you you you you you you you you Thank you. the good evening. This is the city south of Miami planning board regular meeting of Tuesday, April 8th. I have to call a minute of order and we can please rise for the pleasure of But he lives in those five five states of America and to the economy for the stands with one nation under God in the physical liberty and justice are all. Roll call of start to my left. Christina Ortega. J. Miller. Joseph Corvus. Daniel Alvarez. Shea Rita. San Aguera. We have a quorum. Welcome Daniel to our board. Welcome Daniel. Thank you. And we have a really exciting topic for this evening. you won't take too long this time. the next . We have a really exciting topic for this evening so hopefully we won't take too long this time. Any I see there's no administrative matters. I have no administrative matters for the night. Okay. So I guess we can go ahead and just jump to the first time. Sure. First time is PB-2-0-2-2025-002. In order to the mayor and city commission of the city of South Mallorca, I'm ending the composition and procedures of the design review board providing corrections, severability, conflicts, implementation, and an effective date. If you recall, this item came before you first on the March 11 meeting last month, where you reviewed the draft legislation. At that time, there were several options that were provided to address those the issues that the board saw and the achieving quorum, which included keeping the number of board members present at seven, which in turn will keep the quorum at four, expanding the number of board members with additional members serving as alternates, placing limits on the number of applications heard at each meeting, placing limits on the time of each meeting, establishing written rules or procedure for the board. Staff has reviewed those comments against the instructions I would give them by the commission and found that they went beyond the scope of the commission's original direction because of that the legislation before you tonight has not been modified since March 11th. The administration encourages the board to issue a recommendation with any specific amendments. The board themes appropriate and staff is recommending approval for the item. Thank you. Any public comment? I see no one online, so at this point, go ahead and open up for board comments. Through the chair. Yes, sir. I'm not hearing any comments from the live board. So the only thing I would add to this is I thought we had some good recommendations. I understand that they thought it was overreaching, but I think consideration was worth the while in terms of the time certain for the meeting. I think it's important for all board members to know that we that, you know, we are trying to be diligent and get through this as well as potential new board members have the opportunity to know that they're going to serve an aboard that's not going to consume their entire day or beyond that. And, you know, I believe that recommendation originated from you, Mr. Chair. And I echoed it and I do think So I'm just going to be very careful. I'm going to be very careful to be careful to be careful to be careful to be careful to be careful to be careful to be careful to be careful to be careful to be careful to be careful to be careful to be careful to be careful to be careful to be careful to be with you except that I'm a little worried if you set a time certain is that fair to leave some things uncovered you can't get to because of that time certain and I don't know legally if there's an issue there so you run out of time, the person or the entity happens to be number six on the agenda and they're going to pick up a delay. I think you guys meet more frequently than we do, is that right? Vice. It went back to once a month and this new change would make it twice a month. Which I think the additional burden of time for twice a month is fine. It went unnecessary. Yeah. But I think just the thought of a time certain makes everyone move quicker. And I think much like our commission has a time certain and can vote to extend not only here in South Miami but other municipalities as well as in the county. I can't imagine we could you know ask our city council but a our city legal council but I would imagine that there's not a legality issue but definitely knowing that you can't hear yourself speak all day is valuable I I think, to many of the members. Board, just to address a question of legality, yes, you can put a limit and state, for example, many cities do this. Typically, it occurs on evening meetings. So, for example, a meeting will not run past 10 PM unless the board votes to extend it past 10 PM. They always have that option There was an option, Jay. I mean, you could do that here as well. You know, you, you, this board meets during the day. So you could say it's noon as your, as your cap, for example. So, so we did talk about that, talk about this last meeting. Did the commission not feel comfortable with the limitations? So we're going kind of against what they want. They basically just sent back to back exactly the way they gave it to the first time. One of the concerns that exists with this option is that the way that the rest of the code is written right now and part of the impetus for earlier changes that was made to the DRB rules was that it now allows for an item to immediately go back to the administration after initial DRB review. So those items could potentially just be kicked off because the applicants have this right now to proceed without DRB comments after, you know, after one meeting. And so it creates that additional