That's my favorite part. Welcome to the Environmental Advisory Board meeting, the city of Buckertone. I'd like to call the meeting to order. Today is Thursday, September 26th at 6 p.m. I would like the board secretary Karen to call the role. Certainly, Erica Allen. Here. Rachel Bobich. President. Margaret Hortee here in Chair Newman. President. You have a quorum, sir. All right. So, I would like to make one amendment to the agenda and that is to move the approval of the minutes to the end so that we can move forward with the issue at hand that everybody's here for, which let's see, it would be the quasi-judicial and related public hearings. I'd like at this point to ask any individuals wishing to speak to be sworn in. Please rise. the city council. We will be back to the council. We will be back to the council. We will be back to the council. We will be back to the council. We will be back to the council. We will be back to the council. We will be back to the council. We will be back to the council. We will be back to the council. We will be back to the council. Certainly. 2600 North Ocean Boulevard, recommendation to the City Council regarding a resolution of the City Council of the City of Boca Raton, considering for a residential R3F zone approximately .42 acre property, generally located at 2600 North Ocean Boulevard, a coastal construction control line, variance, or CCL. From section 28-15563, code of ordinances which variance is required for the construction of a four-story approximately 38-foot tall, 6,931 square foot, single-family residence, seward of the CCL, where no structure is permitted seward of the CCL without a variance. Providing for a repealer, providing an effective date, SC-16-08-16-3009. 0 8 slash 16 dash 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 9. All right, thank you. At this time, I'd like to ask the members of the board if they have any expert to communications that they've not already been disclosed in writing. Sounds like none of us do. So at this time, I think that's what I'm doing. Sounds like none of us do. So at this time, I guess I would like to introduce the staff member. To Moshbin, ramen. Did I get that right? Yes, you did. All right. Thank you. Good evening, chair members of the Board, Smajima Manchee, Planner with Development Services Department. The item before you is a request for a Coastal Construction Control Line or CCCL variants for the property located at 2600 North Ocean Boulevard. This is a request for a variance from Section 28, 15563, Code of Ordinances, to construct a four-story, approximately 38-foot tall, 6,931 square feet, single-family residents, C-word of the CCCL. This application is being heard as part of every hearing process. On February 26th of 2019, the City Council denied via resolution number 2219, a CCCL variance request for the property under which was proposed a four story, approximately 49 foot tall, 14,270 square foot duplex residents, C word of the CCCL. The applicant appealed the denial of the 2019 application and the matter was subsequently remanded by the fourth district court of appeal for further consideration. Section 28 1556 of the city code states that no person shall construct any structure whatsoever, seward of the established CCCL. At the same time, Section 28 1556 Ford does authorize property owners to seek a variance from these regulations. Here you have a map of the property with a red dashed line. The overall site is 0.42 acres and is undeveloped and includes a native beach. The property is owned R3F with a feature land use designation of residential medium. The CCCL is shown with an orange dashed line, as you can see the property and much of North Ocean Boulevard, also known as A1A, is the eastward of the established CCCL along the segment of A1A. Here's the applicant's proposed site plan. The property lines are outlined in red. The single-family structure is outlined in blue, and the walkway and driveway leading from north ocean boulevard to the structure is outlined in orange. The applicant is proposing a dune crossover that is shown in yellow from the first level of the structure to the beach area. The driveway is proposed on the southern portion of the property, which will be subject to Florida Department of Transportation Review and Approval, as North Ocean Boulevard is under F. Jurisdiction. The residence is inclusive of four bedrooms, seven bathrooms, mechanical garage second hold up to four vehicles, and a partially enclosed rooftop terrace with a swimming pool and spa, pool deck, gym, summer kitchen, bathroom, and mechanical equipment area with access to all levels with an elevator. The building will be constructed on deep foundations with Kent-Leavered floors where the second, third, and fourth floor will extend further seaworth than the foundation of the building. In terms of zoning district and dimensional requirements for this property, the proposed building meets or exceeds the minimum setback requirements, in terms of high and maximum of 50 is permitted for a structure, and the applicant is proposing 838 foot tall structure. In terms of floor area, the minimum that is required is 1,250 square feet, and the applicant's proposing structure that is 6,931 square feet under air. There are no requirements for open space in the R3F Zoni district. And in terms of parking, two parking spaces are required and the applicant is proposing four parking spaces within the garage with a driveway apron that can hold additional vehicles. The red nukeings that are shown here which have been provided by the applicant depict what the proposed structure would look like. and hold additional vehicles. The renderings that are shown here which have been provided by the applicant depict what the proposed structure would look like. The top view is the West Building Exposure or the view from North Ocean Boulevard. The bottom is the East Exposure or the view from the beach. Additional renderings show the proposed North and South Exposures. These renderings illustrate the duplex I was previously concerned by the city council in 2019. On the left is the elevation for the duplex specifically the east elevation facing the beach. On the right is the west elevation facing north the ocean boulevard. These are two charts to compare the proposed single-family structure to the previously proposed duplex. The top chart compares the glazing of both structures. Glazing is an architectural term used for glass-honored building, including glass windows and doors. The chart on top of this slide provides a breakdown on the amount of glazing proposed for all elevations and compares it to the duplex building that was previously proposed. With a proposed single-family structure, the applicant has reduced the amount of glazing on all elevations. As you can see, the amount of glazing on the north elevation has been reduced by approximately 60 percent on the south elevation by approximately 65 percent on the east elevation along the beach. There's been a reduction of approximately 30 percent and on the west elevation along A1A there's been a reduction of approximately 52 percent. The chart in terms of other comparisons to the previously proposed duplex to the currently proposed single-family structure, the building footprint has been reduced by approximately 10% with the single-family structure in comparison to the duplex. In terms of total enclosed building area, there's been a reduction of approximately 52%. The building height has also been reduced by approximately 22%. The impervious area of a jar, areas such as pavers, dryways that has been reduced by approximately 58%. And in terms of the roof top use, the use has not changed, but the square footage has slightly by about 7%, 6%, 7%. So the applicant has submitted an updated environmental assessment report with this project. It identifies that the federally listed plant species beach star is present along the east side of the property. It states that no nesting sea turtles were observed on the property at the time of survey. It acknowledges that the city's marine conservationist has confirmed that the beach area has annual nesting of sea turtles. And it acknowledges that least turns, which is a state listed bird species, was observed to be nesting along the beach north of the property in 2021. So in terms of historical data that the city has and has been collecting on the property, our data shows that the property currently provides suitable nesting habitat for sea turtles. So to address concerns and potential impacts of the project, staff has incorporated a number of conditions of approval in the CCCL resolution. I'll summarize a view and these are the ones that are listed on this slide. So the first is that the glazing on the north, south and east elevations that it must have a visible light transmittance value of