City Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to tonight's meeting of the South Miami City Commission. Today is Tuesday, May 5th, 2026. The time is about 7.04 p.m. Again, before we start, if you could please silence or turn off your cell phones, we would be grateful. Madam Clerk, can you call the roll, please?

Thank you. If you please stand for a brief moment of silence, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Vice Mayor Corey. Vice Mayor? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty Please be seated. Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone register for public remarks? Thank you. So if you register public remarks, we will call your name shortly, and we will recognize you for three minutes. Thank you. Actually, before we begin, is it in order to reference any deferrals that we may have?

Okay. Are there any other items anyone on the commission would like to defer before we open up the floor for public remarks? I'd like to move to defer item 6 to May 19th. I just want to talk to council about an issue related to a recent legislative change.

Item 6, which is the sustainability ordinance. Yeah. So I'd like to move that to May 19th, so we can hopefully adopt it then. Any other, anyone that would like to consider a deferral, any other item? No? Okay, can I get a motion to defer items 3, 4, 5, and 6? I'll move it. To the meeting of May 19th. We have a motion by Commissioner Kaye. Is there a second?

Okay, so a motion by Commissioner Kaye, a second by Vice Mayor Corey. Madam Clerk, you want to call the roll on the deferrals?

May 19, I'm sorry. May 19, OK. OK, with now the agenda and its final posture, let's go ahead and open up the floor for public remarks. And we will recognize everyone who's registered to speak on any item, starting with Chris Hudson. Please come forward. Good evening, sir. If you still, you're welcome to speak on the item. If you'd like to, just give us your thoughts. I know there's a lot of ongoing conversation happening, so we'd appreciate your perspective. Good evening. Sir, can you just hold on? John is asking you to hold on one second. I apologize. Okay, you're recognized, sir.

Thank you for your comment, sir. Next, Mr. Reynolds-Martin. Good evening, sir.

Thank you, sir. Dale Andre, please. Good evening. Mr. Mayor, is it possible if I could be the last person to speak? Sir, just sign the signing sheet. They'll bring it up to me. Thank you. Again, if anyone would like to sign up to register in public remarks, there is another signing sheet here by John. Please come forward and sign up. Good evening. Sorry.

THANK YOU. NEXT ON THE LIST, MICHELLE REEDEN. IF YOU JUST ARRIVED AND WANT TO REGISTER FOR PUBLIC REMARKS, THERE'S A SIGNING SHEET UP HERE IN THE FRONT. PLEASE ADD YOUR NAME TO THE LIST AND WE'LL RECOGNIZE YOU FOR THREE MINUTES. Michelle, good evening. Good to see you.

And just for folks who may have just joined, the items have been deferred at the request of the sponsor. So I know there's been a lot of ongoing conversation happening with the community. My expectation is that conversation will continue. And hopefully, if it comes back on May 19th with more support, we can consider at that point in time and move it forward or ultimately consider not adopting it. We'll see what happens at that point in time. But again, the goal, I think, is on the part, as I understand, of the developers to continue the conversation and see if they can get a point where there'

And again, I just want to, for the benefit of the audience, we don't get to dictate what happens with respect to all the uses. Again, I know Mr. Garcia-Serra, who represents the applicants since we've been kids. And there's a request here that makes their particular project Nettleson, which is the variance. And I think we, I personally have nothing against student housing. But it is, again, in your part of the city, the most like a market-ready product, right, in terms of what people want to bring forward. That is their specialty of the sponsor. I don't know if they have a desire to accommodat

But Michelle, I do want to be for again, because this condition of a three story condition against a single family neighborhood, given what we've done from a rezoning perspective is not atypical because we're trying to create a transition back down to the neighborhood. So again, so that I hear the people feel they're being put upon as a community. That language to me is nettlesome. And so what I would say is we just approved a project that had a similar transition on 62nd on the west side, right? So it's not just happening. These are edges. And we're trying to make sure that when the transitio

Thank you, Dill Travis. And Dill Travis on that project, again, remember, it was an RTZ project. So we unfortunately did not get to approve SOMI Phase 2. Diana Brown is next on the list. Again, if anyone else would like to sign up in public remarks, please come forward. I'll give you back this one so you can. Good evening.

Tana, before you go, can I ask, what segment is the worst?

Sorry. Excuse me. We're going to keep a order here. If you want to come back up and be recognized, I'm happy to do that. I will call you back up. I asked Diana a question, if I may. Yes. Ms. Brown. Yes. What segment is the worst, if you can just share, so we can ask the chief to hopefully put some motors out there to do some traffic enforcement?