wrinkle and it's not clear, you know, this already went the first reading. It's part of the impetus for coming back to you with saying, we need a little more guidance from you as to what your recommendation is. Could potentially an applicant job our system? In other words, intentionally make sure that they aren't gonna get heard within the amount of time because they look at an agenda and say, wow, full agenda. I'm going to sign up for today because, you know, in theory, I think in theory that's a possibility. Yeah. Yeah. Good mic. Yeah. Yeah, there. Surami Kareida, development. I'm going to go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead nice discuss it with the attorneys really would go against what the commission was trying to achieve by making these changes. So that's why we didn't put it in. If you want us to write it in our memo that you feel very strong about it, that's fine, but I just think that it's contrary to what the, what the reason was that they were trying to, you know, change this legislation. So. It makes sense. I mean, the other part of it is that without a time limit, it would seem to me that that that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I meeting along when they feel that that's it's exhausted and there's no more Nothing that they're contributing at this point. They're just wasting time. So I mean in reality is the chairs Almost responsibility to make sure that the meeting moves along as it should and not all projects need the same amount of time Right, so I think that basically this is just an issue that it's not worth putting into the legislation. It's contrary to what the objectives were of the commission and in honesty, the chair should be able to handle that. In through the chair, as the chair of this board, I would say that we've had private running a diligent and efficient meeting. I also know I won't always be the chair and this is why I bring it up. I have seen the filibuster happen and the long drawn out meeting going into four or five hours. I believe for, I was leave our current chair of the board here, has lived through some that as well. And that's why the idea of this was brought up. But hearing all's opinions, I understand we're on record as having recommended it. And so I'll go ahead and move the item. Oh. There's other board members. I mean, it's a second and then we can open up for discussion, but Anyone else have comments? Is there a second? Okay, so if the whole intent is to make this more open to the citizens, I think a The meeting should be publicly noticed, which it isn't Right and be they should make it an afternoon or evening meeting. Because a lot of people work, right? And they don't necessarily have time to get online and participate in a meeting if they're at work. And that board, unlike our board, that makes recommendations actually can take action on an application and direct the applicant to make changes, which this board really can't, that we make recommendations, and then the commission may or may not accept them at the end of the day. So if the intent is to make it more open to our residents and letting them have input, a lot of the issues that come up before us are going to come up when they talk about the building and whether it's too close to the street or whether it's too high. Those are issues that are seen at the design review board. But unless they go online and see what the meeting is, they don't know. They can't go and talk about these issues. So my recommendation would be push it to the evening and publicly notice it. And go with the recommendation. And everything else is exactly the same. And twice a month. Yeah. I agree. Danny, somebody made a motion before that. Well, he moved it. Nobody's second. I'm sorry. Okay. Yeah. I asked. And nobody's second. So. So what So what do we do next? So I mean I'm making some recommendations if someone wants to make a motion. I was forget whether the church make motions or not. Can I turn it? I would make a motion. I don't think they can. No they can. Yeah, I would make a motion as Gus outlined with those changes as proposed. second that.. Xavier. OK. OK. I agree. One point of clarification on that motion. I'm pulling up the code now. I don't know that it's in the code that you must meet in the afternoons. I don't know that we have that. I'm looking through the item and I didn't see a time that is set within the item. I guess that I don't know who sets a time. Is that manager? It's a time. You're referring to the staff report. The staff report. I'm talking about to the actual meeting. Yeah, the staff report lists as an option setting at a time. But I don't know that the code actually says, and that's what I'm looking up right now, that you must meet at their current time, which I think is 9 a.m. Right. Right? I don't know the code actually says, and that's what I'm looking up right now, that you must meet at their current time, which I think is 9 a.m. Right? Right? I don't know that the code actually says you must meet at 9 a.m. It just says you must meet. So my point to you is we don't need to codify necessarily that they're going to meet in the evenings unless that's your preference. We can say, from now on, we're going meeting the evenings and it's in the code. Is this meeting in the code as an evening meeting? The planning review. that's your preference. We can say from now on we're going to meet in the evenings and it's in the code. Is this meeting in the code as an evening meeting the planning review board or is it again just up to staff? I am checking the code for that because frankly it's never occurred to me to