All right, all right. If I can everyone's attention, I believe the AV issue has been situated so if anyone's outside, if you have any parties that's outside, if you could usher them back into the auditorium so that we can recommence. And I'm not sure how we would get the message out, but if anyone knows anyone that can communicate with those individuals who are streaming online, it should be back. And if they're having any issues to just refresh the page, that's the directive that I've been given from the AV department. But we'll recommence in just a minute. Yes? Where are we at? I make a motion. I move to a chair. I move to a chair. I move to a chair. I move to a chair. I move to a chair. I move to a chair. I move to a chair. I move to a chair. I move to a chair. I move to a chair. I move to a chair. I move to a that. I don't think we can do that. I don't think we can do that. I don't think we can do that. I don't think we can do that. I don't think we can do that. I don't think we can do that. I don't think we can do that. I don't think we can do that. I don't think we can do that. I don't think we can do that. I think 22 minutes. He was talking about the individual towers. He concluded the presentation right before. And I believe it's chairman the total consumed by the applicant and the city is about 40 minutes. So yeah. And I think that there's someone that wanted to proceed your presentation, but I don't see him out there. David? Oh, there he is. So, Ms. Chairman, when you decide to hear the opponents, he's going to stay to the three-minute rule, and he has some time constraints. I assure you, I'm very visible. I'm right here. And the rest of the opponents have no objection for him going for it. Okay, I'll keep that. I'll be going to start that clock. Mr. No. I'm going to keep this very short if you don't mind. My name is David Templer, 3260 Northeast 160 Fort Street. Chair St. Villain Board members, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I'm sure you'll hear from a number of my neighbors. I am a North Miami Beach resident for 60 years and Eastern shores resident for 30 years. Licensed and practicing Florida lawyer for 35 years. I don't know that gives me any more credibility than anybody else in the room, but just so that you know a little bit about my background. I've sat here on the commission as a member of the North, my Beach City Council before was a commission back in 2005 and currently a board member of Espow and you'll hear from some of those folks. My feeling today is I signed off on a letter that provided 13 talking points that the Eastern Shore's residence feel are important. Those 13 talking points may have been circulated to you, and I wanna assure you that this is not what has been described as re-litigation of what was previously filed in court and decided by a judge. The Stroud Report talked about what was already litigated. These 13 points are new and different and there's nothing in the law that would prevent you from considering them. And the reason I bring that up and mention it specifically is until those 13 points can be adequately addressed by your legal department. For you to vote in favor of or against the site plan either way would be a violation of your obligation in your oath. You must assure that these 13 points are adequately addressed by your legal department. Otherwise, your votes today, yay or nay in favor or opposed, or a violation of your obligation to note. So I'd encourage you to consider that and to table this for another day. Thank you very much for hearing me. Thank you. Are we prepared to hear from the opposition? Yes. That was the opposite. That was the first? Yes. That was the opposite. That was the first objector. And now I guess it's the group. Yes, that's the opposite. And by the way, Mr. Chairman, if I may, when they refer to the stride opinion, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not sure if I'm wrong. I'm not sure if I'm wrong. I'm not sure if I'm wrong. I'm not sure if I'm wrong. I'm not sure if I'm wrong. I'm not sure if I'm wrong. I'm not sure if I'm wrong. I'm not sure if I'm wrong. I'm not sure if I'm wrong. I'm not sure pretend I'm part of my presentation and I part of that record, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. Good evening. My name is Bruce Cousins and I am standing. That's a reference to my height in any event. The- I'm still that you're so sure. Okay. But I'll follow. The I'm been a resident for 35 years, well since Hurricane Andrew in Eastern shores, I have no commercial interest whatsoever in this. I have a huge interest in protecting my home and protecting the neighbors that had the confidence that let me stand up here and talk about things. The first thing you've used the term that I'm in opposition to it, I'm not in opposition to it. What I'm in opposition to is making a decision with insufficient information, with dated information, with old information, with errors in the report. And I've done my homework. I really have done my homework on this. And I'm telling you that it would be super wrong to make any decision until you've had an opportunity to do this. Sitting talking to you for the next half hour is roughly the same as going to medical school in 45 minutes. We're not going to cover everything that we need to cover. Ed, I've got some questions for you. I guess this is how I cross examine. Ed, what's the population density of Eastern shores? Chair, we don't engage in back and forth. Oh, no, no, this is critical. I have your letters on that. The population density, would you agree? It's about 26 people per acre in Eastern shores, excluding your project. So typically what I'm not to interrupt, but if you're going to present just as the applicant had opportunity to present, make your presentation and you can save time for your final. This is my cross-exam time. Wait, that's what I'm told. So let me get some clarity. So we're all on the same page from the city attorney as to I'm very familiar with across examination is, but how nice is going to be? But I'm an engineer and 50 years ago, I went to law school, but anybody can make a mistake. No, I don't want to circumvent you opportunity to cross anyone. It's my favorite part of being an attorney, but with that being said, I just want to make sure we're all on even playing fields all we're going to have an opportunity to hear from and I did I've been hearing opposition I'm not sure how to refer to you as the group that you represent the objectives maybe the objectives I don't consider myself an objective if anything I'm a development agdas I get it, but I would like to refer to him. Hi, we'd like to be friends. Let's try Bruce. I answered that. I'll go. So I don't think that. I just want some guidance so that way. The issue of cross examination was discussed at length between the parties. I have my own opinion about that, but it has to be directed to things that he stated in his testimony. He talked about population density. Well, but. Absolutely talked about it. That's the reason this stuff. Don't think he did. And he's shaking his head. You did not know that the density is all down the list. We have an objection to this particular part of the procedure. I would object because the witness did not testify as to the population density of eastern shores. So the question is outside the scope of direct examination and therefore it's improper crossings. of direct examination and therefore it's improper cross-examination. So you can make Mr. Cousins, you can make your point that information was not provided, but not by way of cross-examination just as your argument. I was at it. You're absolutely right. I agree. He didn't say a word about population density. That's a clear violation of our comprehensive plan and all of the and statutes and I have them The there's two densities how many building how many units you can put in a building and how many people you can stick in them He can build 2,000 units, but you can only populate about 200 of them So I'm not kidding. That's what the comprehensive plan says Well, you're not cross-examining me, so go ahead and proceed, sir. Okay. So I agree there was, did you mention anything about population density? Not very much. Good. Good. Are you aware of the population density is required in the comprehensive plan? If you would just make your statements as to anything that he omitted or that you think he should have alluded to, but not by way of cross examining something that he didn't testify to. How is that? I'm trying to do that. I agree he did not make a statement about population density, what the population density is. This is a different question. He said he's in compliance with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan includes population density. If it wasn't considered, it's wrong. You can't continue with the site plan, because that's a basic requirement of the site plan and legal notices to state population density. In my presentation, I'm going to tell you what the densities are. 4,500 people in Eastern shores in that area versus 26 people per acre in the rest of Eastern. And one other suggestion, as an engineer that also has 50 years of law practice. Okay. You should address your comments to the panel that is acting in a quasi judicial file. Absolutely. I'll get to it. Alrighty. So that's it for population density. Did you talk about administrative waivers? I did. Was that yes or no, I didn't hear. You said he did. Oh, good. Are you aware that administrative waivers cannot be given until a side pan is approved? That is incorrect, sir. You are alluding to section 117.1, which is a separate part of the code. Within the actual zone itself, with the case with other makes you district, and it's the case within the district, and I contemplated in both the development agreement and the actual zoning administrative waiver are provided, did it the basis for how other approval happened done, such as for New North and other development in the path in the McHugh districts? So your statement now is that administrative waivers can be granted without a site plan. You sure about that, because I have some stuff here that you authored, it's a little different than that. I'm going to object to this argument with the witness if he has a question he could ask it. He has a statement he could make it but this is not the back and forth. Go ahead and proceed with your presentation. Let me do the presentation first okay and actually this can be a very short meeting because we there's nothing to talk about here. This is the deficiencies in the notice. This is the actual zoning application that was submitted. You'll notice it's incomplete as to who the owner is. It's incomplete as to the date of when it was done. It fails notary requirements with respect to a notary not identifying who, whether they knew them personally or whether they provided any information, we don't have, there's nothing in front of us because no application has been submitted. It has been, it's totally flawed the application. So, you know, what can I say? I don't really think that, I mean, I'll go through all this stuff. I got no problem doing that. And my attorney has told me that I need to protect the record in case somebody disagrees about that. That's exactly what we want you to do. To protect a record by putting in whatever you believe is missing or omitted or deficient. Can you ever offer this thing, tell me who the owner is, is it Deezer, is it Deezer Development Company? Who is it? When was this done? This document, Florida, the statute you see here says, it's not 10 days notice before the hearing, it's 10 days after within 10 days of when the notice is when the site plan is submitted. That clearly wasn't done. It was done on July 8th because that's when the last hearing was. So a site plan was do on July 8th. That means by July 18th, the notice should have been posted. It wasn't. I had 48 hours because of IT issues to download these documents and to produce this stuff here. They had three years to do it. That's not fair. So, I don't know how to get that any clearer, but the notice, the actual zoning notice is not timely and it's not correct. It's missing all those. This is the notice. It says here that it has to have all the instructions about quasi-judicial. The notice must be consistent, prominent posting on the website, 10 days after the filing of the application. Not 10 days before the hearing. So I don't know why we're here, and there's nothing to decide because there has not been a proper application submitted. Let's see. We've got, I got some issues with lobbyists, with the lobbyists notice. They're not current. They're one case. Mr. Deezer is one of them. The other case he's not another one., Mr. Dzer is one of them, the other case. Not another one, all that. I strongly disagree that my authority is Edward NG and the state statutes that says that administrative waivers can only be granted on site plans that have been approved. There has been no site plan approved. There is nothing to talk about for administrative waivers because you can't do it. Now we did have, the density is a big issue. Density is how many units per acre? And you guys did an incredible job of saying how many units per acre there are. You guys did nothing for population density. The document of the addendum of the density, I did a word search on it. It's a 25 page document. I looked for the word population. It wasn't there. So that's what population, units don't drive traffic, units don't drive all kinds of things. People do that. That's why population density is super important. And the comprehensive plan that we have in 2015 went so far as to say that you can't extremely compelling conditions must exist to increase the population density of eastern shores. It's clearly inconsistent with a comprehensive plan. The next issue is, we've gone through the density thing. In the applications, there is a present case, and there is also a requirement for future things. Would you say that, well, I guess that's not a fair question. I don't think that our traffic and our situation that it existed in 2020 is the same as today. There was no bright line, there was no trial rail. These are huge things. There are a number of developments. The developer is required to list all of the other committed developments in the city because they impact the total traffic that goes on. Intersections, there is zero sum game. You give more time going north, south. It comes out of east, west. You give more east, west. It comes out of north, south. We don't have that. The advent of delivery services, how many packages do you get a week here? Amazon come to see you, Uber comes to see you for lifts. What that ever considered was the impact of delivery services ever considered? No. So those are huge things. That's a huge reason I have articles that put that at 30%. Let's talk about sea level and evacuations. That's a huge reason I have articles that put that at 30%. Let's talk about sea level and evacuations. What was the date of the map that you used to forecast the evacuations for your traffic? Same objection. I'm sorry, same objection. I'm sorry, it was 2010. That was probably the oldest they could find, okay? In our last meeting, I said, and it was asked, why did you use that? Well, that's the best we had. I'll show you a 2017 map that shows that we went from Eastern shores and actually extends west of Biscayne Boulevard now, where from not being in a hurricane evacuation zone to being in an evacuation zone A, which is the very fur, the lowest one, a category one you got to get out. And there's no accommodation for that. What they proposed in 2050? That's fine. What they did in 2020, if they would have acted on it, maybe get away with it. But now we've got bright lawn and dry rail when they're built out, they will close that not just the intersection, 163rd in Bitscane, they will close every intersection as it traverses through North Miami Beach for roughly once every 12 minutes and every time the gate goes down and the lights recynchronize, it's at least 2 to 3 minutes. I'm perfectly willing to understand I'm a devout Libra and I want balance and I want I'm sorry. I don't know. I'm not sure if you guys still have. I'm sorry. I didn't mean interrupt. No, no, no. One issue is with you. Hearing is not my strong suit. Oh, it's not disobedience. I just, I don't, I don't hear well. I got my hearing aid on, but can you repeat your question? I was asked for intermission to make sure that we were online for the AV purposes, but no need to interrupt you, please proceed. It's okay. You're good. I'm good. All right. So we shouldn't even be here because there was no notice, a properly completed notice. That'll get us all out of here very, very early. I hadn't access because of IT issues. I couldn't get the files until 24 hours. I'm sorry, 48 hours, two business days before this meeting. And that's just really, really tough to do. I'm sorry, 48 hours, two business days before this meeting, and that's just really, really tough to do. Let me take a look through the points we got on here. I'm not going to talk about access points. And by the way, access points were the only thing that was decided in the court that we had. Sorry. that was decided in the court that we had. I'm sorry. The only issue that was decided is that our ordinance and the comprehensive plan said there has to be multiple accesses east and west. Multiple means more than one, more than two. The judge didn't agree with that. The judge and the appellate judge didn't agree with that. The judge and the appellate judge didn't agree with that. They said that this plan for access satisfies the comprehensive plan. What can I say? I'm living with that. I don't agree with it, but it doesn't make any difference. And I'm not, I'm certainly not, really really really getting that or re talking about it. I'm talking about the obligation that we live in a living world that what happened in 2015 is not the same now that sea levels have risen. Traffic has increased. Delivery vehicles are all over the place that have huge impacts on transportation. By the way, as an engineer, I've got a solution. I got the same solution that they did at Dodger Stadium where they're using, and I got it from Barcelona. They have incredibly beautiful, you know, gondolas that only require access to air rights. They're not going to take any park property. They're not going to take any streets. And it would be very, very attractive feature to go. That's the only way you're going to cross those railroad tracks for any less money. If you got to build bridges over it, you got to do whatever else. That's going to cost a fortune. This would be very attractive. And if we would put the Gondola's going to Brightlon, why, what a gift. Do you know how much money there is out there for the last mile of access to it? It's very common in New York and Barcelona and all the other places that people don't have to have their garage where it is. And I'm really amazed that Ezra wasn't responsive to even talk to me about it because he could get rid of his garages. In fact, nothing would make me happier to not have any garages because if you don't have garages, obviously there'd be some for things and for