Okay, fair enough. Thank you for that clarification. Have a good evening. Thank you. Okay, is there anyone else who would like to address this commission in public remarks? Okay, someone on Zoom. Patricia Thomas, you're recognized. Please unmute yourself.

Thank you for your comments. Madam Clerk, is there anyone else online?

And if there's anyone else in the chamber, please come forward at this time. Okay, seeing no one online and no one in the chamber, we will close public remarks and continue with the balance of the agenda. Is there a motion to adopt the minutes of April 21st, 2026? I'll move it. Is there a second? I'll second. Madam Clerk, if you can call the roll. We have a motion by Commissioner Bonnich and a second by Commissioner Rodriguez.

And again, if anyone is here on subtext, just to reiterate, at the beginning of the agenda, there was a request for a deferral. We deferred four items. The three items related to the subtext project, they've asked to have it reconsidered on May 19. And item six on the agenda, which is the sustainability ordinance on second reading. I saw some people walk in afterward. I just wanted to make that announcement again. For the record, everyone who's here, OK? Mr. Manager, your report, please.

If you can remind me, Madam Manager, do we have in the report how many folks are in drop and when they're scheduled to roll off? So we have a few. I think it's three to five is my recollection.

I think just for the next one, we can kind of add a note just to address that so we know when those folks, how many we have in the program and what the dates that they're rolling off.

And those would be onboarded as 51, 2, and 3? No, they're part of the count for 50. Okay, so they're part of the count for 50. Okay, but they're not yet on patrol.

Understood. Any questions of the manager regarding the report?

Commissioner Rodriguez, you're recognized. Really quick, regarding to the police officers, aside from the ones that are on the drop, have we lost any other or we've maintained everybody else? Nobody's left?

Sorry, further questions? Okay, seeing none, thank you, Madam Manager, for your report. Mr. City Attorney.

Can I ask a question about that? They contacted George Frantz. Does it have to be to our LPA or theirs? I thought that was not delegated. I thought that was their province.

I just don't understand that response because they're technically the governing body, the county commission.

I don't understand. Again, I don't have any... I don't have any aversion to our planning board seeing it, but it just seems to me that we need to get our story straight.

I missed a call from George Fernandez, because they're a county commissioner still, but he called while I was in the meeting, so maybe we get a break, we can call him. It's not too late.

Okay. Let's move on then. We've got two discussion items, Madam Clerk. If you can read M1 and M2 for the record, please.

Okay. Let's take up the schedule quickly. Does everyone have a copy? Okay. Any questions regarding the dates? Again, we're looking at June 9th as being the only meeting in June, July 7th and 21st, and then August 18th as the sole meeting in August, and then budget hearings on the 8th and 22nd of September, as well as our regular city commission meeting. Commissioner Rodriguez, do you recognize me for a comment or question?

For July, do we just keep it to the 21st?

I think we need a trim meeting, correct, for July?

What are the dates we anticipate we're going to get the CRA items to come back? Because that's the only, I think those are the dates that, that's the one item that's going to, I guess, come back this summer. And so I'm trying to understand from a scheduling perspective, I just want to make sure that we're keeping that program on task. I have no problem canceling the July 7th meeting. Maybe we just preserve the June 23rd meeting as an option if we need it. No, you already have a conflict?

Okay. Do we anticipate to you or the city attorney needing to preserve the July 7th date to make sure we take up any items related to the CRA and or I think Sunset Place had some items that were possibly coming through as well.

When is it scheduled to go to the county commission or the county's planning board?

OK. I'm fine with the schedule. I just, you know, we may, to preview things to come, we may have a request from Sunset Place, I think, to possibly take up a zoning modification. And I know their schedule was tracking late June to the middle of July. So my only concern is making sure we get the CRA adopted in place before the summer's over. OK. Anyone want to move the calendar as presented?

Yes, I would say yes because we I think we've got it Any objection if we if we need to call a meeting we will I mean but for now I have no problem canceling. Okay, so show the will show the schedule modified with the cancellation of the July 7th meeting

It doesn't show up here, so I think we'll move it.

Yeah, the circle meeting dates are here. I guess these are key dates that they've identified in the back. Okay. But the actual meeting dates are on the 2026 calendar. So we'll just show, again, so everyone's on the same page, us eliminating the July 7th date. Okay? We don't need a formal motion, correct, Madam Clerk?

OK, fair enough. So we'll take it up then. Thank you. OK, if you can read, you've read M2, correct? Yes. OK. Mr. City Attorney, are you handling this presentation? Sure. OK.

