##VIDEO ID:wN_1DYODvyU## [Music] [Music] if you are here to present on an item today and have a presentation please go to the podium to ensure that your presentation has been received [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] n [Music] [Music] [Music] n n [Music] oh [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] please take your seats the meeting is about to begin remember to speak into the microphone as this meeting is being recorded for public record please stand by we are going on air in 5 4 3 2 [Music] 1 good afternoon and welcome to the October 14th meeting of the land use and sustainability committee uh Mr attorney let's do a roll call good morning Mr chairman I'll call the role commissioner Dominguez hi president commissioner Suarez I'm here Vice chair bot hello and chairman Fernandez present aquarum is present with that Mr attorney let's read the virtual meeting participation announcements today's meeting of the land use and sustainability committee will be conducted in a hybrid format with members of the committee physically present in the commission Chambers and staff and members of the public appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom to participate virtually the public may dial 1888 475 4499 and enter the webinar ID which is 85599 2337 pound or log into the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID which again is 8505 9923 037 anyone wishing to speak on an item must click the raise hand icon in the Zoom app or dial star9 if they're participating by phone thank you Mr attorney Mr director are there any changes withdrawals referrals on today's agenda yes uh Mr chair item number two which is the item on possible legisl regarding the future sale of um can cannabis and advertising if recreational use is legalized by Florida voters in November is being deferred to a future date and item number 11 regarding potential amendments to the Land Development regulations of the city code uh regarding allowable uses and development regulations within the 40th Street residential single family overlay applicable only to religious institutions is also being deferred to a future date uh and if there's some I'll I'll move the agenda and on the agenda I'll recognize commissioner Bon um on the um the Cannabis advertising is should it Nick should it be open and continued or should we defer with no date assigned what's the best way to proceed I would recommend deferring it to uh Tom is the is the date of the November meeting after the yes the November meeting is November 25th so I would recommend deferring it to November 2 if we need more time we could ask for another defer to a specific time yeah I'll note defer to date certain of November 25th that way it's after the election so with that um item number two commissioner bod which you are sponsoring is being deferred to November 25th and item number 11 uh relating to the 40th Street religious overlay is being deferred as well with that uh the it the motion there's a motion on the table to to approve the agenda there a second a second that with that the agenda is set um Mr director let's call item number one okay item number one is an ordinance pertaining to entertainment and Supper Club regulations commissioner Suarez this is your item your recogniz your percent thank you Mr chair uh Tom I think you went back and you modified this um this item uh with the input of my colleagues you mind um summarizing has been done the uh item this ordinance was approved by the city commission at first reading on September 11th of 2024 as part of that approval at uh first reading the commission um uh asked for four changes um the first two were the inclusion of two applicability sections um and those have been uh included in the draft ordinance revised draft ordinance for second reading the third was a clarification pertaining to the existing prohibition of entertainment uses in the Sunset Harbor neighborhood um that clarification is also included in the draft ordinance and then the fourth was a um an amendment along Washington Avenue to create a geographic boundary that would allow for an exception to the Supper Club regulations for 5:00 a.m. establishments and that Geographic boundary has been established on the east side of Washington Avenue from 8th Street to 14th Street additionally subsequent to the commission meeting an additional applicability section was requested to be added and this one would read as follows this ordinance shall not apply to properties fronting on Lincoln Road where there is an active land use board application with the hearing file number obtained prior to July 30th 2024 and where the proposed Patron occupancy load of the venue does not exceed 199 persons thank you Tom um you know I I want to reiterate what happened over this past weekend I don't know if you guys have saw but there was a stabbing at one of these nightclubs and I believe the victim has died um and I think I think we've had enough I I think this is a wakeup call finally where we need to really change the direction of what our city wants to be in the next 10 20 years I think the status quo is deadly as seen this past weekend and I think we want to usher in a new new style of entertainment that is is going to be beneficial for not only our residents but our our guests to the city and so I'm hopeful that with these modifications uh we can move this item to the commission meeting commissioner B your recogniz um separate from from tangentially related but separate from the bigger issue on a on a more immediate level Tom are we not able to um bring this this nightclub to the planning board to modify their cup I mean this is not the first time that things are happening there and and for the record this is the Nightclub at 15th in Washington without naming names but it's at 15th in Washington and it just seems really problematic that once again we have Bad actors spoiling it for the entire business I mean there's some businesses that have been operation for 30 years with not a single incident and then these guys are you know my understanding is that if it's the nightclub uh at 15th in Washington they do not have a cup uh they were approved and permitted before the cup regulations current cup regulations went into effect and so because they do not have a cup the planning board do not technically have so but on that Mr attorney is there any review being done uh and or can any review be done as to um their BTR if if if there are deaths happening outside dis establishment as a result of the business activity that is occurring at this establishment can a review be done uh by the proper authority of their licenses besides acup Mr chairman that's something we can certainly look at the code does uh provide very specific criteria of when a BTR for an establishment can be suspended or or revoked um and and and that's something we can we can certainly look at the man it's the the the author the authority to do that rest with the manager um but you know it' be a good idea for for code police um and maybe other members of the administration to get together on this be happy to yeah if I if I may I mean any any loss of life um tend gential to or you know attached to a particular business is one too many now we're up to three I don't I don't even remember but it that's it's just not okay we have a bad actor as a business and we need to if we don't have um the recourse of a cup we need to move all of our resources to end this nuisance business and and I think the message needs to be put out there if you are engaging in a business practice in activity bringing in promoters or performers who are attracting violence and illegal activities whether it's going on inside your establishment or out in the public ride of ways you have a responsibility to get your act together and when you don't we have a responsibility to keep our city safe we have a responsibility to keep our residents safe we have a responsibility to keep our visitors safe and if you don't get your act together we'll get it together for you is we cannot continue to have a Bloodshed of innocent lives in our community because of a handful of of Bad Bad actors who are spoiling the fun for everyone else just one more thought on this um isn't there something on the books about um entertainment venues needing to let our Police Department know who they're bringing in as high priority high profile guests yes was that the case this weekend where was a high-profile performer that well that's that's uh handled by the Intelligence Division of the police department and I I would say we would have to defer that to to them and I don't think they probably were expecting this conversation here right today but commission but uh yeah and I think it's voluntary I don't think it's uh mandatory it it is mandat I I think it is mandatory but the notifying the the city if they're anticipating a major performer who's going to put on an event attracting a crowd that is mandatory it is mandatory and uh and the police department through its intelligence uh division uh reviews uh those those performers and engages in conversation with the venue if there are concerns with those and they can comply with the regulations and they might be submitting that to the city and even if they are and there's still deaths going on there something has to be done and we have a responsibility it's a governmental entity to uphold the safety if we're having to pass regulations that are going to applied uh in our city because of the bad business practices of a few we owe it to the good actors that we hold responsible those who are attracting problems to to our City Commissioner Suarez I commend you for this uh legislation for trying to find middle ground on on on areas that perhaps uh should be excluded uh from this legislation and uh and trying to to improve the area the only thing I would suggest is as it applies to the um as it applies to the applicability Clause I see we've got the applicability clause for Lincoln Road for active um active applications on Lincoln Road for up to 199 people I would just say if we really do want to bring this type of establishment to the city that UPS our game I would just in general on the regulations I would just change it from requiring a cup when you hit 125 people just a general regulation that once you reach the 199 person Threshold at that point you need to get the cup just so that it's kind of more across the board um so that so that so that we make it easy uh for this type of establishment to exist in in the city that way it's more uniform so that Lincoln Road is not the exception but more of the practice that once you hit that 199 threshold that then uh the cup applies I'm okay with that Mr director are you okay with that yeah the the current threshold is 199 and so what they were seeking an exception from was the proposal to lower that to 125 so we could take out the 125 and just leave it at the current threshold of 199 because what we want I mean and and and I don't want to speak for the sponsor so correct me if if I'm wrong commissioner Suarez but I believe your intent is to encourage this type of use in our city and I don't want us a having a lower lower threshold on this for the cup to discourage uh this type of activity because going through the cup process it is rigorous and it might hurt someone's business model having to go through that extra layer yeah um I I think that's a reasonable request okay all right with that are there members yes Tom and just to clarify Mr chair with that change we no longer need that applicability that I had read into the record because that particular business was less than 199 so by changing to 199 we'll make that change but we know longer that applicability because then what what's going to happen is that you might have somewhere else another business and then they'll want a a cup and then all of a sudden you'll have swiss cheese in uh in um in good policy and that's and that's what I want to avoid um with that are there members of the public wishing to speak on this item if you're on Zoom please please raise your hand if you're in person please approach the podium I'll state your name for the record and you'll have two minutes to speak welcome uh Mr chair thank you so much my name is Paul Savage with LA offices at 200 South pisc Boulevard in Miami Florida I'm here representing the hwood group which is the operator of the nice guy restaurant which is proposed at 947 Lincoln Road at the corner of Michigan uh they're fronting Lincoln Road we are very excited this is a uh this is a property that has been vacant and boarded up for an excess of 5 years fronting Lincoln Road and uh and just very quickly I'm very proud of my client because they spent the time and money to go to the historic preservation board not once but twice we went in May on a non-binding preliminary evaluation and gave the whole presentation to allow them the opportunity and the luxury to uh opine on our plans on the front end and then recently just last week we got a unanimous vote of approval of our plan for the nice guy which we have an existing location in Los Angeles it's very exclusive I want to make sure that you know that we are the good guys uh we are not the Bad actors this is going to be a very high-end and exclusive restaurant with an exciting show kitchen and imported Italian pizza oven fronting Lincoln Road it's beautiful and we're so excited with all that said um my vice president is on Zoom he may or may not speak I think we're okay with this 199 we we are going to be going after exclusivity and a low uh occupancy load so with that amendment that the chair and the sponsor uh got went through uh I think we're good so thank you so much uh we are very excited to activate Lincoln Road and to bring this exciting venue uh and and get it going thank you Paul yes thank you Mitch novic uh welcome you have two minutes to speak please unmute yourself good morning everybody Mitch novic I like this leg legislation the only concern I have is the cup process and the allowance or uh the right for open air entertainment I believe that's a cancer on our community that gives everybody the green light to essentially turn it into a circus especially in my area I I would hope that uh in the future you'd focus in on the impact of B businesses which exploit the public realm with noise and dance performances uh on our street uh and that's my two sets thank you thank you Mitch and just uh let the record reflect that on that open air entertainment continues to require a cup uh is the current regulation it'll continue being the regulation after the adoption of this ordinance are there any other members of the public wishing to speak on this item seeing no hands on zoom and seeing no one approach the podium I'm going to close the public hearing on this item is there a motion on this item I'd like to move it I'll second the item uh Mr director this item uh will then transmit to the planning board no this item has been approved at first reading and it is scheduled to be considered uh for second reading adoption on October 30th and we will update the ordinance for second reading with the uh changes recommended by this committee all and I just want the record to reflect because there's a lot of misinformation out there this does not shut down existing nightclubs existing nightclubs remain a legal non-conforming use in perpetuity and an exception was made on Washington Avenue between which two streets again Mr director the uh east side of Washington Avenue from 8th Street to 14th Street between 8th to to 14th Street so so this it's truly a balance on the uh on the on the on the of the character of Miami Beach that we've been accustomed to historically but also in a step forward to help improve the image and the safety and the quality of our nightlife in Miami Beach thank you commissioner Suarez thank you uh with that Mr director let's call up item number three okay and and for the record this I'll show that as approved unanimously item number one item number three an amendment to the comprehensive a plan and resiliency code non-conforming building provisions and rm1 District regulations to allow the introduction of onside parking and residential uses within non-conforming Hotel uses on the north side of Bell Isle this was a door referral to the planning board commissioner Dominguez this is your item uh thank you so much so uh this item has been um in the works for quite some time and it is to remodel the east side of uh um The Standard Hotel uh to give it parking and to have some residential units in there as well and the developer has been in con constant contact with the neighborhood association and the two of them came up with a compromise and um I believe Michael Lin is here to talk more about it um yes thank you thank you commissioner uh Michael you're recognized thank you Mr chairman and board member staff Michael Larin T South B K Boulevard here represen The Standard Hotel uh the purpose of this legislation is three-fold as you all already mentioned first allow the inclusion of six residential units within the property number two it permits the aggregation of Ferry Lane one and two to be within the larger Standard Hotel property for the mere purpose of driveway circulation and the third is to reduce the automobile trip reduction that's already significant on the Venetian from 50% to 45% we have worked very hard with byra for the last year in order to obtain their support but we didn't stop there we reached out to the single family homeowners on fery Lane and Century Lane with fairy Lane at four fairy Lane we obtained a letter of support from Kim Martin at six and seven fairy Lane we obtained support from relli and Mr Katy at 10 faery Lane who also owns the rental building at 36 Island Avenue we obtained support from the edeline family at 14 faery Lane we obtained aort from the habad on Sentry Lane we have obtain support from Michael Sager at 8 Century Lane and the foxman family at 7 Century Lane and uh the owners of 12 Century Lane as well the standard is a gem this legislation will only improve it and the future Redevelopment will make it shine even brighter I have a whole presentation I could walk you through um but I refer not to I'm here to answer your questions and we respectfully request your approval of this legislation and transmittal to the planning board thank you thank you and and just just for the record this this does not touch the historic facade or anything like that of of the standard this actually helps preserve the beautiful historic elements uh that uh we love in our community of The Standard Hotel Mr chair yes and and commissioner Dominguez thank you for that because the uh the the standard is really one of the quality iconic establishments that we all love in Miami Beach and your legislation is helping Advance this preservation in a very responsible way uh commissioner Suarez you're recognized thank you Mr chair um Mr Lin how long have you been practicing law in Miami Beach land use 98 okay um are there any projects similar to this one where there's been a settlement agreement where you've personally brokered between a business owner and a Civic group um there were a couple recently with a friends of South Point Elementary where it was a settlement agreement and we gave them a certain amount of funds they've already used I just knew that last a few days ago they told me they used for a soccer field at South Point Elementary so that was a good use of the funds um much earlier wasn't with a Civic organization but typically sometimes private parties do approach you and say that they'll object unless you give them compensation that happened on Collins Avenue a long time ago um so every Project's a little bit different but with regard to a nonprofit group yeah we did enter into an agreement with the friends of Southway Elementary and I think it helped that elementary school a little bit would you say that this particular settlement agreement is contingent Upon A government [Music] approval I don't think it was worded like that okay well I assume you're familiar with the city's and counties prohibition on contingency