[5:35] Massimo Manzini here. Menna Morgan. Bob Glickman here. As

[5:46] we have six attending members, this meeting does have quorum.

[5:50] We call it secession. For the record, both Barbara and

[5:54] Odorless have asked for an excused absence, which the

[5:56] board chair has granted, and I believe Mina is available

[6:00] virtually at this moment. He has not signed on virtually,

[6:04] chair, but once he does, I will let him in. Okay. Thank you in

[6:07] advance. In assuming that he does, is the board's

[6:11] prerogative to allow him to participate virtually. Any

[6:15] objections? Okay. When he does show up, we will allow. Thank

[6:18] you very much. All right. Moving on. Minutes from the

[6:27] previous meeting, has everybody had a chance to read any

[6:30] comments, questions, additions or deletions? Move to approve.

[6:35] So moved. Is there a second? Second. I'm sorry. Who did

[6:40] second. Second. Okay. Approved in second. All in favor? Aye.

[6:49] Opposed seeing none. Motion carries. Staff additions,

[6:54] additions, deletions or changes to the agenda. Good evening,

[6:57] board chair. There are no additions, deletions or

[7:00] withdrawals from the agenda. However, I do want to take this

[7:03] moment just to briefly touch on the board manual as it pertains

[7:08] to procedures. I'm reminding the board chair that it's the

[7:11] chair's responsibility to manage the decorum in the

[7:14] chambers at all times. And with regards to both the board

[7:17] themselves and the audience, also reminding the chair that

[7:21] there is a time limit on discussion, discussion of 30

[7:24] minutes. So that would inform your your discussions as you

[7:28] move through the items and reminding the chair of their,

[7:33] the, their purview as it pertains to community comments

[7:38] and the length of comments when there is more than ten speakers

[7:41] present. Thank you chair, thank you. And to put that into

[7:47] another way, Cameron's reminding us that while it is

[7:50] standard that all community and citizen participate, usually on

[7:55] a three minute time limit, I've been instructed that prior to

[7:58] the gavel dropping, there were 74 citizens that have

[8:01] registered to speak. Understanding that we will hear

[8:06] a good majority of the same things over and over. If you

[8:09] haven't heard them already. And is there a board preference on

[8:13] setting that time limit for two minutes? No. Okay. Three

[8:20] minutes. It is. All right. Continuing on. Excuse me, board

[8:24] chair. Yes, sir. A question I'm a little confused by Cameron's

[8:28] comments. The 30 minute time limit you're putting on the

[8:31] board. No, no no no, I'll address that. No. Citizen

[8:35] comments are typically limited to three minutes when they

[8:39] present in and have any kind of comment on any agenda item. I

[8:43] got that, but he said there was 30 minute limit for the board.

[8:46] That's a policy staff through the chair. That's not a policy.

[8:50] Staff is imposing. That's a policy within the procedures

[8:52] and the manual of the board operation manuals. So I'm just

[8:56] reminding the board of the procedures that govern this

[9:00] board in terms of decorum, in terms of discussion and in

[9:03] terms of how we do business here. Okay. So I find this

[9:07] rather objectionable that you're bringing it up right now.

[9:09] We've gone through I've been on the board now a year and a half,

[9:13] two years. We've never brought this up before. And I question

[9:16] why you're bringing it up right now. Thank you Commissioner. As

[9:19] a reminder, this manual is available to all board members

[9:22] when they take the position on this board. So it's

[9:25] understanding that board members have done their due

[9:27] diligence and read through the manual. And it's also just a

[9:29] reminder, a reminder due to the agenda we have today to ensure

[9:33] that your discussion is fruitful and you have the full

[9:36] time, you need to have that discussion. Well, I would ask

[9:38] this body to override that right now with a vote, because

[9:41] I don't think we should be limited to any board discussion

[9:44] on any item for 30 minutes. Bob. Bob, I hear your objections. I

[9:48] don't think it's appropriate that we have a vote on that.

[9:51] We'll see how the conversation goes and judge it from there.

[9:54] But I have no intention of stifling any communication or

[9:57] conversation, questions or comments from either the

[10:00] citizens at large or the board members tonight. Bob. Thank you.

[10:03] Thank you. With that, city attorney. Good evening, board

[10:11] members. My name is. I am the board's counsel. And, Mr. Chair,

[10:15] before the board takes up matters on today's agenda and

[10:18] in light of at least three items on today's agenda being

[10:20] considered quasi judicial, I'd like to read the city's quasi

[10:24] judicial procedures matters onto the record. So certain

[10:27] matters before this board must be treated as quasi judicial,

[10:30] meaning the board acts like a judge or jury applying existing

[10:34] rules to a specific set of facts. In that role, the

[10:37] board's decision must be supported by competent,

[10:40] substantial evidence that is presented at the hearing.

[10:43] Public sentiment alone is not competent. Substantial evidence.

[10:47] Now, the City of Hollywood permits the parties and the

[10:49] public to waive the quasi judicial formalities, and the

[10:53] waiver requires the agreement of all staff, the applicant,

[10:57] any party intervenor and any member of the public present

[11:00] who wishes to be heard on this particular item. Now, if the

[11:04] quasi judicial formalities are not waived, the chair will

[11:07] preside over the proceeding. As board attorney, I will rule on

[11:11] evidentiary and procedural objection objections and advise

[11:15] the board on applicable law and necessary findings. The hearing

[11:19] will be informal but conducted with decorum. Now, under

[11:24] Florida law, ex-parte communications are permitted as

[11:27] long as they're disclosed on the record before final action.

[11:30] Ex parte communications include the substance of any verbal

[11:34] communication and the identity of the person or entity

[11:37] involved. It includes any written communications received

[11:41] which must be placed on record, including emails and any

[11:45] individual site visits, investigations or expert

[11:47] opinions that the board member might have requested. And

[11:53] before every quasi judicial item is taken up, I will

[11:56] usually ask the board members to to disclose any ex parte

[12:00] communications that may have transpired. Thank you staff.

[12:08] Well, next on the first up on the agenda is file number

[12:14] 25DP26. Staff, do you waive quasi judicial staff waives

[12:19] applicant come forward, state your name for the record and

[12:23] whether you waive quasi judicial. Good afternoon,

[12:30] Joseph Taylor Taylor architecture I thank you thank

[12:34] you. Staff presentation. Good evening, board members and

[12:46] members of the public. My name is Adrian Montoya. I am one of

[12:50] the city planners here at the City of Hollywood. And I will

[12:53] be presenting tonight's first item. Steph, can you hit the

[13:01] screen, please? One second. Thank you. I got it. So the

[13:07] file before you tonight is 25 dash dp dash 26. The location

[13:13] is 2455 Polk Street. The applicant is Joseph B Taylor on

[13:19] behalf of Mike Kaplan, and the request is for a design and

[13:23] site plan for a 30 unit multifamily development in the

[13:27] MC Dash one zoning District within our Regional activity

[13:31] center. So the property is located in Central Hollywood

[13:37] near City Hall, which is not too far from where we where we

[13:40] are tonight. On this screen, on the left hand side is an aerial

[13:44] of the subject property. And currently it is a vacant lot.

[13:53] The site has a land Use Designation of Regional

[13:56] Activity Center. It is within the MC Dash one zoning district,

[14:01] and it is approximately half an acre. Here are some of the

[14:07] surrounding properties. As you can see, it is adjacent to

[14:12] other multifamily developments, including two condominiums and

[14:15] then a duplex. So with regards to the development itself, the

[14:22] applicant is proposing a floor area of approximately 29,700ft?S

[14:29] and a floor area ratio of of 1.49. The development will

[14:34] include 30 units, 42 parking spaces. It will be. The

[14:39] building itself will be a height of 45ft, and the site

[14:43] will provide approximately 44% of open space. So the proposed

[14:49] development is compliant with all applicable zoning and land

[14:52] development regulations within its zoning district. With

[14:56] regards to the design, the applicant is proposing stucco

[15:01] with white, gray and brown finishes, porcelain tiling

[15:05] along the wall, on the ground floor and an earthy, brown,

[15:09] earthy brown slats to screen the ground floor parking. Here

[15:16] are some renderings of the proposed finished design. And

[15:24] in conclusion, staff find that the proposed request is

[15:27] consistent with the Zoning and Land Development Regulations

[15:30] and the Comprehensive Plan, and staff is recommending approval

[15:35] of the design and staff is also recommending approval of the

[15:38] site plan if the design is granted. Thank you for your

[15:43] time and I am available. If you have any questions. Any

[15:48] questions for staff? I have just one. Are they asking for

[15:51] any variances? There are no variances. Thank you Dick. Just

[15:58] for clarification, this building is under 30,000ft?!S ad

[16:04] it's here because it's a legacy project. So it actually went

[16:08] through the Technical advisory committee. There was a period

[16:12] of inactivity between August 2025 and around May 2026 of

[16:16] this year, but it had essentially completed the TAC

[16:19] process, which is why it's being, you know, brought to the

[16:22] Planning and Development Board. Whereas an akin project at the

[16:26] same scope would not be required to come before you

[16:29] offhand, do you know of any other projects below 3000 that

[16:33] would be coming to us that are stuck in that? I believe this

[16:37] is the last one. Just for clarification, I help Adrian

[16:41] out here. Legacy projects, projects that were did not meet

[16:45] the threshold before we changed over to DRC still come before

[16:47] the board, and there are a couple of them still working

[16:50] their way through the system. There was an internal deadline

[16:53] that still some projects are still working through, and

[16:55] anything after the August 14th date that had not received the

[16:59] f tac meeting at that time then goes through the new system. So

[17:02] we do have a couple more still working their way out. The

[17:06] other question I had is something I brought up before.

[17:10] It doesn't require any comment from you if you. But this is a

[17:16] project located at 2455 Polk Street, and it's only whatever

[17:21] it is, 45 whatever the number of units is, I've forgotten,

[17:25] but we just approved about a month ago a six story office

[17:30] building and a seven story parking garage at 22,900 Polk.

[17:36] We're cramming a tremendous amount of parking of traffic

[17:41] problems at 28th and Hollywood Boulevard. I've brought this up

[17:44] for years now, and I don't need to have a big discussion now,

[17:48] but I would like to have a discussion at some point in the

[17:51] near future, if it's a subcommittee meeting or

[17:54] whatever, about what are we doing dealing with traffic at

[17:58] 28th and Hollywood, Hollywood Boulevard, with all the

[18:02] projects in this particular neighborhood that we have

[18:05] approved, it's going to be it's already a nightmare. It's just

[18:07] going to be worse. So I'd like to ask staff if we could have a

[18:11] meeting, subcommittee meeting or whatever and see if we can

[18:15] address what needs to be done with fDOT and the city to

[18:19] address a problem that's going to be with us for a long time,

[18:22] and we have five or 6 or 7, eight years to address it

[18:26] before these projects get built. Staff notes your request. Any

[18:30] other questions for staff seeing none. Thank you much.

[18:34] All right. Thank you. Applicant Taylor please come forward and

[18:39] be heard. Good evening, Mr. Chair, Vice Chair and members

[18:52] of the Planning and Development Board. For the record, my name

[18:56] is Joseph Taylor Taylor Architecture. Our firm is

[19:00] located at 2417 Hollywood Boulevard in Hollywood, Florida.

[19:05] I would like to thank our clients. I mean, without them,

[19:08] I wouldn't be here today. That's Ivan Hernandez, you know,

[19:12] Yuri Kaplan and Michael Kaplan. Without them, we wouldn't be

[19:17] here today. They put a lot of time and effort and coming to

[19:21] the office a lot just to get to the place we're in today. Let

[19:26] me go over very quickly because I know you have a very long

[19:29] agenda today. Basically, it's a 2455 Polk Street. It's got half

[19:34] an acre of land, 20,500, and it is in the rack and recreational

[19:39] activity center, and it's MC Dash one. Our client really

[19:43] wanted to build 30 units. Out of the 30 units, 15 are two

[19:48] bedrooms. The two bedrooms have 830 to about 920ft?!S, and the

[19:54] other half, the other 15 are one bedrooms, and they have 680

[20:02] to 715ft?!S. So basically theres three floors of units. It's a

[20:06] four story building. First floor is covered parking second,

[20:09] third and fourth. Each floor has ten units giving a total of

[20:14] 30. So and they have 44% open space. We have all the parking

[20:20] that's required. We met all of the setbacks, the height, just

[20:25] everything. And we provided for not only for the accessible

[20:29] spaces, but for guest parking. Like I said, everything is as

[20:33] of right. What I wanted to mention is that we've

[20:40] incorporated a lot of really good landscaping, pedestrian

[20:42] oriented building frontage, as you saw in the in the

[20:46] renderings. And we've screened the cars so that as people walk

[20:51] by, they don't they don't see the cars parked underneath the

[20:54] the building, the setbacks, the building articulation, the

[21:00] landscape buffers that we provided and the site design

[21:03] standards really appropriately gives. It makes this building

[21:08] really great. And, and you look at it, it's simply elegant,

[21:12] understated elegance really. And again, all zoning and

[21:16] design features are in total compliance of all of the zoning

[21:21] regulations. And we do not need any variances, no special

[21:25] exceptions. It's really as of. Right. So thank you. If there's

[21:28] any questions, I'll be here to answer any of them. Any

[21:31] questions for the applicant. Bob, I have a question. So, Mr.

[21:36] Keller, sure. You certainly know how to bring people out to

[21:39] see your projects here, as everybody turned out for that,

[21:44] the porcelain tile that you're putting down on the on the

[21:47] ground level, are you putting it around the entire ground

[21:50] level or just fronting the building? Okay, repeat that

[21:52] again. I'm sorry, porcelain tile that was mentioned that

[21:56] you're putting on ground level, right? Are you putting it just

[21:59] in the front of the building or. I'm putting in the front. And I

[22:02] think part of it turns the corner, you know what I'm

[22:05] saying? We did want to accentuate, which we felt was

[22:08] very, very important, the main entry point of the building.

[22:11] And that's why, you know, you see the, the ramping, the steps,

[22:15] the, you know, the special treatment around it. We think

[22:18] it's very important so that people know where to enter and

[22:21] exit a building. So thank you. But yes. Yeah. Any other

[22:25] further questions for the applicant seeing none. Thank

[22:27] you very much. Bring the conversation up to the dais.

[22:31] Any comments questions. Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion.

[22:39] Motion to approve. So moved. And second all in favor design.

[22:45] Go ahead. Just make sure you're speaking into the mic for

[22:47] clarity. Thank you. Okay. And this is a motion to approve

[22:51] design as presented correct? Yes. All right. Moved in second.

[22:54] All in favor. I opposed seeing none. Motion carries. Moving on

[22:58] to site plan motion to approve site plan with the seven

[23:03] conditions. Yes I second okay. Moved in second. All in favor?

[23:07] Aye. Opposed seeing none. Motion carries. Congratulations.

[23:11] Thank you so much. And I'd like to thank really city staff.

[23:13] They were really wonderful through this whole process.

[23:16] Thank you again. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to file number

[23:23] 25DVP91. A first question, are there any comment cards on this?

[23:28] No comment cards on this. Okay, staff, do you waive staff

[23:36] waives applicant. Hi good evening, Liz Sommerstein martyr.

[23:42] And we waive. Thank you much. Staff presentation. Good

[24:02] evening board members of the public city staff. My name is

[24:04] Umar Javid. I'm a planner three with the city's planning

[24:07] division before you is 2200 Jackson Street. The file number

[24:11] is 25-D-91. The project is located at 2200 Jackson Street

[24:19] as well as 400 South Dixie highway. The applicant is known

[24:22] as Bridge Asset Management LLC, and they are requesting a

[24:26] design and site plan for a 394 unit multifamily residential

[24:30] development, as well as a variance to reduce the 15 foot

[24:34] setback to a two foot, ten inch setback associated with a city

[24:38] right of way dedication. In terms of the location, the

[24:43] subject property is located on the southeast corner of the

[24:46] city. Displayed here is the subject property. As you can

[24:52] see, there is a total of three parcels that are before you

[24:55] today. With respect to the subject properties. It is

[24:59] contained in an area that is specifically commercial

[25:03] warehouse uses as well as residential uses. The two sites

[25:07] before you today are at 400 South Dixie highway, so that's

[25:10] an existing commercial warehouse use, as well as at

[25:14] 2200 Jackson Street to the west, parcel to the north. We have a

[25:19] property at 2121-2131 Jackson Street. This is a multifamily

[25:24] residential use, and to the south we have a residential use

[25:27] as well. At 2117 Anton Terrace. With respect to the land use

[25:33] and zoning map, the land use is designated as a regional

[25:36] activity center. The existing zoning consists of two zones.

[25:39] It's a split zone. We have DH2 as well as DH3, and the site

[25:43] area is approximately 3.07 acres across the various

[25:47] parcels. Before you, I wanted to also touch on a previous

[25:52] rezoning request. This is just ahead of the design and site

[25:56] plan. This is not in consideration for tonight. This

[25:59] is a previous request that was approved by the Planning and

[26:02] Development Board or City Commission earlier this year.

[26:05] Just to provide you some context, this site contains

[26:08] somewhat of an irregular split zoning condition between DH two

[26:11] and DH three. As you can see on the left side, the zoning

[26:15] boundary essentially jogged through the development site

[26:17] based on historical parcel configurations. However,

[26:20] earlier this year, the applicant did seek to rezone

[26:23] approximately 0.59 acres. That would be that middle component

[26:26] that you could see, and they rezoned it from DH two to DH.

[26:30] Three the purpose was to create a more logical zoning

[26:33] configuration on the site, and to facilitate a more cohesive

[26:36] redevelopment of the assembled property. And just again, this

[26:41] was recommended for approval by the Planning and Development

[26:43] Board on March 10th of this year, and it was ultimately

[26:46] adopted by City Commission in May of this year as well. With

[26:52] respect to the site plan, I do want to highlight that there

[26:55] are there's obviously a lot going on over here. So with

[26:59] respect to the height, they are proposing a total of eight

[27:02] stories or 90ft on the east side. It transitions to a more

[27:06] lower intensity scale on the west side of the property.

[27:09] They're proposing four stories or 40ft, approximately, with

[27:13] respect to the maximum floor area ratio that we'll be seeing

[27:16] across the site will be a maximum of 3.3 9FAR, or a total

[27:21] of 282,000ft?!S in that space. With respect to open space

[27:27] requirements, they are exceeding those requirements.

[27:28] They're proposing 42% within the boundaries that fall within

[27:32] DH2, and about 32% in the boundaries that fall within the

[27:36] DH3 zoning district. For the unit count, the applicant is

[27:39] proposing a total of 394 units. Those consist of one and two

[27:42] bedroom units. And I do want to also highlight that they are

[27:45] proposing a total of 50% of those units as moderate income

[27:49] affordable. That works out to approximately 197 units in

[27:52] total. With respect to parking, they are exceeding the minimum

[27:55] requirements. The requirement here is 492. They are proposing

[27:58] a total of 506 spaces. This is going to be mainly contained in

[28:02] a parking garage that will be accessed from Jackson Street.

[28:05] They also are meeting their bike parking requirements,

[28:08] loading space requirements and they are meeting their setback

[28:10] requirements. With the exception of the corner

[28:13] setbacks that they are seeking a variance for. And I'll go

[28:17] into more detail in the next slide in accordance with 5.3.

[28:21] After the City Zoning and Land Development Regulations, they

[28:23] are requesting a variance, a variance for the front for the

[28:28] required setbacks. So they're requesting a total of two feet,

[28:31] ten inches. That's from the corner core dedication. And the

[28:34] requirement here is 15ft. This is to accommodate a city and

[28:38] county request. The city is requesting a five foot right of

[28:41] way dedication along Jackson Street and the county. Broward

[28:44] County is requesting four feet dedication along South Dixie

[28:48] highway. With respect to the criteria, city staff do find

[28:53] that the applicant does meet all the criteria A through D,

[28:58] including D, which is that the variance is that the need for

[29:01] the requested variance is not economically based or

[29:03] self-imposed, and that being because the city and county are

[29:07] requesting the the dedication. With respect to the design, the

[29:12] applicant has worked very closely with city staff, urban

[29:15] design staff to achieve a commendable design. They've

[29:19] conducted various public outreach meetings and fulfill

[29:21] those requirements. They're proposing a number of different

[29:24] architectural elements and features on this site to meet

[29:27] the regional activity center and urban design guidelines

[29:30] they're proposing. Corner architectural features. A

[29:33] number of different angles will have various signages that are

[29:36] lit. There are proposing a potential mural along the front

[29:40] of the facade, and they're also proposing enhanced landscaping,

[29:43] which also exceeds all the open space and landscape

[29:46] requirements, wrap around balconies and various facade

[29:50] articulations across the various perspectives. These are

[29:55] the submitted elevations that the applicant has submitted to.

[29:58] The top is the north elevation. To the middle we have the south

[30:01] elevation, and at the bottom we have the east and west

[30:04] elevations that were submitted. With respect to the summary of

[30:09] findings, city staff find that the proposed variance request

[30:11] is consistent with the City Zoning and Land Development

[30:14] Regulations, as well as the city's Comprehensive Plan with

[30:17] respect to the design and site plan component. City staff do

[30:20] find that this request is consistent with the criteria in

[30:23] the city's zoning, land development regulations and our

[30:25] comp plan. In terms of recommendations, city staff do

[30:30] recommend approval of the subject variance file and for

[30:33] the design, city staff are recommending approval if the

[30:36] variance is granted by the board and with respect to the

[30:39] site plan. City staff are also recommending approval if

[30:42] variance and design are granted. This is subject to conditions

[30:44] outlined in the staff report or on the screen. These are a few

[30:48] conditions that would be requested for the applicant

[30:51] will be held for at the time of building permit, submission and

[30:55] certificate of occupancy. Thank you. First question. Without

[31:02] the core dedication, would this applicant seek or need a

[31:06] variance? So you're asking what type of. Without the cord

[31:10] dedication would this project need the variance with it? So

[31:13] without the without the variance, sorry, without the

[31:16] dedication they would not be requiring any sort of variance.

[31:19] It would be fully compliant with the zoning and land

[31:21] development regulations. Okay. Any questions for staff? Bob, I

[31:26] have a question. Yes. Thank you. So this project is in the rack,

[31:31] right. They're requesting a variance, right. Several months

[31:35] ago, I think it was in June of this year. Commissioner

[31:39] Hernandez appeared before the planning board on an item. And

[31:44] he suggested at that time that there was supposed to be no

[31:47] variances in the rack. I have asked our board attorney about

[31:50] this previously. I'm wondering if there is a response or an

[31:54] answer about having variances in the rack. I'm not sure who

[32:05] that be directed to. Yes, I, I believe I do not I do not have

[32:10] that information at that point. And I still do not, as I

[32:13] believe this is information that that the staff is in

[32:16] possession of, not the board attorney. So how do we

[32:21] ultimately find out if they can have variances in the rack or

[32:24] not? So just to interject here. So when it comes to the

[32:28] regional activity center, there are certain parameters that at

[32:32] the time of inception was outlined that they would not be

[32:36] variance eligible. And then those are specifically laid out

[32:39] as it pertains to setbacks. And in this case, the corner chord

[32:42] and other variances that come before this board when there is

[32:45] no prohibited prohibition against said variances and

[32:49] without specific policy direction prohibiting it, it is

[32:53] free for the board to decide. Now, understanding there were

[32:55] comments made that at certain times there were certain

[32:58] intention, but without it being codified and made into law,

[33:01] staff only goes off of what's in the zoning and land

[33:04] development regulations and where it does not anticipate or

[33:07] desire variance. The code says no variances shall be

[33:11] considered or permitted. This is not one of those instances.

[33:15] It's up to our purview. I'm not asking about this particular

[33:19] one. Generally, I'm asking about it overall. Well,

[33:22] actually, Bob, with tonight's agenda, can we just keep it

[33:25] focused to to this item? We can have that conversation later.

[33:27] Sure. Thank you. Any comments for the for staff. Any

[33:31] questions for staff? Dick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You've

[33:39] stated in this that there is a waiver that does not require

[33:44] public art through. The waiver is being recommended because

[33:51] they are dedicating a certain significant number of units for

[33:55] moderate income. That that really doesn't fly with me.

[33:59] When we know there are ways of using public art as a part of

[34:05] the, of the building itself, it could be public art. I'm not in

[34:10] favor of that. So I'll go on the record as saying that they

[34:13] should be required, especially a building of this magnitude.

[34:17] They should be provided public art in the in the court. If

[34:21] nothing else, there's an opportunity for a fountain or a

[34:25] statue that would qualify for public art. Also, the mix of

[34:31] one and two bedroom apartments in the. That apply to the

[34:37] moderate income housing or all housing in the. All apartments

[34:42] in the building. All one and twos. All one and twos through

[34:47] the chair. Thank you for your question. I will defer that

[34:51] that question to the applicant. They can provide a more clear

[34:54] answer in terms of the breakdown. But when they speak,

[34:57] they can they can answer that question. That's correct. Yeah.

[35:00] Okay. Let me see here. All right. I'll ask the applicant

[35:07] when they come up for a couple questions. Thank you, thank you,

[35:11] thank you. Question through the Chair Just added context as it

[35:14] pertains to public art on this particular property. This item

[35:18] went before city commission to request a waiver for the public

[35:21] art in lieu of affordable housing being provided. It is

[35:25] important to note that even with that waiver, there is a

[35:28] minimum requirement of $5,000 contribution to the public Art

[35:31] fund. So while the decision was made by City Commission already,

[35:34] it is. They will be still providing the $5,000

[35:37] contribution. You understand how that can happen before it

[35:39] comes to us. That's it sounds like a back door deal. So to

[35:47] help cam answer this question, Commissioner Blattner. So this

[35:51] actually came through commission through our

[35:53] Community Development department, who is requesting

[35:56] city funds or, you know, direction from city commission

[36:00] to allocate funds through the Schip program. So while this is

[36:05] an odd man, my apologies. I have to interrupt. I just

[36:07] wanted to state for the record that Mana has joined virtually.

[36:10] Thank you. Thank you, Stephanie. And that was also a good

[36:15] reminder for me to speak more directly into the mic. But

[36:19] while procedurally, this was kind of odd in terms of its

[36:22] approval through commission, it did go before commission

[36:26] through community development for that allocation of dollars.

[36:29] So that decision was made at that time. Again, procedurally,

[36:33] not necessarily correct, but you would you may remember some

[36:36] time ago, we did make an amendment to the Art and Public

[36:40] Places ordinance allowing for specific waivers specific to

[36:44] affordable housing. And that was just the, the, the pathway

[36:49] that this happened. Any other questions for staff? Through

[36:56] the chair If I may also add, we have also incorporated one

[36:59] condition. Let me see if I can. Yeah, there we go. So in one of

[37:04] these conditions here, should City Commission not grant the

[37:07] waiver for public art. We do have a condition here that will

[37:10] hold the applicant responsible for fulfilling the public art

[37:14] requirements in accordance with section 3.22 of the regulations

[37:18] of our zoning code. Which condition is that? Condition

[37:28] number six under at the time of building permit submission.

[37:31] Thank you. Any questions for staff? Run quickly. Applicant.

[37:42] Good evening. Good evening. I'll go in reverse order. I

[37:46] know there's a lot of people here, but just on the public

[37:49] art. So the City commission did approve the waiver. But you'll

[37:52] see in the renderings there is a mural that you're seeing on

[37:55] the bottom image. That's the north view from Jackson Street.

[37:58] So the developer still has intentions to provide public

[38:02] art in the form of a mural or something like that that we're

[38:05] working through. It's just the formal public art requirements

[38:09] were waived as part of the affordable housing, but there

[38:11] will be public art as part of this project. And just for

[38:14] purposes of the condition, the resolution number for the

[38:17] record is 2026-259. That's the one that approved the public

[38:21] art waiver. Are you able to pull up our presentation? I'm

[38:24] just going to run through it really quickly because I know

[38:27] there's other items on the agenda that everybody is here

[38:30] for. While we're oh, here we go. Great. So staff did a very

[38:41] comprehensive presentation. So I am going to go through this

[38:45] relatively quickly. The property is 400 South Dixie

[38:48] highway. So it is immediately west of Dixie and south of

[38:52] Jackson Street. The one thing that I want to point out is

[38:56] with the zoning, again, we came before this board and

[38:59] commission for the rezoning. And the reason just to kind of

[39:02] refresh everybody's recollection, is that there are

[39:05] supplemental design regulations within the city's code that

[39:08] would have prevented kind of a cohesive development of this

[39:12] site. So what the code provides is that within DH3, when you

[39:16] are within 200ft of any property that is zoned DH2, you

[39:21] have to taper down your height. And so DH3 allows for a

[39:25] building to be up to ten stories in height. But when

[39:28] you're within 200ft of DH2, you have to bring that down to five

[39:32] stories, which I just want to point out it wasn't mentioned.

[39:35] Our building is actually it's below both of those height

[39:38] requirements. So we're eight stories adjacent to Dixie, and

[39:41] we taper down to about five stories right in the center.

[39:43] And then we go all the way down to four stories as you move all

[39:47] the way west. So I just wanted to point out why we were

[39:50] talking about the rezoning. The other thing to mention again is

[39:53] half of this, it's 394 units. 50% of them are going to be

[39:57] affordable. Of those 50%, 25% is going to be am I up to 100?

[40:02] And then the balance is up to 120. So they are moderate

[40:06] income, but they're not all going all the way up to 120. We

[40:10] also are going to have a leasing preference program for

[40:13] hometown heroes. So that means veterans, healthcare workers,

[40:17] city employees, things like that. So I just wanted to point

[40:20] that out that that's part of our leasing program as well.

[40:27] Again, with the corner chord, I know it was discussed, but I do

[40:30] just want to highlight the small amount of the variance

[40:34] that we're requesting due to the county and the city's

[40:38] request for the corner court dedication. And it was

[40:40] mentioned that we have dedications along Jackson and

[40:43] Dixie, which is true. We satisfy all of those

[40:46] dedications. We meet the setbacks along all of Jackson

[40:50] and Dixie. It's just really the you see there where the red

[40:53] line kind of doesn't go to a point. It's really a variance

[40:56] for just the very corner of our building, because when the

[40:59] county has now requested this corner court dedication, what

[41:02] it does is it now shifts our setbacks. And so it basically,

[41:06] I'm sorry, not our setbacks. It changes where our property line

[41:09] is. And it just creates this little segment at the

[41:13] hypotenuse of that triangle with the corner of our building.

[41:16] So it's not that entire area. It's really just the very

[41:19] corner of our building. But we satisfy the setbacks on the

[41:22] rest of the project. The other thing just to point out, so

[41:27] this project is in the rack. There is no density requirement

[41:31] within the rack. It's limited by how many units you have

[41:34] available in the pool. There are available units to cover

[41:38] the 394 units that we are requesting this evening. But in

[41:44] an effort to minimize this development's impact on the

[41:47] available units for anybody else in the city, we are

[41:51] requesting to utilize county policy 2.61.3. And what that

[41:56] does is when it allows for you to get bonus density when

[41:59] you're developing affordable housing. And so effectively, I

[42:03] can go through the math if you have questions, but effectively,

[42:06] our project would only need to pull 57 units from the pool of

[42:10] units available in the rack, instead of having to pull 394

[42:13] units. This is the same elevations and renderings that

[42:19] staff had showed you. The other thing I do want to point out is

[42:23] that we did all of the public hearings because our rezoning

[42:26] was traveling separate from the site plan and design. We ended

[42:30] up having four public outreach meetings effectively on this

[42:33] same application, because we had to do the rezoning outreach

[42:37] first. And the feedback that we got from the surrounding

[42:40] neighbors was very positive. I just want to point out the only

[42:43] feedback that we got was a request to change the palm

[42:47] landscaping that we had along Dixie highway. Even though this

[42:51] rendering doesn't completely show it, we did remove the

[42:54] palms that were on Dixie and replaced them with shade trees,

[42:57] and we added live oaks and Simpson stoppers all along

[43:00] Jackson Street as well. We kept some of the palms just because

[43:04] it adds a little bit of visual interest without fighting for

[43:08] canopy space. But we did make those changes. So I'm here for

[43:15] any questions. You all have. Any questions for the applicant?

[43:19] Yes, Bob. Hi. Good evening. Very nice project. Could you

[43:24] put a dollar figure, though, on the affordable income aspect of

[43:28] it? Instead of telling us 98 units or up to 100%. So

[43:37] currently, and I'll tell you that this project, given the

[43:41] just timing of everything, I think we're looking for leasing,

[43:45] you know, leasing the property sometime maybe first quarter of

[43:48] 2028, end of 2027. Don't hold me to that. So the numbers I'm

[43:51] giving you are the Ami numbers for today in 2026. They're only

[43:55] going to go up. But currently in Broward County, the median

[44:00] income in Broward County is $102,500. And what that means,

[44:04] because this is a project is 1 in 2 bedroom units, the rents.

[44:09] And I apologize because I'm just looking at the chart and

[44:12] the font's very small, but the rent is going to range from

[44:16] 2800 up to actually it's a little bit lower. This is just

[44:21] for everyone in the audience who just because I hear

[44:24] laughing, that's fine. I just I want everyone to understand

[44:27] what I'm saying. So Ami levels are calculated by the state.

[44:30] And they put out a chart every year that calculates what you

[44:34] are required to be leasing these out based off of what the

[44:38] annual median income is. So these aren't numbers that we

[44:41] are creating. These are numbers that are put out by the state

[44:43] in order to be compliant with fair housing and HUD standards.

[44:46] So currently the numbers on the chart range from 2800 up to in

[44:53] the 3000, depending on your income level and your if you're

[44:59] doing a 1 or 2 bedroom and how many people you have in your

[45:02] house, it could actually be a little bit lower because the

[45:05] the chart only gives me the 120 and the 80%. So I was telling

[45:08] you the 120 numbers. Did I hear. I think staff said, were they

[45:14] giving Hollywood residents a preference? Was that mentioned

[45:17] at all? We have a hometown heroes, I don't know. I can ask

[45:21] the developer if the residence is included in that, but it is

[45:25] the veterans, the city of Hollywood employees, health

[45:28] care workers, firefighters, police officers and things like

[45:33] that. Well, if you could ask the developer, I mean, if, you

[45:36] know, if we could give Hollywood residents a

[45:38] preference, that would be great. It is being built in Hollywood.

[45:41] If you just excuse me for one moment, I'll be right back.

[46:09] Just one quick correction. And only because I can't see

[46:12] without my glasses on. The rent for the one bedroom is 2300,

[46:15] not 2800. We're able to offer the leasing preference to

[46:20] Hollywood residents as well. You know, to the extent it

[46:23] complies with Fair housing will incorporate that. Thank you.

[46:27] Quick question. How are the. Good evening ladies. How are

[46:30] the units are located throughout the building, the

[46:33] affordable housing. It's. There is no set. It's there's no set.

[46:37] It'll be, you know, if the tenant complies, then they'll

[46:40] get all the. I guess let me just say all of the units are

[46:43] the same. So it's a function of. If your rent qualifies, you'll

[46:46] get that rent amount. And then if you leave the building, it

[46:49] could be occupied as a market rate unit. As long as we keep

[46:52] the levels within the building overall. Okay, great. Thanks.

[46:56] Any other questions for the applicant? Ground floor. Retail

[47:05] or some other use? No retail. And we made a point to try to

[47:11] activate the the space as much as possible from a pedestrian

[47:15] standpoint. So we added, you know, extensive glazing on the

[47:19] ground floor. And we have you can see. So we tried to kind of

[47:23] orient all of our tenant amenities, all the area in

[47:25] white there. Those are the tenant amenities. So we have a

[47:29] like a lobby lounge area, a spin room, a yoga studio, a gym,

[47:32] a work share space. And that's all up against Dixie with the

[47:36] the windows. Thank you. Any other questions for Liz? I'm

[47:41] seeing none. Thank you much. Thank you. Bring the

[47:45] conversation back up here. Any comments questions project. I'd

[47:51] like to make a motion to approve. I second for the

[47:56] variance. Okay. Sorry. Speak into the microphone please. For

[48:01] the variance. For the variance. So moved for the variance

[48:06] second. Second for the variance. All in favor. Aye. Opposed.

[48:10] Seeing none. Motion carries. Second. We'll discuss design.

[48:15] Any comments. Questions. Comment. I don't know where we

[48:20] can put this in but can we put in somewhere here that it's for

[48:26] Hollywood residents will get a preference if they qualify. I

[48:29] don't know which. How do we put insert that? Hi, I can answer

[48:36] that question. I am doubtful whether the board has the

[48:40] authority to attach it as a condition to the motion, but it

[48:42] is something that can travel with the board's comments in

[48:45] your motion. And I believe the the proper instrument would be

[48:49] the development agreement or a restrictive covenant that the

[48:52] applicant and the city would have to enter. So would that be

[48:55] a motion of the site design, the the design or the site plan?

[49:01] I would believe, would go to a site plan as part of the

[49:04] conditions. I'd agree. Okay. Thank you much. So now

[49:06] considering just the design, any consideration, I'd like to

[49:09] make a motion for 25DV91A design. Okay. So moved. Is

[49:14] there a second? Second. Moved in second. All in favor? Aye.

[49:19] Opposed. Opposed. Understood. Design. Design is approved now.

[49:24] Moving on to site plan. Bob, you had a additional condition.

[49:30] The additional condition is to give Hollywood residents a

[49:35] preference. If they qualify. I matter of preference here. Are

[49:38] you moving to approve with the additional condition? Yes. Okay.

[49:42] So moved with the additional condition. Is there a second? I

[49:46] would like to. I'm sorry. I would like to like to amend

[49:49] that motion, suggest amending that motion slightly to the

[49:51] extent allowable by law. Okay. Bob, do you consider that as a

[49:55] friendly amendment? Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All

[49:59] right. Moved. And second, with the additional condition. All

[50:02] in favor? Aye, aye. I don't think there was a second, was

[50:06] there? I'll second. Okay. It's second. Moved in second. All in

[50:11] favor? Aye. Opposed seeing none. Motion carries. Site plan.

[50:15] Projects approved. Congratulations. Moving on.

[50:34] Okay. File number 2618. Chair, I have some housekeeping items

[50:41] I would like to put on the record before the item is

[50:44] presented and heard, please. All right. As a reminder, all

[50:48] of the three items that will be heard before you are considered

[50:53] legislative. They are not quasi judicial. That means that the

[50:56] board will sit tonight as the city's local planning agency.

[51:00] So what does that mean? That means that no witnesses will be

[51:03] sworn. The competent, substantial evidence standard

[51:06] does not apply in this particular case, and ex parte

[51:09] communication rules for quasi judicial hearings do not apply

[51:12] to these items either. The board's task will be to review

[51:16] the text amendment establishing the Hollywood Beach Overlay

[51:19] District and the two companion resolutions, and to make a

[51:22] recommendation to the City Commission on the relationship

[51:24] to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. All written public

[51:28] comments that have been that have been received in

[51:31] connection to these items, including petitions and their

[51:33] attachments and emails, has been or will be made part of

[51:37] the record before this board. Now, in light of the written

[51:40] correspondence received, I would like to issue two

[51:43] corrections for the record. Some correspondence to the

[51:46] board suggested that members will face personal liability

[51:49] depending on how they vote tonight. That is not an

[51:52] accurate statement of the law. The statute that was cited in

[51:55] the correspondence, which is section 768.28, is actually an

[52:02] immunity statute. It explicitly protects public officers such

[52:05] as yourselves, acting within the scope of their duties. A

[52:08] member who's a member who votes on a notice item in either

[52:12] direction, yes or no based on a record before the board is

[52:16] protected. So I want something. So if that's something that has

[52:18] been weighing on your mind. Release it. Now. Second,

[52:26] because much of the written correspondence to the board

[52:28] that the board received asks for a continuance, I need to

[52:32] advise you on two points of legal context on that option.

[52:36] So this item was initially noticed and referred to the

[52:39] board on July 27th, 2026 under section 163-.3194, subsection

[52:48] two of the Florida statutes, the board's recommendation is

[52:52] due within a reasonable time and no later than two months

[52:55] after the referral, which in this case falls on or about

[53:00] September 27th, 2026. So this item will proceed to the City

[53:04] Commission in either event, since they have the final

[53:07] decision. But the deadline of September 27th governs whether

[53:14] this board's recommendation will accompany it. If no

[53:17] recommendation is made within the two month period up to

[53:21] September 27th, the Commission may act on the adoption of this

[53:25] overlay without the board's recommendation, and unless you

[53:29] have any questions, I would also like to. Have board member

[53:37] speak on the record about a disclosure that he has to make.

[53:41] So before we take up this item, I want to note for the record

[53:45] that I own property within the area addressed by the proposed

[53:48] overlay, as do several thousand other property owners. I have

[53:52] consulted with the board's counsel, who has advised that

[53:55] because any effect of this measure falls on a large class

[53:58] of similarly situated owners. It does not inure to my special

[54:03] private gain or loss under the voting conflict statute.

[54:07] Accordingly, I am not required to abstain and I will be

[54:10] participating and voting on this item. Duly noted. Thank

[54:14] you very much. Thank you. You may proceed. Chair. Okay. On my

[54:18] notes. Also, the chair's prerogative that while there

[54:20] have been many emails, I'd like to. Also, I think the entire

[54:24] board has been received. Emails. And we'd like to note that that

[54:30] we've been contacted by our fellow citizens on several

[54:33] different occasions. As for the request for removing or

[54:38] postponing, I agree with counsel that sunshine is the

[54:41] best way. This is the time for the city to make its

[54:44] presentation, for the citizens to hear that and to speak in

[54:47] either fashion, whether for or against. Tonight's the night

[54:50] and delaying kicking the can is not progress. Progress is

[54:54] painful, but at the end it is beneficial. Staff, please can I

[54:59] add one other thing? No. Oh I'm sorry. Go ahead. As you

[55:05] mentioned, you know, we've been we've been contacted by many

[55:08] different people via email, but I have also spoken to members

[55:12] of the city planning as well as the mayor on, on this just to

[55:16] educate myself on this. So I just wanted that on the record

[55:19] as well. Excuse me, chair Bob. So I live in the beach overlay

[55:26] project. Also, I have not consulted with the board

[55:29] attorney, but based on what I just heard, I guess I'm okay

[55:34] with that as well. I'm not sure I would say yes. I would also

[55:38] say for everybody that has sent an email to the board or to

[55:43] myself, I have forward each and every one of those emails to

[55:47] the city staff, including the city manager, etc. So just so

[55:52] everybody knows, you're even though we couldn't answer your

[55:55] emails, they were forwarded on to the staff to meet part of

[55:59] the record. Thank you. Cameron. Good evening, board chair,

[56:07] board members, members of the public and city staff. I want

[56:10] to thank you all for coming out today. Before I start this

[56:13] presentation, I just want to put it on record that this item

[56:16] 26, TZ18 and 26 F 70 and 26F70A will be read or be presented

[56:25] together in your hearing. Before I begin, my name is

[56:29] Cameron Palmer. I'm the Assistant Director of

[56:30] Development Services and chief planner. I support Andrew

[56:33] Wingate, the director of development services, the

[56:36] special project manager who's worked on this project. And an

[56:38] Balram is present. And we have Nicole Moyo, principal planner

[56:42] of urban design and long range planning, in addition to all of

[56:46] city staff who've also supported to bring this

[56:47] together. I am sorry, sorry to interrupt. Interject board

[56:52] chair just I think we will need a response to Cam's request to

[56:56] hear all three items together, and then you will need to read

[56:59] all three titles just for the record, we noted. Duly noted.

[57:05] Does the board have an objection to reading all three

[57:08] at once? All consideration. This also means that public

[57:12] comment will also appear all at once. No. No objections. Okay,

[57:18] so we are now reading file number 26TZ. Way to go,

[57:23] Canadian 1826F70C and 26F70A as as a singular item for

[57:32] consideration. Voted three times separately, but those

[57:35] three items are being presented as once. All right, board chair,

[57:45] I've been told it's better for you to read the titles into the

[57:48] record. I know they're lengthy, but thank you. And actually,

[57:52] procedure Secretary, would you like to read those titles?

[57:56] Which which part number three. The the requests. An ordinance

[58:02] of the City Commission.

[58:21] File number 26TZ18. An ordinance of

[58:24] the City Commission of the City of Hollywood, Florida, amending

[58:28] article four of the Zoning and Land Development Regulations to

[58:30] establish section 4.26, the Hollywood Beach Overlay

[58:34] District, including part one Overlay, Zoning Regulation and

[58:36] Optical Bonus program, and part two Hollywood Beach Overlay

[58:40] Urban Design guidelines. Adopting the official Hollywood

[58:43] Beach Overlay Regulating Plan map, establishing the Hollywood

[58:45] Beach Public Benefit and Resilience Trust Fund. Amending

[58:51] section 4.6 C, 4.6 D and 4.22 E to address rooftop amenities

[58:57] and amending the city's official zoning map to

[58:59] incorporate the Hollywood Beach Overlay District into the

[59:02] official zoning map, providing for findings of fact,

[59:07] codification, conflicts, scrivener's errors and

[59:11] serviceability, and an effective date. File number

[59:18] 26F70CA resolution of the City Commission of the City of

[59:20] Hollywood, Florida. Establishing an inventory. An

[59:23] initial inventory of 23,000 hotel rooms for the tourism

[59:27] Incentive Density Entitlement Tied program within the

[59:30] Hollywood Beach Overlay District, providing for future

[59:33] discretionary allocation to eligible properties within the

[59:35] Hollywood Beach Overlay District, subject to all

[59:38] applicable requirements and procedures. Procedures of the

[59:41] Hollywood and Land Development Code, providing for conflicts,

[59:46] serviceability, and effective date. Board member. I can read

[59:51] it into the record if you want me to. Okay, we're already

[59:54] going to put you to work this evening. I don't want you to

[59:57] have to read all this file number 26-F-70A, a

[1:00:02] recommendation to the City Commission of the City of

[1:00:05] Hollywood, Florida, allocating 500 flexibility units from the

[1:00:09] city's Unified Flexibility Zone to the Hollywood Beach Overlay

[1:00:14] District, as identified on the official Hollywood Beach

[1:00:18] Overlay Regulating Plan map, providing for the discretionary

[1:00:21] allocation to eligible properties, subject to the

[1:00:25] requirements and procedures of the Zoning and Land Development

[1:00:28] Code providing for conflict, severability and an effective

[1:00:33] date. Thank you. Thank you so much for doing that task.

[1:00:39] Before I begin, I want to thank you all for attending today.

[1:00:42] You know, we have a very large presentation that's before us

[1:00:45] today with a lot of content in it, and I'm going to go through

[1:00:48] that at a at a steady pace to ensure that we get through it.

[1:00:52] Just want to remind you all that you all were appointed to

[1:00:55] this position with specific, specific specialties,

[1:00:56] professions. I encourage you to lean into those when you

[1:00:58] provide your comments. Staff is willing and able to take notes,

[1:01:02] and we trust that Your feedback will make this project that

[1:01:04] much better. Having said that, let's jump in. The record was

[1:01:08] read. The title was read into the record, so I won't do that

[1:01:11] again. But the applicant is the city of Hollywood and the

[1:01:14] properties that are affected by this overlay portion of which

[1:01:16] are city wide, and a portion lies on the east of the

[1:01:20] Intracoastal Waterway. I'd like to start a little bit of

[1:01:24] background for the board in terms of how we got here. The

[1:01:27] discussion of heights on the beach is not a new one. It's

[1:01:30] been one that's with the city for quite some time, dating

[1:01:33] back as far as 2004 with the first beach height study then

[1:01:36] moving through the CRA master plan in 2007, the Beach Heights

[1:01:39] Workshop in 2019, and most recently, most recently, the

[1:01:44] presentation City Commission received regarding the findings

[1:01:48] or the preliminary findings of the beach feasibility study. In

[1:01:52] previous renditions of this analysis and the study, a

[1:01:56] higher height of 150ft were proposed, with tapering

[1:02:01] strategies downward to the broad walk. The concept of

[1:02:03] height is not new on Hollywood Beach, and staff's endeavor was

[1:02:07] to review the research. Research done to date, review

[1:02:10] the findings of the study, and move forward with a

[1:02:13] recommendation. But one additional element has entered

[1:02:18] the scene since we started the study way back when, and that

[1:02:21] is the changing legislative context, one that's changing

[1:02:24] almost by month, particularly, particularly as it pertains to

[1:02:27] live local and Senate Bill 180. These are both preemptions that

[1:02:31] the state have placed on municipalities that govern how

[1:02:34] and what planning looks like and what development looks like

[1:02:37] in in our cities. It's really important to note that live

[1:02:41] local changes the baseline of development by preempting

[1:02:44] certain requirements, certain tools that the city uses to

[1:02:48] safeguard its planning framework. So the overlay is an

[1:02:51] attempt or a strategy, rather to respond deliberately and

[1:02:55] intentionally to that threat and not doing so reactively on

[1:02:59] a site by site basis. It's a proactive path, but most

[1:03:02] importantly, it's collaborative and it brings discussions back

[1:03:05] within the city's realm to influence and incentivize the

[1:03:09] type of development that we want to see in the city, and

[1:03:12] furthermore, attaching public benefit to that development and,

[1:03:15] and that incentive structure. So regarding the feasibility

[1:03:20] study, which is one of the items that's attached to this

[1:03:23] backup, there were several key findings in the study,

[1:03:26] primarily that the beach is made up of different character

[1:03:28] areas, which is not a secret. We understand how the beach

[1:03:31] feels and operates in different segments of the beach, but also

[1:03:34] that there were other there were case studies brought

[1:03:36] forward in the study that showed other municipalities

[1:03:38] that were able to leverage what we call a public contribution

[1:03:41] portion of their pro forma as it pertains to additional

[1:03:45] development rights. Of course, items such as resiliency and

[1:03:49] FEMA considerations came up in the study, but also primarily

[1:03:53] that design is a big implication in terms of how

[1:03:56] buildings look and feel on the beach and what determines value.

[1:04:00] The report went into many, many scenarios, but there were three

[1:04:02] that were produced baseline, medium and medium high. And

[1:04:05] each of these scenarios had proposals for what story or

[1:04:08] what height can be accommodated in these development,

[1:04:12] redevelopment feasible scenarios. And the study was

[1:04:15] intended to design to evaluate the feasibility and the

[1:04:19] underlying ability to accommodate height, which it

[1:04:23] did. And staff's job was to take those findings and to work

[1:04:26] with that, in addition to community feedback, to

[1:04:28] determine a recommendation. And that's exactly what took place.

[1:04:32] The city then endeavored on doing public engagement events

[1:04:34] through Charrettes stakeholder meetings, meeting with

[1:04:39] associations, and both one on one and on in a virtual format,

[1:04:44] through a survey and through the engagement process. We

[1:04:47] heard a lot of things about the beach, a lot of things about

[1:04:51] heights on the beach, a lot of things about challenges and

[1:04:53] opportunities on the beach. And some of those themes were very

[1:04:56] resounding, and that staff definitely took note of them.

[1:04:58] The preservation of the scale and form of the beach came up

[1:05:01] quite often in our in our feedback open space, the need

[1:05:05] for open space, accessible open space, the need for resiliency

[1:05:08] and flood protection measures throughout the beach, but also

[1:05:11] the need for transit and mobility and parking on the

[1:05:14] beach were all issues identified through our public

[1:05:16] engagement and our stakeholder one on ones. So working with

[1:05:21] with the findings of our public engagement, the finding of the

[1:05:24] findings of the study staff brought these all together and

[1:05:27] what we call the guiding principles for this effort. And

[1:05:29] these guiding principles are on your screen. They're a

[1:05:31] collection of principles that guided not only the creation of

[1:05:34] the zoning text, but the creation of the urban design

[1:05:37] guidelines that accompanies this text. And as part of

[1:05:38] today's recommendation, these founding principles include

[1:05:42] things such as neighborhood scale and broadwalk protection,

[1:05:45] which are very important. That came out of the engagement,

[1:05:48] also highlighting the design, destination and architectural

[1:05:51] heritage, the the the importance of design on the

[1:05:54] beach, the avoid avoiding of monoliths and structures that

[1:05:56] are not pleasing or not activating to the public realm.

[1:06:00] We're also brought up and the idea of quality growth needing

[1:06:03] to be paramount. Paramount for the beach was identified and

[1:06:07] these principles led staff. As we prepared the recommendations.

[1:06:11] So where are we today in the grand process of things? Step

[1:06:14] one on the screen was when City Commission directed staff to

[1:06:17] provide an informational presentation, which we did in

[1:06:19] March of 2026, that then received. We received direction

[1:06:22] then to prepare a midterm solution. And by midterm. In

[1:06:26] this case, that means a five year interim solution to

[1:06:31] unlocking potential on the beach through the development

[1:06:34] of an overlay and urban design guidelines. But the third step

[1:06:37] being the full development of a beach master plan. And that's a

[1:06:40] long term plan. That is a next step of this process. As a

[1:06:43] reminder, what's before you today is an interim solution

[1:06:46] for the beach. The beach neighborhood. So let's dive

[1:06:51] into part one of the document, which is the overlay itself.