Yeah, I'll just quickly build on that. It's my way of background. So one of the issues we have is when we drafted the TDR ordinance, frankly, it was not my intent to. We set up the district. We set up where they can go. I DID NOT REALIZE WHEN WE ADOPTED THAT WE WERE ACTUALLY REQUIRING US TO APPROVE THE USE OF THEM, RIGHT? I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO DECIDE FROM THE MENU OF PUBLIC BENEFITS OPTIONS WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO CHOOSE OPTION A, B, C, OR D. AND SO I THINK THIS LANGUAGE PUTS US CLOSER TO THAT WHICH IS AN OPEN MENU. and you can choose to satisfy your public benefit operat

Why is that so loud? So it's funny that this comes up after I've had a discussion on something similar. As we're all aware, there is a property on Sunset that has been and is being fixed up, made beautiful, whatever. And you just said something that I thought was very interesting, which is, They need to fix their properties to be able to sell their TDRs. Where they're making their money is on the TDR. I don't think that it was envisioned when this conversation happened for the repairs to happen to these buildings and then to raise the rent of the tenants to the point where they're choking on i

I don't know that... I mean, we had a long conversation about this when we talked about the policy, right? What can we do to stop landlords from being, you know, excessively aggressive with the rents? And the truth is, there's really not much, right? So I think we had that conversation ad nauseum when we discussed this initially. You know, I think just like it's hard to dictate, you know, what someone does with their private property as to a particular use, whether they want to have student housing or they want to have market rate housing or sell for sale product or, you know, have affordable

It's like, to me, it's as tone deaf as Marie Antoinette letting me cake.

I don't, yeah, I don't. It's one opinion.

Well, think about it. Think about it. You're getting, you know what? You're getting it here, and then you're getting it here.

I mean, I think the reason we require the improvements is so that they don't get a benefit and never reinvest back into the building. Yes. And have the buildings obviously suffer wage because, correct. So that's why there's that nexus. But I understand the sensitivity. I don't know. I'm open to an idea how to address it. And again, this is a discussion item. So that's what we're here for. Yes, sir.

No. So when, and I remember because we worked on it to make these five requirements. The purpose of this was we're giving all these other blocks additional height, a ridiculous amount of height. But Sunset Drive, we wanted to keep the small town feel to it, keep it at two stories. And this was an incentive so when the eventual design of this sunset neighborhood is done or sunset drive so that place urban center whatever whatever it becomes is brand new that all these other building owners or property owners on sunset drive didn't really tell us well you didn't give us anything too bad we're no

Mr. Chair, I guess what you're looking for is feedback. So whether we should take this to the planning board for discussion?

Anything we'd like to modify or add as it was presented, correct? Correct. Colleagues, do we want to make a referral? What's the pleasure of the board?

What do we feel about the 120 days versus what we had before the 90 days? I don't understand what 30 days are going to do.

A little bit more time to come up with the cash, honestly. Again, this is not the last time we're going to see it. The question is we can send it over, come back, and choose to make the modification or not make it.

What's the standard there? Is there any standards out there in other municipalities or counties?

So I would tell you in other jurisdictions where people pay plenty of benefits, they probably pay them concurrent with getting their building permit. So ours is probably a little bit atypical and more aggressive in terms of the timing.

Yes, sir. You're right. I'm sorry. And I have a question and the reason we're sending it to the planning board is for them.

Okay. With us saying we would prefer the 120 or the 90 or.

Why don't we anything under the sun that comes back to us from that word? Correct.

They would, they would make the recommendation. Right. Yeah, so what are we deciding? We're just deciding to send it to them?

All we're deciding is whether we want to send it or not or whether we want to kill this baby in the crib. That's basically it. Oh, okay.

There, that's the answer I was looking for. No problem. Okay, so we either kill it or we send it to the planet, right? Correct, yes.

There's one thing that if we talked about it, I missed it. It says, specific to TDRs, the revision proposes to clarify that eligible properties may consist of portions outside of the Sunset Drive buffer area. What does that mean?

So Madam Commissioner, I think just to build on the City Attorney's comment. The question is, you have one building, right, that is in the buffer area, but the building, it's all one integrated unit, one integrated building, but a portion is outside. If they're improving the entirety of the building, should they get credit for the improvements made to the portion outside the buffer area? I think that the effect of the change would be to allow them to get credit for the improvements to that as well. So they could sell more TDRs. But the TDRs, again, to clarify, are they calculated based on the totality of the property or just the square footage within the buffer area?

It would not change the amount of TDRs that you can sell? It would just allow them to, assuming, claim more of them sooner?

Do you have another question? I'll just go down the line. Mr. Vice Mayor.

I guess I just had a question. How does that help us accomplish our goal for the character on Sunset Drive if we give them more outside of Sunset Drive?

