Richardson City Council Meeting June 9th, 2025
Here is this week’s AI Podcast Summary, created using Google’s NotebookLM program: AI Podcast Here (AI is likely to have inaccuracies. Please note the corrections listed below.)
AI PODCAST ERRATUM: At 7 minutes and 15 seconds, the AI "host" calls Sec. 3.04 "Sec. 3.(a)1.4." This is referring to Sec. 3.04.
And here is this week’s mini summary. The usual detailed report is still down below.
DART Update: The Council received an update from DART, which included the failure of state legislative bills aimed at reducing DART's funding or board size, an overview of DART's Strategic Plan and services within Richardson, and the readiness of DART's Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones (TIRZ) approach for member cities' consideration. The Silver Line is anticipated to open before the end of 2025, and construction for the Cotton Belt Regional Trail will begin in Richardson this week.
Charter Amendments - Council Compensation Debate: A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to debating proposed changes to Council compensation, with recommendations to shift from $100 per meeting to a fixed monthly pay (e.g., $1,200 or $1,500), or to tie any increase to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Council members expressed varied opinions on the amount and method of compensation, ultimately agreeing that staff would present multiple options at the next meeting due to a lack of consensus.
Charter Amendments - Other Key Revisions: Discussions also covered other recommended charter amendments, including clarifying the Mayor Pro Tem selection process, detailing procedures for Council misconduct complaints (requiring written, sworn complaints), modernizing language for open meetings and summoning witnesses, and refining qualifications for candidates and city manager roles. Additionally, there was a request to table the consideration of city manager surety bonds until a comparison with other city insurance policies could be provided.
Amazon Drone Delivery Approved: The Council conducted a public hearing on ZF 25-04, an amendment request for an Amazon drone delivery hub, which was approved by a 4-3 vote with hours of operation set from 7 am – 8 pm. Debates focused on the city's limited regulatory authority over drones (only ground operations and land size), concerns about noise levels from the MK30 drones, the applicant's preference for permanent rezoning over a special permit, and council members' desire for recourse if negative impacts occurred.
La Salsa Verde Taqueria Denied: The second public hearing concerned ZF 25-08, a major modifications request for a one-story restaurant with a mezzanine, La Salsa Verde Taqueria, which was denied by a 4-3 vote, failing to achieve the required six-vote supermajority. The denial was influenced by significant opposition from neighboring property owners (39%) and Council members' concerns that the proposed single-story restaurant, despite incorporating a mezzanine, did not fully align with the Neighborhood Mixed-Use designation and the comprehensive, mixed-use development vision for the West Spring Valley Corridor.
OPENING
All councilmembers are present as well as City Manager (CM) Don Magner and City Secretary Aimee Nemer.
Mayor Pro Tem Hutchenrider leads a prayer and the pledges of allegiance.
Minutes of previous meetings are approved unanimously.
CM Magner acknowledges one written public comment submitted by me regarding ZF 25-04. I ask Council to be mindful of noise levels when establishing hours of operations for drone deliveries. Though we will hear from speakers later during public hearings, none are present for the visitors section.
DART UPDATE
The first discussion of the evening is an update from DART. DART Board Chair Gary Slagel begins the presentation with an update on this year’s state legislative session. Chair Slagel reports that a bill aimed at reducing DART’s funding ended up failing. A second bill aimed at reducing the size of DART’s board also failed. Chair Slagel also reports that a previously discussed local resolution aimed at making governance changes did not receive enough support to be fully implemented. While a reapportionment analysis takes place to determine options for representation on the DART board, DART still encourages cities with partial seat groupings to work together to ensure proper representation by rotating seats more often. Chair Slagel also reports that DART’s TIRZ (Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones) approach is ready to be officially considered by member cities.
DART CEO Nadine Lee continues the presentation. CEO Lee provides an update on DART’s Strategic Plan. She highlights DART’s services within Richardson. DART data shows that 24% of riders travel within the city. Over 50% travel to Dallas and 10% travel to Plano. 15% of Plano riders also travel to Richardson. CEO Lee explains that DART is facing difficulties with the combination of rising costs and new services being requested in some cities. Service changes are being considered because of this. As DART considers changes to service, they are conducting public engagement meetings. 16 community meetings are taking place from June 9th – July 1st. A final public hearing will take place on July 8th. Richardson’s community meeting was held on June 11th.
Some of the initiatives that DART aims to implement over the next decade include replacing 100 light-rail vehicles and 500 buses, enhancing the light-rail signal system for safety and extreme weather operations, improving platforms so riders can board easier, and updating operating facilities to meet evolving maintenance needs. DART also seeks to partner with cities in improving streets, intersections, signals, and other infrastructure to optimize streets for transit vehicles.