deliveries and whatever. But by and large, we don't have to do that. So I'm not asking for an impossible dream. There is something, it's in practice, and it works very, very well. The waiting time for your next thing is every 30 to 40 seconds, not 30 to 40 minutes waiting for a ride. It would take you over there, it could drop you in a oven tour of, and they have a bridge that's going to go across. There are lots of things that we can do if we're willing to talk and work together and cooperate. I haven't had zero luck after repeated efforts to do that. Every single time I've been blown off. So again, coming back to my theme without going through all of these issues is that we're not ready to make a decision here. Period and the discussion. We're working with dated traffic studies, we're working with dated evacuation information. We're working with data evacuation information. We're working with the other thing is the committed developments. The committed developments that I see provided here are about 50% of the committed developments that were in price at the time that they submitted the documents. When you have a committed development, that impacts traffic, that impacts all kinds of things. But if you don't put it in your report, you're in trouble. And as far as the legality, there's clearly, there's two things. One, this isn't just a wish from me. There is a state statute that says, if a state or federal law changes, after a development agreement has been signed that impacts that development, it must modify or be revoked. That makes sense. The state finally made sense. If you enact the law, that's what you got to do. Bright line was created by state law. It was expanded by state law. Try rail the same type of thing there. These are going to close every intersection in North Miami Beach for that period, for two to three minutes. And it's not just East West. If you're coming west on 163rd Street, you can't make a right turn if the gates are down. You certainly can't make a left turn. East and West traffic are totally stopped and even Westbound traffic can't make a turn either because of the lights not synchronized. The very first thing happens when the gates come down is you got a lot of people that maybe on the railroad tracks get off it. So that changes everything and that's part of the problem here. So there have been significant changes in our society. We have a huge rise in delivery services that are not accounted for in here. If we're going to have 4,500 people in this community, somebody's got to supply that community. Somebody's got to drive 18 wheelers with supplies for groceries and everything else in there. I love the project. I think it's a beautiful project. If it was built when we had the capacity to absorb it, that's one thing. But to say that it only increases traffic five percent, well, let's talk about that. And I'm talking 163rd and Biscayne. By the way, those are both state roads. We've been told, Ed, do we have FDOT approval? Yet, and I would provide it to you and the email approval back, I believe, and may be your email, Mr. Cudens. I have documents as reasoned as this week that says FDOT, that the only application they have in front of them is a signalized intersection at 36th Avenue. And nothing has been approved. Zero, they are waiting for information, they are waiting for final stop. As Daniel said, there are many, the presentation was great about all the wonderful things it's going to do for us. It was silent about complying with the obligations associated with them. And I got a real problem with that. I don't know if you do. How's my time. There are a lot of position people that will pose to. I'm not the time keeper. I'm good for a Q&A. I think everybody's time. I think we are 40 minutes between both parties. I think you're good on time. He's a 23 minutes. Mr. Chairman, what we... You also have the option to reserve some time for a bottle, if that's something that you want to do. One of the little technical issues I ran through is that I came with a very nice presentation on my PC, but I've learned that, and I've used it for other presentations here, but now I can't plug my PC into their system because they're afraid of it getting hacked or corrupted or whatever it is. And that's a legitimate concern. So the impact of that has been that I've downloaded all the documents to them, but they're not in any particular order. So let's run through. Why don't we leave them wanting more? Hi. Here's three documents. This is, uh, I don't want to do that. Why is it? Mr. Chairman, well, he had a months around for that. Mr. Cousins, please. Can we hear from Mr. Issakov possibly here? I think that's going to be next. Mr. Chairman, while we get all of this straight now, I want to put in the record that court decisions that have been referred to and that mostly dealt with the traffic issues of which he has brought up a few of them. The two citations that are important for the record are from the 11th Circuit, the Appella Division of our trial court and with the style Eastern shores versus North Miami Beach, et cetera. That citation is, that decision was made at the end of 2022 and it's 2021-2 AP01. And that went up to the third district Court of Appeals, which ruled in the same style Eastern Source Property Owners Association Inc. at Al versus City of Miami North Miami Beach on 1123 of 2020 to at 357 Southern 3rd, 13. And the third district court of appeals upheld the decision of the appellate division of the trial court of 11th Circuit. It's getting a little late for me. And so those were in the record and they were also referred to very cogently and clearly in the Cynthia Stroud Nancy Stroud Memorandum of April 26, 2024, which is also part of your record. Thank you, Mr Was there not a citation that you wanted to read into the record? Does that conclude what you were adding? That's it. Okay. Did they approve? And the road? Bruce, were you able to get your documentation up? And I got all the files here, but you have restrictions on accessing their cloud, and it won't want me get to them. Yeah, I don't know. This is me to get to them. This is a total surprise to me. I'd be glad to furnish paper copies of everything I've said here. Today, you're welcome to look at them, but your system won't let me get out of here to retrieve the documents that are on my PC, but the PC can't display here. And I learned that for the first time today after multiple experiences of doing its success. It's Chairman and Mr. Cousins. I noticed that the board received and staff received and I received an annotation here or a document from you which has 13 or 14 different critiques of our process and at some point it might be helpful. Let me go through it. Because you seem to have gone through them but maybe you want to quickly revise. The first point is to fill you to comply with your objection. fill you to comply with the notice requirements. The notice is, first of all, they're defective in signatures and everything else. The second thing they would do 10 days after you got the site application, that never happened. Failure provided reasonable and timely access, giving me two business days to go through thousands of pages of documents. By the way, the best place to hide sand is at the beach, OK? I think you'll understand that. Failure the applicant to include and identify projected densities. I'm telling you that according to the one document that I found that Desert submitted, he stated that it was 4,500 people. Is the density that is the project. And I'm telling you that the density of Eastern shores is 26 people, not 2600, not 260, 26. That's a huge difference and the comprehensive plan absolutely forbids that. Legal and inappropriate seeking additional variances or waivers. In administrative waivers, even according to Ed's document and I'll produce his letter, it was a letter to Andrews says, don't worry about administrative waivers. We could only do them on approved site plans. We don't have an approved site plan. It is impossible for you to do an administrative approval on that. You're welcome to do amendments. You're welcome to do variances, but they wanted to take a shortcut. At least that's my take on it. Thank you. Failure of the applicant to produce FDOT approved documents. For sure, I have numerous requests, Freedom of Information Act requests to the city, to add personally. And they give one letter that says, yeah, you got to submit some more stuff. We're looking good, but you got to support and send some more stuff. Let's talk about annual reports. There is a state statute, a city ordinance, and a development agreement that says every year, this is an obligation as a developer to report to you, to report to the citizens. What have they done? Did they seek permits for the canal? No? Well, actually, I don't know because I've never seen a report. None of you have ever seen a report. You have no idea what the compliance with their terms are because they won't give us the reports they're required. And by the way, the state has a remedy for that. It says you can modify the development agreement, or you can revocate if you want. So that's a big deal. And there's no excuse for that. There's absolutely no excuse. The I'll show you that in your June, when this board met in June of 2020, the statement was to the effect that the recommendation that came in was no site planters to be approved until the developer has accomplished mitigation of the traffic issues at 163rd and Biscayne. Nothing to do with what the traffic issue and the multiple access points that were litigated and that for whatever reason, the court felt that they had satisfied them. I apologize if I'm a little emotional about this, but it's a big deal for me. I don't take myself seriously, but I take this seriously. Failure of the applicant to use the most current storm surge maps, they went back to 2010. When I asked them about that, well, that was the best we could find. In 15 seconds, I found 2017 that moved us to a category A for category for the smallest hurricane. So that's just simply not true. Failure of the applicants provide a comprehensive and complete inventory of committed developments. That's a big deal. If you didn't disclose all the developments, then you've understated what the impact on the traffic is, and whether it will impact the level of service that the state requires in intersections. Not necessarily in the city. The failure of the applicant to amend the development agreement to account for recently enacted state and federal legislation that significantly impacts the proposed project. Well, that's what I'm saying. There is the state statute, and I quoted there, 163-3241, that says if the state enacts a law or the federal's enact a law, and it impacts this project, it's time for change. Make sense, the state did something right. We've certainly, we don't have to look any further. Bright line is by law. Tri-rail is by law. In fact, the Santa's just did the project a favor last week. He said 160,000 septic tanks in Miami-Dade County have to be moved to sears. I don't know what that's going to do to the capacity. That might have shut down all development in Miami-Dade because that's a state law now. I don't know what the capacity is. How can you make a decision without knowing? I mean, that's a lot of shit. And I'm fine, I'm fine, I'm fine, I'm fine. Okay. Pump it in the canal. Failure of the applicant to correct errors and previously submitted development agreement that were relied upon. I have pulled right from their report. They showing 450 vehicles entering 35th Avenue at 163rd Street. One block later with no way to make a left or a right, 130 of them didn't get there. I'm serious. They're showing 450 enter it, 350 make it to the next intersection. They were shy of that. I begged them for an explanation of why that, how that could possibly happen. In my business, I would have said, oops, I must have made a mistake. Let me redo it, no charge, that wasn't intentional. I get nothing like that from them. Failure of the applicant of the council for external substantive changes, which impact the health, safety and welfare of the community at large, including without limitation, issues involving the increased railroad traffic, which is going to strangle this and make this a very undesirable place for everyone to live. Not just the people in Eastern shores, but everyone in this city is going to be miserable over that. And there are solutions. I put one on the table, no charge, no consultant. It's done in Barcelona, an incredible city. Dodger Stadium. They're doing that. They're putting God in the West across the expressways for the sole purpose of getting to private parking lots because they can accommodate it. And they're responsive to the needs of concerns of their citizens. So the other thing is that this body in June 2020 said, do not permit the site plan to be approved until the developer has taken actions to mitigate the impact on 163rd and Biscayne. I don't have an annual report because they don't give out annual reports, which in and of itself justifies the revocation of the development agreement. That is a material breach of a contract to not perform that obligation. It's a violation of transparency. Everything that the city stands for, that contradicts, in my opinion. Thank you. All righty. Thank you. All righty. Thank you. Questions, comments? I'll add that. What else? Mr. Chairman, can we get this thing moving? Oh, and I want to reserve time for a rebuttal, whatever that is, okay. Mr. Chairman. We believe in wanting more. Besides Mr. Issacoff, we have requests from four other people. I don't know to what extent you'll be speaking on their behalf. We'll see. Your head resident speaking solely for you and those four other people will be confined to the three minute timeframe. Can I understand? And Mr. Chair, they can also be encouraged to say, diddo for me. You know, I say agree with the first. We clocked that in at 36 minutes. The presentation that you've heard thus far. Just for whoever's keeping. All right. May I be heard? That would leave four minutes for you, but. Okay, I don't plan on taking much time. I'm here in my individual capacity. I'm a long time resident. My name is Eric Isacoff. I live at 30206 Northeast 168th Street. I was born and raised in North Miami Beach. I went to Sable Palm Elementary, John F. Kennedy Middle School, and North Miami Beach in your high, about two years after it opened. I was one of the earliest attendees. I lived here for many years, moved to North Bay Island, where I was a commissioner for two terms. I was the vice mayor there, and then I moved back here about 22 years ago, I think, approximately. And I've lived in Eastern Shore as ever since. I'm an attorney in Miami. I've been practicing in October for 42 years. And I'm very familiar with the history of what's going on here. And I'm not here to relitigate anything or to dredge up anything that's been considered and resolved. I'm here for a very, very specific and narrow purpose. Taking nothing away from Mr. Cousins, who has a bunch of information, and he's bubbling over with concern about what's going on here, and it's a lot to absorb in a very short period of time. But very succinctly, let me just summarize as follows. In the prior iterations of this matter, the major issues dealt with the ingress and egress and compatibility. Those issues were beaten to death, we took them to court, those issues were resolved, and they're behind us now. No dispute. I agree with much of what's been said, even by my colleagues who represent the developer. Much of what's been said tonight, I agree with in fact, no issues. But what's been ignored, and maybe didn't come out as well as it could have, or should have with Mr. Cousin's presentation, is that there are obligations that the developer has. I would submit to you, it's incorrect to try to convince this body, this board, that it has no options here other than to approve. That the site plan comports with the development agreement and that you folks are essentially bound to approve the site plan. That's just simply not so. There are obligations here that have to do with changed circumstances. They've agreed to that. If you had gotten it earlier, if you had a chance to go through this and really have this distilled properly, if the city staff could have done that, you would know that there are obligations. And these folks have taken their time to bring this forward to you. And in that time, circumstances have changed. Traffic has changed. Evacuation requirements have changed. There are things that we have identified in a very succinct letter that we've sent in to this board and to the city, so that you'd have an opportunity to look at these things and consider them. I'm not asking you to deny their request for site plan approval. I'm asking you to defer it, look at the issues we've raised, give us an opportunity, give the staff an opportunity to look at these matters. The notice is effective, there's a number of issues, but I'm focusing on what's important, the substance of it, and that is there are different chain circumstances, there's statutory requirements that obligate you to consider them. And for actually the developer to consider, so that you can approve this in a lawful and meaningful way. That's not been done. We can dance all over this and try to present a scenario where you've got no options here, but you do. So in some, all that I'm asking as a resident, long time resident here, to take the time, look at the issue of chain circumstances, making sure that this project, this very enormous project, that has been upzoned from 700 units to 2,000 residential units. That there is in fact an opportunity to look at this, understand what you're approving or denying, and give an opportunity for further inquiry and investigation before you rule. That's all that I'm asking. I'm not asking you to deny anything tonight, and I'm certainly not asking for it to be approved. There's not enough here to properly approve it. And thank you for giving me this opportunity to address the group. But I do think more work needs to be done here before something of this magnitude that's going to affect so many people is approved. Thank you. Can I make an inquiry to the attorney? Mr. Chairman. Certainly, through. A, the ramifications of a denial. There's approval, there's denial. What effect would that have on the commission voting up or down. It would have none, right? It wouldn't change it to a super majority necessarily. Correct. It just would be, hey, the board didn't like it and do what you want to do. So we're like a powerless. Are you speaking on the quiz? I did show in nature of the board and it sums what is there's there's approval. So what are we will mean? There's denial. It moves forward to the commission. And then there's the third option, but I just want to make it clear that denial is not just the bug doesn't stop. Even at the world of the board with the bug doesn't stop. The ribbon. Even if the world of the board with the denied, it still go to the commission. Right. Okay. And there would be no obligation for them to necessarily follow our recommendation or and it's not like a zoning change where then it would require