check whether we have a specific hour specified and Mark is if you happen to know how this now. And I thought, oh, I'm And I thought all of the impression that all meetings had to be publicly noticed. It talks about posting the agenda. Yeah. Through the chair while they're looking through that. Yeah. I liked to also hear from staff on the burden that this might cause. Whether it's a morning meeting or an afternoon meeting, I mean, at least I just said my schedule. I don't know about everybody else in service on the board. But I do know that we often have our meeting the same day as the commission meeting, which is also in the evening. And so whether it's facilities, technology, or available staff, I don't know what burden that would place on our team and our city. That's a valid point. The planning board, with respect to the code, the planning board does actually say you shall meet no earlier than 6 PM and no later than 8 PM on the second Tuesday. I'm looking for the design review board's rule now. And if they could turn the camera back to the board instead of the chairs, I would appreciate it, please. You're getting bored out there, Michelle. I have a question in. Need to see some faces, please. Thank you. I see you clear, Michelle. I see you. I have a quick question here in page. I don't know if it's page four or the other page, but section two, a one, it says hold two regular meetings on the third Tuesday of each month. But when would the second, with the two meetings occur on the same Tuesday? Because it only says Tuesday, but there's two meetings. Yes, it'd be on two different Tuesdays. Well, I think it's because they added the language to, but yeah. But then it says on the third Tuesday, so it's one day that there's only one one third Tuesday. Yes, it should state the first and third Tuesday. Okay, okay. That's what was, what the intent was. That's a definite change we have to make. Okay, now I was just confused. I didn't think. Yeah. So yes, so. So Commissioner, I'm sorry, Chairman. Yeah, we, that's not an issue we can specify the time. You're right, it does specify a time. That said, Mr. Garibunga brings a good point. Now we could change the date as well that's you know if that works for the administration we can cater the motion to specify a date you know an evening date that works with respect to all the other meetings that we that the city has so maybe we don't do every other Tuesday, we do every Wednesday. And the Wednesday. Can we do some piece of this as strictly as a recommendation? So approve it for all the features on the evening, on the evening, verse nine evening, that we allow some discretion, either as prescribed by the commission or by the chair of the committee, working with the members of the committee as well as staff so that we are volunteers. So it would be nice to provide some latitude. And while I don't know whether the employees get paid overtime when they attend these things in the evening, I'm guessing probably not. That, you know, let's do some fair. So maybe you do it at five some time. I don't know. I think five is reasonable. People can get out of work early. It's just, you know, I mean, I've been in these meetings and they'll start at nine and they'll go to 11. Yeah. You know, I get it. I mean, I understand that it's not going to get out of the morning or even the early afternoon. So maybe just how would we word that death? Some sort of. So the recommendation would be 5 p.m. every other Wednesday with regards to that. As a recommendation and then the commission decided to want to do or not. And then I think the issue is, yes, it is, it is posted in our agenda. But this meeting that we hold, is this meeting noticed? Yes, yes, as advertised in the Miami- Yeah, see the design review boards are not ever. They're just they're just putting the the the logic behind the notices for the design review board is that the design review board's really intended for the applicants purposes. It's not necessarily a meeting for all of the public. It's not a matter of public importance necessarily, whether the home is painted one color or another color, or has one design feature, a different design feature. Generally speaking, the board is not approving number of stories or density or anything like that. That's approved by code, strictly by code. Now, when I was on the board, we did reject plans because they were just ugly. I mean, I mean, it didn't meet the character of the neighborhood. Yes. Okay. So, and that's where a resident could voice their opinion with regards to a story and then the board can decide what they want to do. Understood. the intent is just for the applicant and not necessarily for public input, then I think it should be for public input having sat on that board. And like Mr. Garros said, depending on the chair because I was on the board with multiple chairs. Yeah. Mr. Garros is very good. I've been with a chair just sits there. Yeah. And it goes and it goes and it goes and it goes. And eventually I just have to drop off. Right. You know, because it's at the discretion of the chair. So any motions? Or we want to just pass it. I think you had a J had a motion. Jay R had a second and then Christina came in with what I think is a friendly amendment to specifying the ordinance that we have to call out the two dates, not just the one Tuesday or Wednesday if it should change. Yeah. So I want to do another recommendation. Through the chair, just for clarification, I think there was also, I don't know if it's a friendly amendment or just a suggestion. Something about the five o'clock. I will say that due to the you