I'll let someone answer if you want. Nick, you can answer. Yes, you're welcome to. You're recognized, sir.

I think the result of what we have right now is you're going to have a property burdened by the requirements without any correspondent benefit because a portion of it's outside the footprint of the buffer area. Am I expressing myself correctly? Yes. Okay.

Yes, ma'am, you recognize, can you give examples of who this could be? What buildings?

Well, definitely the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the,

The only others I would tell you are, the bank does not run, well, the bank does run the 73rd. That's what I was saying. The bank, yes. The bank, that's right.

Those would be the two that would be beneficial. But would that restrict the bank from building up on 73rd?

If they chose to. Again, they have the option.

They're not restricted outside the buffer area. They are not restricted outside the buffer area. If they're choosing to keep it, they are imposing the limitation. They're giving up something. They're giving it up, and therefore, we're trying to give them the benefit of foregoing that additional envelope. So that would be true for, thank you for clarifying. I forgot about the bank, but the bank building does run the 73rd. So remember the back parking lot near Boogie's. But they do have that portion. So essentially, they could go, I think, to six stories there? Yes. Right? So they would be foregoing going to six stories in exchange using the

So just so that I understand though, this is just for like a continuous building that goes back? So all, but then all the other properties on 73rd wouldn't have the benefit of this option? No, just these two properties.

Just the ones that are integrated integral. I don't know if the right word is buildings, right? Single buildings. Contiguous, maybe? Not really. I don't know if that's right.

Anyways. Yes, sir. So I would say for the crossroads, If you want to keep and maintain a two-story on turning on 57th and turning on 73rd to not just have a big building there, this would be a good option. But then, to me, my opinion, contrary on the bank building, I don't think it works well there because I think in the back they can put something, you know, I don't know, we're restricting the bank building or bank owners to do the option. We're not.

It would give them the option. It would give them the option. They're not required to. So they're, again, you can just bring those buildings or portions that are outside the buffer area into the footprint of the TDR program.

yeah so so they have it's just an option that they can they want to take or not they can yeah they want to preserve the front half and sever it close it off and then build a new building from the midline back they can do that to the maximum level i i think if crossroads want to do it and they want to maintain with the two-story height on 57th right there i mean that's that's their

My discussions with the bank ownership is they want to keep the bank's structure. They're just going to modify it and restore it. That's what they've been communicating to me in my private conversations. So it could be that we have that building treated the same way. But we'll see what happens. Again, we don't have to decide all these issues today. We'll get another bite of the apple. The question is, do we want to refer it to the planning board?

I'll move it to the planning board. We have to move it?

Okay, seeing no, let's just consider it referred. I don't need to think we can take a vote on it. Okay. Madam Clerk, if you can read N1, please.

Colleagues, move on to Items 1 and 2, which are consent agenda items. Anyone have any questions regarding Items 1 or 2? Okay, Madam Clerk, if you can read Items 1 and 2 into the record, please.

Thank you. Colleagues, is there a motion to adopt item 1 and 2? I'll move the motion. I'll give a motion by Commissioner Rodriguez, a second by Commissioner Bonich. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Thank you. Mr. Albers, I think this is your item. Good evening, sir.

Your question? Mr. Roberts, we have a question from Commissioner Bonnich. Yes.

How are we going to deal with that when it comes to electricity? Because they have to plug in.

I just wanted to confirm So it is a gap of 10 feet that goes all the way down Correct all the way to the ground all the way to the ground.

Can we just, if I could just put the question more bluntly, which is how would this impact the application that was deferred earlier today? If this provision was adopted, they're now seeking a variance to allow for the continuous floor plate. How would the adoption of these rules on second reading impact that applicant, either positively or negatively?

You're recognized. Sorry, sorry. No problem. It's not what I asked earlier? Yes. I just wanted to explain. But you said it was only up to the fourth floor. Right.

Yeah, so this is what's existing. We're just rewriting it, and then we're going to bring a new aspect to it, which is go all the way to the ground.

Yes, Madam Commissioner, you're recognized.

Okay. So as it stands right now, I just am trying to visualize it. Ground to fourth floor, just changing the verbiage, we can have something long and the floor plate smaller when you get to the top, you know, five, six, seven, whatever it is. Okay. The second thing that we're saying is, hey, forget this now. We already know what that means. If you want a bigger floor plate, then we're going to make you give the 10 feet all the way down to the ground.

Colleagues, any questions for Mr. Alvarez?

Thank you. OK, colleagues. I do as well. So do we want to try and dispense with this item, then we'll take a quick break? Okay. Is there a motion on item seven? Yes, sir, you're recognized.