a supermajor. So more you can look at in the reverse. If you send it to the commission and they make a decision It's the same scenario. They're ultimately gonna make a decision It don't stop with us. So we know but but we do have options here But we can we can we can we can make it easier for them to approve it if we get all the necessary Documents and that's that's the only power we have is to require more knowledge of this development, which is an audacious thing. It's an incredible thing, but it's not totally complete. So if we want to continue on, let's continue. Yeah, what that being said, I don't want to interrupt or circumvent those who are- I appreciate the point of clarity, but I think we have three other individuals that have been identified that wanted to participate in public comment on nation. Yes, Mr. Chair, the ones that I've brought to your attention include Angela Becker. Tracy Malik. Okay, so we have the emails that have been read to the record, but my memory serves me correct. When we were swaying people in who wanted to speak on the issue, there were a couple of other people. Yeah, I didn't know it was just signed in anywhere. I got it. She's actually one of the signatories to. Right. Okay, so what I want is for individuals who stood up to be sworn early or if you didn't stand up to be sworn early who wanted to address this board, I would like for us to hear from those individuals at this time. Notwithstanding whatever emails that we have, that's going to be part of the record for us to consider. Anyone who intended on speaking before the board. But I'm not sure if we're done with the applicant and the- Mr. Rosskin is part of the group, but you know, you have certainly discretion to hear from her individually and then the other folks that we're not part of the group. So for clarification purposes are the individuals whose opinions the group hasn't already opined on or hasn't been considered or hasn't been presented to us in email that need an opportunity to speak before the board. Anybody speak? Mr. Risa, are you finished? I only wanted to say that I took the oath. I didn't say that when I got up here. We were asked to state that we would introduce your name. I didn't mention it. I did take the oath. Thank you. It might be easier if the people would raise their hand that said they wanted to speak. So we know who you are to make sure so there's one, two, three, four people. You have four people waiting to talk. You know who they are? Five, sorry. Do you know who they are? All right. One of them is right there. Let's, can you bring this slide up? It's, but I think as our attorney said, let's not repeat ourselves. A.V., could you accommodate the gentleman requests to bring up my presentation? There you go. Good evening. My name is Bruce Lamberto, 3420 Northeast 165 Street. I'm a resident here for over 40 years in Eastern shores. I attended the F.Dot meeting, the Florida Department Transportation meeting that was to approve the road changes that were to take place as part of this project, the approvals. Mr. Cousins made reference to the one application that it's apparently has not still not been approved. When I was at that meeting, they verbally approved depending changes that were to be made and submitted the design. And one of the things that took place at that meeting, which is still being repeated today, was this Texas U-turn was submitted to the city and the city rejected this. And it's determined to be unfeasible and environmentally sensitive. While I pulled every commissioner after that meeting, I said, did anybody ever present any of our traffic engineer from either the developer or our own traffic engineer present this to you. And not one of the commissioners said no, we did not, this huge turn was never presented to us. This board as far as I could tell at that time, I talked to many of them, it was never presented to this board. So this is just a falsehood that's been sticking since before the FDOT meeting for three, four years ago and it's still being presented tonight as a truism. The problem is again, this is a beautiful project. I want to compliment Mr. Zikovich for his architectural wonders here that he did here. It's a beautiful project, it's something that's gonna be very, but we have to live in on this, we have to live getting in and out of there. And that's the problem. This U-turn now there's a possibility that that's coming back because of some financing that became available. I think I mentioned it to a few of you where there's transportation tax money that we could possibly use to fund bonds that could pay for that U pay for that U-turn. It had no expense to the developer. And that could be the win-win situation for all of us. And that's another reason I'm going to ask you to table this tonight for that, those negotiations to take place. I mentioned it to Mr. Bass. I mentioned that Mr. Zuck, this convict, our city manager is actually working on it. Our mayor is aware of it. And so several of our commissioners. And they think it's a great idea, and it's possibly a solution to this opposition that the developer is getting, and what we're coming to here before you. Again, this is just an access issue for the residents, and again, I'm going to ask you if you could please table us tonight so these negotiations can take place. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, Mr. Attorney, as politely as I can, these comments address the matter of a Texas U-turn, which was fully litigated in the prior proceedings. It's not before you now. It's not a valid basis to defer it. I respect the position shared as one of opinion, but that matter is not before you because it's been fully resolved, adverse to the position that just advocated. And it's in the four corners of the text of the opinion by the Circuit Court of Health Division. Is it here? Yes. Any other on that? That's my interpretation what he just stated. And it's also within the opinion of April of this year from Ms. Trouge. Mr. Bassett, it's factual. Mr. Pondy-Court. Final interview. Yes. And we have a very narrow scope feeling with this issue with all these. The transportation issues, the law of the case is that what you have approved in the past or what staff has recommended in the past is totally within the law. And we can make a decision tonight based upon, opinion, and where we're at legally. So like, let me clarify, there are other issues that have been brought up. You saw a list of 13 of them, of which transportation is maybe four out of 13. So there's other issues and at some point you may want to ask Mr. Ring to and he's nodding that he does want to address them. You have to decide if there is substantial competent evidence to either approve or deny or I suppose if you thought that there was a technical deficiency in the notice or any of the other things that calls for this to be tabled, you could do that too. That would be a third option. I think Mr. Eng will clarify that there procedures that we continue with the red of public comment and at that time to the board continued on its fact finding product have questioned that it's available to answer, be it on the question you may have to provide you with the fact you need to render your decision. Sounds great. Okay. Next for the public comment. Hi, good evening. Good evening. My name is Stacy Roskin. I live at 3225 northeast 167 street. I've lived in eastern shores for 21 years. I apologize, I'm not an attorney, I'm not an engineer, I'm just a doctor. You're married. I don't speak as well as some of these other presenters, but I am president of the Eastern shores Homonist Association, Properties Association called Ispoa. And after viewing their presentation, given by the staff and the applicant, it goes without saying that the residents are very concerned with this mass of development. Again, we are not against the development. We just want responsible development. We appreciate the green space, but let's not ignore the development. We just want responsible development. We appreciate the green space, but let's not ignore the elephant in the room when you see those five high rises and the population density that Mr. Cousins was talking about. So we are very concerned. And the board members of Espoa, along with some some other residents met last week and we came up with these 13 bullets and sent them to you so that you would review them. And we request that you table this decision until we have more time to get our concerns and questions answered. One other thing quickly that Mr. Cousins was when he was talking about all the traffic there were forgetting also Sunny Isles and all these high-rises that have been built there including Mr. Deezer's One of his buildings so you know that's 163rd Street is a huge access point to Sunny Isles That also impacts our traffic and that's's all. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next for public comment. Ellen Call, 3527 Northeast, 168th Street, Sunshar's condo, and I am an officer on the board. And I'm also, I'm a little younger than Cousins, but I've been an engineer 40 years and I'm a licensed PE in Florida. And I'll have to get this number. He's a pretty sharp guy. But I know the residents and many of the people that I know are quite excited about the job. I mean, it brings a start to- It's a little bit, again, to reverb just- It brings a start to North Miami Beach. I mean, everyone, Simeon Al's has their high rises on the beach there, but they don't have a spectacular shopping mall. Aventura has Turnberry and the shopping mall. Of course, Miami Beach has South Beach and Star Island and so forth. The only thing I could think of a project that would outdo what's being presented is, you know, if we had an Eiffel Tower or something. So I think it's, you know, I think it's something we're looking forward to. It's going to bring good jobs. It's going to put a star in North Miami Beach and we're excited. We're excited to see the project come and thank you guys. And also thank you guys for the ones who oppose it because that's part of the process. We're going through the process and their input will make a difference and I'm sure there'll be adjustments and so forth. Thank you. And next up, uh, here we go. Hi, my name's Vince Fignani. 3440 Northeast 170th Street. I took the oath as well. Okay. You know, I'm an abbot voter. I've grown up in that neighborhood forever. And, you know, we talk about the parks. It looks like a great development. It's probably the biggest development Eastern short, excuse me, in North Miami Beach is my thought based on Revenue and units in one shot. But you know some of the things they embellish on such as Yolita Park and you've got Oliver. Well I'm an avid boater. Try going to Oliver and bring your boat and if you don't get in there by 9 a.m. It's closed. Tana demand. Same thing with the lead of park. Try going there on a weekend. A holiday. The park's closed by nine in the morning because it's full up. Then the cars are all backed up on one sixty-third street there. Okay. Sonny Owls. All the new condominium towers. All that traffic going from east to west between, I don't know, three o'clock to six o'clock. It's backed up. Same thing with Sonni House police. They got radar traps and all they do is pull people over. Soon as they go over the bridge, heading toward this cane. Now, where do they pull cars over? Right on 163rd Street. Making it even worse for traffic. But the long and short is the ingress, egress of this development. The amount of traffic that's going through there during peak hours, three to four, the quality of life in North Miami Beach, at least through Eastern shores, is going down. Will it bring property values up? Probably. the property value of the property value of the property between A1A to 95. It's gridlock and you're gonna create the same thing here and double by two, worse. I remember when that lane was only two lanes going from east to west, to this can. They widened it to four. It's still backed up. And as for bright line and the rails and Florida East Coast Railroad, if you probably timed it from two years ago to now, that signal for the rails going up and down, it's probably happening probably three to four times more than it ever did. Backing up traffic as to what this attorney that represents some of the group is. So, you know, right now, I see grip. It was the retirement, so just go ahead and close with your remarks. That's fine. So future developments. I hope you guys take this all in mind because at the intersection of 163rd and this came, you've got three new towers there, and you've got another tower that will probably take over where that strip club is, and all the other apartment complexes are going up in North Miami Beach that reside on this cane or Dixie Highway. You're creating a lot of chaos and gridlock. So keep that in mind. And I think they might have been, oh, you're gonna fore forego you're fore. Okay. So if there aren't any other public comments, I'd like to close the public comment section and we will hear our rebuttal. I think you used that some time. We reserved, like I did. We reserved ample time. That doesn't mean I'm going to use it all. A ample. So that's close to public commenting. We'll hear from the applicant on the matter. If, once again, I want to thank you all. I'm going to speak very clearly now because your decision is very, very important. It affects property rights in a very material way. And what I have to emphasize is right now, the public hearing is closed. This is a quasi-judicial proceeding, and your sitting now is judges. You're not being asked whether to do a good thing or a bad thing to help the city commission or hinder the city commission. You're being asked a very well-defined question. Did you hear competent and substantial evidence from any of the objectives that this project does not comply with your site plan criteria. That's an easy question to answer. The answer is no. Mr. Cousin spoke for 23 minutes. And he offered no evidence, none zero, that anyone of the standards that you are oath-bound to apply is unsupported by competence of substantial evidence. of the standards that you are oath bound to apply is unsupported by competence of substantial evidence. He made it even easier for you. Not only did he negate, he failed to negate our case, he put on no case of his own. He put on no direct affirmative evidence that you could rely on to support a conclusion that this application, this proof, didn't meet your standard. The only evidence you heard that was competent and substantial evidence, compels affirmants. It came from your professional staff, the staff report, the law is clear. It's been decided repeatedly is competent and substantial evidence. Mr. Bernard's is Covich and architect, his opinion and his testimony. That is competent and substantial evidence. But standing here and talking about opinions without evidence to back them up, is not a valid basis for you to recommend anything, anything other than approval. The neighbors who spoke, and again, I respect them and I agree with the speaker, it's great to have debate, but the neighbors who came who just spoke about access, ingress, and traffic, that's not before you anymore. That's done. So when you look now as judges, and you're asked to balance the evidence, the evidence is simply one-sided, because there was no contrary proof presented of a substantial means that you could rely on for anything other than a yes. Now there was some particularly difficult to follow points that I want to try to untangle. First is the notice provision. And let's just make this clear. This was noticed in accordance with the requirements of the Florida statutes that apply. Mr. Cousins cited to you section 163-3215 of the Florida statutes. But he didn't read the whole thing to you. Because what he left out is that is a statutorily created cause of action that affects a development applications notice requirements when the application wait for it increases density. And the notice requirement, if you read the statute, refers you back to section 125 of the Florida statutes. And I'm going to ask your planning director to pull up for you, the section of the presentation, where he shows you that you complied with the very section of the statute, that Mr. Cousins referred you to but didn't mention. So when you look at the evidence of compliance, you will see it is clear and uncontroverted. You mail the notices when you needed to mail them, you posted the property when you needed to post it, you put it online when you needed to put it online and it's been available at all material times except for one, two hour interval. Apparently when you had an IT problem, but that didn't stop it at all from complying. So here is the evidence, the only evidence that's before you of how this has been noticed. And it's been prepared by your independent staff who has attested that it's been noticed, and it's their job to do it. So you have Mr. Cousin citing the wrong statute, not telling you that this is an application that reduces density, saying that there's some problem with the notice and then my colleague who I respect greatly. Mr. Islekov, telling you you need to delay this for that. The opposition wants to delay it, they want to delay it, they want it to delay it from the beginning. They delayed it for two years with litigation. As soon as the litigation was over, we began working on the site plan with your staff. As soon as the site plan was ready, we filed it. So now they want more time. Well, they've had plenty of time, and they're trying to be the beneficiaries of the delay that they have already caused us. We're trying to move this forward and close it out, and the record is very clear that we comply with all of the notice requirements, and notice is not a legitimate basis to defer this to see. There was mention about the application form being incomplete, another ghost of an issue. There was reference to there not being a notary. Well, there's a notary when there's a contract for purchase and sale. There is no contract for purchase and sale here. So the notary provisions that he cited are completely inapplicable. And Mr. Arthur Gallagher and Mr. Joe Goldstein, the applicant's agents have their signatures notarized on the form. So the lack of notarization a complete non-issue. As it relates to this notion of mitigation that Mr. Cousins referenced multiple times alleging that we didn't mitigate as we were supposed to do, it's a falsehood. It's a falsehood. The June staff report that he referenced, he didn't tell you, well the June meeting was deferred to July. And at the July meeting, the P&Z staff report referenced that the condition previously related to mitigation was satisfied by us. So this suggests that there's a hanging chat of a mitigation obligation. It's just false. It's just false. It's not true. The record, or it may have been true for a momentary period of time two years ago. It's certainly not true now. As it relates to the committed development argument, again this just overlooks the actual analysis. The committed development is not applicable here in the first instance, but when you look at the background and growth rate and you look at the intersection analysis previously proposed, we complied. We reserve our capacity. As it relates to the development agreement, they're not a party to the development agreement. Nobody's ever suggested we've been in breach of the development agreement. If there's something we need to do under the development agreement, I assure you the city will let us know and they haven't. Our obligation under the development agreement is to come forward with a site plan that complies with the zoning district regulations and you heard slide after slide after slide after slide that we do. So at the end of the day, your decision as a dispassionate, quasi-judicial person entrusted to vote based on the evidence may be a difficult decision emotionally, but it's an easy decision legally, and an even easier decision from an evidentiary basis because they presented zero evidence to you to the contrary. A couple of other quick points. The development agreement was actually identified and mentioned in your staff reports to anybody who read the staff report would have read the analysis of the development agreement. It's right in there for you. And then lastly, I need to end where we started. These are not grasslands. This is not a park. This is an area that was approved for 2.5 million square feet in 2015, but before that it was approved for 16.5 million square feet. So when you look at your scales and you look at where we are and you look at how far we've come and you look at a choice between an asphalt parking lot, a sea of asphalt behind a strip mall or a dynamic mixed-use pedestrian friendly park enhanced waterfront transformation of a parking lot. It's incredible what's been accomplished here. By every metric, it's better for the city than what was allowed as of right in 2015. The decision is a big one, but it's an easy one. We ask you to make a decision this evening based on the evidence you heard this evening because that is what your oath requires. And based on the evidence that you heard this evening, the only way, I say respectfully, the only way that you could evaluate this evidence is to conclude that we comply with the zoning code. We comply with the prior concept master plan. And we've proved the both of those things by competence substantial evidence. I thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Can I get a two minute rebuttal to that, if I may? Just to make the record clear, to suggest that no substantial competent evidence was supplied is completely erroneous. All of the documentation that we could not put up on the screen that Mr. Cousins brought, all of that was submitted into the record, all of the backup documentation for the various positions that have been asserted by him have all been put into this record to suggest that no competent evidence was supplied is simply erroneous. Thank you. Here we go, back on. