Remarks by Javier Fernández
827 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 33 of 34
“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.”
“This dance, pun intended. Yeah, exactly.”
“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.”
“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…”
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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...”
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.