know the R city becoming an adult with me, five o'clock's a tough hour to transition through one one side town to the other. So I don't know that I would recommend any of our boards meeting at five o'clock, just because a lot of us do work and that's a tough time to spend a lot of time in the car. So are you meeting in person because the years I was honored, everything was virtual? So that's an interesting point. Since COVID went virtual, it has since it was brought up to vote it back to in person. And then it was left as virtual and that has not changed. Should that change? I think five o'clock will be a burden, but nonetheless, five o'clock, maybe the hour you're transitioning to either pick up your children or do something. I just think it's a tough time to get volunteers to serve on a board. What I think is valuable about the 830 in the morning is that you can get it done and get it out of the way before your day starts as long as you can control the end time. To me this is something that the chair ought to be able to work out with the members of the community as well as staff. And so I would suggest that we provide the chair discretion, or we would recommend the chair do a better job of putting the meeting more convenient for the majority of the people participating. Yeah. Is that is that currently an allowable is the judge that I only asked because I agree with you. Uh, Jake. participating. Is that is that currently an allowable is a judge I only ask because I agree with you. J m m m but if it's currently allowable and I just don't know that we need to add any color to it. How how often see my only concern is if you leave it up to the chair, how often would he be able to change the time? Because you also don't want to have meetings one day at one. Yeah, and you'd like to be able to plan for it. I would agree. There has to be some kind of limitation or a plan where you say, well, once every quarter, once, twice a year, I don't know, something that, you know, you don't have, you need the public needs to have some consistency and have an expectation that there's going to be a meeting, you know, every third Wednesday, second Tuesday, at a certain time. But if you're switching it every month that's a problem. I don't know the I don't know that we have to legislate it to start with and the second part would be is it all right so split it you know allow the chair to you know to work with all the participants to schedule for one morning and one evening so the first you know you know, the first Tuesday's morning because it is gonna conflict with the commission meeting, right? Right. And first, so the first Monday is a morning and the first Tuesday's a morning and the third Tuesday, I don't know if that conflicts with the commission too. So, good. Let me be clear, the code doesn't specify a time for it with DRB you could just leave it alone. I need that to the chair. In the administration to figure out the appropriate. But it does specify Tuesday. Yeah, it does say Thursday, which is, that's the same day as commission. So it can be a different Tuesday. You could do the second and fourth Tuesdays and keep it a Tuesday. I don't know if that works. Can't be a second, because that would be. That would be today. Yeah. Right. Right. But you get what I'm saying. Yeah. The code specifies a date. It doesn't specify a time. So we can be silent on time. Yeah. And need that to the board to the administration as well, based on the availability of this room, etc. So don't be. So I don't know if we have such a big problem that we need to like get so into this. The original concern of the commission was that projects were being delayed because if they if they weren't heard at the meeting that they would be sent to the next month. That's actually not the case. So I spoke to them after the fact and said, you know, it actually moves forward with my recommendation. It does not get delayed. So I don't know that there's such a big problem here. It's almost like it got started with some misinformation. And the idea was always just to not delay the applicants. Not more resident input, which is always a great thing, the resident input, but these meetings are also on Zoom, so residents could provide input, you know, we assume. And I'm just not sure we have like a big problem to be like making a lot of these big changes. I don't think it's necessary, honestly. Through the chair, I agree with the planning director. She's 100% right in the misunderstanding. And I would say that the, there's not a really big problem. The only two challenges we have is making sure that the meeting doesn't overrun its time or take all day and that we can receive more applicants or volunteers that are willing to serve because they know they're not gonna be stuck there all day. So this, I think everything's run pretty well. Before you got, just got it, just if we don't need to make a change, if there's miscommunication or misinformation, such as the times we live in, do we need to be even considering this at all? So the part that we really do need to be considering is having a quorum. That is what the issue that we've been having with that board, which is what's in front of you now. That has been an issue because even though the project does not get delayed and it moves forward with my recommendation, it's better that the project does get reviewed by that board. And when there's no quorum, it can't be reviewed. So that's really that the problem that really does exist with that board at this time. So which of this do you think solves the core issue? That we've reduced the number of members. So that's