The central issue of the meeting was the proposed Dune Apartments project, which has stirred considerable opposition from Los Mangos residents. The project involves the construction of a 298-unit apartment complex on a 2.98-acre lot. Residents argue that the development, described as a “450,000 square foot monster,” would severely affect their neighborhood’s safety, privacy, and property values. A resident, Dave Patterson, president of the Los Mingos Property Owners Association, labeled the project as “reckless and dangerous” and urged city intervention to prevent buildings from exceeding 45 feet in height. Patterson’s concerns were echoed by other residents who demanded “meaningful setbacks” from residential properties and better communication between the city, developers, and citizens.

The Los Mangos community expressed frustration over what they perceived as unequal treatment compared to other developments, such as the Seacrest Sound project, where developers had engaged with neighbors. Francis Saunders pointed out the lack of communication from the city, questioning why constituents weren’t informed about developments that directly affect their neighborhood. Ben Ali criticized the project’s proposed height, arguing that it would exceed the maximum height limit due to its proximity to the Avalon Riverwalk. Ali asserted that the development did not comply with the spirit of the law intended to promote affordable housing without disrupting low-density single-family neighborhoods.

Concerns over the suitability of the Dune project for families were raised by Michael Salvatoreus, who questioned how the development could accommodate families when the majority of units were one-bedroom. Liz White, a former resident, warned of the long-term repercussions of allowing such developments under the Live Local Act.

The discussion also touched on the legal constraints imposed by the Live Local Act, which limits local control over zoning laws, particularly for mixed-use developments with affordable housing units. The City Attorney explained that the law allows developers to bypass local zoning codes, creating a by-right approval process that prevents cities from denying compliant projects. This has heightened resident anxiety, as it limits the Commission’s ability to control development density and height.

Residents like Susan Oyer and Sueson Hoyer voiced their opposition to potential budget cuts to the city’s arts programs, emphasizing the cultural and educational benefits these programs provide. The Commission discussed a proposed ordinance related to the public art fund, with a proposal to reduce the fee allocation from 70% to 60% for contributions to the public art fund or for constructing public art. Despite opposition from some residents who feared this could undermine the quality and availability of public art, the ordinance was approved on a 3-1 vote.

Public safety improvements were also a focal point, with updates from the Fire Chief on various initiatives, including the introduction of a new station alerting system to expedite response times and the acquisition of a new fire boat for water rescue operations. These efforts aim to enhance the department’s capabilities and address increasing call volumes.

The Commission additionally explored the need for updating local ordinances, recognizing the importance of community involvement in identifying outdated or problematic codes. A workshop was proposed to facilitate dialogue with residents. The Mayor emphasized the urgency of this task, particularly in light of changes in state law regarding electric vehicle charging stations and other code requirements.

The meeting concluded with discussions on campaign-related matters, including candidate filing fees and sign bond fees. The Mayor suggested increasing the filing fee to $125 and the sign bond fee to $500, citing the need for greater candidate commitment. The conversation also introduced the idea of establishing a charter review committee to modernize outdated provisions and address quality of life issues, with the commission agreeing on the necessity of this review process.