[1:06:55] Before I get into all the nitty gritty, let's talk about what

[1:06:58] is an overlay. An overlay is an additional layer of regulation

[1:07:00] that sits on a geographic area. So on the low nifty graphic I

[1:07:04] have on the screen, you can look on the left side, you're

[1:07:07] going to see three layers of of geographies, the first being

[1:07:09] the existing form today where properties and parcel lines

[1:07:12] that's at the bottom. You move up a level, you have the

[1:07:15] existing zone. We're going to call this the base zoning or

[1:07:18] the underlying zoning, which is the zoning code that exists

[1:07:20] today, which your parking metrics, your heights, your

[1:07:23] density, etc. One level above that is what we're proposing is

[1:07:27] the Hollywood Beach Overlay District. You may see it

[1:07:29] shortened to H bar, H, BOD, and that is the bonus and voluntary

[1:07:34] program that is being proposed as a mechanism to unlock value

[1:07:37] and public benefit within the beach. It's really important to

[1:07:40] understand that the program, not only is it voluntary, it's

[1:07:43] an interim strategy, as I said before. So it's intended to

[1:07:45] unlock potential where potential exists and create and

[1:07:50] exchange public benefit where that exists. It's not intended

[1:07:53] to be a one size fits all. So let's talk about some things

[1:07:56] that overlay we talk about what an overlay is. Let's talk about

[1:07:59] what it is not an overlay does not approve any particular

[1:08:02] projects in and of itself. The overlay does not replace the

[1:08:05] base zoning or the base zoning requirements. The overlay does

[1:08:08] not automatically grant bonuses or reductions, and the overlay

[1:08:12] does not reduce public participation because the

[1:08:14] existing DRC process, the two public outreach meetings, the

[1:08:17] meeting before the Planning and Development Board, and the

[1:08:20] ultimate meeting before the City Commission, all remains

[1:08:22] baked in to the city's review process, and the overlay will

[1:08:25] follow suit within that pattern. So let's discuss the bonus

[1:08:30] framework. What is, what makes up the overlay and how does it

[1:08:33] really work? On the screen? You're going to see four

[1:08:35] pillars of the program. And these are the mechanisms. By

[1:08:38] way bonus bonusing can be achieved. Now it's really

[1:08:42] important to note that for whatever pillar that's being

[1:08:45] pursued, there is required requirements that need to be

[1:08:48] provided for each request. And that's really important because

[1:08:52] those requirements are what really brings home the design

[1:08:55] element of this exercise. The first requirement is compliance

[1:08:58] with urban design guidelines. That is part two of this

[1:09:00] document that was attached to the agenda backup. And these

[1:09:04] guidelines direct how a space feels, operates, and interfaces

[1:09:08] with the with the pedestrian, with the driver, with the hotel

[1:09:14] visitor. The second one is compliance with the block

[1:09:17] requirements, block sizing requirements, transitioning

[1:09:19] shadow mitigation requirements, step back standards, etc. and

[1:09:23] these also live in the design guidelines. And these shape how

[1:09:26] a building is interacts with other buildings with the public

[1:09:30] realm, with property lines, etc. the third is the

[1:09:34] compliance with Leed silver standards being a requirement

[1:09:36] to participate in the bonus, which is again intended to

[1:09:40] further support our resiliency efforts. And then last but

[1:09:45] really importantly, it's a city discretionary approval. I said

[1:09:48] earlier that it's a voluntary program, but beyond being

[1:09:52] voluntary, it is discretionary, which means every request comes

[1:09:54] before the Planning and Development Board for

[1:09:57] recommendation and onward to City commission for final

[1:10:00] approval. And therein lies the discretionary nature of it,

[1:10:02] because at those intervals, there is a requirement to clear

[1:10:07] criteria both for the Planning and Development Board and for

[1:10:09] the City Commission criteria, just like we have for a

[1:10:12] variance or just like for a special exception, requires

[1:10:14] that the requests be justified. Now, as I walk through the

[1:10:21] bonus pillars with you all, I want to just point out that

[1:10:24] each bonus has an exchange for public benefit. And that

[1:10:27] exchange comes directly from what we heard on the previous

[1:10:29] slide about the emerging themes of challenges that are faced on

[1:10:32] the beach. Staff was endeavored with connecting those

[1:10:35] challenges with the bonus structure. And how do we create

[1:10:37] a formula that results in public benefit for bonus? There

[1:10:42] are situations or scenarios where an applicant may request

[1:10:45] multiple bonuses and have to provide multiple exchanges, and

[1:10:49] must meet the requirements for all bonuses for each request.

[1:10:53] Each request is separate unto itself and have to clear the

[1:10:56] criteria, and one bonus does not automatically qualify you

[1:10:59] for another. Let's start with the height bonus as number one

[1:11:04] height bonus to receive the height bonus in eligible areas

[1:11:07] of the beach. The items in the first box, which are just a

[1:11:10] repeat of what I went over. Urban design guidelines,

[1:11:13] massing requirements. Block eligibility. Leed silver must

[1:11:16] be met, but in addition to that, the general requirements. An

[1:11:19] additional requirement of a financial contribution to the

[1:11:22] Resiliency Fund must be made for any area over what the base

[1:11:26] zoning would allow. This financial contribution goes

[1:11:29] into the fund and is then then used to support resiliency

[1:11:33] efforts. How does height work? We're going to spend a moment

[1:11:38] on height so we can fully dive into it. The the beach is

[1:11:41] divided into different precinct areas. Precincts are just

[1:11:43] geographic groupings along the beach. The plan anticipates six

[1:11:47] precincts within each precincts we dial down into character

[1:11:51] areas, which is. The map on the bottom character areas is how

[1:11:54] height is going to be implemented in the beach, how

[1:11:56] urban design guidelines are applied, and how both different

[1:12:00] heights for different zones or different character areas

[1:12:02] interact with one with another. So block assembly, block

[1:12:08] assembly is a really important portion of the height bonus.

[1:12:11] It's really important to understand that not every

[1:12:14] property in Hollywood Beach will qualify for the optional

[1:12:16] height entitlement, because height will be determined on

[1:12:19] the block eligibility. How big is the parcel that's requesting

[1:12:22] the bonus and can it successfully and appropriately

[1:12:26] accommodate that height? From a design standpoint, precincts

[1:12:29] two, three, and five, which are the central portions of the

[1:12:33] beach, present the greatest need to coordinate

[1:12:35] redevelopment because of their parcel patterns and development

[1:12:37] style. So the block tension intentional is intended to

[1:12:41] create a situation that avoids misuse. How does the block

[1:12:45] eligibility work to enable to, in order to be eligible to

[1:12:48] receive the height bonus of the character areas and the

[1:12:51] character areas were, as previously on the previous

[1:12:54] slide, the applicant would have to have ownership of the entire

[1:12:57] block one third of the block. That's as you see on the screen

[1:13:01] to access the bonus. So let's use an example an applicant on

[1:13:04] the A one a corridor who owns one parcel on the block. And

[1:13:08] the block is defined as a one a two surf road. If they own one

[1:13:12] parcel along a one A, that does not meet one third of the

[1:13:15] entire block, then they're not eligible to receive the A one a

[1:13:19] height bonus, because the thought process is that there

[1:13:22] would only one parcel. There's not enough lot space to create

[1:13:25] a meaningful design. Now, the intent is to encourage or to

[1:13:28] have that a third of the block be occupied to then unlock the

[1:13:33] ability to apply for the height bonus. Similar rules apply for

[1:13:36] the transition block, which you see in the middle is two

[1:13:38] separate blocks north and south. Again, to access the transition

[1:13:42] height bonus ownership of the entire third or half of the

[1:13:45] third in this case for transition block must be

[1:13:47] achieved in order to access the height bonus. And lastly, the

[1:13:51] surf block remains the same concept. The one third of the

[1:13:54] block has to be under the same ownership to access the height

[1:13:57] bonus. Again, creating a more structured approach to height,

[1:14:00] one that's manageable and one that's that will allow for

[1:14:03] staff through the revision of a tertiary plan, which is a

[1:14:06] another plan that the applicant will have to provide, showing

[1:14:09] how their site develops with the bonus and doesn't

[1:14:11] negatively affect the neighboring sites and how the

[1:14:14] block functions, even with the bonus applied. These are really

[1:14:16] important elements to understanding appropriate

[1:14:19] places for height. And again, understanding that not all

[1:14:22] blocks will be suitable for this program, but those who do

[1:14:25] meet the block requirements can participate. So what bonuses

[1:14:29] are being proposed as it pertains to height? What the

[1:14:32] numbers on the screen depict are the height bonuses that are

[1:14:36] exclusive of the base zone. So what specific bonuses are being

[1:14:41] proposed in this text amendment, you'll notice areas such as

[1:14:45] North Beach Village and Historic Boardwalk have the

[1:14:48] wording not applicable. This is because there's no bonus being

[1:14:51] provided for height in. In those areas, you'll notice that

[1:14:56] Intracoastal and Surf Road have a bonus of up to ten feet. That

[1:14:59] is an incremental bonus of approximately one floor being

[1:15:03] proposed for those specific character areas. And again,

[1:15:06] character areas. When you think of that map, I just showed all

[1:15:09] the little mini blocks. We'll come back to it a little bit

[1:15:12] later as well in the transition zone. Transition zone, the

[1:15:15] bonus of up to 50ft is being proposed in a one A in select

[1:15:19] areas. Again, emphasis on select areas up to 135ft bonus

[1:15:22] is being proposed again once the eligibility of the block

[1:15:26] structure has been met, and once all the other requirements

[1:15:28] of the bonus has been met, in addition to the financial

[1:15:31] contribution to the Resiliency Fund, the intent of this the

[1:15:34] intent of this approach was was intentional, incremental and

[1:15:40] intentional change or height change, not wide sweeping

[1:15:44] blanket heights across the beach. Being sensitive to the

[1:15:47] character areas of the Broadwalk. The Intracoastal

[1:15:50] North Beach Village was all paramount to this process and

[1:15:54] understanding where height goes in an appropriate manner. Let's

[1:15:59] move to the second pillar of the program, the Tide program.

[1:16:01] I'm going to read out the full name once, and then we'll

[1:16:04] continue to refer to it as tide Tourism Incentive density

[1:16:07] Entitlement program, tide for short. And what it this is

[1:16:11] essentially is a hotel room bonus program. Currently within

[1:16:14] the zoning code, there is limits to how many hotel rooms

[1:16:18] per acre can be had on any particular site. This program

[1:16:22] creates an incentive structure for hotel bonuses for hotel

[1:16:25] room Bonusing that permits for additional rooms above what the

[1:16:28] base zone permits once there's participation in the program,

[1:16:31] meaning everything in box number one has to be met in

[1:16:34] addition to box number two, which requires the provision of

[1:16:39] privately owned public space for short pops. And that's an

[1:16:44] intentional space that's designed for pedestrian and

[1:16:46] public use, maintained and owned by the private entity.

[1:16:51] Now, it's important to really understand that pops are not

[1:16:53] left over landscape pieces. They're not setback pieces that

[1:16:56] you can't otherwise build in, or they're not just benches.

[1:17:01] Pops are intentionally designed and have guidelines included in

[1:17:04] this text amendment on how they should look, feel, and operate

[1:17:07] within the public realm of the beach, adding for that open

[1:17:10] space function that is desperately needed on the map.

[1:17:13] On the top of the screen, you'll see where the tide

[1:17:16] program can be used in precincts two, three, five, and

[1:17:20] portions of precinct six. The third pillar of the program is

[1:17:25] the transfer development rights, also known as TDRs. I know we

[1:17:28] have lots of acronyms tonight. TDRs are the ability to

[1:17:31] transfer density, residential density from one site that's

[1:17:34] ascending site for the purpose of preserving or protecting a

[1:17:37] lower form to a receiving site that can handle the capacity of

[1:17:41] the received density. Both sites as part of this program

[1:17:45] have to enter into the into the bonus structure, meaning both

[1:17:47] sites have to be site plan reviewed per participate in the

[1:17:52] Urban Design guidelines, the massing and shadow mitigations,

[1:17:55] but also Leed silver and status. It's also important to note

[1:17:59] that the receiving site has to be. Has to have the capacity to

[1:18:03] receive the density that's being transferred. Also really

[1:18:06] important to note that this program is only available

[1:18:09] through the bonus program, the Bonus District, meaning that

[1:18:13] transfer development rights cannot be brokered outside of

[1:18:15] the city. They come through the city so that we ensure that

[1:18:18] we're getting the bonus. And the incentive is properly

[1:18:20] calibrated to the request that's being made. The city is

[1:18:23] also responsible for inventory logging and tracking these

[1:18:25] rights that are transferred site to site. On the map on the

[1:18:30] screen, you'll see the map where transferring of

[1:18:32] development rights are permitted with the shading and

[1:18:35] the hatch. Really important to note that precinct one, south

[1:18:38] of Balboa Street, is only ascending area. That area

[1:18:43] cannot receive density. It can only send density to other

[1:18:46] areas in order to protect the existing form. The little

[1:18:50] graphic on the bottom left shows how TDRs work. Unused

[1:18:53] unused rights on one property can be sold, can be transferred

[1:18:56] to another property and implemented there. Keeping the

[1:18:59] property a in the graphic at a certain scale that's more

[1:19:03] appropriate or deemed appropriate. The last pillar of

[1:19:06] the program is the flex unit allocation. This is a tool

[1:19:08] that's not new to the city. It exists in our comprehensive

[1:19:11] plan already. This is a chance that city has to incentivize

[1:19:14] the program by providing a bonus out of it. In terms of

[1:19:18] flex units, this adds residential density to

[1:19:21] properties in the beach that are generally that are

[1:19:23] designated general business properties that otherwise

[1:19:26] wouldn't have the ability to accommodate residential uses

[1:19:29] through this program and redevelopment, or through new

[1:19:34] redevelopment. This bonus can be applied for with the

[1:19:37] provision of everything in the box number one, which we've

[1:19:39] talked about before. But in addition to that, 10% of the

[1:19:42] required parking spaces for any development requesting flex

[1:19:45] units will have to provide publicly accessible parking.

[1:19:48] And this is parking that will be available to the public to

[1:19:51] offset the the the need for public parking on the beach and

[1:19:57] flex units have a limited application in the northern

[1:20:01] portion of precinct three, as described on the hatch in the

[1:20:04] map on the top of the screen. So bringing it all together,

[1:20:10] the document that's attached to the. Today's item is rather

[1:20:14] large, and I'll just go over the chapters with with you so

[1:20:16] that we have an orientation of where we are in the entire

[1:20:20] scope of things. Chapters one and two speak about the overlay

[1:20:22] district, its voluntary nature, and defines when bonus requests

[1:20:26] can be pursued. Option chapter two is the map series. All the

[1:20:30] maps you saw on my screen. They exist in an actual map series

[1:20:33] that will become codified, and those delineate where exactly

[1:20:36] bonuses can be applied. Chapter number three is extremely

[1:20:39] important. This is the urban design piece of the project,

[1:20:42] and this speaks about all the how the spaces will interface

[1:20:46] with one another. What are the requirements for pops, for

[1:20:50] parking structures, etc. Chapter four and five are the

[1:20:54] optional bonus entitlements. So how is this program voluntary?

[1:20:57] The height tied flex and TDR programs, in addition to the

[1:21:02] landmark bonus thing that may be applicable on certain sites

[1:21:04] that are the entire block and addition to that public chapter

[1:21:08] five speaks to the public benefit. How do we calibrate

[1:21:10] the publicly accessible parking, the publicly accessible space,

[1:21:14] the contribution to the resiliency fund? That's all of

[1:21:17] the workings of the public benefit exchanges of the bonus.

[1:21:20] And chapter number six is the the time frame, the interim

[1:21:24] strategy of five years and the criteria by which the City

[1:21:28] Commission and the Planning and Development Board will use to

[1:21:30] evaluate each bonus request as they come in the future. Really

[1:21:34] important to note this program is a voluntary and optional

[1:21:37] framework that does not replace existing development rights and

[1:21:41] existing existing zoning code provisions. It creates an

[1:21:46] eligibility format by which, through meeting the eligibility

[1:21:50] requirements, bonuses are earned. They're not automatic,

[1:21:52] and they're not, as of right. Let's take a moment to discuss

[1:21:57] a special policy area. A special policy areas are areas

[1:22:00] in the on the beach that we've identified needs an additional

[1:22:03] lens of of research and attention, one of which is the

[1:22:06] Hollywood Beach Resort in precinct four, which would like

[1:22:11] today, still go through a design and review process, but

[1:22:14] would also go before the historic preservation board

[1:22:17] prior to any decisions being made. What does that look like

[1:22:23] today? So we all know that the historic the Hollywood Beach

[1:22:26] Hotel is in a state of disrepair. Pardon me? It's in a

[1:22:31] state of disrepair and it's in a cycle of deterioration, one

[1:22:34] that's marred with financial issues, with site constraints

[1:22:38] and FEMA noncompliance. This is a property that does not belong

[1:22:43] to the city, and the property surrounding it also does not

[1:22:46] belong to the city. What is in the city's control is simply

[1:22:49] the framework that that the property sits under the zoning

[1:22:52] and the land use. And our goal for this precinct, precinct

[1:22:57] number four is to bring this site from fragmentation to

[1:23:02] cooperation to a shared vision, one where we have a coordinated

[1:23:06] investment. We have a stronger approach, a stronger balance of

[1:23:11] land uses, and one where the the importance of the site

[1:23:15] being a landmark site is respected and honored through

[1:23:19] this precinct. There is a whole list of guidelines that are

[1:23:24] specific, specifically applicable to this precinct,

[1:23:27] the Hollywood Beach Resort. And there is a pathway for

[1:23:29] development that's been outlined. There are two main

[1:23:32] pathways the unified pathway and the non unified pathway.

[1:23:36] Unified pathway is one where the plan contemplates the the

[1:23:39] owners of the precinct for coming together to create a

[1:23:43] shared master plan. And in that master plan, they'll be

[1:23:46] provided the ability to request height from city commission at

[1:23:51] 340ft and above. With the correct studies and mitigation

[1:23:54] measures, with the provision of on site, publicly accessible

[1:23:57] spaces and elevated urban design. If a unified master

[1:24:02] plan is not pursued and it's a single approach, then the bonus

[1:24:06] applies to the Hollywood controlling site, which is the

[1:24:09] hotel building itself, providing up to 340ft maximum

[1:24:13] height bonus for that area, with obviously the provisions

[1:24:16] of all the requirements of the bonus, but they're not eligible

[1:24:19] for the tied program or flex unit applications or transfer

[1:24:24] of development rights. Now, I'm going to take a moment to we're

[1:24:29] going to take a breather, step away from zoning, and I'm going

[1:24:32] to bring up Nicole, who's going to talk to you about urban

[1:24:35] design, but not just the urban design, but how does that

[1:24:38] impact the bonuses that we're bringing forward? Good evening,

[1:24:45] board members. So as you heard, my name is Nicole Moyo. I am

[1:24:51] the principal planner for Urban Design. As we've gone through

[1:24:54] this process, we've heard a lot from the public how important

[1:24:59] design is on the beach. And as we did that, we recognized how

[1:25:04] important it is to build a vision. So all those who

[1:25:08] partake in the overlay bonus overlay will need to be in

[1:25:13] compliance with our urban design guidelines. So what does

[1:25:18] building a vision for this? This means we have a holistic

[1:25:22] approach to how we address each and every project. Right now,

[1:25:26] we deal with projects on a case by case basis, but we want

[1:25:31] something that supersedes staff and creates standards based

[1:25:36] standards across the board. This helps us have a cohesive

[1:25:40] community identity. We heard a lot in the community engagement

[1:25:46] about how special and unique the beach is. So through the

[1:25:50] urban design guidelines, we look for opportunities to

[1:25:53] reinforce that. How do we improve the quality of the

[1:25:56] public realm? How do we promote walkability, safety, and

[1:26:01] accessibility? How does design support sustainability and

[1:26:07] improve responsiveness to climate change? And then how do

[1:26:11] we provide clear expectations for higher quality design? And

[1:26:17] we do that through a shared vision. So what does this

[1:26:21] shared vision include? This includes as a high level

[1:26:26] thinking about what urban design is. It speaks to your

[1:26:29] built form. So your built form are your buildings, how they

[1:26:34] look on the street, how people interact with them, how they

[1:26:38] look across the skyline, and what is the architectural

[1:26:43] articulation on that open space? We heard a lot from the

[1:26:47] community about there being not enough open space on the beach.

[1:26:51] We're not talking about the actual beach sand. We're

[1:26:55] talking about other recreational spaces where

[1:26:57] people can sit and take their dogs or take their children to

[1:27:01] play as alternative options. So the design guidelines then look

[1:27:06] for opportunities through development applications where

[1:27:10] we can further enhance that. And then your circulation

[1:27:13] speaks to how you access the beach, either as a pedestrian,

[1:27:19] as a car, as cyclist, and the design guidelines even think

[1:27:25] about how a bird might even live on the beach. And as

[1:27:31] abstract as that may sound, as somebody who lives in a condo

[1:27:35] building and has unfortunately found birds on my balcony that

[1:27:40] haven't survived, design guidelines can help mitigate

[1:27:43] this. And there's lots of cities that use design

[1:27:46] guidelines to really help us save the ecosystem in that way.

[1:27:52] So you've heard a lot about height today, and I'm going to

[1:27:55] break this down as it pertains to design guidelines with

[1:27:59] zoning does is it gives you the base, it's it's the text that

[1:28:04] helps guide what the expectations are. What the

[1:28:09] guidelines then do is take that to the next level of what the

[1:28:13] expectation of that design of the site is. So if we look at

[1:28:17] the graph here on the right hand side, you'll see what we

[1:28:21] have described as the character areas. So that first area

[1:28:24] you're looking at is the historic district. Every

[1:28:29] project that is in the historic district will still need to

[1:28:32] come before the historic Preservation Board, and there

[1:28:37] is no change to height over there. I've also highlighted

[1:28:42] the FEMA base flood line. All projects will need to be in

[1:28:48] compliance with FEMA regulations. So what the

[1:28:52] guidelines do is you can see the graph is basically the base

[1:28:57] with the guidelines. Then do is imagine what that base can look

[1:29:01] and feel like. So all of the images that I'm going to be

[1:29:05] showing are really for illustrative purposes, so that

[1:29:08] you can start to imagine what the guidelines that we've

[1:29:12] incorporated into the overlay start to produce when it comes

[1:29:16] to design. So as we gradually step up, we are looking at six

[1:29:23] stories in the character area called Surf Road. So what we

[1:29:28] want to do here is to reinforce the boutique like hotels that

[1:29:33] we've heard so much about, but really control what the design.

[1:29:38] Then outcomes are. So in the example that I'm showing over

[1:29:42] there, you actually have your parking garage that is well

[1:29:46] screened, and then there is good architectural articulation

[1:29:49] on the ground floor. It's well masked. It creates a very

[1:29:54] unique sense of place on the ground floor. We heard a lot

[1:29:59] about how much people love the art decor or the coastal modern

[1:30:03] architecture. So that has been embedded into our guidelines

[1:30:07] and is part of an expectation as we move into our transition

[1:30:12] zone, you can see we start to move further and further away

[1:30:15] from the beach here. What is the expectation of the

[1:30:20] buildings in the transition zone? So you see there is a red

[1:30:23] line over there. That red line that is going across the graph

[1:30:27] is what we call the podium. The podium area is really where

[1:30:31] we're focusing on the public realm. So that means you have a

[1:30:35] continuous experience from the historic boardwalk all the way

[1:30:40] to a one A and even across to the Intracoastal. And you'll

[1:30:45] see as I go, so that it always feels like there isn't a great

[1:30:49] change in height. You can see that even when height is

[1:30:53] applied, there is a setback and a step back required for each

[1:31:00] project. In the illustration that you see over there, you

[1:31:04] also see that we have great requirements for balcony

[1:31:08] articulation. We heard a lot from the public that they don't

[1:31:11] want to see monolithic structures. They don't want to

[1:31:15] see repetitive design. So we've really asked in the design

[1:31:20] guidelines that it is reinforced in the building

[1:31:24] through articulation of the balconies. As we get to a one a,

[1:31:29] a one A is really the corridor that welcomes people to the

[1:31:34] beach. That is the spine that connects us throughout the

[1:31:37] south of Florida. We heard a lot about signage being a

[1:31:42] requirement. We heard about wayfinding, and we also heard

[1:31:45] about ground floor activation. How do we get people to

[1:31:49] actually stay on our beach. So the opportunities that we have

[1:31:53] to do so are really through the podium level that exists over

[1:31:57] there. And then when we go across back to the Intracoastal,

[1:32:02] we're allowing for mixed use there. So what does that look

[1:32:06] like? That looks like a low rise architectural articulation

[1:32:11] with great canopies allow for more walkability and more

[1:32:15] shading. So I'm going to use this again for illustrative

[1:32:21] purposes. One of the design guidelines pertains to the

[1:32:26] historic boardwalk. This is the only boardwalk along a beach

[1:32:32] that exists in the whole of South Florida. So we really

[1:32:36] have a very unique beach. And so we really need to think

[1:32:40] about what opportunities there are to further enhance them. So

[1:32:45] on the top right image, you see a building built today. Again,

[1:32:50] this is for illustrative purposes. And it's as of right,

[1:32:54] it's a continuous wall with you can see paint on it. What our

[1:33:00] design guidelines would then ask for as a potential on the

[1:33:06] bottom right hand corner is for that wall to be activated

[1:33:10] either through public art, through landscaping, or through

[1:33:15] different elements that can really activate the broadwalk

[1:33:20] as we're walking around it. The power of public art is not to

[1:33:26] be underestimated. I don't know if any of you have been to the

[1:33:30] Miami Design District lately. There is a pink wall that says,

[1:33:35] I'm not in love. I'm in Miami. It is fully booked all the time

[1:33:40] because people just want to take photos there. So there's

[1:33:43] just other opportunities for us to really activate the

[1:33:48] boardwalk and other areas of the beach through building

[1:33:52] articulation or art. So I just want to wrap this up again. I

[1:33:58] at the beginning of this, I spoke about the circulation, I

[1:34:03] spoke about built form, and I spoke about open space and the

[1:34:08] design guidelines. Really look at what the potential, the

[1:34:11] greater potential is of incentivizing developments to

[1:34:17] give us a more walkable, safe, lush. And environmentally

[1:34:24] friendly beach. Thank you. Nicole. On the screen board

[1:34:34] board members is the criteria for pursuant to the code

[1:34:38] section 5.3 as it pertains to text amendments. And this is

[1:34:41] what you're going to be reviewing to make your decision

[1:34:44] today. Oh, wrong direction. And as it pertains to I'll come

[1:34:50] back to that slide. We have two companion items, item four and

[1:34:53] item five, which is establishing the inventory of

[1:34:56] 2300 tied hotel rooms and item five allocating 500 flexibility

[1:34:59] units to the Hollywood Beach Overlay District. Now, as

[1:35:03] companion items, their job is to support the main item. As a

[1:35:06] bit of an explanation, we spoke about the bonus pillars, the

[1:35:10] program, the tied program, and the flex program. Those pillars

[1:35:14] are established through the zoning text that we are going

[1:35:17] to be discussing today. The companion items is placing

[1:35:21] units or rooms into those programs that could then be

[1:35:25] used through the bonus program. As it pertains to the hotel

[1:35:28] rooms, staff is recommending the allocation initial

[1:35:31] allocation of 2300 hotel rooms in the program to be used

[1:35:35] within the mapped areas that we discussed earlier. As it

[1:35:38] pertains to flex units, staff is requesting or recommending

[1:35:40] the allocation of 500 units for allocation within the precinct

[1:35:46] area three, which is the flex eligible area. It's really

[1:35:49] important to note that the program ceiling or capacity

[1:35:52] does not mean entitlement, because there are units that

[1:35:55] exist, does not mean they're units that have to be used.

[1:35:58] These are proposed providing the requirements so the bonuses

[1:36:02] can function at the discretion of city commission. And each

[1:36:08] one of those come with their associated conditions. As it

[1:36:11] pertains to the flex, the tied allocation and the flex units.

[1:36:16] Before wrapping up, I'm just going to take it back to my

[1:36:20] final closing statement. This item is a large item with a

[1:36:24] zoning text element and a design text element. I would

[1:36:27] really strongly urge you not to underestimate the power of

[1:36:31] design guidelines. Each and one of these images on the screen

[1:36:33] are not just a pretty picture. They represent how zoning can

[1:36:37] be implemented through guidelines, and a lot of what

[1:36:40] we heard through our engagement was the fear of the canyon

[1:36:44] effect, the monolithic buildings, the blank facades,

[1:36:48] the poor public open space, the afterthought in these designs,

[1:36:52] and for a long time, for a long time in the development process,

[1:36:57] development has driven the process. And in this case, in

[1:37:00] this scenario, staff is proposing a bonus structure

[1:37:03] that's voluntary. It's optional, so it does not replace the

[1:37:06] underlying zoning. It is only applicable if the bonus bonus

[1:37:11] requirements can be met. And one of the key requirements is

[1:37:15] compliance with those design guidelines. So they're more

[1:37:18] than just pretty pictures. They're the they're the

[1:37:20] fruition. They're coming to life of the zoning tax.

[1:37:23] Previously, I described a comprehensive plan text

[1:37:26] amendment, which you all heard is like the bones. The zoning

[1:37:30] is the muscle that provides force for that frame. But the

[1:37:33] guidelines is the skin. It's the outermost appearance. It's

[1:37:36] how you interact, what you touch, what you feel, what you

[1:37:40] see, what the beach is. Today's request before you is more than

[1:37:44] zoning. It's more than guidelines. It's the

[1:37:46] combination of both to create a program that's voluntary,

[1:37:49] optional, and in the benefit in the public's benefit. Thank you.

[1:37:52] Their last presentation. Thank you much. Any questions for

[1:38:01] staff, Bob? I have a bunch of questions for staff. First of

[1:38:07] all, I'd like to say that at the last meeting, I was going

[1:38:11] to give a presentation and it seemed to be okay that I was

[1:38:14] going to do it at this meeting. I've been informed by the board

[1:38:18] attorney that I could no longer give that presentation. So I'm

[1:38:22] a little bummed out about that. But let's go on. I will give

[1:38:27] you verbally my presentation. If you look at it, I think it's

[1:38:36] attachment C, the feasibility study that the city is using

[1:38:38] that is driving this whole entire process. They're using

[1:38:43] $900 per square foot as a basis for development, which is

[1:38:48] driving the height of the buildings. But unfortunately,

[1:38:51] the city staff or whoever presented that $900 per square

[1:38:55] foot is incorrect in their analysis. In my opinion, if you

[1:39:01] look at several new projects that are coming online here in

[1:39:06] the city, Icon Beach Residences, Eterna Beach and the Hollywood

[1:39:11] Moon or whatever they're called. Now, all three of those have an

[1:39:15] average listing price per square foot of $1,200. That

[1:39:23] drastically changes the analysis that has been

[1:39:26] performed for us. In the staff analysis. For a six story

[1:39:43] building with 45 residential units, using the average sale

[1:39:47] price of $900, the average sale price would be $1,620,000. The

[1:39:55] land acquisition cost, total development costs, estimated

[1:39:58] development costs and total costs come up to $75,750,000,

[1:40:05] and the entrepreneurial and entrepreneurial profit is

[1:40:12] -$2,850,000, or -5%. However, if you take the same six story

[1:40:18] building with 45 units selling it at the same price of 1

[1:40:22] million $621,620,000, and you're getting $1,200 per

[1:40:29] square foot. You have a net sales value of $97,200,000

[1:40:37] versus $72,900,000. In other words, I'll just get to the

[1:40:43] bottom line instead of having a -$2,850,000 deficit, you would

[1:40:50] then have a positive $21,450,000 profit. Instead of

[1:40:57] having a 5% negative return on your investment, you would now

[1:41:01] have a 35% 35.3% return on your profit. The price per square

[1:41:08] foot is driving what they're doing. However, I disagree with

[1:41:11] what they're doing. If you look at new pricing that's coming

[1:41:14] out now for new developments that this city commission that

[1:41:18] we all live in have approved, all you have to do is go on the

[1:41:22] MLS and you can see all this information for yourself. It is

[1:41:25] not made up. It is real. So the height and it's true whether

[1:41:32] you want to put a ten story building or a 15 story building

[1:41:35] or a 20 story building, the price per square foot is

[1:41:39] driving it. That's the problem that we're having. If they

[1:41:43] redid their analysis and they used the correct numbers, we

[1:41:46] may not have to have all this building height. There would be

[1:41:50] no need for it. Everybody would get what they wanted to get out

[1:41:54] of it. This seems to be developer driven. Let me remind

[1:42:05] everybody here, this is not just please participate, but

[1:42:09] don't delay things. Bob. Continue. So I did not share

[1:42:14] this with staff and I had intended to bring it here. No

[1:42:16] offense to staff. I'm sure they've been overwhelmed with

[1:42:19] everything. I've sent them several emails asking several

[1:42:22] questions, asking many questions to be truthful about

[1:42:25] it. And I have not always got a response to my emails or a

[1:42:29] timely response or a full throated response. The kind of

[1:42:33] response that you would need to ask more questions. So it's a

[1:42:37] little distressing to me that I have to bring this up tonight.

[1:42:40] I was hoping to put this on the screen for everybody to see in

[1:42:43] black and white. It makes it a lot more easier to understand

[1:42:47] and and to understand. And I would have asked staff to go

[1:42:50] back and reevaluate their numbers, because their numbers

[1:42:54] is what's driving the height. And that's all it is. If these

[1:42:59] numbers are accurate and it's taken off the MLS, it's taken

[1:43:02] what the developers want to do. It's taken what developers are

[1:43:05] getting for the properties that they're selling now, not older

[1:43:10] properties, not properties from two years ago or three years

[1:43:12] ago or five years ago. You know, I don't know where they came up

[1:43:16] with their number. I spoke, we spoke on a on a conference call,

[1:43:20] Zoom, WebEx, whatever it was, and I asked for that

[1:43:24] information. I did not get that information, how they came up

[1:43:27] with their numbers. So it's a little concerning. The one

[1:43:32] thing I do not hear here tonight is I don't hear how you

[1:43:36] are protecting existing property owners, their tax base.

[1:43:42] I don't understand, I don't understand how you you're not

[1:43:49] mentioning if they're going to get shadows on the building. In

[1:43:52] our conference call, we said there'd be I was told that

[1:43:55] there'd be no shadows on the Broadwalk or the sandy beach.

[1:43:58] It is nowhere to be found in these documents. I would ask

[1:44:02] you again where it is in these documents. And it's actually

[1:44:05] nowhere. The tallies for the public surveys, you didn't

[1:44:10] listen to the people. I have the tallies right here. I'm

[1:44:16] sorry. I'm going to take up a little bit of time. You know,

[1:44:22] in your tallies for the public surveys, it shows the Central

[1:44:25] Beach Heights strategy is 59 52.9% in the wrong direction.

[1:44:30] You don't seem to be addressing that. This this is our

[1:44:33] residents. This is what they wanted. The near term targeted

[1:44:37] overlay firm framework. Wrong direction 47.9%. The Q5

[1:44:44] transfer of development rights. Wrong direction 53%. Central

[1:44:48] Beach Hotel and mixed use strategy. Wrong direction 54.7%

[1:44:53] Hollywood Beach Hotel height survey wrong direction 63.54%.

[1:44:58] I don't understand why we're not listening to what the

[1:45:01] public wants. I just don't get it. I would ask staff, if you

[1:45:08] want to build along a 1AA1A is has the lowest level roadway, I

[1:45:14] believe in the county, our stretch of the beach. Have you

[1:45:18] done any geotechnical surveys? Will the barrier island hold

[1:45:26] these buildings? You know, this should have been done before we

[1:45:36] came here today. And just I'm not going to go on about this,

[1:45:41] but I got to tell you, I'm going to tell you I'm. I'm I'm

[1:45:46] a little bit upset, you know, to find out today that because

[1:45:50] of the meeting that they special meeting that they held

[1:45:53] in July, that there's only two months that we can hear it

[1:45:57] again, why wasn't this told to us prior to the meeting in July?

[1:46:00] We might have put it off. We might have asked for a workshop.

[1:46:05] You know, I would desperately want a workshop before this

[1:46:08] goes to the city commission. I have 100 questions here that

[1:46:11] I'd like to ask you tonight. But there's 100 people here in

[1:46:14] the room, or 75 people that have questions. And I'm

[1:46:18] certainly not going to take up their time. I know there's

[1:46:21] other board members up here that have comments that they'd

[1:46:23] like to make. I don't want to take up their time, but I have

[1:46:27] to tell you, things change from meeting to meeting and, and

[1:46:30] it's a little bit disturbing. You know, it was disturbing to

[1:46:34] hear at the beginning of this meeting, the board only had 30

[1:46:37] minutes to speak. They never brought this up before. For as

[1:46:41] long as I've been on the board and for all the board meetings

[1:46:44] I've attended in the past, I just don't get it. You know, we

[1:46:49] need to do stuff for the residents here. Thank you.

[1:46:59] Christine. Comments. Questions for staff? No. Stephen. Board

[1:47:05] chair. There was if there was a there's a couple comments I

[1:47:10] could provide clarity for. If you'd like to please do. It's

[1:47:13] important to note that in the statement there were no

[1:47:16] questions directly asked, but I will provide some clarity to a

[1:47:18] couple of things that was noted. Please, as it pertains to. As

[1:47:22] it pertains to the. The comment regarding sale versus

[1:47:26] development sale costs per square footage. It's important

[1:47:30] to note that the report outlines the methodology

[1:47:33] earlier on in the document. When you read through the

[1:47:35] methodology, it's very clear that the price the sale price

[1:47:39] per square footage is not the same value as the development

[1:47:42] cost per square footage. When reviewing sale price per square

[1:47:46] footage, the development is already feasible as it is

[1:47:49] selling, but the development cost per square foot per square

[1:47:52] footage is quite different as it incorporates other factors,

[1:47:56] fees and costs of developing that is not captured in the

[1:47:59] sale costs. In the methodology it outlines the reason those

[1:48:03] numbers are chosen for the study. There was. I made a note

[1:48:09] here regarding the the status of a one a it's really

[1:48:14] important to note that this bonus program is not replacing

[1:48:17] any of the concurrency or technical requirements that

[1:48:21] live in the city's DRC process, which involves studies for

[1:48:26] traffic, sewer, wastewater, geotechnical studies which are

[1:48:29] done at the building permit stage, all of which are still

[1:48:32] baked into the process. This process, this optional bonus

[1:48:38] mechanism, is just a tool to unlock value. Those

[1:48:42] requirements that are safeguards to the city do not

[1:48:44] disappear and remain bolstered in the city's process. And

[1:48:48] lastly, there was a comment regarding the the meeting

[1:48:53] procedure. We've. Staff has made a great deal of effort to

[1:48:56] not only engage the community at events where there's

[1:48:58] charrettes, markers, pens, trace paper, sticky notes,

[1:49:02] where we do gather a lot of valuable feedback. But there

[1:49:05] are also opportunities where staff invites the public and

[1:49:08] the board members alike to call staff to receive additional

[1:49:11] information if needed. And we're always there to provide

[1:49:14] support as it pertains to shadowing. That was the last.

[1:49:18] Thank you. And that was the last item. Shadow mitigations,

[1:49:21] shadowing and shadowing mitigation are talk discussed

[1:49:23] in length, both in the zoning chapters of the document, but

[1:49:26] also in the urban design guideline. Chapters are

[1:49:29] document. It's extremely important that when readers are

[1:49:31] reviewing the document, they read the entirety of the zoning

[1:49:35] and the entirety of the urban design guidelines. Because

[1:49:37] Urban Design Guidelines section I speaks specifically to how

[1:49:43] shadows should be mitigated on the beach. Staff is open to

[1:49:48] further questions as you guys proceed down the line. Bob, I

[1:49:53] can't express enough how wrong you are about the monetary. Bob.

[1:49:59] I'm going to ask for the citizens have decorum. Same

[1:50:02] thing for you, Bob. I know where you're going. Just take a

[1:50:04] deep breath. I have a deep breath here. I've I've asked

[1:50:09] staff many times when you quote a document to put in where it

[1:50:14] says in the land regulations and the zoning regulations, put

[1:50:18] a link in there where you can find it. If you expect us to be

[1:50:23] experts and to memorize the code. I don't know how to tell

[1:50:26] you this, but it's just not going to happen. It can happen.

[1:50:30] I, you know, I can read it to ad nauseam and I do. But if

[1:50:35] you're not going to quote it and tell me where it is so I

[1:50:39] can understand it. And I think that goes for many of us and

[1:50:43] the residents out there, we're just not going to get it. But

[1:50:48] let's talk about a few other things. You know, I'd like to

[1:50:51] see some modifications of this. Okay. And I'd like I'd like to

[1:50:55] see only one sending site per receiving site. I'd like to see

[1:51:01] a minimum separation between bonus entitlement properties

[1:51:04] require 500ft of separation between any two properties

[1:51:08] using an optional bonus entitlement along the same

[1:51:10] corridor, a one, a surf road or the Broadwalk district wide.

[1:51:15] This is the standard that prevents an unbroken oceanfront

[1:51:17] wall like Hallandale Beach or Sunny Isles Beach. Three I

[1:51:22] would like to see no stacking of bonus entitlements preferred.

[1:51:27] Prohibit combining bonus height tied flexibility, flexibility

[1:51:31] units and TDR receiving capacity on a single site. I

[1:51:34] think that's very important. If bonuses remain combinable, at

[1:51:39] minimum, extend the precinct for feasibility study and

[1:51:42] independent third party review. Standard section E dot four dot

[1:51:47] I to every landmark height bonus request. District wide

[1:51:51] section K. So added height must be proven economically

[1:51:54] necessary, not just desired for hard. No shadow rule for the

[1:51:59] broadwalk you can tell me it says it in the code. You should

[1:52:02] put it in this paperwork. Amend section 1.4. Include L 0.5 and

[1:52:08] a shadow study needs to be performed, so no shadow from a

[1:52:11] bonus height building or any building may fall on the

[1:52:13] boardwalk at any time, not merely minimized. And that's

[1:52:17] the word that you use in your document. Minimized staff has

[1:52:20] already indicated that this intent verbally, but in the

[1:52:23] ordinance, but not in the ordinance. Put it in the

[1:52:26] ordinance text five no variances for participating

[1:52:30] properties. Any property using an optional bonus entitlement

[1:52:34] under section 4.26 should be ineligible for a variance of

[1:52:38] any kind on the same development. I'll give you this

[1:52:42] paper if it helps you. Six address level transparency

[1:52:46] require the city to publish street addresses, not folio

[1:52:49] numbers, which I asked you for. For every property in a map TDR

[1:52:53] sending and receiving error before the item proceeds

[1:52:56] further, and what could be sent to receive for each property by

[1:53:00] putting folio numbers on 75 pages. There's no way of

[1:53:04] looking these properties up. If you downloaded that from from

[1:53:06] the Broward County, you could have done it with their with

[1:53:09] their property addresses. So we would have known what could be

[1:53:12] sent and to where it sent wasn't done. Reconcile the cost

[1:53:21] analysis before adoption. I'll happily, happily, happily share

[1:53:24] the cost analysis with you. Attachment C uses inconsistent

[1:53:28] cost basis approximately 900 to 950ft?!S square feet baseline

[1:53:33] versus approximately 1800 square foot credited to the

[1:53:37] 1301 project several years ago, but currently $1,200 for Eterna

[1:53:43] for Icon and Hollywood Moon, a new reevaluation should be

[1:53:47] carried out using these current 2026 2027 listing sales numbers

[1:53:52] from the developers. Currently. What's today not what happened

[1:53:57] two years ago? Reconcile internal consistencies in the

[1:54:01] report. Attachments A and F list different numbers for

[1:54:04] precincts. Attachment. F's table of contents. Omits

[1:54:08] precincts send received designations by precinct,

[1:54:10] precinct one, two, five, and six in particular are stated

[1:54:14] inconsistently across the attachments. This should be

[1:54:17] corrected before before final adoption. Adoption, not after.

[1:54:22] Number nine. Require staff to reconcile the proposal with the

[1:54:25] city's own survey results. City survey data shows majority

[1:54:29] opposition to the core components of this plan 47.9%

[1:54:36] to 63.4% wrong direction by your residents. Depending on

[1:54:38] the question, staff should be required to explain on the

[1:54:42] record why the recommended recommendation departs from the

[1:54:44] city's own public input from before the board acts. Listen,

[1:54:48] I have nothing against what was done here. I just think the way

[1:54:52] that it was presented, not having a workshop so we could

[1:54:56] all sit down and ask questions, not just the board, but the

[1:54:59] residents here as well. I think this is a failure on our city.

[1:55:04] I don't find fault with the staff. I just think it's a

[1:55:08] failure on the city. The way things are being done. You're

[1:55:11] taking things for granted that shouldn't be taken for granted.

[1:55:13] We all live here also. We have a vested interest in this

[1:55:17] community, and I think you don't consider that. You don't

[1:55:23] consider the people that live here. Sometimes. I'm not saying

[1:55:26] it to the staff that's sitting here. I'm saying it to the city

[1:55:30] citywide. You don't take into consideration for the people

[1:55:34] that live here, what they want and what they need. Everything

[1:55:39] is not driven by the dollar. Decorum. Staff, would you like

[1:55:48] to respond? I yield back. Thank you. Christine. Comments noted.

[1:55:53] Thank you. Questions. Let's make no mistake. Speak into the

[1:55:58] microphone. Please make no mistake. Joseph Young was a

[1:56:01] developer. His microphone. Joseph Young was a developer.

[1:56:05] His sole purpose was to make money. 100 years ago, he caused

[1:56:10] destruction of pristine beachfront property to build

[1:56:14] what at that time was a monstrosity of its day. It

[1:56:19] disturbed the flora and fauna of a beautiful, pristine beach

[1:56:22] for profit. He encouraged his rich friends from the northeast

[1:56:27] and from the central part of the United States to come down

[1:56:31] so he could sell them property and he would profit. So profit

[1:56:35] has always been a guiding force in what's happened in Hollywood.

[1:56:42] Accepting change is important. It's as important as protecting

[1:56:47] the past. Hollywood Beach is now suffering the past. Its 100

[1:56:53] years old, and it needs to be updated. Some of these

[1:56:59] proposals that Nicole, who has done a beautiful job in

[1:57:04] presenting, earn or merit consideration. I would like

[1:57:12] personally to offer some conditions. The Resilience

[1:57:16] Trust Fund. I think that money should stay on the beach. I

[1:57:20] don't think that money should go anywhere, any place else in

[1:57:25] the city, but to stay on the beach, and that would be to

[1:57:30] maintain the pops. The city is often neglecting their own

[1:57:37] properties, so I don't think we can trust the fact that we're

[1:57:40] going to have these new developments maintained by the

[1:57:47] property owner. If the property owner doesn't do it, then the

[1:57:51] fund could offer the. The fund will have the moneys to

[1:57:56] maintain the properties, and the city can go back after that

[1:58:01] property owner to keep replenishing the fund. So we

[1:58:05] ensure that what's done in the new proposals, the new projects

[1:58:11] are maintained in perpetuity. I'm not sure about the blanket

[1:58:17] height along a one a the 1520 stories. I think that's a

[1:58:22] little rattling to most of the residents. So maybe other than

[1:58:27] the landmark properties, you could consider lowering that

[1:58:33] instead of 20ft, 20 stories down to 15 stories. Just

[1:58:38] consider it. And to make sure that it's not all even make

[1:58:43] sure that it's, you know, staggered so you don't have

[1:58:46] that overpowering feeling. The public art for height bonuses,

[1:58:55] how much of a public art project are you going to give

[1:59:01] for two more stories, three more stories? I think you

[1:59:04] either have to give us a little better explanation on that or

[1:59:09] just get rid of it. It just makes no sense. And that's all

[1:59:13] I have at this time. Was there a question for staff or that?

[1:59:17] No, just their proposal. You know, I understand what they

[1:59:21] said. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Stephen. Okay. All right. I

[1:59:26] have questions that are a little bit more technical. I'll

[1:59:29] start with some easy ones. What are the setbacks for the towers

[1:59:32] after the podium? I'll let Nicole Moyo, our principal

[1:59:38] planner for design, respond. I board members. So from the

[1:59:51] ground floor plane, all of our setbacks are as of today's

[1:59:56] zoning code regulations. As you rise up and you get above the

[2:00:02] ten stories, we have the setback of the tower. Depending

[2:00:05] on which side of the street it's fronting. So on a one A,

[2:00:10] we require a larger setback on our internal streets. We ask

[2:00:15] for a 15 foot setback. So that's to ensure that we're

[2:00:19] slimming the building. And there isn't that direct

[2:00:23] experience of the tower from the podium. But only after ten

[2:00:28] stories. Yes. Let me go back to this for you so I can go back

[2:00:34] here backwards. I going back. So I guess the second part of

[2:00:40] that question is that what's going to be your average open

[2:00:42] view corridor between basically towers? So what is the distance

[2:00:46] between the two. So we have a minimum of 5050. Yes. And we

[2:00:53] have worked with architects that work within the city. And

[2:00:57] as this is still a document that is being refined, they are

[2:01:00] also looking at this to see if that makes sense for the

[2:01:04] corridor at the Florida context. So one of the things that I

[2:01:09] would also add to that, in addition to the setbacks that

[2:01:11] Nicole had mentioned, is one of the biggest deviations that

[2:01:14] we've taken from our existing code is the tower length

[2:01:18] requirement. So our current tower length requirement within

[2:01:21] our code yields products like Costa Margaritaville, like

[2:01:28] Positano. These large shoeboxes that spanned from property edge

[2:01:33] to property edge. One thing that we were deliberate in

[2:01:36] superseding as part of this is reducing that tower length to

[2:01:40] produce the more slender tower with that framed podium, so

[2:01:43] that we reduce some of the consequences that we know are

[2:01:49] existing code could yield, is that adding some break in that

[2:01:52] that length as well? Correct. So the tower length would be

[2:01:57] reduced. There's now tower separation requirements in

[2:02:00] addition to the setback requirements, as the tower

[2:02:03] raises from the podium. How does the city controlling the

[2:02:08] TDRs transfers? Is it a certain quantity per year? Is it public?

[2:02:13] Is it private? How is it controlled? So no transfer of

[2:02:19] development rights can be approved unless they request

[2:02:23] that transfer through the city. So this ensures that there's no

[2:02:27] back alley you know, deals being brokered, people

[2:02:31] promising that, you know, residential density could be,

[2:02:35] you know, sold without our approval. And that gives us the

[2:02:39] benefit of two things, ensuring that the receiving density is

[2:02:42] appropriate for that site and actually has the capacity to,

[2:02:46] you know, entertain it, but also ensuring that the sending

[2:02:51] site is not left in a position whereby it's unusable. The only

[2:02:56] available avenue for, let's call it unusable property is if

[2:03:01] our Parks and Recreation department determines that we

[2:03:04] can otherwise, you know, absolve that sending property

[2:03:06] of the entirety of its density. And it could be productively

[2:03:11] used as a park. Are you guys also controlling the cost of

[2:03:15] the TDRs? We're not controlling the cost. We are just

[2:03:18] controlling the more regulatory aspects of it, how it's

[2:03:22] recorded, the legal documents required and the approvals that

[2:03:26] are are then required before that transfer is done. And no

[2:03:29] cap per year, like no cap per year. All right. Okay. In terms

[2:03:34] of tide, this only applies to hotels or how does it apply to

[2:03:37] Airbnbs. It only applies to hotels. We we have had some

[2:03:43] instances where Airbnbs have organized themselves within the

[2:03:47] parameters of what is required under our our code, where they

[2:03:50] have a lobby, they have, you know, that kind of reception

[2:03:54] area, but then they still function as a hotel under our

[2:03:56] code. That would still be permissible. And, you know, we

[2:03:59] have not created any provision that would prevent that as part

[2:04:03] of the tide. The whole intent of the tide is recognizing a

[2:04:07] lot of the the bigger hotel brands, as we've seen across

[2:04:10] South Florida, especially within our downtown, are

[2:04:14] requiring more density above and beyond the 50 hotel rooms

[2:04:17] per acre that our current code requires, which is not a county

[2:04:22] requirement. It's somewhat of an arbitrary, arbitrary

[2:04:25] requirement that we've self-imposed once upon a time.