no more than 31%, meaning no more than 31% of the light can come through from the interior of the building to the exterior and that no more than 14% reflectivity is allowed. The city's environmental officer is authorized to require that work proposed in the environmental assessment report be phased or sequenced to ensure that no work results in any adverse impact to sea turtle nest between the sea turtle nesting season, which is from March 1st to October 31st, on that the applicant must submit building permit plans, which indicate that all lighting fixtures on the building and on the property shall be full cut off fixtures with shielding, wildlife certified and be placed in locations that avoid light trespass onto the beach. The applicant must submit a sea turtle lighting plan, which demonstrates that the angle of any and all light emitted from the property will not cross the line of sight detected by an animal, particularly nesting C-tortals and C-total hatchlings. The applicant must submit a tree pruning plan which must be submitted every two years to the Development Services Department for our review and approval, which demonstrates that any pruning of trees mitigate to the maximum extent possible light trespass and light reflectivity onto the beach. And there's also conditions that address other construction requirements, including pre-construction requirements, such as the development of parking, storage, and staging plants, which must prevent disturbance or native vegetation into the doon system. So in terms of staff analysis of the current proposal and variance criteria, based upon staff's review and subject to compliance with all the conditions of approval in the CCL resolution, staff believes that the application satisfies the criteria and standards set forth in mile of beach front property in the city, only 4% of those properties have the R3 of zone-etus strict, and out of the 4% of properties, there are a limited number of properties that could potentially develop with a residential structure. Since a property is located C-word, entirely C-word of the CCCL, a variance would be required to develop the property in any form and start finds at the application when considering the extensive revisions from prior versions, including the duplus, including the duplex, help to minimize environmental impacts as well as a robust conditions of approval in the CCCL resolution, ensuring compliance with stringent standards has met the high bar for satisfying the criteria for a CCCL variance. To conclude, staff is recommending approval of this revised application for a CCCL variance, subject to the applicant obtaining required approvals from all state agencies, including the Florida Department of Environment Protection for the project, and complying with all the conditions of approval in the accompanying CCCL resolution. Thank you. That concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you for that. Do we have any questions? I actually do have one question. You pulled up a chart comparing the previous projects with this project. And I guess I think what I'm really asking here is, you know, we're being asked about this project on the merits of this, not on the merits of the change, correct? I mean, it doesn't seem particularly relevant in this case that they, you know, a project which we deemed as really not a good project, you know, it has changed to a different project entirely. And are we supposed to take into account that they've made that change and that should be better somehow? It should be better somehow because of that change. I mean, if they had asked for a, you know, a thousand foot condo to be put up there and then they changed it to a one-story house, then these numbers would be, you know, a thousand times better. Is that, I mean, is that why you decided based on these numbers that they've that they've shown they've made an effort to make a better In good faith to to make the project better is that how you came to that conclusion using this particular chart? If I could respond to that Brandon Chad Development Services Director so The first part of your question, you're supposed to evaluate this application against the criteria that are in the code for a variance as we have, you know, set forth and make clear. The reason for the comparison is this is actually the same application that was previously heard by this board and reviewed and made a recommendation the City Council ultimately denied and that was appealed and that we the court essentially told us to reconsider, sent it back for more reconsideration. So it's relevant in the sense that this is how the application has changed since the last time it was heard. It's not a matter of compare the two and decide what she like. It's still a matter of look at the application in front of you and compare to the variance criteria, but I do think it's relevant to know what has changed since the last time the board heard it. I agree. I mean, but I think we're, we got to be clear that we're looking at it completely. This, for all intents purposes, purposes is a completely different project now. You know, I mean, it's a different building with different concerns. Some of these concerns are obviously going to be the same. I'm just concerned that, you know, somebody looking at this chart says, oh, wow, they're 60% better than it was. That's, it seems like a relevant number to me in the context of this project. And I just want to make sure that that wasn't a number that was being utilized to make your recommendation on this project. I mean, there's plenty of projects that get proposed without any, you know, lots of projects you proposed that are never going to make it pass the board. And then people can make changes to it and talk about how reasonable they're being when they're making changes. And I just wanna make sure that's not what's going on here in this case. No, so the staff made our recommendation based on our assessment of the current application versus the variance criteria Which is exactly what the board is being asked to do. All right. Thank you Any more questions for staff All right, thanks a lot for that So at this point I like to open the public hearing and allow the application is the applicant to speak first You have 20 minutes, but if you need more we can you can ask for more and we can vote on Yeah, please state your name and address for the record sure My name is William Stodder Address is 1717 Indie River Boulevard, Sweet 201, and Viral Beach, Florida. And thank you members of the board for having us here tonight to present this project. Myself, I'm the representative for the owner, and I'm also the civil and coastal engineer on this project. And I want to go just briefly through some of my qualifications and experience with similar projects like this. How do I... oh, there it is. I would use them never quite everyone. So my education, I have a doctorate degree with a major in structural engineering and a minor in engineering science and mechanics. And most of the work that I've been involved in, let me go back, I think there was one of this missing here. My professional engineering, I've been a licensed professional engineer since 2001, and in the last 26 years, I've pretty much exclusively worked on civil and structural engineering and FDEP coastal permitting of single family oceanfront residences all through the state of Florida. And permitting with the FDEP, there's a number of different sections of the Florida administrative code that require coastal permits with the state. So for single and multifamily developments such as the project tonight, we've done over 326 permits, all through counties from Okay. So some of the other DEP permitting we do is rigid coastal armoring structures or sea walls. And we've gotten all over a mile of sea walls that we've permitted. Next one. Geotextile deune cores which have recently been in 2009, the Florida administrative So, what I want to basically stress with that is what we're asking for tonight as far as building seawater the control line. There's really nothing unique or unusual about that request. There's thousands of FDEP coastal permits that are issued all over the state of Florida by the FDEP. So tonight we're presenting the 2600 North Ocean Boulevard Project. Our consultants on the project are Alex, DeAngeles, the architect, myself, civil and coastal engineer, Lynn Bender, landscape architect, Chris Apatnik, his environmental consultant. John Fleetmeyer is a consultant for the Marine Turtle Nesting, and Thomas Thomas Cello was a coastal permitting attorney. And they were all on the design team. So the owner contacted me in 2015, which is over nine years ago, about this property. And this property, 2600 North Ocean Boulevard, is one of the top two most environmentally sensitive designs I have worked on in my