fees as defined in our code correct right yeah um PJ can you pull up section 24853 the contingency fee okay let me read this to you um contingency fee prohibited yeah if you could resom in a little bit so people can read no person or entity no person or entity May in whole or in part give or agree to pay or give a contingency fee to another person no person may in whole or in part receive or agree to receive a contingency fee as used here in contingency fee means a fee bonus commission or non monetary benefit as compensation was which is dependent on any way or contingent on the passage defeat or modification of three parts an ordinance resolution action or decision of the city commission any action decision or recommendation of the city manager or any City border committee or any action decision or recommendation of City personnel During the period of time the entire decision-making process regarding such action decision recommendation which foreseeably will be heard reviewed by the city commission or a city board or committee so you could put you could end the slideshow uh PJ um do you have a copy of the settlement agreement here today no I do okay and I want to share with my cop with my colleagues and I have one copy for you pass it down would you like one Mr L there you go PJ now can you pull up the settlement agreement so that everyone can see please okay so here is a settlement agreement that was prepared by you um and I'd like to point out some serious concerns that I believe my colleagues should be aware of uh PJ if you can scroll to page 10 please okay yeah all right so this is the section of the stand this of the settlement agreement where the standard owner shall pay a total sum of $1.2 million to bura in the following three installments okay part part part a 30% within 15 days of execution which apparently has already been paid 30% of within 30 days of a final non-appealable approval of the development approvals defined by 30 days after rendition of a design review board order which has already happened approving the project or the effective date of proposed legislation whichever comes later and lastly 40% within 30 days of an issuance of a master building project in furtherance of the development approvals these payments shall be made to a nonprofit entity established by bua for physical quality of life and get this lifestyle and cultural improvements to B Isle as determined by the not for-profit entity established by bura you could put the slideshow down when I found out about this the reason I found out about this was because of uh the person in today Joe Fon during the drb meeting told me that there was a $1.2 million payout I couldn't believe it I I I looked her up I couldn't find her phone number I knocked on her door I went to her house and I knocked on her door you know I have serious concerns about the process we are witnessing here it seems that this $1.2 million payoff is being tied to how we and our committees vote on this project this raises serious ethical and dangerous commissioner I don't know what's happening on the outside but I'm not going to allow a Committee Member to say that something that we are not a party to is influencing anyone's vote up here so if you want to continue with your presentation continue but I but I'm not going to allow anyone to say that anything is influencing our decision making because this is the first that I'm hearing of this I have on my phone text messages being lobbied on this item it is 100% there is 100% a lobbying effort to pass this item and so now we have a situation where a new entity has been formed and payments are being made contingent Upon A government approval while I don't necessarily blame the business owner for this structure this feels like extortion I mean I mean guys what kind of precedent are we are we allowed to be set here by allowing a new business owner of Miami Beach to be shaken Down based on contingent deals for a million dollar so I'm if I just I just want us to be clear about something I just want us to be clear about something we have nonprofit organizations that have worked with private applicants in the past to get public benefits for their organizations the city has received public benefits as a result of projects that have been approved in the city the the park uh at Fifth and Alton was a public benefit as a result of a project that was approved in for the city but that was done through an open transparent process this settlement agreement government government is is subject to an open and transparent process byra is a neighborhood association and they're not subject to the same rules so I'm just I'm just providing Contex and I I I totally understand that but there is literally a law that prohibits a contingency fee and this is and the way this settlement agreement is structured is that it's contingent upon our approval there there is being a gamble a gamble is being made on how we and our committees vote on this project and I think that's highly disturbing and it's against the law and if you don't mind look I called the owner of the standard when I found out about this I called him and I go how do you how did you feel about this and he was upset he was livid he's like I didn't want to pay a dime and he said this is the first time he's worked in Miami Beach this is the first time he's met Michael lurin or did or did business with Michael lurin and at the whole time he felt like he was getting shaken down he also told me that this you know this undergrounding this uh this settlement agreement was supposedly to pay for undergrounding wires or sidewalk improvements but if that was the case that should have been that should have been a profer to the city by the by the business owner it shouldn't have been done through a backdoor deal bua doesn't own any property they're a neighborhood organization they they have sole discretion what what whatever they can do with this $1.2 million and so I find it highly disturbing that these deals are being made on the side for seven figures where it's dependent on how we vote you know look I I like this project I I I'm I I love the project I I like that we're enhancing the standard uh it's going to be beautiful I don't have a problem with the project per se and in fact if you look at that agreement most of the agreement covers really good quality of life stuff like Park uh noise hours of operation uh you know no special events it's it's great but it shouldn't cost 1.2 million I mean what seriously what kind of precedent are we setting here if we allow this commission uh to to go forward I mean let's wrap up because we have other Commissioners I want to be recognized including the sponsor of the item sure so public benefits are not anything nefarious or to be embarrassed about um Joe's neighbor is paying the city uh almost a million for their air rights agreements so public benefits happen all the time and to try to make this out to seem like it's something hidden or nefarious is wrong um and the community deserves to get undergrounding and deserves to get funds to pay for things that'll make Bell Isle better so um I'd like to continue with the item and see if we have the votes to pass it well thank thank you thank you Mr attorney and I'm glad the Inspector General is here because I just I I just need to know I need to have Clarity Mr attorney an ordinance was put on the screen explain to me that ordinance is I'm being head hid from left field with with with all of this information that I didn't have before um so explain to me this ordinance I'm happy to walk you through the ordinance before I do I just want to set the stage a little on on the kinds of settlement Arrangements that that that people enter into before a land use sport approval because parties are always encouraged to to settle um their potential objections to a project or or uh design changes that are requested or operational conditions for example the the park in North Beach that we're getting uh on on on um ocean terrorists well that's that's a different story so so what this code section deals with is is thirdparty Arrangements uh with with lobbyists or other individuals who are appearing before the city in support of or or in opposition to an item right so I just just focusing on on the sort of settlement agreements that that people enter into before projects are approved um often it's a matter of a simple conversation where a neighbor says you know can you move your driveway or can you shift a window so it doesn't look directly uh into my apartment right we see that you know we see those all the time we also see uh there are also agreements uh between neighboring property owners that we that we never see because we're not a party to them so so this one is is is I will say it's unusual in that we have a copy of it at all and we're able to see it um but but just taking all that into account um there is an exception from the definition of lobbyists for um for representatives of neighborhood associations who appear without any special compensation for that appearance however those individ ual are still required to register and are still subject to uh the provisions of this of of of our code of ethics right so um what the specific section States Mr chairman this is the question you asked me uh and this is section two- 4853 prohibiting contingency fees what the section States is no person or entity May in whole or in part pay give or agree to pay or give a contingency fee to another person no person may in whole or in part receive or agree to receive a contingency fee as used in the section contingency fee means a fee bonus commission or non-monetary benefit as compensation which is dependent on or in any way contingent on the passage to fee or modification of a number of City actions that commissioner Suarez walked you through right um so I think you know I the this provision is not implicated because a neighbor agreed to uh to changes to a project to operational conditions it's not even implicated because a neighbor agreed to uh or or a neighbor or developers agreed to pay um uh monetary payments to the neighborhood association but what would implicate the section just to be very clear what would implicate the section are pay ments that are contingent on the outcome of a city decision of a city approval so if the if the agreement addresses and I'd like PJ if you could to put it up again yep it says it right here with 30% within 30 days of the final unappealable approval of development approvals defined as 30 days after redition of the drb order approving the project or the effective date of proposed legislation right so that so that's that second payment and then and who and who is who is responsible to abide by the terms of this ordinance is it the applicant is the is it our residents like who who's responsible for that the the the code and just to be clear it's it's the second and the third payments that that would implicate this section but but the responsibility is on anyone who's appearing before the city right so it could apply to a lobbyist um it could apply to to an individual exempt from the definition of lobbyist but is otherwise required to register like a neighborhood association um frankly it says no person may give a contingency fee to another person it's written the code section is written very broadly now I will say that this section is within our code of ethics so it is subject to enforcement uh by the Miami day County Commission on ethics okay um you know I think we have to be very careful because I do I do think that neighborhood associations are independent entities they're not they're not part of the government they are neighbors who come together to look out for the best interest in a much more localize Way for their neighborhood and we all the time tell lobbyists to contact the neighborhood associations and and neighborhood associations look out for their for their best interest and and uh and they enter into into into these agreements and I think that the action that that that we take on something like this could end up hurting neighborhood associations throughout the city uh depending on the president that that that we said here um associations should be able to meet with project applicants associations should be able to seek benefits for their neighbors that is nothing unheard of it's happened in in in the city historically um you know I think we should be aware of it frankly I don't like finding out about it in this setting um and I think Mr attorney we need to work on language to make sure that there's proper disclosure and transparency on that because I I I frankly I I really don't like sitting here and having this is thrown at me especially when people speak to me on a very frequent basis about these items so I really don't don't like being surprised in this way at all um so so there needs to be a level of transparency here but let's be very clear our own government engages in this activity our own government we have received a number of benefits for the community for the public through projects that we approve is how we ended up with a beautiful new park at Fifth and and and Alton it's how we've ended up with so many other public benefits throughout the city um it's through it's is through agreements like these ascept this one is being done by a private party by neighbors who are fighting for their own individual interest for their neighborhood is not to person Al enrich one resident it is it is an agreement that enriches the neighborhood that en that enriches to common good of the bile uh neighbors commissioner SW let me let me speak to that because I I I understand that that you mean well Mr Fernandez but in reality only three people are receiving $1.2 million this was a newly formed entity that is maybe a month old and there only three signers on this check with completely no oversight no accountability on how this $1.2 million is going to be spent wait wait hold up the Bell Isle neighborhood association has been long existing it's no different than the city commission theti I have the floor commissioner I have the floor it is like saying that the seven members of the city commission are benefit in from the1 billion budget of the city no absolutely not we are acting on behalf we are the stewards of the public we're acting on their behalf any neighborhood association you'll have a handful of officers two or three officers that doesn't mean it's benefiting or enriching those two or three people they're acting on behalf of their residents no different than how the seven of us act on behalf of the constituents of the city of Miami Beach if the payment was being made to Bea that would be a valid point but it's not if you look at the agreement it's a newly formed entity created by Bea and I looked at that entity and there's only three individuals three individuals are going to have the sole discretion to spend $1.2 million on how they see fit and I understand the the argument of a park and a public benefit but that goes through a public process there is transparency there is integrity on how that is being dealt this that it we don't have any situation and in fact we have a a a a land owner here Joe who who is who who's who's going to testify that she's been completely left out of this process she she never got a message from be and she is directly impacted by this project this is how I found out I didn't find out because I I I I I didn't like the project I found out because at the drb meeting she spoke and she said that I was never involved in this project and that there was a $1.2 million payoff to me a red flag goes up in my head especially when it's when it's that large of and sometimes and sometimes it might be good to have structure on neighborhood associations to have adverti meetings and and elections because sitting on this chair I have seen that sometimes it is good to have a level transparency on on neighborhood associations I'm just going to ask the attorney what is the the best course of action because I I have to say I really feel very uncomfortable right now we should ask the Inspector General and and and and I just Mr attorney I need you to guide us on the best course of action with this right now um because I I need to know this this entity that was formed are we familiar with this entity what what do we know about them uh Mr chairman I I um what I can tell you is you have an item before you that references legislative amendments for the standard um what we have learned is that there was a settlement Arrangement between the developer and a neighborhood association uh on the island um that part you know the the the agreement addresses a range of terms we obviously are not a party to that agreement um so I'm I'm speaking to you just having you know having looked at it on on on a few slides but the um the the the parts of the agreement that relate to changes to a project or operational conditions um I I don't think you know even the First Financial payment I don't think implicate our code but I I I am concerned that the second and third uh payments May and so it it's it's up to you all if you'd like um if you'd like to ask be to to uh to speak to any of this if it could even be that their intent was to work with the city and and um provide grant funding for some of these projects I mean the the purposes seem to address the public realm quality of life safety um uh you know so that may be one option or if you'd like you could continue it and ask Bea to uh to appear at a subsequent meeting it's it's it's up to you I you know let me let me ask commissioner Dominguez this is your item let me I let me let me allow you to to chime in uh on how on on your thoughts on this well beer is here so I'd like to give them the opportunity to defend themselves Mr shairon can I speak after Bureau let's hear from berer uh good morning or yeah still good morning Commissioners and um I appreciate the opportunity to come in and and talk to you today and talk about what it is that we are trying to achieve with this settlement agreement what's your name what's your name your name for the record please Jack Robbins vice president of Bureau thank you so as was mentioned earlier we started these discussions well over a year ago um commissioner Dominguez brought the parties together let us know um that the standard was interested in a Redevelopment plan and encouraged us to work with them and we did so over the course of a year we've had many many I think collaborative productive meetings and you see the results of that now that you have the copy of the agreement commissioner you see the results of that yourself um so for the benefit of B Isle and B ale residents and B visitors I think this is a big big win for all parties now you mentioned that you had spoken to the owner and I would say that what you conveyed based on your conversation is very very different than the disc discussions that we've had by the way all represented by legal council both Bea and and the developer and the owner of the standard participating in those as well so I I can't say the nature of the conversation that you had with him and what he may have communicated to you but that's certainly different than the perspective that we have to today now with respect to the community benefit itself it was important to Bea that we set it up a separate nonprofit entity because we for the precisely this reason we did not want there to be an appearance that Barett was taking some amount of funds and spending it on whatever we choose to do without governance without um any plan so we chose again with legal guidance to establish this nonprofit entity it is new the reason that there are three names attached to that as you probably find in sunbiz is that's how you set up an entity you have to have officers so the officers were named um it was set up by our attorney there is a plan to begin uh our governance process where we will name uh not just the three people who are registered as sunbiz um officers today but other members of the a residents Association and potentially people outside of Bureau um we have been talking about perhaps having some member of City