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to say, sure. Sure. Okay. Components of substantial evidence to be competent substantial evidence have to be relevant. It's to Groot V. Schaffield, Florida Supreme Court case. Mr. Cousins had a lot of things. Gondolas? Not relevant. He agreed. So he may have put a lot of stuff in the record, but was it relevant to the site plan? Criteria, the answer is no, which is why my statement is chairman. There is no such thing as re rebuttles. So at some point. Can I rebut him? I'm not going to the gun. I'm going to kick your body. I'll admit. You keep it up. Well, with that being said, I would like to turn it to the board but before doing so, I'd like to go ahead and do our general disclosures so that we can have that address and then I'd like to hear what I'm anticipating is going to be lively conversation from the day is. One of the board members submitted hers in writing so that's in your procession. I think that's okay to put that in the record. That's no. That's no for the record that we have received the genetic code and right and from miss mislumian. And it will be documented accordingly. I didn't catch that. I am not the idea of what you just said. I apologize. Should it be mislumian? Let's just read it. apologize. Should it forgive me? What should we just read it? Let's get it on the record. What she submitted in writing. Right. Thank you. Ms. Misumi at the minute heard getting the closure for the planning, the only board for the death of the Cocteau Mar Development Agreement for the evening and writing. And at Ms. Misumi in note and a test, I spoke with the following people, I add to Ms. Musume and Mayor Piper, the city attorney, Mr. Joe Geller, commissioner Mukler. She note that she had not spoken with Mr. Cousin, or she had note that she had spoken with Mr. Mukler, Mr. Salsmukler. She note that she has spoken with Mr. Schmuckler. Mr. Schmuckler, she note that she has spoken with myself, the internment of her community development. And she note that she spoke to four to five various residents located at 375 North 8171, 171st Street, urging them to watch and attend meetings to learn about this project. Okay. Is that part of the Jennings to say she? Yeah, that's what I always say. She spoke Mr. Smupper, who's just to say that's her. Wow. Actually, what is not is with staff, but you all have gotten used to stating on the record that you can talk to anybody. And that we certainly can talk to staff. In the quasi judicial setting, You can talk to anybody. Well, you certainly can talk to staff. In the Quasad judicial setting, you're not supposed to do, unless you put it on the record, and that's the way the city of Miami does it. The county says you're not supposed to do it at all, but that's the county attorneys, you know, they're very strict. But your attorneys in the past have said that all if you have contact Which in court we call exparte, you know with one side or the other At the very least you have to put that in the record and that's what we do on this board Should we do that now? Yes, but I'm accentful. I'll take advantage of it. And it's a disclosure. And I remind the chairman that we did not do that with the first two items, so we're going to have to back. Well, yeah, we'll circle back. Please don't leave too quick. So you want to, sure, on the first two items, I've had no conversations. For this one, there is a list of Bruce Cousins, Saul Smuggler, Evan Piper, Isabel Heisler, which is my mom. She resides in Eastern shores, Cheryl Heisler, my wife, Mr. Ning, but very briefly and for tuna smuggler. And oh, sorry, go ahead. That's it. No, no, it's the second part. And it's not going to affect your decision. Oh, and it won ahead. No, no, no, no, it's the second part. And it's not anything. No, nobody else. No, no, no. It's not going to affect your decision. Oh, and it won't affect my decision. And if my mom had no, she only one that would affect it would make my mom and she didn't have an opinion. So. You know, listen to your mother. No, he said he would listen to the mom is she was okay Mr. Shembo boy remember Shembo Blair oh okay I should make sure you with us do you have a disclosure okay so okay no disclosure but not I don't know if you have the records. I didn't hear anything. Okay, no disclosure from he has no disclosures, but you have to use your mic. Yeah, the disclosure of ice chair Thompson. No disclosure. Vice Chair Thompson. No disclosure. Talk to nobody. Excuse me. I did speak to the mayor and I did speak to the mayor and I did speak to the attorney of the answer. Yes. Sorry. I wasn't paying attention. But nothing about that conversation is going to affect your ability to make a decision on the conversation. No, I'm not going to be saying that. I'm not going to affect my decision making. OK. Mr. Thomas. I had a conversation with Bruce Cousins and Jay Turnoff. And it will affect my decision. And as far as the two previous items, there's no contact. I have no contact. I have no contact regarding them. Mr. Krasper. I had discussions with the people from Aspo, I guess the five signatures on that site plan, but it's certainly not going to affect. I just went to their meeting because they have pizza there. So other than that. Was it good? I had an implant in my mouth, so we couldn't even eat it out. But there was a general discussion. I'm not sure if you're looking for it. I know, I turned it off. But it's not going to affect your ability. That's not going to affect your ability. All right. And as for me, I didn't speak to anyone on the two earlier items, nor this item, and I'm able to make my decision based on the competent evidence presented before us this evening. So with that being said, I would like to open it up to the board. I know we've had some preliminary comments, but if whoever wants to have the first bite at it, I'm open. I'll put it in, Mr. Chair. Let's hear from the director. What do we have? Comments for top of the reiterate I would like to Mr. Ainsley elaborate on somebody's concerns that the Aspoir committee had sent at midnight and I got a copy today so just a streamlined things with Mr. Thompson I think it might be better for us to have our comments and then if we have questions tag in the director versus just giving him a I think that he wanted to. I was about the carpet that our community development staff has had to enter question that the board may have as fact finding. Okay. Right just to help with the fact finding aspect of it. So I don't know if you wanted to open up or someone else. Well, some of this some of this the attorney elaborated on. So I don't want to rehab some of this, some of this, the attorney elaborated on. So I don't want to rehash some of it. But I do have concerns about the number 10 failure of the applicant to amend the development agreement to account for the recently enhanced state and federal legislation In fact the proposed or product Lower state statute 163 We need you closer to the mic Yeah, you got to remember to just push it a little bit more the mic Okay, and I appreciate it from my head to board member because I you may recall I've had hearing lost and I would too So I appreciate being able to hear your questions. Yeah, so it sounds like he wanted to get further explanation on the item 10 that was raised in the, that was submitted as it relates to failure of the applicant to amend the development agreement to account for recently enacted state and federal legislation that significantly impacted the public fund project on the Florida Statute 163-3241. I don't know. I'd be really to say all, with attorney before I opine, do you have anything to say on that first? It's almost impossible to respond to something that says that there could be recently enacted state and federal legislation that significantly impacts the proposed project, unless we know what state and federal statutes they're referring to. We don't know of any, you know, if they had pointed out, and the rest of these, by the way, I looked at all the citations, and I tried to determine whether Mr. Eng had, and the presenters had, and the applicants had clarified all these issues. But anyhow, as to number 10, let me just say, we don't know of any such thing. So all this is, is if there is a new federal or state law that could preclude your approval of this side plan, then that would take effect. And of course, that's sort of a truism, yeah, anything that would prohibit what you're about to do. But we don't know of any such a state or federal law Right, that's a clear time before mr Directed in English response the side of the side is statute 163.3241 Is in a statute that's been highlighted that actually precluded? No, no, it's just in case something like that happens It would have an overarching effect and overruling effect, but that's that automatic thing in the laws, you know, Mr. Chairman. Right. Through the chair. Let me ask a question. Certainly, but let's hear from Director on this comment, and then we will entertain the comment from Mr. Thomas in, see the floor better, Mr. Thompson. That note that to our knowledge there is no specific item that happened brought up to our attention with which we impact this. Further, we note that in the court of how we regularly evaluate such applications, we must consider that there is certain aspect of vested rights afforded to an applicant. And therefore, it's a compelling reason in the applicant's state law. The fact that there is a prior agreement in place that not necessarily expunge their property rights that are being granted by the commission, grew their various legislative act including prior hearings. I understand that the dominance briefing. I just, as a question, I don't know if it applies. Is number 10, the fact that Brightline is now operating was that part of the original agreement with it, was that a noose? Because I assume that the state had to approve Brightline as an entity to run back and forth. And I know there was a lot of back and forth of whether it was going to run and how often it was going to run. So would that, if they approved that as a state statute, then does that comply with what their concerns are? I think that's not what's envisioned by this. Maybe it's the work. The bright line approval has to be, as you all know, the FEC line has been there since forever. Of course. And they double tracked it and now it includes both freight and passenger traffic, but it does not impinge on this in a negative way. And to the extent that it has an effect on transportation, again, we go back to the challenge in court that was resolved in favor of the application. The fact that the government, the fact that it raised that they would approve beforehand means that it would have been part of that litigation. And if you call from that presentation, then by extension of that, it should not be something that you should be considering because it should have been part of that litigation and we have been a vibe by independent account as such that it's just not a factor in the other results. Thank you. I'm turning the Mr. Chair. Vice Chair Thompson. It's just a couple more, a couple more for me. Mr. Dengue, did they exceed the density limit? No, if I could point you to the applicant presentation beginning of the history of 2015, at the time it was a different zoning and a future land use designation with a higher density. In fact, in the re-dination and subsequent lowering of the density to reach the current development agreement, it did not violate the clause within the Comprehensive Plan at that time. However, that was also part of potential litigation and could have been brought up at part of the density in the initial litigation against the applicant. We note that the aspect of density also is clearly felt out in policy 1.82 of the comprehensive plan with note that the density of the parcel is based off of the future language of designation. It is not an eastern shores designation for future language. It is an eastern waterfront district under the mixQ district. And under that regulation, I know the density and intensity of all MQ district noted above, which include the MQ district, MUTC, MWF, MUEC, MUNC, MUC, and other MQ districts. You define at the maximum number of residential units and a maximum grid for the non-redded and social development. This back of the right is how you have judged the other mixed youth development within the city, including the prior New North, and other developments such as Palm Air. The same aspect applies here for your density and that it is governed by the form and shape and a maximum allowed within the plan. Because the district is entirely on and of itself, but with previously approved apartment development agreement, therefore it is the density regulated part of the flight, as part of the development agreement, as part of the comprehensive plan and the consistent. I'll take one more for now and then I reserve the balance of my time. Let's talk about the traffic mitigation. There's a lot of traffic conversation, not just here in North Mommy Beach. Let's tie it into the density. Yes, sir. We built high-rise, there was the mac and property harbor, the this, the that. But we've never even finished on going on the east side of Biscayne Boulevard. As long as it's on this side of Biscayne, it's fine. But when we start going on the east side of Biscayne, and to end up close to mall, it becomes the issue. At least for me, my time would be in here. We did it over in Highland Village. Did we do something in Highland Village, Miss Tene? Well, we did something out of the macken. We did the palms. We would have thought. So the point that I'm making, this is a part of our bigger plan throughout the city, When we did these districts. And we we're talking about revenue screen. How much money is this development going to bring into the city coffers that has been donor communities? You know, you know, I hit a term donor community because I've been living here 60 years. And there was conversations about being a donor community to watch it in part. And now we have an opportunity to bring in what I don't know the number. I just probably just proposed to bring in. We're getting ready to build a 23 million dollar gymnasium. We need police cars. So let's not throw the baby out with the back of the water and keep chicken a can down the road. We need to stay focused on the scope of the site plan. These people, the applicant has already got a proof for everything else. They went to court to mitigate the traffic right around and seeing what did the court say about the traffic mitigation? It doesn't matter, it can't look at the case law. What did the court say about the traffic mitigation? It is a title matter of Cato Cateclaw. So we have no bearing, at least from my perspective, as a board member to get caught up in the traffic issue, because this is what we're not here for. We're here to talk about the site plan and the site plan alone. And opinions, they're not experts. Mr. Traini, what defined an expert? Help me out. Who's an expert at the bottom? I'm not getting a training. Who's an expert when they come and speak? A lot of experts over the years have made a lot of mistakes, but other than that, I hesitate to put on the record. You follow me? So this has been kicked around since 15. Everybody know the elephant in the room. It's time to eat it up or down vote. What you're gonna do with it? It's been around since 15. It's gonna go for a bit. The advocate can come back and say, I want $100 million for all my legal fees that I put out over 10 years. Who in this room can pay for that? But I'll leave that that, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the time. That'd be a nice legal bill. Board member, Esla. Sure. Hi. Mr. Ning, when was, well, Mr. Thompson just real quick, I understand your comment about East and which side of this cane, but when you get East, there's not a whole, you can't go anywhere. So it's either there to A1A, so you're kind of stuck in that area. So it becomes a little bit more sensitive, at least for me, is that I have residents, family that lives there. So I just want to make sure that I have access to emergency vehicles, be able to get out, so it takes a little bit of a personal. I respect that, Mr. President. That's all, that's all. And the question is, I just want to say one. Because you know, you need amazes everywhere. There's traffic everywhere. I agree. But sometimes