The Silver Line opening date is expected to be announced soon. 95% of platform construction is complete. Quiet zones should also be in place towards the end of June. CEO Lee shares that the Silver Line is expected to open before the end of this year, but she can’t provide specifics just yet. The Cotton Belt Regional Trail, which will run along the Silver Line, will begin construction in Richardson this week. Construction is expected to take roughly 18 months. CEO Lee also compliments Richardson on creating destinations and enhancing areas around transit stations. Finally, CEO Lee shares a map of the proposed TIRZ. This would run along the U.S. 75 corridor from Campbell to Spring Valley. It would also run along Spring Valley west of U.S. 75. It would also cover the IQ area east of U.S. 75 between Campbell and Belt Line.
Councilman Dorian asks Chair Slagel to elaborate on how the TIRZ will work. Chair Slagel answers that this is a way to use a portion of future sales tax dollars to help build up the area around important DART transit stations. Councilman Barrios asks for an update on security and safety enhancements. CEO Lee answers that 100 security officers have been added to light-rail systems, buses, and transit stations. Fare enforcement officers and DART police officers have also been increased. Response teams have also been implemented to respond to situations that may involve mental health crisis. They have also implemented Clean Teams to ensure that vehicles remain sanitary.
Councilman Corcoran expresses his relief that the bills aimed at reducing DART funding have now failed. He supports all the initiatives that DART has planned. He asks what DART’s plan is to ensure that the next legislative session doesn’t include the same efforts to reduce funding. Chair Slagel answers that they will continue to convey DART’s plans and needs to cities that still aren’t 100% on board. CEO Lee adds that they are working with regional partners like the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) to ensure they are maximizing and increasing revenues across the system. Councilman Corcoran also asks if they are planning to invest in improving the fare machine experience. CEO Lee shares that they do have plans to install new machines. More details will be shared in the future.
Mayor Pro Tem Hutchenrider asks for improved marketing on DART’s GoLink service. He states that many people don’t know what this service provides. CEO Lee acknowledges that they need to improve their end-to-end service and ensure that people are aware of what’s available. Councilman Shamsul asks if they have any studies that look across a 20-year span. CEO Lee answers that they don’t have this type of data available. She does hope that they can find a methodology that all member cities can be agreeable to that shows a clear picture of the costs and benefits of DART’s service. Councilwoman Justice compliment’s DART’s proactive approach to understanding the future needs of the region.
Mayor Omar asks if they have identified any services that are underutilized. CEO Lee answers that she can’t think of any, especially in Richardson. Mayor Omar also asks which peer agencies are most comparable to DART. CEO Lee answers that the Denver Regional Transportation District, Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transit Authority, and Portland’s TriMet system are the most comparable. DART particularly needs to enhance bus route capacity to be in line with other metro areas. CEO Lee embraces the concept of implementing the successes of other transit systems.
CHARTER AMENDMENTS
Council now discusses some of the recommendations from the 2025 Charter Review Commission. CM Magner explains that staff made some additional recommendations based on Council feedback and additional review. These additional recommendations are detailed in tonight’s presentation. Based on discussions from the Charter Review Commission, staff also recommends Council consider adding a definitions section to increase clarity on language in the charter. Tonight, CM Magner will go through the charter article by article to take input from Council on desired considerations. Next week’s agenda will also have an item designated for discussion on charter amendments.
Council does not have any feedback on Article 1, Incorporation and Territory. This article also did not have any recommended changes from the Charter Review Commission. Article 2, Powers of the City, had recommended changes in two sections from the Charter Review Commission. Sec. 2.02, General Powers Adopted, has recommended changes to clarify and simplify the language. Sec. 2.04, currently titled Streets and Public Improvements has recommended changes to change the section title to Infrastructure and Public Improvements. This section also adds “public buildings and facilities” to the list of defined public improvements. Changing this language is intended to improve clarity, not change the substance of what the section applies to. Council doesn’t have any feedback on this article either.
Article 3 has several recommended changes. Sec. 3.03, Mayor Pro Tem, has recommended changes to clarify that a mayor pro tem selection will take place after any applicable runoff elections are certified. Sec. 3.04, Compensation, has a recommended change to replace the current $100 per meeting Council pay with a $1,200 fixed monthly pay. Sec. 3.06, Council Misconduct, has recommended changes to exclude an accused member from any voting on their own misconduct. An additional staff recommendation not included in the Charter Review Commission’s report adds language from the Code of Ethics to Sec. 3.06 to require the same process as an official ethics complaint. This change would require a complaint of official misconduct to be made in writing on a designated city form, sworn to before a notary public, and filed of record with the city secretary. A copy of such complaint would also be provided to the affected member and the entire Council. CM Magner pauses to take Council’s feedback.
Councilwoman Justice comments on the Sec. 3.04 recommendation. She thinks the compensation recommendation is too high. She wants any pay increase to be tied to data, not arbitrary. She references a CPI (Consumer Price Index) analysis that Commissioner Strecker provided to support her desire to set Council pay to $200 per meeting. If the current pay of $100 per meeting were increased annually by the CPI since its adoption in 2015, it would equal roughly $200 per meeting in 2035, when the next Charter Review Commission will be formed. She also has some concern about comparing the current $100 per meeting pay to a $1,200 monthly pay on the November ballot. She is concerned about sticker shock for voters as well.