career. So my first recommendation to him was before we even go to the city of Boca Raton and try to present anything, we first want to meet with the DEP and talk to them to determine the CERMOS limits of construction and the footprint before we submit anything. And that's what we did. We had a couple meetings with the DEP up front before we even approached the city. And that's how we established the footprint. We wanted to have something that would be reasonable that we could get permitted once we go forward. And we talked about, you know, when we first submitted it, we looked at the code, the zoning, and we said, what's the maximum? You can go 50 feet tall. We had the setbacks, and so we had proposed the duplex structure. This site could hold up to three units, and we had a duplex structure at a 14,270 square feet of air condition space, and we were using a 45% glazing transmittance. And that's what the DUP puts in all their general permit conditions, and it's in the city of Boca Raton code of ordinances. And so we presented this to the Environmental Advisory Board and also to the City of Bocca Thone Council. The Advisory Board unanimous recommendation against it and City Council denied it. And as was touched upon, the court ordered a re-hearing of the project and so the design team worked very closely with the city staff and also the Department of Environmental Protection. And we spent five years in collaboration going back and forth to come up with a design that was environmentally sensitive and compatible with this development or this area. And important to note, there's no beach level decks. There's no decks at the ground level, there's no swimming pool, we've moved that up to the roof. So tonight we're presenting our single family residence, which is 6,931 square feet, 31 feet tall, and we've reduced the glazing transmittance to 31%. Some of the minimizations of the impacts as compared to what we have before is you can see it's a much smaller building footprint. It's only 19 foot of building depth. I got to tell you I have not worked on any ocean front residents that only has 19 foot ad depth at the ground level. There's really eight large columns that extend below the ground level. And I think one of the most important things to see is you can see the dune profile right here. And this is in your code and this is with FEMA code. We're retaining that dune profile. We're not changing that dune profile. The building is being built with that existing profile. You can see the driveway as pile support it to access into the garage. There is a number of exotics right now in the dune that stretch as a buffer between where the proposed residence is going and the sandy beach. That is all going to be restored with native vegetation. And we talked about the comparison before and I don't have to go over these again, but I think it's important to note that we went from a design that was consistent with the land development code and what you can put in the zoning to now a single-family home that has been reduced by a half or more in many areas. And the same thing with the glazing, we're using the 31% and we've reduced the amount of glazing significantly. And there's a number of robust conditions for approval that are attached to the project to mitigate any of the potential environmental impacts. And again, I want to stress, I can't think of any other municipality I've worked in who's attached these conditions that go indefinitely with the property. This is the first time I've seen this. And we're willing to accept it. That's not an issue. But there is protection for long term on this project. So we have the, as mentioned before, the biennial tree pruning, the pre-construction planning, the sea turtle lighting plan, and then the dune restoration and monitoring. Just to name a few. There's quite a few more. And then these are the elevations that we present. So here's the southwest from North Ocean Boulevard, from the northwest. This is looking at from the west, from the south. And you can see right there where we're maintaining the the doom profile right there and that's all open underneath the driveway and the walkway leading up to the house. This is from the north, from the southeast, from the east, and you can see the 31 percent transmittance, how dark the glass is going to be, and then from the northeast. And we have a number of our consultants, design team consultants, are here to help answer any questions that you may have. And thank you for your time. Thank you. All right. At this time board can ask questions. Or I guess I can at this point I'll have to, yeah, if you've got questions for the applicant. Well, I believe that's where we're at. Do you have any questions? No. With the conditions that go along with the proposed development, including what was at the biennial pruning and there were three others that you showed on the last slide. What's the enforcement of these once the develop once it's built? This is written into the city. I mean that was to be a question for for brand or to mesh So there's different timing on different conditions some of them are prior to issuing a permit at all and then some of them are Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy some of them are prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, some of them are ongoing. When it comes to the ongoing conditions, if they're violated, it would be typically a code enforcement process, although there are other remedies potentially available to the cities such as taking them to court things like that. But typically it would be a code enforcement process. A code enforcement? Okay, thank you. I have a couple questions. I'm curious. You said you have 326 permits. Were all of those for single family homes built east of the coastal construction line? Yes. Any construction, even if it's partially see what the control line has to go to the state to get a FDEP permit. No I mean I mean I'm talking about single family homes built entirely east of the coastal construction line where any of these projects single family homes built entirely east of the coastal. Oh yes there's a number of them. Yes. Okay and that was and that was ones that hadn't already been built east So these were ones that got variances for well a lot of municipalities don't have the variance requirement You you have to obtain an FDP permit and then you have to meet the local Code of ordinances and use them effort building permit Going for a variance so each town has it each town has its own set of rules that they go by correct correct And as far as you know that most of these projects were not Using those same set of rules is that correct? No, the state has the same set of rules No, I understand that I mean we're not the not the state. The state has, you know, the state's kind of the lowest bar on rules in Florida and then each community has their own set of rules. So, for example, some communities basically deferred to the state and they say, whatever the state approves, we're fine with. Yeah, that's what I mean by the lowest bar in the state. Right. Yeah, that's that's what I mean by the lowest bar in the state. Right then there's some means palaties that say you know Where the old control line was where that was established? They've used that as a line of Prohibition you can't build see where to that line regardless if the state said yes or no they're saying that's our limit Brevard County they take the old control line and they go 25 feet landward of that and they say that's the limit of where you can build to So some of the states do have requirements above and beyond what the FDEP would consider. OK. And Boca is above and beyond what FDEP? Well, I mean, they have a variance process, which is unique. OK. Well, I think that answers my question. In my second, you mentioned the Dune profile a lot. What is your, I mean, you know, we're an environmental advisory board, so I think maybe a Dune profile to me must mean something different than what it means to you because when you say you're not going to change the Dune profile, any structure on the Dune is going to change the dune profile from a biological standpoint Right, so you know you showed me a dune profile and a line on it that showed your building is going to be up off of the dune That doesn't from from you know an ecological perspective The new the new the building is part of the new dune profile. That's just how it is. You know, you can put it up on stilts or whatever, but from a biological standpoint, you have to consider that in your profile. No doubt, no doubt. But we're minimizing the impact by putting it on piles, elevating and keeping the sand. I think the important part is that the dune, we're not changing the dune. You go to some other developments where there would be walls built around, it would be backfield, it would