City Planning Commission - workshop

Oh, never mind. I've just began recording. Thanks.

Okay. All right. So with that, let me share my screen and we will get going.

One second here.

Okay. Can everyone see my screen?

I can see it, Lance.

Okay, great. All right, so starting off very broadly, we've updated definitions quite a bit. I won't go through all of them, but at the end, if something catches your eye and you want to talk about it, we can do that then. First off, added the alcohol delivery service support. or delivery support service. This was added to enable lawful third party in-house delivery. That's something we'll get to a little bit in a minute as far as alcohol delivery. We've changed a lot of the beverage, the standard beverage, alcohol beverage license definitions to match NRS. You'll see that throughout. We'll try to just make it consistent. It basically, it makes it easier across jurisdictions, just to make sure we're all on the same page. Everyone has the same definition. Same, you'll see that with beer. Cabaret license, we've moved down into its own light in the license section and described it there. Change of ownership was one that was sort of drastically changed, if you will. We just wanted to really drill down and make it clear on what a change of ownership really is. It's not There are a lot of people that come in and do stock purchases, and then they get through the process and don't have to do as much of the background that we would like. We want to ensure that every new owner has the right background check, has to pay that new application fee for the alcohol licenses. There were a couple loopholes, and we're trying to try to tie those up a bit. Getting down in here, caterer, we move that as well to give it some more explanation and remove some extraneous language there. Food cupboard establishment, same. We'll get to that with alcohol delivery. Any of you that know about alcohol delivery are familiar with that term, but we'll get to it in a little bit. Essentially, it has to do with all the alcohol to go cocktails and things like that. We removed some definitions of department application, department, we're referring to state of Nevada department taxation. We just explain it in the regulation just to get rid of some of the, to streamline some of these definitions. Inactive, we've added some provisions to that, which I'll get to, it has its own section and we're allowing administrative approval for things like that. Intoxicating liquor was another kind of a duplicative definition that we weaved into the others to match the state. Same with liquor. Let's see here. Then we get down and we've elaborated on premises. We get a lot of questions on what people can do on their properties, specifically parking lots, things like that. So we want to make sure that we're approving things to happen, but they have to be within the approved four walls, essentially, or whatever planning determined as the approval for that business at the time, just to make it very clear. That if there is something in the parking lot at this point, it does require a special activity permit, which is a topic for another day, but we are looking into that as well. Elaborate a little bit on sale and sell because of the delivery. And then we got into specified anatomical areas. There was concerns from a couple of our owners that this was too restrictive and we needed some modifications. So we've done some wordsmithing there. So we're hopeful that this will satisfy everyone's concerns. And then we had questions on wholesaler and the definitions didn't quite fit the state. So we changed that as well. So getting down into the real stuff here, aside from definitions, again, I'm not going to go through everything. A lot of this, a lot of the changes you'll see were just basically, there were semantic changes or, you know, making more clarifying statements, things like that. This whole posting of a business premises, a couple of licensees, we do this on behalf of the licensees currently. And the code said that it was the licensee's responsibility. Staff already does it. We just changed it to say it's a responsibility of the staff, kind of take some burden off of the licensee. Now, as far as licenses, each license used to be connected, or I'm sorry, it was given its own section. So what we did is we consolidated this just so it's very easy to find. It's in one section. It's all alphabetized. It's really just for clarity and to make sure that it's an easy to follow format. This first section is just kind of your standard language that you must have a license, you must abide by state law, separate license for each activity, that type of thing. Very general comments to cover the license types. So let's get into that. Again, a lot of these are very similar, if not exactly the same that they used to be. They're just organized in a different way. Some of the stuff that we changed, like I said, specifically a caterer's license, The previous definition was very narrow, and it basically said you had to be a food establishment with a catering truck. We know that's not the way that it works nowadays. There are many beverage caterers. They're allowed to offer their services at special events or private parties. We just made it very clear that it's not a mobile food truck. It's a alcohol catering license, and you have to follow these specific rules. A cabaret license was also a very heavily discussed topic. If many of you have been probably following the live entertainment discussions that the planning staff has been having with council and the current sunset, or I won't say sunset, but a stay on the requirement for a conditional use permit to operate past a certain hour. Again, I'm sure most of you are very familiar with that, but we tried to weave some of this in. The current standards that you have to supply a security system a security plan upon getting approval to go past operations at a certain time. So we're just building that into the