Councilman Barrios likes Councilwoman Justice’s idea to tie the amount to the CPI calculation. He is fine with smaller compensation. But he would also like to explore a budgeted amount for continuing education to allow councilmembers to participate in conferences or other continuing education opportunities without having to personally fund their participation. Councilman Dorian prefers a $1,500 monthly fixed pay rate. He strongly prefers a monthly rate over a per meeting compensation. He explains that he spends an average of 40 hours weekly on Council duties as well as using his personal vehicle to travel for these duties. Fuel, wear and tear, tolls, and meal expenses are reasons he wants Council pay to increase and be a monthly rate to help recover these costs.
Councilman Shamsul prefers Council to receive no compensation. He states that any compensation increase should be data backed and be meaningful enough to allow opportunity for more residents to serve in the role. If an increase is not going to be significant, he prefers not to raise Council pay at all. Mayor Pro Tem Hutchenrider prefers keeping Council pay as a per meeting basis. He prefers to raise the amount to $150 per meeting. Councilman Corcoran likes Councilman Dorian’s suggestion. He wants to encourage more people to run for Council and sees raising pay as a way to encourage that. He likes the $1,200 monthly pay recommendation. He would also be fine with a lower monthly amount, such as $750. He also appreciates Councilman Barrios’ suggestion to ensure that councilmembers can pay for other conferences and continuing education opportunities.
Councilman Barrios asks what Council can submit currently for reimbursements. CM Magner answers councilmembers can submit travel expenses like mileage and meals as long as councilmembers can prove it was in the performance of their Council duties. Though no councilmembers are currently submitting regularly for these types of reimbursements, they are able to if they choose. Councilwoman Justice restates that she does not favor tripling Council pay.
Councilman Barrios asks if staff has done any research on pay recommendations. CM Magner clarifies that the Charter Review Commission received charts showing how much time councilmembers dedicate to the role and a chart that compared other cities’ compensation levels. CM Magner asks for clarification on Council’s desire to increase pay or not, and to base it on a per meeting basis or a fixed monthly rate. Mayor Omar is concerned about increasing Council pay if this year’s budget doesn’t allow room for staff pay increases as well. He notes that they don’t yet know what this year’s budget will look like. He prefers to set a maximum pay level and then allow Council to decide each budget year if they will take any pay increases up to that level.
Councilman Barrios likes Mayor Omar’s idea. He likes setting a maximum pay level of $8,000. Councilwoman Justice also likes setting a maximum pay amount but still prefers it to be on a per meeting basis. Mayor Omar suggests setting a maximum per meeting amount of $200. CM Magner explains that they could add language that specifies that Council will review raising their pay up to the maximum amount each budget year. Councilman Shamsul is fine with setting a maximum amount but still prefers to leave it as is. Councilman Corcoran still advocates for a higher increase to compensation, but he would be agreeable to a maximum of $200 with Council reviewing a stair step up to that each budget year.
Councilman Barrios clarifies that he does not want to create more work for staff during budget preparations. He prefers just establishing a set per meeting pay. Mayor Omar states that he will not support any increase unless they can ensure that Council isn’t receiving a raise that employees aren’t receiving. CM Magner reminds Council that they can also decide not to increase pay at all. Councilwoman Justice is also fine with leaving pay as it is. She does not want it to be a part of each year’s budget decision. Council struggles to reach a consensus on what to do regarding Council pay. CM Magner states that he can bring back a couple options next week for Council to consider based on this discussion. Council agrees to this.
Council now offers input on recommended changes to Sec. 3.06, regarding Council misconduct. Mayor Pro Tem Hutchenrider asks if an investigation would take place before a hearing on a councilmember’s charge of misconduct. City Attorney Pete Smith states that they could add language specifying who would conduct such an investigation. CM Magner reminds Council that it would be up to them to even hold a hearing in response to a complaint. Atty Smith explains that this section just defines what would constitute official Council misconduct. It would still be up to Council how to handle each complaint with this current language. Mayor Pro Tem Hutchenrider prefers to add language specifying that Council may call for an investigation prior to the official public hearing. Staff will return with suggested language to achieve this. Councilman Barrios asks if such a hearing would happen in open or executive session. Asst. City Attorney Joe Gorfida answers that Council could hold a hearing in executive session since it could be considered a personnel decision. The official vote on declaring a violation would have to be public.
CM Magner now moves on to explain that staff has added a recommended change to Sec. 3.10, Open Meetings. This change would replace “citizens of the city” with “the public” regarding rights to be heard at open meetings. Sec. 3.13, Summoning Witnesses, has recommended changes from the commission to modernize language regarding what types of items may be compelled to be produced. The commission also recommended a change to specify that authorized process servers could serve Council summons, not just the police chief. Sec. 3.14, Administering Oaths, is the subject of a staff recommendation that was not included in the Charter Review Commission’s report. Staff recommends removing this section altogether since the authority for who can administer oaths is already established in state law.