be raised, it would be completely different than what's existing out there now. We're trying to keep the natural contour, the natural vegetation around the property, rather than walling it off, building up and filling it with sod Right. Yeah, you couldn't do that I just I just want you I want to You know just make the that statement that You know no matter what you put on the on the doom and it changes the profile I mean whether you know especially structures. I mean from from the perspective of migrating birds and Shading of the beach due to the height of the building, those are things that are going to be impacted. So the Doom profile will change. And I think it's sort of disingenuous to say you can slap stills on a building and suddenly it's not part of the doon structure anymore. Whether that change is minimized by what you've done, I think there are certain aspects. Certainly if we compare it to the original project, which is apparently what we're telling. I can see how you can make an argument for that. But there's a significant, you know, that this section of beach has a unique dune profile unlike, you know, most areas around it. And I think we need to acknowledge that that's a part of it. The structure that is. Yeah, and that's what I said. I mean, I've, I believe you said that. I think it's like, you're keeping the very same dune profile. Yeah, that's what you said. The Doom profile, yeah, is being, but it's probably one of the two most environmentally sensitive designs that we've worked on. That's great. And, you know, I think what we've done is we've tried to minimize those impacts to the environment the best we can. Okay, thank you. Rick, I'd just like to add a comment for your statement as well. Apart from the structure being added to the dune, any kind of even if it's native plants or plants that belong there, as well as any kind of use of chemicals or daily use of products within the dwelling and the building and the structure that also contributes to any kind of dune, dysregulation or how it would be. That's all. All right. Do we have any more questions for the applicant based on? I guess at this point then we can have the Board Secretary see if anybody else wants to speak. Yes, Mr. George Salinger, followed by Tucker Grubbs, followed by Howard Orin. Mr. Chairman, I noticed when we did swearing in that much of the audience did not take the oath. I just might be more efficient just to explain that that has to happen. They're going to testify. Yeah. If anybody who wanted to speak uh didn't have it got here late and didn't have a chance to be sworn in and and still wants to speak I think it would be fair at this point to open that up again is there anybody who was not sworn in in the room all right we've got one person okay um could you please read minister the oath for that person okay do you swear or affirm that any testimony that you may give during this public hearing will be truthful and accurate? Okay, great and I want to remind you you've got three minutes. Thank you. My name is Tucker Gibbs. I'm an attorney. I'm representing the yacht and racquet club, Boker-Reton. My client owns the property at 2711 North Ocean Boulevard, and it is immediately to the north of the subject property. My client and other neighbors have serious concerns with the requests for the variances that is before you this evening. and these concerns center on the city's coastal construction setback provisions which state in the code that see where to the established coastal construction control line as recorded in the public records of Palm Beach County No person shall a construct any structure whatsoever B make any excavation, which is a removal of soil, sand, or vegetation by digging, scoping, or hollowing out. C, removing any, remove any bridge, beach materials, or otherwise alter existing ground elevation. And finally, D, drive any motor vehicle on or over or cross any sand dune or damage or cause to be damaged, any such sand dune or the vegetation growing there on. And the reason why I read this out is because the applicant is seeking a variance that would allow to do every single one of those things that are prohibited. They want it all and they don't just want one thing, they want the whole nine yards and that is a serious concern for this neighbor. These prohibitions also reflect the findings in Section 161-053 of the Florida Statutes, which say the beaches in this, and this is in your staff report. The beaches in this state and the coastal barrier dunes adjacent to such beaches by their nature are subject to frequent and severe fluctuations and represent one of the most valuable resources of Florida. And that it is in the public interest to serve and protect that preserve and protect them from imprudent construction, which can jeopardize the stability of the beach-doons system, accelerate erosion, provide inadequate protection to upland structures, in danger at Jason properties or interfere with public beach access. This is the state of Florida legislature saying this is it and this is what you're protecting through this variance, through granting or denying this variance. The variance to waive the prohibition on development, on the coastal construction control line, the grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee grantee the standards in section 28, 127, 3, is our position that the applicant does not meet each of these six variants requirements. I'm not going to get into each and every one of them, but people will be speaking to some of these issues. So for all those reasons, we urge you to think about what is being asked for here and deny the variance. And recommend denial to the city council. Thank you very much. Thank you. And I just want to state that because you're speaking for a group, you actually can have a little more time if you require it. No, I understand, but my clients, they're very eager to tell you about their positions on this and I want to keep them happy. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. My name is George Salinger. I am president of the yacht and Racket Club of Boquerotone. I live at 271 North Ocean Boulevard, apartment E-605. As I said, I'm president of the association, and I'm speaking on behalf of a lot of the members of the club. I also want to point out that we own the beach immediately next to this property, and we respect the beach and the dunes and the foliage on top of it enormously and we would never conceive of building a structure like this is being proposed. I'll focus my presentation on four distinct factual points. The first is the development with endangered sea turtles. I think this is a very obvious statement but the impact is clearly outlined in the report that was prepared by Dr. Rusenko and Mr. Anderson whom I think you know well. Both employees of the city, and this is included in the package that you received in pages 32 through 34. They have studied this in great detail. And they report the clearly outlined the adverse impact that will occur in sea turtles, both the females and the hatchlings. My second point is related to vegetation dunes, which, as you pointed out, will be compromised if not destroyed, placing a structure on stills above it does not protect the sedums in any way does not keep them from being healthy, which is hugely important for our community. The third is the inequity of the requirements and the application of these requirements and the construction esword of the CCCL line. Allowing the development would be a clear double standard regarding these requirements. And I say that because we are required to be extremely careful on how we treat the seedunes, how we treat the foliage in it, to the extent that even if we wanna cut one branch, we need to request the approval, demonstrate why it is required. So that would be a clear double standard. And finally, the respect for the environment. And I wanted to really stress this because I think it's a hugely important aspect. Past residents for decades of not generations have strived to make the City of Boca Raton a beacon for environmental conduct. Boca's past authorities have enshrined these values in the City codes. Current authorities, yourselves, should preserve and enhance these environment values, which the city has the current, with the city's current residents and future generations in mind. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Orin. Who's covered? Ah, okay. Michael, last low. Last low, yeah. Hello, Michael, last low, 2697 North Ocean Boulevard. I actually have a statement. Sir? Yeah. Yeah, I'll speak in the mic. I have a statement. My wife will bring me because I want to read the last paragraph. But I want to address a question for us, because I was struck in the presentation by the design claim that no light will cross the line of sight of animals or turtles on the beach. So regarding interior lights, that would seem to forbid ceiling lights, because certainly ceiling lights are going to shine down from the ceiling through the windows onto the beach. It would exclude lamps near the windows. In fact, it would pretty much exclude any light above the lower frame of the window. So that knocks out interior lights. And this is true, even with 31% transmission. It's still glass. It's still letting light through. Exterior lights, no exterior lights will cross the line of the side of animals or tortoises, turtles on the beach. No exterior lights set. Okay, so we have no exterior lights. Light gets scattered by the atmosphere. So light gets scattered. That's just a fact of life. How are we going to exclude the scattering of light? There's no atmosphere behind the building. So this design claim, I'd really like you to pursue it further. The claim that no light will cross the line of sight of animals or turtles. So let me just read my final paragraph from my statement since I have a little bit of time left. Our city's CCL ordinance was adopted in 1981. Many decades before this developer bought this lot to build this proposed multi-story complex on. I asked you not to lose sight of the fact that this ordinance was not adopted to a piece or satisfy developers or to serve their interests. The purpose of the ordinance is to preserve and protect our city's beachfront environment and I just ask that you let the ordinance do its job. Thank you for your time. Thank you. All right. That was everybody. Okay. Oh here he comes. Sir? Yeah. I've been obsessed with a couple of pictures. The one that I sent the man they were in some wrong format. So it's going to be a couple of minutes before I can talk about my graphics here. Okay. Is there anybody else that wants to speak for? You can come in. I think they're ready. Could you identify yourself, sir? Your name? I'm Grant Kelly. I live at 951 Lake Wyman Road. Oh, perfect here they are. I wanted to speak to you about some real life experience that I've had on this beach. I wanted to speak to you about some real life experience that I've had on this beach. I've been living there for about 26 years. I lived at TGM, Oceana back when I was ocean view lake view and now I live on Lake Blime and Road. So I walked the beach a lot at night and I've noticed a lot of sea turtles that are refusing to lay eggs. There's a lot at night and I've noticed a lot of sea turtles that are refusing to lay eggs. There's a lot of these that I run into throughout my time out there and I want to call that to your attention. This particular slide is not the correct slide if we could go one more. Okay so this particular sea turtle this is where he's laid it or she's laid her eggs in the sand in itself. So this is exactly where the 2500 project would be. Now if you move a couple of parcels north you'll get to 2600 and you'll get virtually the same kind of activity with the sea turtles. We have one more. This is how far they track up into the sand dune from the beach, from my experience, from what I've seen. This is another angle of the same thing. It was just a good bright day that I could take some nice pictures showing how far the sea turtles go up into the sand dune and how far they come back. So all of the data that you might have saying, oh, you know, they don't really go into the sand dune. They don't really come up that far on the beach. Yes, they do. This particular picture that I have is a refusal, as you can see, he's gone up, he's come back. I have lots and lots and lots of these. I think I brought three of them today or more. Then we can show, yeah, that's good. And I can show you all of those that I've brought. This was a tropical storm. You can see how far the ocean comes up in just a tropical storm. This is right in the neighborhood of the 2600 and 2500 projects. This is a little closer to the 2500 project. But nonetheless, you can get the idea of how far the ocean comes up with just a simple tropical storm. If you add a major hurricane that came in there, that would be clear into the dunes and into the street. Putting another structure on the beach like this is just adding to what all the problems that we have already with the sea turtles, with the migrating birds, and I'm speaking against this project based upon my personal experience of the impacts that has already occurred on the beach. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Yeah, I guess at this time, we'd like to open the public hearing for cross-examination. So any participants wish to cross-examinate anybody who provided testimony. Now you can do that. We're good. Okay. I guess we're, I guess we have nobody that wants to do that. At that point, I guess we can allow the Applicant an opportunity for rebuttal. You typically have 10 minutes. And you can ask for more time if need be. Good evening. Robert Sweet Apple on behalf of 2600. I haven't been sworn, but I'm an attorney advocating if you want me to be sworn. I will be as no need then. I understand that the speakers would like to have this private lot that's own residential where owners have been paying tax for a hundred years now since 1925 in this city Just stay the way it is because it would be they believe nicer But a federal judge has already heard This 2600 case and made a pronouncement with regard to the right to build homes on the 2500 lot which is Pretty much legally identical to this with the same application. So there's been a lot of argument, the first council member made a legal argument. This is the environmental advisory board. It's not time for legal argument, but I couldn't let that go. The fact that the code says all those things, if it said you can't build on your private property, and there was no way to get around that, that would be taking the property would have no value, and people are paying tax, can't use it. The city acknowledges that nothing can be built without a variance because the CC CL was passed years after these lots became part of the city. They are residential lots, just like any residential lot anyone here owns. So if there's no variance, it's basically has, it's a de facto taking. That's our view. And I think that's pretty clear the law. You can't just deny someone the right to use their property. So this, we're not here to have that legal argument. We've already had a federal judge rule that a home can be built on 2,500. And the issue is, can we do it in a way that is environmentally sound and even the city? And it took five years of study and negotiation and working. Have come up with the most costly, environmentally sense of home that will be on the coast in the state of Florida probably. It's on columns. The entire foundation is over the dunes. So when we talk about the profile remaining, we mean the dune is under the floor. It's there. Turtles can climb up on the dune and lay eggs. They will be protected. Look in the report at the number of condominiums and buildings that have been built in Florida and in Boca Raton, see what are the coastal construction line. It happens every day. The only purpose is to make sure that the state is regulating how it's done. The state is regulating this environmentally, ecologically, in every regard. And the city cannot use a variance application or a variance process just to continually stop someone from building rather than buy the property or take it by a minute domain. So there hasn't been one expert or anyone that's come here to tell you that what the city staff has determined is not competent and substantial. And as far as Mr. Rosanco's report, you'll note that it's included because it was studied, it was responded to, and the environmental officer at the end of the report talks about how we have done everything possible to make sure that C-Turals are not affected. The state wants a 45% component the city wants a 45% component we are manufacturing 31% glass that is almost black so that light will not go on to the beach so i think my client has done everything possible why is it important and mr. Numin good questions. Normally, it wouldn't be relevant. The reason it's relevant here is because everything we applied for previously was a lawful. It's in that zoning district. And in order to meet the stringent requirements of this city, we gutted the right to build 50 feet. We gutted the right to have 14,000 square feet. We abandoned the ability to have a pool. We went and did something. No one that we're aware of has done and used this glass on the beach in a situation like this. So I don't think there's been any evidence here that your staff hasn't given you confidence substantial evidence. And the fact that people would rather this property remain undeveloped, or they believe the turtles are gonna suffer is not a basis for anyone on this board to determine that environmentally we have