Wouldn't we have to decide on what that maximum floor plate is going to be before we make a motion? There's no maximum. If they go over 20, they just have to cut down all the way to the floor, whatever structure it is. So what is the maximum that we're going to allow for them to go? 50,000? 30,000?

Or is there a linear dimension that we have as a maximum?

Travers, how big is the typical block in South Miami in the TSTD? How long is it?

I think 300 feet would be the outer limit that I would suggest that, right?

So you're saying at the 300 feet? At the 300-foot mark, yeah.

My point is I wouldn't go beyond 300 feet. Oh, I agree with that. The question is do we want something shorter or not? And again, I want to ask this procedural question. I do not want members of the public who are not here now to accuse us of changing the rules in the middle of the game to do an applicant a favor. I am concerned about the confluence of this conversation with the other application that is pending. if we were to adopt this on second reading, right, that, you know, the next meeting or one in June, is that applicant able to modify their application to conform with these standards?

So I just want to make sure that whatever we do as a board, you're comfortable with the fact that they could come in and activate the site consistent with these changes, right?

Yeah, they would have to redesign the whole thing.

They would. It might happen anyways, right? It sounds like they're heading in that direction based on the fact that they're not making quite the progress I think they had hoped, but... I just want, again, and I think we should, if we do this, I think we should telegraph to the neighbors that this is happening. And they will have that option, right? So I just don't want anyone to feel like we're kind of catching people unaware with this regulatory change. So I just want to get that out there. I'm sorry, Madam. Madam Commissioner, you had a comment?

I just keep thinking about the conversation we just had of the 300 feet. We're looking at a regular block at being 300 feet, and I get that. But in a regular block, you have so many changes happening. Think of how many storefronts fit on 300 feet. So I think that to say if you've got a contiguous block that's more than 300 feet, you have 300 feet to make the break, I don't think that that's really getting you guys where I think you want to be. I think if you're saying, hey, you've got 550, you've got 600, then you've got to see a break, I think, before the 300, because if not, then you've got

Again, I just ask the question so we know what the typical condition is of what a full block parcel looks like. It's 300 feet on one side. If you wanted to say, we said 200 as one number. If we wanted to, so 66% of the block can only be on one face occupied by a single monolithic structure, that's fine. I mean, it kind of gets to the concern people have about Avalon Bay being A big box. A big box, right? So... very active now, big box, but yes, a big box nonetheless. So again, where do we want to land that conversation?

I'm not necessarily, I think, the right person to make that decision because I think you guys have a different vision than what I would.

But over 300 would still allow someone with a 300 foot linear block to have a 300 foot linear mass on one side, correct?

I'll say E200. I'm going to say this. Maybe this needs to marinate another meeting. I don't know. And we can bring it back with your recommendation. Like a good number. And with some examples of what the standard is elsewhere. What creates a good urban condition. Okay. I don't know that we need to do this immediately, right? So I prefer to kind of get that recommendation with some standards adopted elsewhere. Okay. So we know with typical block conditions, maybe some other urban cores, and see how we break it up. But that's just my thought. Did you want to ask something else?

May I? Yes, you're recognized. I think we should also put it in the record that what we're doing here is we're cleaning up current zoning things that we've found as we've gone, we're not trying to do it because of one specific person who just so happens to coincidentally be doing a project in which we're talking about this very thing. So we're just doing cleanup. We're not really trying to modify for a certain developer.

There's multiple issues here, but that's one. And I want to be sure that we're not, again, perceived as doing something to change the rules after the fact, correct?

I would recommend that we move to defer this item to May 19th. Okay. Is there a second? Second. Okay. So we have a motion by myself, a second by Commissioner Rodriguez. Let's show this item deferred without objection to May 19th. Okay. Let's read Item 8, please. Wait, no. I'm sorry. Yes, ma'am. Oh, you need, yes, my apologies. I forgot. So if we could take a five-minute recess. Thank you.

Hey, good evening. We're now back in session. Madam Clerk. Guys, are you ready? Madam Clerk, if you please read item A in the record.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Mr. City Attorney, you're recognized to present the item.

Mr. Attorney, just a quick question. Are we constituted obligated to make space for more than one?

Or to allow for one. Not to have one, to allow for one. No, to allow for one, again. Right. You just have to provide the opportunity, not necessarily guarantee it. Okay. And so, I mean, for that reason, with respect to the spacing, the one standard I'd like to see changed is the spacing of 500 to at least 750, if not the full 1,000. It's been at least adopted elsewhere.

Colleagues, any other thoughts on the standards? Yes, Commissioner Rodriguez.