CM Magner now moves on to Article 4. Sec. 4.02, Designated Places, and Sec. 4.04, Qualifications, have a recommended change to require candidates for Places 1 – 4 to have lived in that district for 12 months prior to the election date. Sec. 4.03, District Revisions, has one minor recommendation to add the word “qualified” before “voters”.
Regarding Article 5, Sec. 5.01, Recall of Mayor and City Council Members, has a new staff recommendation to clarify language referring to qualified voters. Sec. 5.02, Procedure, has a recommended change from the commission to clarify what should be stated on a Recall petition and add consistent language when referring to qualified voters of the city. Sec. 5.03, Appeal, has a staff recommended change to replace the word “citizens” with “residents”.
On to Article 6. Sec. 6.01, Appointment, has a recommended change from the commission to move language referring to Council’s ability to remove the city manager to Sec. 6.04, Removal. Sec. 6.02, Qualifications, has a recommended simple change to add “of the city” after “resident”. Sec. 6.04 also has recommended changes to clarify the conditions in which the city manager can be removed. Sec. 6.05, Powers and Duties, has recommended changes to specify that the city manager also exercises control over departments and subdivisions created by the city manager, not just those created by Council. Changes also clarify the allowance of a designated employee to represent the city manager in any necessary absence at meetings.
Councilman Barrios is concerned about language in Sec. 6.04. He doesn’t want a city manager to be able to specify in an employment contract that a supermajority of Council would be needed to remove them, as opposed to the current language that requires a simple majority for removal. CM Magner clarifies that this language would not allow the situation that Councilman Barrios is describing.
Sec. 6.06, Bond of the City Manager, has a recommended change to allow the purchase of Public Officials Liability coverage if a surety bond is not available on the market for purchase. Asst. Atty Gorfida explains that the city holds a Crimes insurance policy and an Errors & Omissions policy in addition to the required surety bond. He specifies that the Crimes and Errors & Omissions policies cover all employees of the city, whereas the surety bond only covers the city manager. He also specifies that a surety bond has an annual premium of $350 for each individual covered. While a surety bond does include specific restitution from the covered individual, both the Crimes and Errors & Omissions policies do not preclude the city from pursuing direct civil or criminal action for an individual who has intentionally committed wrongdoing. One aspect to keep in mind is that an individual may not have the resources to pay whatever amount is sought by direct action. A surety bond or insurance payout would provide that payment.
Mayor Omar asks if the Crime policy covers intentional acts. Asst. Atty Gorfida answers that the Crime policy covers specific actions such as forgeries, counterfeit money orders, stolen money, fund transfer fraud, etc. Additionally, the Crime policy covers up to $5M currently. The current surety bond coverage is $100K for the city manager. The Errors & Omissions policy provides $10M of coverage. After hearing this, Mayor Pro Tem Hutchenrider asks if we still need the surety bond. He asks if it creates a question of which coverage would apply as primary or secondary coverage. Asst. Atty Gorfida answers that you never know what insurance companies are going to decide to pay out in the future. He advises that having the surety bond for the city manager is the minimum requirement. Atty Smith notes that an insurance company would still have the right to seek subrogation from any wrongdoer.
Councilman Barrios reminds staff that Council requested a comparison of these types of coverage. He asks to table this consideration until that comparison can be provided. Councilwoman Justice agrees with tabling this until a comparison can be provided. Councilman Shamsul also asks for this comparison. In addition to a comparison of coverages, he also asks for a comparison of the mechanisms of how the policies would be triggered. He also asks if the amount of coverage for a surety bond could be customized to a level greater than $100K. CM Magner confirms that the city could raise the limits of coverage for a surety bond.
CM Magner asks for clarification on the desire of Council. He states that his understanding is not that Council desires to remove a surety bond requirement for the city manager. His understanding is that Council seeks confirmation on the appropriateness of requiring a surety bond for positions other than just the city manager. Council confirms this is the desire. In addition, Mayor Pro Tem Hutchenrider wants to ensure that potential duplicative coverage on the city manager won’t cause issues in covering potential losses. Councilman Corcoran notes that they could have a policy discussion outside of this charter amendment discussion on establishing an ordinance to achieve any desired goals regarding these types of protections.
Sec. 6.07, Investigations, has recommended changes to clarify what items may be compelled for production in an investigation of the city manager. In Article 7. Sec. 7.03, Municipal Court Judge, has a recommended change to remove the word “bona fide” in the requirement for the municipal judge to be a resident of the city. Sec. 7.05, Compensation, is recommended for deletion since a judge’s salary is approved during the budget process. In Article 8, Sec. 8.03, Responsibility of Department Directors, has a recommended change to replace the words “departmental estimates” with “operating budgets”. Staff will return next week with the requested research. Discussions on the remaining articles will also take place next week.