not met the strict standards put forth us. So I urge you to recommend approval of this project and the conditions on construction, the post-construction conditions are unprecedented in the state. But if this property weren't next to the public beach and you drive up and see Highland Beach, Delray, Palm Beach, all right, this is nothing, there's nothing radical or unusual going on here. This is done all the time, but because of this variance requirement, we are doing it in a fashion that has, as Mr. Stoddard said, one of two homes in the entire state that have met this type of environmental sensitivity. So I thank you for your time. Thank you. You do have a question for one of the experts. Now at the time you can close the public hearing, make a motion and then have a discussion among the board. Mr. Sway Afflear. Sure, we just talk about that. I see you close the public hearing and then if you still want to ask questions to staff, you can't. Okay. Okay, at this point, we're going to close the public hearing and have a discussion about what we've heard so that we can make a determination. So typically you ask for a motion one way or the other and then you'd have a discussion or debate on that motion or not and then proceed to a vote. I have to have a motion before we can have discussion. That's generally the process. I have to make a motion to provide a recommendation on variance. Can I go? Yeah. I have a question for the city staff. You would just need a second on that motion. It's fine if you want to leave it open right now as make a motion for recommendation and have discussion and then fill in. However, the board wishes to vote. We're not overly formalistic here, but you do need a second on the motion. I second the motion. Excuse me, who made the motion for the record? I guess I made the motion. If she made the second. So I do, I make a motion. But I think we need to have a discussion. My question is for the city staff, please. Can you point where in the application any property has been granted full construction rights, not changes to the existing property, but totally new development after the ordinance of the CCCL was established in 73? I'm sorry, can you repeat that? Can you point to where in the application any property has been given full construction rights? I'm not talking about Changes or modification to a property, but I'm talking about full construction rights like this property is I think what you're asking is whether for brand new construction there's been a variance granted for a Bacon property to have brand new construction on it. Is that right? Okay, east of the coastal construction line. Yeah, I'm not aware of any I'm not aware of any at that. Oh, good time. Thank you I Can you also walk me through and the interested public here through each criterion a through F of the city code 281273 it's on page six Sure, I have a backup slide that list all the criteria so if you wouldn't mind mark So are you requesting to have this on the PowerPoint app or would you like me to read this into the record? Can you read it? Absolutely. Thank you. Okay. In order to grant a variance to allow construction, see word at the CCCL, the City Council must find that all of the following criteria set for Section 28, 127, 3 are met. A, special and unique conditions exist which are peculiar to the applicant's case and which are not generally applicable to the property located in the zoning district. The special unique conditions are not directly attributable to the actions of the applicant. See, the literal interpretation of the chapter as applied to the applicant would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by owners of other property in the zoning district. D, the variance granted is the minimum variance necessary for the applicant to make reasonable use of the property. E, granting the variance is not detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in zoning district or neighborhood involved. And F, granting the variance is not contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan of the city. So it's clear that the application has to meet all six of these criterians. Yes or no? That's correct. Thank you. And have you read their bubble to those who I have? Yes. Yeah. Can you explain to me and to everyone here please why the CCCL was established and what established the CCL regulations in 1973. In 1981, the City Council incorporated the Palm Beach County CCL as established by the Florida Department of Natural Sources into the city court. In 2007, the City Council adopted ordinance 4978, which adopted the Palm Beach County CCCL, CCCL, as established by the Department of Environmental Protection, resulting in a westward shift of this CCCL. So finally, in 2012, the City Council adopted via ordinance 5194 which made a corrective amendment which basically said that it deleted the phrase as amended so it established a firm CCCL for the City of Book of Return. Page 7 Section C is there a reason the applicant has indicated that no community outreach has been conducted regarding the application? I will have to defer to the applicant on that. Does somebody want to chime in? Because I have more questions but I. So we want to talk about it. Well, I just, I mean, I still have concerns about the construction. You know, I mean, they made some changes in the windows. They still didn't seem to address the reflectivity, which it seems like it's going to get even worse now, because they're making the windows darker. I mean, darker is better for the turtles, but it's worse for the exterior light. It's worse for the exterior light. It's worse for birds. There's nesting turns in that area, which will easily impact those windows. Because it's right. I mean, it's right up. It still continues to be well within the Dune profile. Despite what he said about it, not being in the Dune profile, it's literally in the Dune. It's part of the doing profile. It's a tall building. Speaking of it. I don't know why they didn't go for a lower building, but that's on them. Eric Essence, we're still on this page regarding the city code provisions and the sub criteria. Who, I guess this is a board member question. Who would let us know sub DE and F were actually gone through? Mr. Chair. If I can help. So I think together, Joshua Kailer, Deputy City Attorney, I think together you have got the application materials before you. So the applicant is set forth an application where they've identified with the applicant believes are how the criteria are met. And you've got staffs analysis of those criteria and staff is given either information as part of the memorandum. Ultimately, these are criteria that are to be determined by the City Council. And in this case, the Environmental and Advisory Board, you are the decision makers based upon the evidence that you've heard tonight and the evidence that you have in the record. So ultimately, it's up to the board to determine whether you find that all these are met or not. So the city did not discuss amongst themselves DE or F independently in regards to? Deferred a staff, I believe it's addressed in their staff report, but I defer to staff. Would you be able to read us those? Regarding F, just starting on the bottom, we laid out a number of policies the first step. Would you be able to read us those? Regarding F, just starting on the bottom, we laid out a number of policies in the city's comprehensive plan and how the applicant met those requirements or we have imposed conditions of approval to ensure that they comply with the city's comprehensive plan. So regarding that, regarding D, I will print in if you would help answer that question regarding the minimum. Sure. I give this speech every now and again. So there's some zoning requirements that are very clear and objective, right? There's, you know, front setback is 25 feet, whatever. That's easy. We don't need an advisory board or a quasi-judicial hearing to figure that out right. This is the kind of criteria that requires judgment. Somebody has to look at it analyze it and decide does it meet that criteria or not. We've made our recommendation we've set out our analysis in detail in the staff report and now you're being asked to look at the application, the analysis, the testimony and so on and make a recommendation to the city council with respect to have these criteria been met or not. And that is essentially the purpose of why we are here. I can't give you the answer. I can tell you what our analysis is, what our recommendation is and your recommendation as the board is for you to determine. I would love to hear the analysis for both D and E. That were gone over by you. Yeah, which section is that, and that's in, set up 15 or something. Well, I can tell you in broad terms that in order to make any use of the property whatsoever, well, any use of the property