license code. It belongs in licensing. It is not necessarily something that planning should be doing, but they do help us monitor it and they do help us sign off or review them. So we've placed that on here. We've also put the definition of entertainment in here. It's basically the same. However, it does allude to NRS368A090, which defines live entertainment at the state level. We hope that that can clear some things up and keep everybody on the same page. Going on, these are all the same license types that we've had before. On-premise, packaged alcohol, wholesale. We had a question from one of the, I can't recall if it was an industry representative or if it was an actual licensee. That it didn't, the code wasn't unclear. It wasn't clear on how we require a wholesale delivery if you're delivering from outside of the city. And so we've made that clear that you have to have a license to deliver into the city. And that's pretty straightforward. We also had a complimentary alcoholic beverage permit. This is an item that we used to have, or we currently operate under a policy that's been on the books for probably 20 years, but we want to put it in code. We want to make it very clear to everybody what you can and can't do. This is new, new language. It's a little bit different than our old policy, but we hope he covers it. So I'm glad that we have this here and have this as an opportunity for certain businesses that want to take advantage of that, like a salon or a barbershop, things like that. Now we get into the delivery, the new sections. So as you all know, or most of you know, in 21, the state passed alcohol delivery regulations. or a statute and then came out with regulations after that. We have not been in that, we have not ever come into compliance with that to actually officially allow it per that statute. We had delivery methods before, but now it's very pointed and the regulations are clear on what you can and can't do. So we're adding that and we're basically not meaning any extra provisions at this point. I know that there are certain industries that have comment on this and will want to add some. So I'm looking forward to that. Same with the to-go alcohol sales. This is something that came in in the last, I'm sorry, not to-go alcohol, but to-go cocktails. This came through last session and basically none of the other jurisdictions are doing this at this time. We would be one of the first, I know the city of Las Vegas is working on taking public comment as well. So council may be willing to move forward at this time and they may want to wait. So Something to be cognizant of, but I look forward to comments on that. Prohibited activities. One of the things we looked at striking here was the section that alludes to boisterous conduct, unreasonable noise, things like that. Really, those are very subjective terms. We want to make this very objective. And it may come down to changing the language altogether, or it may be just deleting it. We're looking to see if this could just be something that's enforced by PD and, you know, a disturbing the peace call and we can track it that way. Not so sure that this specifically needs to be in the alcohol code. We wanted to add the provisions for NRS 202 to allow minors in an establishment so long as they're abiding by the state law and that, you know, they're not hanging out at the bar, they're in a separate area. Generally speaking, they're there because they have a reason to be there, like eating food Locational compatibility is a big one. As far as the current code, it basically gave the council the discretion to deny licenses if they felt they were in proximity or too close to a sensitive use. Obviously, as the business community has shown, that's very unnerving. You can make it all the way to council and you could have your whole project shut down. So we really want to make this clear. And after I posted this, we had some more internal discussions that I'm interested to see if anyone has any feedback on. This was, we added in here within 500 feet of a sensitive use. Well, that sensitive use also means it defined as a park, right? So the Truckee River is in many places considered a park. So that would stop, that would prohibit some bars and things like that opening along the riverfront, which could stifle development. That's not what we want to do. So we have some other ideas of how to tweak this so that we have a better idea of, or a better review process on things like that. Specifically, we were considering maybe just any new on-premise alcohol or beer and wine license would just have to submit a security plan and it could be reviewed and we could impose the certain conditions necessary to allow things to operate like that and not necessarily shut them all down or have it be a free-for-all. So somewhere right in the middle where a council can be comfortable that staff has reviewed the ins and the outs and then we have the ability to condition things. So just a food for thought if we come back to that. Let's see, moving on. Inactive licenses. This was a newer section in general, but we've tweaked it to, basically it doesn't apply to licenses that, are brand new. But once you're open and you have to close, we don't want to see a closure for more than 90 days without a temporary approval or an administrative approval. At first, this also was a council authority to grant approval. And we think that that's very cumbersome for the licensee. It's cumbersome for staff. We were recommending that this goes to city manager designee, just an administrative approval to allow a licensed establishment to stay closed for more than 90 days. In In general, we would like this to happen and apply to all privileged licenses. But since we're not there yet to put that in the general chapter, I've just inserted it here since we had a section. So ultimately, I'd like to see this apply to all licenses. So it's just here on a standalone at this time to make it a little easier for something