COUNCIL BOARD & LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS
Next is the announcement of Council committee and liaison assignments. Mayor Omar notes that he took Council’s preference sheets into account as well as individual strengths, passions, availability, and the best interests of the city. Councilman Corcoran will serve as Parks & Recreation Commission liaison, on the Council Education Committee, and as Council Audit Committee Chair. Councilman Dorian will serve on the Council Audit Committee, Council Business Committee, and as Cultural Arts Commission liaison. Councilman Shamsul will serve on the Council Business Committee, Council Education Committee Chair, and serve on the Dallas Reginal Mobility Coalition.
Councilman Barrios will serve as Library Board liaison, on the Council Audit Committee, and as Council Business Committee Chair. Councilwoman Justice will serve as Animal Services Advisory Commission liaison and Community Inclusion & Engagement Commission liaison. She will also continue to serve on the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) Board. Mayor Pro Tem Hutchenrider will serve on the Council Education Committee. Mayor Omar will serve on the Regional Transportation Council, the Metroplex Mayors Association, liaison to the NCTCOG, Chamber of Commerce Board Ex-Officio, and the Leadership Richardson Advisory Board Ex-Officio.
PUBLIC HEARING – AMAZON DRONE DELIVERY
Council takes a 10-minute recess and returns to conduct two public hearings on zoning files. The first public hearing is on ZF 25-04. This is an amendment request to an existing planned development for a drone delivery hub at 3051 Research Dr. This case was heard by the CPC on March 18th: https://open.substack.com/pub/justinneth/p/richardson-city-plan-commission-meeting-0e3?r=3ahunk&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
This case has been continued twice by Council on April 14th and May 19th. Staff first presents a background of this request. The applicant in this request is Amazon. The current request would allow four launch pads. It would also set hours of operation at 30 minutes before sunrise to 30 minutes after sunset. The CPC recommended approval 3 - 2 with hours of operation from sunrise to sunset. The CPC also wanted to limit the power source of the drones to batteries, but this is not within the city’s purview to regulate. Six written comments were received in opposition along with two speakers opposed at the CPC hearing. One letter in support was also received. Since then, one additional letter in support, two letters in neutrality, and one letter in opposition have also been received.
Councilman Corcoran asks if the city can advertise the public input process for the FAA’s environmental analysis. CM Magner states that the city would be able to share information about the public hearing. Councilman Corcoran also asks how the city could enforce regulation on this request if approved. CM Magner answers that the city could measure noise levels to ensure compliance with the city’s noise ordinance. The city can only regulate ground operations.
Councilwoman Justice asks if they could attach hours of operation to the hours specified in the city’s noise ordinance. She notes that during certain seasons, 30 minutes before sunrise is 5 am. This would be too early to have any noise. CM Magner confirms that the noise ordinance hours of operation are from 7 am – 6 pm. Councilwoman Justice wants to tie any hours of operation to these specified hours. She also has some concern about this being a planned development amendment request and not a special permit request. She would prefer to have the ability to call this back if any issues arise, which a special permit would allow for.
Staff answers that a drone delivery hub is not a listed use. Since the current planned development is concerning this existing Amazon ground delivery hub, the city saw amending the planned development as the most reasonable approach. If Council desires to make this a special permit going forward, they would have to take the same approach as in the Zipline case. They would have to establish that such a use may be requested for a special permit and then hear that request for a special permit. Councilwoman Justice asks if they have a way of requiring a special permit for this request. CM Magner answers that Council would have to deny the request, then create an allowance for a special permit request, and then allow the applicant to request that special permit. Councilwoman Justice also asks how complaints are handled if they arise from this use. CM Magner answers that the city would not have to forward any complaints they receive to the FAA. The city could inform a complainant on how to send their complaint to the FAA.
Councilman Shamsul supports requiring a special permit for this use. He asks if the city can limit the size of drones. Staff answers that the city cannot regulate anything about the drones themselves. Staff notes that they can regulate the size of land area that can be used for the use and the amount of launchpads. This is one way the city can potentially regulate the size of drones, by limiting their takeoff space.
Mayor Pro Tem Hutchenrider asks if they could require a review of this requested use in 6 months as a special condition. CM Magner answers that they would not have the ability to undo tonight’s zoning request if they approve it. This is not like a special permit request as it exists currently. The city could partner with the applicant to collect any reports or complaints. Mayor Omar asks if the FAA could potentially pre-empt the city from regulating hours of operations. Staff answers that the city can regulate take-off and landing times.
The applicant now steps forward to present their request. The applicant states that they currently also operate this type of drone delivery hub in College Station, TX and Tolleson, AZ. They will use MK30 drones. These drones can deliver packages up to 5 lbs and have a delivery radius of 7.5 miles from this site. The MK30 drones are roughly 5 ft. X 5 ft. and weigh roughly 80 lbs. The drone will lower to roughly 12 ft. above the delivery point and then drop the package onto the ground.