[2:04:28] That is kind of one of the the major constraints of hotel

[2:04:32] redevelopment on our beach. And that's one of the reasons why

[2:04:34] the program, I think, is going to be more advantageous moving

[2:04:38] forward. I think I understood something about receiving flex

[2:04:42] units for public parking in exchange for public parking. So

[2:04:45] every single development that is proposed, whether it's hotel

[2:04:49] or residential on the beach, will be required to provide 10%

[2:04:54] of the underlying parking rate. So whatever the parking rate is

[2:04:59] for a hotel, you know, if they were to build that fully absent

[2:05:04] of any additional bonus, at that rate, they would be

[2:05:08] required to provide an additional 10%. Similarly for

[2:05:11] any residential property. So if they're building a high rise or,

[2:05:17] you know, a mega hotel, whatever the case, 10% public

[2:05:21] parking should needs to be received in order for

[2:05:23] commission to approve it. Is that is that example somewhere

[2:05:27] else in South Florida? Is that something? No, no, that was

[2:05:30] more of a direct response to what we've heard a lot through

[2:05:35] our public engagement, is that there is a lack of public

[2:05:38] parking on the beach. Recognizing that, you know, the

[2:05:41] city only has limited opportunity to acquire and

[2:05:44] construct public parking ourselves, as, you know, just

[2:05:48] parking garages and that sort of thing, given the volume of

[2:05:51] land. This was one of the better opportunities to request

[2:05:54] it. So one parking is distributed more equitably

[2:05:59] across the beach so that there's various access points,

[2:06:01] various opportunities for public parking, but also it's

[2:06:05] responding to development in live time. We know kind of what

[2:06:09] the hotspots will be in terms of where there might be a

[2:06:13] destination being created that may warrant additional public

[2:06:16] parking. Okay. You guys talked about activation of the

[2:06:20] boardwalk that starts within the property or on the

[2:06:25] boardwalk. It starts within the property. Okay, okay. Okay,

[2:06:27] okay. Because the image was kind of on the boardwalk. So I

[2:06:30] was like concerned about that. Okay. Lastly, you guys talked

[2:06:34] about one third requirement, right? What if they don't meet

[2:06:38] that one third? They're like ten feet shy or ten or

[2:06:42] something. There's no variance requirement. We do have a block

[2:06:46] determination and that's mostly for irregular parcels. One of

[2:06:49] the reasons why we made the block assembly or the block

[2:06:54] requirements a consideration for any of the bonus

[2:06:58] eligibility is because over time there's been subdivisions

[2:07:01] that have maybe not been approved by the city. Are our

[2:07:06] block layouts right now are very irregular from a parcel

[2:07:10] perspective. So from a growth management perspective, this is

[2:07:13] our means to correct that, but also a means to limit how this

[2:07:18] program could otherwise be abused. Because we do recognize

[2:07:21] that, you know, we do want orderly development as opposed

[2:07:25] to haphazard and sporadic. And actually that irregularity is

[2:07:30] where my question was going. Have you guys done a study of

[2:07:33] how many or how many blocks, more or less would meet that

[2:07:37] one third? Yeah. But it depends like in terms of ownership.

[2:07:43] Yeah. I mean, I mean, how many are actually applicable, right?

[2:07:46] Because we have so much irregularity there. So right

[2:07:49] now there are very few properties that have been

[2:07:53] assembled by a singular landowner. But admittedly, much

[2:07:57] of the beach that is not obviously owned by a single

[2:08:02] person is either numbered companies or LLCs, those types

[2:08:06] of things. So it's really hard to determine, you know, is that

[2:08:09] owned by a singular person, multiple people, that type of

[2:08:13] thing. But there are very few opportunities where assembly

[2:08:18] exists currently. Okay. Yeah, that's where I see this is

[2:08:22] probably going to get amended again because of that

[2:08:26] irregularity. And to meet that one third and whether if you

[2:08:28] get close to the one third, but you can't really apply to it if

[2:08:32] there's going to be any variances, I guess that's

[2:08:34] that's going to be a lot of gray area. Well, I do think,

[2:08:37] you know, staff's intention in drafting this was to be strict,

[2:08:41] right? Like as much as, you know, we want to encourage

[2:08:44] development, it's not meant to be everywhere. We do recognize

[2:08:48] that this is an interim strategy. And we do recognize

[2:08:50] the longer term beach master plan will hopefully provide

[2:08:54] additional answers above and beyond. Our goal is not to be

[2:08:58] too liberal to allow every single outcome, because again,

[2:09:01] we do recognize that this is just meant to be that interim

[2:09:05] strategy. Right. Thank you, thank you. Massimo. Questions?

[2:09:11] I don't necessarily have a question. I mean, I wanted to

[2:09:14] talk to the board and make comments. Is that should I wait

[2:09:18] till we let's wait till after public comments for that for

[2:09:21] sure. Okay. All right. Dick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Random

[2:09:32] thoughts. How many of you have been to the YMCA in the last

[2:09:40] month year when you walk out toward the pool on the left

[2:09:46] hand side, there's a called a builder's wall, just a big

[2:09:53] frame. Inside that frame are brass plaques. There are 210 of

[2:09:59] them. I counted them today. These plaques represent people

[2:10:03] who made contributions to build the YMCA or companies that

[2:10:10] contributed to build the YMCA, with 1 or 2 exceptions, and

[2:10:14] bears. Furnitures comes to mind. Every one of those companies

[2:10:18] and individuals is gone. Gone 60 years ago, and they're gone.

[2:10:26] We need to be looking at how to replace the energy that they

[2:10:32] brought to the community. That resulted in not only the YMCA

[2:10:35] being built, but the hospital we're missing, we've lost,

[2:10:43] we've lost the population that built the city, and we're

[2:10:47] what's left. And there's nothing wrong with us. But we

[2:10:50] didn't we didn't buy those lots from Joseph Young. So how do we

[2:10:59] grow in the city if we don't change the way we look at what

[2:11:04] it is that will attract people to come here, both to live on a

[2:11:08] permanent basis and to visit? Since the Broad Walk, the beach

[2:11:13] is what drives our industry today. Yes, there are lots of

[2:11:17] apartment buildings going up downtown and we approve some

[2:11:21] almost every meeting. They'll fill up eventually and

[2:11:25] hopefully they'll create a new downtown. But I think we've got

[2:11:30] to get over this attitude that I got mine, and I don't want

[2:11:34] anybody to have anything bigger, better, or different than mine.

[2:11:39] I'll tell you what I'm looking at in front of me now. Those

[2:11:44] pictures, that's what I want to see on the Broadwalk. That's

[2:11:48] the kind of development I want to see on the broadwalk. That's

[2:11:51] the kind of development that will make people say, Holy cow,

[2:11:56] let's go there. Or I'd like to live in an environment like

[2:12:00] that. And that's I know that most people in this room would

[2:12:05] not vote for what we're being asked to vote for today,

[2:12:09] because you're kind of comfortable with what you got.

[2:12:11] But I'm going to tell you that's not good enough, folks.

[2:12:15] It's not good enough. We have to do more. We have to take

[2:12:19] advantage of the opportunity. Memorial hospital is spending

[2:12:26] $570 million on Memorial Regional tax free. They don't

[2:12:30] pay any taxes. Who who's paying for the $570 million? Me. You.

[2:12:38] But that's the that's the biggest industry we have here

[2:12:42] outside of tourism. And if we're going to attract people

[2:12:44] to come to the beach to live here or rent a room here or

[2:12:49] come here on vacation, those are the buildings that I want

[2:12:52] to see on the beach. Board chair, I just want to remind

[2:13:00] you that board member Meena Morgan is online just in case.

[2:13:05] Thank you. Meena, do you have a question for staff? No, no

[2:13:13] questions for me. Thank you, thank you. Okay. On a

[2:13:20] procedural point, what is the precedence of something of this

[2:13:26] significance being presented as interim versus just waiting for

[2:13:30] the master plan? So one of the biggest reasons why this is

[2:13:37] being presented as interim is because of the two pieces of

[2:13:41] legislation that Cameron mentioned earlier in his

[2:13:44] presentation. Live local presents an administratively

[2:13:48] approval and administrative pathway for a lot of

[2:13:52] developments that help them circumvent a lot of the design

[2:13:55] requirements and public benefits that we would

[2:13:57] otherwise be receiving through this if that did not exist. Of

[2:14:02] course, we have the ability to amend our underlying zoning.

[2:14:05] But the other big piece is SB 180, SB 180, for those that do

[2:14:10] not know, is an emergency management act with a lot of

[2:14:13] sneaky amendments related to municipal ability to enact

[2:14:20] changes to their existing comprehensive plan and their

[2:14:23] existing zoning, it effectively traps them in time, pending,

[2:14:28] you know, a cycle of hurricanes not occurring, which in Florida,

[2:14:31] we know are bound to happen every year. So we're

[2:14:34] essentially trapped unless we do something like this, which

[2:14:38] is an optional and voluntary pathway that provides more

[2:14:43] incentive to a developer to pursue outside of the

[2:14:47] administrative approval pathway that they would otherwise have,

[2:14:50] according to the state. The benefit of this is we're able

[2:14:53] to get public parking. We're able to get funds to improve

[2:14:56] our infrastructure. From a resiliency perspective, we're

[2:14:59] able to get public, accessible, open space. We're able to get

[2:15:04] better design. What this produces is not the cost as it

[2:15:08] is not the Margaritaville. It is not that style of

[2:15:12] development that the state would otherwise demand. So

[2:15:16] we're in a. Arbitrary race against time to get this done

[2:15:23] before a developer comes and stakes a banner under live

[2:15:27] local and builds what they want. I wouldn't call it arbitrary,

[2:15:32] but yes, I would say it is advantageous for us to provide

[2:15:37] an alternative outcome where we, as the city, have control over

[2:15:43] what the future of the beach looks like, as opposed to a

[2:15:47] developer telling us what that is over and over again, with

[2:15:51] our only ability to push back, is an administrative approval

[2:15:55] or an escalation where we may not have one or a legal basis,

[2:16:00] you know, to argue it. From what I've heard, there is a

[2:16:06] fine line in a balance between respecting responsible planning,

[2:16:12] which this asks for and preserving what's existing. And

[2:16:18] I'm going to use the elephant, which is the Hollywood Beach

[2:16:22] resort. So a question which has been asked of me, what is the

[2:16:28] historical status of the Hollywood Beach resort and is

[2:16:31] it protected? So the Hollywood Beach Resort, currently under

[2:16:38] our zoning code, as well as state and federal registrar,

[2:16:42] has no historic designation. It is currently just a property

[2:16:47] that, you know, we very colloquially referred to as the

[2:16:50] historic Hollywood Beach Resort, because of course, it does have,

[2:16:53] you know, significance. However, state statute had changed many

[2:16:59] years ago with respect to historic properties not being

[2:17:03] designated within the high, high hazard area of the FEMA

[2:17:09] zones adjacent to beaches, which effectively restricted

[2:17:14] local municipalities abilities from requiring designation of

[2:17:20] such properties. So even if we wanted to, the city could not

[2:17:23] force the hand of the developer to designate the property

[2:17:26] unless it was voluntary. So currently the property does not

[2:17:30] have any historical designation and the city has no ability to

[2:17:34] push for it. There is precedence possibly using the

[2:17:39] Great Southern Hotel where developer developed that entire

[2:17:43] block. That building was deemed structurally unsafe, yet they

[2:17:48] put it back in very much the same esthetic. Yes. What are

[2:17:53] our options of protecting something like that on the

[2:17:56] beach? So we currently have within our precinct four

[2:18:00] regulations, a pathway whereby additional height can be

[2:18:05] accessed by the developer. If they do either protect and

[2:18:10] rehabilitate the existing structure based off of

[2:18:14] historical documentation. So staff's goal through that is

[2:18:18] we're not just protecting what is there currently. We are

[2:18:24] rehabilitating the the same ornateness of its original

[2:18:27] opening date that includes all of the fenestration,

[2:18:30] articulation, etc. if there were an instance where the

[2:18:35] building was deemed structurally unsound, we also

[2:18:38] recognized the Great Southern. You know, while it was not the

[2:18:41] preferred option of, you know, a reconstruction in its

[2:18:45] likeness, we do recognize that there is no historic

[2:18:47] designation on this currently, and that is a pathway

[2:18:51] contemplated within the existing text or the proposed

[2:18:53] text. So based on the current text, let's talk about what I

[2:18:56] think a lot of citizens would feel a nightmare scenario. A

[2:19:00] developer assembles the entire block of section four. They can

[2:19:05] go 350ft, 35 floors up 34, 34. And how many units could that

[2:19:14] potentially. I couldn't do the math for you off the top of my

[2:19:19] head, but they have a on the hotel property itself, they

[2:19:22] have vested residential units of just under 400. And

[2:19:27] potentially they could build a hotel property yielding 350

[2:19:34] hotel units per acre. Okay. Thank you. One of the things I

[2:19:39] do want to caveat though, is just because they can does not

[2:19:42] mean that they will be approved to do so, because concurrency

[2:19:46] is of course a thing. The infrastructure needs to be able

[2:19:50] to sustain that density. So while that represents a ceiling,

[2:19:53] it doesn't necessarily represent an entitlement. Okay.

[2:19:58] All right. Any other questions? Follow up questions from the

[2:20:02] dais. Bob, I have just one. You mentioned the TDRs before, and

[2:20:07] you said the city is not setting the price, but is that

[2:20:12] correct? That is the correct. The city does not control

[2:20:16] markets in other in other in other cities, though, they do

[2:20:20] control the market and they do set the price, not in any of

[2:20:24] the jurisdictional scans or any of the municipalities that

[2:20:28] we've seen in Broward. Okay. So we're going to limit it to

[2:20:32] Broward, irregardless. I do want to clarify, TDRs is only

[2:20:38] available to us because Broward County allows it to be it is a

[2:20:43] strategic growth management tool that is afforded to us

[2:20:46] through Broward County's land use plan. If Broward County did

[2:20:50] not allow us to do it, we would not be able to do it. And that

[2:20:54] is one of the important reasons why we look to our municipal

[2:20:57] peers within Broward County when we establish such policies.

[2:21:00] So so do you have the ability when somebody is requesting a

[2:21:05] TDR transfer to look at the price that they're getting and

[2:21:10] approve that transfer, or is it sort of automatic? It would not

[2:21:14] it would not be within our we wouldn't want to as a

[2:21:20] regulating body. We would just want to make sure that the

[2:21:23] transfer to and from areas are, you know, supporting a

[2:21:27] respectful transfer, for lack of a better term, the price or

[2:21:30] the exchange or how that is determined as a real estate

[2:21:35] transaction is not within the interest of staff. So there's

[2:21:40] no protection for the sending property to just gut whatever

[2:21:45] they want to send. That would be up to them. The same way

[2:21:50] that you if you're selling your house, you would be able to

[2:21:53] determine what your asking price is. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

[2:21:57] Thank you. At this point, we will open for public comment

[2:22:03] because there are so many speakers. We will. I'm

[2:22:07] affording everybody the opportunity to speak. I do ask

[2:22:11] that one. Do not feel the need to filibuster for all three

[2:22:15] minutes. If you hear somebody that has spoken your same topic,

[2:22:18] please just acknowledge and move on. Please have decorum

[2:22:22] for your fellow citizens that may not have the same opinion

[2:22:25] of yours. And I call up now the the first ten speakers, I

[2:22:33] believe, from what I've been told, as you've come in and

[2:22:37] registered, you received a ticket with a number on it.

[2:22:43] Board chair. Oh, fantastic. Okay, actually, hold on at this

[2:22:53] point because it's been a long meeting and people have been

[2:22:56] sitting very patiently, I'd like to have just a five minute

[2:22:59] break for recess, for bathroom, for whatever. So when we come

[2:23:03] back, we'll be open for public comments. Thank you.

[2:46:50] Up to 20ft on either side of the summit, towers could ensue.

[2:46:56] These are all scenarios ripe for disaster. Safety, not

[2:47:00] economic, should be the primary concern here. All pertinent

[2:47:04] data reports and studies from environmental, geological,

[2:47:09] engineering and traffic should be secured and be independent

[2:47:13] of the city, the developers and the construction firms, and not

[2:47:18] provided solely by the invested parties. Experts who so dearly

[2:47:22] want this project. It's imperative to determine that

[2:47:26] this proposal will not affect the residents welfare and

[2:47:29] safety before voting. Please exercise due diligence before

[2:47:34] you would vote to move this program forward. Thank you for

[2:47:37] your time. Thank you. Julie Greenfield. And for the record,

[2:47:44] please state your full name and address for the record. Julie

[2:47:49] Greenfield WebEx. Hi. Thank you. Yes. Julie Greenfield, I'm at

[2:47:55] 4226 North Ocean Drive and Hollywood North Beach. And, you

[2:48:00] know, that's one of the big important things here because

[2:48:02] if anyone has been in and around this area, particularly

[2:48:06] over the last few years, we see quite a bit of development here

[2:48:10] in Hollywood, North Beach. There are new homes being built.

[2:48:14] One is within just a few steps of my own home. They are all

[2:48:18] being built within the current height restrictions. This is a

[2:48:23] great thing and we have development here in North Beach,

[2:48:26] right just to the south of me. We have Eterna. I do know that

[2:48:30] that project did have a variance. Seems to be a

[2:48:33] reasonable variance. It's not a 2030, even a 15 story building.

[2:48:38] And it's being developed. And I continue to watch it every

[2:48:41] single day. This is something that the residents have come to

[2:48:45] and have spoken out about. And it's not just about there was

[2:48:50] some comments from the board about needing to grow, needing

[2:48:52] to change. We can't keep things as the same. I don't know that

[2:48:56] everyone that is going to speak is asking for everything to

[2:48:59] stay the same. That's not what we're looking for. We're

[2:49:02] looking for smart, sustainable development, the same

[2:49:07] development that we are already seeing. The other thing that I

[2:49:10] want to talk about is the Hollywood Moon Project. I,

[2:49:13] along with probably many of the people that are there in that

[2:49:16] room, went to the outreach meetings. We spoke up and what

[2:49:20] happened. The developer came back with us and they came to a

[2:49:26] reasonable design and development. Of course, I

[2:49:29] understand that's been put on hold because of the other

[2:49:32] projects and things like this beach overlay. That is really

[2:49:36] sad because here we have very concrete examples of the

[2:49:41] development that are going along in Hollywood Beach from

[2:49:44] North Beach continuing south. That is happening. So I'm not

[2:49:49] quite sure where this the thought process that we have to

[2:49:54] go to exponential height compared to what we have today,

[2:49:58] is appropriate and is necessary for our beach. I've said this

[2:50:02] pretty much every single time that I've spoken out against, I

[2:50:06] first came back to Florida. I am a native Floridian. I moved

[2:50:10] out of state, came back. I rented in Hallandale Beach as

[2:50:12] an empty nester, lived on the beach. I thought it was great.

[2:50:16] I lived on the 44th floor and what did I find? I hated it, it

[2:50:20] was fun. For a year I felt like I was on vacation. But I'll

[2:50:24] tell you what. The noise, the traffic, everything was

[2:50:27] horrendous. Covid hit. I kept walking the beach, walking the

[2:50:31] beach, walking the beach and fell in love with the low

[2:50:34] height. Did my research, invested my family's hard

[2:50:37] earned money in my home and where we are today. And that is

[2:50:42] why. Because I knew that we had the height restrictions in

[2:50:46] place. I implore you to not pass this the way that this is

[2:50:52] written over to the City Commission. Thank you, thank

[2:50:55] you, thank you. Please reserve applause and comments till the

[2:51:01] end. Dora Hill. Are you with us? Dora? Last call. If I could

[2:51:27] just say she was leaving her office and trying to come in on

[2:51:32] phone. Okay. Dora seems to be connected, but unfortunately

[2:51:37] she's not unmuting herself. Then we'll just skip over her

[2:51:42] and come back to her towards the end. Jackie Muzzammil sorry.

[2:51:50] Jackie. Muzammil that's okay, that's fine. As long as you

[2:51:52] call on me, I don't mind. It's 5120 North Hills Drive and my

[2:51:58] comment is a lot more emotional, to be honest with you. We've

[2:52:01] lived all over the United States in every kind of climate

[2:52:04] and, and the way it looked. And when we moved to the Florida

[2:52:08] area, we moved to Hollywood because it had such a nice

[2:52:11] small town feel, even though it wasn't. It's a big city, but it

[2:52:16] felt like family. We really just didn't want to live in a

[2:52:21] concrete canyon, and we don't want to see our beach be like

[2:52:24] that either. Now I realize that the the art is fantastic. And

[2:52:28] Nicole, you did a wonderful job slowly speaking, so we could

[2:52:31] all understand you. That's all well and good. And I like that

[2:52:36] we're talking about levels, but honestly, I just feel like if

[2:52:40] you guys pass this, that there are going to be exception after

[2:52:44] exception after exception from our city council. And I just

[2:52:48] think that it's going to alter our beach in a way that we can

[2:52:51] never get it back. So to be honest with you, I also implore

[2:52:55] you to vote against this. Thank you, thank you. And because I

[2:53:00] see Larry right behind you, Larry, you're next. Larry.

[2:53:07] Unmute. There we go. Okay. So excuse me one second. There you

[2:53:19] go. So I just wanted to say that everybody's talking. A lot

[2:53:24] of people have talked about the specifics, the height

[2:53:27] requirements and all the items like that. The challenge that I

[2:53:32] see is similar to what Jackie just said. You know, we we need

[2:53:36] to have less exceptions or less doors open. The plans, the

[2:53:42] architecture, you know, the renderings, the thoughts, you

[2:53:45] know, they're great. But the minute you start trading off,

[2:53:49] we lose it and the almighty dollar will take away. I feel

[2:53:55] like if we're doing anything, if there's going to be any type

[2:53:58] of exceptions or anything that's going to be allowed, it

[2:54:01] needs to be a public referendum. You know, it doesn't need to be

[2:54:04] just the city council. We need the people in the city to speak

[2:54:07] about it. And we have two, two Hollywood's. We have the

[2:54:10] downtown beach area, which is our tourism dollars. But this

[2:54:13] is a huge city now, and that's not our main stay any longer.

[2:54:17] We need to keep it. And it's, you know, I hate to call it

[2:54:21] free dollars, but we don't invest a lot, you know, for the

[2:54:24] tax and the money those people provide us. So that's, that's

[2:54:26] good news. But again, use common sense, you know, follow

[2:54:33] the guidelines, you know, the shadows, the strength of the

[2:54:36] buildings, the, the population density. But if there's any

[2:54:40] type of exception, any type of deviations, it's got to go to a

[2:54:44] public referendum. It can't just be the city council

[2:54:47] because you don't have a wide enough spectrum there. And I

[2:54:51] believe that's it for now for me. Thank you. Thank you. Larry.

[2:54:55] Brenda Lee for WebEx. Trying to unmute. We got you. Go ahead.

[2:55:08] Can you hear me? Yes we can. Fantastic. Greetings, everyone.

[2:55:14] I'm going to be more like a Bob Glickman here. Thank you sir.

[2:55:20] Thank you for reading the backup. I haven't been through

[2:55:23] all the backup, but I'll tell you, one thing that it reminded

[2:55:27] me of is the manner in which the FAA does its reports. It's

[2:55:33] not based on reality. For example, in the responses you

[2:55:40] received from residents, the the thing that came in the

[2:55:45] lowest with only seven people wanting it, or seven interest

[2:55:51] was more hotel rooms. Look at page 41 of that backup. It was

[2:55:59] the lowest thing that people wanted. Seven how do we go from

[2:56:07] seven to somehow, miraculously, the city of Hollywood can

[2:56:12] produce 2300 rooms. Where are they coming from? Where is this

[2:56:21] part of hotel joining? Nobody, but nobody should be increasing

[2:56:28] density, intensity. I don't care if you call it a stepping

[2:56:31] or a wedding cake, setbacks or whatever you call them without

[2:56:37] answering one simple question. Commissioner Blattner, I look

[2:56:42] to you for the answer. What is the carrying capacity of our

[2:56:49] barrier islands? We can no longer do it piecemeal like we

[2:56:55] have been doing it. What is the total capacity? How many

[2:57:00] toilets can flush? Where's your effluent going to go? Where's

[2:57:04] the stormwater going to go? What about? I guess we'll have

[2:57:09] gondola services since we'll be flooded out. Come on. We got to

[2:57:14] know our capacity before we can add on then. Hey, have at it, I

[2:57:19] love it, I think it's great. I'm with Christine Corbo on.

[2:57:23] Some of these things are fantastic, but we have not done

[2:57:28] the base homework to understand what you can have, think of a

[2:57:33] glass of water. If you keep pouring into it, what's going

[2:57:37] to happen? It's going to overflow. You need to know the

[2:57:41] capacity of that cup. Just a sidebar, something that really

[2:57:46] just irked the heck out of me at that one report. The

[2:57:51] Stranahan River is in Fort Lauderdale, but this report is

[2:57:57] referring to the Stranahan River. It's called an

[2:58:01] Intracoastal Waterway. So I question an awful lot of stuff

[2:58:05] that's in this report. Seriously, the Stranahan River.

[2:58:11] On top of that. All right. Thank you very much. Oh, I have

[2:58:17] so much more for you. But okay, three items into one. And you

[2:58:22] also didn't provide due process to the homeowners that are

[2:58:26] mostly impacted. All right. Thank you very much. Dara Hill.

[2:58:31] I saw that you rejoined us. Okay. You can hear me. We can.

[2:58:43] You have three minutes. Please state your address. Thank you.

[2:58:46] Thank you very much. And thank you. And thank you for coming

[2:58:48] back to me. Thank you for the board's comments about

[2:58:52] workshopping and appropriate citations in the presentation.

[2:58:56] I sorry. Dara Hill, 1221 Azalea Crescent, Hollywood, Florida. I

[2:59:01] grew up in Hollywood. I was gone for several decades, came

[2:59:04] back as a caregiver. My parents, we were on Jefferson Street.

[2:59:08] We've always been in the lakes and. To go through the to go

[2:59:15] through these notes and to navigate hundreds and hundreds

[2:59:19] of pages and try and figure this out without workshopping

[2:59:22] it, without having a discussion is such a disservice for all of

[2:59:27] us. And besides all of us who live in the area also, for all

[2:59:30] the people who love Hollywood Beach and come from all over

[2:59:34] the county and all over South Florida, because Hollywood

[2:59:38] Beach area is so special. The Beach Overlay district is about

[2:59:43] overdevelopment, and the language is all about

[2:59:46] exceptions and mitigation. And to me that's a really big red

[2:59:49] flag. Also, using the word bonus again and again doesn't

[2:59:53] make it a bonus. Saying all of this is voluntary in terms of

[2:59:57] how it's affecting the statutes and the rules, and how this

[3:00:01] affects us. Doesn't do anything to address the elephant in the

[3:00:04] room of climate change, a stinking barrier island and

[3:00:07] rising sea levels. And for anyone who remembers the

[3:00:10] flooding in April of 2023, that's not a fluke. We know

[3:00:14] it's going to become more often. As much as we worry about

[3:00:17] hurricanes, it's the day in and day out. And then what happens

[3:00:20] when we do have severe weather events? Everyone else has

[3:00:23] already raised a lot of good points about about sewage,

[3:00:26] about capacity. Hollywood Beach cannot sustain thousands more

[3:00:31] hotel rooms. And honestly, why do we want it to? Also talking

[3:00:35] about a resiliency fund. A resiliency fund can only

[3:00:38] address problems once they've occurred. It can't prevent them.

[3:00:42] And the last thing I want to say is we should be voting on

[3:00:45] this. There should be a lot more discussion and input from

[3:00:48] from all of us before we even get to that point. Thank you.

[3:00:52] Thank you. Are there any other WebEx attendees that need to

[3:01:00] speak? No, I don't have any. Yeah, okay. I have filled out a

[3:01:05] card. Thank you much. All right. Now moving to attendees in our

[3:01:10] presence. First up, former Mayor Mar Galante. Yes. You're

[3:01:16] first. And I'm sorry to inform you, Madam Mayor, you see me.

[3:01:32] Thank you very. Thank you very much. I am here because I do

[3:01:36] believe Hollywood is unique, and I hope that in my 20 years

[3:01:40] as mayor, which, by the way, was 20% of the entire life of

[3:01:44] our city, I tried to be true to making Hollywood stay unique.

[3:01:50] We took the ugly little asphalt strip and we turned it into a

[3:01:54] beautiful boardwalk. We did emphasize allowing the Diplomat

[3:01:59] Hotel. I let it fester and people were furious, but I knew

[3:02:03] it needed to come back as a hotel because I knew that it

[3:02:07] was integral to our future, our present at the time, and our

[3:02:12] future. But I am here very much against this overlay district.

[3:02:17] Tall. Somebody said that these tall hotels were welcoming to

[3:02:22] the beach. Excuse me. Welcoming to the beach. I have traveled

[3:02:27] all over the world, as have many of you. Any time I went to

[3:02:30] a place, I went to a place because it was unique. It was

[3:02:34] quaint, it was charming. I never went to a place to go to

[3:02:37] a beach because it had hotel after hotel after hotel. I

[3:02:41] would be staying in after hotel Hollywood, Hollywood draws

[3:02:49] people. And yes, we need to draw lots more middle class

[3:02:54] vacationers, upper middle class vacationers, adventurers who

[3:02:57] would like to go to some of the places nearby that are

[3:03:02] beautiful. And I want to warn people that if this becomes the

[3:03:06] way that we do business, some of you in areas that are maybe

[3:03:11] not as expensive property as waterfront, maybe they'll

[3:03:15] decide in a park to put a data center near your where you live.

[3:03:20] And I am standing here for the people. I'm standing here for

[3:03:24] the future of Hollywood. Don't make us a sunny isles. Don't

[3:03:28] make us a place that will be just another, another what,

[3:03:34] what can we call it? Just a right. Whatever you want to say,

[3:03:40] envision in your eyes. You're not going to be seeing Dick.

[3:03:43] You're not going to be seeing all those pretty little, little,

[3:03:46] you know, made for TV kind of things. You're not going to be

[3:03:50] seeing people that go to a hotel and the people who go to

[3:03:56] the beach, like all of these people here do want different

[3:04:00] things, but almost nobody that I know wants a concrete jungle.

[3:04:06] Whoever said that? So that's what I'm here to tell you. I'm

[3:04:09] going to suggest that you put your efforts on. Perhaps we

[3:04:13] need hotels, having them very spaced, having certain kinds of

[3:04:18] incentives to be able to do that. 34 stories. Forget it.

[3:04:21] That's ridiculous. That doesn't fit into Hollywood Beach. It

[3:04:25] never did and it never will. And thank you. Thank you for

[3:04:29] calling on me so early because this is very meaningful to me

[3:04:33] and to my future grandchildren as well. I have grandchildren

[3:04:38] and great grandchildren. Right? Anyway, thank you for letting

[3:04:42] me speak quickly. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Former mayor

[3:04:51] Bobber. Good evening, board members. My name is Peter

[3:05:08] Bobber. I grew up in Hollywood. I was a kid who went to

[3:05:12] Hollywood Hills Elementary School, played ball at Rotary

[3:05:16] Park, played on Hollywood Beach, and had the honor to serve as

[3:05:19] the mayor. I want to take my three minutes and condense it

[3:05:22] down to seven words. This is not ready for a vote. I watched

[3:05:29] as new board members were just sworn in just a few weeks ago.

[3:05:33] At that same meeting, the city attorney gave the board a

[3:05:36] primer on basic operations. And now for this meeting, this

[3:05:42] board was given 1004 pages of dense planning development

[3:05:47] zoning materials for today's six agenda items. For a meeting

[3:05:52] that starts at 5 p.m. This agenda is ridiculous. It's

[3:05:57] ridiculous for you. It's ridiculous for the staff and

[3:06:01] for the ladies and gentlemen sitting behind me. Our

[3:06:05] residents are supposed to bring sleeping bags to government

[3:06:08] meetings. I don't believe this board could possibly have had

[3:06:13] sufficient time to properly evaluate this zoning overlay

[3:06:16] district. With six distinct precincts. With each subarea

[3:06:22] could probably merit its very own meeting. This is local

[3:06:28] government. That means that after this meeting is over and

[3:06:31] you see your friends and your neighbors at Publix at first

[3:06:34] watch downtown, the beach, at your houses of worship. You

[3:06:41] need to be able to look those people in the eye and be able

[3:06:45] to tell them three things. One, I was adequately prepared for

[3:06:49] that meeting. Two, this is what I did and why, and this is how

[3:06:55] it's in the public interest. And if you can't do that, then

[3:06:59] don't do this. This proposal would allow building heights

[3:07:04] that have never been permitted before. Buildings go up in two

[3:07:08] years, they come down almost never. We need to modernize and

[3:07:13] beautify the beach, not destroy its unique historic character

[3:07:17] through a rushed process. At the end of the day, you're not

[3:07:23] just a board member. Whether you like it or not, you're a

[3:07:28] caretaker. We've got something really special and it's been

[3:07:32] passed down to all of us. And now we're here at this meeting

[3:07:36] on a Tuesday, and our job is to improve the beach, not hastily

[3:07:42] squander it. The fate of the beach is at stake in tonight's

[3:07:46] votes. And I'm not in love with this process. I do not support

[3:07:50] this item as proposed, and you shouldn't either. The process

[3:07:54] matters. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Barbara Miller,

[3:08:07] Barbara Miller. You're speaking. Barbara. Come forward and be

[3:08:16] heard. Have no great expectations of what I want to

[3:08:23] say. I see my friends up here and my friends behind, and we

[3:08:28] all the people I know, we all love Hollywood and we all love

[3:08:32] it because it's unique. I live in Florence, Italy half the

[3:08:36] year and if they had decided at some time to have overlays and

[3:08:43] exceptions and all the things we're talking about, we

[3:08:46] wouldn't have Florence. They said, people, this is history

[3:08:50] and this is character. And I want to maintain the character

[3:08:54] of our city. What what everybody would, I think, agree

[3:08:58] to, and I hope you all will, is that you don't make a decision

[3:09:02] tonight, that we have another opportunity for for public

[3:09:06] input and for a better explanation of what all of this

[3:09:11] means. It's over my head. It was much too much for me to

[3:09:14] read, but I would please ask you, let's let's take this,

[3:09:21] take this and continue this. I'm sorry, and continue this

[3:09:27] and not pass it tonight. Thank you, thank you. Cat. Cat in the

[3:09:38] room. Okay, we'll give her a second to come in. Kim

[3:09:45] Ottaviani. There's cat. Okay. Civic Association meeting.

[3:09:58] Welcome, cat. Just agenda item three, right? Yes, please. Okay.

[3:10:02] I'm sorry. I thought it was a later number. Thank you so much

[3:10:05] for serving our city. And Bob, thank you. I met with staff for

[3:10:09] an hour about this program. I'm. Program and I'm concerned that

[3:10:12] during this five year temporary program, even though staff says

[3:10:16] that a future city commission could roll back the program,

[3:10:19] any projects that are approved before the rollback would have

[3:10:21] the right to be built, no matter what. I feel the same

[3:10:24] way that most residents feel about 20 stories. 20 stories is

[3:10:27] too tall, especially for Central Beach. Staff told me

[3:10:31] that 20 stories would only be along a one A, which would be

[3:10:34] the urban corridor. I'm not sure why staff is using the

[3:10:38] word urban in a beach master plan. Urban is used to describe

[3:10:42] a city. We should keep the city and the city and the beach. At

[3:10:45] the beach. Let's not bring the city to the beach. If someone

[3:10:49] does prefer an urban looking beach, they can always go to

[3:10:51] Sunny Isles. There's something for everyone. There's no way.

[3:10:55] There's no way that a 20 story building will never block light

[3:10:58] or sunsets. We've been told that public benefits in

[3:11:01] exchange for greater height would be decided by a future

[3:11:04] city commission. I can't imagine a public benefit that

[3:11:07] would remain on the beach, that would make residents feel

[3:11:10] better about a 20 story urban corridor all along a one a

[3:11:14] while most residents like art, that's not a good reason for a

[3:11:17] 20 story building. We have a lot of public spaces on the

[3:11:20] barrier island, the boardwalk, the beach. 1301 the pops is not

[3:11:24] needed if we have so many public spaces. That's only if

[3:11:27] we don't have public spaces. Just preserve our public space

[3:11:30] and then you don't have to give us a pops. Many residents feel

[3:11:33] that if any additional floors are given, they should not be

[3:11:36] given to a condo tower, only to a hotel. Maybe it sounds like

[3:11:39] that's what you're doing, but we don't need any more empty

[3:11:42] condo towers on the barrier island. We need tourism to

[3:11:44] support the local businesses. We can't guarantee what's going

[3:11:47] to happen in the state legislature in future years, so

[3:11:50] we should not be too heavy handed when it comes to height,

[3:11:53] because a decision made this year could come back to haunt

[3:11:56] us. In Tallahassee in 2027, the city spent time and money

[3:12:00] fighting the live local lawsuit at McKinley Street. When a

[3:12:03] developer wanted to build a 17 story project and the city won.

[3:12:07] Developers can't build to the heights of special exceptions,

[3:12:10] so it doesn't make sense to then turn around and give the

[3:12:13] developer 20 stories. When city staff has told me that they

[3:12:16] don't expect a law to be passed that allows live local projects

[3:12:19] to be matched to special exceptions, perhaps this

[3:12:22] developer invested in buying out all these blocks, assuming,

[3:12:25] or possibly possibly being told that the city of Hollywood

[3:12:28] would soon fold. Sometimes developers make poor decisions,

[3:12:31] and sometimes they don't make as much money as they had hoped.

[3:12:34] And that's not really our problem. We should not be

[3:12:37] encouraging investors to buy out our barrier island, run

[3:12:39] their properties into the ground, and then tell the city

[3:12:42] that the only way they can fix them up is to destroy our

[3:12:45] barrier island. With 20 stories, residents got Hollywood Moon

[3:12:49] down from 26 to 6 stories. And it was going to be a beautiful

[3:12:53] project. And now, because of this agenda item, residents are

[3:12:56] hearing that they might go higher again. So please do the

[3:12:59] right thing and stand up for our beach. And I agree with

[3:13:02] deferring this until we've had a proper chance to look at it.

[3:13:05] Due process. That's what the residents deserve. Thank you,

[3:13:09] thank you. Kim Ottaviani. Diana. Picarelli. Kathy Dibona.

[3:13:30] Actually, Diana, come first and hold on. Hold on one second.

[3:13:37] Diana. Thank you. Board members. Yes, I live on Hollywood Beach,

[3:13:46] Mr. Blattner. I live in one of those small buildings that I

[3:13:49] guess you don't seem to like anymore, but my husband and I

[3:13:52] bought this in 2000. I will tell you, because I'm a small

[3:13:56] building right there on the ocean, right on the Broadwalk

[3:14:01] that we're only 19 units that I have put my husband and I have

[3:14:06] put literally, I'm not exaggerating about $250,000 of

[3:14:10] our own money between the, you know, the 40 year work needed

[3:14:14] to be done, the 50 year work that needed to be done, and the

[3:14:18] roof that had to be redone. I mean, this is a lot of money

[3:14:22] that we have spent. Why? So a big building can go up? No,

[3:14:27] this is our home. We have been here 25 years. We love our home.

[3:14:31] We take pride in our home. If there was something today, I

[3:14:36] called Commissioner Shoham told her, there's a pipe on the

[3:14:39] thing that could possibly be a hindrance to somebody coming to

[3:14:42] park along the beach. She immediately sent someone over

[3:14:45] to cut that pipe so nobody would trip and fall. There

[3:14:48] would be no lawsuit. I love the beach. I am one of those

[3:14:52] residents. There's lots of you out here that live in small

[3:14:55] buildings. We don't want to see high buildings. Do you think I

[3:14:58] couldn't have gone to Sunny Isles to buy something? Of

[3:15:01] course I could have. But I stayed in Hollywood because it

[3:15:04] was quaint. I liked that expression, Mara. Quaint. And

[3:15:07] that is what people want. That's why people come here.

[3:15:10] I'm a realtor, property manager, I tell you. I have people that

[3:15:14] renew and renew. Why? Because we're small. They love the

[3:15:18] quaintness of just, you know, they come downstairs, they walk

[3:15:21] out, they see their neighbors. You go in these high rise

[3:15:24] buildings, you don't even know who's in there anymore. And we

[3:15:27] have done successful, really successful, beautiful buildings

[3:15:31] in our beach seaside village. I know that he left now, John,

[3:15:36] but that was a fabulous project in the North Beach area that

[3:15:39] fit right into everything else. And we Aterna somebody

[3:15:43] mentioned Aterna. Yes, that's right across from a small

[3:15:45] building that I managed. Chateau de Mer attorneys.

[3:15:48] Fabulous. It works. Hide works. There's a lot of good

[3:15:52] developments that have gone in that look as part of the

[3:15:56] community and don't stand out and don't destroy the

[3:16:00] quaintness and the and the beauty of our small beach. I

[3:16:04] also want to tell you, I don't know how many of you have

[3:16:07] driven these small streets. I live on Buren. There's parking

[3:16:12] on either side. If somebody is coming west and I'm going east,

[3:16:16] one of us has to stop because the streets are not large and

[3:16:19] this is 90% of your streets. If you only go to the diplomat or

[3:16:23] you only go to Johnson Street, you may not realize that, but

[3:16:26] all these streets and none of them have lights, there's no

[3:16:29] lights on those streets and there are very small. So I'm

[3:16:33] telling you, you put up a big building, it is a problem. So

[3:16:36] please cancel this overlay thing. Let's us do spot zoning

[3:16:39] when something comes up. Let's look at it and evaluate it. I

[3:16:43] thank you, thank you, Madam Chair. Kathy. Yes. I say it

[3:16:54] again. I would like her to take a breath. Hello, everybody. I'm

[3:17:01] Kathy Dibona. I live on the beach. I've been on the beach

[3:17:03] for a long, long time. I've been a resident over 50 years.

[3:17:07] I know what I'm talking about. I happen to be the president of

[3:17:12] the Hollywood Beach Civic Association. I'm the vice

[3:17:15] president of Hollywood Beach Business Association, proud

[3:17:18] member of the board of the Hollywood Council of Civic

[3:17:22] Associations. And I can go on and on. I hear from them all,

[3:17:27] all the time. The majority over six years plus are just like

[3:17:33] the people who have been speaking to you now. Not one

[3:17:36] that I've heard has been singing the praises of where

[3:17:40] you guys are talking about going with this overlay project.

[3:17:46] Obviously, I'm not for any of it. I can talk about number

[3:17:49] three, number four, number five, and number six right now,

[3:17:51] because I've got an emergency to get home to, and I

[3:17:54] appreciate you letting me come, come and speak to you, but I'm

[3:17:58] against all of it. I don't think it's right. I commend

[3:18:02] Bobby for every single word that he said. And for all of

[3:18:09] the passion that has been exposed today to all of you,

[3:18:14] this is building trust is on trial with our city commission.

[3:18:18] It's on trial. Dick Blattner you know exactly what I'm

[3:18:21] talking about. You've been around for a long time. I sat

[3:18:25] on a board that I got unpleasantly removed from

[3:18:29] recently. That was a joint with you. And during that time, I

[3:18:34] was also on as a plaintiff for a lawsuit. And it's no big

[3:18:40] surprise to anyone what that lawsuit is all about. And it

[3:18:44] starts with. 13011301 is really deeded to be public land.

[3:18:52] That's the intent. That's the intent. So I'm fighting for

[3:18:59] that along with the group that is the rest of the plaintiff

[3:19:03] group. And I'm hoping that you will please, please understand,

[3:19:07] I'm not here to say anything against any one human being.

[3:19:11] Certainly not you, Richard. I know, I know Bonnie too well,

[3:19:16] but I also I also want to also commend the staff because

[3:19:20] they're only doing what they're told to do, and they've done an

[3:19:24] outstanding job for the most part. They can't help that what

[3:19:27] they're told to do differs from what the majority of the people

[3:19:32] want. But the people are speaking. The referendum should

[3:19:36] go forward. It always should have been given to the people

[3:19:40] to vote for. That's something that we still need to continue

[3:19:44] to fight for. And I do hope that with you saying no to all

[3:19:47] of this, that's going to send a clear message. I'm going to

[3:19:51] tell you that I'm saving my next eight seconds just to look

[3:19:54] at each one of you and hope in your heart of hearts that, you

[3:20:00] know, the best thing to do is to say, no, thank you. And let

[3:20:09] me remind everybody that you're asked to speak on an item, not

[3:20:13] to the individuals that are up here. This is without

[3:20:17] personality. This is just about the topic at hand. With that,

[3:20:21] next up, Michael Seltzer. Mr. Seltzer, please state your

[3:20:36] address for the record. Michael Seltzer 956 Hollywood Boulevard.

[3:20:42] I was going to come up here and complain about everything, but

[3:20:45] I'm going to tell you what the genesis of all this is. First

[3:20:49] of all, no matter what the intentions are as staff to try

[3:20:53] and stop live local, I don't believe they have any chance at

[3:20:58] all of ever stopping it. They've tried in Bal Harbor.

[3:21:02] Now there's a big lawsuit. So what they're trying here and

[3:21:06] what they're saying, I believe has no chance. Now there's a

[3:21:11] property on the beach. It's called the Hollywood Beach

[3:21:14] Resort. There's a property in the back of it. It's owned by a

[3:21:18] gentleman called Gary Jaffe. It's a parking garage. It's

[3:21:21] about four and a half acres. It abuts the Hollywood Beach

[3:21:25] Resort. Does everybody know here that the Hollywood Beach

[3:21:29] Resort is getting 34 stories? Gary Jaffe is getting six

[3:21:35] stories. Tell me in which world that is fair. Now, if Gary

[3:21:41] Jaffe makes a deal with the Hollywood Beach Resort. Related

[3:21:47] Polykoff and company, they both get to go 49 stories. Did

[3:21:53] anybody here sign on for 49 stories? I didn't hear Cameron

[3:21:58] talk about 49 stories here. With all the bonuses and

[3:22:02] overlays, but poor Gary Jaffe, he doesn't want to make a deal

[3:22:07] with related because they aren't offering him anything

[3:22:12] substantial. He's getting. You're all getting hoodwinked

[3:22:16] here. That's the genesis of this whole thing now. Should

[3:22:21] treat who owns the hotel, hasn't paid taxes for two years.

[3:22:25] He's let it deteriorate to the point where it can't even be

[3:22:30] rebuilt. And for that, we're giving them bonuses. You know,

[3:22:36] he's in default of his mortgage. Do you know that every few

[3:22:41] months, the auction for that mortgage is postponed? It's

[3:22:47] postponed because they don't have the zoning yet that they

[3:22:50] want. You know, in the next auction is supposed to be does

[3:22:54] anybody here know tomorrow at noon? Why tomorrow at noon?

[3:23:00] Because they're hoping that everybody here passes a law

[3:23:04] that gives these people 34 stories, so many units and so

[3:23:10] on and so forth. It's all public knowledge. You can look

[3:23:15] up Jay, and you can see the auction tomorrow is scheduled

[3:23:20] for 12 noon. That's the genesis of this whole project. There's

[3:23:26] nothing more to think about. You can talk ten stories, 20

[3:23:31] stories. Why don't you think about 49 stories? Did anybody

[3:23:35] here sign on for 49 stories? I didn't hear Cameron talk once

[3:23:40] about 49 stories. He went right over the top. Thank you, thank

[3:23:46] you. Thank you. Barbara Marx. Barbara, Barbara Marx. Okay,

[3:24:00] actually, I've been reminded that when you signed up, you're

[3:24:03] actually given numbers. So if your numbers one through ten,

[3:24:08] if you want to make your way up and at least close. So we can

[3:24:11] kind of speed this along. Number one, Marco. Donna. Marco,

[3:24:21] number one, board chair, if I may. It may be helpful to ask

[3:24:25] to call out the next five names so they can line up. Of course,

[3:24:28] prepare themselves. Well, they should also have the numbers

[3:24:31] too. So if if you know you're the first ten, please line up.

[3:24:34] But Marco, Peter, Paul de Leo, Rachel Mazor, Shirley. Ginter,

[3:24:43] Lucy. Mikhail. Justin. Del Soto. Diana. Key. You were stolen.

[3:24:52] Item three. Well, come up and be heard. Joanne. Yes. Joanne.

[3:25:07] Yes. Just state your address and name for the record, please.

[3:25:10] All right. Good evening, board members. My name is Joanne

[3:25:13] Ziegler. I'm a resident in Westlake Village, 1030 Scarlet

[3:25:16] Oak Street. So I want to say first, just give a compliment

[3:25:20] to the Planning and Development Board that Hollywood now has

[3:25:23] the best Halloween block party in South Florida. Woohoo! You

[3:25:27] guys do a great job. Great decisions on the DJ's. So I

[3:25:30] just want to give you a compliment, but I'm here

[3:25:33] because I'm a rare form. I'm a person who likes tourists and I

[3:25:36] love to go to the beach. They say that locals do not like to

[3:25:40] go to the beach. I'm a trauma nurse, so when I take off my

[3:25:43] scrubs from gunshot wounds and motorcycle crashes, all the

[3:25:46] trauma that I see, I like to go to the sand. I'm here tonight

[3:25:49] because I'm so irritated, because it's affecting me. Now

[3:25:52] when I see these towers. I went to Sunny Isles and I was on the

[3:25:56] sand. I said, it's so dark here. It's so dark and ugly. I moved

[3:26:00] to South Florida. I moved to Hollywood, Hollywood Beach from

[3:26:02] Orlando because we love the beach. I love the quaintness. I

[3:26:05] love that it's sunny, it's bright with the towers and

[3:26:09] sunny isles. It was so dark and I said, I don't like this. I

[3:26:13] love Hollywood Beach. I brag about where I live, but now

[3:26:15] when I get to the beach, when you come out of the parking lot,

[3:26:19] you see all the chairs, the beach umbrellas, the rentals

[3:26:21] from Margaritaville, it blocks the water and it's because the

[3:26:24] hotels can put the beach umbrellas there with these

[3:26:28] towers, these hotels, and the overlay that is being planned

[3:26:31] to build these towers, we're going to get all these chairs

[3:26:34] and umbrellas where the locals can't even sit. I cannot put my

[3:26:37] umbrella now when I get to the sand, because they're putting

[3:26:40] these umbrellas in rentals for the tourists in front of the

[3:26:44] hotels. It's making me not like the tourists I pay taxes. My

[3:26:47] taxes last year were over $11,000, and I cannot sit on

[3:26:52] the sand where I want to the shadowing. I'm here because I

[3:26:56] don't like the shadow. I don't want it on Hollywood Beach. I

[3:26:59] don't want the developers. They're preying on us like

[3:27:02] vultures and looking to see where they can just put up

[3:27:04] these buildings. It should not be at Hollywood Beach. We

[3:27:07] should be exempt from that. We have a two and a half mile

[3:27:10] stretch of land. Leave us alone. Tell them to go somewhere else.

[3:27:14] We are unique, we're charming and we're quaint. Tell them to

[3:27:17] go up the block. Tell them to go to Lauderdale by the sea

[3:27:20] where they're Hallandale. Do not just leave us alone. I

[3:27:23] didn't know I was even being threatened when I heard that we

[3:27:26] were potentially going to get these towers, even on a one a.

[3:27:29] I don't want to see it. I love the sunshine on the sand. Even

[3:27:33] when we're on the sand and we're at the building in front

[3:27:36] of Haagen-Dazs. The shorter buildings even cast a shadow.

[3:27:39] We move. We have to move. We have to move from

[3:27:41] Margaritaville. Just just no towers. No. You know, I just

[3:27:46] get affected because when the hotels are built now, when you

[3:27:50] have the condos, there's noise ordinances that people that

[3:27:53] move into the towers, they don't want the bars. I love the

[3:27:56] bars, I love, I love, I love it all and I am getting affected.

[3:28:01] And I pay the taxes here. And I'm that's what's making that's

[3:28:05] why I'm here. I do not want the shadowing the dark beach and I

[3:28:09] do not want people infertility in my life. That's it. Thank

[3:28:14] you, thank you. Thank you very much Marco. Marco, Peter. Paul.

[3:28:24] DeLeo. Okay, I'm calling by order now. So, yes, I'm

[3:28:31] assuming you're Rachel. Okay. Welcome. Hello. My name is

[3:28:40] Rachel Maser. I live on Jefferson Street. I'm on the

[3:28:43] board of the HLC speaking on behalf of the HLC, and also

[3:28:47] feel personally that Hollywood Beach rezoning items three,

[3:28:51] four and five are complicated and little understood by

[3:28:55] residents. Yet significant rezoning of Hollywood Beach

[3:28:58] could permanently alter the historic character of the beach.

[3:29:01] As you know, the August 11th meeting where these items were

[3:29:04] to be heard that would have given concerned residents a

[3:29:07] chance to learn more and make comments, was canceled due to a

[3:29:10] procedural error error by staff. At that point, a new date

[3:29:13] should have been selected for a separate meeting that would

[3:29:16] have made up for the August 11th debacle. That was not done.

[3:29:20] The HLC urges the board to make a recommendation of continuance,

[3:29:23] with the condition that a time certain date be selected for

[3:29:26] these three items so the public can learn more. Now, having sat

[3:29:31] here, I would like to add on a personal note. I think more

[3:29:34] work needs to be done on this. Taking public feedback into

[3:29:38] account, like the actual real numbers of what the public said

[3:29:40] that they wanted. When we were asked on March 26th. As it

[3:29:45] stands, if you do vote today, I hope you will vote to deny this

[3:29:49] rezoning. Especially egregious is the plan to add high rises

[3:29:52] to our central beach, which is special due to its village feel.