staff or even the commission uh if they would be uh willing to do so and like to do so to be part of that governance process so that the expenditure of funds over a period of time uh is open is transparent and it's part of the community discussion thank you Mr Robbins for for for allowing um for the government to have a role in that discussion I think that that could could could help ensure uh that public benefits like this one and others in in the future are truly done um in the best interest uh of of the public um and so and so um I'd like to open up the to members of the public who would like to speak if I could commissioner just one more comment about transparency because uh as I said we've had meetings over the course of a year um moving in this direction but there have been notices from the city to belile Residents regarding this Redevelopment there have been notices from bura and in fact there was an open meeting that all Community uh members were invited to the standard themselves conducted a community meeting that they sent multiple mailings to uh beerus sent multiple uh notices to our email distribution so I just want to make clear that none of this has happened in a vacuum and there's never been any attempt to hide what we were trying to accomplish um the community benefit was discussed in many of these meetings so just want to make that point clear as well thank you thank you so much Mr Robins and I and and from my perspective and I understand um commissioner Suarez the perspective of of the residents uh who are sitting in front of us today who live on the North side of the of the island I've I've always seen byra representing the residents of the south side of the of the island and has always been very clear um about that so it's no surprise to me that residents from the north side of the island wouldn't have been included in in in these discussions that's not surprising to me and just one more clarification yes and then and then we're going to move on Sir one more clarification we do have buau board members um past and present who are residents of the north side of the Island family home well I stand corrected then thank you so much Mr M Mr Robbins okay I'm GNA open up the floor to members any other members of the public wishing to speak on this item if there members uh attending via Zoom wishing to speak on this item please uh press uh the raise hand icon uh welcome please uh state to your name for the record you'll have two minutes to speak yes hi guys I'm Joe Fon I would like a little more than two minutes to speak if I could um because this I have a fair amount to say um I have absolutely no objection to the standard plans at this point I was taken AB back when I learned of them uh so so late in the game and as the previous gu said they've been negotiating uh frequently in frequent meetings for over a year with the standard uh uh uh to to discuss conditions for the development that's proposed I live right next door to the development that's proposed my labor my neighbors live right next door um I've been on fairy Lane for 15 years I have never been drafted by Bea I didn't even know what beer stood for I did I knew there was a neighborhood association I didn't know that was their name I have never met this gentleman who seems perfectly nice I have nothing against my neighbors you know to the South but beera does not represent me it never has I've never received a single uh notice or email or invitation or anything from bura and so here they are for a year representing as I understand it to Miguel and to Michael and who whoever is involved on the standard side that they speak for us if I were going to have a party at my house and there was going to be extra cars and maybe a little extra party noise and what have you I would tell my neighbors I wouldn't go across to South uh you know Island Avenue and tell everybody who lived in the condos there it has nothing to do with them nothing so here they are meeting for a year unbeknownst to us we were told at absolutely the 11th Hour about this whole thing and invited to a nice party but the deal was already done uh they managed to get you know 1.2 almost $1.3 million dollar to spend at their own discretion I can guarantee you that not a dime of that will ever occur to the benefit of the people on our side of the island um and uh and it is weird and I think to me it sounds like extortion I think that you know I was I was angry with Miguel because normally in this process what's happened in past years when there was a development proposed for for the standard they were all over the residents of fairy Lane and sentury Lane to some degree but it really affects us the most and basically we would work out a little deal I mean there's nothing wrong with uh you know with being a good neighbor and and saying okay we make sure that the trucks don't come down you know after 5 o'l or they're not going to come barreling down your street or if there's any structural Damage Done to the immediately uh juxtaposed buildings will take care of will take the responsibility this whole deal and then because beer represented that they were speaking for us that never happened it's the first time that that never happened I was really pissed off about it until I found out that the people I'm really pissed off with are those people at beer whose names I do not know because I've never met them thank sor have said they represent my concerns they patently do not thank you and I think they should be called beer South residents I appreciate your comments uh thank you for for attending any other members of the public wishing to speak on this item seeing none in person seeing none on Zoom I'm bring I'm going to bring the discussion back to the day um so so we have this item before us um you know I do believe this is a good item I do believe that this is an item that uh helps uh The Standard Hotel uh I don't think that the residents of the Bell Isle neighborhood did anything wrong in advocating for the needs of their neighborhood and entering into an agreement just how many other uh associations may do in other circumstances uh entering into conversation with with with an applicant I think if I were the applicant I might be thinking perhaps of of reaching out to other neighbors uh that perhaps communication may not have been as robust as with the neighbors on the south uh but but this is a good item this is something good this improves an important accident in our city and helps ensure it's it's its future um so so so I think it it is proper for for this item to move for forward today but making sure that the residents on the north side of the island are not forgotten about and they clearly as we're hearing today don't feel represented uh by by the neighborhood association and they and they deserve to be represented as well commissioner Bond you recognized thank you um I think everybody it's supportive of the project moving forward I I think what I'd like some clarification on M Mr attorney is um if if there are concerns about the the drafting of the language of this uh agreement between private enter entities is that something that can be bifurcated and handled separately or is it not an issue I'm going to stop you there hold up I'm sorry this is an agreement between two independent parties that we're not a party to two private parties May I restate my question I don't think I if there is a problem with the way the language is drafted can we move forward with approving I I'm not I'm not clear that there is because you said on item number one um there was no implication but on on B and C there might be so but it's not between it's not our the city's issue the city is here to aine on on whether or not the project should move forward if there is an issue with the the language in a legally binding settlement agreement is that something that the two parties have to take up amongst themselves and address or what do we do about that because I don't want I I don't know I'm not a lawyer or land use attorney or or you know whatever so I don't want to get involved with that if it's fine it's fine if it's not fine they need to fix it but in the meanwhile the project should go forward so how do we do that the the agreement itself as you stated Commissioners is an agreement between two private parties so and and those parties are in the room I don't want to speak to what their intent would be with regard to to their agreement um what where the city is is involved is that our code uh prohibits contingency fee Arrangements um of of the nature of the second and third payments um and though because that's part of the city's code of ethics it's it's not you know it's not enforced by by you know my office or the city clerk's office it's it's it's enforced by the Miami day County uh Commission on ethics so I think if you're asking does does this uh prevent you from moving the legislation forward while any um potential renegotiation or any potential uh ethics investigation proceeds I think those can go those could go separately I mean I think uh it doesn't hold the commission back on the legislative matters but do the ethics considerations whether or not there are any um they don't affect us as a government it that would be between the the two parties of the of the settlement right that's we're not we're not we didn't negotiate any part of this we're we're we did not no we did not so it doesn't affect us so so I would move to to move this item uh with a favorable recommendation and then you know the the the private entities will have to figure out what they want to do about the language Mr chair on the on the motion to approve the item commissioner Mr chair yes um on the motion uh our Inspector General was the director of the ethics of the county I mean I don't know if he can come up and speak to this uh and I mean certainly I don't feel comfortable voting on a matter where my vote is going to potentially make someone a millionaire okay I I think that is I think that's highly inappropriate I'd love to see what Joe Cino says uh on the matter and I think the best course of action is to really refer this to the defer this for now for one month to the ethics commission and see uh what their opinion is on the matter because you know I mean the code is pretty the code is is is pretty plain language that any person or entity receiving or giving money um on based on a contingency of a government approval is strictly prohibited so so I believe that that is A Private Matter between two private entities and that is not anything that the government is involved in and I am not making my decision based on something that I'm just finding out today and I don't think any of us should be making our decision based on based on a settlement agreement between two private parties I I that's not how we do land use in our city we do we should be doing land use policy as as it relates to how is something going to affect traffic flow how is something going to affect the character of a historic building is a contextual to an area and that is the policy that we have before us today we don't have a policy and a recommendation based on a settlement agreement that I'm just finding out about today and so as it as it relat to a policymaking matter I think it would in fact be wrong for us to defer and this as a result of a matter that should not be influencing our vote in any way whether in favor or against and I think it should be uh up to the residents who feel uh that anything was done wrong to file an Ethics complained uh about this um this is a matter between two private entities that our city is not a party to and I think we we we harm our process when we allow outside agreements like this to play a role whether in whether for or against a particular party a part a particular um policy that is coming before us and Mr attorney please correct me if I'm if I'm wrong in any of this it's it's the it's the board's prerogative whether you whether you want to proceed with the legislation it's entirely your prerogative okay I I think I I personally believe these agreements should not be influencing us one way or another if it were an agreement that were between the party and the city at that point I do believe that that well then yes then is a matter of of public policymaking but in a situation like this I don't believe that we should be holding up uh policy that's important uh as a result of a private agreement between two entities because in the future people could enter into agreements just to derail policym it's not how policym should work in this instance uh let me um respond to that commissioner I I just want to be very careful about the precedent we are setting here today okay I think the community benefit of noise quality of life issues is great but just think about for a second what we are doing here we're going to be voting a matter that's contingent upon uh our approval to literally make someone or three people millionaires I I I find that so commission commissioner I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm GNA I'm going to ask you please stop because it's not making three people millionaires it is it is an independent entity that is supposed to be representing the neighbors of B A I think that that's that unfortunately that's a misrepresentation you're putting there I don't I don't believe this is making three people millionaire and I see the inspector generals here he's been referenced Mr sanino if you want to come forward and guide us because I have asked you to work on a red flag ORD specifically for issues like this one and so I would actually appreciate you coming to the podium and please stop us if anything wrong if we're about to do anything that's wrong I will completely entertain a motion to defer this item if you feel that that is necessary uh because the one thing I I will not allow us to do is walk on the line of Ethics that is a line we do not cross we are here to make public policy on land use matters whether a private agreement was made or not I I do not believe that a private agreement between two private parties should in any way positively or against influence policymaking on land use where that is usually not a matter a matter of criteria that we can consider so Mr Cino you're welcome to address this body all right well thank you Mr chairman and Commissioners um I'm not in a position to give you an opinion here because I I'm not I we haven't looked into this matter we haven't investigated this matter and uh I've just become aware of it um you know I'm I am familiar with obviously with the ethics ordinances but I have no I have no authority to give you an Ethics opinion that is is that is reserved to the um to the ethic um uh commission uh I am familiar with this provision I'm not aware that it's been applied in this situation however the language as you know the the City attorney uh has has indicated is a very broad language so I can't tell you that this the existing uh ethics commission might not find it to be uh uh in violation of the ethics uh of the ethics Provisions that's something that would have to come from them via a request for an opinion that then that request could come from the city it could come from the parties involved from anybody connected uh to it um I agree that it's between two private parties this the city is not you know committing a violation in in in this situation because it's you know it's not it's not a party it's not approving any agreement I would be I would be concerned about it that in so far as the City attorney feels and given that that that indication that that the the broad language in that in that uh ordinance could be could be interpreted to apply to the situation um and the only way to to clarify that or get get that you know get that issue resolved would be to get it to the ethics commission and get an opinion from them and you know everybody then would know which way uh things are going I would think that if there is a problem with it it probably since I don't think any the contingency any these these contingency type payments have been made you there's a there's a chance to to amend the uh the provision uh maybe to toh to avoid that Mr Cino let me let me ask you the outcome of any review by the by the commission on ethics on on the private agreement what influence should that have over our decision on the policy uh should it should it weigh one way or another on this zoning policy well you know I'm I'm The Advocate not just of following the law I'm an advocate of public trust and do and avoiding doing anything that might diminish the public trust so if there's a sense here if there is a sense here that you know it would be better to get an eth have the ethics communion weigh in before you take action you know the only consideration there is not the legality of it it's the the perception of whether somehow by virtue of the city taking action you're you know in effect you know going forward with a with a at least a something that that somebody's raised a question about I'm not saying that that there's any violation here but um I would rely on them to do it so I think that's a judgment I think ultimately as public servants we have to make every time we we do anything there you know is there a public trust issue here or not and you know that that that's something that uh you know you obviously should think about but uh that's not something that I can at this point give any direction to and Mr attorney can this uh commission request an opinion from the commission on ethics uh before we move forward is that something that the committee can do uh yes we we can do that yeah okay well given given the comments placed on the record by uh by by Mr centorino then I believe that that would be the most appropriate thing to do because as you mentioned it's not necessarily the legality it doesn't mean that this item can't move forward but it's it's a matter of public trust and public perception that matters just as much and if we if if if an action that the city is not a party to um you know is creating that situation then it's something that we need to consider but I just will put on the table I'm glad that we're having this discussion because I think the three of us sat in a committee meeting probably three or four months ago where I brought an item relating to transparency of neighborhood association formalizing neighborhood associations having public meetings for neighborhood associations having advertised meetings and advertised selections with SH set Geographic boundaries everything that was mentioned today that was not done with this and the item was was turned down it is precisely because of situations like this why I why I propose that because neighborhood associations do represent residents they do engage with applicants they do play an important role in the process and residents today are complaining that perhaps something should have been more transparent that perhaps they should have been more represented that perhaps a geographic boundary should be better defined uh to so that people can know who's being represented by whom and who is not and so and so you know it's just something for us to keep in mind in in in the future now number one neighborhood associations don't act on behalf of City commissions but number two perhaps we need to enhance on the transparency that uh that that that we have in place uh and formalize some of these neighborhood associations so that we don't find ourselves in this type of situation again in the future commissioner Suarez thank you for advocating for for the public I don't what I don't want this to look like is that the residents did anything wrong or illegal because they did not the residents of B were advocating for their neighborhood and a private agreement between two parties just how many other organizations may have done in in the past and commissioner dominguez's item commissioner dominguez's item I think is a very good item and it shouldn't be publicly tainted in any way in the Public's perception of it because of a private agreement between parties that the city is not involved in but I do believe because of the comments plac on