Page 95 of the presentations states that a customer would likely experience a sound emitted from the drones of 68 dBa. The accompanying chart on that same slide has this level of sound categorized as “loud”. Slide 82 of the agenda packet states the following, “When the drone is flying at 200 feet above ground level, overflight at maximum weight and 58 knots (or 66 miles per hour), the MK30 measures at 63.9 dBA, which is equivalent to a typical busy commercial area. For a customer delivery, the MK30 will descend and drop the customer order in their backyard in seconds at 12 feet. The delivery profile of the MK30 at 25 feet distance is 91.2 dBA, which is equivalent to a diesel truck at 50 feet.” According to the chart on the applicant’s slide, 91 dBa would fall into the “very loud” category. I cannot explain the discrepancy between the numbers stated in the agenda packet vs. the numbers shown on the applicant’s presentation. The applicant explains that they got their numbers from proprietary testing at their Tolleson, AZ site.
The applicant has conducted community engagement with the Creek Hollow Estates HOA and the Knolls at Breckinridge HOA. Additionally, they hosted a community event at the Aloft hotel on May 8th. Councilman Barrios asks about the flight pattern. The applicant answers that drones will travel up to 200 ft. elevation as quickly as possible and then conduct a horizontal flight path to the delivery target and then descend. Drones will return at a different altitude then those flying out.
Councilman Barrios also asks for elaboration on their other operating sites. The applicant answers that, in College Station, they were using MK27 drones which caused some issues for neighbors regarding noise. Amazon chose to voluntarily pause operations to address the concerns. This led to the implementation of the quieter MK30 drones. MK30 drones have been operating for roughly seven months now. They are also seeking to operate in San Antonio, TX, Kansas City, KS, and Kansas City, MO. Councilman Barrios also asks about battery storage and safety measures since these are lithium batteries. The applicant answers that they do get a permit from the fire department for this type of battery storage. This process ensures the proper measures are in place.
Councilman Shamsul asks if these drones will reduce ground traffic. The applicant answers that that is the eventual goal. They don’t yet have enough data to show what the impact is currently. Councilman Shamsul asks for confirmation on the estimated number of daily flights. The applicant answers that they will initially have 15 drones based at this site. He estimates that they would initially start with around 200 daily flights. Councilman Shamsul states that this sounds like roughly one flight every five minutes. He also asks how the FAA’s review process will work. The applicant answers that local city approvals are required in addition to FAA approvals. The FAA’s review process includes public input from the local community. These will likely occur later in the summer if this request is approved tonight. The FAA will analyze the request to ensure no negative impact occurs to the community. They consider impacts to endangered species and waterways. Residents and businesses can also offer feedback to the FAA during this process.
Councilman Shamsul also asks how accidents would be handled. The applicant answers that, if an accident occurs on private property, they are properly insured and would work with those impacted to rectify any damages. They would also notify local authorities and the FAA. Councilman Shamsul asks what the sound levels emitted by the MK27 drone were. The applicant does not have those numbers at this time.
Councilman Corcoran asks how many drones are operated at their other sites. The applicant answers that they operate less than 20 drones at College Station and Tolleson. Councilman Corcoran asks what backup systems the drones have to safely operate if a propellor fails. The applicant answers that they use one battery per flight. The applicant states that they include three strings. (I believe this means they have backup batteries also connected just in case.) If failure occurs, drones are programmed to safely land as quickly as possible. Batteries are replaced every flight.
Councilman Corcoran also asks how delivery points are chosen. The applicant answers that they will determine which areas are undeliverable due to overhead power lines, tree cover, etc. A customer chooses the delivery point within their yard and Amazon ensures that this point is safe to deliver to. Councilman Corcoran asks if the city can regulate delivery points. CM Magner answers that, since this is dropped from the air on private property, they cannot regulate this. Councilman Corcoran also asks for elaboration on the quality assurance process. The applicant answers that they test at both indoor and outdoor test sites. They simulate obstacles to ensure the technology responds appropriately.
Mayor Pro Tem Hutchenrider asks what sort of FAA regulations they must meet. The applicant answers that they must follow the requirements of a part 135 aircraft operator, which is considered an on-demand operator. Mayor Pro Tem Hutchenrider asks if the drone can still operate if one of the six propellors fails. The applicant answers that the drone can safely land if a propellor fails. Mayor Pro Tem Hutchenrider asks how long a drone would be over a residence when delivering. The applicant answers that this would take less than 10 seconds. Councilman Barrios asks if drone operations would be autonomous. The applicant clarifies that all operations are autonomous. They fly on a predetermined path. Part 107 certified remote operators monitor each drone’s operations just in case they need to recall the drone.
Councilwoman Justice asks if the applicant would be willing to operate within the city’s noise ordinance hours of 7 am – 6 pm. The applicant answers that they want the customer to be at home at the time of delivery. Shrinking hours of operation to 7 am – 6 pm would mean that customers may not be home at the time of delivery.