[3:29:56] I'm also concerned about how the TDRs are going to end up

[3:29:59] being exploited, and the massive height being discussed

[3:30:02] for the Hollywood Beach Resort. If this is about live local,

[3:30:05] why would it sunset in five years? The design ideas for

[3:30:09] beautification. I liked them as well. On the first floor could

[3:30:12] be put into place without changing zoning. I look at

[3:30:15] Delray Beach as an example. They have managed without

[3:30:18] adding a bunch of high rises. Their lower rise has helped,

[3:30:21] not hurt. And as for attracting people, when I do bring

[3:30:25] visitors to our beach, anytime I have company, I bring them

[3:30:27] and I take them to Wynwood in Fort Lauderdale. They always

[3:30:30] tell me they like Hollywood much better, and it is

[3:30:33] specifically due to our low rise village feel on our beach

[3:30:37] and a little bit in our downtown too. It's very special

[3:30:40] and it's very different, and I hope you will protect it. Thank

[3:30:43] you. Thank you Rachel. Peter. Paul DeLeo. Okay. Shirley

[3:30:52] Ginter. Lucy. Mckeough. Justin. Ready? Fantastic. Okay. Thank

[3:31:03] you. Good evening everybody. Thank you for your work and

[3:31:06] your dedication to the city. It's much appreciated. My name

[3:31:10] is Justin Del Sesto. I'm a resident. I moved down from New

[3:31:14] York and Washington DC. I've been down in Florida about 20

[3:31:18] years. I ended up in Hollywood after living in Miami. And I

[3:31:23] can tell you that the reason I moved to Hollywood is because

[3:31:26] of its beach and because of its beautiful beach and low rise

[3:31:29] beach. It's interesting that, you know, someone mentioned

[3:31:32] about Venice or Florence, Italy. You know, the Italians

[3:31:36] understood that you build things in the relationship to

[3:31:38] the human, and the beach is meant to be for the human. It's

[3:31:44] not meant to be for a big building. The overlay district

[3:31:49] presents a lot of problems because it hasn't been properly

[3:31:52] vetted. Calvin Giordano did a study that the consultant for

[3:31:57] the city was was hired, and Calvin Giordano made a

[3:32:02] suggestion. The staff has decided that rather than wait

[3:32:06] for that and wait for the master plan that was that was

[3:32:10] required by by their own the city's own consultant, they've

[3:32:13] decided to go forward with this overlay two years early. So

[3:32:17] what I'm here asking for is that we do it the right way.

[3:32:20] The right way is to wait is to wait for the master plan. The

[3:32:24] master plan was specifically suggested by Calvin Giordano.

[3:32:28] They're the experts in the room, and we should follow the

[3:32:31] experts. And the experts already said that the beach

[3:32:33] should be about ten stories. That's what the expert said.

[3:32:37] Now the resort district that again, that they didn't mention

[3:32:41] is going up to 490ft. It's three. It's 350ft with another

[3:32:47] 140 foot bonus. That's insane. When I read that, I couldn't

[3:32:52] believe it. I was like, really? So I'm going to drive over

[3:32:55] Hollywood Bridge and it's going to be like Hallandale. I'm

[3:32:58] going to look at those two great three big towers that

[3:33:02] related built over there. Now they're going to do a repeat

[3:33:04] here. That's what we're going for. The reason they film RJ

[3:33:09] Decker and those kind of things here is because it's quaint.

[3:33:11] It's human. I walk every day on the beach. I go every morning

[3:33:15] around six. I go a lot of times, twice a day. As a matter of

[3:33:19] fact, I see some people here that I recognize from the beach

[3:33:22] that I have no idea who they are. The. It is such a blessing.

[3:33:26] I thank my God every day that I can sit on this beautiful beach,

[3:33:31] and I'm so grateful that it hasn't been ruined yet. We are

[3:33:36] stewards here. We are not here forever. Our children, our

[3:33:42] grandchildren and they will be left with the same

[3:33:44] responsibility that you will have, which is a custodian of

[3:33:47] the future. Do not allow ruining this beach. This beach

[3:33:54] has been here. It's been protected by the past who lived

[3:33:58] here, and we have a duty to preserve it for our future.

[3:34:02] Thank you, thank you. Diane. Key. Diane. Key. Dennis.

[3:34:15] Demartino. And right after Dennis, if you have tickets,

[3:34:20] number 11 through 20, please come to the back of the

[3:34:23] building. Back to the room. Dennis. Dennis Demartino 1201

[3:34:29] South Ocean Drive. I'm watching my numbers tick down because

[3:34:36] that means I'm running out of time. You know who's really

[3:34:39] running out of time is Hollywood Beach because these

[3:34:41] plans and these resolutions and these projects are coming by

[3:34:44] much quicker than we can adapt. Now it just take this. This

[3:34:49] came through pretty quick. A couple months ago. They were

[3:34:51] asking people for input, and now they've got this huge

[3:34:54] project planned. And what is it? It's a temporary project. It's

[3:34:58] something that gives the developers everything they

[3:35:00] asked for. It didn't it wasn't a long time coming. It wasn't a

[3:35:04] slow process. It wasn't a fast process either. It was kind of

[3:35:07] half. But Hollywood Beach is a tourist destination. That's

[3:35:13] where it makes its money. That's where it makes its charm.

[3:35:16] That's where when I moved here, my wife and I decided we had a

[3:35:20] place in Hallandale. We decided we wanted to live on the beach,

[3:35:23] so we drove from Miami to Lighthouse Point and back, and

[3:35:26] we kept coming back to this one little town in the middle. They

[3:35:30] had all these little boutique hotels and pastel colored beach

[3:35:33] houses, and we said, this is where we want to be. And that

[3:35:37] was Hollywood. Now, I've been in Hollywood for 15 years now,

[3:35:42] and I got to tell you, I worked in a restaurant on the beach

[3:35:46] and I saw tourists, and these are tourists that came to Fort

[3:35:50] Lauderdale, tourists that came to Miami. And what did they

[3:35:53] decide? They decided they wanted to come to Hollywood. In

[3:35:55] between, they said, we're so glad we found this place. And

[3:35:58] we see them come back season after season. I've seen people,

[3:36:01] I sit there at the restaurant with my dog, and people come up

[3:36:04] and say, oh, I haven't seen you in a long time. Oh, and they

[3:36:08] remember my dog's name because they come back to Hollywood

[3:36:10] because they love being in Hollywood. And this, this plan

[3:36:14] you've got here, I mean, to have buildings along a one a

[3:36:20] like I said, my wife and I drove down a one a and you can

[3:36:23] see the ocean. You can see all the little buildings. That's

[3:36:27] what attracted us here. You got you've got steps from the

[3:36:32] boardwalk to the transition to a one. Have you ever actually

[3:36:35] been to the beach? It's a 45 second walk. You think it's

[3:36:39] going to make a difference if the 40 tower here is here or

[3:36:42] here? It's the exact same thing. There's so much that needs to

[3:36:46] be redone in this plan. Basically, it needs to be

[3:36:50] tossed because we've got other things down the line. We've got

[3:36:53] a lot of things that have to be done now. You know, I had so

[3:36:58] much to say, and I think I got most of it in here. Just the

[3:37:02] fact that it's not a good idea. The development needs to be

[3:37:07] done. Development needs to be done. We need to have more

[3:37:10] industry brought into Hollywood. We need to have Hollywood. But

[3:37:13] the beach has it's industry, and that's tourism. And putting

[3:37:17] up big buildings is not going to help the tourism put up the

[3:37:20] big buildings in the city, get some projects in the city going.

[3:37:24] Maybe it's time for Hollywood Beach to secede from the city

[3:37:27] of Hollywood, because we obviously have totally

[3:37:30] different thoughts. Barry. Jeff, I'm sorry Barry left. Good

[3:37:49] evening everyone. My name is Barry. I'm in relatively good

[3:37:52] health and I hope to make it to my car unscathed. Thank you.

[3:37:58] From. I'm here representing. Counsel for Phoenix Hotels and

[3:38:05] Resorts and Phoenix Suites. I thought I heard hands waving,

[3:38:09] sorry, but they are been operating a hotel down at 313

[3:38:14] Hay Street and 332 Garfield Street for the last 14 years.

[3:38:18] It's a family owned place, so they're the owners of nine lot

[3:38:23] assemblage on the block between Garfield and Hayes. Just to be

[3:38:26] clear, it's all within precinct three, Central Beach Commercial

[3:38:30] based upon the maps and how everything's been identified. I

[3:38:33] want to start by saying clearly, my clients do support this

[3:38:36] overlay, but the city has done some serious work here, that's

[3:38:39] for sure. And this framework, the character areas, the height,

[3:38:42] the design standards, the flexibility and the tied

[3:38:46] programs, it's it's the right way to plan for the beach. It's

[3:38:48] a tough way to do it. You've heard from everyone here

[3:38:51] tonight, but someone's got to do that hard work. We think

[3:38:54] that you're on your way to doing it. My clients would

[3:38:57] strongly prefer to develop under this ordinance, and we

[3:39:00] have filed a few actually detailed comments, comment

[3:39:04] letters on September 1st. In that spirit, it's in your

[3:39:08] record tonight. So our comments are offered to strengthen the

[3:39:10] ordinance, not to oppose it. Just three quick highlights

[3:39:15] from our letter. First, the eligibility does need to be

[3:39:19] fixed at the parcel level. I think Mr. Glickman made a good

[3:39:21] reference to this, actually, and he is right. The record

[3:39:24] before you describes the flexibility and the tied

[3:39:27] eligible areas in five different ways from what you've

[3:39:31] presented, and the maps don't fully agree with the text. So

[3:39:35] my client's block, Garfield to Hayes is mapped eligible, but

[3:39:38] the written descriptions leave some doubt. And the fix is

[3:39:43] simple. As Mr. Glickman said, identify the eligible parcels,

[3:39:47] either by addresses or folio numbers, which might be equally

[3:39:52] as good. We've asked for the development Services director

[3:39:57] for a written determination. That request is in the record

[3:40:00] as well. Second, the subsection N contribution schedule. The

[3:40:05] ordinance creates a fee but doesn't state the rate. An

[3:40:10] unquantifiable cost is an financeable cost, and we feel

[3:40:14] like that also, as many people have mentioned, would really

[3:40:17] should be defined before it's passed to to help this be

[3:40:21] effective for everyone involved. So adopt the schedule with the

[3:40:26] ordinance. Fix the rate when an application is complete. Invest

[3:40:29] the applications that are complete before that five year

[3:40:33] sunset. And finally third, this staff report correctly says

[3:40:37] this overlay is not intended to restrict or impair rights under

[3:40:40] section 1660415, one of the Florida statutes, the live

[3:40:45] local. That sentence should be live in the code itself, not

[3:40:48] just in the staff report. I'll be candid with the board. My

[3:40:51] clients have rights under the live local, but would rather

[3:40:54] build under the overlay in the cooperation in the spirit with

[3:40:57] the city. Thank you, thank you. Pam Burgo. And after that,

[3:41:03] Victor Marina, Mark. Ross. Sorry, Pam. It's okay. Hi.

[3:41:09] Pamela Burgio, 63 year resident of Hollywood Hills. I live off

[3:41:15] of 54th Avenue, so I live five miles west of the beach. Why am

[3:41:20] I up here tonight? Because I get the breezes and the winds

[3:41:24] from the beach. You put 20 stories all along a one a. I'm

[3:41:29] not going to feel it anymore. Most of my family and friends

[3:41:33] live east of me. They're not going to feel it either. And

[3:41:37] the overlay has its pros and its cons. I'm not going to

[3:41:43] focus on either. I'm just going to speak from the heart that

[3:41:46] lets you know that there's smart development and there's

[3:41:50] development. Hollywood Beach does not need to be redeveloped.

[3:41:55] The mom and pop hotels and motels are why people, the

[3:41:59] tourists come here and everybody keeps saying staff

[3:42:03] included. Hollywood Beach is what brings people to Hollywood.

[3:42:07] So why are we destroying Hollywood Beach? Let's leave it

[3:42:11] alone. Let's fix the facade if that's all we're looking for.

[3:42:16] But to build bigger, taller is going to continue to roll down

[3:42:20] the hill with the infrastructure. First thing we

[3:42:24] need to do before any building on the barrier island is let's

[3:42:27] raise the frickin road. It's flooding on a regular daily

[3:42:32] basis. That's just the boardwalk, the boardwalk, and

[3:42:37] the the roads. We're not even capable of fixing what we need

[3:42:41] to fix, but let's build bigger. No, we need to build smarter.

[3:42:47] We need to build throughout the city. Why focus on something

[3:42:51] that's already working? If what we want to do is create more

[3:42:57] people to come here, let's find other areas to bring them to.

[3:43:00] Why are we focusing on the beach? There are many areas of

[3:43:04] our city that can upgrade our overlay. Let's do it. Okay, but

[3:43:10] smart development, we know, I know, everybody knows that

[3:43:16] building is going to happen, but let's be smart about it.

[3:43:20] The overlay has its pros and its cons. Let's not go 20

[3:43:25] stories. We have restrictions in place for a reason. We have

[3:43:30] deed restrictions on property in place for a reason. You

[3:43:34] allow one temporary which won't exist because live local will

[3:43:40] overrule. And we all know that you put 120 story tower and

[3:43:46] then it goes up from there because it's going to happen.

[3:43:49] It's happening everywhere. It's not just Hollywood. So let's

[3:43:54] build smarter. Let's think about what we want and what the

[3:43:58] people are asked of. And we provide the answers, but

[3:44:02] they're being ignored. We are not being ignored. Let's work

[3:44:06] together. Thank you. Victor Marina. Right after that. Mark

[3:44:14] Ross. Victor Marina, 1400 South Ocean Drive. Mr. Glickman is

[3:44:23] correct. Developers are definitely driving this. This

[3:44:25] is not in the residents best interests. There's no need to

[3:44:29] facilitate and drive the overdevelopment of the beach.

[3:44:32] It's maybe a little bit, but not this much. There's too many

[3:44:36] unknowns in this proposal and it will eventually be just for

[3:44:41] rich people's investments and will end up with unoccupied

[3:44:44] units. So I urge you to vote against this. Thank you, thank

[3:44:48] you. Mark Ross, then Stephanie Burns, Teresa Nash after that.

[3:45:03] Thank you. Bob. Thank you very much. I have to excuse my

[3:45:07] actions for the other week too, when I was here. Okay. My name

[3:45:11] is Mark Ross at 5626 Harding Street. I was born here. My

[3:45:16] children were raised here, and I've been going to Hollywood

[3:45:19] Beach since I was in. My mom took me there in a baby crib

[3:45:22] and the sand used to be pink. It was all shells. It was

[3:45:25] beautiful and we used to have. The water was nice and clean.

[3:45:28] Things have changed there. But anyways, what we have left

[3:45:31] right now is a community center. That place is the last place we

[3:45:35] have has like we want to talk about old time history or

[3:45:39] something. It was built in the 70s, early, late, late 60s. And

[3:45:43] it's a it's a called a tilt wall building. It's all

[3:45:48] concrete. It's got a t-beam concrete roof on it. And you're

[3:45:53] worrying about a hurricane coming. That building right now

[3:45:57] can have three helicopter pads on it on the roof, maybe some a

[3:46:01] little more structural beam columns on the inside. That's

[3:46:04] what I do. I'm an ironworker, and they can get people off

[3:46:07] that beach because no other way you're going to get people off

[3:46:10] that beach. They can't run the fire trucks. They go on the

[3:46:13] water, they go. They sink. All the good old boys gone down

[3:46:17] where they went. But there's no airboats around here anymore,

[3:46:20] and you have to get people off the beach. You know, some

[3:46:23] people aren't going to stay there. They're not going to

[3:46:26] leave. I talked to the fire department and they said, we're

[3:46:29] going to tell them to go. They're not going to go. People

[3:46:32] in this room I've already talked to, I didn't, he said, I

[3:46:34] didn't go. But anyways, we got the community center. It's a

[3:46:37] beautiful place. They're letting it get run down a bit,

[3:46:40] but there's nothing wrong with it. And it has the essence of

[3:46:43] what people get married in the park there and the kids learn

[3:46:46] how to swim there. They have lifeguard classes there, the

[3:46:48] police go there, the firemen go there. There's all kinds of

[3:46:51] community things going on and it does not belong to be. Have

[3:46:54] somebody come in or be a mayor or whoever the heck wants to

[3:46:57] come in and sell it, or give it away to a developer, and then

[3:47:01] we have a 50 year lease on it that I didn't even know there

[3:47:04] was a lease coming up. And then it turned to a 90 year lease,

[3:47:08] and our city manager retired and wrote his own retirement

[3:47:10] papers. And that was good. That was a good show. Okay, I'm not

[3:47:16] going to talk anymore about that. But anyways, we had a

[3:47:18] letter from a Robert Dyason. He's a really noted. Everybody

[3:47:22] here knows him. It has to in this town. And he wrote a

[3:47:26] letter. We read it the last meeting and saying that this

[3:47:29] property was given to the people of the city of Hollywood

[3:47:33] for a community center and for the parks and Recreation and

[3:47:36] for them to keep it not to be given away. It was given to

[3:47:40] them a piece of property given to them. And now it's worth,

[3:47:44] what, near half $1 billion anyways. Okay, so that's good

[3:47:48] enough for that. So we could get people out of here. We

[3:47:51] could keep the community center as we should. We never gave it

[3:47:54] away in the first place. And as far as the we need to go wait

[3:48:00] for the the workshop, have a workshop on November 3rd, have

[3:48:03] a referendum and vote on it, please. You know we own this

[3:48:06] place. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. With

[3:48:12] deference to Mr. Ross, which we appreciate your comments remind

[3:48:17] that this is on items three, four and five, which are the

[3:48:20] beach overlay. But you've mentioned into public comments

[3:48:22] and we hear you. So thank you. Okay, Stephanie. Hi, my name is

[3:48:26] Stephanie Burns. I live at on North South Lake, 737 North

[3:48:30] South Lake. I know he was talking about 1301, but I think

[3:48:35] what he was talking about demonstrates three of you up

[3:48:39] here did mention that this is for developer profits. I mean,

[3:48:45] really, that's why Hollywood exists for developers. We pay

[3:48:51] $30,000 in taxes every year and you're working for developers.

[3:48:57] Hallandale Beach and Sunny Isles Beach are your shining

[3:49:00] stars. When was the last time any of you, any of you up here,

[3:49:06] any of you here, went to dinner in Sunny Isles Beach or went to

[3:49:10] walk on the beach there? What beach? Anyway, you use words.

[3:49:19] The staff uses words, but I think they mean the opposite of

[3:49:21] what they say. They use the words resiliency and climate

[3:49:25] change. Well, 35 buildings in Sunny Isles Beach are sinking

[3:49:29] at a steady rate. Is that resiliency to repeat that, a

[3:49:35] geophysicist at University of Miami said almost all the

[3:49:38] buildings at the coast are subsiding. Not just not just

[3:49:42] there in other places as well. Experts called the study a game

[3:49:47] changer. That raises a host of questions about development on

[3:49:51] vulnerable barrier islands. A geology professor at the

[3:49:55] University of Colorado said it's probably a much larger

[3:49:58] problem than we know. And there's no sign that it's

[3:50:04] stopping. It's continuing. Their buildings are sinking at

[3:50:07] the same rate every year. It's not like they're settling, they

[3:50:11] are sinking, and we all know why. It's limestone that's

[3:50:16] porous with sand. It's no it's no mystery. I come from

[3:50:21] California. I was a construction manager there. And

[3:50:24] one thing developers there, they would work within the

[3:50:28] constraints here. It seems like developers, oh, they can't have

[3:50:33] constraints. Good God. You know, it's it's just ridiculous. So

[3:50:38] this four H pillars with bonuses, the tools to unlock

[3:50:43] public benefits. No, it's tools for developers to build higher

[3:50:48] and denser, obviously. I mean, come on, why do we have to pay

[3:50:53] for open space with higher and denser buildings? Why do we

[3:50:58] have to pay to preserve our history with higher and denser

[3:51:02] buildings? Why do we have to have a wall of concrete on a

[3:51:05] one a? Which is what I will look at. I look at the summit

[3:51:09] and there's no there are no lights on in it. This favors

[3:51:13] mega developments. And then the 59 or 49 stories that the

[3:51:19] Hollywood Beach Resort. Are you guys insane? I mean, that's

[3:51:23] just. Well, I guess there's an auction tomorrow, so now we

[3:51:25] know why. Thank you, thank you. Theresa Fort Nash, Susan

[3:51:31] Howlett, and afterwards, Austin Reynolds, Theresa, welcome.

[3:51:37] Thank you. Hi, I'm Theresa Nash, 2642 Taylor Street. I live in

[3:51:43] the rack that you were talking about. Okay, now we're making a

[3:51:47] rack out of Hollywood Beach. Now I'm standing here and they

[3:51:51] kind of had to beg me to come speak because and this is

[3:51:55] important, standing here looking at all of you guys, I

[3:51:58] can tell you how at least four of you are going to vote. What

[3:52:01] we say never matters. The surveys that that Mr. Glickman

[3:52:07] mentioned don't matter. We answer, we talk, we beg, we

[3:52:11] plead. Nothing is being done to benefit the residents. It is

[3:52:16] being done to benefit whoever comes next. Okay. And that's

[3:52:21] not fair. We live here. I've been here 35 years. I was born

[3:52:26] in South Broward County and here I am pleading for you to

[3:52:30] not Sunny Isles, our beach. You know, two of the commissioners

[3:52:35] during the last early voting when I was working early Voting

[3:52:39] came up to me and said, do you really think we're going to

[3:52:42] Sunny Isles, your beach? And I said, yes, and now you're doing

[3:52:45] it, you know. And they were sitting there saying, oh, we

[3:52:48] would never do that. And here we are. We have a solution.

[3:52:51] Looking for a problem? Okay, there is no problem with the

[3:52:54] beach right? That that this is going to solve. We talk about

[3:52:57] this pop stuff, right? Well, I ride my bike. Renaissance has a

[3:53:03] bike path or actually a trail that they're supposed to take

[3:53:06] care of based on a contract that we made with them. You

[3:53:12] know, public private partnership. It was closed for

[3:53:14] a year and a half until the city threatened to sue them. So

[3:53:18] I don't think this pop stuff's going to work out for us. Just

[3:53:23] we're knee jerk reacting to live local. Why aren't we

[3:53:27] fighting with other cities who are already fighting to try and

[3:53:31] get back some of their own autonomy? I mean, it is not

[3:53:34] fair that Tallahassee is telling us how we can control

[3:53:39] our growth in our cities. We do not have infrastructure. We're

[3:53:43] running out of water in Florida. Yeah, right. Atlantic Ocean at

[3:53:48] saltwater, we already have. I think Hallandale has had one

[3:53:51] well turn already with saltwater intrusion. You keep

[3:53:54] pulling water out to bring more and more and more people into

[3:53:58] Hollywood, and specifically on the barrier island. We're going

[3:54:00] to turn more of our wells. And then, I mean, our water bills

[3:54:03] are already outrageous. Just think what they're going to be

[3:54:07] when we have to buy water, because we can't pull it out of

[3:54:10] the aquifer because we destroyed it. This is this is

[3:54:13] ridiculous. This is insane. This is a barrier island. I'm

[3:54:16] going to give you a number 161. That's how many people died in

[3:54:21] Fort Myers Beach and Estero Island because they could not

[3:54:24] evacuate. Okay. They drowned in their homes, and they are so

[3:54:28] much smaller than Hollywood. So we're going to we're going to

[3:54:31] kill people with this. This is just the worst plan I've ever

[3:54:35] seen. Anyway. Thank you. Thank you. Susan Howlett and Austin

[3:54:43] Reynolds. Hello, Susan Howlett at 920 Polk Street. I, I feel

[3:54:59] like I'm a student here as opposed to a leader. But I got

[3:55:03] to tell you, we raised our child here. He's 29 now. We.

[3:55:08] Mara Giuliani was just a marvelous mayor when he was

[3:55:12] growing up. She'd always give him a hug. It was wonderful.

[3:55:14] And then, of course, Peter Babas family at this point. And

[3:55:19] it is a quaint, quaint town that we live in. There's no

[3:55:24] reason to sell out. And that's what this is all about. It

[3:55:28] really is. I don't really have a lot of the great details that

[3:55:32] the rest of these people have, but they have presented

[3:55:35] wonderful comments, as well as Kat Yudin as well. And, and

[3:55:40] Carol Shoham. But please don't sell out. That really is the

[3:55:48] bottom line. And that's what this looks like to just about

[3:55:51] it. Most of us who live in Hollywood and we love our city.

[3:55:54] We really do. Thank you. Thank you. Austin Reynolds. Austin

[3:56:02] Reynolds. On those that are have the tickets in the 20s. If

[3:56:07] you'd like to make their way to the chambers and stand in the

[3:56:10] back. Kathleen Quinlan first up, then Susan Huff. Elaine.

[3:56:17] Cruiser after that. Kathleen. Yeah. I don't know if I have

[3:56:21] three minutes worth. All I just want to say is faith in

[3:56:24] government. Now, is that an all time low? And if you approve

[3:56:29] this overlay thing and let developers just have a free for

[3:56:33] all over Hollywood Beach and and destroy it with their

[3:56:37] massive buildings, then we won't have any faith in

[3:56:43] government at all. And I mean, come on. I don't know. I'm

[3:56:47] nervous, so I'm kind of stuttering. So you're doing

[3:56:51] great. I live on 3350 Virginia Street and I love the how local

[3:57:00] and how low rise my streets are. You know, I love that I can

[3:57:04] walk down the street and feel the winds. I love that I can go

[3:57:07] to the beach, you know, and then stare at the intercoastal

[3:57:11] if I want to. But. I lost all my train of thought. I'm so

[3:57:17] nervous I don't know why. Thank you. I just really want to keep

[3:57:29] our beautiful beach the way it is. And our not so grand lady.

[3:57:33] It could be improved upon. Yes. You know, by a like the height

[3:57:39] limit it is now. It's pretty tall. I mean, you still get

[3:57:43] shade when you walk that part of the that broadwalk. You know,

[3:57:48] we just. We just don't need this overlay with the

[3:57:55] developers having a free for all for our city, our streets.

[3:57:58] You know, it's just wrong. I don't know. Sorry, guys. Thank

[3:58:02] you. Susan. Huff. Elaine Kooser. And a reminder to state your

[3:58:12] address too. Yes. My name is Sue Huff. I live at 1231 Pierce

[3:58:17] Street. I'm sorry about my voice, but that's what it's

[3:58:19] doing tonight. Anyhow, I moved here 25 years ago, and I had

[3:58:26] some interest in this area because of its quietness and

[3:58:30] its neighborhood ness. I left New York City, where I had been

[3:58:35] for 33 years, and everyone looked at me and told me at

[3:58:39] what kind of an idiot I was for going to Florida, because it's

[3:58:43] so hot. What's the summer going to be like? And I started

[3:58:47] laughing and I said, I have to be perfectly honest. We have

[3:58:51] open corridors. We have lots of vegetation. We have plenty of

[3:58:57] air flow. We have the Atlantic Ocean that brings the air

[3:59:02] inland, and it does go into Hollywood Hills, and it is a

[3:59:07] wonderful environment. You live in a pizza oven up here. You

[3:59:11] have glass, you have steel, you have granite, you have asphalt,

[3:59:15] you have cement. You walk into New York City in the middle of

[3:59:20] the summer, you could pass out. I had company in 1986 for the

[3:59:25] tall ships. My one friend was there wanted to go into the

[3:59:30] city on July the 3rd. I fourth, excuse me. Fifth. I said no. I

[3:59:37] said, it's too hot. She and her then fiance. Oh no, we're from

[3:59:42] Florida. We can do this. We got out of the car and as God is my

[3:59:47] witness, she passed out one block later because of the heat.

[3:59:51] The radiant heat. We are looking at creating another god

[3:59:57] awful city, like the one right down the street from us. With

[4:00:00] all of these buildings. I got stuck in a building because the

[4:00:06] elevator crashed, because there was a shift in the building. I

[4:00:11] was there for three hours, waiting for them to get another

[4:00:14] elevator up and running that we could leave. It's not

[4:00:18] sustainable. We're on a barrier island. We are one block wide.

[4:00:24] We are drowning in water. We don't have the infrastructure.

[4:00:28] And you want to propose and pass something that is so in

[4:00:34] unfinished, it's not going to work. I had a building

[4:00:38] inspector or excuse me, a crow come up in front of my church

[4:00:42] and they're putting up a new light post. And I said, why are

[4:00:45] you doing that? They just put those in 2 or 3 years ago. He

[4:00:48] goes, no, these are aluminum. I said, yeah. He said, somebody

[4:00:52] figured out that you could get killed if you hit a cement post,

[4:00:55] but not an aluminum post. We don't think things through.

[4:01:00] This is a tragedy. Mayor Bowser said it correctly. This is an

[4:01:04] unfinished work. Please vote no. Elaine Kooser, Dale Miller,

[4:01:14] Diane Gordon. Good evening, Elaine Kooser, 1924 Pierce

[4:01:22] Street in the rock band The Hollywood Resident since 1960.

[4:01:28] I have three questions. When, who, and why was the seed

[4:01:34] started for this overlay and who initiated it, and how long

[4:01:40] has it been under development? I'm going to address. You can

[4:01:46] answer that whenever you want. The one third rule do not.

[4:01:51] Don't think that this will cause bidding wars for parcels

[4:01:57] of land, that people are going to be trying to buy out each

[4:02:03] other and cause a bidding war. And just, it'll just create

[4:02:09] people will try to buy up like they're doing now, and it'll

[4:02:13] change the whole scope of Hollywood. So it'll all be high

[4:02:16] rise buildings. And how wide is a one a going to have to become

[4:02:22] to accommodate all of this building? I'm glad RJ Decker

[4:02:29] comes to film, because I got about four weeks of work on it,

[4:02:33] and they come here because of the quaintness. I have a long

[4:02:38] history in Hollywood, and I played Paddleball on the beach

[4:02:43] in the 60s, and I would urge you to think about this. We

[4:02:48] don't have to rush this through, and I don't know why we are.

[4:02:52] Thank you. Thank you. Dale Miller, then. Diana Gordon.

[4:03:06] Hello. Dale Miller 316. Minnesota. One thing that I've

[4:03:11] come to realize that if you want to make change. Oh, can

[4:03:16] you hear me? Can you guys hear me? Yes. To make a change,

[4:03:23] sometimes you need to find a bigger issue. A bigger picture

[4:03:28] that encompasses the change. And I want to make sure that

[4:03:35] you guys are aware of Florida's statute. 3792431. It is the

[4:03:44] Marine Turtle Protection Act, which is, as you know, the

[4:03:49] turtles nest on the beach. Okay. Quoting the act, a person firm

[4:03:57] corporation that illegally takes, distribute, manipulates,

[4:04:01] destroys, transfers, sells, molest or harasses the marine

[4:04:09] turtle species or hatchling or its eggs or nest is subject to

[4:04:17] a third degree felony. Okay. Making the the buildings so

[4:04:24] tall that it shadows the whole beach for half a day,

[4:04:33] manipulates how the turtles turn out. They need warmer sand

[4:04:39] to produce female turtles. Colder sand only produces male

[4:04:46] turtles. Okay, so by building taller buildings. You are not

[4:04:55] in compliance with this Florida statute. Okay, so please write

[4:05:01] that down. Second note I want to make sure everybody is aware

[4:05:08] of that because it these buildings are on the beach. The

[4:05:13] beach is considered your construction site. The turtles

[4:05:19] nest in that construction site. From my understanding is that

[4:05:25] you can't do construction during the nesting season

[4:05:29] unless you have special permits to remove the whole nesting

[4:05:34] site elsewhere. Okay, that's all along the coast. And with

[4:05:40] this new Florida statute, you run into certain considerations.

[4:05:45] Okay, so you either need to have a special permit from the

[4:05:49] state to remove the the turtle nesting or not do construction

[4:05:58] during the nesting season, which only gives you four

[4:06:01] months out of the year to for construction. So let's make

[4:06:07] sure we do the right thing, protect our locals. Thank you.

[4:06:13] Thank you, Diana. Gordon. Lawrence, Meryl. Babette Kosar,

[4:06:21] Siobhan. McLaughlin, Shelly. DeMarco. Okay. Diane. Gordon.

[4:06:34] Yeah. Lawrence. Merle. Good evening, board staff. Siobhan

[4:06:46] McLaughlin, 1409 Rodman Street. I'm not here so much to talk on

[4:06:49] the merits of the overlay plan, though I do find it

[4:06:52] questionable. I don't think it's been explained adequately,

[4:06:55] but I'd like to just ask you all to consider the process.

[4:06:58] The aborted meeting on the 11th was really sad. Then we asked

[4:07:03] you not to discuss this tonight after a federal holiday at such

[4:07:08] a late hour. 11:00 was one of the times suggested. The whole

[4:07:11] process has really been somewhat disrespectful of the

[4:07:14] residents, and I think you should take that into account.

[4:07:18] A watch some of the staff up here talking while people are

[4:07:21] talking. It's disrespectful. But I also want to ask you to

[4:07:26] consider why so many people are opposed to this. You heard the

[4:07:31] statistics. This was not a popular from the response, all

[4:07:34] the outreach that the city. Did. You have people here coming

[4:07:38] tonight? Why do we oppose this? Are the residents stupid? Are

[4:07:43] we ill informed, uninformed that we're just naysayers? We

[4:07:49] are not. We are people who are concerned about this. And you

[4:07:53] represent our last, best hope to say this process, this plan

[4:07:58] needs to be addressed more completely and with much more

[4:08:04] input from the city residents. The commission is going to be

[4:08:08] turned over in 55 days. I think I wrote 58 in my email. So why

[4:08:14] are we rushing through a plan that is supposedly taken ten

[4:08:17] years to come up with? I think that we deserve better, not

[4:08:23] just from the staff. And we wonder who is benefiting. When

[4:08:27] you hear the profit motive, developers, the residents. I am

[4:08:32] appalled that somebody is paying $30,000 in taxes and has

[4:08:36] to sort of beg for park and open spaces and the beach and

[4:08:41] all the things that we love about Hollywood. I don't go to

[4:08:45] the beach, so it isn't like I have some vested interest for

[4:08:48] my own personal benefit, but I appreciate that other people do,

[4:08:53] and I think you should listen to them and to their concerns

[4:08:57] because the people do not want this. We did not want 1301 and

[4:09:02] personally we did not want some residential or some commercial

[4:09:05] intrusion into the lakes. The staff needs to, at some point,

[4:09:10] consider what the residents want, not just what developers

[4:09:13] or the commission want. And thank you for your time and

[4:09:16] your service. Thank you. Lawrence, Merle, Babette. Kosar.

[4:09:27] Oh, all right. If you have tickets in the 30s, please come

[4:09:30] into the chambers and line up towards the back. James

[4:09:34] Caulfield. And you are. Are you speaking on item number three?

[4:09:44] Okay, come forward and be heard. Apologies. Good evening. My

[4:09:55] name is Donna Green. I live at 526 North Rainbow Drive in

[4:09:59] Hollywood Hills, and I've lived there for 35 years. I'm a

[4:10:04] Florida native. I used to live in an area near Sunny Isles and

[4:10:10] saw that change from a beautiful, quaint little

[4:10:14] village to what it is now, which is a concrete canyon. I'm

[4:10:18] not a beach resident, but I care deeply about the beach.

[4:10:22] Most of the people I know moved to Hollywood for the unique

[4:10:26] character, and you could be in a suburban neighborhood and

[4:10:29] drive to the beach in 20 minutes and feel like you took

[4:10:32] a vacation to a quaint beachside town. I'm a realist,

[4:10:36] and I know that things will change, but I also know that

[4:10:41] quaint is actually very marketable, especially as we're

[4:10:45] losing areas and we're losing quaint all over Florida. So we

[4:10:50] can use that as our selling point, which we always have.

[4:10:55] Beach improvement does not have to mean overdevelopment. This

[4:11:01] proposal gives many extra bonuses to developers to take

[4:11:06] advantage of these high rise exemptions. We have master

[4:11:10] plans that are getting shelved. Lawyers and developers will go

[4:11:15] to town with this proposal and find every loophole and bonus

[4:11:20] to take advantage of the podium plan that was described is not

[4:11:26] really fooling us. We know that this jams a large number of

[4:11:31] people onto the beach in a very small area with already

[4:11:36] overwhelmed infrastructure. Public art doesn't fix that. My

[4:11:41] father from Texas would say that's like putting lipstick on

[4:11:45] a pig. The people like me who are speaking want improvements

[4:11:51] to allow all residents to enjoy what we have, not to keep it

[4:11:56] for ourselves, not to keep it for a few. This plan shuts

[4:12:01] people out. It rewards developers and people with

[4:12:05] money. Hollywood Beach has always been the people's beach.

[4:12:09] That's the whole reason we love it. It's not Sunny Isles, it's

[4:12:13] not South Beach or Fort Lauderdale. Mom and pop, local

[4:12:19] residents, tourists, they all get together and they enjoy the

[4:12:23] beach as it was meant to be in its native state. That's why we

[4:12:30] love it. That's why we want to save it. So. I just want to

[4:12:35] mention that public schools are being closed and those are

[4:12:40] hurricane shelters. So we're adding a ton more people to the

[4:12:43] beach, but we're losing shelters. That math doesn't

[4:12:47] work. Hollywood Memorial is overwhelmed in the emergency

[4:12:51] room. Where are people going to go for health care if they need

[4:12:55] emergency care? We have so many issues that have not been

[4:12:58] addressed. Thank you, thank you, James Garfield, Marcia, Eric,

[4:13:06] Lester. Bernice. Good evening James. Hi there. Good evening

[4:13:12] Jonas, how are you? Thank you, sir, for speaking up for for

[4:13:18] the little guy. There's a lot of little guys here. A lot of

[4:13:21] little people. Okay? I'm a lifer here, born in Memorial

[4:13:25] Hospital. I've been here my entire life. Okay? I like it

[4:13:30] just the way it is, okay? But of course, things have to

[4:13:33] progress and things have to change. Okay. If you remember

[4:13:37] Sunny Isles, which I'm sure some people remember, Sunny

[4:13:40] Isles. Okay. It was a lot like Hollywood once upon a time.

[4:13:45] Okay? It's not like that anymore. Okay? Joseph Young

[4:13:50] would be rolling in his grave. My personal opinion. Okay. If

[4:13:53] he could see what's going on here now. Okay. In this city.

[4:13:58] Okay. It's. I'm not impressed with the presentation that

[4:14:02] these people put on here that work for the city, that are

[4:14:05] paid by the taxpayers to, you know, try to convince us, okay,

[4:14:09] that this is good. Okay. For the overall, you know, beach,

[4:14:13] okay. And for the city. I mean, I heard one person say that

[4:14:17] they were for this, okay. And the money, okay. You know, the

[4:14:23] residents listen to the people, okay? The people that live here,

[4:14:27] okay? Not not not these developers. Look, me personally.

[4:14:32] I'm not impressed with some metal sculpture in front of a

[4:14:36] concrete tower. Okay? If if people like that, you know, and

[4:14:40] they think that's great, I'll come over and help you move

[4:14:43] down to Miami, if that's where you want to go. I'm serious.

[4:14:46] I'll come over on Saturday and I'll help you move. I'll help

[4:14:49] you load your truck. You know, I'll pay for the gas. You know,

[4:14:52] if you you, you know, if you love it that much. Yeah. Right.

[4:14:56] That's. Yeah, I mean, I mean, I mean, look, I, I've been to

[4:15:00] several of these meetings, okay. And I agree with some of the

[4:15:03] other things that I've heard people say, okay, I've watched

[4:15:06] the mayor sit up and laugh at people like me, okay. And other

[4:15:10] people speaking against. Okay. But we, we've, we've been

[4:15:13] called the slanted left. Okay. Or, you know, the anti agenda.

[4:15:17] Okay. You know, is there, is there anything wrong with

[4:15:21] wanting to preserve okay where you live? Okay. I mean, I like

[4:15:25] my single rise, low rise, regular residential street that

[4:15:31] I can drive down. Okay. It's starting to look like a freak

[4:15:34] show, man. I mean, this whole city. I mean, it looks like a

[4:15:37] circus. I mean, there's just stuff. I mean, I never thought

[4:15:40] young circle, okay? I mean, I I'm just, like, dumbfounded. I

[4:15:44] like, get in the car and I'm like, wow. I'm like, what the

[4:15:47] hell is going on here, man? It, you know, have these people

[4:15:50] lost their minds? Okay, this is insane. Okay? And most of them

[4:15:55] are dark at night when you drive by, they're all dark. You

[4:15:59] know, I'm, I'm against this. You know, the beach is fine

[4:16:02] just the way it is. And it's survived for how many decades?

[4:16:06] Okay. You know, without high rise buildings and condos and,

[4:16:10] you know, what are we going to do? Jam people in here? Okay,

[4:16:13] it's it's it's wrong. Thank you, thank you. Marcia. Ulrich.

[4:16:21] Lester. Bernice. Marcia. Lester. Stephanie. Sabato. Karen.

[4:16:37] Curtis. Sherry. Wells. Anybody else with the 30s? David Wells.

[4:16:46] Okay, just making sure just. David. Thank you. My name is

[4:16:54] David Wells. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I'm at

[4:16:57] 1325 Taylor Street. Been there for 30 years. I'm not against

[4:17:00] change. I'm not I'm for change. I'm, I don't I don't want new

[4:17:04] things. I want quality things that I like. Okay, new is not

[4:17:09] not good. I appreciate your honesty. If you want to build

[4:17:13] something. We've got massive problems on A1. A those are

[4:17:17] going to quadruple tenfold. Imagine a flooded street on

[4:17:22] north at North Beach there and then a bunch of trucks coming

[4:17:26] right. Because you if you've been there at high tide, you

[4:17:29] know that it's flooded. So you got there's only one lane you

[4:17:33] go through or you ruin your car, right? Because you can't get

[4:17:36] your car through there. So there's got these big problems

[4:17:38] we're not handling deal with a six lane superhighway going

[4:17:41] from the beach where Hollywood, we've got little tiny streets

[4:17:45] and it's really crowded downtown. We built a bunch of

[4:17:48] structures that aren't full. You need to add quality to

[4:17:52] Hollywood and bring people in, and then you can mess with the

[4:17:56] beach when we have big problems. But you're fixing a problem

[4:17:59] that does not exist, right? And it's a money issue. Somebody

[4:18:02] wants money, somebody's getting paid money. You know, this is

[4:18:05] going to go to 49 stories, obviously. Right? How deep are

[4:18:08] the pilings? How deep are the pilings for a 49 story building?

[4:18:14] And when you dig a hole at the beach, I'm pretty sure water

[4:18:18] comes out. So where does the water go? Do the water pipes

[4:18:22] get pushed across the street into the into the intercoastal?

[4:18:26] We're going to we're going to pump all this clean water into

[4:18:29] the intercoastal and then kill the fish. I mean, it's the huge

[4:18:32] problems here, right? And what's the other what's the

[4:18:34] other problem? Okay, so we need revenue. Hollywood needs

[4:18:38] revenue. So when we do this project and the beach is

[4:18:41] basically shut down for like years, who wants to come to

[4:18:46] Hollywood, to the beach? What do families go? Families go to

[4:18:49] the beach, right? So you got people all over, you know,

[4:18:54] people from all over the freaking counties. Come to

[4:18:57] Hollywood Beach, 4th of July holidays, Labor Day, who comes?

[4:19:01] Everybody comes, beach families come to the beach. Okay, you

[4:19:05] take away the beach, but a couple high rises up there for

[4:19:07] a bunch of rich people, you know, who knows? The people

[4:19:10] don't like high rise. People are really friendly people,

[4:19:13] right? Because we want to live in high rise and destroy our

[4:19:15] beautiful, the, you know, our beautiful Hollywood. I mean,

[4:19:19] it's ridiculous. It really is ridiculous. If you can sit

[4:19:22] there. And if this is true, I've heard enough evidence. I

[4:19:24] want to vote. I demand a vote. Because if this whole thing

[4:19:28] goes down like, like, like we've heard a lot of people

[4:19:31] have heard information, so you better have your facts straight.

[4:19:34] Okay, so you better get it right. That's what I'm saying.

[4:19:37] Thank you for your time. Thank you. Elaine. Elaine. Viets.

[4:19:49] What's your name? For item three? Come forward and be

[4:19:57] heard. My name is Marie Schultz and I live at 1358 Polk Street.

[4:20:09] And we moved to Hollywood when I was three months old, so I'll

[4:20:13] be 60 next month. So it's been a while. Speaking to the

[4:20:18] microphone, please, I thought, pull it down because I'm short.

[4:20:22] Okay, there we go. Is that better? Yes. Okay. So Hollywood

[4:20:27] is a beautiful place. I walk the beach every morning and I

[4:20:30] just think, God, I live in this place. It's amazing. It's

[4:20:34] beautiful. And that's why the tourists come in. Like

[4:20:37] everyone's been saying, it's a quaint place. It's unique. It's

[4:20:39] not like anyone anywhere else. And we can improve without

[4:20:46] building high rises. We can make it prettier. Maybe in some

[4:20:50] places that needs it, but we don't have to build, build

[4:20:53] places that take away our take away our beach, hurt the hurt

[4:20:58] the turtles, and keep people away that wants to come for

[4:21:03] what it is already. I would just say, let's have a workshop.

[4:21:08] Let's put it to a referendum. Let's do due diligence and find

[4:21:12] the answers to these questions that have been asked this

[4:21:15] evening. And that's that's all I have to say. Have a good

[4:21:18] evening. Thank you, thank you. Elaine Betts, any. Sonata,

[4:21:25] that's me. Okay. Hi. My name is Annie Castaneda, 1830 Radius

[4:21:37] Drive. I live at the radius in the high rise. I don't really

[4:21:41] know what I'm going to say to you. So, yeah, I live downtown

[4:21:46] in a high rise where the high rises should be downtown, not

[4:21:50] on the beach. I've traveled and lived in a lot of different

[4:21:56] places in the United States. Most recently, I spent the last

[4:21:59] four years in a very small town in Italy, and there was some

[4:22:04] lady earlier that says that. Anyway, she lives there for

[4:22:07] half the year and she she said something like, could you

[4:22:11] imagine if Florence put an overlay? And that made me

[4:22:15] giggle because it's true. If if we don't hold on to things that

[4:22:24] make us special now, there won't be anything after you

[4:22:29] guys are gone to make anything special for my daughter. I

[4:22:36] moved here a year ago for the second time. This the second

[4:22:39] time I've lived here and we had any. We could go anywhere we

[4:22:44] wanted in the United States. We were coming back from Italy and

[4:22:48] I chose this place. I specifically chose Hollywood

[4:22:55] because this is the only place that ever felt like home. Even

[4:23:00] though I wasn't born and raised here, it always just felt like

[4:23:04] this place that was mine. Like I was supposed to be here. And

[4:23:10] it makes me nervous what you guys are going to do with it?

[4:23:16] Gosh, sorry. I'm getting a little emotional. This

[4:23:20] community, this beach, there's nothing else like it. And every

[4:23:25] single one of you know it. And I realize that Joseph Young was

[4:23:30] a developer and we need to build and you're ready for it.

[4:23:33] But here's the thing, I get it. And I'm with you. But we don't

[4:23:37] need skyscrapers. We don't need skyscrapers. We don't need 49

[4:23:43] story hotel buildings for. Okay. Anyways, a lot of people have

[4:23:48] already said all that, you know, parking, sewers, toilets, water,

[4:23:52] climate change. God, I was just going to say one more really

[4:23:57] cool thing and now I forgot. I'm with you. I think we do

[4:24:02] need things in Hollywood Beach. I think things need to be

[4:24:05] redone, revamped, re-energized. There needs to be a new life

[4:24:09] put into Hollywood Beach. But we can do that without taking

[4:24:13] away the small town feel that makes people like me choose

[4:24:20] shoes. I made a choice to come back here. Just. I don't do

[4:24:28] this. Don't do this. I know you're gonna, but don't do this.

[4:24:33] Ciao. Thank you. Jason Alvarez, Andrea Timmerman. And please

[4:24:44] speak to the subject, to the item, not to the individuals.

[4:24:47] It's not about personality. It's about what's best. I'll

[4:24:50] try my best. My name is Jason Alvarez, and I'm actually a

[4:24:53] resident of the city of Fort Lauderdale. And I've come all

[4:24:55] the way out here to express my concerns with the development

[4:25:00] plan that has been presented. I'd like to first address the

[4:25:04] fact that, yes, Joseph Young was a profit driven developer.

[4:25:09] Joseph Young, driven by the power of the Almighty dollar,

[4:25:13] rode the great Florida land boom to its ruinous conclusion,

[4:25:17] and then lost everything with the onset of the Great

[4:25:20] Depression. Take that as you will. I've come today to speak

[4:25:25] about the Hollywood Beach Hotel. The hotel stands today as the

[4:25:30] sole survivor of this first great era in Hollywood's early

[4:25:34] history. Monumental and monstrous. Yes, it's ocean

[4:25:40] liner like design harmonized with the sea and land. It is

[4:25:45] not an unattractive building. It has been mired, encumbered

[4:25:50] by condo towers, highways and parking lots. Without this

[4:25:56] structure, there would be no Hollywood as we know it today.

[4:26:00] It attracted guests from all over the world. Just like the

[4:26:04] development plan that was presented today is promising,

[4:26:07] it would be a disservice to this community and to our

[4:26:10] county to deface or raise this historic gem. No different than

[4:26:16] the purposeful destruction of sacred antiquities during the

[4:26:20] fall of an empire. I keep hearing that it can't be done,

[4:26:24] that it can't be saved. I am of the attitude that it can be

[4:26:28] done and it will be saved. I am aware of the challenges that

[4:26:33] this property faces. Yes, it is rundown and shabby and musty

[4:26:38] and maybe even haunted just a little bit. But wouldn't we all

[4:26:44] be if we were 100 years old and neglected? I ask that you work

[4:26:51] to preserve the historic character of this beach, to

[4:26:55] preserve and expand the dunes, and to worry less about trying

[4:26:59] to make it like South Beach or Wynwood, and simply to embrace

[4:27:03] Hollywood. What has been proposed here tonight? The

[4:27:08] destruction of our cultural and historical resources. We call

[4:27:13] this progress. Who benefits from this overlay? The

[4:27:18] community or land profiteers, amend the overlay and save the

[4:27:25] Hollywood Beach Hotel. Thank you, thank you. Andrew

[4:27:33] Timmerman. And for those with tickets in the 40s, please make

[4:27:38] your way to the chamber. Welcome, Andrea. Good evening.

[4:27:49] My name is Andrea Timmerman. I live in 1050 Pine Oak Street. I

[4:27:55] want to be clear with you guys. I'm not I know it's not

[4:27:58] addressing you personally. I'm not against development. I'm in

[4:28:02] support of investment modernization, improving

[4:28:05] Hollywood Beach. What I'm opposing is the proposed

[4:28:09] overlay and in particular the height bonus bonus that could

[4:28:14] fundamentally change the scale and character of our beach.

[4:28:17] Hollywood beach has sometimes something. Sorry, Hollywood

[4:28:22] Beach has something increasingly rare in South

[4:28:25] Beach, which is the beach front, the human scale, open sky,

[4:28:29] sunlight, broadwalk and a unique character. This morning.

[4:28:33] Every morning I ride my bike on the lakes and I can see the

[4:28:37] sunrise. And I took a picture this morning because it was so

[4:28:40] beautiful, and I would hate to see that disappear. I

[4:28:44] understand that the overlay doesn't automatically give

[4:28:46] every property additional height, but today that

[4:28:50] additional height is not available. However, this

[4:28:53] overlay creates a mechanism for it to become available and this

[4:28:57] is a significant policy change. Once taller and denser

[4:29:02] buildings are approved and constructed, we cannot undo

[4:29:05] their effect on our skyline, sunlight, traffic, and the

[4:29:09] character of our beach. Hollywood Beach should continue

[4:29:12] to improve. Other properties can be renovated, buildings can

[4:29:17] become safer and more resilient. Businesses can thrive. These

[4:29:21] new investments should be welcomed, but redevelopment

[4:29:25] does not have to mean building higher. In fact, preserving

[4:29:29] Hollywood Beach is an investment on its own. As

[4:29:34] everybody has mentioned, there are so many places around us

[4:29:36] with their high, you know, building, and we have two miles

[4:29:39] that doesn't have this concrete wall. And just investing on it

[4:29:44] and keeping it for the future is an investment on its own. So

[4:29:48] the question for me should be. Do you want the high density,

[4:29:54] the great height and density that I'm sorry, I'm also

[4:29:59] emotional with this. This is like take everybody's heart, I

[4:30:03] think. But the question is, do the Hollywood residents want a

[4:30:07] tolerant, denser Hollywood beach? And I am a resident and

[4:30:11] I do not. And I can hear everybody and all my neighbors

[4:30:14] and all my friends, and they all agree with me. So I think,

[4:30:18] as everybody has mentioned before, that this should be

[4:30:21] taken into consideration. I would urge that for tonight we

[4:30:26] vote no, or at least postpone and then think of due process.

[4:30:31] Think of other ways to bring this to the public and then

[4:30:36] maybe a referendum. Thank you very much. Thank you. Sherry

[4:30:44] Calabrese, Britney Livorno, Sierra mano. And apologies for

[4:30:52] butchering every one of those names. Hi, I'm Sherry Calabrese,

[4:30:55] I live at 1223 Buchanan Street, and my husband and I have lived

[4:31:00] there for over 50 years, and I've been here many times,

[4:31:03] standing right here to fight for other things like the golf

[4:31:08] course. The Hollywood Beach Golf course was supposed to be

[4:31:11] developed in the 70s, and our neighborhood got together and

[4:31:15] fought, and we saved that golf course. Otherwise we would have

[4:31:18] had condos there. I've been here to fight for schools, and

[4:31:22] now we have newer schools in our neighborhood. We didn't

[4:31:24] have them and we weren't going to get them unless the

[4:31:27] community came together. And what was really good about that

[4:31:30] was when I looked at the people that were listening to all of

[4:31:33] us speak, and you got a great turnout. I will have to say

[4:31:37] this one issue staff, I'm talking to you. You got the

[4:31:42] people riled up to show how much they care. It's really

[4:31:47] important that everybody see how important this is. This is

[4:31:51] where the city leaders, the city committees that you have

[4:31:57] committed to, to serve on the staff, people who are doing

[4:32:01] what you're told, but you need to really learn what the heart

[4:32:04] of the of this community is. You need to listen. Otherwise,

[4:32:08] we lose trust. We don't support the city. And that's what you

[4:32:13] don't want to happen right now. Everyone has spoken so

[4:32:17] eloquently. There's so many things that they've they've

[4:32:20] mentioned. And it's all true. I don't want to see a canyon on

[4:32:24] the beach. That's what I loved about Hollywood. That's why we

[4:32:26] drove our motorcycle up from Miami before we were married

[4:32:30] and just said we were going to move to Hollywood. We're going

[4:32:32] to get married and live in Hollywood. We're still in the

[4:32:35] same house. That being said, I really hope you will realize

[4:32:40] that this is not the time to say yes to this type of plan,

[4:32:45] because you have a lot of questions before you. And by

[4:32:48] saying yes, you're saying you believe this is a good plan.