like this to happen. We want to make it smooth and we want to be able to be on the same page as everyone out there. No changes here. State license requirements. We've stricken a little bit, and this is just basically to streamline. All this information is in NRS on the application standards and what's required. We didn't think that it was actually necessary to duplicate here, so we just referred to the NRS that governs that. On this second section here, we added an ability. We've come across this a few times. The state requires us, when we're reviewing a state license application, that it has to be done with the background check before we can put it on council. So we've tried to craft something here to give a little bit more leeway, specifically if a licensee can supply a background check that's been conducted in the prior three months. And we went back and forth on a couple of time frames with PD. If they could supply us with some history of a background check, then we could use that in our materials to recommend to council so that we don't necessarily have to wait until it's completely done and we can get the ball moving and we can get the state license recommendation issued to the Department of Taxation. Really, this is just trying to give the licensee a little bit more leeway and a little easier path forward when these unusual circumstances arise. Some referencing here, changes. Also, administrative approvals on these licenses. Sometimes there are changes that don't necessarily impact how council would have weighed in. Like let's just say a distiller is changing to a rectifier or a manufacturer of beer is changing to a manufacturer of liquor. Council doesn't weigh that decision when they do this. That's more of a planning determination, if anything. So we want to be able to amend these licenses as smoothly as possible, as quickly as possible, so that we can just get the administrative approval done, get that to the Department of Taxation, and then they can weigh in. We really don't want to see these manufacturers get put on hold for months at a time while we're waiting for that process. And then we go through a bunch of sections here that are all deleted and moved. These are all the individual license types that were all in their own section. And as I said, we combine those in about one page as opposed to five or six pages. Do this. council action on packaged alcohol licenses. This is something that we're seeking direction from council. It's another one of those discretionary sections that gives council the ability to deny. But the sentiment I got from the business community was this feels like it can be very subjective and it puts the business owner in a very strange, a very tough position. where they've already invested time, money, efforts, branding, build-outs, approvals. They've gone to the city, they've gotten all the approvals, and then they're standing at the dais and have the possibility of being denied based on something that a council member may find particularly of interest or concern. So We're working through this chat, this section, to see if we just need to build some more objective standards or if it needs to be revised into just a, like I said, maybe it's a security plan on new things or some sort of operational plan that we can review and recommend to council. As far as this SafeScape, we didn't change much here. We made some clarification on what they applied to, just what the original intent was. A couple of strikethroughs you'll see, nothing substantial. When we get into the actual standards for each of these, we were running across issues with visibility. So similar to, well, let me just dive into this one first. The 25% service area of the windows had to be, you couldn't exceed 25%. It's 75% clarity in all these windows. Well, some of these places have generally restricted architecture or build out. um some of the coolers were blocking windows and it was one of those things where without substantial remodel these businesses would not be able to meet compliance on the standard so we're looking to just put it in here to have an administrative approval so long that it does not impact the public safety and that everybody's on board as far as uh rpd business license licensing code enforcement etc then we can make those those provisions to um more clearly make it easier for the business license to comply, but also to be able to have some level of comfort at the city level. Same with the metal security bars and grates on windows. They were required to be on the interior of the window. This became an issue. People were breaking on certain areas. If a window got broken, the bars don't do very well on the outside, I mean, on the inside. So we want to allow people to protect their property as much as they can. But again, this would be an administrative approval. And that also goes for the accordion style doors that go on the front of these places when they close up. Most of these are just verbiage changes and clarification. And then as far as package alcohol licenses, the cap in the downtown area, just striking out things that are referenced prior to us being at the cap. Right now there's 18 mandatory, sorry, maximum, but we're at that cap. So some of these provisions don't apply anymore. So we just went through and cleaned it up. Again, that number two, that goes away because it does not apply anymore. Same with number three. Same with the Wells Avenue overlay. They are at the cap at six. So this subsection B and C do not apply anymore. And then we get into some more license types that we all moved into that consolidated section. And then disciplinary action, we made some tweaks to if we had to require a licensee to use identification or ID verification equipment that they could bring it to us, we could approve it, as opposed to having a standard list that only we had the choice to tell you what to use. We're making this a little easier on the licensee. And that's that. So let me unshare this.