the record by the Inspector General that it might be in good public optic for the public trust to allow the commission on ethics to weigh in on this before we move forward so that so that we make sure that there's no questioning on the process so is there is so I think we have to withdraw the motion so commissioner Dominguez you're okay so uh you want to amend your motion I'll amend it to refer this to the ethics commission and hopefully get a a response so that we can hear it and vote on it next month and do we think that that might be possible Mr attorney I I will reach out to them today um and find out what their what their timelines are generally okay so and and we need to work on two things number one disclosure we need to educate the neighborhood associations that may not know of this provision because again neighborhood associations don't follow our codes they have no reason why to know they exist they innocently are getting in the mix of something very ugly not knowing of a regulation that they that might apply to them so I think we owe it to them as a courtesy for the volunteer work that they do for us to let them know of this of this of this provision and number three I think we just need to work on again that legislation on neighborhood associations to make sure that we maintain a level of organized transparency in that local level of community work let me end off with this I I like I said I think this project is great I I I don't I certainly don't blame uh the the business owner I I don't have any fault to the sponsor of this item but the fact that you know we have a land use attorney who's been working since 98 in Miami Beach who should have known these laws and who should have who who who should have known exactly the laws where there's a Prohibition on contingency fees is what I find unacceptable and so you know I I think um I think you know the issue should be uh really investigated at the uh at the representation level thank you all right there's been a motion and a second by can we show that by acclamation yes thank you and colleagues I know we're all doing this in the best interest of the public and I and and and I do firmly believe in that um I just you know any comments we just have to be careful not to seem attacking individuals I mean that that's that's my only hesitation with the tone of this discussion is that it felt like you know three individuals were being attacked when they're just volunteers looking out for the best interests of their Community the same way that at times we might get attacked you know when we're just un ering for the best interest of our community so with that let's move on to item uh number four Mr director okay item number four is a proposal for an ordinance to create F height and setback incentives for non-transient residential uses for properties fronting 6th Street in the cps2 zoning District this was a dual referral to the planning board commissioner Suarez this is your item you're recognizing okay thank you um so this item came before us I believe like three or four meetings ago where uh the the owner planned to build a hotel uh in that AB buts Flamingo Park and I had made the suggestion that if he were to build it into residential if he would uh consider the the option and uh the item was deferred uh for a couple months there was a meeting between the neighbor Association uh and the developer um and we are at right now at the point where we can decide between uh three options um the first option is to allow the hotel to move forward um I believe there's 90 units uh for this hotel um and the second option would be uh to create into a residential uh building um with u an average unit size of 5 or 600 sare ft uh the third option from what the from what the business owner the developer has said is that he he there's also a possibility of a live local application for this project and so the G going to do Russell is going to do a lift local it's it's well well he already has like three or four um I think applications for live local outstanding right now but um and I can I can actually let Tom Mooney uh speak to that but before I do I think we have a fundamental question to ask ourselves is um do we want to have a hotel or would we rather have residential and so um I think the tradeoff would be right now is 75 ft uh for a hotel and and I believe there's 90 units like I said they're going to be very small units I think they're like 200 foot on average um The Proposal here today would be for 145 ft with an average unit of size I think of like 5 or 600 uh there would be no parking uh so this would incentivize people who do not have uh cars to live in the property it's more of a live Workplay uh development and you know look I I I think the issue is worth exploring I think I think at a minimum we should send it to the commission to see um how everyone feels on the on the issue um but before that I'd like to hear what my colleagues have to say thank you and and just for the record I'm supportive of incentives for non-transient uses what I don't support is going from 2.0 F AR to 4.5 f are you know going from 75 ft to 145 ft that that is where the developer needs to improve a little bit but commissioner Dominguez you're recognized thank you so we don't need to decide on approving a hotel at 75 fet because they already have that correct Tom yeah they have hbb approval right so we don't need to do that the discussion is if we want to go to 145 at the last neighborhood association meeting the residents work very much against it they'd rather have lower height even though it is a hotel rather than having 145 ft right and so I think the the reason it it works at for a hotel at 75 ft is because the unit sizes are very small correct correct me if I'm wrong Tom I mean they're like sort of micro units yeah very small and again do we want to have more hotels in myami Beach I I think we have thousands coming online in the next five years um Hotel use is going to be the most impactful on any neighborhood uh it is the most intense use uh and considering that in this sort of intersection you have a Publix you have Target you have a church and now you're going to have a hotel I can only imagine the sort of traffic and and and noise issues that you're going to see um right on the adjacent to Flamingo Park now I understand that the last neighborhood association um they they were yeah I would say they were against it but more on a lukewarm tone only three people spoke I don't think that's really indicative of a of a neighborhood um opinion uh especially when uh the surrounding residents um weren't on that call so for example lulav you know we we've all campaigned there they're the ones who are going to really feel the impact of this um and you know they're very typically lowincome um they they don't really want to disturb anyone they don't really come to public meetings and so you're we're going to have a situation where we're going to be bringing in transients 365 days a week think about Memorial Day think about spring break it's it's it's no longer going to be a quiet neighborhood in that in that part of Flamingo Park it's going to be very in tense and um look look you know I campaigned on on being against transient uses and and and I think we have an opportunity here to at least um bring this to the commission and and continue to engage with the developer to to possibly you know maybe bring this down um and I think the reason why you know the fa our increase is is there is because he doesn't want to have 200 squ foot unit sizes for or residential it's impossible he actually wants to keep the same number of units uh as Hotel units but obviously you have to make them larger and you have to fit them in that in that um envelope so um I think it's worthy of of moving it to the full commission and seeing what we have to decide ultimately it's a six7 vot so thank you let me let me ask you this this item applies to what area is it only to to to this uh one property uh fronting 6th Street or what is the area um that uh that is covered by this property Tom speak to that so based on the referral The Proposal was only for a single property that fronts on 6 Street and ltic Avenue it's the the project with the approved Hotel project so is that something that we can approve legislatively then if there is an increase in F is that something that can be legislatively approved by initiative of the city commission or or is that something think that a private property owner would have to seek an alterate process that would require that the application of the planning board be filed by the prop property owner by the property owner so so I think you know the property owner needs to consider this is something that they're interested in it should be a private application by the property owner I'm just going to you know be clear about this I think 145 ft it is extremely out of context um with this area of the city you have uh the shops at Alton and fifth that's 75 feet you have uh the building on the south side of Fifth Street and Lennox Avenue that's 75 ft then you go east of Lennox Avenue and you have the target that's there that's 50 feet and so it's this contextual decline in height to the very low scale buildings that Define this area of the historic district to now go in an area where you have 75 ft 50 ft and insert 145 ft it just doesn't seem within context of the area if the property owner is able to find a way to transition from transient to non-transient through a more modest request well that's something I'll be open to but to go from 2.0 to 4.5 that's a lot of massing that is a lot of massing that we're going to be uh adding in there that doesn't exist today that is very much out of character I believe of of of the area um and I'd be concerned that uh that the height especially the height right now you drive South on lenux Avenue and you see it and you see it makes sense it really it it really it really has been you know done very methodically uh where you maintain the height closer to Alton Road as you penetrate further into the historic district you see that reduction and I think that this at this level could harm this so that's that's my thoughts on this uh I think that there should be room to explore a transition to non-transient but with a much more modest request I don't know if there is other comments from the de on this item so I I also mentioned that you know developer said there is also an option for live local time is that true that this property could be used for live local this property is located within commercial zoning district and they El they are eligible to make an application but I'll tell you commissioner I'm not going to you know a developer can always a developer can always file an application for for for a living local uh but you know I'm not going to govern based on threats from from a private developer that's what that developer wants to do that'll be the decision of that developer is there any other comments for the days you said I was going to all right uh there are members from the public wishing to speak on this item if there's anyone on Zoom wishing to speak you can raise your hand all right is there a motion before the body so I'd like to move it to the commission yeah I don't support moving this version so if we wanted to work with the developer we would just defer to another land use and have we can defer okay let's let's def to I'll second a deferral by acclamation let show the item as deferred I thought it was the dog he touched my that was not my do by the way so far all right so um Mr director let's go on to item number five okay item number five is a request for the administration to explore and provide options for establishing new resiliency best practice parameters to ensure that the poorest concrete pavers and bioses are used in new development to help mitigate New Normal flooding events commissioner bun this is your item you're welcome to recognize hello sorry he's busy petting the dog which really takes precedence over almost anything else um yeah I mean we I'm going to turn this over to um to Tom to talk about a little bit but we see increasingly intense rain happening and um every little bite at the Apple we can take to help uh ameliorate the flooding that happens as a result would be great um you know I I there are two houses in particular that I pass pass by all the time that are one's in mid Beach and one is in North Beach and they um their front yard has been completely replaced by concrete and um I don't know if there's a possibility to do something about retrofitting you know do a survey of of yards that would not come up to this code um but I think I think we need to improve this prospectively as much as possible and I would also like to talk about the possibility of how to um how to sort of retrofit for places that have um paved over their entire front yard to become parking with no drainage so Tom if you don't mind sure um based upon the direction of the land use committee um at the last meeting where this was discussed which was in uh June uh we've come up with some updates um the first update pertains to increasing and enhancing port attributes of driveways and walkways um in residential districts and in this regard we've come up with some draft amendments to section 7.2.2 point3 pointb of the ldrs which regulates the minimum perious area requirements and open space requirements in single family districts um if there is support for these proposed amendments which we've provided the text for since this was a uh dual referral to the planning board you could um endorse these and then give us direction to bring those to the um to the planning board the other amendment that we suggested is with regard to minimum porous requirements in surface parking lots and we've come up with a separate text amendment to section 5.3.1 11. c which would mandate enhanced minimum uh perious area require requirements and porest Paving requirements for future surface parking lots and again because this was a dual referral to the to the planning board this is something that we could take to the planning board as an ordinance if endorsed by the land use committee regarding the discussion of porest materials within on street parking spaces this is something that we the Administration has looked at on a case-by casee basis um but it really would depend upon who owns the right of way and whether or not it would make sense in a given area to utilize some type of porous material within on street parking spaces because on street parking spaces have to withstand the weight of vehicles as well as maintenance um the future use of this would have to be looked at or continue to be looked at on on a case-by casee basis and then lastly with regard to increasing enhancing and enhancing water quality and water retention elements in residential districts the city did develop a um blue green storm water infrastructure concept plan that was adopted by the Commission in 2020 and and it has a number of attributes and criteria regarding the use of um bior retention natural ponds and sailes the use of floating Wetlands enhanced tree planters pumped injection Wells subsurface infiltration and storage and the use of wet Palms um we've also in the report summarized areas where this has been applied to in the past and this includes Britney Bay Park with the hybrid living Shoreline canopy Park the use of a bios Swale and swiss SST morice skib Park um it's a hybrid living Shoreline and storm water retention through the installation of arct Tanks Bayshore Park Collins Canal Park mus Park as well as 59th Street um bios swell um one correction this was not a dual referral to the planning board so if there is consensus on the ldr Amendments that we suggested um we would have to bring these back to the commission for a separate referral to the planning board can you m yes please CH Tom can you talk about um what remedy might be available to us if we did um wanted to require uh residents to to retrofit their front yards that are now paved over if the paving was done without a permit or without authorization they could potentially be cited and required to meet the the current requirements however if they did receive a permit and were authorized to pave their yard for whatever reason um it would be difficult because ldr amendments are prospective um okay um look nothing we do no single action is going to fix the flooding for everybody everywhere for every storm circumstance but I think the more little pieces of this that we can institutionalize um and codify that you know the better off we'll all be so I would and you know obviously defer to the chair but I would like to make a motion to move this forward I'll second that motion are there any other comments from the de on this item yes commissioner Dominguez um I think it's a great item uh I know that I've driven around Miami Beach and seen front yards that are completely paved and I'm horrified by that and I'm getting the right uh ordinances and land use regulations in place it's very important so thank you for taking this on and and for for underst stories again uh remind me if if a property does not have an under story this will require for 70% at least 70% of uh of the front and side yards must be slded uh correct okay actually yes it would expand it from 50% to um 70% to 70% I want us to continue doing anything that we can do to encourage individuals to pursue those under stories uh as opposed to raising the properties and then affecting their neighbors uh this is this is very good policy commissioner B uh thank you for bringing it forward so uh I think by acclamation well are there members of the public who wish to speak on this item if on Zoom you can raise your hand seeing none um commission um Mr Mooney yes thank you Mr chair just as a point of clarification the motion would be to send the two recommended ldr amendments to the commission for referral to the planning board that's correct okay that'll be the motion all right thank you colleagues um let's take item number 16 out of order we have commissioner Rosen Gonzalez joining us welcome commissioner um Mr director let's let's read the title into the record okay this is um to amend the Land Development regulations applicable to all zoning districts where hotels are permitted to increase the minimum unit size for hotel rooms this was a du referral to the planning board all right and it's being sponsored by commissioner Rosen Gonzalez commissioner magazine and commissioner Suarez uh commissioner Rosen Gonzalez welcome thank you for having me thank you for calling the item of course not serving on this committee I was listening in though because this is a a great segue you know for people who we don't want any more of these micro unit hotels obviously and now that this whole idea of the weaponization of if you don't if if you don't give us F and well then we're going to be a hotel well then let's make it a little and I'm so glad that you're sponsoring this commissioner Suarez because we do not want micro unit and I think that we should make the minimum unit 300 Square F feet by the way this is not my idea this is planning board member Elizabeth laton's idea we were speaking one day which I'm allowed to do correct yeah just having a casual conversation when this came up and I thought it was a great idea and um hopefully you guys will consider supporting it I think you know I was looking at um the good time Hotel the other day which you know it looks like a prison Tom I swear to you look I want to I took a picture cuz you know what and I can't believe I have you right here to show you it looks awful it's got these tiny Windows look at that it looks just like what does that look like to you if I didn't tell you that that was Miami Beach you would think that this was the date correction Correctional Facility correctional facility and why because we have teeny tiny micro does that look like the date Correction Facility it does not quite but because there's some palm trees anyway that is a nice form of butterless architecture by the way featured an exhibit at uh mdpl no the the correction center oh but this is