when it's in your back door, I don't know the term of that. We don't want it there. No, we want it everywhere else, but we don't want it there. I agree, but it has, I've been here 60 years. I've been here 60 years. I've been here 60 years. Getting people in and out of that place. Right. It's an emergency situation. Let's respect Mr. Mayor. So, you know, and they say they mitigated. go ahead. When was the development agreement executed? The development agreement was executed in January 2021. I believe January 11th was a micro-correct. Of 2020 now, or is effective 2021? It would be a part of the clerk of court January 2021. I believe it was January 11th. So since that time has the developer, and part of the reason that I wanted you all to develop an agreement because it has things or conditions in it that the developer should have done or maybe did before side plan. I like, I'm not against the project, I'm not for it, I don't have a made a decision yet. I'm just trying to get information here. So the developer supposed to submit these reports, what was the date of the first report that they provided to the city? The developer had documented a formal annual report because none was required. While the development agreement with the positive clerk records on January 11th and 2021, as you recall, they underwent at least two years of litigation and at least three appeals, if I remember calling correctly, at that time based on the fact that they were under appeal, that agreement was told. If that agreement is told, then by effect, those items are not reported. We won't know from that. So when was that agreement told? That agreement told for the duration of the court cases. And I will refer to the applicant to provide a proof of information further on when that actually brought this like fully panned out. I will also note that the development agreement aspect of the reporting included various things like give it the status of your DEP item and so forth. If you note that in your cover letter, it provides those data reports. That actually written, it may not be an annual report in the way that it was derived, but the code I remind the board does not have a specific prescription for how those annual points are provided. I mean, I think what I'm specifically referring to is the developer has a lot of other agencies that they have to reach out to obtain the, and one of them is FDOT. Yes, sir. And I have no idea what that process is like and how long it takes and the likelihood of their road improvement plans to be approved or not approved. And I'd like to get more comfort since that should have been done already. And I guess it hasn't. It has, sir. Okay. And Mr. Cudden, tattoo, I, and hit question of me. I referred to the fact and he would run to put up an email at that time that I received a forwarded email from DOT providing approval for at the hearing about this. That already part of the testimonial record and that part of it. Within the cover letter itself as well, you will see that there are provisions regarding DEP with the, we can provide you with that report as well from the applicant. So FDOT has approved the road improvements to 36th Avenue? Yes. And 35th Avenue? Yes. And that is why it makes that aspect of the text that you turned so difficult because they did the federal aid highway and section 4F law apply. Okay, so they've approved 35th Avenue modifications and they've approved 36th Avenue modifications and both of those modifications have to be completed Prior to phase one that is correct in fact it written that the volume agreement it felt there is a specific clause that any Required by FDOT on developer would have to be completed before construction begin in order to provide for the construction Traffic to be accommodated on the proposed 30-stick staff. Okay. Yeah, because part of this whole thing is, once we look at this and once the commission approves it in reading this, it appears to me and I, that everything else, all the other approvals can be done administratively. So that's the reason that I was commented on, did you guys get the development agreement? Did you guys review it? And really take a hard look. I don't want to kick the can down the road. But I think it deserves a thorough vetting of all of these things. Because then you also have the harbor approval. And I have no idea what's involved in that. That's going to take years to what's the approval process for the harbor? The harbor involved a DPP, a DPP Department of Environmental Protection approval is a permitting project, the applicant had already not only provided a report that the status of their permitting process, but they have been doing this for a while now. So if they're concerned about the fact that it may or may not be approved, we would know that there have been progress. We also know for the record that as far the development agreement goes, when it was approved, it would contemplate that they may not get approved over this canal. And therefore, the development agreement as well as the site plan approval and decision already has depulation for what will happen if it's not approved. In which case the plate will go back to us with a site plan, amendment going to the process of changing that into a green. All right, question has, okay, so has then the police substation and the fire substation, that's been approved? The fire substation happened to prove with input from Miami-Dade Fire Rescue, and that would actually intergo to the Darn process because we need to know from the fire department whether or not they, how much data they need because in a fire department, you need to know, okay, how many rooms do we have? Kitchen, bathroom, the ad, of course parking, and those set aside at USC in the condition provided in the condition to approval. Monopolize side, the development agreement contemplated that the city has the option. However, the city had not come to a conclusion of whether or not it wants to exercise that option. That being said, regarded of how this type plan of approval process grows, the city retained it's right to exercise that option at the time it wishes but green negotiation with the developer at the related indie development agreement. Okay, so fires is 100% police we don't know. Yes, sir. Okay. Okay. The only other thing on 36 and I don't know, you know, when I first, now we can't talk about traffic, but when I first looked at this, there was a comment that we want to make 36, the very prominent entrance to, you know, to this development. And my only comment would be that that entrance should be at least the same width as 35. So that we take, that the intent here is to get the load off of 35. So if that's the intent, when you make 36 equally wide to get people in and out of there, it doesn't seem like there's enough lanes To get in and out Properly from that site, right and this this a newer this is this this will impact the development This is to their benefit because if there's a lot of backup there no one's gonna no one's gonna live here And that's only a pretty date that comment if the high fler, because at the advocate, no, one of the first one too. And during this process, I'll actually want to first want to note things about fire truck circulation and ingress and egress, and whether or not the location of the entrance to the garage it will create a backup due to queuing. Now it's all contemplated as part of the circulation review by both there, their professional engineers at the city's independent review to our professional engineers including with our public work department and with our independent consultant. So in that regard, I also note that in terms of width of grease like 36 because it is close to the bridge, there are considerations that FDOT that provide for in terms of active management approval as well as in terms of how the intersection will react. What we can attest to is that upon the approval process, multiple layers of those traffic studies were provided by the applicant and the thing for my day was fed by city staff to FUT4 approval by the state agency because as you the board may be aware, 160 dirt street is actually a state road and we the subject to their jurisdiction and their professional Indian area review on that matter. Back in I guess 2020 there was a note on a PNZ staff report. I wasn't part of the board back then but I did see it and I think you're already commented on it. The notes said that prior to site plan approval we would have, there would be some mitigation that the developer would have to do to 163rd Street. Can you shed some light on that? Yes, sir. In order for the traffic study to be agreed, or pardon with the condition that it was during the dom, to agree agreement and macro plan process, we noted that there are certain tipping points on the scale of art. To compensate for those from the regular standpoint, the developer had provided for certain mitigation aspects as part of the development agreement, where our very most clearly felt out and the city agreed to as part of the state one improvement. These include aspects of signal, as well as intersection geometric design improvement to the intersection of 35th and 16th third. In addition, this involved specific development contribution to areas outside of the site, including the bicycle lanes and so forth and water sidewalk. This would be good at the time the city had specific master plan that called for of the site, including the bicycle lanes and so forth, and water sidewalk. That would be good at the time. The city had Pacific master plan that call for such multimodal aspects. Wow, that's important in the aspect of providing for their traffic study. It becould in order to adjust for how the traffic study would go in terms of assessing impact, they had to ask to see if they could, drew these things that they were providing to the city adjust their expected modal shift. So the multimodal aspect within a traffic study is what they were trying to implement. And they had, and the city agreed with them at the time that such improvements were based on our professional evaluation acceptable and granting that aspect of the traffic study. That had not changed in this, especially since those trips are now vetted. Interesting. Do we know if the product type, I know it says, it says multifamily, but is that going to be condominium or is that going to be apartments? Do we know that? We would have to defer to the applicant on that. I would note that in the past we've had that question with other applicants before and not one that this board had to press upon from a fact finding perspective. But we would defer to the applicant on an answer to that. Yeah, because that is important. If someone from the applicant went in to step forward and addressed that question, Ms. Issa, can you just repose so they know who's best at this? Sure, I just want to understand in terms of the uses that you have, you have a note that says, well, you have a couple of notes. One, there's notes throughout, a little bit inconsistent. Sometimes it says no valet, sometimes it says valet service, but that's a whole different issue. This has to do with the type of product. Are they rentals or are they condominiums for sale? For the record, Jeffrey Bass. I'm going to answer your question, but I also just want to be clear. Zoning regulates use, not ownership. Right, so this board does not have jurisdiction to weigh on the form of ownership. That said, it's going to be a mixture of rental and ownership, but the exact mixture. We're going to have to see what the market conditions are when we get there. Okay. I mean, I would disagree with you, but because the product type affects traffic, and if you have a condominium type form of ownership versus an apartment for form of ownership that can impact the amount of time a resident stays condos sometimes go unoccupied. Occupied a rental unit goes to the time or occupied so it does affect density and it does affect does affect the project Okay, thank you Let's see I mean That's all I have for now. All right. Mr. Shenbo. Okay. Mr. Thompson. Thomas, I apologize. I don't believe I have any questions. No, thank you. Ms. Massimium. Thank you. Mr. An, can you explain about the annual reports that you and I had discussed earlier because I think that the clarification. It's on. It's on. Start again. Okay, better? If you could speak to the annual reports the way that you had explained it to me earlier, it might make it clear when addressing some of the Aspoa MMO concerns. So do Mr. Thurman. Our conversation earlier involved me also giving an example in addition to what I previously expressed in respond to Mr. Highland's question. So if it pleases the board, I'm going to just give to the additional part. I compared it to saying, all right, we want you to give us a report on what your construction is going to be. But you're at the site plan portion of it. You don't have a building permit because before you get a building permit, you must have a site plan approval. How are you supposed to report on your construction portion? The reality is that the annual report has all these particular stipulation which are not applicable here because right now the only aspect of where they are is that they are at the applying approval and they're applying for the DEP permit. The DEP permit is listed in the letter and we've had numerous e-mail throughout the review and track or our DRC process with the applicant abiding of their status. But on the other item which doesn't make that a tender like they don't want to someone. Hey, we want you to give an update again on your construction, but you're not at that phase yet. So how can you get them on an update? Thank you. Mr. Attorney. Excuse me. I know I shouldn't talk but I did ask for one more rebuttal and that is so false it's not even funny. I have less. I understand but public comment is closed and at this point I'd like to hear from the board. Thank you. I was. I've been derailed one moment. Get back. I just opened my computer to look at something else when you said Mr. Attorney so I closed it. Eight people around. Yeah. I'm going to hold that for a moment. Okay. Of the administrative waivers Mr. Ann. Are there any administrative waivers that are basically in variances in disguise of an administrative waiver? No, ma'am. I'll give you some examples. For example, when you go to the make-you-code section 24-50 of the code, when you go to the Make You Code section 24-50 of the code, and then you go down to specifically, for example, one of them, a height nander subsection R, under 2E there, it says, for important and tier-based, the Make You ThickDirect the permit landweds that typically have higher story heights that the movie theaters, auditorium, television, or type media, studio, printout, residential, or to most land uses, and so forth. It includes in the past contemplations of retail. The community development director may wait the maximum story height. So when you look at all these waivers that we had put forth in a staff report, I want to know for the record that not a them are based off of section 176.1 that had been implied. These are aspects that you have seen in the waivers for other mixed use projects that you have reviewed in a product judicial setting. And which you know that their aspects written into the mixed use code, either in the override inspection of mixed use or within the district itself, regarding a lot of sites, but depth, a lot width and height of the store in floors with all as well as liners, with all written in the code and set away to provide the development director of providing such waivers. Thank you. And regarding 36th Avenue. Pardon me, repeat that, ma'am. Regarding 36th Avenue. Yes, ma'am. The setback, there's enough room between 35th and where 36 is going to be up to the building. So those buildings along 36th fall within the required setbacks from the site plan, correct? Yeah, at part of what we do in a circular turn analysis, we look at a queue analysis. Sometimes that involved going back to the applicant at the sometimes the case and saying, well, your garage may have a gate. That gate can hold people up. We want you to move a further inside the building. Maybe not have a gate, maybe put it on the second floor. So things are all those are types of items that are professional staff as well as their consultant. Have to wrangle back and forth during the development review process. Okay, and which is then subsequent to our department? Are finding that they have satisfied our requirements regarding the queue analysis with deals with where not the traffic will back out into certain aspects of traffic. And our review did not only deal with internal to the site but critically because it's one-sixty-third external to the site. Thank you. OK, and then my last question is for our attorney. What would be the basis to turn this down? Do you see that there is valid credible substantial evidence what would be the basis to turn this down? Do you see that there is valid credible substantial evidence, substantial credible evidence? Yeah, competence substantial. Thank you. Confident substantial. Sometimes I say substantial competence, sometimes I say competence substantial. I'm not sure what the correct syntax is. But it's a determination you have to make, unfortunately. And that's the standard. That's all I can give you. But you have to make it as to either approval or denial. You can like throw up your hands and say, I don't have an opinion on this. You understand. And other than that, I mean mean I have my own opinion but I shouldn't put it on the record it's got to be up to you. Thank you. That's all I have. And it's chairman if I may and to row for a second. Mr. Cousins came up and said to me something along the same lines of what he kind of said spontaneously. And he was concerned, let me think about it. I'm getting old. But the dollar with the agreement. Oh, okay. Now I remember. I should have made a note. I should have made a note. He was concerned about the reporting requirement of the statute. And it does say it's an annual report. And of course, Mr. Eng, I believe correctly understands that to mean that the envision that something is happening that you have to report on and something happening would be construction of some sort or permitting or delays or whatever. Failing that there's nothing to report so I just want to put in the record I don't think that is a flaw in this process that would be a defect that would keep you from making a determination. You said that you don't think that there's a flaw in this process. That would be a flaw, that particular item. Okay. Can I read what the specific requirements are? Sir, you've already been out of order twice, but the second time you did it right here, and I want to top it on the record, what transpired, and while I let it, go ahead and give my- No, but the things that I would be interested in, I'm obviously there's no shelples in the ground, so we're obviously not going to get a construction report but there's quite a bit of things that the developer has to do prior to this FDOT approval, the harbor and there's a number of different issues and that's what the report that I believe and that's the reason I that was the intent of the