Come back on screen.

So I know that's a lot. That's 26 pages or whatever we went through. I think it started at 21 pages. We've got 25 pages and we got it down to 19 pages or something. We definitely, with all those changes, have streamlined it, have minimized as much as we can at this point. But I am ready and eager to hear any feedback. So if you have questions, comments, concerns, please raise your hand and Alex will bring you over and we'll go from there.

All righty. I have Ty here. Ty, go ahead and unmute yourself and you can begin speaking.

Great. Can you hear me? We sure can. Thank you. Okay. I want to say I do appreciate the attention that was given to this since it was introduced because I feel like it was pretty terrible and not very responsible to the business owners, but it looks a lot better now. I have four questions. The big one that's changed for me is obviously anybody with a packaged liquor license can now deliver alcohol, especially through a third party that doesn't carry a license, if I'm reading that correctly. In that case, if I sell a six pack of beer to somebody via DoorDash and it's delivered to a minor who is responsible.

Yeah, so state law does get into that. And we can make it more clear that the RMC points to the state law and the requirements of a delivery service. They would be required. We're not necessarily saying it's gone back and forth, whether the delivery service needs a specific license to do this or not, whether we want to require that of them. It's more of a, just a transport, right? Like they're buying it from you. They are responsible for the logging and the recording of, you know, making sure, ensuring that the 21, someone that received it's 21 and older and that they're up to date with their record keeping. You mean the carrier? Yes. Yes, sir. Yep.

OK. All right. It doesn't I didn't see it in here, but I know we talked about making the privilege licenses annual versus quarterly, which would save me three times the paperwork and the hassle. Yeah.

Yeah. You're absolutely right. I think what's going to happen with that, because we went back and forth on it and we agree it would make it easier on us as well. There are a little ups and downs, obviously, but at the end of the day, I think we do have other quarterly licenses. So I think when we get, when I go back into chapter five, the general section, that could be something that when we bring forward that all quarterly licenses are made or changed to an annual license. So, We want to encapsulate a few of the other licenses just in bar so it's still on the table. We're just not, I don't think it's ready for this section right now, since this section specifically doesn't talk about quarterly payments, if that makes sense.

Okay. The other thing, holding. So obviously all the types of alcohol licenses are fairly well defined. I didn't see anything in there, but is there a situation where holding one type of alcohol license would preclude you from holding additional licenses?

No. Can you give me an example?

Well, I have a license to sell liquor, packaged liquor off the premises. I also hold a beer and wine service license here.

Right. So I just want to make sure we're on the same page. Yeah, there's nothing to preclude multiple licenses. In fact, many of our license holders like yourself, they do have more than one, be it an alcohol on-premise and a cabaret, an on-premise, a cabaret, an off-premise, a package license. Some of the manufacturers, they obviously have their license as well. So nothing to preclude multiple licenses. Right.

Great. And then my last question is, because it's not defined in the beginning where all the definitions are, what is the definition of sensitive use?

It should be there. Let me pull it back up because we did not change that one. But I'll just pull it up on my side and I'll read it to you. And it is. it's at the top of page four and it says sensitive use means public parks, public recreation centers, primary or secondary schools, residential zoning districts and facilities licensed by the state of Nevada for alcohol or drug abuse as outlined by NRAS 449 dot, dot, dot as amended.

Um, four of the red line. Yes, sir. Okay. I didn't see it. What page is that going to be in the final? I don't see it. Let me pull it up real quick.

Um, and it, uh, That didn't change from the last one. We didn't manipulate that at all. So if there are, we'd like to know if there should be changes, if you have some. It is at, well, you're not kidding. It didn't make the clean version. I don't know why. The red line version is the one that's, I'm not sure how it got deleted out of there, but you're good catch. I'll make sure that that's in there. But the red line version has it in there. So take a peek at that.

Thank you for catching that. Okay, that's all I got. Thank you guys for your work. Thanks, Ty.

All right. If anyone would like to make comment, feel free to raise your hand. All right, Patrick, I am going to go ahead and, oh, you just unmuted yourself. Go ahead.

Can you hear me?

Yes, I can.

Great. Yeah, I had a question around the, you know, Around sensitive use and the 500 feet, you mentioned like the parks issue or others around them. I assume from this, the intent is a new licensee that they want to evaluate what's around it, not that you're existing or you sell your business later and there's uses that popped up. over time or nothing's changed but the the rules not your neighborhood is is that what what this impacts or does it impact like if somebody wants to sell their business later or existing licenses like on the riverfront those kind of things yeah so um this would this would basically trigger the standard review process that goes through planning