really what's so my question is have we asked the members why they don't go? Is it because the time? Is it because it's in the morning? I mean, we're just making an assumption that we leave it in the morning and that'll reduce it and that'll solve the problem. Through the Chair, the feedback that I've gotten has been specifically that the time commitment due to the amount of time it's extended or the fact that it's just uncertain how much is going to consume So a lot of professionals have not wanted to commit. So I don't know of the members that don't show if they're the professionals or if they're just residents. I am pretty certain that architects and landscape architects are consistently present at the meetings. That correct, correct, Marcus? Yes, it is correct. We have, there were some residents that were on the board that were very inconsistent and showing up. So those seats need to be replaced. Kick them off. But the three main members that show up are was born in Rigaida. we had a board member a court out and we had one resident that was show up if you're pretty consistent mean then we also had one architect that was show up everybody else you know yeah and yeah and and when I learned of this we did notify the clerk and we did remove the members from the board. So historically, that wasn't done. There was no real punishment for not showing up. So it wasn't fair to the members that are there consistently put in their time. So I don't think that this is going to be as much as a problem moving forward. I do think that reducing the number of members required is not going to be detrimental to this board or to what they're doing, but it will meet the objectives for the commission, which is to make it easier to establish a quorum. And like I said, I don't think that we had an issue with the professionals on the board. They're very consistently present. I can tell you that I left many a meeting because I had to work. Yeah. And when the meeting is going beyond two hours, so that's why I wanted to get off that board. I would not serve on that board. Okay. Can I suggest also though that the fact that you have two meetings now, the other thing that this ordinance is. We have two meetings when I was on the board. It's basically. Mr. Guarads, we had a good job of running the meeting. Yeah. We had a chair that just sat there. Yeah. And the meeting went and went and went. Right. And it's a shame to have to make a change to the legislation because of a chair that wasn't controlling the meeting. I really don't feel and it's what I told the attorney. I don't really feel that we should make a change to something just because somebody isn't doing what they're supposed to be doing. So the commission has a time certain. Why can't this board have a time certain of two hours? It can. I just think that it's contrary to the object of the commission which is to make it so that more projects get heard and not fewer. And I'm not sure that it benefits the community to rush through projects that maybe do deserve more time. I think that's a big thing. If you have a good chair, I don't think this should be a problem. Yeah, I think those two statements are in conflict though. If we're saying the objective is to hear more, but at the same time we can can't achieve a forum because the meetings are running too long. I think we have to pick one or the other, or I don't know. Is there a legal minimum requirement for the number of members or the number of a forum? Is it a number of members? No. Forum, yes. Just has to be a majority or a number. Core must be a majority. Right. That's why we had to reduce the number of members because we can't make the forum three if we have a nine member. But then we're also putting all our eggs in one basket too, because now less people, like you said, they have the ability to stop projects. I mean, now less people are in control of that. And at the same time, if one of them gets sick, there's no opportunity now for somebody to show. Well, they don't have the ability to stop a project. The project moves forward with my recommendation. That has always been the case. That is still the case today. That was the case before the sever even became an issue. Correct. The only thing is is that there's a benefit for us to have been heard by that board I said it just go in my recommendation. So why aren't these guys advisory too? I mean, that strikes me as illogical, that you can move it forward without their approval. If that's the case, they're advisory. You can't limit. Can I make a motion? Let me make them advisory. They sound like they're already advisory. In the great, they are advisory. And I think in every case great they are advisory and I think in every case their advisory I think we are advisory for sure we are advisory But they are not it didn't used to be advisory When I was on it we have made them advisory for single family I believe that they're only not advisory for commercial projects. Okay. Can you just give it to that too? I mean that's not what this ordinance is about. We can make that recommendation to the commission and the administration to look into that. But, so, Rami, could you move forward a commercial project too if they didn't have a quorum and that was going to cause it to sit. I don't know if there's any prohibition to the project moving forward and having to go with a recommendation from that board. I'll tell you what it is. Yeah, I'm telling you a moment. And you can't have some kind of agreement or pre-arrangement regarding the amount of time allocated for each project. Where maybe when you create this agenda, there's some kind