AND GO ORDER SOMETHING.

I GUESS THAT BECOMES TRAFFIC.

>> I THINK PROBABLY IT'S PART OF THE SITE PLAN, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT BUILDING INSPECTION WILL LOOK AT BECAUSE FOR EVERY BUSINESS, THIS IS A SECONDARY USE AND NOT THE PRIMARY USE.

THE PRIMARY USE HAS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES.

>> RIGHT.

>> A FOOD TRUCK COMES IN AND TAKES UP SAY FOUR PARKING SPACES, THEN THAT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO PASS A BUILDING INSPECTION REVIEW TO APPROVE A SITE PLAN TO GET A CO FOR THAT LOCATION FOR IT.

IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE LIMITED TO LOCATIONS THAT HAVE EXTRA PARKING SPACES TO ALLOW FOR FOOD TRUCKS, WHICH WILL HELP THE PROBLEM HERE.

>> RIGHT NOW, ON THAT CAR WASH, THEY HAVE FIVE TRAILERS LIKE THAT AND THEY'RE DOING A TREMENDOUS JOB.

BUT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PARKING.

I JUST THOUGHT I'D MENTIONED THAT.

>> YOU HAVE WHAT YOU NEED?

>> YES MA'AM.

>> YOU.

>> I HAVE WHAT I NEED. [LAUGHTER].

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR GOING THROUGH THE WORK AND REVIEWING ALL THIS.

[01:35:04]

I WOULD ALSO BE INTERESTED IN SEEING A COPY OF THE FORT WORTH ORDINATES JUST FOR FUN.

IF YOU CAN JUST EMAIL IT TO THE COMMITTEE, THEN WE CAN ALL JUST LOOK AT IT FOR FUN.

>> OKAY.

>> BECAUSE WE HAVE VERY SAD LIVES AND THIS IS WHAT WE DO FOR FUN. YES.

>> ONE MORE THING, IF YOU WANT PICTURES I'VE GOT PLENTY OF PICTURES [LAUGHTER] IF YOU ALL WANT THEM.

>> COMMITTEE, ITEM 5 IS ADJOURNMENT.

IT IS 5:35 PM AND WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.