[4:32:52] There's too many reasons for you to question that. One of

[4:32:55] those things I'm going to touch on, try to do it real quick.

[4:32:59] When we went to the one of the community meetings and we met

[4:33:02] the staff and we asked questions. My question wasn't

[4:33:06] read out loud to the group. So I went up afterwards and I

[4:33:08] spoke with the staff and I said, what's the plan? What is the,

[4:33:13] the, the, the surveys and the studies that you've done about

[4:33:19] the sewers, the drainage, the flooding, the roads, all of the

[4:33:24] problems we're experiencing all over Hollywood because we've

[4:33:26] been constructing without planning ahead. I was told that

[4:33:32] hasn't been done, that that's not part of this job that comes

[4:33:36] after they go in for permitting, which means you've already

[4:33:40] approved the overlay plan. I hope that isn't what you want.

[4:33:44] We have had enough non planning going on with all the building

[4:33:49] in Hollywood. Maybe this is the time to stop and say we need to

[4:33:53] plan for this better. Please vote no. Brittany, Sierra.

[4:34:03] Isabel. Hi. Good evening board. Thank you for your time this

[4:34:09] evening and for the opportunity to speak. My name is Brittany

[4:34:12] Laviano. I live at 4816 Jackson Street. My family has been

[4:34:17] frequenting Hollywood Beach since the late 70s. I was born

[4:34:20] at Memorial Regional Hospital over 40 years ago. I have two

[4:34:23] young children and my entire family frequent Hollywood Beach.

[4:34:28] I want to clearly state my opposition to the proposed

[4:34:31] Hollywood Beach Overlay District as drafted. If this

[4:34:34] project moves forward with its current proposed dimensions,

[4:34:37] the shadows these buildings will cast on the beach for

[4:34:40] centuries to come will long outlive the shadows cast on our

[4:34:42] reputation for how we responded to such requests. We will be

[4:34:47] forgotten, but the beach skyline will forever be changed

[4:34:50] for the worse. Just because we have the right to do it,

[4:34:54] doesn't mean it's right to do it. While I understand the

[4:34:57] intent is to modernize zoning and support redevelopment, the

[4:35:01] technical implications of the height allowances, bonus

[4:35:04] programs, and density tools in this ordinance pose significant

[4:35:07] risks to the physical environment, public safety, and

[4:35:11] the long term character of Hollywood Beach. The Overlay

[4:35:14] District introduces optional bonus programs that allow

[4:35:17] developers to exceed base height and density limits.

[4:35:21] These bonus mechanisms create a pathway for significantly

[4:35:24] taller and bulkier structures than the underlying zoning

[4:35:28] anticipates. First, the proposed height framework and

[4:35:31] bonus mechanisms will materially alter solar access

[4:35:34] along the beachfront. Taller structures cast longer shadows,

[4:35:38] particularly during a peak morning and late afternoon

[4:35:40] periods when the sun angle is low. This is not a cosmetic

[4:35:44] concern. It directly affects thermal comfort, sand, moisture

[4:35:47] levels and vegetation stability in dune areas. Shadow studies

[4:35:52] for coastal zones consistently show that even modest height

[4:35:55] increases can extend shadow lengths by 200 to 300%,

[4:36:00] depending on season. Hollywood Beach's narrow shoreline makes

[4:36:03] it especially vulnerable to these effects. Our county's own

[4:36:08] website states. Beaches with vegetated dunes are more

[4:36:11] resilient and perform better during storms than beaches

[4:36:14] without dunes. So many people have spent time and money to

[4:36:17] restore the dunes along our coastline. So why would we want

[4:36:20] to undo undo all this amazing effort? Second, increased

[4:36:25] height and density of measurable impacts on coastal

[4:36:27] watershed performance, larger building footprints and

[4:36:30] increased impervious area. Increased stormwater runoff

[4:36:32] velocity and volume in a coastal high hazard area. This

[4:36:36] can exacerbate nuisance flooding, overwhelm existing

[4:36:39] drainage infrastructure, and accelerate erosion. The

[4:36:43] Overlays Resiliency Fund is a positive concept, but it does

[4:36:46] not mitigate the physical consequences of allowing

[4:36:49] significantly taller, bulkier structures. Third, the overlay

[4:36:53] district does not sufficiently address hurricane evacuation

[4:36:56] capacity. Hollywood Beach already faces constrained

[4:36:59] evacuation routes with a one, a, A and the bridges serving as

[4:37:01] the only outlets. This project proposes substantial vertical

[4:37:06] density without demonstrating that evacuation capacity exists.

[4:37:09] FEMA and Florida's Department of Emergency Management both

[4:37:12] require clearance time analysis for major population increases

[4:37:17] within evacuation zones. I urge you to vote no against this.

[4:37:21] Thank you, thank you. Sierra. Isabel. Janine. Good evening.

[4:37:36] My name is Sierra Mano. 901 South Surf Road. First, I'd

[4:37:40] like to thank the board, city staff and everyone who has put

[4:37:43] time into planning for the future of Hollywood. Tonight

[4:37:46] I'm speaking in opposition of the overlay. I understand that

[4:37:50] Hollywood Beach will continue to grow and evolve, and I'm not

[4:37:53] against responsible development. I do, however, believe that

[4:37:57] growth should respect what makes this place worth

[4:38:00] investing in to begin with. My first concern is that this is a

[4:38:04] short term, five year overlay. While the broader Hollywood

[4:38:06] Beach Master plan is still not complete. Five years may be

[4:38:10] temporary, but development approved during that time could

[4:38:12] permanently reshape the beach forever on a barrier island

[4:38:15] with real constraints transportation, infrastructure,

[4:38:18] resiliency, all of those factors. Why are we making

[4:38:22] decisions of this magnitude before that planning process is

[4:38:24] finished? I'm also concerned about relying on the new design

[4:38:29] guidelines to protect the character of the beach. We are

[4:38:32] already seeing highly modern projects being approved that I

[4:38:35] don't believe fit the historic character. The design

[4:38:38] guidelines may help, but they can never make larger buildings

[4:38:41] fit the historic scale of the beach. But most importantly,

[4:38:45] I'm deeply concerned about the Hollywood Beach Hotel. For

[4:38:48] decades, this historic property was fragmented, altered and

[4:38:51] allowed to deteriorate. Now the condominium regime has been

[4:38:55] terminated and the building sits vacant. We may never have

[4:38:58] an opportunity like this again to put the property back

[4:39:01] together, restore the historic hotel and return it to its

[4:39:05] original use for the public to enjoy. I understand that

[4:39:08] tonight is a decision between restoration or demolition, and

[4:39:12] that there are. Private property owners have certain

[4:39:15] rights, but why are we already assuming that greater

[4:39:18] development is the answer? I strongly support the

[4:39:22] restoration of the Hollywood Beach Hotel without additional

[4:39:24] height. Before we create major redevelopment incentives for

[4:39:28] this historic site, I'm wondering why aren't we first

[4:39:31] exploring every available tool, tax incentive, grant or

[4:39:35] financing option that could support its rehabilitation?

[4:39:39] Simply, why isn't restoration the starting point? So

[4:39:41] Hollywood Beach has something increasingly rare historic

[4:39:45] scale, character, genuine sense of place, and once we lose that,

[4:39:49] we'll never get it back. So I respectfully ask you not to

[4:39:53] recommend approval of this overlay. As currently proposed.

[4:39:56] Let's finish planning for the future of our beach and make

[4:39:59] preservation the starting point, not an afterthought. Thank you,

[4:40:03] thank you. Isabel. Jeanine. Virginia. One. Andre. Hello, my

[4:40:20] name is Andre Bonanno. I live in 830 Tyler Street. I wanted

[4:40:25] to just address very quick. Oh, in the mic still further. Okay,

[4:40:30] so I just wanted to respond to what I heard a little bit

[4:40:33] earlier from several of you. And it's the concern about

[4:40:37] development and the future of Hollywood. And you seem to be a

[4:40:40] little bit pessimistic about it. Well, I'll tell you that I'm

[4:40:43] the perfect example of why I love Hollywood the way it is.

[4:40:47] And I understand there can be some changes in the future. But

[4:40:50] we began to look at places where to retire, and basically

[4:40:53] we, my wife and I looked at several places down in Miami

[4:40:57] and then started going northward. And when we came to

[4:41:01] Hollywood Beach, we fell in love. And we made the decision

[4:41:04] right there to move into this area. Now I have a whole bunch.

[4:41:08] I had a whole bunch of list of comments that I was going to

[4:41:11] make, but they've all been said. But in this process, as I was

[4:41:15] sitting in the back of this room listening to what was

[4:41:18] going on, I do kind of acknowledge that we live in a

[4:41:22] representative government, and I know that you have a big

[4:41:26] responsibility in front of you. I'm a scientist, and what I do

[4:41:30] is I put a hypothesis and I test it and I look at the

[4:41:33] results, and from there I can I can change that hypothesis,

[4:41:38] make a new one, tweak it. What I see here is a big hypothesis.

[4:41:45] And what I've heard today from the data that's coming back

[4:41:47] from the analysis that's coming back, it's extremely worrisome.

[4:41:51] I would almost say to the point it's a null hypothesis. It

[4:41:54] sounds to me like this plan still needs a lot of help and

[4:41:58] needs a lot of tweaking. I'm not sure that it's going to

[4:42:01] work for all the reasons that you've heard today, but I think

[4:42:04] what's most important is to remember that you are

[4:42:08] representing us, the community. And if there is an interest for

[4:42:12] this change, where are all those people I haven't seen

[4:42:16] except one person come up here and support this? So I ask

[4:42:24] again, if you're representative government and you're supposed

[4:42:27] to be representing us and the residents of this city,

[4:42:32] wouldn't you be concerned that you're not hearing from the

[4:42:34] other side, that all you're hearing is a lot of good

[4:42:38] arguments, and it's almost a little bit insulting if they

[4:42:41] are not taken into consideration, because you're

[4:42:44] almost assuming that the people are not smart enough to figure

[4:42:47] out that there is a flaw here and that it needs to be

[4:42:50] considered. So what I'm asking you today, in behalf of myself

[4:42:54] and behalf of my friends, my family, and so many that spoke

[4:42:57] here today, is to put down the volume. You may have an opinion

[4:43:02] before it's time to kind of rethink the hypothesis a minute,

[4:43:06] ask questions, tweak it, and find out if this is really a

[4:43:10] good plan or if it can wait and we can think about it later.

[4:43:13] Take a vote later. But this is not ready for prime time. Thank

[4:43:17] you, thank you. Margo. Andrea. Henry. Okay. Nice to meet you.

[4:43:35] My name is Andrea. Noemi Braddock, 147 Sheridan Street.

[4:43:40] I would like to read something and thank you for all of your

[4:43:42] time. We are here to build a community, not to create

[4:43:49] separation by taking the beach away from us. As Hollywood

[4:43:53] residents, we would also lose part of the soul of our

[4:43:57] community, especially during this difficult time when many

[4:44:01] people are struggling financially. Going to the beach

[4:44:04] is still something available to all of us. Why not bring our

[4:44:08] community together? We could create special events and

[4:44:11] organize beach cleanups, working together as one. We

[4:44:15] understand that the developers want to be at high rise

[4:44:19] buildings, but these buildings would take away our view and

[4:44:22] negatively affect the natural environment and wildlife. This

[4:44:26] is our time. We need to wake up. We need to embrace our voices

[4:44:31] and do something about it, just as we are doing right now.

[4:44:36] Hopefully God is with us. We must do the right thing. Money

[4:44:39] and high rise buildings are not everything. We are here to

[4:44:44] leave a legacy. We are here to protect nature. We are here to

[4:44:48] protect our beach for ourselves and for future generations. And

[4:44:52] this is not the first time this some proposal has been brought

[4:44:56] before our community. It is time to resolve this matter

[4:45:00] once and for all by putting permanent legal protection in

[4:45:04] place, so that the same threat cannot be brought back again in

[4:45:07] the future. Let us protect our beach, our community, and

[4:45:11] future generations with the clear and lasting decisions.

[4:45:15] And one more thing. You are all here because the people are

[4:45:20] voted on you. Because we are trusted in you and you have a

[4:45:24] duty to fulfill. You took an oath and you have

[4:45:30] responsibility to protect us and to protect Hollywood, our

[4:45:33] hometown. Together, we are strong and united and we will

[4:45:38] not let this happen. These beaches are belongs to us. You

[4:45:43] have one choice. Stand with us and protect our right. Thank

[4:45:48] you. Margo. Henry. Armando. Sandra. Bookman. Henry. Armando.

[4:46:01] Henry. I live in the south Lake Adams and 16th. This report was

[4:46:10] very impressive. I, I read it, Cameron. I told you I was going

[4:46:14] to read it. I got through, it was tough, but I got through

[4:46:18] the whole thing. And what I found was actually something

[4:46:22] that Mr. Glickman touched on. Where I looked was the dollars.

[4:46:29] And it seems to me that this report, what I didn't see was

[4:46:38] that they would try at $900 and see what height you would need.

[4:46:43] They didn't try at 1000 and see what height you would need 1100.

[4:46:47] See what height you would need 1200. See what height you would

[4:46:50] need. You know, a lot of that analysis gives you a better

[4:46:56] picture of what you know. The real development opportunity is

[4:46:59] here. It almost seems like this was a conclusion that was

[4:47:07] established. And it just seems I'm sure they didn't write it

[4:47:10] this way, but it seems like it was a conclusion that was

[4:47:13] established. And then a report crafted to support that

[4:47:17] conclusion. And that's not the way it should be right now. I

[4:47:23] will also agree that something should be done to improve the

[4:47:30] beach, to get some kind of development there. But in line

[4:47:37] with the community expectations. Okay, some of these

[4:47:43] recommendations are unnecessarily excessive. I'm

[4:47:45] not a one, a, I mean, 20 story building on the east,

[4:47:48] skyscrapers on the east side. On the west side, you have six

[4:47:52] story buildings. I mean, Taverna, OPA gone, la tub gone,

[4:47:56] you know, G tiki, tiki gone. It's all going to just go up to

[4:48:02] six stories on that side. It's. And then the developers are

[4:48:07] going to flock to a one A because that's where the money

[4:48:10] is and they're just going to go up. And then I know the design

[4:48:14] guidelines would be there for. This is how we would like this

[4:48:17] stuff to look. The first building that gets in there and

[4:48:22] goes up and hits that 20 story mark, everybody else can now

[4:48:26] say at least this is my understanding of live local 20

[4:48:30] story building, live local. I can build whatever the hell I

[4:48:33] want. 20 stories. That's it. I don't know that this is really

[4:48:38] going to stop it. That said, if we can maybe go back and take

[4:48:47] another look at this and see if there's another way to craft a

[4:48:52] development plan that's a little bit more modest, you

[4:48:57] might have a lot more community support. I mean, think about it.

[4:49:00] There were 200 people here today. There's still 150 people.

[4:49:03] There's people still outside. Okay. You know where the

[4:49:07] community is on this. I hope you you stand with it. I

[4:49:11] recommended disapproval. Thank you, thank you. Armando. Margie

[4:49:19] Robbins, Sandra Bookman. And for those that have tickets in

[4:49:23] the 50s. Okay. Paul Ferrin. Come forward and be heard.

[4:49:35] Remind to let us know your address as well. Hello

[4:49:41] Commission I or board. The this project if actually if you

[4:49:52] listened to the presentation which opened up and explained

[4:49:58] what local Is this does not even qualify. If you look at

[4:50:05] number five on Live local, it said it had to be public

[4:50:10] benefit. This is a public liability. It is not a benefit

[4:50:17] at all. If you've listened to these 50 people that have just

[4:50:21] spoken, you can you can tell that every one of them

[4:50:26] considers it a liability. You've got A1. A is. On the

[4:50:34] beach is a below flood grade. You've got you've got massive

[4:50:42] king tide flooding and pumps that can't even handle it with

[4:50:47] the with the current density. And you want to try to increase

[4:50:51] the density two times. That's not very smart. And literally

[4:51:00] it is not a public benefit, so it does not qualify. Thank you.

[4:51:06] Thank you. Dana Cavalli, Moscow. William Knickerbocker. Carlos.

[4:51:23] Yeah. Still on three. And I've been reminded this is still

[4:51:28] item number three for the evening. Well 345. Good evening

[4:51:33] board. I am William Knickerbocker. I am the

[4:51:36] president of the Summit Towers Condominium Association. Okay.

[4:51:42] And I'm kind of concerned about this beach feasibility study.

[4:51:48] Feasibility, to me means that there's something either

[4:51:52] feasible or not feasible. Okay. And as a development and

[4:51:57] planning organization, you should be looking at what that

[4:52:01] entails. I looked into the guiding principles, and the one

[4:52:06] thing I found that was missing is safety. There's no

[4:52:12] architectural involvement in here. We're not talking about

[4:52:15] how deep the pilings have to go. We're not talking about how the

[4:52:20] vibrations are going to affect other buildings. We're not

[4:52:23] talking about how it's going to affect flooding. I know I, for

[4:52:27] one, am sitting in a condo where you're putting two

[4:52:31] buildings, one on each side of me here, and I'm going to be

[4:52:34] the low point now, okay? And flooding is going to affect a

[4:52:39] building that's been there for almost 45 years. Traffic and

[4:52:46] evacuation for every unit that you add to Hollywood Beach,

[4:52:51] you're going to add at least one more automobile. Okay, not

[4:52:57] there's not that much public transportation on Hollywood

[4:53:00] Beach. And so people are going to drive their cars and they're

[4:53:04] going to have parking. And a lot of families are going to

[4:53:07] have two cars. Okay. And when the first big storm comes and a

[4:53:14] one A is flooded, okay, how are you going to get everybody off

[4:53:19] the beach between the time you go to from a hurricane warning

[4:53:23] until the time you have to shut down the bridges? These are

[4:53:28] kind of these are the kinds of things that you ought to have

[4:53:31] studies for already. If the if the if you're going to put a

[4:53:36] plan together that says, this is how we're going to move

[4:53:40] forward. And if you don't have them, you're not doing due

[4:53:44] diligence. And if you don't do diligence, then you're not

[4:53:49] listening to the people. Thank you. Thank you. Carlos. Carlos

[4:54:00] Baskin 1201 South Ocean Drive. I am the vice president, also

[4:54:04] of the homeowners association at the summit. The one thing

[4:54:08] that I've noticed, the first thing that I checked when they

[4:54:11] were talking to us about the redoing of the streets with the

[4:54:16] pavers, the first thing that I spoke was with with the

[4:54:19] engineer. The first question that I asked is, what is your

[4:54:22] flood criteria? The answer was, there is no flood criteria.

[4:54:28] It's going to improve something, but we can't guarantee that

[4:54:31] it's not going to flood. Now, knowing how the system has been

[4:54:34] designed, now, we know very well that A1 A is a state

[4:54:39] highway and we cannot mess with it. We can't modify it. We

[4:54:42] can't raise it. Every street on that very island is designed

[4:54:49] now to go straight to A1 A, so all the water is designed to

[4:54:53] come down to A1 a the underwater pipe that they put

[4:54:58] in to discharge the rain and. The heavy water is designed to

[4:55:03] drain to the canal or the Intracoastal. Guess what? When

[4:55:09] the intercoastal water gets high enough, the flappers close.

[4:55:14] So the saltwater doesn't come back into the city. So now all

[4:55:18] the rain that comes down and everything that comes down is

[4:55:20] going to stay there because it has nowhere to go until the

[4:55:24] flappers are able to open and the water table drops. Now,

[4:55:28] what's going to happen in evacuation? We know that the

[4:55:32] bridges have to come. Happy to be locked down at a certain

[4:55:35] time, because boats also have to go through the bridges when

[4:55:37] there's evacuation or whatever. A1 will be flooded. We know

[4:55:43] what happened in Hallandale Beach Boulevard when it floods,

[4:55:45] cars stalled. They break down and you can't move for hours

[4:55:49] sometimes. What's going to happen to get out in an

[4:55:53] emergency case when all the streets are flooded and cars

[4:55:56] can't move because they stole the breakdown? The summit

[4:56:02] towers. I understand that the builder, in order to do the

[4:56:06] mitigation, whatever donated or something, the land was next

[4:56:09] door as a park. Now they want to put a high riser there. That

[4:56:14] means that the the building that donated land to for water

[4:56:20] retention and whatever, and the public park area and a parking

[4:56:23] lot and a beach area. Now it's going to have a big high rise

[4:56:27] on one side. Another high riser, perhaps on the other side, and

[4:56:31] it will be sunken in the middle of the lowest point. Anyway,

[4:56:34] thank you very much. Thank you. Moscow. Moscow here. Okay. I

[4:56:49] could stand here and repeat what everybody said, but I

[4:56:51] won't. I want to thank you. I ask you, I oppose this. I think

[4:56:58] you've heard more than enough reasons why this is a foolish

[4:57:03] idea. Also, consider the fact that when Joseph Young was a

[4:57:10] developer, there weren't 29 million people living in

[4:57:14] Florida, or 3 or 4 million people living in Broward County

[4:57:17] at the time, either. We are ignoring climate change. We are

[4:57:22] ignoring. Appropriate building codes. Also, we can enrich the

[4:57:30] related company. I've had enough of them personally. I've

[4:57:38] had more than enough of them over the last years. I have

[4:57:44] lost as many people have faith in my government. I ask you to

[4:57:52] restore that faith for me and do the right thing here and

[4:57:57] postpone this at the very minimum, so that the public can.

[4:58:02] So that the residents who pay the taxes which, by the way,

[4:58:06] you're also overlooking the fact that you may not even have

[4:58:09] property taxes anymore to work with in this city. While we're

[4:58:13] busy talking about building million dollar high rises on a

[4:58:16] beach that no one's going to live in. Do you go down a one

[4:58:20] way south and look at all these obnoxious empty buildings? It's

[4:58:26] nauseating. There's people that are homeless, but we're going

[4:58:29] to build billion dollar, million dollar buildings that

[4:58:32] no one's going to live in. What kind of society are we? What

[4:58:37] kind of a society are we? Please, please vote this down.

[4:58:46] Thank you. Dana. Gallup. David. Saltz. Cory. No. Okay. Kelly.

[4:59:03] Del. Toro. Linda. Hi. Good evening. My name is Kelly and

[4:59:13] I'm a Hollywood resident. 2001 Hollywood Boulevard. Sorry. I

[4:59:19] would like to start by saying thank you, Bob, for speaking up

[4:59:22] for us earlier today. I think that was great. And you're the

[4:59:25] only one that did it. I'm speaking out today against the

[4:59:28] proposed overlay district. Hollywood Beach has a character

[4:59:31] and a scale that distinguishes it from the wall of high rise

[4:59:34] development we see in other parts of South Florida.

[4:59:36] Increasing development potential in creating

[4:59:38] incentives for additional height and density may benefit

[4:59:41] developers, but it's residents who live with the consequences

[4:59:43] that is, more traffic, greater infrastructure demands, more

[4:59:46] construction, and increased pressure on an already

[4:59:49] vulnerable coastal area. I don't know why we're talking

[4:59:52] about this. They know, you know, we all know that the

[4:59:56] environmental impacts of this proposed idea is going to be

[5:00:00] catastrophic to the area. I already can't walk my dog after

[5:00:03] a rainstorm. Has anyone else tried to retrain their dog to

[5:00:06] pee in ankle high water? It's kind of impossible. While I

[5:00:11] appreciate the effort put into the presentation today, it

[5:00:13] lacks empathy, sympathy, and community rapport. I don't

[5:00:17] think these people deal with the problems that we deal with

[5:00:19] here. The few in favor for many years have treated this city

[5:00:24] like a short sale, allowing buildings to dilapidate

[5:00:27] establishments to go out of business. Also, they could make

[5:00:30] backdoor deals with developers. I think it's time for that to

[5:00:33] come to an end, and I think it's time for you guys to

[5:00:37] actually work for us. Thank you. David Saltz, Cory Sussman,

[5:00:46] Linda Martorano. Thank you, everyone for all the time and

[5:00:59] work that you've done. Speak to the mic. Thank you everyone for

[5:01:02] all the time and work that you've put into this. I'm

[5:01:05] opposed to this. I'm opposed to all the other ones. Name and

[5:01:08] address please. I, I live at 322 Buchanan Street, Crystal

[5:01:13] tower. I am squished between Margaritaville and Costa

[5:01:16] Hollywood, so I already have that experience. I feel that we

[5:01:22] want quality, not quantity. Everyone is. And everyone

[5:01:28] that's spoken except the one gentleman are all on the same

[5:01:31] page. I think that it's time for the city to listen to the

[5:01:35] citizens, and the infrastructure that we have

[5:01:39] right now is insufficient. I live there. I see the flooding.

[5:01:43] I see the problems. The beach is deteriorated with the

[5:01:46] streets that were done over in the beginning are deteriorated,

[5:01:50] and they're still putting in new ones at the other end of

[5:01:53] the beach. So until we can fix all these other problems, I

[5:01:56] don't see why we should be thinking about tall buildings,

[5:01:59] which will cause more problems. And as far as the 1301 building,

[5:02:04] I say give it a vote. Thank you. Thank you. David. Saltz. Carrie

[5:02:10] Kesselman. All right. Anybody in the 60s, please come to the

[5:02:16] chamber and line. Sylvie Meyer Paul 5252. What's your name?

[5:02:28] Okay. Come forward. Be heard. Thank you. I had all this. Jeff

[5:02:34] Bodle. I'm at the summit also with a bunch of other great

[5:02:37] people here. 1201 South Ocean Drive. I came here, prepared

[5:02:42] all this nice write up and so on, but everything was said

[5:02:47] already. It is the 20. It's more of a personal story. 25th

[5:02:54] anniversary of the World Trade Center coming up. And I was

[5:02:58] there and I was part of the cleanup. I did suffer some

[5:03:04] trauma about fire engines. And about a year ago here at the

[5:03:09] and I'm from Brooklyn, New York. I love it here. I went to Bel

[5:03:12] Air. Craig Adams has a little inn on the beach. And that's

[5:03:15] where I started my my journey here to Hollywood Beach. I love

[5:03:19] it here. Been here about two years now. I'm involved in the

[5:03:24] Dune program. Thank you, Lee Gottlieb for the dunes and

[5:03:27] working with the Audubon Society. I'm also involved with

[5:03:30] homeless and and Broward County Outreach Center. Edgewater had

[5:03:36] a fire about a year ago. I was on I was right there outside. I

[5:03:40] began to panic. My you know, visions of destruction came to

[5:03:46] mind and and it was terrible. A one a was crowded. It was

[5:03:51] flooded. We had Kings tide police couldn't get through.

[5:03:54] Fire engines couldn't get through. A woman died in the

[5:03:57] building as a result of smoke because again, the density, the

[5:04:02] the whole a one a it was talked about. My colleague Carlos

[5:04:05] spoke about the the a, a one a and the streets, how it's off

[5:04:09] and everything is going into the water. We just don't have

[5:04:12] we don't have it here. We don't have it ready yet. It's not

[5:04:15] ready yet. Maybe in some time it will be. But it's not ready

[5:04:18] now. Please. I'm opposed to this. Please don't let it

[5:04:22] happen. Thank you, thank you. Sylvie Meyer, Paul Dibono,

[5:04:29] Rachel Schoenfeld. Hello, and thank you all for your time.

[5:04:41] The staff, the board, and most of all the residents who are

[5:04:45] sitting here so patiently waiting to speak. They really

[5:04:48] rock and they really care. Your name and the address? My oh,

[5:04:52] Sylvia Meyer, as you said, 1520 Rodman Street. Sorry for

[5:04:57] forgetting that. You know, I. I want to print out the agenda.

[5:05:06] And I saw that it was 1020 pages and my brain just

[5:05:14] exploded. How could I do that during lunch and, and make

[5:05:18] comments? What I first thing I thought and I wrote down is we

[5:05:24] need workshops. This is unfair to the residents. We haven't

[5:05:29] gotten all our information and a couple of words, little

[5:05:36] phrases I highlighted were optional bonus discretionary

[5:05:41] allocation, future discretionary allocation. It

[5:05:44] all seems really like it's going in the wrong direction. I

[5:05:49] heard the word progress, but with progress it's not always a

[5:05:53] good thing you have. Potential new harms. You have costs that

[5:06:00] you are not thinking about. You have systematic risks. Progress

[5:06:05] is not always good over development versus smart

[5:06:10] development. That's not what I'm seeing here. Mr. Glickman,

[5:06:13] thank you for. It's notable that you're in Carol harms seat

[5:06:18] because she does her homework and she looks at the numbers.

[5:06:21] And I really appreciate your comments. I heard comments

[5:06:28] about how this is being proactive instead of being

[5:06:32] reactive in times to come. And all it seems like it's been

[5:06:37] done in collusion with the developers. I don't see

[5:06:42] anything that the residents want in this. I we all want

[5:06:47] sand and ocean. We want to smell the beach when we go

[5:06:51] there. It just is not at all what's happening out there. And

[5:06:58] everybody's asking why it's being rushed. Because in

[5:07:02] November 3rd, the commission might lose their supermajority.

[5:07:05] That's the reason I think we're having this meeting that it's

[5:07:08] not being postponed. And that's the truth of the matter. Thank

[5:07:12] you. Paul Dibona, Rachel Schoenfeld, Adam Roberts. Hello,

[5:07:30] I'm Rachel Schoenfeld, 5119 Roosevelt Street, Hollywood

[5:07:34] Hills. I enjoy enjoying the beach even though I'm in

[5:07:37] Hollywood Hills. And I speak not just for myself, but my

[5:07:40] family who had to leave and probably 100 other people who

[5:07:43] left because they couldn't hang in for this marathon process.

[5:07:47] That's just completely unreasonable. It's 1022 and

[5:07:50] you're only in the first item that we're talking about. I

[5:07:54] want to mention that the public concern is keeping the unique

[5:07:59] quality of the only broadwalk, as was mentioned, but that's

[5:08:03] not by camouflaging tall glass buildings with setbacks.

[5:08:08] Setbacks aren't magic. They don't hide the height or the

[5:08:13] shadows. This bonus for parcels just means incentivize

[5:08:19] incentivizing developers to gobble up or. I've learned this

[5:08:23] word assemble unique small properties to build tall

[5:08:27] buildings. That's who benefits. And then we've already heard

[5:08:31] about variances to variances for that. It's voluntary for

[5:08:35] the developers, but not for the constituents who have no choice

[5:08:40] about the developers taking our beach away. I am struck by

[5:08:45] using the acronym Tide, which is a very unfortunate catch

[5:08:51] phrase for environmental disaster. Joseph Young we've

[5:08:56] heard about he learned in 1926. The development has to consider

[5:09:01] the perils of our coastal environment. The first speaker

[5:09:07] covered back when the subsidence issue. I was left

[5:09:12] papers by somebody who couldn't stay to speak. That also refers

[5:09:15] to the recommendation for moratorium on tall, thin

[5:09:19] buildings. Right now, this transfer of development rights

[5:09:25] sure sounds a lot like what happened with the summit in

[5:09:28] 1301. And we see that that's no longer respected. So how long

[5:09:32] will it be respected this time? And we hear that this is an

[5:09:37] interim plan. If you allow the height now, it's just not

[5:09:41] temporary. As far as the historic Hollywood hotel, it

[5:09:46] sure has a resemblance to the Biltmore and to the breakers.

[5:09:50] And can you imagine Coral Gables and West Palm if they

[5:09:54] had just torn those down in favor of another glass tower?

[5:09:58] We really should try to figure out a way to save it. I've

[5:10:02] heard the same story with the great Southern that was let to

[5:10:05] be in that condition. I wore this shirt for a reason.

[5:10:12] Instead of public surveys that aren't being listened to, let's

[5:10:15] do a real public survey. It's called a vote. We should have a

[5:10:19] referendum on this overlay plan. And also in 1301, if I can't

[5:10:24] stay up till two in the morning to discuss it. Thank you. Paul

[5:10:33] Dibona, Adam Roberti, Elizabeth Farmer, Michelle Carroll. How

[5:10:40] is after 61 you would think your name. Okay, that's what

[5:10:47] this says. Harry DiBiase 1337 Meadows Boulevard. I'm going to

[5:10:54] make this short. I think that misuse this is what my concern

[5:10:58] the misuse of live local. Because when you say live local

[5:11:03] is to help out some, you know, affordable housing. Well,

[5:11:08] nobody that I know that has kids, young kids can afford

[5:11:13] 3500. So we are selling this to millionaires, not to what we.

[5:11:19] So please don't use don't use it wrong. So I'm going to make

[5:11:22] this really short. A picture is worth a thousand words, right?

[5:11:28] A lot of people here, like 20% have mentioned Sunny Isles

[5:11:32] don't. Sunny Isles are beaches. Can I show you this? Can I come

[5:11:36] up visually describe it quite honestly? Okay, well, here is a

[5:11:40] picture of Sunny Isles. And please, please come back to the

[5:11:44] Sunny Isles. All the buildings and look at all the shadow. It

[5:11:48] should be called Shadow Island, not Sunny Island. So if anybody

[5:11:54] wants to see it. Patty, are you yielding your time? I'm done,

[5:12:04] I'm done. Okay. Thank you. Adam Roberti, Elizabeth Farmer,

[5:12:08] Michelle Carroll, whoever. Just come on up. Just state your

[5:12:15] name and your address for the record, please. Hi, my name is

[5:12:18] Elizabeth Farmer. I live at 1440 Sheridan Street. Someone

[5:12:22] on the other side of the intercoastal. I'm across the

[5:12:26] street from Walmart, and I. I'm right on Sheridan Street and we

[5:12:29] get the ocean breeze. Believe it or not, we really do. I've

[5:12:33] been down here since 19. I have been down here since 1985. I've

[5:12:38] lived all over Broward County, and Hollywood is always the

[5:12:41] beach I'd come, come to. I've lived in Lauderhill, I've lived

[5:12:44] in Weston. I'd always come all the way to Hollywood because it

[5:12:48] has a boardwalk. It also has. You have parking spaces, you.

[5:12:52] It's just a quaint city to come to. All my friends from North

[5:12:56] Carolina and Virginia, they come down twice a year. They go

[5:12:59] right to the boardwalk, and that's where they get their

[5:13:03] hotels. That is where they stay. I've been with the airlines for

[5:13:06] 36 years. I go Fort Lauderdale, New York, passengers all the

[5:13:10] time ask me, what do I do in South Florida? I said, you've

[5:13:14] got to go to Hollywood Beach. And let me tell you why. It's

[5:13:17] because it's not overdeveloped. You don't have huge buildings.

[5:13:21] You can actually get parking spots. And they look at me like,

[5:13:25] well, what's the difference? I said, the rest of the city, you

[5:13:27] just have huge buildings. Who wants to go to a city that has

[5:13:31] huge buildings? I have been to South County. I've been to 86

[5:13:35] countries so far. I'm very fortunate on vacation and when

[5:13:39] we pick out a place to go, we do not go where they're huge

[5:13:43] buildings. What's the point? You might as well just stay

[5:13:46] here. But anyway, South Florida, Hollywood, it's just unique.

[5:13:50] And we're just asking you, you can update it, you can do some

[5:13:54] nice things, but don't put these huge tall buildings on

[5:13:58] our boardwalk. Anyway. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you.

[5:14:01] Elizabeth. Adam. Roberti. Michelle Carroll. Okay. Marci

[5:14:09] Podesta. Gloria. Maddalena. Oh. Geez. I don't know. Also known

[5:14:20] as Marty Podesta, I live at 46th and Pierce Street. And I'm

[5:14:25] here to just echo what everyone else has said. This is not a

[5:14:32] well thought out plan. But as I'm sitting here and I'm

[5:14:36] listening to everybody and I'm thinking, a lot of people are

[5:14:39] saying it's not well thought out, it it needs to be fleshed

[5:14:42] out. There's the kernel of something. But it's this is

[5:14:46] typical of Hollywood. I have lived here since 1960 and

[5:14:51] downtown is like, ooh, brick pavers, let's do that. Ooh,

[5:14:58] medians with trees in the middle. Let's do that ten years

[5:15:02] later. Ooh, we need more parking. Let's rip out the

[5:15:06] medians and take down the trees. And oh, the pavers need to be

[5:15:11] redone. Hollywood seems to be unable to focus on a cohesive

[5:15:20] vision for the future. They just are unable to do this.

[5:15:28] This beach is a treasure. Every single person up here has said.

[5:15:32] The reason why? Because there are. There is a distinct lack

[5:15:37] of tall buildings. It has charm, it has a quaintness. And that

[5:15:44] does not come with tall buildings. You have an

[5:15:48] opportunity. And this has been said also, you have an

[5:15:52] opportunity to. Begin to put the brakes on so that a vision

[5:15:59] can be held or created. Or if this is a vision then fleshed

[5:16:07] out and made more cohesive, something that is not going to

[5:16:14] end in five years, we're going to go, what were we thinking?

[5:16:18] And and none of the safety issues have been addressed. If

[5:16:21] you have the opportunity, if there's, you know, any chance

[5:16:26] at all that you can say, please, let's stop this, then please do

[5:16:33] that because the public has spoken and the only person who

[5:16:38] has stood up here in favor of this was a lawyer representing

[5:16:43] potential, the property owners for future potential

[5:16:48] development. That's the only one. Unless you know, you're

[5:16:51] getting calls from all the people who want it. And we

[5:16:55] don't get to hear their side of the of the story. So please,

[5:16:59] this is our opportunity to keep what we have perhaps improve on

[5:17:05] it, but not to totally destroy what has brought most of these

[5:17:12] people to this beach. Thank you. Thank you, Gloria, Gloria,

[5:17:19] Maddalena, anybody else in the 60s that I have not called?

[5:17:25] Moving on. Those in the 70s that have or have tickets in

[5:17:29] the 70s, please come to the Chambers and Danny. Golf. Laura.

[5:17:34] Golf. Kathy Friedman. Good evening. Your name and address

[5:17:48] for the record, please. Hi, my name is Kathy Friedman and I

[5:17:52] live in Hollywood Hills off of 54th and Thomas Street. I'd

[5:17:56] rather not give out my physical address publicly. Anyways, I

[5:18:01] live here with my husband and he often tells me stories of

[5:18:05] the times he used to visit his grandparents. Here they would

[5:18:08] often visit Hollywood Beach and of course, go see all the

[5:18:12] historic hotels and all the charm. When we were deciding

[5:18:17] where to move, we were both living in Texas at the time,

[5:18:20] but when we were deciding where to move, he thought of all

[5:18:23] those times that he got to visit our our cute, quaint

[5:18:26] little beach. And he suggested that to me. And we looked into

[5:18:30] the area and I just fell in love. So I'm with a lot of

[5:18:33] these people here saying that I would not be here if it was not

[5:18:37] for the way the beach exists right now. We fell in love with

[5:18:42] the way of life here. The pace, the beautiful people, and just

[5:18:46] the very uniqueness of Hollywood as a whole. It's got

[5:18:50] such a character, such charm and the architecture, you know,

[5:18:55] you can't. You can't beat that. You can't buy that these days.

[5:19:00] I've not ever been happier in a place. And I've lived in Texas

[5:19:05] my whole life, but I've never been happier than moving to

[5:19:08] Hollywood, Florida. It is instilled in me a sense of

[5:19:12] civic action. This is. It's. The reason I started coming to

[5:19:15] these meetings is because I fell in love with this city. If

[5:19:21] we allow development on the beach to exceed the current

[5:19:24] height capacities, we could see a very drastic change in our

[5:19:28] way of life. We will no longer have our sunny beaches. We will

[5:19:32] no longer have our quaint historic hotels. They will be

[5:19:36] replaced by these big towers, leaving little access for

[5:19:40] surrounding for the residents of the surrounding towns and

[5:19:42] Hollywood especially, they offer the promises of community,

[5:19:47] space or bonuses. But nobody seems to know what that means.

[5:19:52] And I'm sorry, I would much rather have 1301 remain a

[5:19:57] community center than it be replaced with an art

[5:20:01] installation. I would much rather have that that space to

[5:20:04] be utilized by the public. I am sorry if I'm rambling a little

[5:20:08] bit because I am nervous. This is my first time doing this,

[5:20:12] but I feel passionately that we should save our beach and that

[5:20:15] you should vote in opposition to this, and that we should

[5:20:18] save the grand lady because these these things are pieces

[5:20:22] of Hollywood that make it what it is and and make it why we

[5:20:26] love this place so much and why we have such a passion to, to

[5:20:31] dedicate ourselves to this community and to bring all of

[5:20:34] our skill sets and all of our energy and efforts in order to

[5:20:39] revitalize this city. It should be based on what the residents

[5:20:44] want, and they don't want this. Thank you. Danny and Laura.

[5:20:51] Golf. Danny. Golf. Okay. I assume his Laura golfs also

[5:20:58] Philip. Carey. Philippe. Leonard. Mickey. Right behind

[5:21:07] me, please. Good evening. My name is Philippe Carriere. I'm

[5:21:11] a resident of 1201 South Ocean Drive. My wife and I have been

[5:21:17] a resident of Hollywood for the last 25 years. You know, we are

[5:21:23] currently living on Hollywood Beach for the last seven years.

[5:21:27] We are totally opposed to this Hollywood overlay. New design.

[5:21:35] Hollywood Hollywood Beach residents have consistently

[5:21:40] demonstrated tonight that they do not want additional high

[5:21:44] rise in their district. I am begging the six of you here

[5:21:51] tonight to reconsider this overlay proposal. Let's look at

[5:22:00] Hollywood. Ten years, 20 years, 30 years from now, and let's

[5:22:05] keep it the way it is. Thank you, thank you, Lenora, Mickey,

[5:22:11] Issa. Swat. Okay. I want to thank all of you, first of all,

[5:22:20] for being so polite. I've been before the City Commission and

[5:22:24] it is, and it's been a nightmare. So thank you so much.

[5:22:30] I don't know so many things have been said today. I, I

[5:22:34] don't know what I could add to that, but I know some of you

[5:22:37] already started out with your minds made up, but I know

[5:22:41] you're all Hollywood residents, right? And sometimes you have

[5:22:46] to look at what everybody else wants in your neighborhood.

[5:22:50] Right? And I just don't see how you could, in good conscience,

[5:22:56] ignore the pleading that you've heard here. I don't live on the

[5:23:00] beach, but I moved here. I'm a native Floridian. I grew up in

[5:23:05] Hialeah, and even in Hialeah, I could I when I was a kid, I

[5:23:10] could stand in my front yard and I could smell the ocean

[5:23:13] breeze. I live in Hollywood now. I'm only a few miles from the

[5:23:17] beach. I can't smell, I can't smell any ocean breeze because

[5:23:21] of all the buildings. I love. I love it here. I mean, I feel in

[5:23:28] no place have I ever felt more at home than I have in

[5:23:31] Hollywood. I've lived a lot of places I could I, I had a

[5:23:36] really good job with Intel and I had, you know, a good amount

[5:23:39] of money and I could have lived anywhere in the world I wanted.

[5:23:42] And I chose Hollywood. I'm pleading with you, as everybody

[5:23:46] else has here, to listen to what your residents want. We've

[5:23:51] got we've got a lame duck city commission. They're trying to

[5:23:56] push this through all of the. There's seven people running

[5:24:03] for city commission. I believe only one of them hasn't come

[5:24:07] out and said that they're against this overdevelopment.

[5:24:12] Give us a chance to get our new people that represent us.

[5:24:16] That's what we're asking for. We just want people that we you

[5:24:19] know, we're paying their big salaries now and we pay tons of

[5:24:24] taxes. And it would be really nice if we had representation.

[5:24:28] The only person that came out here that was that was for this

[5:24:32] is being paid. Maybe he's not even for it. You know, that was

[5:24:36] his job to come out here and write. Statistically, you guys

[5:24:42] are all Hollywood people. So I'm kind of surprised that

[5:24:45] there's a number of you that are against this. I mean, just

[5:24:49] statistically, it would seem you've got like 99.9% or 100%

[5:24:54] people here that are against this. But somehow we have some

[5:24:58] people that aren't. I don't understand it. But anyway, I'm

[5:25:01] just asking you, this really should have been a referendum.

[5:25:05] I mean, really this kind of thing. Right? I mean, we should

[5:25:11] vote on it and we're only getting a chance to get a new

[5:25:14] city commission so that we can have representation, give us

[5:25:18] that vote no on this thing. Let us get in the new commissioners

[5:25:23] and hopefully they won't. They won't turn they won't become

[5:25:27] turncoats like the others have. And we can we can get somebody

[5:25:30] we we thank you much. Thank you. My time is up. Okay. Thank you,

[5:25:34] Steven Vizcarra. Moussaka. Sorry about that. Good evening

[5:25:45] everybody. Steven moussaka. I'm born and raised here in

[5:25:48] Hollywood. You know, first off, just want to, you know, say

[5:25:51] thank you to Bob. Bob going to have a big head by the end of

[5:25:55] this meeting with all the shout outs. You're not going to be

[5:25:58] able to fit through that door over there. I want to actually

[5:26:01] echo what the the lady over there had said about, you know,

[5:26:04] this being a little bit more of a pleasant experience speaking

[5:26:07] in front of you guys as opposed to the commission, which is a

[5:26:10] very sad thing to honestly admit. You know, I've been

[5:26:12] before the commission before, you know, I've seen residents

[5:26:15] laughed at, eyes rolled. So for what it's worth, thank you all

[5:26:18] very much for not doing that to us, no matter how you feel. You

[5:26:22] know, I want to start off by saying, you know, like I said,

[5:26:25] born and raised here in Hollywood. And it was funny

[5:26:28] because I went to Little Flower Catholic school was in the same

[5:26:31] class with the same 30 people for about eight years, give or

[5:26:34] take. And one of the themes growing up there that everybody,

[5:26:38] all the kids used to talk about is how much everybody couldn't

[5:26:41] wait to get out of Hollywood, myself included. I have to

[5:26:44] admit that. And it was funny that there came a time where I

[5:26:47] left about a year and a half, I went to Margate and realized

[5:26:52] how much I missed this area, and I came back and one of the

[5:26:55] biggest reasons that I decided to come back was that beach.

[5:26:59] You know, on Sunday there was a west wind. I took my

[5:27:03] paddleboard out and well, right before my paddleboard sprung a

[5:27:07] leak in which I had to then paddle back to shore in a

[5:27:11] dramatic fashion, I. I took a look at at our beach, you know,

[5:27:16] from a different view. And it reminded me of what's so

[5:27:19] special about it. There wasn't all those high buildings there,

[5:27:22] you know, and then you look to the south. We've heard all the

[5:27:25] talk about Sunny Isles this whole night. You look to the

[5:27:28] south and all you see is a row of skyscrapers. And it's really

[5:27:32] not it's not very pretty. I have many friends that live out

[5:27:36] of state, and when they come here to visit me, I can't wait

[5:27:40] to take them down to the beach. I can't wait to take them to

[5:27:44] the boardwalk. And all of them cannot believe what an amazing

[5:27:48] vibe that that beach has. Many of them have not even heard of

[5:27:51] it. Like in fact, typically when I would go out of town for

[5:27:54] work, I wouldn't even tell people Hollywood, Florida. I

[5:27:56] would just say Fort Lauderdale because a lot of folks from out

[5:27:59] of state have never heard of Hollywood, you know, but that's

[5:28:02] one of the things that I that just the beach is what makes

[5:28:05] this city what it is. You know, I mean, I could come up here

[5:28:09] and echo everything that everybody said, but the fact of

[5:28:12] the matter is this really should be put to the vote. You

[5:28:15] know, I remember actually two years ago at early voting, one

[5:28:18] of the commissioners actually said to me that he, quote

[5:28:21] unquote, spoke to thousands of members in his district who

[5:28:26] said that they would be angry if they did not approve the

[5:28:31] skyscrapers on the beach. Well, if thousands of people would be

[5:28:35] that angry, if it didn't happen, then those thousands of people,

[5:28:39] I'm sure, would be more than happy to come out and vote for

[5:28:42] it if it was put to a vote, as it should be. So I'm asking you

[5:28:46] guys tonight, please say no to this. Thank you, thank you.

[5:28:52] Lenora, Mickey, Adam Sugerman, Lori. Goldstein. Adam. I'm

[5:28:59] sorry. Adam. Good evening. My name is Adam. Adam Wertheimer

[5:29:07] Sugarman. I live at 5001 ten Madison Street. So I live

[5:29:11] pretty far west. I'm a financial educator and I'm a

[5:29:16] business owner. Several years ago, the voters passed the Go

[5:29:22] bond, including that was funding for the construction of

[5:29:26] a seawall. In the meantime, 44% of Hollywood's homes still rely

[5:29:32] on a septic tank system. Does a seawall designed to handle the

[5:29:38] new residents and visitors. When are we going to balance

[5:29:43] the needs of both the West and East parts of Hollywood? Beyond

[5:29:47] the numbers, there's a human aspect. I recently traveled to

[5:29:52] Quebec and I met people who have visited Hollywood, and

[5:29:57] they love it, and I asked them why they love it. They like the

[5:30:00] small hotels, they love the vibe. They love the open space.

[5:30:03] They feel at home on the beach. They feel human. Here. It's

[5:30:08] their beach as much as it is mine. The Hollywood beach is

[5:30:12] unique and we need to recognize its value. And as a business

[5:30:18] owner, I know we need to. We need growth, but we have a

[5:30:21] responsibility to have it grow in a controlled manner. The

[5:30:26] beach needs to be for everyone. So there are. You've heard a

[5:30:29] lot of arguments this evening. A few questions I would like to

[5:30:34] have answered, if that's possible, is how much growth

[5:30:39] can the barrier island sustain? Can it support? Can people

[5:30:44] evacuate an emergency the beach safely? If the city can't

[5:30:48] demonstrate that additional population can be safely

[5:30:51] evacuated, why should additional density be

[5:30:54] authorized? Can a one A and the local street network handle the

[5:30:58] growth? Does the water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure

[5:31:02] have sufficient capacity? What happens during flooding and

[5:31:06] seasonal and season level? Sea level rise? What is the

[5:31:11] geotechnical capacity of the barrier island? Has the city

[5:31:14] commissioned an independent assessment of cumulative high

[5:31:18] rise development on the barrier island? What happens to beach

[5:31:21] access? And finally, will will low rise buildings be

[5:31:24] profitable for the developers and builders? Will they be

[5:31:28] built with the highest quality so we don't have to worry about.

[5:31:31] So they don't have to worry about failing a 30 year

[5:31:34] assessment or certification. So I you know, please listen to us.

[5:31:38] A lot of people here, most just about everyone has been against

[5:31:41] this. We need to keep our beach a special place. And I, you

[5:31:46] know, we do need growth, but we need it done responsibly. Thank

[5:31:49] you. Lori Goldstein, Stuart Shapiro. Good evening. My name

[5:32:03] is Laurie Goldstein. I live at 1318 Van Buren Street and have

[5:32:06] been here for over 30 years. You know, the beach is what

[5:32:12] makes this place special and a lot more care and a lot more

[5:32:19] thought and a lot more due diligence and a lot more input

[5:32:24] from the community and a lot more really strong thinking and,

[5:32:30] and looking at the big picture needs to be done before

[5:32:34] anything of even half the magnitude that you're talking

[5:32:38] about gets done to the beach. This is not this is huge. What

[5:32:43] is being proposed. And it will change our city forever. And I

[5:32:49] honestly don't understand how. I mean, we all have better

[5:32:55] things to do tonight, including you. None of us wants to be

[5:32:59] here, but we're all here. And that's because we all are just

[5:33:03] tired of being railroaded and run over by people with lots of

[5:33:10] money. Developers. Somebody somehow is just running this

[5:33:14] show, and the people of this city have had it. And that's

[5:33:19] why we're here, and that's why we're going to stay here, and

[5:33:22] that's why we're going to be back. And we are all tired, and

[5:33:25] we all want to go home and go to bed. And I don't know how,

[5:33:29] after hearing I don't know how many people tonight speak from

[5:33:35] the heart, what about how much importance this is and how this

[5:33:41] thing is being rushed and how we're trying to do it before

[5:33:46] the lame duck people are gone, and how you can, in good faith,

[5:33:53] vote to to do this thing. After hearing from people who live in

[5:34:02] your community, who care, who are out here when they would

[5:34:05] much rather be home in bed or taking care of their children

[5:34:09] or doing anything else. How in good faith you can just ignore

[5:34:16] what is being told to you tonight. And I don't think you

[5:34:21] can. I don't think that you can in good faith and honestly do

[5:34:25] your job and vote for what's being presented. You have to

[5:34:30] listen to the people. You have to. You know, have more input.