of understanding that. Yes, and that is entirely within the chair's power. It's also within the administration's power. You can specify, look, I'm going to give each speaker two minutes. Each person speaks for two minutes. They're most important points. And then suddenly you've got a very short meeting. Some projects clearly need more than two minutes and the chair has at discretion under parliamentary rules to provide a little additional time. So I sit on the urban development view board. We have three hours. Yeah. We can't extend because there's another meeting after. Right. We've had nine projects. The board is aware that there's nine projects. The presenters are where there's nine projects and everybody works in this and gets it done. Because we have, excuse me, because we have those three hours. If we didn't have those three hours, that meeting will last six. Easily. Yeah. Because the presenters will go long, the board will go long. So it helps move the meeting along. It doesn't take away from the presentation. It doesn't take away from the applicant. It doesn't take away from the review. It just makes people conscious of time. If you don't have a time certain, there is no conscious of time. Then it's all relying on the chair. I didn't hear the board that you have mentioned. The UDRB city of Miami. I'm sure we're out of time on this topic. Basically the commission basically push it back to us saying we want it just the way it is. There is a motion with a second. I recommend that you go it. I recommend that I can recommend that you make go on to a vote. I do recommend that but I just want some clarity on what the motion is. The motion was Jay. I remember that it was to do it a five and to I think we're gonna take that off though. I do. Probably notice it but. What what what I would suggest, I hear if the make of the motion wants to hear a suggestion, we can set it up in a manner similar to the planning board. The planning board's provisions currently say you'll meet no earlier than six and no later than eight. And that creates a window of time when they'll meet. And that would be my suggestion. We could do something similar. Absolutely. And at the chairman's discretion, if there needs to be a meeting held on a morning that they need to work with their committee to make sure it's gonna be attended well enough to get something done. Yes. That's a pretty easy call. Through the chair, I would urge this body to refer the motion back to as presented, just because currently the option of changing the time exists, the option of modifying some of the items that I've been added to that motion were already available. And I would agree with the direct planning director. We may be overthinking it, trying to make it so perfect. And like you said, as long as we have a strong chair, we could get through the items. We just need to plan on nominating folks to that board that can continue to be strong chairs, because there is a one-year chair limitation. So the applicant, in my opinion, needs to pull it if they don't want us to vote on it. I mean, that's to be the obvious answer. Maybe it's the same. So real quickly, I'm not gonna- But what I'm saying is's it's it's it's a man the motion to a call the vote as a man as presented. We're just simply adding the second meeting. Reducing the number of people. Reducing the number of people. Okay. That's what I said. And which you withdraw your motion and make a new one day. Modifying it. To be those two pieces right there. Okay. And one pit of housekeeping, Christina had a good point. We have to state the two dates, the first and the third. Yeah. So we'll do that also. Yeah. Okay. I understand the motion. So just to be clear, the motion is to approve with the condition that the board is increased to have two meetings a month. I guess the first and third or whatever dates there are determined and lower the quorum. The number of members down to five. So you have a quorum of three. Out of three? Those are your down to six I thought. But was it five? No, five. Okay, five with two alternatives, but I mean, nobody wants that job. Well, you can't plan your life as an alternate. Yeah, if I was an alternate and I have a calendar, I'm booked at Tuesday, somebody called me the last minute. Sorry, I'm already booked. Danny summed it up the right way, which is kind of the right people on there. So that's it. Okay, motion second. Is there a vote? Yeah. Chair? Vote, Christina? Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. OK. Motion passes. Next item. One of my favorite topics that I used to hate in a desire report. Solar panels. So item number two is PB-2025-003. In order to the city commission of the city of South Miami, Florida providing for more time on the enforcement of section 3.6 W of the city's non-development code relating to residential requirements for solar photovoltaic systems providing for vest rights, providing for a term, providing for implementation, severability, conflicts, corrections, and an effective date. So just a little background on this section. On July 18th of 2017, the City Commission adopted ordinance number 14-17-2284. for a many of the city I'm ending the city's non-development code to create the section 20, that's 3.6 W, which was the solar panel requirement. When that required the installation solar, solar photo will take systems for all new construction, substantial alterations or additions to single family residential buildings. Excuse me. Town Homes and multi-story residential buildings. Later on, a second amendment was made by the commission in July of 2021 that created the solar trust