just something that we would like to avoid moving forward I wish I could show the camera PJ you can't just focus in on that you see that see these teeny little windows on these hundred uh unit micro units we don't want that in Miami Beach I don't think anybody is really the party on the roof deck oh and the partying on the roof deck so um I think possibly 300 ft I would go even larger I would go to like 350 330 I think it says here we could do we could have a minimum of 335 we could make it even 350 you guys are on the landies committee I'm going to defer to you so that you can craft it and bring it back something wonderful and I hope that you guys will be uh supportive so has staff put together a set of regulations for us to consider so in the in the um committee memorandum we've summarized what all of the current requirements are in terms of Hotel units and for most so for example we have areas where we allow 200q foot units correct there are areas of the 200 square foot units just in historic can I and the the okay I think the big problem is some of our historic hotels by the way have these smaller rooms and maybe they people would want to renovate them and they would not be able to they would I personally one of the big problems within the historic buildings is these tiny hotel rooms and I would not even have a problem moving forward if somebody within a historic district or Historic Hotel chose to merge two rooms together would it be the worst thing in the world so that we don't have these tiny rooms I think that is the kind of incentivization that people might want that right now there are a little bit people come to us all the time and they want to they want to reform anything in the building they can't right Tom um they they're within certain zoning districts like MXZ and cd2 you are allowed to maintain existing smaller Hotel units that were specific to the original historic building and that allows people to do a renovation and Rehabilitation of those older buildings commiss Domingo Rock nice thank you um so 200 square feet is about the size of a cruise cabin and if we were to require the rooms to be larger would everything then turn into luxury transient luxury like would they be able to uh would Builder say we can't uh do anything affordable for everybody it would have to be all luxury but who we don't want more hotel rooms do we You're Building 800 rooms at an average size of how big are the rooms in the hotel that's being proposed you're 335 we're having okay even in like a three star hotel because I don't even think it's fourstar three star hotel minimum is 335 we already have this large stock and we have those two projects that were built what is it the good time and what's the other one next to it The Moxy is two The Moxy and how big are those rooms like 175 even tinier so we already have teeny tiny rooms across Miami Beach I think that we should make it as big as possible to encourage to discourage more transient uses and encourage residential use which is I think we're on the same page thank you commissioner the one thing I want to be mindful of is we want to make sure that properties that right now may be empty do get fixed up and so I just need to understand a little bit better do we have any information as to how changing these numbers impact the financing or the viabil the viability of fixing up any of these properties and I don't know Mr director we have any of that information no the um any legislation that would modify the minimum unit size of hotels would be prospective so it could potentially create legal non-conforming Hotel units if it was applied um Citywide that could potentially impact the ability to finance a renovation um there's no Hotel project that I'm aware of now um that would be impacted by this other than a project on 15th in Washington which I believe um would likely be requesting um an applicability section on this so that their project can move forward yes commissioner you you had the best question how do you incentivize people that have empty properties do you you how you do it by sending a strong message you're not getting any height you're not getting F so sitting on your property and doing nothing is not going to be an answer anymore and Code Compliance is going to come out and violate you until your building looks beautiful and then making sure that the building is painted the building has lighting the building has Hedges that's how you incentivize but if we continue to say we're going to give you a little here we're going to give you a little there nobody's going to do anything so the truth of the matter is you want people to improve you've got to that a standard saying enough is enough is enough we're not doing it and then they'll start to improve their properties stop waiting commissioner Suarez thank you um I I disagree I mean I don't think that sending code to a building and and putting up a Hedges and painting a building is really going to change a behavior because if the if the mathematics are not there it's just it's not going to work out and you know we can say look you got to put a you got to paint it or you we're going to force them to paint it okay uh we're going to force you put up a hedge and we're going to force to fix like the light bulbs but at the end of the day if it's just sitting vacant it's going to sit vacant and it's going to be blighted and and it's not going to change a behavior from a property owner um I I think that's really the the wrong way to look at it I think if you want to incentivize let's really incentivize and and and do it with a carrot not a stick I think what you're talking about commissioner Gonzalez is is leading with with a very Pig stick and and forcing them to um be compliant um to to some arbitrary set of rules now look I I'm in favor of this I I think it's I think it's a good um minimum to set however look it's really easy to say what we don't want to be right we don't want to be this we don't want to be that but when do we say and when do we agree on and discuss what we do want to be I mean do we really want to be a city where we're just building more hotels more hotel rooms whether it's 150 sare ft or 300 Square fet I mean come on it's ridiculous that we're even having this conversation I think we're bleeding residents we're the only city in Florida that has that has lost residents in the last couple years and let that sink in for a second you know do we want to be that Resident group any do we want to be that City anymore I I certainly don't I think I I understand we're we're we're a tourist destination which is great okay um but I think we need to have a more adult conversation and say what do we want to be in the next 10 20 years do we want to continue to just build more hotels or do we want to build you know modest housing for people that already work here to live here commissioner Dominguez and then commissioner rosing Sal thank you um yeah I do want to have more residents as well uh and it is a shame that we have lost residents in our city um I think that part of it has to do with the overdevelopment that's happened in North Beach um they've goaled up uh affordable housing or more reasonable housing buildings and then instead uh these tall towers are going up in its place and there aren't any residents in there at this time um and so while not bringing on new hotels is a good idea we can't forget about diversity for our economy and hotels do bring in um taxpayer dollars as well uh the fountain blue property alone if I'm not mistaken I think their uh annual tax bill is like $260 million so um it's good to have diversity but uh I'm also in favor of bringing uh housing more housing here I just feel like this is Miami Beach okay world renown world renown akin to sitting at a Sidewalk Cafe in Paris or what would you do in Rome something I don't know eating sitting at a sidewalk cafe and eating pasta in Rome will you lay on the beach in Miami Beach so it's not bokeh all right it's not you have something iconic and by the way laws are so strict in places like Paris for example if you even want to redo the facade do you know that you have to put up a similar facade a fake facade to match the real facade so while it's under construction you don't lose the theme of the whole city you've seen that before Tom haven't you yeah I mean crazy requirements so this idea that people will not invest in them is a complete social construction uh by contractors and developers people have purchased these properties because they love Miami Beach and they're going to do whatever we tell them to with it and if you travel to Palm Beach one thing that I love more than anything when I go to Palm Beach is to see the smaller Garden Apartments that look so gorgeous that are selling for anywhere like $1,000 per square foot garden apartment prices and I bet you right now in myami Beach it's like $100 to $200 a square foot when you improve those Garden Apartments your 500q foot Apartments then sell for $1,000 a square foot which is what we currently get on Waterfront so yes I believe in our buildings I believe in our buildings because people like Barbara Capman fought for these places and it's our job to hold the line for what made us famous and there is a movement to destroy this historic district not just by this commission but over the past decade we have all seen wait I stop you there yeah I'd say this commission is fighting to save that's what I'm saying we're trying to find ideas understanding how but the historic district has to be sacred okay and I don't want us building prison looking buildings because that's what it looks like and you saw the picture and we should send it out that's what the zoning would look like it would be box after box after box and what you need to do is send a strong message look we're not giving you anything beyond what you have go to the State of Florida and file your stupid application and if you want to come and fight with the city okay and fight with our planning board and ignore our laws well I wouldn't want to develop in a city that was hostile to me so I think we need to fight it on all levels and say you know what enough is enough and help and and and and once the owners know that then they will build with what then they will build with what they currently have anyway I don't know how you're going to take this with this um but I do think that increasing that unit size is that that's that's the proposal increasing increasing it to 335 okay yes uh commissioner bot and then uh commissioner Suarez and then I'll open up the floor to the public and we'll call the question so I I love the idea behind this um I think there are two things that we're trying to get done concurrently and one is more defined in this and one isn't so maybe you know maybe this is where this is already allowed let's increase the minimum permissible but let's also take and build on this and um and I think we we have it in other things that we're we're addressing is how do we incentivize conversion from um transient use hotels to residential and it's not just the historic district I mean when you look at the Town Center District in North Beach we're talking about hotel units micro hotel units of 175 feet I mean you can't even turn around there and and so um so I think it's two things so I would be inclined to um to support this as far as it goes and then really continue working hard on the the proposals that are before the commission to incentivize um converting transient to residential because that's that's the UL goal um is is to do that but in the meanwhile if somebody's hellbent on on doing a hotel which they are legally permitted to do it's not a prohibited use let's make sure it's a hotel with reasonable you know that's a reasonable hotel I don't think that it's an either or choice I think it steps along the Continuum yeah and just and just a quick question if if let's say we do move forward uh with this recommendation to the planning board that the uh square footage be 335 uh square feet I see for there there there would still be an exception like for example in the TCC District in North Beach that that's correct Mr chair we've identify the districts in the city that have existing exceptions to the current minimum unit size rule they're limited but they're in the TCC district and why you said in the TCC District because when the TCC district is there historic there no it was it was put in there because the F was increased and when the TCC District was developed um it was developed to try to create um the most latitude for different types of uses so why would we allow an exception in TCC that was the rational for allowing it in the TCC in 2018 was to try to promote different types of Hotel uses including those Hotel uses that have the smaller units commissioner Wilson Gonzalez I mean how do you feel about that this is your item would I would like to see a map cuz that's like Chinese to me I don't know I tried to read all the description I think Oh you mean like increasing it right now can we do that people already have their building permits so it's going through no matter what be non-conforming it would make those yes if you wanted to amend your yes proposal for all units you you could do that but you would be creating a lot of non-conforming Hotel units okay well I love that nonconforming is that your motion cuz I'm not on this commit well I mean it's it's I'm just going through the list of exceptions I see clearly um you know in CD3 Collins Park and Collins Park where we have cd2 there would be an exception there where you know you keep uh the smaller historic rooms I get that Washington Avenue has an exception as well again uh that's uh that's a historic area but but Town Center that's not that is not a historic area that is new development and and we have been dealing with that proliferation we've had multiple discussions about how do we address this and fine I mean they become non-conforming let them become non-conforming because it it it is non-conforming with the vision and the direction we want for the City of Miami Beach and if that ever becomes conforming to to our vision well then we amend the code again but right now the direction we're going in that we're losing residents and we need to um to encourage residential and de incentivize so much transient I'm all for applying it there as well the increased score footage so if if I i' make I'd make that motion to to recommend this with the uh Amendment to the town center to include that as well Sarah second is is that allowed um just want run by the City attorney yeah I think the original referral was pretty broad it said uh applicable to all zoning districts where hotels are permitted so I I think it's pretty broad I think I think you can do that the only the only thing we always caution you with when you make a change like that that will make projects non-conforming is it then may limit development in the future if they have to do a really substantial uh renovation or Rehabilitation of the of the building but that's the goal of this is to make sure that we don't have more 175 foot micro un hotel rooms and and I understand that but there's the other consideration of if there are building issues that need to be resolved you know Mr Mr attorney Mr Mr director when was the last time you saw a non-conforming building hit the 50% threshold of value with a renovation I it would have been a much older building it wouldn't have been one of these newer buildings because at that point usually when you are about to hit that threshold usually it's just more advantageous and a better investment just to go for new construction typically potentially and this isn't historic and this is historic yeah it's new so you know how long before they'll have to go in and fix these properties up but I think it sets division it sets the vision and sets the message clear because the thing is what we put in writing does matter because then it influences the minds of creative people who are looking at our code and seeing okay what does the city have envisioned here what can I do with my property even if it's outside of that area maybe I can go to the city and ask for the same regulation to apply to my property and that's the thing that's why our words on these papers really matter even if we make it non-conforming we're telling the world that is reading our code okay don't go with the idea thinking you'll be able to come to us and get zoning for a hotel that is not zoned for hotel don't go with the idea thinking you'll be able to get a micro unit in an area that's not zoned for micro unit because it's not contextual to the surrounding area so what we put here on paper really does matters relates to that so there's a motion and a second uh is there members any members of the public wishing to speak on this item seeing none in person none in Zoom um can we show this referred by acclamation yeah yes okay by acclamation this item has been referred thank you guys and thank you commissioner Rosen gonal is for joining us of course congratulations on your puppy oh same yes no I need a puppy too everyone's got a puppy everyone needs a dash out's your puppy D I have a 10 pound terrorist you can have going cheap what my 10 pound terrorist going cheap cat you have a cat cou more cats couple more cats they bring joy to City Hall we have uh I have my my my new puppy Sammy that uh that's uh joining us today there's Sammy Sami is twins with Jesse over there they might be lovers all right um let's Mr director let's call item number six okay item number six six is an ordinance to modify the height of allowable fencing and Shrubbery of ocean front properties facing the beachwalk to improve sight lines for pedestrians and this item is brought To Us by the queen of micromobility herself commissioner Tanya kbot I've been called many things in my life I've not yet been called that so um yeah so this is just trying to um improve the sight lines when you're out on on the beachwalk and you're riding or running um and people come in from the access point whether from a hotel or from one of the side streets um it we need to make sure that we don't want to affect the experience for guests or residents in their properties within their property so we're not really affecting anything within the property lines but it's um it's to make sure that when you're coming around the corner you don't get smooshed because somebody can't see you and so we discussed this at last month's meeting and um it wasn't super clear how that would work and so you guys have done a little work to refine that so I'll turn it over to you some great officials okay um we did modify the text of the proposed amendment slightly and this would again be an amendment to section 14-1 of the city code and we created two options within the text of the ordinance it's the 10- foot option but basically what we came up with was an option for a 10-ft visibility triangle which would be 10 ft in both directions of both access points from private property as well as from the street end and we have a visual where we use the property at 1775 columns Avenue as an example the other option we came up with was a 6- foot visibility triangle again you utilizing the same property and basically that would be 6 feet in both Direction on balance the administration is recommending the uh 10t visibility uh option and if there's ensus on either option this would require um going to the city commission for a referral to the planning board um in order for the um the ldr portion of it to be transmitted by the planning board and then the city code could be brought to the commission for a first reading ordinance so you know we are we are only going to see increased use usage of the beachwalk um as people have more and more opportunity to use bikes or whatever Vehicles end up being permitted there and I think it is incumbent on us to get ahead of this before um accidents start happening in a really significant way so we have a a number of near misses and hopefully this will U mitigate even those near misses so with the support of my colleagues I'd like to move this forward with the 10 foot sight lines thank