[5:34:37] You cannot just vote. You cannot just pretend none of

[5:34:40] this happened tonight because we're all here and we all know

[5:34:44] what's going on, and we're all just really tired of having to

[5:34:47] come out here to preserve our incredible beach. And every

[5:34:52] other town that's ruining their beach makes ours even more

[5:34:56] important and better. And it has to be done with a lot of

[5:34:59] thought and a lot of input, and definitely not rushed. Thank

[5:35:04] you, thank you. Stuart Shapiro, anybody else with a 70s card or

[5:35:11] 70s ticket? Please state your name and address for the record.

[5:35:18] And for the record, there's 97 people that have signed up to

[5:35:21] speak. My name is Leonora Mickey. I live at 1035 Weeping

[5:35:24] Willow Way. I do not live on the beach, but I feel the beach

[5:35:29] is for everyone but honest. But forget about that. The fact

[5:35:34] that you would propose putting all these buildings in, adding

[5:35:39] to the beach area before taking care of the infrastructure and

[5:35:43] the flooding and all the things that everybody has mentioned

[5:35:46] already, I am not going to go over and repeat it again, but I

[5:35:50] just feel like that's totally irresponsible and you're just

[5:35:54] going to you're going to ruin really the area will be totally

[5:35:58] ruined. And I also do not trust that the people who are in

[5:36:03] charge really know how to do a business deal. Because I look

[5:36:06] at 1301, for example, that is the worst deal for the people

[5:36:12] and the residents. I can't believe it. I can't believe

[5:36:15] that they would actually bend over backwards for related. I

[5:36:19] mean, they're they're laughing, going to the bank, whatever.

[5:36:23] And if I hear one more time how we're getting a community

[5:36:27] center that we're paying $20 million for, and I want, I feel

[5:36:31] bad that we should. We don't have any other contractors.

[5:36:34] It's not being asked, have other builders, you know, see

[5:36:38] if we can get a better deal. We're going with their deal. 20

[5:36:42] million, I don't know, I just feel like it's not a planned.

[5:36:48] Well, I think really we have in the real estate business, when

[5:36:54] you're a landlady, it's location, location, location.

[5:36:57] It doesn't matter what you're building. It could be the most

[5:37:00] dilapidated thing, whatever. But location, location,

[5:37:03] location, you have the control. There should be begging you.

[5:37:07] We're begging these people to come and build for us. And what

[5:37:12] are we getting out of it? And I laugh because I don't know if

[5:37:16] somebody made the comment that young was a developer and he

[5:37:20] wanted to make money. Yes, he did okay. And he built that

[5:37:23] hotel. And we're giving a 99 year lease. And that building

[5:37:29] down there, it's not even 100 years old and it is dilapidated

[5:37:33] and falling or whatever. What are we leaving for the future?

[5:37:36] I mean, I feel bad for the kids, for the grandchildren, for

[5:37:41] whatever. You know, I came to Hollywood. I should have been

[5:37:45] born here. That's what I always told my husband. But it took me

[5:37:48] 70 years to get here. And I love it. And whatever you do,

[5:37:53] I'm still going to stay. But I just feel like for these people

[5:37:57] who live on the beach, do do a better job for them, clear up

[5:38:02] and take care of the problems, the flooding, whatever the

[5:38:06] water. I know you're laughing, but I, I can't help myself. And

[5:38:10] it's just I'm not giving any facts because you heard them

[5:38:14] all and I hope you'll do the right thing. Thank you so much.

[5:38:24] Yes, doctor. Codeine. And after that, Michael Sloan. Okay. Name

[5:38:37] and address for the record. Wilhelmina Cotham, 1011

[5:38:41] Hollywood Boulevard. I've been in my home for over 35 years.

[5:38:45] 1940s vintage home. I deal with the flooding all the time, as

[5:38:50] we all know in Hollywood. And I love the beach. I can walk to

[5:38:54] the beach two blocks over the bridge, come back, and the

[5:38:58] flooding is so bad now that in my great. In front of my home,

[5:39:03] the water bottles from the beach are in my sewer. Okay?

[5:39:08] And if we don't start dealing with what's happening with the

[5:39:12] beach and the erosion and the environment and put up big high

[5:39:17] buildings, we're not going to have anything left. The

[5:39:20] evacuation is almost impossible. Number that big storm we had in

[5:39:24] the 20s, about 3 or 4 years ago, my Rottweiler, Chow and I were

[5:39:28] standing on my boulders in my front garden as a outboard

[5:39:33] motor skiff came down the sidewalk, and father and son

[5:39:37] were waving to me as we were standing on the sidewalk. We

[5:39:40] don't save our beach. The gem that we have, the downtown that

[5:39:44] we have, it's going to be gone forever. Most of my friends

[5:39:48] from North Miami Beach, Aventura, everyone else

[5:39:51] consider Hollywood Beach and downtown Hollywood their

[5:39:54] hometown because what do they have? High rises, no beach,

[5:39:59] nowhere to walk, nowhere to sit except to look at old buildings,

[5:40:03] big old buildings and canyons. We have a precious gem. We

[5:40:07] throw it away. We'll never get it back. And all of you are

[5:40:11] responsible and need to think deeply about what we're doing

[5:40:14] to Hollywood. Because once it's gone, it's gone. Interesting

[5:40:18] story about the Hollywood Beach Hotel. I don't know how many of

[5:40:21] you have gone to the historical society meetings that was built

[5:40:25] in 90 days. First concrete building in the 1920s. Mr.

[5:40:29] young built it. 1926 hurricane. That was where everyone

[5:40:35] evacuated two and survived because that building stood and

[5:40:39] everything else and all the cabanas and everything else was

[5:40:41] gone. The only way to get to the beach was a barge over

[5:40:45] Johnson from Johnson Street, and everyone evacuated to

[5:40:48] Hollywood Beach into that concrete building. The fact

[5:40:51] that nobody has taken the time or the care to preserve a

[5:40:56] building of that history or historical value, like the

[5:41:00] breakers, like the the the Biltmore is just just amazing

[5:41:05] to me that we have no sense of history in Hollywood and that

[5:41:09] no one cares enough to preserve our beach, preserve our

[5:41:12] environment, to preserve our turtles, to preserve the

[5:41:14] Hollywood Beach Hotel and keep the history of this city alive.

[5:41:18] I'm from the Netherlands. I have a lot. I'm sorry I was

[5:41:21] born. I have family that comes. That's. My name is Wilhelmina.

[5:41:23] Dutch enough. And when they come, they go, wow. We go all

[5:41:28] over Europe. We go to beaches all over. But Hollywood Beach

[5:41:32] has a special feeling that we haven't seen anywhere else. So

[5:41:36] I hope and pray that all of you think deeply. And Mr. Glickman,

[5:41:41] your comments were just amazing. Thank you. Thank you, Michael

[5:41:45] Sloan, Lynn Smith, Mikey Crespo. And as the evening lingers on,

[5:41:54] please do not feel obligated to take up all three minutes.

[5:41:59] Michael Sloan, Lynn Smith, Mikey Crespo. Sharon Tomlin

[5:42:09] who's it? Okay, please state your name and address. And

[5:42:20] anybody else with the 80s ticket. Please come to the

[5:42:24] chambers and stand. Wow. I'm tired. I don't know about you

[5:42:32] guys. I'm not sure how you guys are going to be able to sit

[5:42:38] through this and vote yes. I just can't imagine either not

[5:42:44] continuing it or voting it down. No. When you listen to these

[5:42:48] citizens, they're bright, they're intelligent, they know

[5:42:52] facts. I'd like to just present a few facts. And by the way, my

[5:42:56] name is Steve Welsh. I live at 2443 Fillmore Street in

[5:43:01] Hollywood. I wish you could maybe put the picture up there

[5:43:04] of the pretty picture that you had of the three that the two

[5:43:10] hotel or the two buildings, that one. I just wanted to

[5:43:14] point that out. Commissioner Blattner mentioned how lovely

[5:43:18] that is. Right now, our beach has a 65 foot limit in most of

[5:43:25] the central beach area. If you count the floors. That's why I

[5:43:31] think Commissioner Blattner likes it so much. On the right,

[5:43:34] that happens to be six stories. How perfect. And the one on the

[5:43:38] left it shows two stories. So 2 to 6 stories. It's beautiful.

[5:43:44] It really is. And I appreciate that you like that,

[5:43:47] Commissioner Blattner. But there's another 140ft above

[5:43:54] that that you're not seeing. So I think that's important to

[5:43:57] note. I'd like to just bring in a few different items here. I'd

[5:44:01] like to correct the staff on the immunity. Your immunity

[5:44:07] does not vanish if you make a wanton and willful decision

[5:44:13] without proper backup. This evening, you are, in fact, no

[5:44:19] longer able to claim innocence and ignorance. You know that

[5:44:25] your materials are absent a great deal of information, tons

[5:44:30] of information. You ask questions at previous meetings.

[5:44:34] You have still not gotten answers. We haven't heard those

[5:44:39] answers. So that's just one comment I'd like to make. My

[5:44:46] horoscope said to stay calm. I also think that they're

[5:44:51] misinforming you on the two month window under Florida

[5:44:56] Statute 163.33174, the Commission cannot legally adopt

[5:45:04] density reallocations of this magnitude without a formal

[5:45:08] completed review and recommendations from this body.

[5:45:12] So that clock that's ticking that they're using to weaponize

[5:45:16] you, weaponize against you, you should ignore that clock and

[5:45:21] listen to what's not. Look at what's not in your folders.

[5:45:29] Thank you. Just I gave a lot of time. Thank you. Anna Baumer,

[5:45:39] Marie Schultz, Siddiqua Guzman. I always forget to do this.

[5:45:47] Lynn Smith, 1939 Adams Street. I'm also president of the

[5:45:51] Downtown Parkside Royal Poinciana Civic Association.

[5:45:54] But tonight I'm speaking for myself. I'm going to read a few

[5:45:58] parts of the email that I sent to all of you. It was it was

[5:46:03] meant in, in, in true passion because we're all community

[5:46:07] oriented people. Obviously, what you're doing and sitting

[5:46:10] through this tonight, which Commissioner Blattner, I was

[5:46:13] going to bring him a blanket, a pillow, but he's there. I need

[5:46:17] one for myself. So I'm just going to read some a part of

[5:46:21] what the email was. I'm sorry that I, that I sent to you

[5:46:23] yesterday, I think it was yesterday. I do not know a lot

[5:46:26] of you and I am familiar with a few members. What I do know

[5:46:30] about each and every one of you is that you love the city of

[5:46:34] Hollywood as much as I do. Donating your time by serving

[5:46:37] on one of the most important and difficult committees shows

[5:46:40] me how much you care. I too know how much it feels as I was

[5:46:45] on the Gabon Committee for years, also a ceremonial

[5:46:48] committee as the Commission in this instance as well, had the

[5:46:52] last say to any changes under the Gabon rules and regulations.

[5:46:57] When we were appointed to that committee, each of us promised

[5:47:00] the community to have their backs as overseers of the

[5:47:04] community's votes. There were times that when we were not so

[5:47:07] popular with the commissioners, all of this taking hours and

[5:47:11] hours of time overseeing expenditures of well over $200

[5:47:16] million. Although it is my belief that whatever your vote

[5:47:19] and decisions will be, each one of these on each one of these

[5:47:23] committees. These issues, the Commission will do as they wish,

[5:47:26] as your vote is simply a recommendation. And again,

[5:47:30] ceremonial, not a final decision to the community. As

[5:47:34] fellow citizens, you are one of us, and I hope each and every

[5:47:37] one of you is aware of how our community feels about a lot of

[5:47:42] these issues you will be voting on tonight. There have been

[5:47:45] many meetings on changes to to our beach and in downtown RAC,

[5:47:50] which is my neighborhood. Development and community has

[5:47:53] shown up in large numbers, but never as much as it was tonight.

[5:47:58] This is probably the largest meeting that has been happening

[5:48:02] in the city since the change of the streets. And I guarantee

[5:48:06] you that at the next meeting, when the commission does put it

[5:48:08] on the agenda, we have maybe 250 tonight, and we hope to

[5:48:13] have 500 or more for the next one. Everybody is not in favor

[5:48:17] of this. You guys are pushing it down our throat. And and you

[5:48:21] all each one of you are your your community members. You're

[5:48:25] us. You've got to have some feelings. And all you have to

[5:48:28] do is stand up and say, I am I am an overseer from the

[5:48:32] community. And you've been listening for hours. So if you

[5:48:36] can really say yes to this, you have to remember we will

[5:48:40] remember who votes and who doesn't. That's all. Thank you.

[5:48:46] Anna Bomer, Mary Schultz, Anna. Hello, my name is Sharon Camden.

[5:48:58] I live in the 2800 block of Adams Street. I've lived in

[5:49:03] Hollywood for over 30 years, raised my family here, and I

[5:49:07] love Hollywood just like all of you do. I had some words to say,

[5:49:13] but I don't think I could have anything else to add that my

[5:49:17] neighbors haven't beautifully expressed. So I just have a

[5:49:20] couple of things. Hollywood Beach does not need to compete

[5:49:24] with Miami Beach, Fort Lauderdale, or Sunny Isles to

[5:49:28] be successful. Our low rise character is an asset, not a

[5:49:33] problem that needs to be fixed. I ask you to reject the

[5:49:37] proposed changes and preserve the existing existing

[5:49:42] protections that have made Hollywood Beach special for

[5:49:46] generations. Please protect the character views, sunlight,

[5:49:51] accessibility and quality. Quality of life at the beach. I

[5:49:56] don't think I really need to say any more, so I'm not going

[5:49:59] to stand up here for three minutes. But I would like to

[5:50:03] say that this does deserve a vote. And I think we as

[5:50:07] residents have have that right. So please take that into

[5:50:13] consideration. Thank you, thank you, Anna Boehmer. Welcome.

[5:50:27] Greetings beautiful people. I am Siddiqua Glusman. Good

[5:50:33] evening commissioners. My husband and I have an edible

[5:50:37] landscaping business. As someone who worked with the

[5:50:41] land and ecosystem, nature has taught me one thing. Many

[5:50:45] things, but one thing very simply, that the land is an

[5:50:49] extension of ourselves and that healthy systems regenerate.

[5:50:55] They are not just sustainable, and they most certainly do not

[5:50:59] just consume. So when I hear 2800 units or something, I have

[5:51:04] many questions. How many existing units are sitting

[5:51:08] empty right now? Consuming energy and precious resources

[5:51:14] while we are being told that building more is progress, the

[5:51:21] overlay may provide jobs or whatever. And I was paying

[5:51:25] attention, but but what kind of jobs? I am not against service

[5:51:29] work because every honest job has dignity. But are we

[5:51:34] creating opportunities and jobs that allow people to actually

[5:51:38] participate in the prosperity that's being created? Or are we

[5:51:41] simply creating more people who have to serve the prosperity of

[5:51:46] others? People shouldn't only be able to serve prosperity.

[5:51:49] They should be able to participate in it. And then

[5:51:53] when I hear design comes from compliance, I have to ask

[5:51:58] compliance with what? Compliance with the minimum

[5:52:01] standards required to get projects approved or compliance

[5:52:07] with true wellness, with the well-being of the people and

[5:52:11] the planet, compliance, something that can be legal and

[5:52:19] still not be good. So just think my ancestors further,

[5:52:25] when we're putting more concrete glass, hard surface,

[5:52:29] excuse me, hard surfaces into an already blazing environment

[5:52:34] aka intense solar radiation. We need to think about the beyond

[5:52:39] building codes. We need to be thinking about heat, reflected

[5:52:42] light, shade, trees, water, and the actual experience of the

[5:52:45] human beings living in that environment. Where is the

[5:52:50] consideration for the cumulative heat and UV exposure

[5:52:53] created by landscapes with pretty art dominated by

[5:52:58] reflective heat retaining surfaces, we need design that

[5:53:02] promotes regeneration, not simply sustainability, because

[5:53:05] anything that's sustainable can become unsustainable.

[5:53:09] Regeneration asks this how do we leave this place and people

[5:53:13] healthier than we found it? Commissioners, I'm not asking

[5:53:16] you to stop development. I'm asking you to redefine what's

[5:53:20] good development means. So don't just ask what can we

[5:53:23] build? What can we extract from it? Be well. Be love. Thank you

[5:53:32] much. Michael Sloan. Mickey Crespo. Mary Schultz, Marie

[5:53:42] Schultz. And Bomer, Denis DiMartino. Okay, moving into

[5:53:55] the 90s, anybody with a ticket in the 90s, please. Ariana

[5:54:04] Gasperoni. Please come, come forward and be heard. Please

[5:54:11] state your name and address for the record. My name is Chelsea

[5:54:16] Krebs, 1548 southeast 12th Court in Fort Lauderdale. There

[5:54:21] was some confusion about whether this was a 58 or an 85.

[5:54:24] So thanks you guys. I'm A lifelong resident of Fort

[5:54:32] Lauderdale. And I always say, what good is living in South

[5:54:36] Florida if you can't enjoy the beach and the water? I'm here

[5:54:39] to oppose the construction of residences at Azalea Terrace

[5:54:44] and 1301 South Ocean Drive. I'm not from Hollywood. I'm from

[5:54:49] Fort, where we have fewer and fewer beautiful spaces like

[5:54:54] this one. It seems like they're all getting bought and

[5:54:58] privatized. You have this one, which I understand is already

[5:55:04] designated as a public space that cannot be developed, and

[5:55:08] all you have to do is uphold that. I'm sure a lot of you are

[5:55:14] under a lot of pressure to build this condo. I just hope

[5:55:19] that you listen to your residents and your constituents

[5:55:23] who live, who live here, and who you're supposed to

[5:55:26] represent instead of the developers. And since I still

[5:55:29] have a minute here, I'm really irritated that the hotel guy

[5:55:35] left already because we're all here because of him. We

[5:55:38] listened to his three minutes. He should have to listen to

[5:55:42] ours. Thank you. Anybody else that had a ticket for the 80s

[5:55:49] speaking on item number three? Seeing none. Moving on to the

[5:55:54] 90s. Ariana Gasperoni. Jack Bomer, Andres Bueno, David

[5:56:05] Raskin, David. Good evening. It's getting late. Thank you

[5:56:20] for being up there. My name is David Raskin. I live at 4919

[5:56:24] McKinley Street. And while I may be a candidate for city

[5:56:27] commission, I'm a resident of Hollywood. First, I want to

[5:56:31] start by making something very clear. This is not an

[5:56:34] anti-development speech. I want Hollywood to grow. I think we

[5:56:36] all want Hollywood to grow. I want investment in our city. I

[5:56:40] want great hotels, thriving businesses, and a beach that

[5:56:43] remains one of the greatest economic engines we have. But

[5:56:47] there is a difference between growth without limits and

[5:56:50] responsible, balanced growth. What's being considered here

[5:56:54] isn't a single building or a single development. As you know,

[5:56:57] it's a totally new framework that will shape Hollywood Beach

[5:57:00] and the Berry Island for generations to come, including

[5:57:04] thousands of additional hotel rooms, hundreds of additional

[5:57:07] residential units, and new development incentives. Once we

[5:57:11] open that door, we need to understand what comes through

[5:57:13] it. What does this what does this mean for traffic? You've

[5:57:18] heard the questions all night. Sewer capacity, drainage,

[5:57:21] parking, public safety, resident access to the beach.

[5:57:25] And what does the total impact look like? Not one project at a

[5:57:28] time, but when all this new development is considered

[5:57:31] together, those aren't anti-development questions.

[5:57:35] They're responsible development questions. And there's another

[5:57:38] issue that we should not ignore timing. We're less than two

[5:57:41] months away from an election that will change the makeup of

[5:57:44] our city commission. Those aren't potholes that need to be.

[5:57:47] These aren't potholes that need to be filled tomorrow. These

[5:57:50] are generational land use decisions. So why rush them now?

[5:57:56] Hollywood Beach isn't going anywhere, and we all know

[5:57:58] developers are not going anywhere either. So I

[5:58:01] respectfully ask this board to not rush this forward. Please

[5:58:03] slow down. Listen to your fellow residents. As Mr.

[5:58:07] Glickman so appropriately noted, the survey numbers don't lie.

[5:58:11] The people of Hollywood overwhelmingly feel that this

[5:58:13] plan is not the right direction. The sentiment and opinions of

[5:58:18] residents matter in local government. This should be the

[5:58:21] primary lens through which you make your recommendations. And

[5:58:25] while this. And when this many residents show up, wait for

[5:58:29] hours, spend their evenings away from their children, that

[5:58:33] shows you how much concern they have for this. And that should

[5:58:36] carry real weight in your decisions. So give us a due

[5:58:41] process that we deserve. Demand answers about demand. Answers

[5:58:44] about infrastructure and the total impact of what's being

[5:58:48] proposed and allow the commission, the Hollywood

[5:58:50] voters choose in November to have a meaningful vote in

[5:58:53] decisions that could shape our beach and our city for the next

[5:58:56] generation. And I'll just leave you with one last thought 20s

[5:59:00] growth should make Hollywood better for the people who

[5:59:02] already live here, not just make more room for development.

[5:59:06] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Pamela Burgio. Come forward and

[5:59:15] be heard. Have you not already spoke? Which item is this still?

[5:59:19] Number three. I already spoke on three. Yes. And that

[5:59:23] concludes the public comments of item number three, four and

[5:59:28] five. When? No, no, no, this. Thank you. I want to express my

[5:59:39] gratitude for everybody that has spent the time to come and

[5:59:42] speak, and specifically for those that actually came to

[5:59:45] participate and have not spoken, or just here to get the

[5:59:47] education and to understand what their city is doing. So

[5:59:53] with that staff, do you want to respond to any of the comments,

[5:59:56] questions or concerns? So I want to apologize. I think like

[6:00:16] everyone else, staff at the podium here are a little bit

[6:00:20] tired, but I do want to note that I have taken diligent

[6:00:23] notes throughout all of the the feedback that we've received 15

[6:00:28] pages, in fact, 5085 words. And through whatever happens here

[6:00:34] at the board, I do also want to acknowledge that as part of the

[6:00:38] report, we do have a condition that, you know, tries to

[6:00:42] address as much feedback as possible before this goes to

[6:00:45] first reading, one of the things that I do want to speak

[6:00:51] upon, and, you know, that is coming up kind of resoundingly

[6:00:55] through a lot of this is the infrastructure capacity.

[6:01:01] Infrastructure capacity. So staff did work with our public

[6:01:05] utilities team and our consultants that have been

[6:01:10] retained through the various master plans as part of the

[6:01:14] utilities efforts for water and wastewater within our water

[6:01:22] network. And I'm going to look to Alicia to confirm the

[6:01:26] generalities of the numbers with respect to each one of the

[6:01:29] utilities. According to the analysis, we have the

[6:01:35] availability of 17000 units, I believe, within our wastewater

[6:01:40] network, and 3000 or so units within our water network

[6:01:46] available on the beach. With that, we use the lowest common

[6:01:51] denominator and assumed as of right development. And that's

[6:01:55] where the 2300 units really come from as part of what we

[6:02:01] are permitting on the beach over this five year period, one

[6:02:05] of the essential things that we need to also recognize as we

[6:02:09] look at our existing network as it pertains to existing

[6:02:13] capacity on the beach, is how we find funds to pay for

[6:02:18] additional infrastructure, whether that is retrofit or

[6:02:22] otherwise. We can demonstrate currently that we do have

[6:02:24] available capacity, but how does additional capacity or

[6:02:29] retrofits to an aging network become addressed? And that's

[6:02:33] really where the resiliency fund comes through. I know,

[6:02:37] Christine, you mentioned in your comments earlier that you

[6:02:40] had wanted the resiliency fund to pay for pops and things of

[6:02:43] that nature in our minds, that resiliency fund comes into play

[6:02:49] to improve a lot of the circumstances that we currently

[6:02:52] have, underfunded or not funded at all, whether that is

[6:02:56] elevation of some of the roads, enhancements of some of the

[6:03:01] dunes projects that we already have ongoing, of course, but

[6:03:04] how do we enhance and improve those projects moving forward?

[6:03:08] Recognizing from a planning perspective, we have a

[6:03:11] responsibility to think 30 years out. And that's not just

[6:03:13] from a population forecast perspective. That's also from a

[6:03:18] capital improvement perspective, whether that's green

[6:03:21] infrastructure or hard infrastructure, soft

[6:03:23] infrastructure, whatever the case may be. So that resiliency

[6:03:26] fund really tackles a lot of issues. The other thing I want

[6:03:31] to address is the adoption of this ordinance does not approve

[6:03:37] any individual project, and I think that is really imperative.

[6:03:43] All this establishes is the framework, the opportunity for

[6:03:48] the prospect of the development review process and Florida

[6:03:53] statutes, the currency requirements require detailed

[6:03:57] analysis at every stage of the process. So we're able to

[6:04:02] develop to demonstrate to a certain degree there is of

[6:04:05] course capacity. But even from a capacity perspective, the

[6:04:09] capacity needs to be available at the time the development

[6:04:13] application is submitted reviewed, and that would be the

[6:04:16] case for each individual project that comes through.

[6:04:19] There needs to be a demonstration to each and every

[6:04:23] subject matter expert, and to a degree, some of the external

[6:04:27] agencies that have jurisdiction, jurisdictional responsibility

[6:04:31] of certain aspects of the barrier island. FDOT as an

[6:04:36] example for A1. A to demonstrate the appropriateness

[6:04:39] of development. So there are safeguards built into the

[6:04:43] existing process that are then supplemented by, of course,

[6:04:48] what is proposed. The other thing that I do want to mention

[6:04:53] as part of this. And I don't know why it's fleeting in my

[6:05:00] head right now, because it's 11:00. It is 11:00. I think the

[6:05:07] other thing that I do want to stress is this does not set a

[6:05:11] benchmark for live local. I think I heard that a couple of

[6:05:14] times. Live local currently is not benchmark able for three

[6:05:20] specific provisions. That is variance. That is special

[6:05:23] exception and that is bonus. And that's why staff are very

[6:05:27] deliberate to choose a bonus. And I think the the other piece

[6:05:32] that I really want to emphasize is the fear is not just about

[6:05:35] height with respect to live local, it's about process and

[6:05:40] it's about outcome. A six story building can be just as

[6:05:44] terrible as a 20 story building. If there are no design

[6:05:48] considerations that are taken. Decorum, please. It's

[6:05:53] absolutely true. If our underlying code yields a poor

[6:05:57] design outcome, as we've seen across the beach today, whether

[6:06:01] it's Costa, whether it's Margaritaville, whatever slab

[6:06:05] building that you see that occupies the entirety of a

[6:06:08] block, you can expect something far worse because those are all

[6:06:12] outcomes that staff had to fight and negotiate for and

[6:06:15] then present to the board as the more preferred outcome than

[6:06:19] what was originally proposed. And that's always the fear we

[6:06:23] have as a planning department for many years, not updated our

[6:06:27] codes. And now the state is saying freeze everything. So we

[6:06:30] have the option to choose what is and what was almost in

[6:06:35] perpetuity, because, you know, the state legislature that has

[6:06:38] been voted for is removing the ability for municipalities to

[6:06:42] choose their own fate and future over something that we

[6:06:46] do have the ability to because it is an overlay, it's more

[6:06:50] voluntary, it's more optional, it may not be preferred. And

[6:06:53] this is the one thing that, you know, I've learned in my career

[6:06:57] in planning our job is not to make everybody happy. It's

[6:07:00] impossible because nobody gets exactly what they want. But we

[6:07:03] do have to balance everything that we hear. Of course, the

[6:07:08] survey is another thing that I think is worthy of touching

[6:07:10] upon. Of course, the residents are one stakeholder group that

[6:07:14] we have to consult as our duty to consult within professional

[6:07:18] practice, but we also have to consult the politicians. We

[6:07:21] also have to consult the developers. We also have to

[6:07:24] consult the businesses. We decorum please. But

[6:07:31] nevertheless, I think, you know, off the top of my head, those

[6:07:35] are some of the more resounding points that I think are worthy

[6:07:38] of addressing. I don't know that there's opportunity for

[6:07:42] other questions looking at the board attorneys, but happy to

[6:07:47] try to answer whatever else. If there is still room for

[6:07:53] questions. No, and not for public comments. Been closed.

[6:07:56] Dick. Yes. I just want to say he's not. Please. The time for

[6:08:02] public comment is done, sir. You're going to be asked to

[6:08:06] leave if you don't. Thank you. Dick. Yeah, I just wanted to

[6:08:11] say, Arnold. You are. You are one of the smartest people I

[6:08:15] know, and I we're we are really glad to have you here. I speak

[6:08:21] for myself, but I know I'm not totally alone. Based on what

[6:08:25] you've heard tonight, if we said to you, if you came back,

[6:08:30] came back in 30 days, would your presentation, your

[6:08:37] recommendations be any different than they are tonight?

[6:08:41] I think we have and I, I started with this, I think one

[6:08:46] of the most deliberate things that we did in the preparation

[6:08:50] of the overlay and the report was creating that first

[6:08:54] condition that whatever we heard and whatever we believed

[6:08:57] made sense, we would try to accommodate within the proposal

[6:09:02] as revisions to what we have proposed prior to first reading.

[6:09:07] So while, you know, the ears of tiredness is looming over me

[6:09:13] because my bedtime is 9 p.m. I would imagine, yes, we would

[6:09:18] definitely change some things. But I think it's really I think

[6:09:22] it's I feel really good about asking the question because I

[6:09:27] think there was a lot to be learned here tonight. One of

[6:09:31] the things that we've heard is that people don't feel that

[6:09:36] they've been heard before tonight. And we certainly heard

[6:09:40] how many of them tonight, 97, 97 people tonight. Passionate

[6:09:48] people. In fact, I didn't know there was so much love in

[6:09:52] Hollywood as we've heard tonight. But I think there's

[6:09:56] something to be learned here. And I want to be careful not to

[6:09:59] throw the baby out with the bathwater if there's merit to

[6:10:04] what was presented tonight by members of this board, as well

[6:10:09] as the public who spoke then. It is crazy, it seems to me, to

[6:10:15] say to the commission, we're killing this thing. If there's

[6:10:20] an opportunity to make it better and it takes a little

[6:10:24] longer to do it, I'd rather do it than throw it out. So I'm

[6:10:29] asking you if you think that it's worth doing and how long

[6:10:33] it would take you to do it, and what might be a general outline

[6:10:38] of what that process would be through the chair. Board member,

[6:10:41] This is Cameron speaking. Thank you for your comment. I think

[6:10:45] that decision is your your duty tonight, and staff really

[6:10:50] implores you. If you've heard things today that you resonate

[6:10:52] with you, you could direct staff to make a recommendation

[6:10:55] to carry that onward. You could direct staff to do a make

[6:11:01] amendments to the the tax. That is what this tonight's process

[6:11:04] is about, asking staff whether we believe this item should go

[6:11:08] or not is not the question you need to be asking. I think you

[6:11:11] need to be asking one another and discussing among each other

[6:11:14] which items resonated with you. Where do you think it could be

[6:11:17] better? What can we do different and recommend that so

[6:11:19] that your city commission could then make the appropriate

[6:11:22] decisions. Bob. Okay. Thank you. A couple of questions for staff.

[6:11:34] Can you tell me what other Florida beach towns are using

[6:11:38] TDRs for building in their beach area? Off the top of my

[6:11:46] head, Fort Lauderdale uses transfer of development rights,

[6:11:50] their specific transfer of development rights is related

[6:11:53] to historic properties. They transfer from historic

[6:11:58] properties or what they believe to be historic properties, or

[6:12:00] what could be historic properties, and transfer that

[6:12:03] development elsewhere to enable higher and more intense

[6:12:06] development. But not on the beach. I believe it's also able

[6:12:10] on the beach. I, I don't believe that. But anyway, in in

[6:12:14] the feasibility study, it is written that height alone is

[6:12:19] not the policy goal. Massing's transition streets, parks and

[6:12:24] public realm determined the outcome. My question is please

[6:12:28] advise how you are doing this and cite examples for each that

[6:12:32] are being accomplished. And how will this enhance our quality

[6:12:36] of life in our beach neighborhoods? Nicole Moyo here

[6:12:48] speaking. Great question. We have addressed all of those.

[6:12:54] The line items that you mentioned through the Urban

[6:12:57] Design guidelines, as well as in the setback, height, shadow

[6:13:04] massing and view corridor standard section of the overlay

[6:13:10] text code. I don't see that that really answers the

[6:13:16] question because I don't see how how it enhances our quality

[6:13:19] of life at all. And if you can put that up on the screen so we

[6:13:23] can see what you're talking about, that would be great.

[6:13:26] What are you referring? What are you requesting on the

[6:13:28] screen board member? Your feasibility study, the

[6:13:33] feasibility study that's including the backup is what

[6:13:35] you're looking for on the screen. Yeah. Well let's skip

[6:13:38] over that for now. Okay. One suggestion for you. There

[6:13:41] should be no transfers for GU properties. So I don't think

[6:13:44] there should be any TDR for properties. But can you put up

[6:13:48] your staff report for item three? If you need the number,

[6:13:54] I can give it to you. It's for 26 to 18. One moment. Sure.

[6:14:11] Thank you.

[6:14:38] While staff prepares, Bob, can I ask you a very

[6:14:40] pointed question? Excuse me, can I ask you a very pointed

[6:14:44] question? Regardless of staff's answer, will it change your

[6:14:47] mind on how you intend to vote tonight? It might. Okay. What

[6:15:03] page number are you looking for, sir? Page 11 to start. The

[6:15:12] sustainability and coastal resilience.

[6:15:32] What particular section? In page 11.

[6:15:36] Sustainability and coastal resilience. Yes. So I've read

[6:15:46] this several times. Okay. I, I don't believe this to be true.

[6:15:51] Can you how does this help with flooding and sea level rise? So

[6:16:06] the approach that the the overlay as well as the urban

[6:16:11] design guidelines takes is adapted from the existing beach

[6:16:16] master plan. One of the things that I should note, one of the.

[6:16:19] The biggest criticisms I think we as staff have of the

[6:16:22] existing Beach Master plan is that it was never adopted in a

[6:16:26] regulatory way. It was just a policy document that went

[6:16:29] through the approval process and sat on the shelf. So much

[6:16:33] of the great work that was done through that plan was never

[6:16:36] adopted as part of the adoption of this. Of course, we looked

[6:16:41] at what opportunities there were to improve the overall,

[6:16:46] you know, carry forward of a lot of the great things that

[6:16:50] were in that plan that never saw the light of day. One of

[6:16:53] those things was, of course, lead requirements. That plan

[6:16:57] did request that all development on the beach have a

[6:17:00] lead minimum of silver, which we have adopted as part of this.

[6:17:05] But the other thing that was integral as part of that plan

[6:17:10] was really reframing what the FEMA below the base floor

[6:17:16] elevation looked like. And today on the beach, we have a

[6:17:19] lot of parking garages. We have a lot of blank walls that

[6:17:24] address the public realm in the least attractive ways in many

[6:17:30] cases, again, because our codes have not been updated for a

[6:17:33] very long time and not in response to a lot of the

[6:17:37] studies that have been completed over the years. So

[6:17:40] one of the things that was actually recommended through

[6:17:42] the Beach Master plan, which staff have tried to adopt, is

[6:17:46] this notion of terracing or re-activating. The FEMA floor

[6:17:52] below the base floor elevation, and a little bit more tactful

[6:17:56] way to create a more responsive public realm. Of course, this

[6:18:04] helps to implement the FEMA rules in a more attractive and

[6:18:10] esthetic way. The question was, how does this address or

[6:18:16] improve quality of life? How does this. How does this.

[6:18:20] Please. He's answering the best way he can. Well, no. I think

[6:18:26] it's important to note that a lot of development today in

[6:18:31] addressing the FEMA base floor elevation just proposes blank

[6:18:35] walls. And that's what the public has to deal with. Blank

[6:18:38] walls as you walked by. And I believe Nicole showed one of

[6:18:42] those examples as part of a presentation where there's just

[6:18:45] a massive blank wall addressing the broad walk. And that is one

[6:18:50] of the outcomes, again, on fears of live local because

[6:18:53] that's what our code demands. It doesn't require anything

[6:18:57] above and beyond that, we have deliberately superseded that to

[6:19:01] improve quality of life, to create a more active and

[6:19:04] attractive built form. So when you're walking along these new

[6:19:08] developments, you're not walking along a barren floor,

[6:19:12] you're not walking along the FEMA minimum requirement.

[6:19:15] You're walking along something beautiful, attractive, and more

[6:19:19] contributing to the actual built form while still

[6:19:24] reinforcing the sustainability requirements of the FEMA base

[6:19:28] floor elevation that is required. And that that really

[6:19:31] is essential. So also on page 12, if we can go down to public

[6:19:39] participation. Public participation, page 12. Staff.

[6:19:55] Okay. So the the public input for Hollywood Beach has always

[6:19:58] been for low rise buildings. And to keep the charm that it

[6:20:02] currently has, this proposal contradicts what the public has

[6:20:05] consistently stated over the last 20 years. So this is very

[6:20:11] concerning. This was in the beach master plan. I understand

[6:20:14] it hasn't always been followed. This is what all your surveys

[6:20:19] have brought up, and I don't think we're giving it enough

[6:20:23] credence. You know, in in this plan. Do you have a question.

[6:20:30] Yeah. The public input for Hollywood Beach has always been

[6:20:35] for low rise buildings. We're not you're not you don't have

[6:20:40] that in this plan. I earlier stated to you, and I can show

[6:20:45] you the math if you'd like, for low rise building of six

[6:20:48] stories, a developer will make using your $900 a square foot

[6:20:56] versus the $1,200 that is currently being asked for for

[6:20:59] for new buildings on the beach. The difference is a 35, almost

[6:21:04] a 35% increase, over $20 million ROI. So I think that

[6:21:11] you need to consider other things than what's in here.

[6:21:16] That's my question. Through the chair. That question was asked

[6:21:19] and answered wasn't a question. Bob. What else? Bob, what other

[6:21:27] questions do you have? That'll be it. Thank you. Okay. Any

[6:21:31] other questions for staff? None. Okay. Steve, you mentioned

[6:21:38] about a deadline for the SB 180. When is that and what

[6:21:42] implications does it have? So SB 180 follows major hurricanes

[6:21:48] within a certain radius of where they've occurred. The

[6:21:53] hurricane that is affecting Broward County right now, and

[6:21:55] specifically, specifically the city of Hollywood was Hurricane

[6:21:59] Milton the set expiration for that, I believe. And I'm

[6:22:03] looking at one of the attorneys, if they correct me if I say

[6:22:06] anything wrong, but I believe is July 2027. Presuming there

[6:22:11] is no major hurricane this hurricane season in which the

[6:22:16] legislature has kind of provided a rolling deadline. So

[6:22:20] if there is any new hurricane, the deadline rolls for another

[6:22:25] three years. And honestly, most municipalities in Florida, all

[6:22:29] of them are affected because of how far reaching this is.

[6:22:33] Everyone is just expecting this to roll in perpetuity. And that

[6:22:37] is something that most municipalities, specifically

[6:22:39] planning departments, are strapping in for. Any other

[6:22:46] questions for staff? No follow up. Let's close all questions,

[6:22:51] comments and bring the discussion to the dais. Bob,

[6:22:56] what are you thinking? So here's what I'm thinking. I'm

[6:23:01] thinking. I'll speak for myself. I would like to get a lot more

[6:23:08] information. Okay. This was a massive undertaking that staff

[6:23:12] took. This was a massive document that they put out.

[6:23:17] This was massive reading of this information and trying to

[6:23:21] figure everything out. Our residents have many questions,

[6:23:27] as still do I. And I would like to have a workshop before we go

[6:23:34] do anything else. Christine, your thoughts. So this way we

[6:23:42] can get the information we need. We can understand this this

[6:23:45] whole plan a lot better. It's got good things in it. It's got

[6:23:48] some things that are not so good. And I think we just need

[6:23:52] a better understanding of everything that's in there. We

[6:23:56] are not urban planners, for the most part, sitting up here. And

[6:24:02] I think there's a lot of questions that we have and that

[6:24:05] the public has, and I would just like to really get more

[6:24:09] information. I think that it's our duty to get more

[6:24:12] information. I didn't want to read article 5.3 of the

[6:24:16] Planning and Board planning and board duties, and I'm not going

[6:24:22] to do that. But in there, it tells us that we you know, we

[6:24:27] need the information. And I think that we should get it.

[6:24:30] And I would encourage all of you, you know, to have a

[6:24:35] workshop so we can fully understand everything that's in

[6:24:38] here. There's a lot of stuff in here, and there's a lot more

[6:24:42] questions I'm sure that we all have. And the residents have a

[6:24:46] lot of questions. Also, they brought up a lot of stuff

[6:24:48] tonight and I never thought of. But, you know, it's difficult

[6:24:52] reading 541 pages of a lot of technical stuff. And it refers

[6:24:57] you to other areas in the code. And I think it's something that

[6:25:01] we just need more information about. So that's my suggestion.

[6:25:09] Christine, your thoughts. I have read all of these pages

[6:25:18] into the microphone over and over and over, and I am leaning

[6:25:26] towards trusting our very talented planning department. I

[6:25:34] think they've put an enormous amount of work in this. I think

[6:25:41] having I understand the residents that are here and

[6:25:46] their concerns. I feel it's unfair for them to think that

[6:25:52] we haven't been in contact with many, many residents. There's

[6:25:58] 150, 000 people that live in this city, and 200 people is

[6:26:04] not representation of all of the feelings of the city. So.

[6:26:14] Those are my feelings. I want to thank the staff, and I'd

[6:26:19] like to hear what everyone else has to say. Stephen. I

[6:26:25] appreciate the committee, basically how the community has

[6:26:28] come out and expressed themselves. Obviously, it's

[6:26:30] something that we take into consideration. As you know, I

[6:26:35] see things more on a technical side always. I think there's a

[6:26:39] lot of information, like Bob mentioned to to digest. I've

[6:26:43] seen a lot of this from the initial ideas as well, and it's

[6:26:49] there a lot of information that possibly was, was described

[6:26:54] needs to be, I guess, reviewed again, seen in detail or

[6:26:59] explained it in a different way as well, especially with all

[6:27:02] the comments that have been presented tonight. And I think

[6:27:06] it's that it's basically a transfer of information and

[6:27:09] then adapting. You know, I believe there's going to be

[6:27:13] additional readings if I'm if I'm not mistaken. Right. And

[6:27:17] obviously, a lot of these things will be taken into

[6:27:20] consideration. Massimo. Thank you. So I've been listening.

[6:27:29] We've all been listening here for, you know, six hours. And I

[6:27:32] really feel the the sentiment here. And I definitely

[6:27:36] appreciate all the feedback. For the past month, I have

[6:27:41] spent reviewing a lot of this stuff and meeting with staff

[6:27:45] and, and going one on one. They actually gave me a presentation

[6:27:49] one on one on this because my first inkling was, well, who

[6:27:53] wants a condo, a shadow condo on Hollywood Beach, right? Just

[6:27:59] a wall of condos. Nobody wants that. So initially I was like,

[6:28:04] wow, this is, this is bad. But after, you know, listening to,

[6:28:11] to staff, I think the staff did an amazing job with presenting

[6:28:15] and educating us on this. And I, I kind of swinging a little bit

[6:28:24] here. I feel the program, the overlay program is, is, is

[6:28:32] responsible and thought out, maybe not to everybody's liking,

[6:28:37] but the thing for me was, remember, this is a framework.

[6:28:40] This is not something that's, hey, set in stone and, and, and

[6:28:47] it's for a short period of time. It's for five years, right? It

[6:28:50] doesn't approve any project, just like the staff had had

[6:28:55] mentioned. Every project still has to go through a rigorous,

[6:29:02] rigorous process. And it's not easy in the city. DRC, public

[6:29:08] outreach, the Planning Board, the commission, and then after

[6:29:10] all that, they got to go through the building department.

[6:29:13] So. I think. The place we love Hollywood Beach is, is one of a

[6:29:25] kind, right? Nothing in this plan says that we're going to

[6:29:28] have towers on Hollywood Beach, meaning the boardwalk, the

[6:29:33] boardwalk. I'm talking about the boardwalk, right? Right now,

[6:29:39] the the height restriction is four stories. That's not

[6:29:43] changing. As it goes back, it goes from four to 6 to 10, and

[6:29:51] then 15 or 20 going all the way back to a one a. But the one

[6:29:55] thing for me is what you got. What we love about Hollywood

[6:29:59] Beach are the are all the shops and all the restaurants, right?

[6:30:02] And the quaintness of it right after Covid, the first year

[6:30:06] after Covid, all the shops and businesses were thriving right

[6:30:12] after Covid and everything opened up. It was thriving. We

[6:30:16] had we had tourists coming from everywhere down here. But since

[6:30:20] then, unfortunately, businesses, shops, ice cream shops have

[6:30:25] seen a steady decline in business. So we have to do

[6:30:32] something to to revitalize and to attract tourism. Because

[6:30:38] whether you like it or not, tourism is the backbone. And if

[6:30:42] you don't have something for people to come to, I think

[6:30:47] that's going to have a steady decline over the years. And I

[6:30:52] look, I've talked to, and I don't know why people that are

[6:30:55] for it or not here. I mean, obviously it's totally on one

[6:30:59] sided here, but I have talked to businesses and, and people

[6:31:03] that say, you know, we got to do something. I mean, there's

[6:31:07] just a decline. These motels are dilapidated. They're,

[6:31:11] they're, you know, they're not they're not as attractive as

[6:31:16] they were ten, 15, 20 years ago. So again, I'm against these

[6:31:23] condo, these high rises across in 1 in 1, you know, big

[6:31:29] magazine of, of, of, of buildings. But I think that

[6:31:32] this program gives a good framework to, to, to show some,

[6:31:39] some structures and things that are appealing. Well, again, I

[6:31:51] go back to for me, the two biggest things were that this

[6:31:54] is nothing, this is a framework and it's a five year period.

[6:31:58] Okay, so let's say this thing goes through it. It goes

[6:32:01] through commission, whatever, and they get their first

[6:32:04] project in and, and we say, hey, you know, this thing really is

[6:32:09] terrible. You guys voted in commission. You guys have you,

[6:32:13] you guys have the ability to vote people out to get this

[6:32:16] thing out in five years. You're not going to develop that hole.

[6:32:20] You're not going to develop the whole beach in five years. It's

[6:32:23] not going to happen. Please, please. So again, I, my, my

[6:32:29] whole thinking on this is I want to preserve Hollywood

[6:32:34] beach. I want to preserve the businesses there and have them

[6:32:38] be successful. But you can't do that if you don't attract

[6:32:41] people here. You know, you have to attract people. It has to be

[6:32:45] a place. The sand and the water is not the only thing that's

[6:32:49] going to do it. They need to they need to have places that

[6:32:52] that are nice, that they want to go to, because we are losing

[6:32:55] that to Fort Lauderdale and Miami. So that's basically my

[6:33:01] take on it. Thank you Dick. People want to know why it

[6:33:11] takes so long to get anything done in government. So let's

[6:33:18] think about this. Whether this passes or not, somebody comes

[6:33:23] to the city and says, I want to do something that I'm allowed

[6:33:26] to do on the on the barrier island. And we say, that's

[6:33:32] great, you can do that, and we approve it. The commission

[6:33:35] approves it. Two readings, public meetings, all that stuff.

[6:33:39] Then they go to pull permits. Two years, then they go to

[6:33:45] contractors and get bids. By the time the project is built,

[6:33:50] it's 5 to 8 years. You are not going to get anything built

[6:33:55] tomorrow. If we pass this or not, nothing is going to get

[6:34:00] built immediately. So I want to go back and say, I still

[6:34:05] believe we need to do something on the beach to upgrade what's

[6:34:09] there. It seems to me that the gentleman who spoke for this

[6:34:15] tonight gave us a good example of the small hotels that he was

[6:34:21] represented, the small hotels that he was talking about. If

[6:34:27] he wanted to redevelop. Now he's got a 65 foot height limit,

[6:34:31] correct, 65ft. That's so bad. That's 3 or 4 stories because

[6:34:38] you have to leave that first story empty now, right? You

[6:34:42] can't build in there. You have to go up a level. So it's a

[6:34:46] three story building basically. Right. Okay. Now he wants to go

[6:34:51] higher or he wouldn't have been here tonight. And what I'm

[6:34:54] hearing from people is that you're mostly concerned about

[6:34:58] two things. Height, mostly what is the maximum? And two, your

[6:35:06] concern over. I'll call it the bonus system. How do you get

[6:35:13] whatever you want? By giving us whatever we want. Understand

[6:35:18] what I'm saying? Can I get two more stories? If I pay into a

[6:35:24] resiliency fund, how does who who manages that? It's an

[6:35:29] unanswered question. Probably needs to be answered. I want to

[6:35:34] come back. What I said before I, I think this has more in it

[6:35:39] that's valuable than it is not valuable. I would like this

[6:35:44] staff, which has worked really hard on this. I know that I

[6:35:49] would like you to come back and say how you'll address those

[6:35:53] issues. I hate I hate to turn this carte blanche over to the

[6:36:00] commission and say, we turn it down or we approve it without

[6:36:04] addressing the the conditions that. How many people 91, seven,

[6:36:10] 97 people brought up tonight? 96. One guy didn't. 96 people.

[6:36:18] But if you don't want to do that, that's that's for us to

[6:36:21] decide. For me, I want I want to give this a chance. And

[6:36:28] frankly, I'm afraid if we pass it tonight and give it to the

[6:36:31] commission, as you pointed out, there's an election coming. It

[6:36:35] has consequences. So I would like to have staff at the time

[6:36:40] to work this out so that when it comes up, she wins. It might

[6:36:45] be November. I'll entertain a motion. Bob, I just want to say

[6:37:00] one thing before you do that, I just want to address a couple

[6:37:03] of comments here. You talk about the businesses suffering

[6:37:06] on on the beach. Well, the reason that reason is very

[6:37:10] simple. A one A has been under construction now for a good

[6:37:13] five years or more. So there's part of your problem. You

[6:37:19] anybody that thinks any of the buildings are dilapidated on

[6:37:22] Hollywood Beach, well guess what, where's code enforcement

[6:37:26] in all of this? Where's the city in all of this? Why do you

[6:37:28] allow this stuff to get like this? So I would like to make a

[6:37:32] motion to have a workshop whenever the staff is ready and

[6:37:37] in another month and bring it back. So we have a workshop so

[6:37:40] we can discuss it, flesh out everything that needs to be

[6:37:45] done, let staff make all the changes they want and go from

[6:37:50] there. Bob, are you asking for a postponement on a time

[6:37:55] certain date of this? In the meantime, we would have

[6:37:59] workshops. Well, I was asking for a workshop at the next

[6:38:05] before the next planning board meeting, whenever that is. And

[6:38:08] then it depends on I don't want to rush staff on this as much

[6:38:13] time as they need. I mean, if they need to have if we can

[6:38:17] have a workshop at a planning board meeting at the next

[6:38:19] Planning Board meeting, and then we can bring it back to

[6:38:22] the commission, back to us the month after, that would be fine.

[6:38:28] And I'll turn to the attorneys on this one. We have three

[6:38:33] options in front of us, or four we can reject as presented. We

[6:38:39] can pass as presented. We can pass with certain comments and

[6:38:44] comments. And the fourth is to defer to time certain. Those

[6:38:48] are our four options. Yes, Mr. Chair, that is correct. But of

[6:38:52] course your. If you wish to continue. It does come with a

[6:38:55] caveat that I've mentioned earlier at this hearing is that

[6:38:59] this item was noticed and referred to the board on July

[6:39:03] 27th. So according under section 1163.3194, subsection

[6:39:12] two of the Florida statutes, the board's recommendation is

[6:39:15] due within a reasonable time and no more than 60 days. So

[6:39:18] your time limit does run out on September 27th. So if you do

[6:39:23] wish to continue, you do have to set a special meeting prior

[6:39:29] to September 27th. Now, as I as I mentioned before, this item

[6:39:33] will travel to the City Commission regardless of the

[6:39:37] action that the board will take tonight. The only thing that

[6:39:40] that the statute provides is that your recommendation will

[6:39:43] not travel with the item. So you're not technically losing

[6:39:47] jurisdiction, but you are losing your ability to weigh in

[6:39:50] on this item before the commission takes it up.

[6:39:54] Commission chair, if I may, I actually there's a good

[6:39:57] question. When is this going to be before the commission? This

[6:40:04] item is scheduled to move forward to the City Commission

[6:40:07] on the September 16th City Commission date. That's not

[6:40:11] fair. Okay. If I could provide additional comments, please.