Two speakers are present for this hearing. The first is Dante Lopez. He is a nearby resident adjacent to this site. He is concerned about the effect of the industrialization of this area on nearby neighborhoods. He says that the current noise from industrial uses makes things unbearable for him. He is concerned about the additional noise this use would bring to the area. He opposes this request. The second speaker is Eric Scott. He is a resident of the Creek Hollow neighborhood. He is neutral to the request. He is concerned for those who may be in a regular flight path.
Councilwoman Justice asks the applicant if they would be open to a special permit requirement. The applicant answers that they are making permanent improvements to this site. Because of this, they do not want a temporary permit with an expiration date. They seek a permanent rezoning of the area to allow for the use. Councilwoman Justice reassures the applicant that a special permit would not be a temporary permit. CM Magner notes that requiring a special permit at this point would require a delay of one year for the case to be considered again. He adds that there is a high burden of showing a negative impact to enable Council to revoke a special permit. The applicant responds that they also have the option of looking at sites in other communities that wouldn’t require a special permit. Their goal is to be a good neighbor in Richardson. Councilwoman Justice is still concerned about not having any recourse if there is a negative impact. The applicant confirms that they would not be interested in pursuing a special permit.
Councilman Barrios asks if flight paths will be varied. The applicant answers that they would take the most direct path to the customer while avoiding any necessary no fly zones. Mayor Pro Tem Hutchenrider asks for confirmation that drone delivery is eventually intended to reduce ground delivery traffic. The applicant confirms that this is the goal.
Councilman Barrios is concerned about having to rely on the FAA to regulate air operations. He is also concerned about permanently allowing the use with no recourse if a negative impact occurs. He also notes that Amazon leases this space rather than owning the land. He doesn’t want to grant the use and then have Amazon leave with the use allowance remaining. He is opposed to the request.
Councilman Shamsul states that this use is inevitable. He wants to manage this use as effectively as possible. He does want to set a limit on hours of operation. He wishes they could limit the number of flights, but they cannot. He would support the use with limited hours of operation.
Councilman Corcoran states that they will always have to consider this type of use with some degree of uncertainty since they can only regulate ground operations. He appreciates Amazon’s answers to all the questions. He is not yet a yes. He would like to hear some other opinions of councilmembers before making up his mind.
Mayor Pro Tem Hutchenrider notes that he is a licensed pilot and trusts the FAA. He knows firsthand how rigorous the FAA’s protocols are. He attended the community meeting at the Aloft hotel. He states that this area is intended to be a commercial area. He sees this as a future opportunity to reduce vehicle traffic and its strain on infrastructure. He also notes that these are electric so they will not harm the environment from an emissions standpoint. He acknowledges that this emits a certain sound level but only for a few seconds upon delivery. He thinks the positives outweigh the negatives and agrees that this is an inevitable use. He supports the request with hours of operation of 7 am – 8 pm.
Councilman Dorian also agrees that this use is inevitable. He supports the request with the suggested hours of operation of 7 am – 8 pm.
Councilwoman Justice is opposed to the request because she is uncomfortable with the lack of recourse in the event of any negative impact.
Mayor Omar states that there are too many concerns from residents for him to support this request. He prefers to wait for more cities to adopt this use to understand the impact this will have. He isn’t comfortable with the uncertainty around the use and opposes this request. Councilman Barrios clarifies that his lack of trust in the FAA concerns the current administrative cuts to the agency.
Council approves the request 4-3 with hours of operation from 7 am – 8 pm. Councilwoman Justice, Councilman Barrios, and Mayor Omar are the opposed votes.
PUBLIC HEARING – LA SALSA VERDE TAQUERIA
The second public hearing is on ZF 25-08. This is a major modifications request to allow a one-story restaurant with a mezzanine, La Salsa Verde Taqueria, at 1250 W Spring Valley Rd. This request was also covered at the May 6th CPC meeting: https://open.substack.com/pub/justinneth/p/richardson-city-plan-commission-meeting-6c6?r=3ahunk&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Staff provides a background of the request. This area is designated as Neighborhood Mixed-Use by the Future Land Use Plan. This placetype designates restaurants as an appropriate secondary use to residential or mixed-use buildings. This also falls within Subdistrict G of the West Spring Valley Corridor Planned Development area. This area calls for flexible spaces to provide retail, restaurants, and services. This area had previously approved plans for a two-story building with a restaurant on the first floor and an office on the second floor, which complies with the zoning. Tonight’s request is for a single story restaurant with a mezzanine, which triggers the need for a major modification request. The zoning also requires a mix of uses. Since this is just a restaurant, that also requires a major modification request. This tract of land is currently an undeveloped plot next to a pediatric clinic.
This request also includes plans for a mutual access easement for neighboring businesses. The façade of the building along with the mezzanine will at least give the building the appearance of having a second floor. The applicant hopes that the mezzanine can eventually be extended to operate as a true second floor. Since 39% of the neighboring property owners within the notification zone filed opposition to this request, this item now requires a supermajority of six councilmembers to be approved tonight. The CPC unanimously recommended approval of this request 7-0. At that time, three comments in opposition had been received. One speaker also opposed the request.