The linear feet from schools and parks, something I have a concern with at 400 linear feet, because it's really close to a school and to a park. At 500, we're already getting close to... we're at a park and we're at a school so um the signage visuals being on commerce lane or prospect lane are essential here i don't want it on 50 where the mobi building is what street is there The mobile event is on 68th Street. 68th Street. So anything facing 68th Street on that corner is something that I don't want to be as visible. I mean, we have kids going through the schools. And the timing here is at 5

That's possible if you wanted to locate as long as it's... Yeah, I guess my follow-up question to that, Mr. Attorney, is what is deemed... acceptable for the federal guidelines or whatever the judgment was, like what is it to say what's deemed feasible and not feasible?

You just have to provide for the opportunity. Right. I mean, you could choose to provide it in any number of use, any number of districts,

No, so my point is if that's the case, then why don't we just designate one building? No, no, no. That's what I'm saying. So that's my point.

It can't be one property. That's what I'm saying.

Mr. Guy, do you have a follow-up question, or do you want me to come back to you? Come back to me. Thank you. Mr. Vice Mayor, you're recognized.

Thank you. So I think this was a wise decision, if we're going to have it anywhere, to have it in progress in Commerce. But I feel like it defeats the purpose if we're allowing it to be anywhere where there's an intersecting road. Because essentially, the establishment, instead of being inside our industrial area, is exposed to it.

as corner lots are facing. Can I maybe suggest something? It doesn't seem that if we make this a conditional use, there's any sort of constitutional firmity with that. And so right now, I'm going by the fact that Carl Gables Is there an issue with it being subject to review?

Yeah, there is some. Let me just kind of give you the reason for the question, because what I'm sensing is even within this footprint that we are looking to authorize, there are concerns about aesthetics, orientation, and signage. And so and we are essentially delegating this decision as you know i'm sure that none of us it's not a decision i'm sure any of us really want to make but if someone's going to make it i feel most comfortable this board makes as opposed to delegating to the design review board right to address these concerns so is there a process by which we can uh maybe it's a site

We would evaluate all the same conditions.

Understood. Understood. And again, but what I'm sensing with the board is that there's some anxiety about just adopting it and never seeing it, right? Because there may be, you know, there may be some signage that is oriented, you know, that's partially visible from 68th Street, right, at an intersection that would defeat some of the orientation standards that are here or, you know, again, us having the comfort of being finally the ultimate arbiters of the approval. Is that Is that something, am I?

That resolves my specific issue with a specific lot. But going back to, I'm just thinking here about the 5% here that's got me really thinking about this. So we have the opportunity to do on, just hear me out, guys. I just want to see what you guys think about this. On Sunset Drive, if we open it up to there, it gets past 5% easily. What would be the issues with that?

Can I ask a question related to that, which is, can you give, I mean, facts matter in these cases. So we said it was a 4% threshold. In this case, it was recognized as being constitutionally infirm. Do we know anything about the size of the jurisdiction in which it was being?

I mean, again, I just want to make sure. Is that a standard, really, we should be? We tend to get fixated with numbers. And I don't know that numbers always translate perfectly well across cases, because these become You know, there's standards, and there's some fact-based, you know, analogies that get drawn from one jurisdiction to another. So I guess I don't want to get fixated on 5%, but, you know, to try to draw a very tight net around this. I certainly think we should create an opportunity for one and one, if that's all that's required, which is why I want to increase the distance require

That would be appropriate. And we'd be limited to. Yeah. It's not if or what, it's not if the use can happen, it's is it complying with the criteria. And it's almost as if we've given it a final once over to make sure that we are comfortable as opposed to delegating that decision to the DRB, which is doing the same thing. We would basically just be substituting ourselves. For the DRB. Right. Yes, sir. You're recognized.

In the proposed location, what is the... What is the proposed location? Progress and Commerce. Well, it could be anywhere on Progress and anywhere on Commerce. Down those two blocks. So my question is, how does this affect the fellowship? Or does the fellowship affect its location? Do you know where is the fellowship? It's the corner right next to the Popeyes. Across the street?

No, it's... Yeah, it's on the east side.

No, it's called the Fellowship House, but it really is a behavioral services addiction services center.

Just that question. My second thing is I would be very apprehensive to, I mean, I'm happy that it's getting off Sunset at the entrance of our city. I don't know if I would want to put it on Sunset Drive, which is our main road. I don't know if I can do that.

No, and hear me out. Me neither, by the way. I'm not saying that. I'm going to watch my words here. I don't know how to say this the way I want to say it. I'm at a loss for words. We'll talk about that later. I'm going to take it offline.