report the way I read it when I saw it. And you used the, did you mean to refer to fire? Is that the word you use? F dot, I think you said. No, F dot. Sorry. Oh, F D O T. Oh, F dot. Yeah. No, there's F dot approvals. There's substantial roadway approvals that they have to do. There's approvals to the guard houses, three guard houses. Is there anything on that? There's a number of things that have that happening. I defer to him on that. To code aloud the community development director make a termination and what the appropriate reporting. I've already read them by the opinion that based on what you have before you, there is ample reporting because, rather, it's noted in the cover letter provided to you for the termination. We also note that as aspect of things would not occur, did not the report on though. For the thing that we would expect that would occur such as the FODOT approval and the DEP item, we've already, David or provided our opinion that the substantive reporting had been done to it, not even just on an annual basis, but like in every other month basis. And that information has to provide to you not only to detect them only in the evening, but also in the form of the applicant cover letter, your relative intent that provided a part of your review package. For where we stand, even though they had left in a year and therefore would not be subject to an annual report until I believe October this year, they have provided above where we were supposed to be. Does anyone, are you? I believe the report's do every six months. If I may just because Mr. Cousins, just very brief. I don't want to visit that issue if you want to address upon with being discussed now with that report. Yes, if I may very brief. The development agreement has been told and extended as a matter of law. Under the executive orders issued by the State of Florida during the COVID pandemic, there was tolling. And the development agreement was tolled and extended for two separate reasons. The litigation, as you heard previously, and by statutory notice of extension. So when you put the tolling together, it's over five years. So in addition to the fact that there was nothing to actually report, the obligation to report was told. So this failure to report under the development agreement overlooks these undisputed extensions that there was no reporting duty required. And if I got that wrong, this would be a little correct. Just want to clarify one thing, not only COVID, but there were other emergency orders in effect that we took advantage of. On that note, when was the tolling suspended? Or do we have a date? Yes, well actually under the executive orders, our extension date goes through September of 2034. We extended it for over five years, but we will continue to report. Was we have something to report? I'm glad you brought that up because the emergency order says that Mr. Bruce, that was an opportunity for you to. No, no, no. Yes, I did. The chair has a parodicator. We've closed the public comment. The applicant does get opportunity to provide insight if it's going to be pertinent to our decision-making and there was a question on the board which is why we invited them. So ask me a question. If there's someone who's telling me to ask the question, let me ask Jim, you want to address it. It's wrong guys. All right. Thank you. Mr. Crestford? Really? All right, thank you. Mr. Crestford? Really? Well, we've been here for hours and hours. This is a dog and pony show. We're all potted plants. We have no authority. We have no. But we've vetted this as best as we could. And we've heard a lot of stuff. Some of it said very vociferously and loudly, there's no substantial evidence, there's no blah, blah, blah. You know, there are points that were made, some of which were addressed, some of which weren't. From day one, this project has been, you know, how did the zoning come to be? I don't want to, you know, go off tangentially, but we changed the zoning. So this developer, you know, he'd made a couple of billion dollars. Big deal, you know, our mayor, our mayor made a couple of, maybe a couple of thousand dollars through his efforts. Or more, former mayor, former mayor. You know, we have mayors who usually wind up on the wrong side. A little, unfortunately, we have an upstanding mayor here. Anyway, 2015, we hear about, now 2015 was a change in zoning. And it was going to be not that big of a deal because they had the Texas two step under the bridge thing, which was told to me directly by the questionable mayor who put this through. Don't worry about the traffic we're going under the bridge. Anyway, we got, we've moved along. We have the the agreement. We have a plan. We have beautiful renderings. We have top flight attorneys. We have great architects. we have a plan to put in whatever this is, whatever this is that may go in to a piece of land that was neglected by the developer. He bought it cheap because it was a rundown shopping center. It was a shopping center put in in the 80s with an agreement, with an agreement, that we will use our best efforts to the ingress would be under the bridge. Anyway, you're allowed to do whatever you can do as a developer. The great thing about the developer and the development is we're just on the board trying to make sense of this, trying to represent the citizens. We're up against great attorneys. We have questionable attorneys. Don't do that to me. No, no. We have more brilliant minds than that. But what the biggest thing that they have going for them is they have this guy, Eddie Eng, who should be hired by them. I've never seen such a supporter of a project. This project is going to happen. But can it happen with some answers to questions? It's gonna happen with an ingress from 36th, 36th, which is pretty close to 35th, which is pretty close to as you fly over that bridge at a million miles an hour, then you get to stop instantly at 36 and make a right turn into this project and look at the park and look at the dog walk and in any event. I don't want to go off on a tangent. But this was late. We were too late. We were supposed to have this great entrance. Where's the competent evidence? It's a freaking piece of paper from the Florida Department of Transportation. We have examines your plans and we approve your plans and Zygazone, go for it. Where's the plan for this great waterfront? This thing was sold as the most beautiful waterfront Development where we're gonna sit on the banks of the canals. We're gonna think we're in Venice. We're gonna be drinking coffee and It's gonna be the greatest. I haven't seen one document from any authority that says oh, yeah, no problem. Cut the canal Get the bulldozers out. Get the, you know, let's go for it. Okay. Be that as it may. I would like to see some evidence that the transportation, the ingress is gonna be what they say. It's gonna be. I'd like to see something letter that says, oh yeah. No problem. If you do this, you letter that says, oh yeah, no problem. If you do this, you do that. You could put this canal. This was also sold as, we're gonna put a hotel. Oh, it's gonna be a boutique hotel. That's what they first, this is the typical way that this development has gone. It's gonna be a boutique hotel. Yeah, 250 keys in a neighborhood that is against Airbnb. So it's like putting 20 Airbnb's on this piece of property. Who stays at that hotel? Then it's going to be a minimum of a three-star hotel. Is there any evidence, substantial, competent evidence from a hotel company that says, oh, we would like to partner with you on this beautiful seemingly once was a boutique hotel and now it was like a major hotel. These are kinds of things that they could address. They could address and then we would say, hey, they've looked at everything. They've done what they've said they were going to do. What can we do? We can approve it. It doesn't matter if we approve it. It doesn't matter if we disapprove it. It doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter. The commission's going to do what they're going to do. The only thing this board, which I've been here for 12 years, off and on, we have very limited power. But we can take the power we have and say, why don't you answer some of these points, some of these points that were raised by not the greatest attorney, not the most competent attorney. Actually, he's an incredibly smart guy. He just needs to focus. OK? So it'll be very simple to come back and say, look, here's what the Department of Transportation has. Here's how we're going to build this canal. Here's what we're, here's the dog walking park is going to have self picking up after the dog super walkers. I don't know. Just come up just answer this just like they wouldn't they wouldn't they wouldn't send a note every six months. Hey, we got nothing to report. Hey, we're working on the road. Hey, it's six months later. Hey, we're still here. Hey, oh, we were told. We were told. I'd like to tell some people in any event. For the record. For the record, it's forward to what happened. I'm sorry, but told as they were using it. I know. Maybe for the record. I went to the University of Pennsylvania. You don't think I know what told. T-O-L-L-E-D from. Yeah, I got it. Thank you. Like toll house cookies. I got that. Um, we're just trying to be sarcastic. Okay, so, approve. Go to the commission. You'll know you never get to see our pretty faces up here again. You'll go forward. You got a mayor who get to see our pretty faces up here again. You'll go forward. You got a mayor who seems to like you guys. You got the other commissioners. Then we say no. How can you say no? I don't know how you can say no. I could say no. Doesn't matter. Go to the commission. We could say answer some of these questions. Come back and answer some of these questions. Come back and answer some of these questions. Next meeting, the meeting after that, that's why I favor continuing this. Until a time when we're all happy, if we're happy, if we're happy, you're gonna be happy. Okay? I don't really care, because by the time we build these residents, If we're happy, you're going to be happy. OK? I don't really care, because by the time you build these residents, you don't know that. I know where you're going. OK, I don't know. I don't know. But I'm looking forward to that day. So congratulations on this project. Next time you make a project, try and put it in a place where there's not one road in out, the most crowded road. Okay. There's no place on all these development, there's not an alternative to get out. I mean, somebody's gonna, I don't know, I don't wanna be an alarmist. There's gonna be an event. Not gonna be pretty. The most, probably the most significant event is gonna be somebody bound over Sonny Isles Bridge. And we're ending a guy waiting to go to his thousand square foot apartment and to walk his dog. He drank coffee on the banks of a canal. So with that, I said my piece. I'd like to see you guys back here again. It's just a pleasure seeing just a pleasure. Okay, I like that. And I want to say one other thing which I say, and just a pleasure. Okay. Like that. And I want to say one other thing which I said, which I resent. The pitting of East versus West, Havs versus Havnots, we gave it to this park, we gave it to that. We're exporting money, we're importing money. This is all one city, okay? One, we're all gonna go through the same thing, whether you're in West, North Miami Beach, or you're in the banks of the canal. So let's not go with the East versus West, House versus have nots. So let's not go with the East versus West, on the east side, which people, people may or may not suffer. Maybe they'll do, maybe they'll enjoy it. They'll enjoy the new indexes. They'll enjoy maybe stepping up to a different apartment. Maybe they like where they are. And they don't want to take an hour of their life to get the bus came ball board. So let's... Okay. Cheers. Can I break a motion? No, we haven't heard from everyone. No, we haven't heard from everyone. Boy, let me be a shimbo. I don't know what else to say. It's pretty much taken away my thunder. Ten times there. You're thunder on your way, Blue. I'm a hunter. Well, I've definitely calmed down your rhetoric for last time. I'm honored. Well, you definitely come down to your rhetoric from last time, congratulations. But I think on the most pro-build. Make sure you get into the mic. I think on the most pro-build member this board of probably approved every single project has come before me in the last three years with some conditions. And the real goal here is to table this project because of traffic. And I guess no matter what gets built here, it's going to be traffic. And I've been in Eastern Shore 17 years. And who doesn't want to enjoy that traffic light at 35th and 163rd and fly right through with that, and he cars in front of you. But that's not going to be forever. So we either chase the developer away. Or are we, excuse me? Or we, no one's had a solution here of how small this mold should be. So it meets our criteria for traffic. I mean, no one's produced a, no one's shrank this project so I can see where we had actually fits the mold. But I do have some pros and cons to this, this whole project. And it's so far it's bad traffic, noise, and shadows. Or property taxes are going to go up. But I also see that we're going to have a jewel of a project right in their back yards and I look forward to that. I'm going to say that we probably are just switching out a mall for another mall. This is not a new mall on a vacant parcel and it's going to come and it's going to happen. And whether we vote today, yes or no, somebody is going to build there and it could just be a giant commercial landscape or we can have the project at hand that's been approved by the city. So we're gonna make our vote today, but I think it's something that's special. We have a visionary architect. We have a visionary developer who's made us the talk of the United States, and I hope to see this project built And that's I'll have to say today. Thank you All right, you know what's good to get built. So I have a few few minor points before being as the canal issue The reported cell says that the development satisfies the urban greenway system regulating plan for the eastern water for district goes on and says because there's uncertainty whether the applicant will receive the necessary approval for the interior canal staff is recommending the following conditions. Then at least a few conditions. Earlier I believe during Mr. Heschle's conversation and and I'm in the staff report, by the way, if anyone wants to follow along, midway through page 24. Earlier, there was a comment, I believe, by the director Neng that talked about what would happen if the canal wasn't approved. And I think you said that there'd always been opportunity for a site plan amendment. If a site plan amendment was done because the canal was in a prove, is that something that has to come back to the board, or is that something that's approved administratively was the process in that situation? I believe that the volume of agreement had to add a administrative approval, but with very, very stringent conditions. They can't do anything other than make it a green base. Meaning they can't build on it. They can't, it's not like they can't realize, oh, we don't have a canal, we're gonna put a building there. So that's not really what it contemplated. It don't need to be a public base. It just designed differently. So there pigeon hold regardless to no additional build out. Although I think based on, you know, it'd be catastrophic for them to try and shift from the master plan that Dave pretty much presented, which I think they've done a good job of not running a file to that because it'd be a completely different ball game if they were trying to shift things from what was previously approved by the commission. So just to be clear, as it relates to that, even if it's not a canal, it's still going to be green space. There's no possibility for us to have additional development on that area that's been airmarked for a canal. No, it must be per the plan, the counter plan, this site plan, and the development agreement. And I contemplate with the conditions approval, only open base. Okay, there was talks earlier as it relates to the parking for the hotel. And I think I heard maybe you directly mentioned that no CU would be issued unless the parking for the hotel. And I think I heard maybe you, Director Ning, mention that no CU would be issued unless the parking is in place and that's based on the phasing of the project. Is that correct? Is that my understanding? That's correct. The parking for the end to hotel it jointly shared immediately with the building next door which is the end to block. Do you see that they were next door to each other. So any phasing plant had the condition where you gotta build a parking before, the parking has to be there before we issue a certificate of occupancy. They have to have the parking. So for example, if they want to build end two hotel first, the parking in N2 must be there for them to get a certificate in rock of princely. Okay. And then I noticed this has probably been beaten a bit, but I can't help it. I remember vividly Bruce mentioning that his review of F.D. only showed one application. And then you made a comment that all of F.Dot only showed one application. And then you made a comment that all of F.Dot, there was a approval. I don't have the benefit of whatever approval that you're talking about. But I do remember when he was screen sharing, him pulling up an email that seemed like it had a couple of attachments that were referenced to F.Dot. While Bruce, I'm not inviting you to come back up and talk. But what I am trying to figure out is, can you just, for the sake of clarity, walk me through where we stand with F dot, what was required with the agreement and where we are now as you're understanding. Under what that understand, F DOT has reviewed what the applicant has provided as their design proposal for that intersection and they have approved that. Who's they? At DOT? At DOT. It must be a letter that says we've approved. Right. The email confirmation is essentially what they respond to what's on. Oh, that's how they approved. That is. Where is that? That exists. You have that in your possession. You just yeah, we yeah, we We do have that why wouldn't we have that I think that would have helped a lot Well because as far as the site plan approval the traffic is I get that but you know Right, you know understood and appreciated We're trying to take the representation as, you know, director that you have confirmation from FDOT that all the traffic is in what's before us because that's been a matter that's litigated that they don't have any issues. They approve the plan as presented by the applicant. That's correct. Those are my questions as it relates. I'm grateful for me, Mr. relates. I just want to finish my statements and then I'll relinquish. Those were my directed questions too. Those were my questions directed to the director say that three times. But essentially I heard the comments and I heard a sentiment of the board. And I feel a sentiment of the board. And I feel, I know Chairman