Councilman Barrios asks if they could address parking by prohibiting trailers from being parked in the lot. Staff answers that the city could enforce parking regulations which prevent parking on fire lanes etc. Regulating private property parking is up to the property owners. Councilman Dorian asks what the concerns of the opposed neighbors are. Staff answers that parking, trash, and pedestrian safety were concerns expressed by neighboring businesses. Councilman Dorian also asks what the building to the north is. Staff answers that this building is vacant. Mayor Pro Tem Hutchenrider asks what the mezzanine will be. Staff answers that this will be an additional seating area for patrons. A mezzanine also does not require an elevator. A true second floor would require an elevator.
The applicant now steps forward to present their request. The applicant is open to the second floor being used for other uses. They desire to construct a mezzanine rather than a full second floor to save costs. Councilman Shamsul asks how big the front sidewalk will be. Staff answers that the sidewalk will be 12-ft. wide with a 10 ft. landscape area. Two speakers are present for this hearing. The first is Scott Ricamore. He is opposed to the request. He states that this does not align with what the vision for the area calls for. The second speaker is Justino Rodriguez, a Carrollton resident. He is an employee of La Salsa Verde. He states that parking would be worse for neighboring businesses if they built a true second floor. He supports the request.
The meeting experiences audio issues for roughly one minute. The issue is then corrected. Councilman Dorian isn’t sure if this is the type of product that is most appropriate to implement the vision for this area. He wants to elevate the area with the proper direction. He hasn’t made up his mind on supporting this yet. Councilman Barrios thinks this does elevate the area. He wants to recapture these types of businesses from the Dallas side. He supports this request. Mayor Pro Tem Hutchenrider is concerned about this not aligning with the comprehensive plan. He is concerned about voting for something that goes against the comprehensive plan and doesn’t have a mix of uses. He also hasn’t made up his mind yet.
Councilman Shamsul states that this will be good for the area, especially considering that it will result in the construction of a 12-ft. sidewalk. He sees this as a net positive. He supports the request. Councilman Corcoran states that this special zoning district intends to encourage development through zoning. It is restrictive compared to other special zoning districts. He doesn’t think it makes sense to pause development on every small parcel while they wait for the vision to be implemented. He supports the request since he sees it as meeting most of the spirit of the vision. Councilwoman Justice also agrees that this does not go against the comprehensive plan. If this had an office on the second floor, it would be exactly what the plan calls for. She is still undecided on supporting the request.
Mayor Omar notes that he was a part of forming this special zoning district. He states that the intent was to bring a unified vision to the area instead of having piecemeal parcels. He prefers to have a more comprehensive mixed-use development here. He notes the undeveloped land and vacant building as opportunities for a better development to come into this area. He is also undecided as of now. Councilman Corcoran counters that there has been enough time for this vision to start being implemented. He is still hesitant to turn down every little request in hopes of perfectly implementing the vision someday. Councilman Dorian agrees with Mayor Omar’s thoughts. It’s time to get serious about this vision that has been in place for 20 years.
Councilman Barrios states that it is unlikely for one of the businesses, a neighboring taqueria, to ever sell to make way for a larger development. He still supports this since it will elevate the area currently. Councilman Shamsul states that a restaurant would still belong in a mixed-use development, so he still supports the request. Councilwoman Justice agrees. Councilman Dorian expresses a desire to make a motion once discussion concludes. Instead, Councilman Barrios makes a motion to approve the request with Councilman Shamsul seconding. Councilwoman Justice, Councilman Barrios, Councilman Corcoran, and Councilman Shamsul vote in favor. Mayor Omar, Mayor Pro Tem Hutchenrider, and Councilman Dorian are opposed. That’s a 4-3 vote. Since six votes were required to approve the request, the request is denied.
CONSENT AGENDA & CLOSING
Council then unanimously approves the consent agenda, which includes seven bid awards: a $2M annual requirements contract to Caruthers Landscape Management for landscape maintenance, a $120K annual requirements contract to Allied Universal Technology Services for traffic camera systems, $340K to Sam Pack’s Five Star Ford for six trucks, $531K to Houston Freightliner for a hydro-excavator truck, a $125K annual requirements contract to Climatec, LLC for automation system maintenance, a $177K annual requirements contract to Voss Electric for streetlight equipment, and $334K to Bruckner Truck Sales Inc. for a grapple truck. It also includes a resolution affirming the city’s funding of a project under consideration by TxDOT for pedestrian crossing enhancements at U.S. 75/Belt Line. The city will contribute $1.75M to this $8.4M project if approved by TxDOT.
The agenda also includes an executive session item for Chief Tittle to brief Council on building security and protocols, but with only a few minutes until midnight, this executive session item will be rescheduled. The longest meeting I have ever documented adjourns after five hours and 45 minutes. This was the longest meeting of the Richardson City Council since May 14th, 2018. If you’ve made it this far, you deserve a prize.