that wouldn't involve constructing anything, a variance of some kind would be necessary. Whether this is the minimum, looking at the application, the size, the mitigation measures, the entirety of the application, whether that is reasonable or not, we have recommended that the board find that it is, but it is a judgment for the board to analyze and determine. I mean, I've, you know, that has come up a number of times and, and, um, Mr. Sweet Apple pointed out that for, you know, 123 years, this property, people have been found at value and valuable enough to pay taxes on it for whatever use they were having for it. Um, and, you know, if the current owner doesn't feel it's valuable without some kind of structure on it, then we need, you know, we can look at what kind of structure that they think might be valuable that won't impact the site. I mean, but to say that it doesn't have value. I mean, obviously for 123 years, somebody found it worth paying taxes on without a structure on it. The new owner doesn't feel that way. So what they're asking us to do is what kind of structure can they put on it that will, because for whatever reason, they feel that that's the only way they can get the most value out of the property. And, you know, I mean, I think what you're saying is, to some degree, you feel that you agree with that in your opinion, that it only has value if they're able to build a single family home or multifamily home on it. Is that kind of what you're saying the city's opinion is? I mean, I'm not saying that that wouldn't be a value. Obviously, it would to a certain point. But there are other structures that you could put on that property that would have value as well. That was a question I didn't understand in them. Well, I mean, you said that you agree that there's sort of this minimum, you know, variance being made to make it reasonable for the property use. And we're talking about value here, correct? Like, I mean, what they're basically, they want to, they're arguing that if the city says that we can't do this, we can't say that, we're depriving him. This is what Mr. Sweet Apple said in his rebuttal that he's being, that the client is being deprived of the value of the property. If we don't let them build this particular, this particular structure. And, I mean, I'm not sure that what you would, what the city's position on that is that that's's correct that without being able to build this particular structure that you're depriving them of the value of the property. Are you saying that? reasonable use. And the city's comprehensive plan designates this property as for future residential development. The city's zoning code and zoning map also designates it for residential development. And so yes, I think that a residential development is a reasonable use of the property. The question, I think, at least from our perspective, the question is, what exactly, what are the details of that? What is reasonable within that larger envelope of some kind of residential development? With it within the, understandably fragile, do an ecosystem. I mean, that's the real question here. I mean, if this was, you know, on the other side of A1A, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about this. Because essentially when that property was, you know, was categorized before the sub, before it was subdivided. You know, that's what that area was designed was zone for. You know, and then subsequently it was subdivided and subdivided again. And, you know, the CC, you know, the coastal construction line was implemented and then moved further east. Like a lot has happened that this property has been, you know, been there for a long time. And a lot has happened since then. Our understanding of climate change has changed. You know, I mean, the whatever structure, if any gets put on that property will be an imminent danger of hurricanes and tropical storms and just sea level rise in general. You know, the ecological impact of the destruction of a building like that, that that would have on the on the Dune ecosystem and the near shore ecosystem could be, you know, devastating. I don't see a lot in this project that will prevent that from happening. All I saw is that if it does get washed away, they'll fix it. Whatever that means, there's nothing clear in the city code to keep that from happening. Yes. Since we're talking about D and reasonable use, can you define reasonable use? And can you talk if there was any other means of making the property, any other means of making reasonable use of the property? So first define it and has it probably been considered anything else? The city's code does not have a definition per say of reasonable use. So the words have their plain meaning. What is a reasonable use? Okay. have their plane meaning. What is a reasonable use? And that is clearly not as clear cut and easy as a 25% setback, for example, as I mentioned before. It requires judgment and requires analysis and evidence. And that's why we're here. Through the process, which has stretched for extensive period of time, we have, you know, it's not the city's job to tell the applicant what project to propose, what drawing, you know, how to draw it, how to do this, how to do that. We respond to applications that we receive. There have been many, many, many iterations of this potential project over the time that it's been pending. And we have made extensive comments. We have had many concerns over those years. So one of the reasons is taken, this long to get to this point. And we believe that to this point. And we believe that at this point, with the mitigation measures that the applicant has incorporated with the design that they have set forth and with the robust and extensive conditions that we have placed in the recommended development order, that that constitutes a reasonable use. The board, you know, it's up to the board to determine if you agree or not. Be some confusion to your people. You may make a more objective for the record. The objection is that the City Council has exclusive jurisdiction after recommendation from the city manager and enumerated factors to determine whether or not the variance has been met. All of this discussion is outside of your jurisdiction and we've spent a lot of time with you looking at issues that are solely the the purview of the City Council. This board is here to make recommendations based on the environmental evidence that's been presented. Frankly, the only environmental evidence that has been presented to you is unrebutted. You've heard from Mr. Stoddard who is an engineer. You've heard from the city staff who have experts. And you've heard from a lawyer who talked about law and made the argument that he could make before the city council, but not you. And you've heard from residents who don't like this and who think it's gonna be bad. But the record evidence with regard to what you're here for is that this is the most environmentally sensitive home to be built out of thousands that are built in the state, that Dr. Rosancos' concerns have been met by the strict procedures that have put in with regard to glass and construction and I object to any discussion or decision being made on these provisions that are the pur interpretation of that or not. We have expertise ourselves on some of these subjects. And regardless of what you think that you heard from your experts, I can tell you that all of the environmental concerns have not been met. Not all of my environmental concerns were met from the last time this project came up. And, you know, just because you ask, if this is the best way to do something, you can get an answer. I mean, if you ask me what was the best way to kill a ceter or to like to tell you how to do that, I would not recommend that you do it, but I could tell you how to do that. I would not recommend that you do it, but I could tell you the best most humane way to kill a ceter. With all due respect, your personal opinion from a hearing five years ago, or your personal opinion on environmental issues, is not something that a court can look at. You're here to listen to the evidence. I understand what you're saying. I don't know where you're going with my personal opinion. Well, you've stated that you have your opinions on and you believe your views. Okay, it has to be in the record. It has to be based on what someone has to apply to. And what I'm talking about it, everything is on the record. Well, the point I made is there's no testimony from anyone with any expertise and any environmental matter that's before you, that has rebutted what Mr. Stoddard and what the staff has said, and you've spent all your time talking about stuff the city council is supposed to look at. Okay, thank you. We're not going to be. We're not going to be. We're not going to be. We're not going to be. And thank you. We're