you commissioner I think this is such a great item um you know being on the boardwalk frequently I can attest to how it can be dangerous at times when you're uh coming out of one of these uh Beach entrances um and having someone on a scooter coming by or not a scooter but on a bicycle coming by uh or some other device and not seeing you and how dangerous it can be uh to get hidden and we've had seniors get hit we've had children uh get hit so it's it's not a it's not a good situation at the last meeting I had you know concerns um you know if you if you move forward um with uh with 10 foot and I thought it was 10 foot on each side uh and it would end up being a you know some large amount of uh of space uh that would got uh taken up uh by this especially on a smaller property what I would suggest is that perhaps do the 10 foot on larger on larger properties on properties that have a larger Frontage on the beach walk and perhaps our planning director could guide us on this if he thinks it would be appropriate and do the six feet on the smaller lots that way you know that way it really depends on your lot size if you if you have a smaller lot you you don't have to give up as much of your of your uh of your Greenery uh as a larger lot and I don't know uh Tom how you yeah when we came up with both options they're both good options um we had recommended 10 ft because we felt that it it enhanced the visibility as much as possible but in terms of looking at it on a lot siiz basis we do think that would make sense for smaller lots to have something a little smaller so perhaps if the lot is less than 100 feet in width they could use the six- foot option um and most Ocean Front Lots um with some exceptions are going to be larger than that but for those smaller lots that are less than 100 ft and withth we believe six feet would be adequate um the other and and I don't if if you're fine with that as a sponsor yeah yeah um the other thing I would suggest that is very important unless we educate uh Property Owners about this give them a process for notice and warning it really won't be effective we really you know we really need to educate people about it kind of how we did uh with the electric leaf blowers uh that when commissioner sellan sponsored the ordinance originally you know provided for Education a notice period a warning period before you start to issue the violations um and I think that that's important as well uh because this is going to be a new policy that people are going to have to implement property owners are going to have to educate their property managers who are going to have to educate their landscape Cruise so I think uh if perhaps you could work with staff and incorporating something like that into your item it'd be helpful the last thing I'd suggest and I mentioned it to staff during my briefing you know 6 feet 10 feet could be subjective on who is doing the measurements and it should be I mean it's the foot well but people measure from different points you know some people will think it's from property line to property line and they're going to be like well I don't have to go to the right of way and so it might be good if the city if a property owner calls the city that the city be able to go out there and you know provide them with Clarity you know this is the area you need to keep clear just so that you know it is very clear on the intent of the policy and people know how to implement the policy well and I don't know staff if you guys have any objections to that and one of the other things that we think might be good to tweak the and slightly is to take the visibility measurement from the beachwalk and not the property line because as shown in the example that we provided ironically there are portions of the beach walk that undulate and there's landscape being that's technically on public property that probably would be better off being part of the site triangle and that's why I mentioned because commissioner Bond I'm sure your intent is not just within the private property I'm sure your intent is to measure all the way into into the beachwalk um to achieve the safety uh benefits that you're seeking uh and so you know in addition to clarifying the language on the ordinance to say you measure up to the beachwalk instead of the property line it might be just helpful uh if a property owner calls the city the city be able to provide a guidance on site as the area if I may um two other things that I was thinking about one is prospectively we're not there yet but um extend this to um the cutwalk and the um the Baywalk as they become um online come online or if the cutwalk ever does have that kind of major growth and then um it should obviously apply to city-owned property as well yeah thank you for that because whenever we do policies that apply to private property owners to the extent possible it should apply to the city as well y I agree with you 100% um so then with that were you are you moving your item yeah can I move it as amended as amended uh is there any other uh comments from the deas on this item yes commissioner Dominguez um this is a great item I know that I've had uh conversations with uh people that are bicyclists and pedestrians and um I've been in touch with uh the city team uh to go to and trim shrubs and stuff so this is a step in the right direction and it's safe and I really like that you're bringing this forward yes good job so there's been a motion and a second uh Mr director uh just a quick point of clarity Mr chair since this was a dual referral the ldr amendment will be able to take directly to the planning board and then after the planning board transmits it we'll bring both first readings to the city commission at the same time okay thank you Mr director with that we can move forward to item number seven commissioner Dominguez the steward of our Baywalk so I have um thank you I have weekly conversations uh with different stakeholders on the Baywalk and um currently uh one of the public benefits was that monrean uh constructed the Baywalk behind that building that's been in progress for the last several weeks um I think you might have an update on the pedestrian bridge yes ma' act you're oh David you're recognized good morning um or actually good afternoon I apologize uh David Gomez intern director with CIP um commissioner Dominguez you're absolutely correct the section of the Baywalk behind the mandre and midor are underway um they're moving on schedule and they anticipate completion before the end of the year uh the update we have for you on the pedestrian bridge I have the developer here to to give you some feedback uh we' been working very closely with them on ident identifying and resolving any pending issues uh unfortunately there is some stuff that needs to be ironed out such as uh verifying some as builts uh conditions and and finalizing their GMP with their contractor and I'll let I'll have Hector give you the update commissioner thank you um Hector with uh Tera group um so as David was saying we we and we've met today in order to try to put a a a path forward you know from point A to point B to try to get this thing fully open um what we are we are encountering some asbill conditions that we have to um in the field with utilities um we have we're we're having differ differing uh asil conditions and disper asil records so we're trying to get out there put a fence up by the by this week try to get out there start pot holding and soft taking to be able to identify those to be able to see where exactly they are um unfortunately we have different reports and it's showing them in different locations previously we've had to modify the foundations of the of of the bridge in order to because of the utilities hopefully we we we won't have to get to that but we we'll have to look at that with with opening up the ground um and then as far as finalizing the GMP with with mtec which m is going to be the contractor we do have a GMP in place we just have to finalize the numbers for early works and the final the final process or the final number for the overall project um we are encountering some increases in cost so we're trying to really be efficient with with the buyout that we have with the subcontractors and it's taking a little bit more time we expect it to be done in the next couple weeks and do you think um for the pedestrian bridge um we'll have a better update next month I I I I I plan to okay I plan to I think we we we're going to slowly roll into a groundbreaking and I think we're going to slowly roll into utility relocates it's going to take probably four to five months of just relocating utilities we have a large AT&T line that that that connects the Coast Guard which that's going to be a a coordination item uh we have water mains and FPL and different things so we're going to have to go through that um but I think we'll have a a much better plan uh for next land use okay um vice mayor can we keep this on for next month yes I we need to we need to see progress uh with with the bridge I I know I I've been I've been hearing that progress on the developer side has been very sporadic uh on this on this matter uh and uh and and the city feels that the progress could be happening a little bit more uh quicker so commissioner thank you for keeping this on the agenda we'll keep it open till next month thank you thank you thank you thank you John um Mr director let's call on item number eight okay item number eight is a discussion on amending the Land Development regulations and comprehensive plan to require a housing impact statement for all development applications to include mitigation measures and modify review criteria to consider housing impacts uh thank you Mr Mr director this is an item that I am sponsoring um you know because we do have a crisis uh with housing in our city and um and one of the challenges is when we have development application coming to our city going to our boards and decisions being made uh by our boards that we don't have a say over but that could potentially be impacting Housing Development applications that could directly be impacting the availability of housing so what my item does is that it amends our ldrs and the comp plan to require a housing impact statement for all development applications making their way to the design review board to the historic preservation board to the planning board to the to the um to the board of adjustments uh and to incorporate that housing impact statement into the applications that these board members are going to have so if if you're getting like the Riviera Apartments if you're getting the Riviera Apartments and you're converting it to a hotel the developer would have been required to submit as part of their application in this case to the historic preservation board uh a housing impact statement that would have required the developer to let the decision makers know in that case a historic preservation board that their decision was going to eliminate the availability of this Section 8 Housing and allow as part of that housing impact statement for the developer to explain any mitigation that they may have taken to address uh some of the uh housing impact that they're causing uh that's the intent of of item number number eight uh it it there's other followup items uh to it um but this is the most basic that I think we can do if we're we're TR looking to avoid displacing residents and especially residents in the segment of the market where we have the most limited availability of housing which is affordable housing Workforce housing and Section 8 housing we need to be aware of the decisions that of the impact that our decisions and those of our boards are going to have on these uh on these actions I don't know if there's any comment from my colleague on this it's a good idea all right is there I can't move the item but I don't know if anyone you okay so the item has been moved it's been seconded by the chair uh Mr director any anything on this item that I've left out that should be incorporated uh no Mr chair you covered everything okay um so with that uh commissioner bot you have your hand raised yes my hand raised my mouth fold that's wonderful um apologies but don't worry could there be as part of this um the beginning of sort of like a a registry or a spreadsheet someplace that we could access easily to see which developments have displaced which number of what types of units so that there's a running tally of what's what the mitigation could be or what the displacement is uh yeah I don't see why not yeah we can certainly do that separately it's very easy to put together because it's just a matter of putting together um a spreadsheet of approved projects and the number of residential units that were being converted and maybe that could live someplace on the um on the website under affordable housing or something and it can just be updated with every new approval or disapproval and everybody could have the same operating information sure yeah absolutely I think that that is very constructive so let's incorporate that into into this uh so with that there's a motion and a uh seeing no more comments from the day any comments from the public I see no members of the public in presson to speak on this item none none inum and we can show this item adopted by acclamation uh this goes next to the planning board or does it go to First reading at the city commission no this we would draft the actual we would put the text that is in the memo into formal ordinances bring them to the commission for a referral to the planning board perfect thank you thank you Mr director with that Amendment yes we could do that or we could do that as a separate policy Direction so that because we could start doing that immediately yeah if you want to incorporate into this whatever you want well if you can do it immediately yeah my thought was we would just do that we'll note it in the referral memo but that's something where um based upon the direction of the commission as part of the referral we can start um creating that registry okay that'd be great great thank you all right thank you colleagues uh with that let's um call up item number nine okay item number nine is a discussion on amending notice requirements in the Miami Beach resiliency code to require a courtesy notice to residential tenants of a property that is the subject of a land use board application were applicable okay so so this item is a companion to item number eight and item number eight uh when we receive um you know with a housing impact statement when we receive development applications that are going to impact the availability of housing we're we are getting this housing impact statement now what do we do with that housing impact statement we know that there are individuals who live in very vulnerable conditions uh individuals who even with the Riviera uh with with a with Riviera Apartments we had individuals who were on the verge of becoming homeless from their displacement from from their apartment ments with uh with this uh with this notice uh we're able now to give a courtesy notice to uh tenants when we receive that notice from a developer that we are going to move forward that that someone is moving forward with a development application what happened with the Riviera Apartments you know a developer came in a developer filed a development um application but tenants probably weren't aware that there was a development application in place that the building where they live was being considered to be turned into a a hotel and if we know that that this is going to affect someone's housing we should let them know that their housing is being considered especially when it involves a change of use so this proposal will be uh for applications uh to be for for tenants to be notified when there is such an application where they reside so that they have at least time if they need to look for new housing or consider uh other situations and Nick Tom I don't know if there's anything about this item that needs to be clarified uh not not my end no so I think you covered everything so commissioner B and then commissioner SARS I would just build on that which I think is is very important um it's not it wouldn't be sufficient to just give the building manager or the property owner the notification that needs to be noticed to each resident each tenant of the building um I've seen far too many um incidents that are less dire than this where you know the property manager was arised of something or the board was arised of something and the residents didn't have a clue about it so it needs to be door by door so so so under the provision of this ordinance that that I'm proposing the applicant must send a notice to all the current tenants in the building and the notice will need to explain the request the date and the time of the meeting where this is taking place um and and other information um to uh to to the tenants of of a building and not just a current tenants of a building because but also a new tenant so let's say you're in the middle of your development process and you're you're moving into an apartment you should probably know that where you're moving into is being considered for some sort of change of use uh so that you know so you're not moving in there thinking you're going to be living there for a long period of time um and so this would require that of all for all tenants that currently living there and for a future tenant as well commissioner suarz would this only trigger if there was a private application so for example you know we talked about the application at um on Sixth Street would would would this uh new initiative gone into effect since there wasn't an applica applicant however you know as a sponsor I I sponsored a residential incentive would that have triggered this notice well we do policy but we don't do applications for development correct and so Nick perhaps you can provide some clarity on this so this would apply to applications to the land use sport so once that Sixth Street project um the land use sport application is filed it would trigger this requirement okay all right is that any other comments from the days on this item seeing none on any members of the public wishing to speak on this item seeing none in person and none on Zoom uh the items been moved by commissioner Suarez and I'll second it uh and we can show this adopted by acclamation all right item number 10 Mr director okay item number 10 is a discussion um in uh regarding the installation of traffic diverters at Convention Center Drive in Dade Boulevard thank you um thank you this item I placed on the agenda uh as a requ as as a result of years and years and years of conversations and Promises being made to the Bay Shore neighborhood association um regarding traffic uh Convention Center related traffic uh going from Convention Center Drive into the residential neighborhood directly to the north of Dade Boulevard uh known as Bay Shore when um when the hotel when the convention center was being redeveloped um by by the city and and and the county um there were meetings done with the neighborhood association this is going back many many years and it was it was a commitment made to the neighborhood association that diverters would be installed at the intersection of Convention Center Drive and date Boulevard on the south side of Dade Boulevard uh to keep traffic from driving straight into uh the Bayshore neighborhood um all these years later um the uh Convention Center is up and running and clearly the bayor neighborhood is very concerned uh by the TR TRC impacts of not having this diverter there and uh and the association is further concerned uh given the uh conversations uh with the convention center hotel that's going to be coming in and so they really um have have expressed um have expressed their concern of this cut through traffic only aggravating uh once this hotel gets gets built I personally recall those conversations uh with the Bayshore neighborhood many feels like at least a decade ago I was still on the board the bore neighborhood you were commissioner bud you were still on the board of the Bay Shore