Can I ask, there was a question made about hours of operation. Do you have any sense of what the market is for the hours of operation? I'm concerned personally about the 7 a.m. close on the morning after the Friday and the morning after the Saturday night. I have seen in the limited reachers I've done that most places close at 5 a.m. So now, my preference, again, not to open it earlier on weekdays, but on Saturdays and Sundays, whether someone's there watching a football game and someone dances at 12 o'clock, I personally don't care. I think it's the overlap in the early morning hours where I

If they wanted to operate earlier, just not as an adult entertainment use, but wanted to open up as a bar at 11 o'clock, they could? Or noon?

Yeah. Okay. Further questions or observations, colleagues? Don't be shy. You never have to.

I know. No, I just... I don't have anything that would be constructive other than this dance that you all already know that I have on this.

This dance, pun intended. Yeah, exactly.

There you go. Yeah, there you go. So, you know, they have a right to exist. we need to make it so that that is possible. They've been a business here for many years. They pay their taxes. Their employees pay their taxes.

And while some people might find it unsavory, let's... And in fairness to the operators, I mean, we have other properties that generate a lot more secondary effects, right? Yeah. Again, we don't know what we're going to get by way of a future operator, but certainly the current one is... I think in my limited time here had a fairly good operating record.

I think, you know what, make it so that they can actually find a spot. Because if not, we'll be having this conversation next year.

So colleagues, yes. Mr. Vice Mayor? I guess I just still have a little bit of concerns that if we don't at least restrict the outer edges of the progress in commerce, that we will end up with something that is a little too facing toward parks, schools, things like that. I think the location is great for it. It just has to be tucked in a little bit more into the streets.

Yes, Commissioner. I have no idea what property they would be interested in. I don't even remember. But let's say that you're worried about the corner. So if it was a corner and the signage said, you know, parking, blah, blah, blah. Would that be offensive or is it visual offense? Like, I think that what you're saying makes a lot of sense. I just think that we need to be a little clearer on, you know, because we can't say you can't operate on the corners.

So can I, so Mr. C. Turney, I mean, we have pretty wide latitude in regulating commercial speech.

Yes, we can't regulate the dancing. We can't limit that use okay with respect to the establishments commercial signage Yep, advertising the use we can sit priest we can set pretty strict standards with respect to where can be placed And limit what can be said correct or not The answer is yes

OK, so again, I don't know if we've looked at our signage code. But I mean, it's been a long time since I've had a signage case. But it has been. Last one was a mural. It was a lot of fun. But again, I'm wondering whether some of these concerns we have about the use being readily identifiable, we just need to look at our code with a bit more exacting set of eyes and see if we can address that aspect of this use this way. Obviously, I think we're trying to in these conditions by requiring that the forward-facing parts of the use be oriented towards the two streets on which they want to locate.

And I would say that, you know, again, most people that are going to these places know where they are. They're not really, you know, they're not getting there by accident, right? So I don't, you know, the signage is that, you know, I'm going to drive through Progress and Commerce to, oh, stumble across this fantastic establishment. I mean, I'm sure that that happens, but it's probably, you know, the rare exception. So... I think we've got a good mix of standards. I don't know. I think if we want to retain jurisdiction so that we can, you know, politely encourage an applicant to consider, you k

Yeah, just my concern is with the signage and generally speaking, the activity. There will be people in and outside all around the establishment late at night, maybe earlier in the night, early in the morning.

I would say the only modification I'm agreeing with you, I think five is more than enough. I don't think it should be more than, especially you already have the cases of the other two closest scenarios to close at five. You can't serve liquor past four unless you have an exemption, so I think five is more than enough.

Okay, this is a public hearing item, Mr. City Attorney, correct? Yes, it is. Okay, so why don't we open to the public hearing. If there's any member of the public online or the chambers would like to address this commission on item number eight, please come forward this time.

Seeing no one online and no one in the chamber, we will close public comment here on first reading. Colleagues, anything before we want to... What direction do we want to get the city attorney with respect to modifications? 1,000-foot spacing? Is that consensus? Yes? Yes. Hours of operation? Yes. So five. Okay. And then from a process perspective, do we want to retain jurisdiction to apply the conditions that are identified in the ordinance as opposed to delegating it to the DRB?

Can I ask a question on the linear footage from the schools or parks? Yes, you recognize. We currently have it at 400. I've seen some code as well up to 500. Is that something we're entertaining? Can we entertain that?

Is this the first reading, second reading?

So I think let's move it with two modifications. The first would be. distance between establishments from 500 to 1,000. The second being the hours of operations. Those are the easiest to analyze. And then, Mr. C. Attorney, if you can bring back a recommendation regarding the process change and the maximum distance that we can have it from those other adjoining uses. Okay. Those are the two issues I'm hearing, correct?