not going to be. We're not going to be. We're not going to be. We're not going to be. We're not going to be. We're not going to be. We're not going to be. We're not going to be. We're not going to be. We're not going to be. We're not going to be. We're not going to be. We're not going to be. rules say it's rule number one. Any hearing listed on the agenda as a Quasitive Judicial Public Hearing would be I think you're Mr. Sweet Apple. I think your your This is the board is required by law to basis decision on the evidence contained in the record of this proceeding, which consists of the testimony at the hearing and on the materials which are in the official city file on this application at the end of the hearing. That's rule number one of what a quasi-judicial hearing is and we've gone way, way astray. Thank you. I have further questions for the city please. So on page 13, where does the application ensure that no part of the dune will be excavated, altered, or in any ways compromised by the variance approval as per coastal management policy 1.11 and how specifically can you ensure that? So there are a number of conditions of approval in the CCCL resolution that sets forth how that will be required to be submitted as part of the building permit process and also post-construction. So that will be reviewed by our staff, which includes the municipal services engineering department. Okay. Thank you. And also towards the end of the packet, page 132, there is a letter written by a DEP official. How does the application submitted address the concerns raised by the September 2022 DEP letter about erosion impacts? So the applicant as part of the conditions in the CCCL resolution, the applicant will be required to submit an updated letter at time of construction partitions of mean use building permit. And at that time again, our city staff, including the engineering department, will review that to ensure that all the building permit plans comply with that requirement from FDEP. Are you worried about erosion? Yes or no? That is something that I am not an expert on. I can talk to you about the zoning requirements but erosion control is not something I personally review as city staff. Okay, thank you. I was wondering if at this point we can close the public portion of the hearing and then we can discuss amongst the board what we think about this. I just have one other question. Of all the conditions that are listed for approval, can you state which ones would be in perpetuity? Absolutely. So I'm going to go to the conditions. Well, Tomashe is looking at that. When you say in perpetuity, I mean this resolution, if it was adopted by the City Council as it stands, it would remain unless and until it's repealed. I think maybe what you're saying is what is implemented prior to a permit versus what is implemented there after. Okay. So should I go through what's the best way to do it? Is it the ones that is after issuance of the mean use building permit? Those are the, that's what you're requesting. Yes, there's a condition that says in connection, in connection with any work on the property, which talks about fencing during the construction, it talks about that there shall be no excavation, trenching, filling, grading, dune alteration or earthwork during sea turtle nesting season, which is March 1st through October 31st, unless the applicant submits a mitigation plan designed to protect sea turtles. So this is something that will kind of continue on in the future too. Let's see, in perpetuity, in the event that the doon is damaged or destroyed by any natural or manmade event, the applicant shall be required to fully restore the doon on the property subject to an environmental permit issued by the city and shall maintain at least a 90% vegetation or vegetative cover. There's conditions regarding the doon crossover that ishala include any lighting fixtures. There's conditions regarding just residents of the property that ishala be limited to one family and is and shall meet the definition of family in the city code. Then there's a requirement and I think I've touched this touch upon this as part of my presentation, which is every two years the applicant is required to the applicant or the owner and the future. It will be required to submit a tree pruning plan which is subject to review and approval of the development services director, which shall demonstrate that the light trespass and light reflectivity onto the beach will be minimized with the vegetation. Let's see, that's, and I think those were the conditions that are in perpetuity. Thank you. All right. Okay, so at this point, I think we can close the public hearing and talk amongst the board and discuss. I mean, do you have kind of, you know, we're going to vote on this. I mean, I still have concerns, you know, that I brought up about the glass and the structure of the dune, the dune profile. I don't think that they've addressed that in a way that meets my, in my opinion, I don't think it meets my bar for this. I don't think it would be, I can envision them doing a better job at that. I mean, you might be the one of two of the best plans you've seen, but it's certainly, I don't think appropriate for this location in its current form. And I feel that these criterion that we see on the screen have not been fully met. That is my feeling. I agree with that, Erica. There was a motion to make a recommendation. Obviously, you have to have a more specific motion to even amend that to however the board wishes. And if you want to have more debate, or you can call vote. So if you want to have more debate, or can I call a vote? Ready to call vote, so I'll make a motion for a vote. You'd be making a motion to recommend to the council either approval or denial of the CCL areas. Okay. So we call the for a vote to approve or to approve or deny? It's however, if anybody wants to make a motion, you're making a motion to recommend approval or you're making a motion to recommend a not- I can make a motion. Excuse me, there's already that motion on the table. Yeah. Which was it? Approval or denial? To approve. To approve. I just to help the board, so if there's a motion to recommend approval, that's been seconded, as reminded by the clerk. So a affirmative vote would be to recommend approval, and negative vote would be recommending against. Okay. So do you want to call the role? Yes, just one moment. Okay. Erica Allen. I vote against construction at 2600 North Ocean. Michelle Bobich. It is Rachel and I vote against construction at 2600 North Ocean. A second no noted. Ms. Horty. I vote no. In Chair Newman. I also vote no on this project. Motion fails. Okay. So the vote was four against. So it does not go forward. While it goes forward, but not us. So we can move on to our next order of business, which is the approval of the minutes. Thank you, everyone, for your time. Yep. I approve the minutes. So we've got two sets of minutes. We'll start with the minutes for July 27th. Those were amended, correct? Yes. They were amended. And they added language that better expressed our discussion. What we had discussed. Yeah. So do I have a second? Yes. Yes. Cool. OK. So I prove as well. I'm sorry. Can we just go back on the minutes? Yes. We made a motion to approve as amended. And who made the motion to approve as amended? We had. I made a motion to approve as amended? We had. I made a motion to approve as amended. Thank you. Second by Alan. Thank you. Thank you. And then we vote. So yes, they're approved. Okay. So let's move on to the minutes from August 29th. Motion to approve. Motion to approve. Second and thirded. Okay. I'm sorry I couldn't see so motion by Bolvich seconded by Okay. Allen and then Bolvich. Thank you. I couldn't see. All right. So I guess we move on to public requests. So there are any public requests? Number seven, does the staff have anything to report? No reports? Rick, can I bring up one thing? Sure. I'm going to actually email, broke about it, and she gave me the correct email address but in regards to the new park that was created behind public switch park is that. Oh the Lake Wyman. Yes the Lake Wyman Park. It's rather for it is rather for it. This is quasi related to the environmental board but I just wanted to note it here, because we're all here. The map that serves as the guide for pedestrians to understand the park is not legible and not comprehensive. So I have emailed the correct city person to have that amended. And the example map is the one that's used at Gumball Limbo. Gotcha. So do we have anything else to report board members? Okay. At this point then, I'd like to motion task for a motion and a second for a jr. Annment motion to adjourn. I'll second Thank you. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. Thank you. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. Thank you.