[6:40:18] It's really important to note, I know it's late, so I really

[6:40:21] want to keep you longer than I have to. I just provided some

[6:40:24] additional context that, you know, staff worked really

[6:40:26] diligently with stakeholders in the community by having four

[6:40:30] two public charrettes that were sunshine, so board members and

[6:40:34] city commissioners could attend and two public open houses

[6:40:37] where we went through the same presentation several times in a

[6:40:40] night, answering questions one by one on cue cards, also

[6:40:43] sunshine, so the board members could attend. These were

[6:40:47] opportunities where we wanted to provide different forums to

[6:40:50] dissipate the same information, to gather feedback, and to

[6:40:53] really overcome misinformation. Sometimes a larger forum works,

[6:40:57] sometimes a smaller forum works, sometimes a board works,

[6:41:00] sometimes a one on one conversation works, and staff

[6:41:03] endeavored and has done all of those going above and beyond to

[6:41:07] reach out to board members to ensure there was no additional

[6:41:10] questions that the package, while dense and we understand

[6:41:12] it, is dense, but your job is to. Your job here as board

[6:41:15] members is to take on these dense projects and. If you have

[6:41:18] questions, staff is here to assist. Staff is not expecting

[6:41:21] any of you to overnight get a planning degree. Each of you

[6:41:25] have an expertise that this board has delineated in the

[6:41:28] code. That's why you're sitting at that at that dais. Similarly,

[6:41:32] when we wrote this text amendment, no one planner sat

[6:41:34] here and wrote it. The development planner was

[6:41:37] involved. The designer was involved, the policy planner

[6:41:39] was involved. The consultants were involved for data. No one

[6:41:43] person can wear all the hats. We're encouraging you to lean

[6:41:46] into your expertise and provide those constructive criticisms

[6:41:49] that will then move onward with this item so that it doesn't go

[6:41:52] on to the City commission without or void of a

[6:41:55] recommendation, a recommendation that is so

[6:41:56] desperately needs from your professions that you each

[6:42:00] occupy. The question is not here to the. I think the matter

[6:42:04] here is not to try to trip up on the small details of the

[6:42:08] text amendment. It's trying to make it better with valuable

[6:42:10] and constructive feedback that you can offer to the City

[6:42:13] Commission. Bob, you have a motion. Well, this seems rather

[6:42:24] unfair that it's gone to the Commission. And still we have

[6:42:26] 60 days, which is September 27th. That doesn't make much

[6:42:30] sense to me that it goes to them on the 16th if we have

[6:42:33] until the 27th. So yeah, I can clarify on that. So in in an

[6:42:40] event that the board decides to continue this item, as I read

[6:42:44] it, you do have you do have until September 27th, which is

[6:42:48] the deadline that the city Commission also has to abide by.

[6:42:50] So technically, if this if this item is continued, the City

[6:42:54] Commission may not act on it at the September 16th meeting, but

[6:42:57] they may they may act on it at the at the October 7th meeting.

[6:43:04] October. Did you say October? October 7th? Yes. Which is the

[6:43:09] next scheduled City Commission meeting that follows the

[6:43:13] September 16th City Commission meeting. So September 27th

[6:43:16] deadline is something that that that affects the board in the

[6:43:21] City Commission's ability to take up this item without the

[6:43:24] board's recommendation accompanying it. Well, do all

[6:43:29] of you want to have another meeting prior to September 27th?

[6:43:38] Is that a question, Christine? No. Stephen. Oh, I would also

[6:43:45] like to clarify that you should also dispose the motion on the

[6:43:48] floor that has been opened before entertaining a motion is

[6:43:54] made. It hasn't been been second. So we're discussing the

[6:43:57] motion. Okay. So thank you. Thank you chair. Thank you. I

[6:44:03] wanted. Can I say something? Of course. So Cameron had laid out

[6:44:09] that they they went through the process of, of doing the public

[6:44:14] outreach, doing above and beyond. Right. What else what

[6:44:19] else can be done other than. I mean, I think the only thing

[6:44:24] that would make everybody happy is, is if, if, if the height

[6:44:27] restriction is put down. Right. Is that so? What else other

[6:44:31] than short of doing that, what else? And through the chair,

[6:44:34] those are recommendations that you all have the power to make,

[6:44:36] if that is what you want the City Commission to to

[6:44:39] understand. That was the findings of tonight's meeting.

[6:44:43] Then I implore you to make a recommendation based on what

[6:44:46] you feel is my my point is this, is that let's say somebody has

[6:44:51] has objection to, to the water or the traffic or whatever.

[6:44:55] When a project comes up, remember, this is a framework,

[6:44:58] right? So a new projects coming up, this whole process is going

[6:45:02] to start all over again for that project, right or wrong.

[6:45:06] That is correct. Okay. So any objections can now can be can

[6:45:11] be put on to that project. If they don't abide by whatever,

[6:45:15] you know, codes or whatever that, that, that we want on

[6:45:18] there. So. Right. I mean, is this not a framework? Please

[6:45:24] direct towards either the chair or to staff not to. Okay. Okay.

[6:45:28] Do you have a question? Do you have a technical question? So

[6:45:31] that I just wanted to find out what else in a workshop, what

[6:45:34] else is going to be done? I mean, a workshop can be done on

[6:45:38] the individual projects, right? Would you do that Cameron. So

[6:45:44] let's say a project comes up on a one a and it has to go

[6:45:48] through this project, go through this process. There can

[6:45:52] be a workshop voted on for that specific project. Yes or no. It

[6:45:56] would know it would function as a that part of the site plan

[6:45:59] review of that process would involve staff working with the

[6:46:02] applicant so that they could rectify the shortcomings of

[6:46:04] their request. Furthermore, in that request site plan, there's

[6:46:08] two public outreach meetings where the applicant has to

[6:46:11] report back to staff what they heard and how they addressed it.

[6:46:14] So those issues would be rectified through the existing

[6:46:17] site plan process. Not a workshop, but it does get

[6:46:20] rectified through the site plan process. And. But what if this

[6:46:23] what if the public has objection to whatever project

[6:46:27] they would be that would come out in the public outreach?

[6:46:30] Correct? Okay. Okay. All right. Let's getting back to Bob. You

[6:46:34] had a motion. Would you like to clarify, please? Well, my

[6:46:41] motion was for a workshop, but I guess that's not going

[6:46:45] anywhere. Why? We haven't given it an opportunity to be

[6:46:49] seconded. So my motion is to have a workshop in seven days.

[6:46:55] So you're asking to postpone this time? Certain for to

[6:46:58] continue? Yeah. Well, so no workshop would be I believe

[6:47:03] that the motion would be for this to be postponed to time,

[6:47:07] certain for this board to reconvene with the meantime. In

[6:47:10] the meantime, having an additional workshop. That

[6:47:14] sounds great. That's it. I don't want to put words in your

[6:47:18] mouth. Is that. No. That's it. Cameron, I would like to I

[6:47:24] would just like to clarify. Could you, like, restate, could

[6:47:26] you please restate your motion? Because from what I'm

[6:47:31] understanding is that you wish to schedule a workshop followed

[6:47:35] by a special meeting prior to September 27th? Yes. Do we have

[6:47:40] enough time to notice that? Well, according to our rules

[6:47:47] and procedures, special meetings slash workshops may be

[6:47:51] called by the chairperson or the or the vice chair, provided

[6:47:54] that 48 hours written notice is given to all members of the

[6:47:58] board. But would we have enough time to notice the reconvening

[6:48:04] of this agenda item? If you're speaking about the necessity of

[6:48:11] the statutory notices, since this item is being merely

[6:48:14] continued, we don't need to re notice this item. Okay, okay.

[6:48:20] We're within the framework. Where's the workshop? It's yes,

[6:48:27] yes staff. Yes, I got it. The question is who's the workshop

[6:48:31] for. And the answer is for the board members and for staff is

[6:48:36] the workshop for. So you're looking for a second. You're

[6:48:38] asking me? Yeah, I'm. Chair. Yes. Is there a second? There

[6:48:45] hasn't been a second yet. The reason that I the reason that I

[6:48:49] would consider seconding it is that it could result in staff

[6:48:54] making adjustments to what's been proposed. And for that

[6:48:59] reason, I would second it. I don't think the workshop is.

[6:49:03] But that means that it has to come back to us again to be

[6:49:06] acted upon again. Another public meeting, 200 people.

[6:49:12] 12:00. Yes. Steven has to ask a technical question. Are Bob,

[6:49:22] are you asking for the workshop for to be for us or for public

[6:49:26] outreach? For both, for us and public outreach if. Through the

[6:49:33] chair, if I may, there's one more thing to consider that I

[6:49:36] may be worth your consideration. One of the conditions on this

[6:49:39] item is to allow for refinements based on feedback

[6:49:42] heard between first, between this reading and City

[6:49:45] Commission. Can you repeat that, please? The. One of the

[6:49:47] conditions on the overlay text amendment item was for

[6:49:52] refinements to be made to the overlay after recommendation

[6:49:55] from the Planning and Development Board in advance of

[6:49:57] City Commission. The intent behind that was. There was

[6:50:01] always an understanding that refinements and direction would

[6:50:04] come from this board as a recommendation, as it often

[6:50:06] does for these types of items, and staff would then fold that

[6:50:10] recommendation in and take that to city commission. So that

[6:50:12] condition was already crafted prior, understanding that there

[6:50:15] would be refinements, if it pleases the board to provide

[6:50:19] the direction by which you want staff to to go forward, whether

[6:50:22] it's lowering the height in a certain character area, whether

[6:50:25] it's proceeding, if there is a specific task that you want to

[6:50:29] task staff with versus a carte blanche workshop where we've

[6:50:33] done public meetings, charrettes, one on one

[6:50:35] stakeholder interviews, the works, if there's specific

[6:50:38] instruction that you want to provide staff, we have already

[6:50:42] contemplated that in the conditions and provided you an

[6:50:44] opportunity to do so in this fashion. However, a carte

[6:50:48] blanche workshop workshop if I'm being honest, I'm not sure

[6:50:51] it's going to yield the results you are looking for without

[6:50:55] direction. Okay, I'm going to I'm going to bring the the

[6:50:59] motion, reconsider the motion. It has not been seconded yet.

[6:51:05] I'm open for seconds. Seeing none, that motion fails. Is

[6:51:11] there a motion? Let me just say this. I have in front of me. I

[6:51:16] have nine requested modifications to this plan. If

[6:51:20] that helps the staff to make their changes, along with the

[6:51:27] 15 pages and 5000, some odd words that are not took. So if

[6:51:34] I can certainly read this to you all, if you want or however

[6:51:38] you want to do it. Actually, if there's a motion for approval

[6:51:42] in any format, assuming that unless, Bob, you want to make

[6:51:47] the motion for approval or denial, if there's a motion

[6:51:51] that comes with your conditions that would be appropriate to be

[6:51:54] make now. So I would make a motion to have another meeting

[6:52:02] where this would come back to us. And I have a list of

[6:52:06] modifications and any other modifications other board

[6:52:08] members want to give to give staff direction, along with

[6:52:13] Anon's 15 pages and 5000 some odd words to get in. Not to

[6:52:21] step on you, but I think what has been said is that this is

[6:52:25] going to the Commission, with or without our approval. With

[6:52:29] our approval, we have the opportunity to make your

[6:52:33] suggestions. As part of that consideration. I do not believe

[6:52:37] that this board will see this item again in this form, am I

[6:52:41] correct? Well, no. The attorney said that if we if we had

[6:52:46] another meeting, it could be the commission could be

[6:52:49] postponed till October 7th. So we can bring it back before

[6:52:52] then. And then we could, you know, make make changes. Yeah.

[6:52:57] Mr. chair, your characterization is correct.

[6:53:01] And board member Glickman. Yes, you do have the opportunity to

[6:53:05] continue it, but your deadline is a hard stop at September

[6:53:09] 27th. So if you wish to reconvene a special meeting, it

[6:53:13] has to be prior to September 27th. Eight. Well, that would

[6:53:20] be up to the other board members. I'm. I'm up for a

[6:53:22] special meeting to flush this stuff out. It's up to the rest

[6:53:26] of you. Can I make a motion? Looking at the calendar? Yes.

[6:53:38] It's appropriate. Yeah. Christine, I'd like to make a

[6:53:42] motion to approve file 26TZ18. The overlay 26F70C the 2300

[6:53:53] hotel rooms 26F70A allocating the 500 flex units but I would

[6:54:02] like a condition that we do not have a blanket height along a

[6:54:09] one a and to reduce that to 15 stories instead of 20, unless

[6:54:17] it's a landmark property. And I would also like the public art

[6:54:25] not be used as a bonus for additional height. It is so

[6:54:34] moved. I just want to provide a clarification. I believe the

[6:54:39] existing height as proposed is already 15 stories on a one a

[6:54:45] okay, but they were very concerned. Into the microphone,

[6:54:47] please. They were very concerned about 20 stories and

[6:54:51] that's been all over the media. So I wanted it that we. Yeah, I

[6:54:57] believe it's 15 stories along a one a unless it's a landmark

[6:55:01] property, in which case they would have access to five

[6:55:04] additional stories, which would equate to 20. Perfect. Pardon

[6:55:08] me. Could we just get the second the public art condition

[6:55:11] restated for the. For the record, thank you. The public

[6:55:15] art not be considered as a reason for a bonus height. So

[6:55:21] also a point of clarification. Sorry I'm jumping in so many

[6:55:25] times. I realize I could have addressed this earlier, but so

[6:55:28] public art is not a bonus consideration. It is just an

[6:55:32] expectation as part of the existing Art and Public Places

[6:55:37] ordinance. So that requirement exists separate and apart from

[6:55:41] what we're doing, but will still apply to any development

[6:55:45] that exceeds the threshold of 200 zero square feet. Okay.

[6:55:51] There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second question of

[6:55:56] the motion, Dick? Go ahead. Question for Christine.

[6:56:00] Reference in your in your motion to limiting the height

[6:56:03] that the Hollywood beach. I know he clarified it. Sorry. So

[6:56:14] to answer your question, Commissioner Blattner, there

[6:56:17] was no reference to the Hollywood Beach Resort property.

[6:56:21] As part of the motion. The motion clarification was with

[6:56:24] respect to the height along a one a. Got that? Well, I could

[6:56:35] never I could never vote for a 490 foot hotel at the Hollywood

[6:56:39] beach. And would you like to add a condition? I'm sorry, I

[6:56:45] said I could never vote for a 495 foot hotel on the property,

[6:56:50] the Hollywood Beach, and that's not included through the

[6:56:55] through the chair. Is that an amendment to the motion? I

[6:56:58] would offer that as a friendly amendment to the motion.

[6:57:00] Christine is considered friendly. Okay. I'm friendly.

[6:57:03] Okay. Would you like to restate the specifics so we can make

[6:57:06] sure it's clarified? What cap would you put on the Hollywood

[6:57:10] beach? The 340 foot max, 30 stories, 30, 30 stories. So,

[6:57:25] Commissioner, also, just as a point of clarification, I'm not

[6:57:28] sure. I just want you to know what you're addressing. And

[6:57:32] again, I apologize for all of the. Interjections. So the way

[6:57:35] that it is structured right now is that there is a 34 story max.

[6:57:40] Then there's, of course, that is through the controlling

[6:57:44] properties. Then there is the height that is allowed through

[6:57:47] the unified master plan, which is also 34 stories. But I just

[6:57:52] want to make sure that we have the appropriate direction from

[6:57:55] you all as we go to make these revisions. And then, of course,

[6:57:59] there is a potential additional height to be assessed as part

[6:58:03] of the the hotel rehabilitation, which is the additional 15

[6:58:09] stories. So as you guys make your revision to what this

[6:58:12] means, you know, I guess staff, myself included, be specific in

[6:58:19] terms of how you want it to be addressed within that framework

[6:58:23] or whether the framework needs to be changed. All right. For

[6:58:31] clarification, Commissioner, not at this time. Please. Let's

[6:58:34] this is this is up for us. Dick. I'm sorry everybody, it's very

[6:58:39] confusing. And the controlling property is a 340 foot max.

[6:58:45] Correct. And then the unified master plan gives them another

[6:58:50] 150ft. Is that correct? How do you get rid of that? Okay, so

[6:58:58] the additional 15 stories is accessed through the the

[6:59:03] restoration of the existing structure. So we have item

[6:59:14] number four. So on that. So Andrea's whispering in my ear

[6:59:19] is that perhaps the maximum height is just proportionately

[6:59:25] lowered to the maximum that you previously prescribed. So we

[6:59:29] would recalibrate the historic preservation and the base 30

[6:59:34] accessible 30 floors. Gotcha stories. Yeah. Christine, do

[6:59:40] you still consider that friendly? Yes. Okay. Very

[6:59:42] friendly. Would you say that to the mic for the record, please?

[6:59:46] Yes. Very friendly. Okay. Well, actually, I'm sorry, I would

[6:59:49] like to jump in. So even though all three of those items were

[6:59:52] heard together, they they do need to be voted on separately.

[6:59:55] So I believe we should restart the motion. I think that the

[7:00:00] motion was only on 2618. Yeah. No. Did you you read all three.

[7:00:10] Okay. Yeah. Would you like to rescind your second rescind the

[7:00:14] primary and restate just for item number three. I'd like to

[7:00:22] make a motion file number 26TZ18. For the overlay. With

[7:00:35] conditions that read your conditions first. No we we got

[7:00:40] rid of those. Okay. It's been moved moved to approve. Dick,

[7:00:46] would you like to add a friendly amendment? Would be

[7:00:51] that the. Under the Unified Master plan, the historic

[7:00:55] rehabilitation would be limited to 30 stories. Consider that

[7:01:01] friendly. Friendly. Yeah. And even though it's a friendly

[7:01:04] amendment, we need a consensus of the entire board. We haven't.

[7:01:06] Second, we haven't voted it yet. Okay, so with Dick with that,

[7:01:13] would you second. Second. Okay. All in favor? I opposed opposed.

[7:01:21] Okay. Motion carries. Moving on. Motion to approve file number

[7:01:32] 26, F 70 C 2300 hotel rooms. It's been moved. Is there a

[7:01:41] second? Second. Moved in, moved in second. All in favor? Aye.

[7:01:48] Opposed. Opposed. Motion carries. Motion to approve file

[7:01:56] number 26F70A allocating 500 flex units. Second. Moved in

[7:02:05] second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed. Opposed. Motion

[7:02:11] carries. Thank you much. Items. Group number three, four and

[7:02:17] five have been voted and approved with conditions.

[7:02:21] Moving on. Item number six on the agenda. File number 25.

[7:02:28] Resolution 73. A applicant PR 1301 South Ocean Drive, city of

[7:02:35] Hollywood. Staff. Staff asking for a recess. Yeah. Come back

[7:02:53] tomorrow morning at 9:00. Excuse me. Chair? Yes? I have a

[7:03:02] question for the board attorney before we begin. Okay. My

[7:03:10] question is as follows. In the since this report was amended,

[7:03:16] I'm sorry, can you speak up, please? What's that? Oh, what

[7:03:22] is the question? Thank you. We still have business being

[7:03:26] conducted. Go ahead. Bob. Since the since the city staff report

[7:03:32] and clerk city Clerk submission was amended, it says that we

[7:03:38] needed eight business days to receive this information. And

[7:03:42] that information was not received to us in eight

[7:03:44] business days. We were notified of this change, I believe, on

[7:03:49] September 3rd. And for myself personally, I have not read

[7:03:55] through all the new submittals that were submitted and all the

[7:04:00] changes that were made. Bob, can you clarify? You're talking

[7:04:06] about the next agenda item, correct? Yes. Okay. All right.

[7:04:09] So the eight business day deadline is for the submission

[7:04:12] of an application. But we do have the right to accept

[7:04:16] supplemental documentation and the supplemental documentation

[7:04:20] that was included in the revised draft is simply

[7:04:24] applicants disposition of this, of the quasi judicial nature of

[7:04:28] this application. So no substantive changes have been

[7:04:30] made. Well, there, there there were there were changes made

[7:04:36] and there were information added. If you read the witness

[7:04:40] and supporting materials, article four, number C, the

[7:04:43] eight city business days deadline is necessary to ensure

[7:04:47] the commission or board members are given sufficient

[7:04:50] opportunity to review the written submissions prior to

[7:04:52] the hearing, we were not given that information eight business

[7:04:56] days prior to the hearing, as the board. I'm happy to give

[7:05:08] you the staff report. I have it right here in front of me.

[7:05:27] All right. I maintain my statement.

[7:05:31] The application is properly and timely in front of the board.

[7:05:36] Well, you read the staff report. I have it right here if you'd

[7:05:39] like to see it. Yeah. I have read the staff report and I

[7:05:43] read, read. See, please. It says that the board members

[7:05:46] need to get the staff report eight days prior, eight

[7:05:50] business days prior to. You have received the staff report.

[7:05:54] The revisions that have been made are not substantive enough,

[7:05:58] and the application was timely filed within eight business

[7:06:00] days. That's not what it says. Staff report. They added

[7:06:16] submittals to this whenever we were not notified about these

[7:06:22] submittals. And I think this is what. Yeah, that's what I

[7:06:36] thought. Yeah. No, it is the same. Yeah. As I mentioned

[7:06:39] before, the application was we have determined that it has

[7:06:43] been timely filed. The revisions that you're referring

[7:06:46] to, as I mentioned before, was applicant's counsel disposition

[7:06:51] of the quasi judicial nature of these proceedings. And staff

[7:06:55] also added additional instructions. I mean, if you

[7:06:57] read the highlighted language, it's simply a restatement of

[7:06:59] our existing quasi judicial procedures. They added

[7:07:05] additional documents to the file. There were 3 or 4 other

[7:07:10] additional documents to the files. We were not provided

[7:07:15] those files eight days prior to this meeting. You received the

[7:07:24] application within eight business days, but the

[7:07:27] additional applications that were filed were not submitted

[7:07:30] to this board. You mean application materials, not

[7:07:33] additional applications. The additional applications or

[7:07:37] additional submittals that they provided was not submitted to

[7:07:41] this board. 8 to 8 business days prior to this meeting. I'm

[7:07:50] just reading what the document says that staff prepared, I

[7:07:54] mean. And I've never seen this document on a staff report

[7:08:03] before.

[7:08:23] Why don't we do this while staff thinks about this?

[7:08:26] Can we recess for a few moments? Absolutely. Thank you.

[7:22:15] You should have an existing meeting. So I appreciate the

[7:22:19] effort though, because I'd like to go home too. But thank you.

[7:22:22] I would like to hear from the board attorney. Current meeting

[7:22:27] is still in effect. It is effectively being heard

[7:22:31] September 8th. Thank you. One of the residents asked. One of

[7:22:34] the residents asked. I just wanted to ask. Not that I was

[7:22:38] eavesdropping, but I think it's today, somebody's birthday now

[7:22:40] that it's after midnight too. So happy birthday to whoever

[7:22:42] that was. All right, moving on. Staff, do you waive quasi

[7:22:48] judicial staff waives applicant. Does not waive. Correct. Thank

[7:22:55] you. All right, Mr. Chair. So that means that the board will

[7:23:00] act as a judge tonight. So we will be applying the city's

[7:23:03] existing rules to this one property based on the evidence,

[7:23:07] rather than making new policy. So, Mr. Chair, before the board

[7:23:12] takes up this item, I have several preliminary matters

[7:23:15] that I would like to address. First, due to questions and

[7:23:21] concerns we have received about the board's ability to remain

[7:23:24] impartial on this item. I want to put one thing on the record

[7:23:27] before we begin. So as I mentioned before, this item is

[7:23:32] quasi judicial. Each of you said, as a judge and your

[7:23:34] decision must rest on the evidence presented tonight and

[7:23:38] applicable criteria, not on anything you may have read,

[7:23:40] heard, or said outside of the proceedings. Section 286.012

[7:23:47] requires every member present to vote, with one exception. In

[7:23:50] a quasi judicial proceedings, a member may abstain if the

[7:23:54] abstention is to assure a fair proceeding free from potential

[7:23:58] bias or prejudice. The judgment belongs to each member

[7:24:02] individually. No one else can make it or force you to make it.

[7:24:05] So I'll pose one question, and I will ask each member to

[7:24:09] answer on the record. Mr. chair, you may take a roll call. Yes

[7:24:13] or no will suffice. And the question that you would like to

[7:24:17] for you to answer on the record is, are you able to set aside

[7:24:21] anything you have previously heard, read, or expressed about

[7:24:24] this project? Decide this application solely on the

[7:24:27] evidence presented tonight and the applicable criteria, and

[7:24:30] participate free from bias or prejudice. If you could take a

[7:24:35] roll call so we can answer on record. Yeah. Christine Corbo.

[7:24:41] Yes. Joseph Stalin yes. Richard Blattner yes. Steven Morales

[7:24:51] yes. Massimo Romandini. Yes. Bob Glickman. Yes. All right.

[7:25:04] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Now, the next preliminary matter is a

[7:25:09] written request for a party intervener status submitted on

[7:25:13] September 4th, 2026 by Sidney Katz of the Abrams Law Firm on

[7:25:18] behalf of the key Public Lands Public Incorporated and

[7:25:21] Catherine Dibona. Now, before I state the ruling, I would like

[7:25:25] to have one clarification. For the record. The intravenous and

[7:25:29] the city are adverse parties in pending litigation concerning

[7:25:32] this project. This ruling is a procedural determination made

[7:25:35] solely under section five of the city's quasi judicial

[7:25:38] hearing procedures, and solely for the purpose of

[7:25:41] participation in this proceeding. It is not a

[7:25:44] determination of standing or of injury or or of any question of

[7:25:47] fact or law at issue in that litigation. It is not an

[7:25:50] admission or concession by the city of any position asserted

[7:25:54] in the litigation. It is made without prejudice to every

[7:25:57] claim, defense and objection the city has raised or may

[7:26:00] raise there. All of which city expressly reserves recognition

[7:26:04] as a party intervenor here confers no right beyond those

[7:26:07] set out in its procedures for this item at this hearing. Now

[7:26:12] the. The party's request for intervenor is granted. In part.

[7:26:17] Mr. Boehner has made a showing required by section five A,

[7:26:22] which is an interest in application that is different

[7:26:25] than the public at large. So the parties will be recognized

[7:26:28] as a party intervenor for this item. However, section V B

[7:26:34] requires that a written request to intervene must include a

[7:26:37] detailed outline of the argument, copies of all

[7:26:40] exhibits to be presented, and the names and addresses of all

[7:26:43] victims victims witnesses, including resumes for any

[7:26:47] witnesses to be qualified as an expert. The request included

[7:26:51] none of those. So. So for the purpose of that requirement is

[7:26:56] to give the other parties a fair opportunity to review and

[7:26:58] respond in advance of the hearing here, nothing was

[7:27:01] disclosed, so I've decided that the parties may not offer

[7:27:05] exhibits or expert opinion testimony, and no witness will

[7:27:08] be permitted to testify on their behalf. Now, under

[7:27:12] section X, statements of counsel are argument, not

[7:27:15] testimony, so they shall be treated as such. That means

[7:27:19] that counsel's presentation in opening statement will be

[7:27:22] received as an argument and not as testimony, and it may not be

[7:27:25] used as evidence in the proceedings. Now, the parties

[7:27:29] may cross-examine witnesses and cross-examination. Time is

[7:27:33] separate from the 30 minute allocation and is subject to

[7:27:38] the same five minute per witness limit that everyone is

[7:27:40] entitled to. The parties retain the right to address the board

[7:27:44] during the public comment portion, and to submit written

[7:27:47] materials into the record. You may proceed. Yes. Any questions

[7:27:53] for. Yes. Dick, I don't understand. Thank you for the

[7:27:58] explanation at this hour. I don't understand it as well as

[7:28:02] I would have eight hours ago. But what my question is, if

[7:28:07] there is a lawsuit pending that could overturn whatever

[7:28:11] decision we make, why are we being asked to do that? Well, I

[7:28:22] believe the pending litigation does not bear any effect or

[7:28:26] impact on the application before you, but it does have an

[7:28:29] why not? Whatever we decide can be overturned by a judge at

[7:28:36] some point in the future, right? Why? Why are we going through

[7:28:40] that? I don't understand it. If the judge had already ruled, if

[7:28:44] there was a ruling that was made, would we be here tonight

[7:28:47] to discuss this?

[7:29:13] So. All right. That is a very good question,

[7:29:27] and thank you for giving me the time to answer it. So we may we

[7:29:32] may move freely on this item because there's no current

[7:29:35] injunction on the city to proceed forward. And we still

[7:29:38] have to fulfill our contractual obligations. Can you say that a

[7:29:43] little? Yes. Currently, there is no standing injunction that

[7:29:46] might enjoin or prevent the city from moving forward, and

[7:29:49] the city still must meet its contractual obligations. Okay.

[7:30:00] At this time, I'd like to ask, are there comment cards? Yes.

[7:30:06] Okay. What is the procedure for those that will be speaking

[7:30:09] either for or opposed to this item? I will have to swear them

[7:30:15] in. And I think it's better to do it as a group than

[7:30:21] individually. Please. Yeah. So if anyone who would like to

[7:30:25] testify today, please stand up and raise your right hand. We

[7:30:32] also have some members that are supposed to be virtual. I will

[7:30:35] swear them in individually. Okay. Yeah. Virtual speakers

[7:30:38] will be sworn in individually by me before they proceed. All

[7:30:42] right. Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth

[7:30:47] in this proceeding? All right. Thank you. Does anybody oppose?

[7:30:52] Okay. Yeah, yeah. And I believe one last matter, at least for

[7:30:59] me before we proceed, is that I would like every I would like

[7:31:03] to ask every board member to disclose any ex parte

[7:31:08] communications that they've had in relation to this item. That

[7:31:12] includes any communication or verbal communication, any site

[7:31:15] visits, any expert opinions you might have. Well, I've been to

[7:31:19] the site a thousand times. Okay. Been to presentations at the

[7:31:26] community center and spoke with the design team and whoever

[7:31:30] else was there. Okay. Stephen. No, no, no, I've been to the

[7:31:39] site. I spoke to staff, spoke to the mayor. Okay. I've been

[7:31:44] to staff and received emails from concerned citizens. All

[7:31:48] right. Thank you. You proceed. I also received many emails. I

[7:31:53] would say that I've been to the City commission meetings when

[7:31:56] I've heard this over the years as well. So and watch

[7:32:00] proceedings online is also okay. Staff, would you like to make a

[7:32:07] presentation? Good morning. Board chair and board members.

[7:32:19] Cameron Palmer, Assistant director, Development services

[7:32:21] and chief planner here at the City of Hollywood. We're going

[7:32:24] to be speaking today about 1301 South Ocean Drive. The the

[7:32:28] title was read into the record, but I'll read it again, a

[7:32:30] recommendation for resolution of the City Commission of the

[7:32:33] City of Hollywood determining the appropriate height,

[7:32:36] setbacks and total site coverage for proposed live

[7:32:38] local development. Located at 1301 South Ocean Drive and

[7:32:42] zoned government use providing an effective date. The property

[7:32:46] is located at 1301 South Ocean Drive. On the screen, you'll

[7:32:51] see the general location of the property in the southern

[7:32:53] portion of Hollywood Beach. On the screen is the aerial image

[7:32:58] of the subject site as it exists today. On the left and

[7:33:01] on the right are photos of the at grade condition of the

[7:33:05] property as it exists today. Photos on the screen are the

[7:33:10] surrounding properties depicting the high density and

[7:33:13] medium density residential uses, and the open space uses

[7:33:16] adjacent to the subject site. As it pertains to land use and

[7:33:20] zoning. The property is within the community Facility Land Use

[7:33:24] designation and its own government use. With a size of

[7:33:27] approximately 1.5 acres as outlined on the screen. By way

[7:33:33] of background, the site currently contains a structure.

[7:33:36] Today, the Hollywood Beach Culture and Community Center.

[7:33:38] It's a one story building constructed in 1970 with

[7:33:42] associated surface parking areas and later acquired by the

[7:33:45] city in 1974. The site has also had a long standing history

[7:33:49] with the City of Hollywood, ranging from planning,

[7:33:52] discussions, contractual discussions and a private

[7:33:55] public partnership, the key milestones of which are shown

[7:33:58] on your screen. That history brings us to an important

[7:34:02] legislative change that affects how the application is being

[7:34:04] processed today, and that's live local, also known as

[7:34:07] Senate Bill 102, most recently modified in August or July of

[7:34:12] this year. As a bit of a refresher for everyone, live

[7:34:15] local is a preemption from the state that expands development

[7:34:18] rights, including specific preemptions for land use,

[7:34:23] density and height NFAR it. The act requires administrative

[7:34:29] approval for these requests that are eligible, which

[7:34:32] require. Which means there is no board or City Commission

[7:34:35] official action. It's really important to note that the act

[7:34:39] does not waive all zoning standards. It requires

[7:34:40] compliance with the remainder of zoning standards. Save and

[7:34:42] accept land use density F, a, R, and height. Most recently, in

[7:34:46] July of this year, it was updated to now include city

[7:34:49] owned properties as eligible sites for live local

[7:34:52] developments. So then the question is what is before the

[7:34:57] board today given that background? And while live

[7:35:00] local is relevant to the overall project, Live local

[7:35:02] itself is not before the board. Today, the local preempts land

[7:35:06] use density and height, but requires that the zoning

[7:35:08] standards otherwise in the city's code be respected. In

[7:35:12] this particular case, because the property is within the

[7:35:14] zoning district, those standards that are outlined

[7:35:18] that need to be respected include height, lot coverage

[7:35:20] and setback. These standards do not have a numerical value in

[7:35:24] the code as it exists today, because they are to be

[7:35:27] determined by city commission. So we have effectively a very

[7:35:31] unique track before us where we have live local proceeding on

[7:35:34] the top of the screen. The application comes in, it's

[7:35:37] reviewed by the DRC and then it's triggered live local is

[7:35:40] triggered. When live local is triggered, the application

[7:35:42] still has to proceed under the act with regards to land use,

[7:35:46] density and height. In this particular scenario, height,

[7:35:50] lot coverage and setbacks are items covered in the district

[7:35:54] to be determined by City Commission. As a result, the

[7:35:57] substream on the bottom. The yellow is. These items are

[7:36:00] pulled out and are being reviewed today by this board

[7:36:02] for recommendation specifically for height, lot, lot coverage

[7:36:08] and setbacks. Because the zoning district provides that

[7:36:12] only the City Commission, through recommendation of the

[7:36:14] board, can set those parameters. While the remaining of the

[7:36:18] review proceeds on top through administratively, through live

[7:36:22] local. So right now, ongoing is the site plan and design review

[7:36:25] happening administratively per live local with the specific

[7:36:29] parameters before you today of height, lot coverage and

[7:36:32] setback being called out for recommendation by this board

[7:36:35] after which item rejoins for administrative approval near

[7:36:38] the end and onward to building permits. So as a recap, what's

[7:36:43] not included in today's request? Live local and its

[7:36:46] considerations are not being discussed today because these

[7:36:47] are items that are preempted by the state. Accordingly, the

[7:36:51] associated design and site plan that goes along with that live

[7:36:53] local request is preempted by the state and not part of

[7:36:56] today's discussion, as well as Harry Berry Park, which is

[7:36:59] moving forward under a separate site plan application and as

[7:37:02] demonstrated on the screen, is not highlighted highlighted as

[7:37:04] part of today's scope. What is included in today's request is

[7:37:08] a recommendation from this board to the City Commission on

[7:37:11] this g. U standards that include setbacks, lot coverage

[7:37:16] and height. The intent is that these are to be determined

[7:37:20] recommended at this board, and that recommendation will move

[7:37:21] on to city commission to determine those parameters,

[7:37:24] those specific parameters for the site plan. So as it

[7:37:29] pertains to those technical parameters, I'm going to walk

[7:37:31] you through what is proposed. The proposed maximum height for

[7:37:35] this project is 375ft. The proposed setbacks vary based on

[7:37:40] the building configuration configuration, ranging from

[7:37:45] zero feet to a 15 foot encroachment into the right of

[7:37:49] way. The proposed site covers approximately 96%. With the

[7:37:54] requested standards identified. The next question is how does

[7:37:58] staff evaluated them per. Pursuant to section 4.9 of the

[7:38:02] code, it outlines what those criteria need to be. Those

[7:38:06] standards need to be assessed against the surrounding

[7:38:09] character being one, the proposed development character

[7:38:11] being another, and the adopted planning goals in the city's

[7:38:14] comprehensive plan and citywide master plan being the final

[7:38:17] staff found that the surrounding character. Being an

[7:38:19] established higher density neighborhood, the and setting

[7:38:23] continues to be consistent with the height that's proposed in

[7:38:26] this. In. For this request, staff found that the proposed

[7:38:31] development. Character of podium and tower format. With

[7:38:34] the tower hosting the residential uses and the podium

[7:38:37] hosting the civic uses is an appropriate format for the

[7:38:41] development character of the area and staff found that the

[7:38:44] planning goals within the comprehensive Plan as outlined

[7:38:47] in the report and on the screen, are found to be consistent with

[7:38:51] the request as it pertains to setbacks and total site

[7:38:54] coverage. The same analysis was found particularly as it

[7:38:56] pertains to the setbacks of the site with the surrounding

[7:39:00] character area and the proposed development, and accordingly,

[7:39:04] staff has found height, setbacks and site coverage to

[7:39:06] be consistent with the three criterias on the screen. Again,

[7:39:10] as it's very scoped because it's a good it's a good

[7:39:14] district. And further to being a good district, it's a scoped

[7:39:16] request. Accordingly, staff is recommending the Planning and

[7:39:19] Development Board for the recommendation of approval to

[7:39:21] the City Commission regarding the appropriate height,

[7:39:25] setbacks and total site coverage, also known as lot

[7:39:28] coverage for this individual government use development.

[7:39:34] Okay. Questions for staff. Let me start. What other G you

[7:39:40] zones exist on the barrier island? Well, I don't have an

[7:39:46] exhaustive list. Off the top of my head. We do have

[7:39:49] Margaritaville in a zone right now, and I could, if you

[7:39:51] provide staff some time, we could provide a more expansive

[7:39:54] list. Okay. Other questions. Bob, I have a couple of

[7:40:02] questions. I had a Cameron an email asking him if the

[7:40:13] previous. Let's see what it says. If the previous documents

[7:40:21] were still in force and effect. And he referred me to Lisa and

[7:40:27] Lisa and she responded back actually this evening, saying

[7:40:32] that the those documents are still in, in effect, the

[7:40:37] comprehensive agreement. So I would like to ask you about the

[7:40:40] Comprehensive Development Agreement. Okay. Does the

[7:40:45] applicant meet the burden contained in the Comprehensive

[7:40:47] Agreement on pages seven and eight and in page seven and

[7:40:52] eight? 1.25? Governmental approval shall mean the

[7:40:55] approved zoning plans and any other license permit, approval,

[7:40:59] authorization, consent, etc. and 1.26 governing governmental

[7:41:04] authority shall mean the city of Hollywood acting as the

[7:41:08] regulatory capacity. Broward County. ET cetera. So my

[7:41:13] question, my question is, if the county was supposed to hear

[7:41:18] this matter and they didn't hear this matter, were they

[7:41:21] supposed to hear that matter first before we did hear

[7:41:26] tonight? My apologies, board member Glickman, because this

[7:41:30] is a quasi judicial procedure I have. I have to one, enter into

[7:41:35] the record, the agenda and the backup materials and the

[7:41:41] presentation that Cameron just made. And I have to qualify him

[7:41:44] as an expert witness. So, cam, can you state your name and

[7:41:48] your position? For the record, my name is Cameron Palmer and

[7:41:52] my position as Assistant Director of Development

[7:41:54] Services Chief planner. And are there any special degrees that

[7:41:58] you have? I have a Bachelor in Urban and Regional Planning

[7:42:01] planning degree from the Toronto Metropolitan University.

[7:42:04] I am accredited in the American Institute of Planners and

[7:42:08] accredited internationally in the Canadian Institute of

[7:42:11] Planners. Thank you. Sorry, board member, would you kindly

[7:42:18] repeat the last portion of your question? Okay. I had sent you

[7:42:27] an email asking you some questions. If the prior

[7:42:31] agreements were still in force and effect, you referred me to

[7:42:35] to Lisa, she emailed me late this afternoon or this evening.

[7:42:41] I mean, I just saw it a little while ago saying that yes, they

[7:42:44] are. So my question to you are in the Comprehensive

[7:42:48] Development Agreement on pages seven and eight, 1.25 and 1.26.

[7:42:56] Should the county have heard this matter before it came to

[7:43:00] us? That's a two part question. The first part, I would just

[7:43:05] like to reiterate that the board today is not approving

[7:43:08] the design or the site plan or the Harry Berry Park or, or the

[7:43:12] lease or developmental amendment. So I would like the

[7:43:14] board members to stay within the scope of today's item with

[7:43:17] our questions. But how is that not in the in the scope? Yes.

[7:43:26] And plus, since this is a quasi judicial matter, qualified

[7:43:29] witnesses are only allowed to testify to their field of

[7:43:32] expertise. And Cameron is not a legal attorney and he's not

[7:43:35] involved. Well you are. I am the board attorney. Yeah, I'm

[7:43:46] the board attorney. I'm not personally negotiating these

[7:43:49] items. And I'm not testifying either. Is there another

[7:44:00] question? Let's let's get back to that one if possible. Bob,

[7:44:02] is there another question? No. Any other questions pertaining

[7:44:10] to this item? I'm not sure that Bob has his answer and nor I

[7:44:14] don't think that the that we're satisfied with how it gets

[7:44:18] answered. Bob, restate your question again. Well, I'm I'm

[7:44:22] just asking if the other documents that were agreed with

[7:44:26] the City Commission and and, and the applicant are still in

[7:44:32] force and effect. And I'm just asking a question that pertains

[7:44:36] to the Comprehensive Development Agreement that

[7:44:39] pertains to this matter and whether it should have been

[7:44:43] heard. By the county before it was heard by us. That's all I,

[7:44:52] I went back and read the the comprehensive agreement. I went

[7:44:55] back and read the ground lease. So I thought it was all part

[7:44:58] and parcel. So I just came up with the question. So it's a

[7:45:03] procedural question of whether additional information is

[7:45:07] relevant to the question of zoning, of setbacks and heights.

[7:45:12] The question is whether the county should have heard this

[7:45:15] before us, I guess is is the question I can okay. Well, with

[7:45:18] with that it's it's before us. Now, does that change your

[7:45:24] opinion of, of how to how to adjudicate? No, it doesn't it

[7:45:29] just says it in the comprehensive development

[7:45:32] agreement as it pertains to the request before the board

[7:45:35] regarding the GU zoning district. No, the county does

[7:45:38] not need to review this request prior to being made a decision

[7:45:42] being made as it pertains to the request before the board.

[7:45:45] With regards to the GU Zoning district, zoning is a municipal

[7:45:48] affair, okay. Any other questions for staff? Seeing

[7:45:58] none. Applicant. We have no questions of staff. Thank you.

[7:46:24] At this point, is it appropriate that the applicant

[7:46:26] make their presentation? So the official order of proof is that

[7:46:30] staff presents first and gets allocated 30 minutes. And then

[7:46:35] the party intervenor follows up staff's presentation. And after

[7:46:39] the party, the third party presentation applicant gets to

[7:46:42] weigh in. And yeah, and after that cross in public. Public.

[7:46:49] Okay, so does the intervenor. Yes. Okay. Yes. Thank you very

[7:46:54] much, board. And thank you all for your time this morning. We

[7:46:57] have been here a little while today. My name is Sidney Satz.

[7:47:02] I am the attorney on behalf of the two party Intervenors in

[7:47:05] this case, Key Public Lands Public Inc. and Kathy Dibona.

[7:47:09] As the board has heard, this project, 1301 South Ocean Drive

[7:47:15] is the subject of active litigation right now. I heard

[7:47:19] some comment from from staff and the city attorney

[7:47:22] suggesting that this project today can be analyzed in a silo.

[7:47:25] You cannot or should not consider the development

[7:47:29] agreement as a as it exists, because it does not pertain to

[7:47:32] the approval that is before you all this evening. But that's

[7:47:34] not the case. This case, at its core, the the the approvals

[7:47:41] that the city is seeking come from the development agreement.

[7:47:45] That height that is before you all this morning is not an

[7:47:48] arbitrary number. It is the number in some ways that comes

[7:47:52] from the development agreement. It's actually higher than the

[7:47:54] height that was contemplated by way of the term sheet that was

[7:47:57] attached to the development agreement. For some some

[7:48:00] background context here. This this case has been pending this

[7:48:02] this application has been pending for a very long time.

[7:48:05] The first development agreement was approved by the City

[7:48:08] Commission in 2022. At that time, that development

[7:48:12] agreement was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,

[7:48:15] the future land use element of the Comprehensive Plan. Future

[7:48:21] land use element of the Comprehensive Plan,

[7:48:24] specifically provided that this staff, if you want to take it

[7:48:31] outside. My apologies. Continue if you want. I know the timer

[7:48:34] wasn't running. I have 30 minutes if you want to let it

[7:48:37] run a little bit. All right. Thank you guys. The Future Land

[7:48:41] Use Element designation for this property is and was

[7:48:44] community facilities. So all it is in government use zoning.

[7:48:47] There is a more stringent future land use designation

[7:48:50] that applies to this property. And because of that future land

[7:48:54] use designation, there was never a legal project that was

[7:48:58] permitted. That is why this project is now before you by

[7:49:01] way of the Live Local Act, without the amendments to the

[7:49:04] Live Local Act that were passed just a few months ago by the

[7:49:08] legislature, there was no way for this project to move

[7:49:10] forward in the form that it was approved by the Commission in

[7:49:13] the first place. That is true. As we sit here today. If the

[7:49:16] Live Local Act had not been amended to apply specifically

[7:49:19] to property owned by government, by local government, then there

[7:49:23] would be no basis to move forward with this approval. The

[7:49:29] key language in the Live Local Act, which is extremely

[7:49:35] important for the question that is posed to the board this

[7:49:37] evening, is whether or not. So what the live local really says,

[7:49:44] it sets forth certain requirements. So there is the

[7:49:46] affordable housing requirement. 40% of all of the units must be

[7:49:49] affordable within the meaning that has been imposed by the

[7:49:52] legislature. But there are also height limitations in the Live

[7:49:55] Local act. So the Live Local Act gives developers who would

[7:49:59] otherwise not be entitled to develop on certain properties

[7:50:01] certain rights, the height limitation that is imposed by

[7:50:04] the Live Local Act is the highest height within a one

[7:50:09] mile radius. That applies to commercial or residential

[7:50:12] property, or two stories or three stories, whichever is

[7:50:16] greater. So in this case, the way that the live local act

[7:50:19] would apply is that you would need to look within a one mile

[7:50:22] radius of the property in order to determine what the highest

[7:50:25] height was in the existing area, and that would be the height

[7:50:28] that is provided and permitted by way of the local act. The

[7:50:32] language in the Live Local Act is a proposed development

[7:50:36] authorized under this subsection, which means you

[7:50:39] have to read the live local act in its entirety. You can't just

[7:50:42] look at certain pieces that the subsection includes height

[7:50:46] limitations, height requirements. So if the city

[7:50:50] today is traveling under the government, use zoning in order

[7:50:53] to establish and manufacture a height that does not exist

[7:50:57] anywhere else in this zoning designation, it is not under

[7:51:00] the Live Local Act, and the preemptive effect of the Live

[7:51:03] Local Act would not apply. One of the the most important

[7:51:07] things here, the government use zoning in the city code does

[7:51:12] not have any particular limitation. So there's no

[7:51:15] setback requirement, there's no height limitation. The board

[7:51:19] and the City Commission get the opportunity to impose a

[7:51:22] completely new height limitation for any project or

[7:51:25] any, any development that is considered within this this

[7:51:29] zoning designation. The board, when it is considering an

[7:51:36] application, there are one of the things that the board is

[7:51:39] required to analyze under the code is whether it is

[7:51:42] consistent with certain goals that are set forth within the

[7:51:45] Comprehensive Plan, but there is a more stringent requirement

[7:51:49] in the code that says that the Planning and Development Board

[7:51:51] shall evaluate the site plan in accordance with the

[7:51:54] requirements set forth in article six. In addition, the

[7:51:57] board shall evaluate the suitability of the proposed

[7:52:00] development with the design review criteria set forth in

[7:52:02] section 5.3 J for the city's Comprehensive Plan, the city

[7:52:07] wide Master Plan, and the relevant neighborhood plan. The

[7:52:10] reason I read you that language is because if the board

[7:52:14] analyzes this project in accordance with the

[7:52:16] requirements of the code, there is no ability to find that the

[7:52:19] project is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. The

[7:52:22] city will rebut on this point that the the. The comprehensive

[7:52:28] plan with respect to height is preempted. But again, the city

[7:52:31] is not using the height that is permitted under the Live Local

[7:52:35] Act. For purposes of this morning's hearing, the city is

[7:52:38] attempting. In the immediate vicinity. Even in the staff

[7:52:40] report, the highest building is something like 24 stories. This

[7:52:44] is something that is virtually unheard of in this area, and

[7:52:47] the only reason you are getting that height recommendation of

[7:52:50] 30 stories is because of the development agreement. It's not

[7:52:55] consistent. The use is not consistent with the

[7:52:57] comprehensive plan. It remains inconsistent with the

[7:52:59] comprehensive Plan, and the board has no ability to

[7:53:02] determine that. It is consistent with the

[7:53:04] comprehensive Plan because it's not. There are additionally a

[7:53:08] number of exceptions to the Live Local Act. This is this is

[7:53:13] something that has not been raised as of yet, but one of

[7:53:16] those exceptions to the Live Local act is if a project is

[7:53:20] subject to land development regulations, which are intended

[7:53:23] to retain the open character of land. The statute says that

[7:53:28] this includes, but is not limited to, open space

[7:53:30] districts, open space, recreation districts, open use

[7:53:33] estate districts, things of that nature. This property,

[7:53:37] pursuant to the government use zoning, which incorporates the

[7:53:40] comprehensive code, is an open space, is subject to land

[7:53:43] development regulations that are intended to preserve the

[7:53:46] open character of the property. That doesn't necessarily mean a

[7:53:50] park. It's not as simple as that. It means open to the

[7:53:54] public. And that's exactly what this property is intended for.

[7:53:57] That's what the Community Facilities designation in the

[7:54:00] Future Land Use Code is intended to reference, and the

[7:54:03] government use zoning as well. The purpose of government use

[7:54:05] zoning under the city's code is to accommodate governmental

[7:54:10] buildings, parks, things of that nature, all of which are

[7:54:12] intended to be open to the public for all intents and

[7:54:15] purposes. So even assuming that the height recommendation

[7:54:19] before you was preempted by Live local, which it's not

[7:54:23] because of the, the, the way that this recommendation is

[7:54:26] being presented to the board, which is to take certain

[7:54:29] aspects of certain things and try and Frankenstein an

[7:54:32] approval that is not permitted by way of the operative statute.

[7:54:36] The live local law doesn't apply because of this exception.

[7:54:40] This is. There are there are there are a number of things

[7:54:44] here that that are important to consider. The other issue here

[7:54:50] is the concept of contract zoning. And the board very

[7:54:52] astutely mentioned the development agreement that I've

[7:54:55] talked about a little bit this morning. What is being

[7:55:00] positioned this morning? What is being offered to the board

[7:55:04] is, is 30 stories. And that number, as I have mentioned,

[7:55:08] comes from the development agreement. The city has

[7:55:12] effectively contracted away its right to enforce its police

[7:55:16] powers, which is a problem under Florida law. It's called

[7:55:19] contract zoning or spot zoning. And if the board were to

[7:55:23] recommend approval of a 30 foot height or 30 story height,

[7:55:27] rather on a building, that is where the where the outcome is

[7:55:31] predetermined by way of the negotiated agreement that

[7:55:34] underscores this development. It would be illegal under

[7:55:39] Florida law, even if the development agreement were

[7:55:42] construed to be a legitimate agreement. The height that is

[7:55:49] authorized in the development agreement in that term sheet is

[7:55:52] 365ft. That number that comes from the development agreement

[7:55:57] that was approved by the commission and which

[7:55:59] underscores this project, is ten feet lower than what is

[7:56:03] before the board today. What is being th number that has been

[7:56:06] given to you all is 375ft. So even if the development

[7:56:11] agreement were a legitimate document, it would. The

[7:56:15] approval that is being sought is not supported by it. We are

[7:56:23] requesting a recommendation of denial of the height that is

[7:56:27] sought by the applicant in the city. This morning. The project

[7:56:31] at issue falls into an exception to the live local act,

[7:56:35] as I've noted. But if the city is going to approve the project,

[7:56:39] notwithstanding the fact that the Live Local act does not

[7:56:41] apply, notwithstanding the fact that the project remains

[7:56:44] inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. As we sit

[7:56:46] here today, it cannot be done in this manner. The city cannot

[7:56:51] attempt to get the benefits of a code, which is what is

[7:56:55] happening this evening with the government use zoning, which we

[7:56:58] all agree does not permit the use that is at issue tonight.

[7:57:02] I'm happy to answer any questions. If the board has

[7:57:05] them, that would conclude the party intervenors presentation.

[7:57:11] Thank you much. Yeah, I would just like to clarify that the

[7:57:15] questions are not appropriate. I kind of figured thank you,

[7:57:18] but does the applicant want to cross-examine? Oh, so this is a

[7:57:26] strange situation. Normally we would be allowed to

[7:57:29] cross-examine a witness, some evidence that they produced,

[7:57:32] not just attorney testimony. Attorneys are not experts. They

[7:57:37] don't provide expert testimony. I mean, your counsels will tell

[7:57:41] you that. And while they are very good at pontificating and

[7:57:45] stating a lot of things that we 100% disagree with, they don't

[7:57:49] provide expert testimony. So none of us would ever, and I'm

[7:57:52] sure the staff will. Attorney will concur. We're not going to

[7:57:56] cross-examine an attorney on their pontification of what

[7:57:58] they believe the law is. That's what courts are for, and that's

[7:58:01] where eventually they'll go. So we have no questions. Okay.