And the way that a use works and the grandfathered use, if you will, it's a year long. So if you were to have one of those properties on the river and you had a bar, let's just say this went through at 500 feet. Let's just pretend. Then the bar that was there, it goes out of business. If it was out of business and not operational for more than a year, it would lose that ability to be within the 500 feet. That goes for any use that's grandfathered, like whether it's alcohol or not. This wouldn't affect anything, you know, existing, obviously. It would only be for new things. But again, that's something that, like I said, we definitely don't want to stifle development down the river or in places that we really, maybe there's a sensitive use nearby, but maybe this is like a perfect place for something to happen or some sort of development. So this 500 feet could get, it could get it. It could be a bad, a bad move. So we want to make sure that we evaluate it carefully. And like I said, maybe in lieu of having a distance requirement for it from a sensitive use, we say, Hey, every new bar that comes in, give us a security plan and we're going to look at the sensitive uses around it and say like, how are you going to prevent X, Y, Z from happening? Kind of a, you know a case-by-case review of something so that we don't exclude people just because, Oh, you're at 498 feet. You can't have that. Um, So that's kind of it. At least that's one of the ideas we were kicking around.

Yeah, so I would just comment some kind of review process if it's within that because, you know, you end up with some of those where it might be a church and they don't care that the convenience store next to them has liquor or a slot machine because it's always been there or, you know, all these kind of things. Yeah.

Yeah, agreed.

Some function to review is what I was curious about because I would put the thumbs up for that because just like you said, the black and white where now staff and council have limited options to even get places open.

Yeah, exactly.

I also had a question around, you know, when we're talking about the – lewd, indecent, obscene floor show, the 507 or prohibited activities, I guess. I know the current one is very odd and doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. But yeah, I don't know any, I don't know what that means. So that's all I would say.

Yeah, to the best of my knowledge, that's in there essentially to say that, you know, it kind of goes hand in hand, I believe, with the adult interactive cabaret. Um, they basically is like this, I think it's put there because it was like, and I don't know if it got built in before the adult interactive cabaret ordinance came along, but it was to say, you know, no, like topless dancers, no, no things like that in a bar. Um, if, if you have, you know, recommended language changes or, or, or anything like that, I'm happy to look into that and talk with city attorney's office and see if it you know, if it, if it meshes well with those other chapters, but that's my understanding of why that's there.

Yeah. And the disturbing the peace side, that makes sense to me. There's specific things, what that means or like the other stuff when it comes to nudity, that's defined, that makes sense what it means, but I don't know what, you know, boisterous as it is now, or even, you know, indecent or obscene outside of what's defined already. So yeah. Okay. Yeah. Not that I want to do anything that's in that category, but like you were saying, anything that can be more objective than subjective.

Yeah, exactly. Okay. Thank you.

All righty. Ryan, go ahead and unmute yourself.

Hi, Lance. Hi, Alex. Thanks for... having this meeting and all the work you guys have done. I just had two quick things. One is like almost silly, but it has become a growing issue that I've seen with a lot of my retail clients is an issue around non-alcoholic beer, low alcohol beer. There had been kind of this growing trend in the industry. And there's a lot of confusion as to whether this is liquor or not, whether it's something that requires a license or not. And it's an issue that exists with the state law definitions and potentially an issue with Reno just adopting those existing state law definitions. Really, we have a definition of alcoholic beverage or liquor that has a 0.5 percent alcohol by volume limit implying that anything below that percent threshold is not alcohol or liquor um but then the definition of beer or malt beverage is just based on how the product is manufactured based on the fermentation um without regard to the alcohol content and so that might be something you know and obviously i i don't have necessarily uh a position one way or the other, whether the city wants to or doesn't want to regulate that type of product. But having some clarity, I think, could be helpful, especially going forward as this does seem to be a growing trend. Yeah, absolutely.

Real quick, Ryan, do you know of anybody that's put any other provisions in or any other language?

Not in Nevada. It's something that I just... I wouldn't have even brought up, but for the fact that you're kind of cleaning up the language on those definitions, and it's something that I've run into on the state level, because there's questions about In certain cases, it may not be subject to state excise taxes, but may be subject to local licensing requirements because of different definitions that are used in different contexts. And I've encountered the issue a lot that it's a question that comes up. So just something to think about, not to throw a huge wrench in it. No, that's good.

It's good to know.

Yeah. The other question I had was regarding the location restrictions and kind of to piggyback off of what others have already asked about. It seems like that this is just kind of a blanket prohibition for any on-premise licensee, regardless of what their operations are. And I know something that other jurisdictions have done, which may complicate things, but it does seem to kind of better fit the public policy reasons. It's dependent on the type of operations of the on-premise licensee. There may be more concerns of opening up a A tavern or a cabaret across the street from a school, but, you know, opening up like a full service sit down restaurant across the street from a school that happens to have alcohol being served or even just beer and wine maybe doesn't present the same effect. issues um and you know maybe the answer to that is kind of having certain of these restrictions waivable at the uh you know from an administrative standpoint or from council standpoint or otherwise you know kind of limiting it in scope in terms of the operations may be something to consider too okay great awesome anything else right no okay

If you have more, you can raise your hand.