neighborhood and I was a resident uh I was your constituent at the time I guess as it should be and um and and so and so and so here we are uh all these years later uh this this has not been delivered to these residents it is a concern we're all for uh the economic and and supporting the convention center in any way that we can at least I am I I want to see the convention center Prosper but the reality is that right across the street we have a single family neighborhood and we and we have a responsibility to protect the character of the single family neighborhoods in our city and protecting character doesn't only come in the form of structures doesn't only come in the form of vegetation but it also comes in the form of of protecting neighborhoods from nonresidential traffic that's cut through traffic that gets especially exacerbated whenever uh this asset is is fully activated and so I like for us to make a motion uh to consider moving forward uh with the installation of the traffic diverter at Convention Center Drive and date Boulevard uh commissioner bod um you're welcome to chime in on this perhaps you were on you mentioned you were on the board of the homeowners association at the time I don't know if there's anything that you recall from that time as to these commitments that were made I'm just very concerned on behalf of those residents that all these years later and this has not been delivered the convention center was built $600 million invested there um you know a hotel is going to be built hopefully very soon and still the residents of Basher don't have uh their diverter yeah I mean I I'll just add to that um you know the we are excited about the fact that we have Adobe who bought out the entire facility right like we our plan is to have more of those types of conventions and especially once a hotel is built be able to to welcome larger bigger more um conventions coming here and then let's not forget we have the Bayshore Park coming online yes um so we're going to have even more people sort of mandering around in that neighborhood and clearly people should look before they cross the street and they should ride their bikes responsibly all that stuff but if you're a conventioneer and you're lost and you're on your GPS and you're not paying attention you know that that's not where you should be you should not be through that neighborhood you should be going perimeter going around it um there are plenty of main thorough fars to get off the island going around Bayshore it should not be um you know there there are blocks of Bay Shore where you don't even have really great side walks to walk on so um let's get it done before the Hotel goes up yeah that's the challenge yeah and and let's and let's not forget that when you go straight uh on um when you go straight North into Prairie Avenue when you cross dat Boulevard we have a school there we have children who are walking walking to school walking out of school bicycling to school that is not where I want individuals who do not know the area individuals who are cutting through individuals who are rushing to together to uh to one 95 that you know we need to do everything that we can to protect the children uh who are walking to school or walking back home from school and and this was long overdue it's been long promised long overdue and time for us to deliver on the promises that we made to our residents this is whatever happens in City Center should not be affecting residential neighborhoods and by the way we're already doing it for example in Palm View Palm View we already put diver in in Palm View and so we need to be forward looking uh with this I see we have Jose Gonzalez our transportation director at the podium Jose is there anything you need to add to this uh no Mr uh chairman Mr vice mayor just a I think uh recommendation from this body so that we can move forward with the analysis that's required to do some sort of a diverter we actually when we hear analysis there's a former mayor that used to say say par uh paralysis by analysis um and so when I hear analysis I hear I hear something not moving forward what analysis is necessary and why so there's an engineering analysis that would be required for required by for a variety of reasons by whom required by Miami date County we are going to be modifying that intersection in any way restricting movements in any way which is what a traffic diverter does by you know by definition then that would require County review and approval we would need to develop the drawings for the county to review them and approve a and and we're presuming that what this body is looking for is a permanent diverter like something there5 days a year that was a commitment that was stun to that neighborhood years and years and years ago mhm when when when when the elected officials went out and even and it was brought up again by the way it was brought up again when the whole conversation of the convention center hotel that was the last time it was brought up the last time that the Convention Center Hotel was brought up the elected officials at the time went out to that neighborhood and I was again sitting in that audience and it was promised to that neighborhood that there was going to be a traffic diverter there and so and so yeah uh that was a promise that was made and those are the promises we have to keep the same way we deliver on the Promises of a Convention Center the same way we're delivering on the promise of a Convention Center Hotel and you see how we all feel about hotels but we're keeping on those promises we also need to keep the promises to our residents Mr vice mayor we're committed to uh furthering some of the concepts that we've included as part of this item there are about three two to three different options uh different configurations that could potentially work at that intersection we're committed to moving forward with those but it will require some level of engineering to and ultimately if it's going to be a project to be built it will require you know final drawings engineering plans and whatnot but at least we're committed to take it to the next level but it will require uh some analysis in terms of what should the diverter look like does it fit Is it feasible what turns are we going to be allowing what turns are we going to be res restricting clearly we want to restrict the north and south bound movements so that there isn't direct uh you know uh influx of vehicles coming out of the convention center and into the neighborhood but then we've got you know left turn lanes that we've got to also take into consideration perhaps we don't want to affect left turn lane coming out of the convention center or out of the central Bayshore neighborhood so fitting this uh diverter is is extremely important in in order to be able to uh move it forward to fruition all right so uh commissioner Bon you're recognized again mouthful sorry no worries Mr attorney um would you put me mouthful to you too would you mind adding me with the permission of a sponsor as a co-sponsor of course and you can join me as a prime oh yeah you were commissioner B you were a longtime resident of the bayor neighborhood and you served on its board and uh and I I know how much you care about that neighborhood so I'll be happy to join have you join me as a prime all right uh with that uh would you move the item no yes so moved okay uh the item's been moved it's been second by can we show this adopted by acclamation yes and commissioner as far as wanted to be recorded as a yes oh great thank you um and and by the way uh as you all do your analysis I'm I'm just wondering what is it that we prioritize last in our transportation master plan Mr director currently vehicles vehicles and what is it that we prioritize first Above All Else pedestrians okay I hope that's taken into account in this uh in this analysis that's done thank you so much um I yes commiss where do unicycles fall where unic those are in the other category unic we're silly today all right um Mr director let's call up item number 12 and again for the record item number 11 uh was deferred so let's call item number 12 okay item number 12 is a resolution of the mayor and City commission directing the city Administration to explore feasible strategies for creating and expanding green roofs as well as incorporating Greenery and Landscaping on City buildings and present its finding to the land use sustainability committee and the finance and economic resiliency committee within 90 days of the adoption of the resolution okay this item is sponsored by uh commissioner magazine co-sponsored uh by commissioner Suarez um and I see we have this uh at the podium um but commissioner Suarez just walked into the room uh we are an item number 12 relating to Green roofs which you are co-sponsoring with commissioner magazine um not sure you want to speak on this item you wanted to first I'll let um I'll let Elizabeth speak on to them it good afternoon all um Elizabeth Muro interm director for facilities and Fleet for the record uh we first presented this item of the July 9th land use and sustainability committee meeting and we were um asked to research three main points one which is the all-in cost for green roofs uh secondly we're also asked to see if green roofs actually extended the life of roofing systems and what that will look like so we did a little research um the all-in cost right now still stands at about $120 a square foot and um in terms of extending the life of roofing system it does allow for that so but there are other areas in the periphery that are still exposed to the Sun and they may have some wear and tear but overall with a good maintenance system that will um provide an extension of life to the roofing membrane okay um so what we're proposing is a pilot program if we want to do something like a roofing system a green roofing system I'm sorry and we're looking at the roof at 1833 uh Bay Road which is a Facilities Management building it has a flat roof it's got a perfect um setting it's about 6,000 square ft that pilot program if we go forward with it would be something like 720,000 um Dollar Plus $36,000 for maintenance which will provide at least a 20-year warranty if we want to go forward with a roofing system like this as a pilot program um we're proposing that this be funded through the budget process as um fiscal year 26 okay so this would not be a midyear um a midar uh item correct all right uh I see we have commissioner magazine to sponsor the item uh pressing via Zoom commissioner magazine you are uh recognized to speak on your item I appreciate it and uh thank you for the spirited discussion all throughout the day uh I guess I just have one question for uh Liz our presenter here uh obviously it was a it was a larger than expected number that was um given and we discuss this at F and almost in a way would be somewhat cost prohibitive outside of you know a a one-off here or there across the city now is that essentially that cost we wanted to go out and just replace a roof right away and I guess where I'm going with this is um if a roof had to be replaced on a city building what would that cost be compared to this here because of course if we just wanted to go out and do this right away but perhaps uh we lessen the cost where if we say Well when it comes time to replace a roof we do so through a green roof um and let me just use an example of that if a installing a green roof on the selected facility would be $720,000 seems very eye popping but if a normal roof uh would be $400,000 or $500,000 then really what we'd be looking at is just what that variances between a green roof and a normal roof replacement uh hopefully that makes sense uh because I'll just kind of kick it back to the chair and to Liz to uh steer this discussion further but thank you for letting me speak and appreciate the time on this item Li you're welcome to respond to the sponsor thank you absolutely so the difference between one and the other so a regular roofing system which just replace the one at 1755 and that's 170,000 ft it was approximately $488,000 that's about $30 per square foot if we're going to do a roofing system that is a green roofing system is about $90 more that's $120 a square feet sorry um so that's where the difference is that's where the Delta is commissioner Bon so I I love this I you know we see pictures of Bogata and other cities around the world um some of which are not particularly wealthy cities where this is incorporated into their urban planning and it is so good for so many different reasons um I love the idea of doing a pilot I would be really psyched to join as a co-sponsor if I would be um permitted to do so I would just suggest that perhaps unless the facility that you have discussed um is in need of a new roof um maybe another site to consider could be the fire station as it's getting built um because that could be planned in to the cost um or maybe we do this first and the next one is the fire station because this one you could get done sooner rather than later I you know we'll figure that one out but um and also it would make sense with fire station being the Western most edge of all of Flamingo Park it' be a beautiful continuation of the park elevated into the sky but um I don't want to derail this in any way I would just like to add that to it as part of the consideration set commissioner Dominguez thank you I think I had something similar to this um last year and um I think it's a great idea and I absolutely would be supportive all right commissioner Suarez this is sort of on a different note and i' would love to see what my colleagues say about this but you know when these buildings do get built aside from the Green living roof um how would my colleagues feel about um perhaps a requirement that roofs it's not just some ugly tar you'd have to put like at least a Turf like a fake Turf green um so that if you're a neighbor and you look down you don't see a um you know like water spillage or or water pooling um I think above the the on the roof of the community center um there's actually like plants growing on top of the roof h and it's like unsightly um how do you guys would feel about that this is a little separate apart from this but um when you have just a regular roof with tar laid down and and sheets of um of roofing it's just it's kind of ugly yeah and and I don't disagree especially you know in areas where you have vertical looking down on on uh smaller scale buildings um what I suggest is perhaps making it a little bit open-ended um you know requiring some sort of finish other than tar um Mur yeah a mural in certain places to do that yeah I think at one point we were contemplating the city was contemplating a mural for the top of the convention center garage but that was under some other iteration um I think I'm all forward I there's and there's also you know finishes paints that you could use to be more reflective of light uh and make the building even more sustainable but at the very least as you mentioned commissioner um aesthetically uh for for the people who have to look down on it I I wouldn't oppose that uh I just want to make a maintain a level of flexibility where we do not add cost um sometimes you know not everyone is able to do a green roof some times people are not able to add all the bells and whistles as a matter of cost and I just don't want it don't want to make it harder for people to fix their roofs a lot of times people fix their roofs at moments of emergency and you know a lot of times for them it's cause that was unexpected that they didn't plan for and so I like to be mindful of that but I do like the idea I think we should be encouraging it and so maybe if you work on an item you know on a way way to explore I just be mindful of those thoughts listen just to make one note the city did pass in 2019 the urban heat island effect ordinance which basically requires that any of the new construction have you know um basically roofing systems that are high albo Services you know they're reflective these could be green roofs these could be white roofs and blue roofs and solar roofs so there are options out there okay uh staff what do you need from us uh with this item if you want to support a pilot program we're going to hear this all again in finance okay so so so this would be to support um uh the pilot program as part of the 2026 correct so that it can be incorporated into the into the budgeting process process okay all right um I'm fine supporting that if someone is willing to make a motion make motion second and by let's show that uh adopted by acclamation of course it's not my it magazine and U Mr chair with that uh recommendation supporting the pilot um the item will be concluded yes okay concluded here in this committee um all right um Mr director let's call up item number 13 okay item number 13 is explore zoning incentives and identify appropriate zoning districts to encourage the development of schools and other educational facilities thank you this is an item that commissioner Suarez and I have sponsored together uh to find ways to encourage the development of um of schools in our city and not only to encourage the development of schools in in our city uh but also to remove some of the red tape uh that schools oftentimes encounter and so I'd like to recognize commissioner Suarez who walk us through the item and also allow staff to to walk us through some of the recommendations thank you Mr chair I think it the the the message is clear you know a lot of people want to move to South Florida but we but we're we're not building any more schools to accommodate um the people moving to to Florida and particularly South Florida there is a lot of red tape when it comes to building a school in Miami Beach very large setbacks and um f constraints and so I believe we had a sunshine meeting to discuss um what possibilities we can do to incentivize and encourage more schools to be built uh in Miami Beach uh and Tom if if you have a uh a few notes to share with us that'd be great thank you sure uh we came up with some potential land use and Zoning incentives for new schools and education uses um the first would be a streamline review of the building permit process the the second would be a reduction in City application and impact fees the third would be modifying minimum off street parking requirements uh to better reflect the operation and program of a school or education use uh number four would be allowing the design review board historic preservation board is applicable who has to approve any new school to Grant limited waivers for Building height setbacks and minimum open space requirements so that the unique attributes of a school can be better taken into account without having to apply for variances reducing fees for the conversion of on street parking spaces to loading and drop off areas during specified times of the day currently in order for schools to utilize on street parking spaces for drop off and pickup there's a fee that is required to rent those uh in addition to these land use permitting and Zoning incentives other incentives that could be explored include discounted employee parking and free student parking in City lots and garages um the use of City Recreation and field space including an opportunity to provide for free or heavily discounted access to City Park facilities okay um I think so was there any what was the setback um did we do any setback requirements basically it would allow the drb HPB to wave setback requirements um what we've noticed is that schools sometimes have difficulty meeting one or more setback requirements and rather than forcing them to request a variance which is cumbersome and you have to show a hardship and is subject to appeal the drb or HPB could um on a Case by case basis Grant a waiver of those yeah see my my only issue is that you know the the school that's being built in south of fifth base camp um John Marshall was the owner he spent millions of dollars in change fees because of the hbb um sight lines I think eyebrows I mean I think you you're familiar I mean he he really got put through the ringer um and