Board Member Crestonburg says it sometimes where plants and we don't have a duty. We do have a duty. It's a very important duty because I worked on this side of things for a number of years for a commissioner. And they listened to what the planning is on. And so they listened to the opinions of the different communities. And we see when the community comes out, we hear what's being said. So we don't want you to think that it's not contemplated, it's contemplated for all of us as we sit on this board and this day is. But we also have a defined scope when we're up here. And it's due to quasi-digest our capacity, especially when it comes to something as simple as a site plan approval. So the scope of what we're here before, and a lot of these same faces was here in 2015 and in 2020, when we had heated debates and conversations about whether the development is what was in the nature of the city, but I have to give hats off to the applicant from walking that line. There's white, there's black, and there's in the middle, they walked the line as closely as possible. And they provided a project that didn't require us to have the referee, us to have to get involved, to call the balls and strikes outside of, did they walk the line. So that's my general opinion on it. I know that Vice Chair Thompson mentioned wanting to say something else. And I think that Mr. Cresberg initially had a requested emotion before we had heard from the entire board. So I'll go to Vice-Payton. Well, sir. Thompson and then we'll hear from Mr. Cresberg. I want to pray for this for me. Just to make sure you're getting into the mic. This is a long time coming. And I'm not sure what's where we're going to go on it. But I'm just glad to see it come to fruition. It's been years and years and years. And I'm thinking about the community benefit, Mr. Eng. And I don't know if the applicant could talk about some of the community benefits that this project is going to do that we see in the documents that the public may not seek. So if you don't, I would refer to the applicant out your course. And then the other thing while he's coming up to talk about the community benefit, there's a lot of jobs here if we approve it. Jobs on the front side, jobs on the back side, long term jobs, short term jobs. We need to consider that. And then to tax rate, the tax base. How many million dollars a project of this magnitude we can put into our coffers of a budget that we could use five million dollars to buy police cars or something. Renovated part, infrastructure. Like you said, get off to get off to set the tank going to the sewer. So if the applicant can talk about some of the community benefit and not prolong this process. I'll talk about jobs in the community are you willing to? Yeah, we if you give us this one moment we're we're retrieving that data for you so we can so we can share that with you. Mr. Chairman, maybe take up the opportunity to make sure that everyone has to the first item on the agenda today and the second one, that they do their agenda disclosure. I think some of us did. I'd mind Mr. if not one who didn't know why we're waiting. I did not have any contact with none of the applicants. The first two that came before us. Thank you. Was there anyone here who didn't make a general disclosure as first two items that needs to make a night? I had no contact about forget what those items were. The first two are Jay and Liam. The O'Hanford Office. I don't know if you can tell me about the first of all, I don't know. I don't know if you can tell me. I don't know if you can tell me. I don't know if you can tell me. I don't know if you can tell me. I don't know if you can tell me. I don't know if you can tell me. I don't know if you can tell me. I don't know if you can tell me. Mr. Attorney, the agenda item that we flipped from one to the end. Can we? Do you want to put on that? Is that what you want to do? I wish I could say here is one. I wish I could second if that's what you're saying. The chair won't let me be the second on the motion to table this. We probably have to. I think that. I have that no one second. I have no discussion. First two. Okay. So for my understanding, everyone's made their agenda first two items, no one had any prior conversation with anybody from the first two items and the general discussion for this item had been made in real time. I think where it's, oh, it looks like they're still working on. Yeah. Yeah. on the overlay item, is there anything that is time-sensitive? That would preclude us from the RTC? The RTC is running against the time limit, right? No, we would. We would prefer the board at least hear it, give a feedback, is there there anything or move it along? No worries just wanted to do this. You have us. I mean we're here. the . . Is the per year. In terms of real estate tax is generated for the city per year. We're at $11 million. That's a 63% increase on the existing ad volume revenues. That's $11 million a year in recurring revenues. Impact fees, $7.2 million in impact fees. As it relates to permanent effect direct employment jobs, 2,700 as it relates to temporary effect that's during the construction phase, that's 11,800 jobs created. When you look at the indirect city and county that's 700 jobs and when you look at the induced city and county that's 700 jobs, when you total up the value added of the temporary jobs, let me make this correct. Am I reading that it's one bill? One bill. Six billion. One point six billion. And when you look at the total of the temporary and the permanent, you're at, what is that? Two hundred and seven. The permanent effects are two hundred and seven. The temporary is one point seven. Two hundred and seven million is the permanent economic impact of this. Okay, just one last for me. I know we've kind of wrapped up. Can you consider as a proper to consider local employment if the product is approved? Arthur Gallagher. Arthur Gallagher, I took the oath earlier. We've already committed in the development agreement to look at locally sourced, have our GC's look at locally sourced employment as part of the agenda. Sorry? As part of the development agreement, we've already agreed with the city that we will consider looking at locally sourced employment first and encourage our GCs or whoever's doing it to have local work employment workshops before they hired generally We've already we've already committed this sorry Well, you're there what was your source? This was as again Arthur Gallagher. As we worked through the master plan in 2020, we had to engage an economic consultant, both we engaged one and the city engaged one. So we produced a report in the city's own experts reviewed the report and validated it. So this is coming from that report. Thank you. So let's put in for a bell hop job. Go to God the Woodjohn. All right. You've satisfied with their response? Do we answer your question? Okay. Thank you. You try to cut us off earlier with a motion. I think this is your time to make a motion. No, I would, my motion, I'd like to just ask Mr. Thompson to recuse himself. The city attorney would know that this type of information about jobs and revenue stream and so forth is totally inappropriate. It is not relevant to this consideration and to have permitted that to come in. And then for Mr. Thompson to vote on this, I would ask him to recuse himself. I don't think that makes any sense, but I respect council. Those figures are spacious at best. I mean, anybody can make a, hey, we're bringing $20 billion into the city. Come on. Is there a pendant motion? Yes, but my motion, We're bringing 20 billion dollars into the study. Come on. Is there a pending motion? Yes, but my motion, it's up to him, the recuse and so forth. I don't know the record that what you stated to me may no sense. Now, if the chairman wants me to somehow elaborate on something that made no sense to me initially. I would like to hear from Boyd member Christberg as to what I think she refused. No, not us, that's not the comment. That's not what we're going to do. I'm going to admit that he chooses. No, not us. That's not the comment. That's not what we're going to do. I'd miss him if it was. Okay. As to the boards motion, I would move to continue this item with the direction to address whether some of these are not relevant or are at least the 12 items that are from Mr. Cousin. And to bring up some kind of evidence document from the Florida Department of Transportation that says you can have an intersection at 36th Street, and we will approve it. And something from Durham or the Army Corps of Engineers or we have looked at your proposal for a canal and waterfront enjoyment and we tentatively approve it or it's some kind of document that addresses that. So there's enough items that are questionable that the developer should just modify us with answers, and then it would smooth this whole process. Like, okay. So my motion is to continue this item until whatever date the developer wants to have a here. Second the motion. We have a motion in a second. Does anyone need, I don't know, we need to re-articulate the motion as it stands, but it generally sounds like it's a continuance until additional information can be provided. It seems circled around the document that was provided earlier with the 13 points raised by Mr. Bruce and the other side. And as it relates to the TOT and this. I will say this though because I don't know that the canal thing that they're going to be able to come back with Durham. And I think that might be better. Well, it would even be, it would just be a process. You know, we've applied, we've applied. Which is why I wanted to talk to them about what happened. I get that's why my question was like, what happens if the canal doesn't get built and they've addressed that they have to have green space. They have to have green space and they can't build on that. But that's the gist of it. You want you would want to continue it until a later time where those questions could be raised and then perhaps some additional information as it relates to F. Keeping in mind though that F. might you know, tear down the line of things that have already been addressed in litigation. So- No, but if they say we look at it- I hate you. I'm cool with the director's representation, but you know we have a motion in a second. You have a motion in a second, can we come to a vote? Yeah, we're not going to buy that. Can I offer a proffeta? Can I offer a proffeta? Can we vote on this motion? That's what you want to do. Go right answer. I mean, no. That's what we have a motion. I understand. I understand. I don't know. I don't know. We're delivering. No, follow. We can move. What are we doing? We call the roll. Okay. Dr. Can you come back? Can you restated please? This it is to we move to continue. With directions based on the questions presented by the Espow of people, the more meaningful understanding of what F dot has in mind, or if they're actually going to approve this stop at the intersection and some update as to this canal. It's pie in the sky canal. May I ask the attorney for clarification on something? Of course. Your motion. Sure. So to his motion, from what I understand, F.Dott really does apply to this because this is site plan approval. Am I? Am I? That's my reading of the decisions made by the two courts that I mentioned before. What if F dot rejects it for safety or for whatever? But they haven't is the thing. Right. They haven't but they haven't approved it. No, he's saying they have. In addition to the fact that it might be approval. Maybe you don't want to hear that. The director said it. He has an approval in his hand. He has an approval in his hand. And they don't prove that F dot, that means they can't pull the leg. I mean, so let's wait, wait. So let me finish. One moment. Can we just clarify the attorney's response to the bomb? Yes, clarify my response please and out of respect for the developer I'd like to hear what he has to say because it may be pertinent. Yeah, and I'm sorry to preempt your. Sorry, I just, you know, I want the residents to be satisfied to the best we can before we pass a motion. And if this is a part of it and I believe regarding the canal and all of that, those are all unknowns. But it's in our documentation in the city staff report that says if not, then, okay? But it says it. And it's a green space. Yes, it's a green space. Yes, it's a green space. If not, you can't make a left turn. You can't make a right turn. There's no 36 avenue in existence. No, but it is contingent. I'm just making a place up. I see that. I see that. Can you write it? That's all I get. I want to get a clear response from the attorney. I'm going to have a letter. Wait. So, yes, let's get a response from the attorney. We'll give the applicant a chance to open based on whatever document he has before him that we haven't had. And then we can then decide if there's any amendments to the motion of we're going to vote the motion as profit. Correct. And in an extensive opinion rendered by Ms. Stroud, she states, and I tend to agree from what I've seen of the decisions, you know, which I only had one day to review, that all issues of transportation, including I believe, Egress and Ingress, were basically litigated in favor of the applicant, and our constitutes what she calls the law of the case. Rest jurekata. It went up to the circuit. Yeah. And in two courts, first the 11th Circuit, our trial court, has an appellate division, ruled that way. That went to the third DCA, and they found the same way. Has the actual agency, an authority who says, yeah, we're putting the light here, and we're starting construction. I believe that question's been asked and answered a few times for Mr. Ing, but if you want to hear further from the applicant on that Go for it Jeffrey Bass Holding an email from FDOT dated January 7th, 2021 Happy New Year. This is in reference to the variance request for the inter-costal mall project. The FDOT Access Management Review Committee has approved the proposed signalized intersection variance request east of north east 35th avenue. Please proceed by submitting the final set of documents for further review and approval of this project. So they reviewed it and they approved it. Did you submit it? We're documents submitted. Here's our traffic engineer who will give it to you straight up. Good evening, Adrian Dupckowski with Kim Lee Horn, offices at two Alejandro Plaza and Coral Gables. So the next step after this approval, this approves the traffic study and the access and the concept plan. The next step is to submit the construction documents. So we need to get approval from the city, city commission, and then we move forward with that final submit to DOT. You need to have approval of the site plan for the city. Yes. Yes. And. And. Okay. So as to the F that they approved it in 20. Twenty one. Twenty twenty one. Is it still valid? Yes. Okay. Mr. Chair. Any event. Let's have a right there. Pointing the question to the applicant when they're partly in approval process, put them in a pop-up situation, it is submit the final for approval, but they can't do that until you submit a site plan. That's good, but we've been asking all along for this and now we comes up with the actual document that solves the problem. Today, I mean, that's my bedtime. I answered. All right. Mr. Crashberg. Mr. Crashberg. Are you willing to take a proper from me? Consider proper. He's asking if you'd proper what he has to say to him. And you listen to a proper. he has to say to him. Listen to a proper. Yes. The proper is a date certain that's all 30 days 60 days. That's all you say. At their convenience. Is there. Mr. A. Before we go on, there's been also a lot of questions about the I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Mr. Aang. Before we go on, there's been also a lot of questions about the status of the canal permitting. So I want to answer that question on the record. I'm sorry. The permitting of the harbor, the canal. Okay. Here we go. The harbor lady. Now we're good. Good evening. The harbor lady. Christy brush. Offices. Good evening, the Harbor Lady, Christy Brush, offices at 2937 southeast 27th Avenue Miami. I'm with Moffat and Nicol, we are the Marine Engineers and Environmental Consultants for the project. I've been working on this project since 2017. Okay, much to you. I'm not sure if you're going to get the right answer. Okay. Much to you. So we have been working with the developer and participating I think more in the background in these meetings for a while now. More recently we have been working directly with the environmental permitting agencies at the federal state and county levels. Each have their own set of regulations and requirements which are focused on protecting the environment. We have applications actively in process with all three agencies and are making steady progress in working through the questions that the agencies oppose to us to satisfy all of the regulatory criteria to ensure protection in the environment. And if you have any specific questions, I'm happy to answer them, but there are a lot of pieces and parts in details. So I know it's late, but if there are any questions, I'm here to answer. Without the use of a magic eight board, do you have a proposed timeframe where you might have a response on any level whether it's State County Federal? A response in terms of permits. That you have, yeah. Do you have a proposed timeframe where you are hoping to get a response from? Well, we've, yeah, we've received comments and we're in dialogue back and forth with the agencies answering their questions. In terms of a timeframe to have all of those permits in hand, we should be able to get to preliminary approvals probably within about 12 months, 14 months. Everyone's busy right now. Short staff, as you've probably heard. They just want some answers. They just want a staffer. And if this is continued, and there's another meeting, you can definitely update us with some kind of a, 12 months isn't going to get solved in that way. No, no, you could say, we've already discussed it with this, that the other we have. There was a letter submitted to staff and it's on the record available for inspection dated May 24th, 2024 with the detailed status of the permitting applications. Do we have that? That's part of the application file with staff. Yeah, I don't. That doesn't sound familiar, but we're hearing what she's saying. And do we have that in hand? Well, she gave us a date, so it had to exist. She didn't pull it out. We're not going to continue this for months. Okay. So with that being said, we've heard on the FDOT issue, I think I would hope to your satisfaction. And we've now heard some comment as it relates to the canal and the time frame. And listen, I don't want to take away the opportunity. Mr. Thompson had wanted to. Mr. Christy. I pray for you, Mr. Christy. If you're willing to talk to me 30 days, 60 days. Wait, wait, wait, wait, what the heck? The motion at the stands suggested to continue for their convenience. When they set a time to- I get that, but if we're proffering 30 to 60 days and she just said on the short end of things, it might be another 12 to 14 months before they get actual approval on the canal. And I think the applicant cannot get me finished. So I don't think that we're in the position to hold this up another 12 to 14 months. That's why I said it there. Right. So let's keep in mind that once this is addressed, we still have the commission. I would hope it would be cooved the applicant. It would be in their interest to follow up and get as much in current information as possible before it goes to the commission, after it goes to the commission. It comes to us then we can say we're satisfied with what you've provided, what we've asked you to provide. Absent what has been said just now is what you're saying. Yeah, well, not well, this is a clear. I think the applicant saying I don't not saying I want to see the permit from Durham to build a canal just that they've addressed the concerns from the SPO, whether it's on or germane or not. Got you. They've shown us the document from Department of Transportation and they've updated us whether she said they had, but at least we can see the document again that the canal is on. Is it good? Perculating. Mr. Chair, can I read two emails into the record since you've closed the hearing and you're allowing the applicant to continue providing evidence? No, this is in the material that I've been providing the board. I don't only have questions from the board. So this is in response to your question, this is in response to a question that was asked. What was FDOT approval, the status of the FDOT approval? I don't need the clarification on that. You don't want to hear that it's not been approved. Okay, I don't need any further clarification outside of what the- Then how is it that the applicants here are giving further test-pony and evidence? If I didn't need any- you said you were here to address my question. I asked you what the board's question. I didn't mean that personally. I would say personally I don't have any pending question. That's fair outside of what was said. But if I'm addressing this only that issue and I'm going to skip all the end between emails to save time. These were a series of freedom of information act requests that went to FDOT. So here is the first response. This is March 19 of 2024. Good afternoon, Mr. Cousins. The permit number referenced in the request, and it provides the number, is currently in quote request for information status indicating that there's no approval package yet. Would you like the status of the documents uploaded? Quote one stop permit regardless of the status. So there was no approval. Fast forward to the we know what permit number they're referring to. I can I'll tell you the number. It's Anna wine trough from FDOT. I can tell you the number that's here. It says it's very, very small print. 