I don't see any other hands raised. Oh, hold on. All right, Patrick, go ahead and unmute yourself.

OK, sorry about that. I just had one more question. The temp closure stuff or the extension, if there's a closure event on that. There's a lot of scenarios, you know, I brought this up and other people have as well, where you get into, like, you have a fire or something major happens or even you have a planned remodel. You know, like, I'm curious where the closure event starts because you've got – there's different types of licenses now, not just in Reno, just all over, where they'll do, like, a one-day open of things and, you know – that's probably not you know there's a way around all these things no matter what but if the intent's to to keep it so you know people can't just stay closed and not do anything and preserve the i'd assume some kind of license right i get that but you know there's a lot of scenarios where people might have to close or they might choose to close to improve a property or change their type of business even though they're not um you know starting a new business so I don't know how that impacts all those kind of things or if it's something like the goal is, you know, you get this many days and then we keep asking or keep filing a temp closure and that just goes through or how that all works is kind of a question in my head.

Yeah. You know, when we were crafting this language, my intent here is to not have locations that are just sitting there dormant. paying a license, you know, there's no activity. There's no, they're just holding onto it for the sake of holding onto it. We want businesses to be open and we want them to be active and bringing people in, right? So like you said, there are reasons that are out of your control. It could be a natural disaster. It could be a planned remodel, as you said. And I think that that's where the, you know, the extension comes into play and we can say, hey, give us a plan. What's your plan? What are you doing?

What are you working on?

Let's work with you. Let's see where we can get you, you know, extended to. I do agree with you that the one-day opening stuff could be a loophole. Obviously, very common practice in gaming to have one-day openings to preserve licenses, which is for good purpose as well. I don't want to get into that with bars. So that's something that we had talked about before. We didn't insert anything here yet. We want... We want to work with everybody as much as we can. But when we do have throughout the city, we have a couple of license types, not necessarily alcohol, but other privileged license types that have a license that have not been open for years. And it's they're just holding on to this license. And so we want to we want to spur the activity of the the economic growth, especially downtown. We want these storefronts open. So yeah, that's a good comment. I'll look into the loopholes to keeping it open and I'll try to see if we can elaborate on language to ensure that people planning to close or that had to close due to a fire or something that we'll accommodate.

Yeah, because some of those you don't have a good timeline on, even if you're planning construction, pulling permits, you don't know until people get in there. But yeah, if there's some, maybe even more defined than just a temp closure allowance, like if you're doing these things or here's the process for... We're applying for this and it can be, you know, up to so long or where those all trigger. But that's just a thought I had on that because you end up in a lot of weird scenarios with places, especially with, you know, like COVID, everybody was shut down. There's nothing you can do about that. Or if you have a fire in your kitchen or many of those things.

Exactly. Okay.

Well, thank you very much for putting all this together as well. Just want to say definitely a lot, a lot clearer makes me a lot, a lot more at ease with all this stuff than, you know, especially the format with all the red lines and the notes of what's the rationale behind it in that document. That's very helpful. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else, Alex?

I don't see anyone else, Lance.

Okay. Again, in the chat, Alex shared the website and the form that you can comment on. Please feel free to put any of those comments that you shared, Ty, Patrick, Ryan. I wrote them all down and I have them recorded here too. But if you feel like elaborating or if you forgot something, please put it in that form. and we'll collect it um the next step will be have another one of these on thursday to gather any more feedback and then i'll be uh putting together a staff report to take to council on july 22nd and that'll just be for discussion kind of where we're at where we landed what what feedback we received from all of you And then we'll ask them, you know, a couple of the policy questions. Are they ready for alcohol delivery or, you know, to go cocktails or do they want to make any additions or changes to the discretionary sections, things like that. And we'll have our recommendations and we'll go from there. So in the meantime, you can all, you can email myself or Alex. My email is my last name, first initial F-E-R-R-A-T-O-L at reno.gov. Or you can email Alex. And honestly, we'll both get it if you just send it to BLCODE, B-L-C-O-D-E, at Reno.gov. That would be the best way to make sure that it lands in our mailbox. With that, if there's no more questions, then we'll call it a day.

Awesome. Thanks, everyone. Have a great day.

Thank you.