I think the the essence of why we brought this forward is to sort of remove that that those limitations and um you know considering that it was he went through one of the most challenging processes I've ever heard or seen to build a school I don't think this goes enough I think you know perhaps you can come back with something a little bit more less cumbersome for uh a school applicant um that doesn't necessarily have to go um between a a a review that's that's really subjective I don't know how my colleagues feel about that um but I I I mean you know from hearing what Mr Marshall said and and look he built this school and I don't know if you remember he he also bought the hostel that was South the fifth he only bought it just so that his school wasn't next to a hostel and the Hoops that he had to go through to you know bring in uh was was was really a travesty as far as the process here in Miami Beach and you know I I think whatever roadblocks that we can remove for something as simple as a school being built at M Beach I think we really have to do our part in that and I commissioner I'm I'm proud to be sponsoring this with you because I do believe that part of what contributes to the quality of life in our city is access to education why we invest so much of the Public's money in education uh unlike any other city by the way and I I do hear from parents that um that it does affect their quality of life that that they have to drive 40 minutes to be able to take their kids to a to a school um that's not even in Miami Beach that's not even in Miami Beach and you know it is part of being a world world class City it is part of being a resident friendly city is having uh access to schools yes we have public schools we have a lot of public schools and great quality public schools and perhaps it's an asset that we don't highlight enough in our community but not all students succeed in public school some students need special types of Education um not all students culturally fit into a public school whether it be for religious purposes or whether it be for language purposes or whether it be the size of the classroom whatever it may be it may be bringing more education into our city is a benefit it is something that will attract families to our city and it's a decision it's something that families look into when they're choosing where to live closeness and proximity to schools they want to take their children to and uh and there's been a lot of schools being built in other parts of our County and I really haven't seen the influx of schools in our community and I think it probably goes hand inand with the fact that we've had a reduction in population and so by the by the same tokens that we try to incentivize the construction of residential inventory I think we need to incentivize the development of of more schools in our community I it just goes hand inand and so I'm all for uh these amendments uh and doing whatever we can to deregulate as much as we can uh the construction of schools including making the process through our historic preservation board and our drb a little bit easier if they need waivers of setback or within a certain amount of waiver of height you know maybe it can be approved administratively rather than having to go through drb and hbb um because otherwise you know we are we we can't let Perfection get in the way of the good so that's my thought on this very well said Mr chair and so Tom I think the the direction is you know need come back some a little bit more aggressive incentive for schools I think you know giving waivers or like waving impact fees it's not really going to move the needle you know we we we we want to you know it by the time my first four years are over I'd love to see at least one school brand new school be built as a result of this legislation you know one thing to consider as you go back to see what else we could do is possibly the idea of alternate types of school buildings um I've seen building schools um in Office Buildings I've seen schools in different types of more vertical buildings um if we want to transform form what Washington Avenue is you know maybe there's an opportunity to identify properties there that could be a conversion especially where you have parks in a block or two proximity and so maybe it's not a k through 12 school because you know whatever but but look at adding that to the mix of incentives because that would be a great way to use existing Urban space in a way that could be really transformative all right so what action does the um Administration any promise on this item so why don't we go ahead and defer this to or continue this to um the next luse committee meeting on November 25th and then we can come back to you with some more uh robust options including um perhaps um administrative level approval for certain types of schools I think that that'd be prudent um all right great thank you and and I'll say even you know allowing certain hide waivers I think also it's one of the things that we need to we we need to consider f um you know an F incentive I don't I don't mind an F incentive if we are doing it for commercial I think you know and we're doing it to go from hotel to residential we need to look at it as a tool for Education because the reality is as we increase the amount of residence so will the amount of children in our community and we need options for them all right so we'll bring this item back uh next month let's call up item number 14 okay item number 14 is to discuss creating economic and Zoning incentives to encourage the conversion of existing Office Buildings to residential which ideally explore new incentives uh economic or other being used used in other states rather than relying on existing options which we might not want to encourage such as F and parking incentives or reductions in the mobility fee in order to increase the supply of available housing in might Beach commissioner bot this is your item together with commissioner Joseph magazine you're welcome to present your item so this um thank you Mr chair this um item goes back quite a number of months and um I I think there was a little bit of um I think there was an opportunity to come back with some more robust research to try to to effectuate this what what I'm trying to encourage is how do we look differently at um incentivizing um converting Office Space Office Buildings into residential um more than the traditional F or height or whatever um part of the problem is that we live in Florida where we have less autonomy to do what we want to do in our city um you know there there there are cities around the country that have pretty robust options for incentivizing uh how to do this so and you you did a really nice job of laying out what what some of the other cities are doing um one thing that stuck out to me in this this um updated version of this memo is um the fact that the cost of an office to residential conversion um is less expensive in smaller older buildings um three stories or less and we have areas um in different parts of the city that have plenty of those buildings so along 41st Street and along Washington so can we perhaps craft something specifically for those areas that would give us a little bit of room to maneuver or can they be folded into things that we're already doing um I'm not sure what the the right way to proceed with that is and then the other question is are we preempted by the state from doing our own tax incentives is that something that we just cannot even contemplate uh as to the first question on the smaller Office Buildings that's something that we could certainly explore um it's permitted it's allowed the question is how do you want to incentivize it the only challenge and we probably should have mentioned this in the memo is that with a lot of these Office Buildings unfortunately the first level is not at base flood elevation um and if it's it's not under the building codee you wouldn't be able to commit convert that to a habitable use but you could potentially convert the floors above that so the second and third floor um so you could maintain the existing retail or office and then build or convert the office to retail and then and then do the residential above that in terms of the tax um that I don't have an answer to I I can answer that um we're very limited into uh as to what kinds of of tax incentives we can adopt at the local level um I know recently as part actually of the live local act the legislature adopted certain tax exempt for uh exemptions for um for affordable and Workforce residential development um but beyond that we can only provide for tax exemption when it's expressly Allowed by state law so even if we don't make an exemption but we may change the duration of time over which the the taxes are paid like maybe we don't collect everything immediately but we deferred over five years or 10 years are we able to do that I don't think we can do that but we can research that I think everybody's subject to the same um billing and dead and payment deadlines every year okay but if it were a project that qualified for those affordable or Workforce incentives then maybe that's something we could explore Tom let me let me just ask a question because to your line of thinking there's these Tiff districts uh like Tiff financing and all that um which is the increment over over over the tax your your existing tax and then that goes into an account uh or into a district um how could you know perhaps explore a mechanism like that and how that could be used so if a if a project were within the boundaries of a CRA for example okay we can we can look up I mean I love your idea I think I don't know how to do it yeah well we can keep it here should we keep it here for another few months and see yeah yeah okay yeah and I think uh you know one of the things that we should do is you know reach out to the state uh you know we have Peter that was recently hired um as our as our estate Gau and you know see what the state might be willing to to do to you know incentivise Property Owners uh to put their properties to better use okay commissioner Dominguez thank you um so when I had a discussion about this because it is a good idea I thought as well um with the city Administration they felt that it's premature um and it wasn't something we should be spending a whole lot of time on so um keeping it here a little longer might help but um that's the feedback I got from the city did you guys not got the same feedback okay yes Rec last week oh I did not all right so with that we'll keep uh this item in committee and uh we will move on to item number 15 okay item number 15 review traffic impact study requirements in the Land Development regulations for new development and consider whether ldr amendments are appropriate to strengthen the city's review of a Project's impact on Transportation infrastructure as well as enhanced traffic mitigation measures required of applicants commissioner bot this is your item yeah so um josea is gone but um this was an item that I brought because it just seemed like there's so many developments happening all at once and um even things without our city borders were happening that are going to affect us and I wanted to just um really make sure that we were um doing everything we could to take as many different factors into account when we require developers to do traffic mitigation study and so after um deferring this item last time um the staff and I met to talk about this and it seems like we are doing pretty robust work and that there's not a whole lot more that we can be doing um which is not ideal to hear but I guess that's where we are but let me ask this new developments here's here's my challenge with new developments which I think it goes to to to what you're trying to tackle commissioner I come in and I'm proposing a development um at any given location and I do a traffic study right now Mr director the traffic study that I commission only cons only considers existing conditions and how my project would impact existing conditions is that correct my understanding is that the um traffic uh impact will take into consideration future development that is proposed within a given area um so if there's a project approved but not built there's obviously no way to do take into account that in terms of the realtime traffic implications but the traffic study will take into account what that is likely to result in is happening so so so the projects are taking into account the the the traffic review the traffic analysis these studies done by developers and their teams right now they're supposed to be looking at not just current conditions but how their project together with surrounding approved projects how they're how put together how those are going to affect conditions correct and Jose walked in if I said anything correctly Jose feel free to correct me but I believe that's the um that's the case well but but but let me ask you this if it were the case wouldn't you be seeing it in the traffic studies because I'll tell you this when I sat on the planning board one of my frustrations was said it didn't feel like the studies we were getting necessarily reflected that so do you feel that the studies we are getting are active are accely reflecting that Jose my understanding is that for development applications even if approved projects aren't built that the traffic uh consultant will take those into account within a certain radius of the new project correct that is correct and is that happening yes in in terms of every traffic study builds upon the traffic studies prior related to other developments so it's a cumulative um let me ask you this you know because I've always been skeptical I've always been skeptical of private traffic studies do we internally peerreview those traffic studies we do we do okay we have a consultant a a traffic consultant that peer reviews the traffic engineering studies for each de development and and has and have we ever found deviations between what's being presented and what our peer reviewer has uh has found deviations as we review we could find discrepancies we bring those to the attention of the consultant but by the time that traffic study is finalized those those discrepancies if there are any have been addressed okay all right I just feel you know I I just recall one of my frustrations has over the years has been I never really felt like the traffic studies truly Incorporated the surrounding developments I never saw a traffic study like they always show show you a project site the application site but they'll never show you a traffic study that shows okay these are the projects around you what they're projected to generate and what yours is projected to generate it always feels like it's going as of current conditions and I don't know commissioner B I mean you sat on the planning board much more recently than what I did yeah it it just seems like well when we discussed this as a in an internal meeting group um it it feels like you know for instance in Town Center North Beach we know there are 13 projects in an 8x6 you know block area um and it doesn't feel like the traffic has been the traffic Studies have really represented the bottleneck that that is going to become similarly the project that was proposed for the Western end of Normandy where North Bay Village has 3,000 units coming online or more um and I know it's a different it's a different city but that is going to impact us and and so I that's what I was trying to get to of how do we how do we broaden the scope so that we take into real world effects that we know are coming down the pike but it it didn't seem like there was a way to do that in any reasonable manner so unless something's changed last through the chair the the scope of the scope of every traffic study is negotiated with the Traffic Engineers associated with that development project uh it's what we call a methodology meeting and I think this is something we discussed at at the meeting that we had with you of perhaps broadening that scope uh so that it encompasses more than just the intersections that are in the immediate vicinity of that proposed development um you know I think that's something that we can certainly propose and this is a a negotiation these traffic studies are are they're standardized so that it doesn't matter whether it's City of Miami Miami Beach Surf Side wherever they all sort of look the same and they have the same sort of content uh but I and you know there's typically a range of of like how far away from the the proposed development the the the traffic study looks at so that it doesn't become a very comprehensive um you know unmanageable um analysis but we can during our methodology meetings with the Traffic Engineers of the various developments we can so work with them on that I I understand the the concern about you know project or scope creep but we're not looking for a um a completely comprehensive traffic study of every particular possible situation but for instance if you're doing something in North Beach um and you know and it's close to the bridge the 79 Street bridge and you know there's a bunch of units coming online it seems like that would be a reasonable request to incorporate that that known oncoming project um or you know somebody were trying to develop something near Fifth and Alton you know the building is empty right now but once it's once it's occupied that's going to that is a an enhanced traffic intensity that we know is going to happen so um I mean I don't think there's anything we can do to codify it unless I'm wrong um but as much as we can request that as opposed to you know it to say it's part of the negotiations it's like we' like you to do X and they say well we don't want to do X and then then where are we um but you know there there are these sort of um unexpected more intense than normal uh flow of development M happening in certain areas of the city and it seems like that would require those extenda circumstances would require a different kind of non-standardized traffic study so for example if they your mic off I'm sorry your mic is off oh now it's on oh okay and through the chair apologies uh if if there is a private development being proposed and it's in the south of fifth area while it may not be next to alterate fifth we would we would and I would I would think we would work with the Traffic Engineers to include that intersection as part of their analysis now if that if that intersection if their analysis shows that that intersection fails and and I'm sure this is already being done but I that consultant the traffic engineering consultant will need to bring that to our attention if it's already failing even though it's not within the immediate vicinity so I think some of guess what I'm trying to say is some of that that larger broader um is analysis is already happening in the background of every traffic engineering study since they all build upon themselves and they're all incremental uh but perhaps it's an issue of highlighting it in the traffic studies which is not being currently done and and should be this is the last item right okay um I guess I don't think there's anything that needs to be modified I don't think there's anything that needs to be codified on this it's just sort of a different way of working as you go forward um to highlight these sort of extenuating projects in areas or the extenuating areas for projects that will be impacted by them even if they're not just a block away you guys have any no thank you for looking into this though it is an important issue and we only have limited capacity in our city and it needs to be taken into consideration with our developments um do you want to show that item as discussed and concluded yeah I guess so okay so we can show that as discuss and concluded with that uh we have gone through today's agenda colleagues I want to thank you all for your for your time and participation uh staff uh and uh and attorneys and members of the public uh thank you for for attending and our next meeting Mr director is November 5th is that correct that's correct November 5th thank you all e