fund and the ability to pay into that fund and move of installing those solar panels. The commission reviewed the solar panel regulations and found that they imposed FISCO and economic burdens on property owners who were looking to either build new residential structures or improve their existing structures. Because of that, the commission wishes to enact a more torrent on the enforcement of the regulations so that they can study and analyze those regulations, not to implement comprehensive revisions that better address sustainability goals with a lesser economic burden. When reviewing the ordinance, the moratorium will establish and will prevent the enforcement of the section 20 to 3.6 W. While in effect, any person that one has an active building permit application on the effective data of the moratorium ordinance two has an active building permit on the effective data of the moratorium that twice or three submits and application four or obtained a building permit during the time that this moratorium ordinance is an effect that's specified in the ordinance and that's maybe further extended by that by this ordinance shall be exempt from the rate requirements of section 223.6W. Through and this will go through the acquisition of a certificate of occupancy. A lemon of six months will be set for the moratorium that will commence at the start of the effect date and will automatically dissolve upon the adoption of an ordinance that either amends or deletes the section from the LDC in connection with the purposes of this ordinance. The commission will also have the ability to dissolve the moratorium earlier if necessary and if time is needed the commission will I have the ability to dissolve the moratorium earlier if necessary. And if time is needed, the commission will have the ability to extend the moratorium as well. That said, staff is recommending approval of the ordinance. Thank you. I see no one in the audience. I see no one online. Board comments. I like it. I can tell you I like it. There's nothing worse than putting more holes on your roof for water I get through. I give them a year to figure it out. Yeah. Yeah. And the other issue is there are actually some insurance companies that want to ensure your house because of solar panels because they present wind uplift. That would be my question to staff is six months enough. Yes. OK. Yeah, but they haven't been able to extend it anyway. Yeah, yeah. So they can extend it. So yeah, if anything, the commission does have the ability to extend it as well. We have a motion to prove. We have a draft of another ordinance already, you know, to look at passive measures and an incentive type program that doesn't include solar but a lot of other things that promote green building design. I'm curious. What is the city doing with the fund that people paid into when they didn't do the solar panels? There is nothing. It was never enforced. It was never enforced. No. So if someone chose not to put solar panels in their house when they got their permit, because they're paying to a fund, you're saying they never paid? Correct. Okay. Yeah. That's part of a bigger issue that has submitted a report to the city manager and the commission is aware of what's happened and we're still dealing with that portion of it all. You looking for a motion? Yes. I make a motion. I have a question. I'm sorry. Yeah. It says here that on the effective date of the ordinance, if you have an open permit application, that's not important. It's not a force. But if that's six months expires and you still have that permit open. Does it kick back in? No. That's it. You are exempt. You're exempt. You are okay. No matter what happens with the ordinance. Correct. Oh, from what I'm hearing people I'm doing in a... Right. This is... This apparently doesn't matter. Yeah. So... So there's a motion. Yeah. I second. Christina. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Online. Yes. Yes. All right. We see you, Michelle. Are you interested? Yes. I'm sorry. I'm saying we see you. Oh, hi. You're concerned about seeing us. We are. Okay. Thank you. Last word of business is the approval of the meeting minutes of Tuesday, March 11th. Do I have any comments on the meeting minutes? Marcus, an item number. I guess it would the item number three. On the minutes. Item number three on the minutes there. LPA the ordinance. I don't see any. I forgot to put the item was deferred. So I got to put the little tag in a mark across that was in the agenda. Got it. That says that the item. Because you can look at the. Okay, so we're going to amend the meeting minutes that I didn't know what And the three is deferred. Yeah, yeah, I'm good. I did that. Motion. So I have a second. Motion to be made in second, the with striking item number three is being deferred. OK, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? OK, any other new business board members? Anybody want to bring up anything. Daniel was this is exciting. I'm excited as I thought. I'm being sure, you know, we had a hearing how it works. Uh, you know, a little bit excited to be a part of it. Yeah, not gonna lie, but, um, yeah, you'll be hearing much more of me. Uh, moving forward. Well, it's nice to have meetings like this because some of them aren't like this. No, I could imagine. Sure, we don't want to talk about the DRB anymore. Welcome to the team Daniel. Thanks Daniel. But that being said... Well, it's nice to have meetings like this because some of them aren't like this. No, I could imagine Welcome to the team Daniel With that being said meeting is adjourned These conditions. What's up? you you you