I have a different idea that I want to ask the attorney, but we'll bring it up for the next meeting.

Okay. Okay. Fair enough. Does anybody else agree with the idea of not having it on an intersection? I do. But there's no intersection. Well, on both sides of the. Oh, you're saying that. So having it more central. Yeah, just eliminating that so that it can't kind of wrap around to.

Well, I think that's where the linear footage plays into place there a little bit. That's why I want to.

Yeah, I mean, if you're at one corner, the linear footage is going to connect you to those, right to the Mobley building. So I think that that one's off. The other one is right by the fire station.

Look, I think the challenge with not including corners is that you're going to push it closer to uses that are uses that are incompatible from a distance perspective. So again, I'm literally pulling up the map here to take a look at this right now. But that's my initial concern with the proposal. It's not that I don't disagree, because I can see that you could be, in one case, driving behind the back.

So you're saying you know, it's not it's not as it's not as a crow flies, right? Yes, you're recognized

I'm going to use BTs as an example because they're literally across the street. If you didn't know what BTs was, you're not going, oh yeah, that's it. So I think when it comes to innocuous signage, I think we're essentially there. I wouldn't venture to say that they're going to put Hooters on the middle of the signage.

Well, I mean, again, let's be honest with the fact that I think that was kind of a negotiated resolution. I'm not sure if there was actual litigation. There was. There was. So that was the byproduct. The signage became one of the items that was negotiated, right? So maybe we get... Because this is the only location that that chain, for lack of a better way of describing it, owns that's, you know, gut science has dominated that way. So...

So maybe we take whatever that verbiage was and add it to adult entertainment instead of making it signage for the entire city. Can't we do it youth specific?

Okay. And then second, if we were to keep the corners, I'm not saying we should or shouldn't, but if we were to keep... Corners that wouldn't be obviously forward-facing Could we make them cover it so you don't necessarily see it? I'm trying to find a way to address what the vice mayor is saying and Well, at the same time, not reducing the possible footprint. So we end up in more trouble.

You recognize I think that we have, we have more than enough time to kind of go through that and kind of actually do the research on all that stuff. So. I mean, if we keep it as we just proposed with those. Those comments, Mayor, maybe we just move forward and we'll come back. That's fine.

I think if you want to, again, I think we can incorporate two modifications today and have them bring back some proposals with respect to process and what was the other, sorry, what was the second issue? Location. Just the distance, yeah. Mr. Attorney?

Yes, is there is there like a deadline that we need to have this corrected in our code or anything like that?

But the usage is still in use as we speak today. So until the usage is not allowed, because it's being used right now, right?

I would just add that with respect to time. There's one other use on that same assemblage that's already been abandoned. Correct. We have time. There's another adjoining use that's already been abandoned. We have time, but I don't think we can stall it forever. Yes, sir.

From what I know, their current location will close in July. So I would imagine that they would have to start making arrangements prior to that, so I don't really think we have. Well, that's my question. A whole lot of time. That's what I was asking for. Yeah, July. I don't know those timelines. Yeah, July is when they're closing, the current location.

So the only impact to us is we leave ourselves in some sort of limbo. But I mean, it's not our issue to solve the relocation timeline. It just does create that issue. OK. OK, so can we get a motion to adopt with two modifications, one as to the hours, the second as to the distance between similar uses, and with direction of the city attorney to bring back an ordinance to second reading with recommendations with respect to the process and maximum distance in excess of possibly 400 feet.

Other uses, not similar uses. We have that clarified. Other uses meaning religious facilities, schools, parks. OK.

The maximum minimum distance is what I was trying to say. My apologies. OK. Are we clear? Can I get someone to move the ordinance on first reading as modified?

I'll move it as first reading with the modifications of 1,000 feet and closing at 5 AM.

OK. Is there a second? I'll second it then. This is a motion by Commissioner Rodriguez and a second by myself. Madam Clerk, can you call the roll, please?

OK, Madam Clerk, did I miss anything on tonight's agenda? Or are we? Number nine. Number nine, see? I'm glad I asked. OK. If you can read item nine on the record, please.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Ms. Cabrera, anything we need to add for the record, or is this just an extension of the existing moratorium? So, any questions, colleagues? Seeing none, is there a motion on Item 9? I'll move it. Is there a second? A motion by Commissioner Gaya, second by Commissioner Bonich. Madam Clerk, if you can call the roll, please. Yes.

Thank you. Seeing nothing else on the agenda, we stand adjourned. Thank you, everyone.