2020-A-691-0029. Now fast forwarding. We have a document that's different from what you guys have. We can be on the same page. Last email. Moving forward in time. I'll skip all the ones in between. Last one April 8th, 2024. This is at 3.57 p.m., same lady, Ms. Wein-Trab from DFT. Hi, Mr. Cousins. Yes, it's still in the quote request for information status. Okay. That's from FDOT. Okay. All the more reason to get the definitive answer there's no risk So I my motion second stands make the vote on this roll call For you any take a roll call. I said no. Go ahead. Oh, not him. Come on. I just want to say, you all are putting us on the horns of an impossible dilemma. You're requesting a deferral to confirm facts that we've confirmed for you. And there's static facts. They're not going to change. His letter doesn't confirm any. Yes, because you heard that until we get this approval, we can't submit for the final approval. You have a letter from F dot saying the plans that have been submitted are approved. So this is the process works this way. When we get through you, then we submit the final plans and then those plans are approved. Do you think F dot's gonna let us do this without their approval? So in other words you can't go any further than where you're at right now. We can't go any further than where we approved you. It's contingent upon the approval will be contingent. They don't approve it. Well then we're obviously not going to build it. We're not going to like connect to the road without an F dot approval. Use 35th Avenue. We could all be happy. We have complied with every requirement. We have proved every fact. We got a list of things in the middle of the night. And we've identified. Thank you. I think that's enough. Thank you. Let's take a vote. I move to continue to which we have the emotion. Let's take a roll. It's been moved in second. It's on the floor. How direct of the chair to moving in the vote? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I'll wait for that. It's assuming. Mr. Schinbaum. Yes. Mr. Thompson. Mr. Shimbong. Yes. Mr. Thompson. No. Mr. Thomas. Pended. I would like to continue it for more comments. So, so. I would like to. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. Mr. Heiberg. Yes, it's late with the cryberg My motion yes Sure With the cryberg yes Mr. Tainville no Mr. Tainville you have For yet the treason and a favor of table. Continuing. You have to provide it over time certain. No. Excuse me. I didn't vote to continue. I voted on the project, yes. Oh, boss. Mr. Chairman, get him on. Make a mistake. Okay. Let's call the roll. We can better it roll. We're going to take it from the on. Make a mistake. Okay. Let's call a roll. We're going to take it from the top. Call a roll. I'm not clear. Okay. My apologies. Mr. Messrumaean. Hey, and just so for the record is clear, as unclear as it is. Yeah. The motion is to continue this item as opposed to deciding tonight. Thank you. as opposed to deciding tonight. That's it. And we're gonna call the rolling. It's late. Okay. It's Miss Umion. No. Mr. Shenbaum. No. Mr. Thompson. No. Mr. Thomas. Yes. Mr. Heifert. Yes. Mr. Craigberg. Yes. Mr. St.ville. No. You have the. St. Phil. No. You have the motion failed for three. Chair. Is there a second motion that's going to come from the day? Mr. Chair. Yes. I make a motion for approval. Very cycle that. Motion in a second. Motion by Mr. Tom. Vice Chair Thompson in Thompson second by chairman. Shembang, let's have a roll call. Roll call vote, Mr. Thompson. Yes, Ms. Monsumian. Can I add one thing to that? You'd like to amend the motion. Just? No, I don't want to amend the motion. I would like to make a recommendation along with my vote. So let's amend the motion to add the recommendation. Can I do that? As a recommendation, not as a condition, yes. A recommendation is that I would like to see the developer address items one through 13 for the residents and for the sake of everybody. But my vote is yes to approve. I know before it goes to the commission as it gets to the commission. No it goes to the commission after we're done with it. No I understand but they should at least for the sake of the residents address these items. Would it come back and address? Not to us let them do it to the commission but that's possible I don't know. That's my recommendation. I think that that's gonna be an automatic thing on their I would show hope so if they want to keep going that they better address these things my point Thank you Mr. Thomas no Mr. Jim bomb I Think you got Jim bomb already. Yeah me already. Oh you are voted. No, they did they did another motion. I think the third team conditions that they're not going to. Sorry. No. What? No, the conditions that asked for. No, we're still on the same vote. Is it yes to approve or no? No, approve of the project. No conditions. I think you already voted, but that's fine. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. you don't want to pull the side plan of the mission anything to change the the necessary. I'm quite sure they'll get there as quickly as they can. They're not going to they're not going to hold they're not going to hold a lot. Hey, can you say what I'm asking? That was a question directly to the. Okay, I'm sorry. Sorry. If you vote to deny, I think there's a super majority on that if they no sir That only applied within our code if they're the variance and bother no variance it's here. It's no bearing It's right. It just shows up. I mean as many of you have stated the The opinion of this board weighs heavily. I am. This board is that. Hey, hey, do we have a yes or no vote? I vote. You okay. Who else are we missing? Directed. Mr. Criberg and then the chair. I think I'm right. Berg. We're the next vote. All he did he vote and I missed it. I voted yes. Okay. Because it doesn't matter. Mr. Tinkville. Yes. It doesn't care the motion to recommend approval, path is five two. We. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Good luck. Hold your hold. Thank you. Good luck Come on Where are you going? We still have the whole play where you go I apologize to the board member trust me but what's someone who's having hard issues I tried what want to go home as soon as possible but yeah hey it's a little too late wait wait wait before we one moment one moment one moment one more one more fellas we haven't concluded the meeting yet. I move to a chair. Ladies, okay, so we're taking the. Okay, we're taking an intermission. We have members going to the restroom. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, sorry. Five minute reach. One more one. Oh, this is your thing? Yeah. What is it? The old. It's your You know the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. All right, Eduardo. We are are AV folk, are narrowing their time limit. Isn't that like on the commission meetings, there's an ordinance that they can't go past 12 or something, isn't there? Yeah. That in play for us too? Nope. Oh, yeah. We are quorum. I did pull the quake. Hey, hey, hey, hey, I will make it quick. No, I believe we're being called to order folks and we have a quorum. Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, Mr. McImmian, we do have a quorum. We'd like to move forward to meeting an all-tabbing member, Doran, here. Can I have my picker and order? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, my wife doesn't believe that I'm still at this board meeting. I just send pitches to people. With the time clock on there. There's no way. My day started at six in the noon. To your significant other. To your significant other. To your significant other. George, take it. Who are they going to tell you, baby? All right. We will be. We will be addressing Order order please order we're back on the record We are now going to be addressing item 4.1 the best cable of art overlay Order order You're not in order in the day is like this. Guy no. In all seriousness we need to get back to the order of business and we are on item 4.1. The best came will have art overlay district. It's an ordinance approval. It was a postponed repositioned on the agenda. So let's have a brief trocaded snapshot pre- other board member. As you may be aware, you've already heard this quite from us before, but we took your feedback and went back and actually you'd give our via feedback to refine things before we actually did it more and don't like including, or just cut it about height before. So what we're gonna be for you is to consider how we can put for a set of rules and regulations for the B2D trick along the B2D King corridor to map the county-c Strategic Miami area rapid transit plan. You also know that at the RTD issue that we have brought up multiple times and I'll keep it with on the background there since you already have been a conduit since April at Naudium. But it really had to do with looking at the RTZ and specifically looking at our zoning and the B2 district specifically along this came Boulevard. Only dull. We have other B2 district, but the only one that's overlaid to vote to affect is the that you see here that are highlighted. And the purpose intent to provide suitable development on the two districts, that recommendation there is, hey, you have something that's six lanes. And instead of approving a 40-story tower, or 30-story tower, next to a two-lane road, have all conserved what we can do to actually put it near infrastructure that's appropriate. The challenge here was how to think about that density from the rapid transit zone and carry that over, particularly compatibility with neighboring development or existing along the corridor or who's gonna make use district. There's an opportunity here to think about bonus density instead of giving away that density, asking for certain things to compensate for that, whether it's improvement by investment in our infrastructure, such that transportation to open space. So we have incorporated that in what we're posing to you as opportunity for public benefit as part of its ordinance. Don't, you know, it, um, we're important here at that, those aspects are not gonna be by right underneath there. If they opt into it, they're gonna opt into certain aspects of that program. Um, obviously the youth table important here, we thought about things from a mixed youth standpoint in the fact that we have a large mixed youth corridor, though, uh, where there's a lot of traffic. So the by-right items will really be along the lines of things you would expect, like mixed youth development, office-based restaurants, retail use. And of course, we carried over the conditional youth that you see in the other district that it currently allowed in the underlying business as well. Although we're not sure that we want to keep medical marijuana or retail smoke shop on there, we defer to the board on this recommendation before we bring to the commission. In addition, parking garaudity, the primary use that we are recommending to you add a conditional use, just because we want these bases to be activated, not primarily just parking, particularly along a major corridor. We think that it's an opportunity to think about how we can think about things like urban market, garden, destination, along this game ball of art. There are public benefits associated with the bonus program that we're proposing in the bonus chart that you see in ordnance, ranging from work force and forward holding to a transportation improvement, open space and recreation, place making, and certificate and structure. You'll recognize these because they were the fact that they've got five categories we brought through you on a preliminary basis to say, hey, what do you think the categories and are there consideration to which we received some very vital feedback including the call that the scale back and say you know what our planning is only more recommended again for example microunit though we made sure that wasn't in there and we took your words into account so we really appreciate it we know that and appreciate it, appreciate it. And now at the time, the current density bonus is 23 drawing units per acre maximum. And what we want to hear is start off with a building aspect where we, we maximized it at by right, 20 stories at 20, at currently 15. But between 20 and 30 stories, you're going to have to have an aspect of opting into the bonus program with various items that's as affordable work for touting and so forth to get to that level. These are some aspect of what we've we've seen with growing units, for example, open space and recreation. And that was my very, very quick overview for the board. We welcome additional comments from you because like we said, we actually, we're very appreciative of the fact that you gave us time and gave us good feedback and we were able to incorporate it in the draft. So we thank you. Thank you. thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Did we pin any, it was a good presentation. Thank you. Did we pin any numbers on what, like say, workforce housing? How much of the project needs to be? Or is it just arbitrarily set? Or how does that work? We said that. We actually discussed it with both the development community, with the welcomins, clients and other folks. And we also went back and counterbalance that opinion by talking to our CRA director, because he worked in other cities. So we try to see what is out there. So we have in the draft ordinance certain ratio that we believe could work. And we note that if they end up not accomplishing what we want the city to accomplish and trying to provide that, those numbers can be quick at a later time as well. We get a ratio for every extra unit that you may want above what you're allowed, you have to provide a certain ratio of those as affordable. And that way, you're giving a little something in turn to the bone identity, but you're getting something returned at its beneficial from a public standpoint to something arithritis and need. Are you doing workforce housing specifically? Yes, okay. We will also take affordable housing as well, though. If they can make it work. In fact, something that we toyed with was to provide a different ratio for affordable housing for the workforce housing. Because the input from the development community is different for both. And therefore, if you put a different ratio to entitle the affordable housing, it's a little bit more ratio to entitle the affordable housing. It's a little bit more beneficial to them than the work for touting. That kind of the character in the ordinance there to try to entitle to you data denomption. Do you have what that ratio is? It would be in the ordinance which I need to pull out. Don't do that. Okay. Sorry, but it's point what you're talking about. It's definitely in the chart already. Yeah, from what you recall, the affordable housing is a higher percentage in the workforce housing. That's the gist of it, correct? Yeah. Okay. So what do we have to do? Pardon? Yes. So that that part of it. So what you what we would ask the board to do is to look it over and provide it with any with with either move for a recommend approval to the board to the commission. That would be the I would approve it 30 it goes to the commission I go to two readings and it's in your hands to implement yes sir get more bang on the back side for 30 let's bang our backs but then you're going to get more four-way. And then with the bonuses, it works out better. Right. You know, I really, and it's in one, sorry. And then it's something that's no good to the bottom of the arena. Arena palms. All right. Hey, hey, I want to help with Miss Mischimian. And it's in line with the with Marina palms that hold line on this thing thing correct? They hope it's really going to be around the same Really like what he's put together Got a motion in a second for approval to submit to move forward and bring it to the city commission Rhovel, please All right Mr. Kreiteburg. Yes. Ms. Muthzumian. Yes. Mr. Shimbong. Approved. Mr. Thompson. Yes. Mr. Heisler. Approved. Mr. Thomas. Yes. Mr. Tink. Chair think Bill. Four. Vote path of $70. Thank you. And that address is. The next meeting. Thank you. And dad addresses. Thank you. And dad addresses. Dad addresses all of our pending items. The discussion item is our next meeting in schedule for September 9th. I'll entertain a motion to you. Thank you. I have a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Second. Second. Third. I vote no. All in favor. Thank you, Barbara. I vote no. All in favor. Thank you for our members. I'm 100 years old. Motion passes.