[7:58:05] Thank you. I agree with what Mr. Polyakov said, but I do

[7:58:09] want to clarify that the attorney did not provide

[7:58:12] testimony because the attorney cannot provide testimony. So

[7:58:16] just a distinction. That was a presentation and opening

[7:58:19] statement of sorts, but there was no testimony provided. Okay.

[7:58:25] And with full declaration, I'm over my skis on this one in

[7:58:28] terms of procedure. And who's next? So I rely on you. I do

[7:58:32] like the fact that he has stated into the record that

[7:58:34] attorneys are not experts. I enjoyed that. Go ahead and

[7:58:39] board chair going on with the fact that we are not experts.

[7:58:43] For the record, we had told staff that all of our

[7:58:48] applications are DRC submittals, staff recommendations. All our

[7:58:51] reports are part of evidence. We did submit a document eight

[7:58:55] days before, but I just want to let you know what that was and

[7:58:58] we don't have to discuss it further. It was just saying

[7:59:01] we're not waiving quasi judicial procedure. And all of

[7:59:04] our experts are here tonight in case the board has any

[7:59:07] questions for any of them. They're all here. We also had

[7:59:09] some better photographs, but if you didn't review it, you

[7:59:12] didn't get it. No issues. We don't need to present it. We're

[7:59:15] here for three things tonight, which was stated by the staff.

[7:59:19] There's only three things legally you're allowed to look

[7:59:21] at, which is height, plot coverage and setbacks. Setbacks

[7:59:25] is a strange one though, because it's supposed to be

[7:59:28] setbacks to other buildings within the site, and we have no

[7:59:30] other buildings in the site. So all you're really looking at is

[7:59:33] plot coverage and height. Why don't we have a presentation?

[7:59:37] Someone asked me, I think the Intervenors attorney asked me,

[7:59:41] why don't we have a presentation? We don't have a

[7:59:44] presentation because of the case law, the Supreme Court of

[7:59:47] the state of Florida and Irvine versus Duval County planning,

[7:59:50] and we provided staff copies of the case, made it clear that

[7:59:55] once staff has found, by competent, substantial evidence

[7:59:57] that an applicant has met their burden and that it conforms

[8:00:02] with all code criteria, it's then up to a party intervener

[8:00:06] to provide by competent, substantial evidence that they

[8:00:10] didn't. And if they don't provide expert testimony, which

[8:00:13] is what it says, expert testimony that they didn't, the

[8:00:16] board is charged that it is required by law to approve the

[8:00:20] application, not public testimony, which you'll get in

[8:00:23] a few minutes is not expert testimony. It's just public

[8:00:26] testimony. So unless you have an expert disagreeing with

[8:00:28] Cameron here tonight and testifying against Cameron that

[8:00:31] was presented by the party intervenor, there's only one

[8:00:34] thing you're legally allowed to do in your city Attorney's

[8:00:37] office. And staff attorney's office will tell you that in a

[8:00:40] minute. The only two other things I just want to state for

[8:00:44] the record, that we sort of disagree with staff in the

[8:00:47] nicest way. We don't believe the party intervenor, Miss

[8:00:51] Dibona, who lives two properties away from 1301, or

[8:00:55] their corporation, which is led by individuals who live in

[8:00:58] Dania Beach and other locations nowhere near our project, have

[8:01:03] any interest different than the public at large. I appreciate

[8:01:06] that staff made it clear, and City Attorney made it clear

[8:01:09] that they're not, you know, saying that they're giving them

[8:01:12] standing as it would relate to court, but that they're saying

[8:01:16] we're going to allow them to be a party intervenor to cover

[8:01:19] ourselves because we have a much lesser standard in the

[8:01:21] city. I appreciate that, I just don't want anyone to ever get

[8:01:24] confused that their interests do not differ from the public

[8:01:28] at large. They have the same arguments that the public at

[8:01:30] large have, and there's no different. So I just want to

[8:01:33] make that clear. In addition, Mr. Glickman, I appreciate your

[8:01:37] long standing opposition for 1301. You've written letters to

[8:01:41] the city, which I have on file, saying that you could never

[8:01:43] approve the height. I have letters that you said that over

[8:01:46] 300 people are in opposition, that you could never support

[8:01:49] the project. We have all this documented. We mentioned it to

[8:01:52] the city. You told them honestly that you could be here

[8:01:55] tonight and speak, you know, without having any of your pre

[8:02:00] bias. I don't know how you do that. You're a better person

[8:02:02] than I am for being able to say you don't have any bias against

[8:02:06] this project, but we'll trust you at your word. You know that

[8:02:09] you shouldn't recuse yourself. We believed otherwise and we

[8:02:12] told Damaris accordingly. And that's what she was referring

[8:02:14] to at the beginning. We have no further questions, no further

[8:02:19] presentation. If you have any questions, please don't

[8:02:21] hesitate to ask our questions. Appropriate. No. Okay. What's

[8:02:34] next? Public comments. I did not realize you were addressing

[8:02:46] me. Yes. Now it is the time for public comment. And I would

[8:02:50] like to also remind you that while the allocated time is

[8:02:53] three minutes, the board always, of course, has discretion,

[8:02:55] liberty to limit that time to 2 or 1. If there's more than ten

[8:03:01] speakers and we do have more than ten speakers, but the ball

[8:03:04] is in your court. Thank you much. How many speakers do we

[8:03:07] have? We have 91 in person comment cards. And then we have

[8:03:13] I believe it's four for WebEx. Okay. Does the board have any

[8:03:23] opinions on reducing the amount of time I say reduced to two

[8:03:28] minutes. Okay. Yeah. Go ahead with 91. Those are the same 91

[8:03:36] that were the first three items tonight. That's what I want to

[8:03:43] know. How many people actually signed up to speak on this item?

[8:03:48] 9191 signed up to speak on this item if they're here or not. I

[8:03:51] can attest to that. 91 that's and there's nobody else in the

[8:03:55] overflow room and there's nobody else outside, correct?

[8:03:57] That's correct. Okay. So the speakers are are here and can

[8:04:01] we go in Rose instead of it's fine. Everything's okay. Okay.

[8:04:12] Noting the time, noting the. Okay, okay. Preamble on this

[8:04:23] one is the same, noting the time, noting how long it's been,

[8:04:28] noting that everybody does want a chance and has an opportunity

[8:04:32] to speak. Please keep it brief. If it's been stated, do not

[8:04:37] repeat it. Do not feel the obligation to speak. All three

[8:04:41] minutes. Your voices will be heard and you will be in the

[8:04:46] record. With that, we will start with WebEx first. Marine

[8:05:02] Villaverde. And just as a reminder, I do need to swear in

[8:05:06] individual virtual speakers before they proceed. Okie dokie.

[8:05:09] All right, so are we gonna do this one at a time, or is it

[8:05:13] group one at a time? Yeah, one at a time. Okay. Do you eat do

[8:05:17] you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about

[8:05:19] to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and

[8:05:22] nothing but the truth? Marine, how do you see marine? You're

[8:05:30] muted. I'm sorry I find this confusing because I've never

[8:05:35] been at another meeting where this was required. I'm

[8:05:39] certainly not testifying as an expert. I'm just giving an

[8:05:43] opinion as per procedure, you're still sworn in and that

[8:05:48] what the testimony that you're going to provide is to the

[8:05:51] accurate basis of your knowledge. Do you swear to that?

[8:05:54] To my knowledge, yes, it's an opinion. Okay. All right. Thank

[8:05:57] you. May proceed. Okay. Can I start then, please? You have

[8:06:04] three minutes. Okay. Nothing has changed since this board

[8:06:08] met in 2023 and voted unanimously to reject the 1301

[8:06:13] project, citing sea level rise and flooding as major concerns.

[8:06:18] 1301 is still located within the priority planning area for

[8:06:21] sea level rise, an area of vulnerable storm surge and

[8:06:26] flooding. It is still located within a mandatory evacuation

[8:06:30] zone on a barrier island, adding density to this area,

[8:06:34] further burdens and potentially compromises emergency response.

[8:06:38] The sole egress to the bridges for evacuation a one A narrows

[8:06:43] at times to two lanes and is prone to flooding and is

[8:06:47] challenged managing normal traffic. Your colleagues at the

[8:06:51] Broward County Commission recently tabled a decision on

[8:06:55] 1301, citing a comprehensive environmental review will occur

[8:06:59] before any vote is taken. 1301, as you know, is currently being

[8:07:04] challenged in court. Among the issues is the current deed,

[8:07:07] which was created to mitigate population density when this

[8:07:12] Summit Towers was built in December, a petition by the

[8:07:16] Summit Tower residents with over 300 signatures opposing

[8:07:20] the 1301 project was sent to the city commissioners and the

[8:07:24] planners, and should be on record. Within the eight items

[8:07:28] presented is the summit powers concerns for their safety due

[8:07:32] to their close proximity to the proposed construction and

[8:07:37] location on the narrowest area of the barrier island, and lack

[8:07:42] of independent impact studies from environmental, engineering,

[8:07:47] geological and traffic. And I say again, independent impact

[8:07:51] studies I won't go through again the safety issues I noted

[8:07:56] on the third agenda item, the Palm Beach condo with the

[8:08:02] foundation issues due to construction, the Surfside

[8:08:05] lawsuit, which had said that severe vibrations and altering

[8:08:10] groundwater drainage contributed to the catastrophe,

[8:08:14] the sinking towers and Sunny Isles, and the new 200ft

[8:08:21] drilling that is needed to find purchase there. With new

[8:08:24] construction, I respectfully request. The purpose of all of

[8:08:29] this is that you exercise due diligence and obtain all

[8:08:33] independent studies, not just those provided solely by the

[8:08:37] interested parties expert before any decisions are made.

[8:08:42] What can this narrowest portion of the barrier island

[8:08:46] realistically support? Resident safety is paramount and should

[8:08:50] not be rushed. I thank you for your time. Thank you councilor.

[8:08:56] I just want to remind everyone and reiterate before we go on

[8:09:00] with the comments, that the item before us today is

[8:09:04] regarding setbacks, height and lot size. That is the item

[8:09:09] before this board. And so comments should be directed

[8:09:13] towards those items, which is the only proper consideration

[8:09:17] of this board tonight. I appreciate the reminder. Thank

[8:09:19] you. And for those with prepared notes, please alter to

[8:09:23] focus just on those moving on Dara Hill. Dara. Can you. Yes.

[8:09:36] Can you hear us? Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. I just saw you in

[8:09:41] real quick. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the

[8:09:44] testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth,

[8:09:47] the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yeah. All right.

[8:09:51] Thank you. You may proceed. Three minutes. Thank you, thank

[8:09:55] you. And thank you for the previous comments regarding the

[8:09:59] height. All of the other objections have, have, have

[8:10:02] been stated. So with this discussion of height, my

[8:10:06] request is that the board not allow any increase in height

[8:10:10] and and refer back to all of the other comments regarding

[8:10:14] what's happening legally, what's happening

[8:10:16] environmentally, and to please do their due diligence and in

[8:10:21] the strongest possible words, make it known to the City

[8:10:25] Commission that this is not okay. And ideally, if this

[8:10:28] current city commission wants to continue to railroad through

[8:10:32] this unwanted building, my request would be that they do

[8:10:35] it alone without support from the court, especially given

[8:10:39] your previous votes, and let them answer why to the public,

[8:10:43] to everyone we elected them. And and you serve us and we

[8:10:49] respect you. And we thank you for doing that. And because

[8:10:51] this is an impossible situation regarding the height, every

[8:10:55] chance you get, please make that recommendation. And this

[8:10:58] is not okay. Thank you, thank you, J.C. Yes, I'm still here.

[8:11:06] Hi, Jake. I just need to quickly swear you in before you

[8:11:09] continue, do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony

[8:11:12] you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the

[8:11:15] whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do, all right.

[8:11:18] Thank you. You proceed. Thank you. Jackie. Actually, this

[8:11:22] whole thing has been so confusing. But since we have

[8:11:24] sat here since 5:00, along with the rest of you. I'm going to

[8:11:28] at least say I agree with the previous two speakers. And

[8:11:31] regarding the height, I disagree with the height that

[8:11:34] they've already thought about. And to make it even taller is

[8:11:37] it's it's just wrong and it's very unsafe. So I won't take

[8:11:41] any more time, but I urge you to vote no on this. Thank you.

[8:11:46] Larry stole in the background. Yes, yes. Hi, Larry. I just

[8:11:59] need to swear you in really quickly. Do you solemnly swear

[8:12:02] or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this

[8:12:05] proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but

[8:12:07] the truth? Yes, I do, all right. Thank you. You may proceed. Per

[8:12:15] the subject, the height of the building that is impacted is is

[8:12:20] there's been a lot of commentary about it. The

[8:12:23] density on the beach, the questions of the shade that it

[8:12:27] creates on the beach, infrastructure pieces related

[8:12:33] to that. So in reality, ultimately, yes, we should vote

[8:12:37] against this because the height is unacceptable. Thank you very

[8:12:46] much. Appreciate it. Now, moving to in person attendees,

[8:12:53] if you're in the aughts, Pamela Burgio. And Shirley Ginter

[8:13:03] right behind, please. Good morning, Pamela Burgio,

[8:13:08] Hollywood Hills. I am concerned that we are here this morning

[8:13:16] to talk about something that everybody here has already not

[8:13:21] approved. The county has voted against this, and we need to

[8:13:27] respectfully honor that request because this will change every

[8:13:34] rule, every. Zoning situation that will come before not just

[8:13:42] you, but also the commission, the height alone is a major

[8:13:49] concern. The settling on the barrier island will have an

[8:13:57] effect on everybody. The. The roads cannot handle the height.

[8:14:03] The existing buildings that we have on the beach, the barrier

[8:14:10] island cannot handle it. So here we are. We have height

[8:14:14] restrictions in place for 100 years. Now we're going to just

[8:14:19] give Sky the limit. We can't afford that as a community. And

[8:14:24] I respectfully ask that you honor the county and this

[8:14:30] current board's decision to reject it. Thank you. Thank you.

[8:14:37] Shirley Ginter. Lucy Mitchell. Justin Del Sesto. Name and

[8:14:52] address and reminder that we're just talking about setbacks and

[8:14:56] height. Good morning. Justin Del Sesto, Hollywood, Florida.

[8:15:00] Thank you all for your work and for for doing a responsible job

[8:15:04] to take care and be a steward of our future. The interesting

[8:15:08] thing here is that something's backwards. We've got a the land

[8:15:13] became public. The city didn't buy it. The city didn't acquire

[8:15:17] it. As was stated earlier, it was conveyed by a deed, a deed

[8:15:20] that was restricted for open space, recreation, public

[8:15:22] purpose, public purpose. And it was given up for a reason. It

[8:15:26] was the public's compensation for letting the summit next

[8:15:29] door build denser than otherwise could. So it's kind

[8:15:32] of interesting. We're here tonight talking about density

[8:15:35] and all these gifts we're going to give and make sure we

[8:15:38] protect the future. And what we're doing is we're stealing

[8:15:41] what they gave us in the past. So we're doing tonight what

[8:15:46] we're telling that we're guaranteeing we're not going to

[8:15:49] do to the future. Does that make sense? Do you understand

[8:15:53] what I'm saying? They gave us they gave us this land to be

[8:15:56] protected. And we're taking it. And, and, and they gave it to

[8:16:00] us so that they could build the summit. And now we're taking it

[8:16:04] and we're building something even denser. It's insane. Once

[8:16:08] again, it's insane. And just 30, 40, an hour ago, we approved 34

[8:16:13] stories on the Hollywood on the Hollywood site. Another crazy

[8:16:19] thing that we just did that was zoned for ten stories, and now

[8:16:22] we just went to 34 stories on the beach. This is this is this

[8:16:26] is insanity. What's going on here tonight? The parcel is

[8:16:30] open space. We got it. In exchange for the density.

[8:16:35] Hollywood isn't being forced by anyone to do this. It's using

[8:16:37] the live local law because it can't do it the real way. The

[8:16:41] way real people do it in an open democracy through the

[8:16:44] public public hearings. This is this is wrong. What's going on?

[8:16:49] Using a using a live local law to steal land from the public.

[8:16:53] For for what? And I want to point out a couple of elephants

[8:16:58] in the room. I've been here all night. I got to catch a 6 a.m.

[8:17:01] flight, I work. I came back here to deal with this. I got a

[8:17:06] family. I've got 36 people that work for me. I got to show up

[8:17:09] every day. What I noticed tonight is all the women that

[8:17:12] are here, all the mothers, and they're all saying the same

[8:17:16] thing, that this all lacks common sense, that we're

[8:17:19] missing common sense. I learned when I was a kid that the

[8:17:23] mother's always right, and I can't believe that all these

[8:17:26] guys up here aren't listening to all these women who showed

[8:17:28] up. There was much more women here than men, and we should

[8:17:31] listen to our mothers. There was one woman who was talking

[8:17:34] about Mother Earth. All the women have to tell us, guys,

[8:17:37] what the hell is going on in this city? It's disgusting. Mom

[8:17:40] is always right. There's another elephant in the room.

[8:17:45] That's the common sense part of this. So we got the women and

[8:17:48] we got the common sense. And I brought it up earlier. Calvin

[8:17:51] and Giardino, we're not following the process. We're

[8:17:54] not following the master plan. Thank you, thank you. Diana Key.

[8:18:04] Rachel Mazur. Mazur. Welcome back. Thank you. Hello again.

[8:18:13] Thank you, everyone for being here. I know we're all

[8:18:16] exhausted. I have another piece that I need to read. My name is

[8:18:20] Rachel Mazur. I live on Jefferson Street and I'm on the

[8:18:23] board of the HLC. I have a piece to read on behalf of the

[8:18:26] board. The HLC board has been consistent in our opposition to

[8:18:29] this undesirable high rise project on city land. Since the

[8:18:33] P3 was conceived in 2021. For various sound and logical

[8:18:36] reasons, there still has not been a thorough review of many

[8:18:40] potential serious issues concerning this project, such

[8:18:42] as traffic impacts, evacuation plans, shadow studies and

[8:18:45] various resiliency problems that the project would create.

[8:18:47] In addition, legal action has been taken by independent beach

[8:18:52] residents that should be allowed to play out. The HLC or

[8:18:55] HLC urges the board to make a recommendation of denied.

[8:18:58] Speaking for myself, I would like to add that of particular

[8:19:01] concern are the 30 story height zero and near zero setbacks and

[8:19:05] the 96% coverage the proposal is requesting. These are

[8:19:10] unusually permissive terms for any application. Like I

[8:19:12] couldn't do that for my house and if approved, will set a

[8:19:17] dangerous precedent no matter how much future boards try to

[8:19:20] limit development proposals. It's a dangerous idea for the

[8:19:23] future of our beach. Thank you, thank you. Dennis Demartino

[8:19:31] then Theresa Fort Nash behind. Dennis Demartino 1201 South

[8:19:42] Ocean Drive. Just as little history. I worked for 30 years

[8:19:46] for the New York State courts, most primarily in the Landlord

[8:19:49] and Tenant Housing Division of the New York County Court. I

[8:19:52] worked as a representative of the judicial branch in visiting

[8:19:59] properties and assuring adherence to stipulations and

[8:20:02] orders. So I'm generally familiar with most of this

[8:20:05] stuff. I believe that no further amendments or grants

[8:20:11] should be made to the applicants until it is firmly

[8:20:15] decided what their standing is in this matter. I say that

[8:20:18] because from the very beginning, there have been questions about

[8:20:20] whether or not this project should even proceed. To begin

[8:20:23] with, it was deeded to them under certain restrictions. One

[8:20:26] of those being municipal purposes. It was in very early

[8:20:31] manager and attorney that decided that raising revenue

[8:20:35] was a municipal purpose. That's questionable. It it went on

[8:20:41] from there, and there were zoning problems. There were

[8:20:46] density problems, there were map problems. And every step of

[8:20:49] the way, a few commission members and the staff were

[8:20:53] fully supportive of this project. While other people

[8:20:56] were not, the county firmly rejected it. This was a dead

[8:21:00] project until Live Local came in, live local was brought up

[8:21:04] and I questioned whether live local is even a valid tool here

[8:21:09] in Hollywood Beach, because once you get to the income and

[8:21:14] you get to the amount that it's going to cost, I mean, somebody

[8:21:17] who works for the city, somebody who works in Hollywood,

[8:21:20] it's supposed to be for people who live and work in the same

[8:21:24] area. They want you to live in the area where you work. That

[8:21:28] means that we're going to have to give them to people in the

[8:21:31] service industry who don't have very high incomes. There's a

[8:21:34] few people in police and fire, but nobody stays in the same

[8:21:39] house for more than a couple of years, maybe five years, tops.

[8:21:42] So that doesn't really apply. There's no way to really live

[8:21:45] local applies here. Besides the fact that this project, as

[8:21:49] you're seeing it today, bears no resemblance to the project

[8:21:54] that was brought in 22, in fact, in 22 and the £0.03 first was

[8:21:59] presented, one of the other presenters did have workforce

[8:22:03] housing as a part of it, and it was rejected specifically for

[8:22:06] that reason. We don't want workforce housing. There's got

[8:22:10] to be one whole continuous condo units. And since then

[8:22:15] it's changed size, it's changed height, it's changed

[8:22:19] composition. I think that it should be brought all the way

[8:22:22] back to the very beginning. If you want to have a £0.03

[8:22:25] project to get this land that was deemed underutilized

[8:22:28] working, let's open it up for bidding again and bring in a

[8:22:32] whole bunch of new people. Thank you. Thank you. Theresa

[8:22:36] Forinash. Barbara Marks behind. I don't see her. The only

[8:22:46] allowable height on this particular parcel is zero zero.

[8:22:50] We're not building. I don't know how many people have to

[8:22:55] show up to get your attention. What I am holding here are 5000

[8:23:01] Hollywood residents. Signature petitions that we went out and

[8:23:06] got in 2021 to try and stop this. Okay. And do you know

[8:23:10] what happened? The city passed three charter amendments to

[8:23:18] invalidate our petitions and make it impossible for us to

[8:23:21] ever collect more, because they change the wording to only on

[8:23:24] ordinances. Okay, so we can't even do it. So how afraid are

[8:23:28] they of this project that initially, the commissioner

[8:23:32] that made the deciding vote on this project didn't even live

[8:23:35] in the state of Florida anymore. She had to fly in to vote. Okay,

[8:23:41] then they invalidate 5000. And I verified every single name on

[8:23:46] these petitions that they were Hollywood residents from every

[8:23:49] single district in Hollywood. And yet here we stand then.

[8:23:54] Okay, so you guys said no. God bless you. We were so happy. So

[8:23:58] what happens? Our commissioners go and overrule you. Well, so

[8:24:03] Broward County comes out and goes, oh, wait a minute, we got

[8:24:06] to look at this. So no, they go, okay, now we're live local.

[8:24:09] Okay, this is the dirtiest project that I have ever seen

[8:24:12] in Hollywood. This has got to stop. I mean, do residents

[8:24:17] matter at all? That's 5000. They're notarized 5000 people

[8:24:23] who actually wrote their names on pieces of paper and gave us

[8:24:27] their IDs because they don't want this. And yet here we are

[8:24:31] again. I'm done. Thank you. Moving to the tickets in the

[8:24:40] the teens. Victor. Marina, Mark Ross, Stephanie. Burns. Okay.

[8:24:49] State your name, address and please. Okay. My name is

[8:24:53] Stephanie Burns. I'm at 737 North Southlake. I'm going to

[8:24:56] talk to you guys because. Yes, no, I it's my to the ma'am you

[8:25:06] must direct your comments to the board, please. Well it's my

[8:25:09] perception from the proceedings earlier that it's my opinion

[8:25:14] that the board works for developers and the staff works

[8:25:17] for developers. So I might as well talk to the people who. My

[8:25:23] $30,000 in taxes goes to. I was a construction manager in San

[8:25:28] Francisco, and I was in a lot of different planning, a lot of

[8:25:36] different jurisdictions in the area, actually throughout the

[8:25:39] country. And I really have not seen anything like what I've

[8:25:43] witnessed in Hollywood. I've been in construction my whole

[8:25:45] life, and I have never seen, like in San Francisco,

[8:25:52] developers actually. They develop things according to the

[8:25:56] constraints of the area. And here there's like no

[8:25:59] constraints. This was even approved by the city commission

[8:26:04] before Live local was in effect. And I think I can talk about

[8:26:07] live local because that's what's being used for the

[8:26:10] setbacks and the. Anyway, you've got zero setbacks, 96%

[8:26:16] site coverage. I mean, come on. Anyway, it's really nice that

[8:26:22] you don't require anybody who disagrees with you to be

[8:26:26] recused and that, you know, you consider those people biased.

[8:26:32] When I think the whole city government of Hollywood is

[8:26:36] biased. So and I and I think that's a reminder. You bring it

[8:26:42] up every time at meetings. It's a reminder that you own the

[8:26:46] process. So you have in the contract that we are on the

[8:26:50] hook for any unforeseen conditions. Well, I just want

[8:26:53] it on the record that differential settling is not an

[8:27:00] unforeseen condition because there's 35 high rises in Sunny

[8:27:04] Isles Beach that are experiencing that, and there's

[8:27:07] a study on it. So when you go to collect, you know, remember

[8:27:12] that. And yeah, like the fellow said, it was a mitigation

[8:27:16] against density. That's a cruel joke. I just I have never seen

[8:27:22] anything like this in my life. And I have been in this world.

[8:27:27] So. Thank you, Susan Howlett, Austin Reynolds. Stephanie

[8:27:37] Baretto. Peter Paul DeLeo. Donna Green. Donna. I do. Okay.

[8:27:56] Hello? Donna green again. This current situation of speaking

[8:28:03] at 120 in the morning at a city planning meeting should have

[8:28:07] been avoided by placing fewer items on this agenda. And I

[8:28:13] want that to be on record, because this type of conduct

[8:28:18] discourages public participation, which is very

[8:28:20] sad. And it's not what we should be about. I think that's

[8:28:25] the point, though. I'm worried that the city is trying to wear

[8:28:29] us down to the point that no one will show up to anything,

[8:28:33] because then they win. And I am very upset about that. So I

[8:28:41] just I'm I don't know what else to say. I'm an optimist at

[8:28:47] heart, but this is really hard to be optimistic about. So this

[8:28:56] 1301 project was going to be reviewed by the Broward

[8:29:00] Commission. But instead of waiting for that outcome, our

[8:29:04] city commission threw in a monkey wrench and made it a

[8:29:07] live local project and took all the decision making away from

[8:29:12] Broward County and Hollywood residents. It's not their land

[8:29:17] to give away, in our opinion. And this project was not what

[8:29:21] was originally approved by the commission, which was a luxury

[8:29:26] condominium. This is now a mixed use development, a

[8:29:29] totally different animal. So in our opinion, a referendum

[8:29:34] should now be held to approve this project, which is

[8:29:38] completely different. And as a side note, affordability that

[8:29:44] they throw in the mix is it's a gimmick being used to take this

[8:29:49] project away from oversight. Teachers and many low income

[8:29:54] people can't afford, which is being called affordable. And I

[8:29:58] learned that there's a 30 year limit on this affordability

[8:30:03] status, which proves it's a gimmick, because if you care

[8:30:06] about affordability, you care about it 100% of the time, not

[8:30:10] just 30 years out of 100. So because of those factors, I

[8:30:15] recommend zero stories to be approved for this project.

[8:30:20] Thank you. Kathleen Quinlan. Susan Hoff. With many more

[8:30:30] cards than I actually have speakers here at this point.

[8:30:34] Any objection? I just kind of pick and point if you raise

[8:30:37] your hand, mayor Marie Galante, please come forth and be heard.

[8:30:45] Yeah. If you can line up, that'd be fantastic. Some stuff

[8:30:48] so that that I could be quick enough. No offense. Name and

[8:30:53] address for the record. Oh, sorry. Marie-galante. And I'm

[8:30:57] at a couple of blocks away from the property right now. 1501

[8:31:01] South Ocean Drive, apartment 402. I didn't expect to be here.

[8:31:09] Some of you know that I just suffered the biggest personal

[8:31:12] loss in my life. But I came because if the City Commission

[8:31:18] supports the previous proposal, you just recommended that

[8:31:22] Hollywood residents, I felt, would suffer the biggest loss

[8:31:26] to Hollywood in their lifetimes and beyond. So in a similar

[8:31:31] vein, I'll end with this anecdote that actually applies

[8:31:36] to this issue. When the Old Diplomat Hotel had been

[8:31:41] destroyed and every South Florida developer was trying to

[8:31:45] court my my approval for a residential only project, a big

[8:31:49] residential only project. In fact, they all came to my

[8:31:53] campaign events and try like heck to get me to understand

[8:31:58] that the diplomat could never come back. No resort hotel, and

[8:32:03] I vowed that that wouldn't happen. I said I would not vote

[8:32:06] for it because the wrong building would be there for the

[8:32:09] rest of my life. And I would know I had a lot to do with it.

[8:32:13] And so in my kids and my grandkids. And so it will be

[8:32:16] with you, this approval for taking public land that for

[8:32:21] decades, we elected officials, including myself, had promised

[8:32:25] we would never do. But your disdain for the promise for

[8:32:34] decades that all the public officials like, like myself,

[8:32:39] had done all who came before you. If you decide you decided

[8:32:44] you would do it. And I believe it's outrageous. And I think

[8:32:47] this private building will be there for the rest of your

[8:32:51] lives and beyond. And everyone should know who put it there.

[8:32:56] And my concern, my biggest concern, and the thing that

[8:33:00] hurts me more than anything for somebody who was mayor for 20

[8:33:03] years, is I see I see representative democracy

[8:33:07] drawing being destroyed from Washington all over the country.

[8:33:13] And I want you to think again about whether Hollywood is

[8:33:16] going to remain a representative democracy,

[8:33:20] because I learned there are times to lead and there are

[8:33:23] times to follow, and I do not see that happening anymore in

[8:33:27] Hollywood. Thank you. Next. That's a great segue. Thank you.

[8:33:42] My name is Scott Evans, 3106 Fillmore Street. Glad you're

[8:33:46] all still awake. This is my hours. I'm in the entertainment

[8:33:50] field. It's the first time I've ever been sworn in to make a

[8:33:55] public comment. So this is a first for me. I'm against the

[8:34:00] height and the setbacks, and it's for the reason that we are

[8:34:04] a republic. And to the Republic for which it stands. Remember

[8:34:10] that we all pledge our allegiance. Public schools,

[8:34:17] opening, official government civic meetings and to the

[8:34:21] Republic for what? For which it stands. What is a republic? I'm

[8:34:25] going to give you the dictionary. A republic is a

[8:34:28] country or state where the people hold the power. The

[8:34:33] people. Andy, like representatives to make laws.

[8:34:39] And the head of state is not a king or queen. That's a whole

[8:34:43] nother subject. Where the people hold the power, where

[8:34:48] the people hold the power. That's an important element.

[8:34:53] I've attended several meetings regarding 1301 public

[8:34:57] oceanfront open space that is deeded for recreation. The

[8:35:00] first one I attended was during Covid, and hundreds of people

[8:35:04] lined up outside with masks on. All but two spoke against the

[8:35:11] project. They were realtors. The Hollywood Commission, with

[8:35:18] exception of a couple of people. Regardless of the outcry by the

[8:35:22] majority of the community, still voted to go ahead with

[8:35:24] the 1301 debacle. The Broward County Planning Council voted

[8:35:30] 13 to 2 to reject it and uphold the county staff designation

[8:35:35] that the site is community open space. Regardless of the

[8:35:39] community outcry, the 13 to 2 vote rejecting it by the

[8:35:44] Broward County Planning Council. The commission cleverly found

[8:35:48] another way to usurp the will of the people the live local

[8:35:53] act God Save the Queen Live Local was formed by lobbyists

[8:35:58] supporting big developers to bypass city and county

[8:36:02] authority. I just attended the ribbon cutting of the new

[8:36:05] beautiful Hollywood Police Department that was funded

[8:36:09] through voter approved 2019 General Obligation Bond. Yet

[8:36:15] for this highly contentious 1301 no voter approval, that

[8:36:22] doesn't make sense to me. That's all we were. The people

[8:36:27] were asking for was voter approval. Republic, for which

[8:36:33] it stands where the people hold the power. These ongoing,

[8:36:38] continued efforts to usurp the power of the people is a giant

[8:36:41] red flag. Just want you to be aware of it. Thank you. And

[8:36:48] again, in deference to previous speakers, please limit your

[8:36:52] comments to just what we're voting on tonight, which are

[8:36:55] the setbacks and height restrictions. Your name and

[8:36:57] address for the record, please. Carlos Martins, 1201 South

[8:37:00] Ocean Drive, Hollywood. Well, height, restriction, whatever.

[8:37:07] This is a donated land from the builder of the summit to

[8:37:12] mitigate and be able to allow to build. Therefore, and it was

[8:37:16] given as a public land to be used for recreational purposes.

[8:37:19] We already have heard that many times. Now, I have a question

[8:37:23] for staff, because I cannot believe that staff would do a

[8:37:28] recommendation without also including civil road movement

[8:37:36] evaluation traffic in a very island, which is basically you

[8:37:40] have to evacuate. No study done on how long it takes to

[8:37:46] evacuate a land, that you're adding density to it, and no

[8:37:50] more bridges. And you know that a one A is going to be with

[8:37:55] water up to whatever, because everything goes to their right

[8:38:00] across from summit. Now they've been building what is supposed

[8:38:03] to be a pump and a drain station. And the lowest point

[8:38:07] in a one a, and to this date, they cannot get it to work

[8:38:12] because every time they open, the water from the sea comes

[8:38:15] right up. No one has done that study. Where is that at? Where

[8:38:21] has that been shown? Which is the big part of the whole thing,

[8:38:27] is the base of everything from the foundation and the narrow

[8:38:31] set of the land between the sea and the intercoastal, the

[8:38:36] narrowest area, the lowest area. And you're going to put two

[8:38:39] buildings that are going to be much higher than the one in the

[8:38:42] middle, and it's going to flood because, you know, right now

[8:38:47] the, the when they build the build up about 5 or 6ft higher

[8:38:51] than before, and water finds the lowest spot. Thank you.

[8:38:59] Next. Good evening. Again. I am the again, the the president of

[8:39:11] the Summit Towers Condo Association. I got a couple of

[8:39:14] things that I want to talk about. I'm going to relate them

[8:39:17] to the things that I said earlier about safety in terms

[8:39:21] of structural integrity. If you go up 30 stories, that means

[8:39:27] you got to put about ten stories in the ground. Okay.

[8:39:31] And I say that I'm not I'm not a professional engineer, but I

[8:39:35] did go to the oldest engineering school in the

[8:39:38] United States, and I graduated, okay. And I spent a lot of time

[8:39:43] as a as an operating engineer. When you, when you put a

[8:39:50] telephone pole in the ground, you put two thirds of it in the

[8:39:54] air and you put one third of it in the ground. Okay. And that

[8:39:59] means that you've got to go down. If you've got 30 stories,

[8:40:02] you're going to go down ten stories. If you go down ten

[8:40:06] stories, the amount of vibration and shock that that's

[8:40:09] going to cause is going to is potentially going to cause

[8:40:13] irreparable damage to any structure that's near it. Okay.

[8:40:18] And for me, that's the summit towers. The summit towers at

[8:40:21] its 40 year inspection, had not moved. Okay. However, you're

[8:40:29] going to you're going to change that. You got two high rises

[8:40:32] going up, one on either side. And earlier, when we talked

[8:40:36] about 15 stories as a max, now we're talking twice that. Okay.

[8:40:41] And so the the other thing that you just passed is already

[8:40:45] being changed. And you expect us to believe that it won't

[8:40:50] continue to be changed. Champlain Towers, one city

[8:40:56] plaza in West Palm Beach, the Porsche building, which is

[8:41:02] settling okay. All these buildings have been have been

[8:41:07] affected by building close by and going down deep. Okay.

[8:41:14] We're on the narrowest portion of the barrier island. So

[8:41:18] what's what's the pile driving and the and the vibration going

[8:41:22] to cause on the narrowest portion, there's a need for an

[8:41:27] adequate independent study, not a study from the from the, the

[8:41:33] unit, the organization that's wanting to build it, but an

[8:41:36] independent study that says that this is safe. And if it's

[8:41:41] not safe, then you shouldn't be approving it. The city has to

[8:41:48] do due diligence, and you're part of that due diligence.

[8:41:52] It's your responsibility to protect the buildings around it,

[8:41:56] not just to approve the building that is going up. And

[8:42:00] I'll I'll leave with one one thing. Due diligence should

[8:42:05] require an independent study. It should require a a $10

[8:42:11] million bond from the developer. Okay. Thank you for ten years.

[8:42:16] Thank you. Next. And a reminder, we are very limited on what

[8:42:23] we're voting on tonight. Setbacks and heights. Please

[8:42:26] limit your comments to that. Just about height. Thank you.

[8:42:29] My name is ISIS. Wait. I live at 2455 Johnson Street. Can you

[8:42:33] hear me? Okay, I have here the warranty deed. It says this

[8:42:39] conveyance is for Open space park, recreational and other

[8:42:44] public and municipal purposes. Can you tell me how open space

[8:42:49] can be 20 stories high? Can you tell me how Park is going to be

[8:42:55] 20 stories high? Well, I guess you'd have some pretty big

[8:42:58] trees. Recreational and other public and municipal properties.

[8:43:05] How are they going to be that height? Tell me. Obviously it's

[8:43:13] not a question of height. Thank you, thank you. Next. Hi. I'm

[8:43:31] hi, I'm Chelsea Krebs, 1548 southeast 12th court, Fort

[8:43:36] Lauderdale. I oppose construction at Azalea Terrace

[8:43:40] and 1301 Ocean Drive. I am not a Hollywood resident. I'm not

[8:43:46] one of your constituents. I'm just here as kind of an

[8:43:50] ambassador from Fort Lauderdale, as a lifelong resident of Fort

[8:43:54] Lauderdale. In 40 years, I've seen my city change so much and

[8:43:59] definitely not in a good way. I'm here to warn you about

[8:44:06] overdevelopment. I believe overdevelopment has ruined my

[8:44:10] city. I don't have a recommendation about the height

[8:44:13] requirement. I recommend that you don't build anything there

[8:44:16] at all, because you are so lucky to still have this space.

[8:44:21] I wish there were places like this in Fort Lauderdale. We

[8:44:24] don't have places like this anymore. I was under the

[8:44:30] understanding that this was public land, and there's

[8:44:33] already legislation protecting it from development, and all

[8:44:36] you have to do is uphold that. So please do. Thank you. Thank

[8:44:42] you. Next. Good morning. This is Rachel Schoenfeld, 5119 Rose

[8:44:57] Street. I really think this is the opposite of the Sunshine

[8:45:00] Act. This is not even the right day anymore. This is the middle

[8:45:04] of the night for informational purposes. The last go round

[8:45:10] when the commission met on this subject, the vote was held

[8:45:16] around two in the morning. If this is such a great project,

[8:45:20] why do you hide it in the middle of the night? The optics

[8:45:23] are terrible and they're terrible for good reason. The

[8:45:27] latest resurrection of this miserable project is based on

[8:45:33] this live local, and that is impacted by the proposition to

[8:45:40] reduce and eliminate non-school property taxes under amendment

[8:45:44] three. This is going to reduce the incentive for affordable

[8:45:48] housing. So one gimmick is undermining the other gimmick

[8:45:55] regarding the height. It's really rich that this public

[8:46:01] space was created to offset the summit being high. And now I'm

[8:46:07] hearing from from the staff that this height makes sense

[8:46:13] because the building next to it is tall and this one will be

[8:46:17] even taller. It's also not in line with the other buildings

[8:46:22] in the area that's been brought up before. It's certainly not

[8:46:29] community use anymore. I hear too. To oppose this and to

[8:46:41] recommend that it be as low rise as it is now. One story,

[8:46:46] and that the setback was just dismissed by the attorney

[8:46:51] because there's no other building. There's no other

[8:46:53] building because it's community and has a park. So it should be

[8:46:59] maximum setback to consider the park and the ocean and. The

[8:47:09] other and the community center. So thank you. And I have,

[8:47:14] unfortunately no faith in where this will go tonight. Well,

[8:47:19] thank you much. Next. All right. Good morning. Henry Haft. I

[8:47:31] live on Adams and 16th. I'm going to make two points

[8:47:35] tonight. One directly relevant one not so relevant despite any

[8:47:41] pontificating from any attorneys. Okay staff Cameron,

[8:47:46] you and anon just spent whatever six hours. Where is it

[8:47:51] on you. Well. Telling us don't worry about 15 story height.

[8:47:58] It's okay. You know they still have to go through an approval.

[8:48:02] It's not a guarantee that they're going to get all that.

[8:48:04] And now you're approving 30 stories just like that. Come on

[8:48:08] man. I mean, let's not take us for fools. All right? The

[8:48:16] original building was 30 stories, 365ft. Everybody

[8:48:21] thought that was too big. This board thought that was too big.

[8:48:25] Even they thought it was too big. How I know, because they

[8:48:29] redesigned it to be smaller. Now they've redesigned it again

[8:48:34] to be even bigger than the original one. 375ft. That's the

[8:48:45] height of this building. It's obnoxious. You should reject

[8:48:49] this. Now, my other point is that two years ago, I don't

[8:48:55] know if you all will remember a charter amendment came out of

[8:49:00] this whole 1301 debacle, and the charter amendment was that

[8:49:06] any projects that the city was going to be involved in was

[8:49:11] going to be have to go to a vote of the people. And the

[8:49:17] city attorney at the time, intentionally or

[8:49:21] unintentionally botched the wording of the charter

[8:49:24] amendment on the ballot so that it had to be withdrawn. And the

[8:49:28] commission agreed. No new projects of this, of this

[8:49:32] particular sensitive nature would be reviewed until the

[8:49:36] after the 2026 election, when the charter amendment could go

[8:49:39] back on the ballot. So here we have a project that is

[8:49:45] completely different than the original building that was

[8:49:48] proposed. Now it's got rentals. It's a you know, it's a

[8:49:51] different shape. It's it's completely different. So I'm

[8:49:55] going to suggest that we go with that. The City

[8:49:59] Commission's promise at the time and just say, let's reject

[8:50:03] this at the very least until after the November election,

[8:50:07] when we can see the charter amendment and we can see what

[8:50:10] the will of the people is. Thank you, thank you. Anybody

[8:50:16] else speaking on behalf or against Mr. Chair? I'm online.

[8:50:23] Okay. On WebEx, if you wouldn't mind, please hold. Her name is

[8:50:32] Brenda Lee. We already went through the comments for

[8:50:36] virtual attendees, and she was not on at the time that we

[8:50:39] reviewed those. Okay. I'm sorry, Brenda, you have missed your

[8:50:43] opportunity for that. We remain in front. Well, nobody called

[8:50:47] my name. I looked at the attendee list and her name was

[8:50:52] not on there, so her card was pulled. Okay. Okay. In the in

[8:50:59] the light, in the spirit. Thank, please, in the spirit of

[8:51:04] participation, if we can swear her in and have a comment,

[8:51:07] you're limited to three minutes. Please. Can you hear me? Yes, I

[8:51:12] can, all right. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the

[8:51:16] testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth,

[8:51:18] the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, ma'am. All

[8:51:22] right. Thank you. You may proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[8:51:25] I appreciate it. I actually appreciate every board member

[8:51:30] this evening. Believe it or not, there was a day I sat at that

[8:51:34] dais and one of the positions you're in, and it's an

[8:51:38] untenable position sometimes. So I very much appreciate your

[8:51:43] due diligence this evening. I recognize what you're voting on.

[8:51:48] It's a stinky predicament. You've been put in 30 stories.

[8:51:56] Hey, if you go 30, why not go 50? But the real answer is no

[8:52:02] story lock coverage. What development has 96% lot

[8:52:09] coverage? Where's the permeable area? Where does the water go?

[8:52:15] Oh, I know we're going to deep well injection into the ocean.

[8:52:21] Okay, so the answer for that would be zero lot coverage. And

[8:52:26] if you have zero lot coverage I guess you don't need to then

[8:52:30] therefore worry about setbacks. But if you did, who has the

[8:52:36] gall? Not only is zero lot line, but even intruding into a

[8:52:44] roadway. Come on. You know. Council mentioned that

[8:52:55] attorneys are not experts. Some attorneys are not experts. Some

[8:53:02] are. And I'm not going to go through my credentials with you,

[8:53:08] including sitting on the very board you're sitting on. But I

[8:53:13] will tell you in no uncertain terms what is being requested

[8:53:17] here is outrageous. And no, your hands are not tied and you

[8:53:26] can make a recommendation of zero and zero. I thank you so

[8:53:32] much for your time. God bless. Brenda, before you get off,

[8:53:35] could you please state your full name and address for the

[8:53:37] record? My name is Brenda Lee. And your address? And your

[8:53:44] address, please, is 814 Northwest 10th Avenue. I'm the

[8:53:50] woman referred to earlier from Dania Beach. And proud of it.

[8:53:55] All right. Thank you. Thank you much. Next. So very short and

[8:54:08] sweet. We should wait until after November 3rd when we vote

[8:54:13] on the charter amendment. And that's all. Zero until then.

[8:54:19] Thank you. Next. Name and address for the record, please.

[8:54:25] Phillip Carrier, 1201 South Ocean Drive. I cannot believe

[8:54:32] we've been fighting to keep this land public for over five

[8:54:36] years. I do not understand why does the city is fighting the

[8:54:43] the residents on this topics. Please reject the two proposal

[8:54:51] tonight. Thank you, thank you. Good morning. My name is Steve

[8:55:04] Welch. My address is 2443 Fillmore Street. I'm a taxpayer

[8:55:10] and a 40 year resident. Someone asked earlier, what has changed

[8:55:17] since you last voted against this? And I think what has

[8:55:21] changed is Related's bill, we keep calling it the Live Local

[8:55:25] Act, but we have Mr. Poliakoff here who has bragged about how

[8:55:32] do we say Poliakoff? Sorry, let me put that on record. Mr.

[8:55:36] Poliakoff here saying that, has proudly said that this is

[8:55:42] Related's bill. So let's not call it live local act. Let's

[8:55:46] call it Related's bill. What has changed is what you voted

[8:55:50] for a few minutes ago. You have provided the pipeline to

[8:55:57] legitimize density and height. I oppose and 5000 or 6000

[8:56:05] citizens oppose any density, any height, any setbacks on

[8:56:12] land that belongs to the public. This is our land. This is not

[8:56:17] your land. It's our land, and you represent us. If you live

[8:56:22] here, then it becomes your land. And you should at least

[8:56:27] understand the importance of not allowing something like

[8:56:30] this to happen. This is a shell game. It's terrible and this is

[8:56:35] my belief. So I'm telling the truth. Thank you, thank you.

[8:56:48] Katherine Newton 1120. Lion Tree, thank you for your

[8:56:52] service again to our city. And I do have faith in you, just so

[8:56:54] you know. So I hope you make the right decision. We should

[8:56:58] definitely wait till after November 3rd. Until then, zero

[8:57:02] stories. 30 stories is just insane. It really is on a

[8:57:05] narrow, low lying barrier island. In the year 2026. What

[8:57:08] are we doing? I go to a lot of climate, sea level rise

[8:57:12] presentations, and just when I step into City Hall, it's like

[8:57:15] an alternate reality. Sometimes the live local act, we keep

[8:57:19] complaining that it's tying our hands. It's harmful. Oh gosh.

[8:57:23] Tallahassee, why don't you look into the lobbyists and the

[8:57:26] lobbyist entities listed in Tallahassee as having lobbied

[8:57:29] on this latest live local act that passed on July 1st for

[8:57:34] public lands? You might see some very familiar LLCs on that

[8:57:37] list. For this bill, we have basically invited the fox into

[8:57:41] our hen house, and they're going to use more money to buy

[8:57:44] more elections and pass even more awful laws such as this

[8:57:47] one. You're asking us in the In the Beach overlay program, to

[8:57:51] trust that our city staff and city commission will make good

[8:57:53] decisions about our beach and respect the public's wishes

[8:57:56] when they've already proven that they're not going to do

[8:57:58] that with this very project. The deed says Park. Open space.

[8:58:04] Just as the other residents mentioned, the residents who

[8:58:07] live next door are snowbirds. They're seniors. They try to

[8:58:10] log on to speak. I had so many people message me today. They

[8:58:13] live very. They live right next door. And they were not able to

[8:58:17] participate today. Not only is it late, but some of them tried

[8:58:20] to log on before the deadline and they weren't able to. They

[8:58:23] were denied of their due process. The whole way that

[8:58:26] this has been done has been so disrespectful to the public. A

[8:58:30] 99 year lease. I'm sure there's case law somewhere. I've heard

[8:58:34] look into it that 99 years is a disposal of land. This is going

[8:58:39] to put us in a legal relation relationship with an unknown

[8:58:42] condo association. For 99 years or more. It excludes the public

[8:58:47] from approximately 93% of the property. Doctor Gerardo says

[8:58:52] it reduces green space by 50%. This majority of the land will

[8:58:57] be otherwise disposed of. It should require a vote by the

[8:59:00] residents. It's inconsistent with our current beach master

[8:59:03] plan. Feedback from the Comp Plan 2050. Has anyone even

[8:59:07] looked at all the meetings? We provided feedback for the comp

[8:59:09] Plan 2050, the beach feasibility studies. It's like

[8:59:13] you did all these meetings and got all this feedback, and

[8:59:15] you're just doing the exact opposite of what we asked. The

[8:59:18] Broward Planning Council ruled 13 to 2 that this land is

[8:59:22] community. It's going to negatively affect public access.

[8:59:25] It will mark my words. They can say it all they want. It's not

[8:59:29] going to create all this extra parking. Look at Magnolia

[8:59:31] Terrace. I cannot park at Magnolia Terrace anymore with

[8:59:34] my annual resident pass because too many condo owners park

[8:59:37] there. So they took that ability away from me. I pay

[8:59:41] $180 a year and I can't use my pass there. And that's exactly

[8:59:44] what's going to happen at Azalea Terrace. The more flaws

[8:59:46] you put on it, the more population density, which is

[8:59:49] the opposite of what we should be doing on the barrier island.

[8:59:52] Thank you, thank you. Next, anybody else? Last call seeing

[9:00:03] none. Closing the public comment section of this agenda

[9:00:07] item, counselor. All right, Mr. Chair. So the next order of

[9:00:11] proof is that every party, which includes staff, applicant

[9:00:16] and intervenor, gets five minutes for their final

[9:00:19] comments. And then there's a cross-examination that is five

[9:00:25] minutes per side. Okay. Closing arguments. Cameron. Well, no

[9:00:30] one can really cross-examine you. Board chair and board

[9:00:37] members closing arguments from staff is that the item remains

[9:00:40] consistent with the findings of the surrounding character, the

[9:00:43] proposed development, and the plans outlined in the

[9:00:46] Comprehensive Plan citywide Master plan as it pertains to

[9:00:48] the height, setback and lot coverage, staff recommends the

[9:00:51] board move to move to forward a recommendation of approval to

[9:00:56] City Commission. Thank you. Intervenor allowed or applicant

[9:01:02] intervenor. Intervenor goes first and then applicant. Five

[9:01:11] minutes. Thank you. The lawsuit that's pending. One of the

[9:01:18] questions that was posed when this item first opened was, why

[9:01:23] should you be asked to vote on something when it's possible

[9:01:26] that the outcome of the litigation could take it out of

[9:01:28] your hands in the first place? And I want to make it very

[9:01:32] clear to the board there are several challenges that are

[9:01:34] being made in the lawsuit that has been filed in the 17th

[9:01:37] circuit. One of them concerns the deed restriction and the

[9:01:40] language therein. One of them concerns the P3 statute and

[9:01:44] whether or not this is a viable P3 project. One of them

[9:01:47] concerns the development agreement statute, which

[9:01:50] specifically provides that a finding of consistency must be

[9:01:53] made in the development agreement that underscores this

[9:01:57] project. Each of those things on their own. The outcome, if

[9:02:00] the court were to agree, would be that the comprehensive

[9:02:04] agreement is void ab initio. It is essentially an ultra vires

[9:02:07] act, something that is in excess of the city's authority.

[9:02:10] And if it is an ultra vires act and the contract is void ab

[9:02:13] initio, then there is no project, and it would have to

[9:02:16] go back before the city commission for a new vote,

[9:02:18] which means that the new voter referendum requirement would

[9:02:22] apply. So there is a very real possibility, as we sit here

[9:02:26] today, that the conclusion of the litigation, the outcome of

[9:02:29] the litigation, is the undoing of this contract. For that

[9:02:33] reason alone, what you were being asked to decide today is

[9:02:37] premature. You have the authority, under the quasi

[9:02:40] judicial procedures to recommend a continuance. You

[9:02:44] can recommend a continuance until the conclusion of the

[9:02:46] litigation if that is something that the board would like to do.

[9:02:49] But at this point, based on what is ongoing behind the

[9:02:52] scenes, the objections that you've heard from constituents

[9:02:56] and parties alike, the objections that you've heard on

[9:02:58] the record from me on behalf of the Intervenors there there are

[9:03:02] real issues with this project as it exists today, and there

[9:03:04] is a real chance that a court agrees when the litigation

[9:03:08] ultimately concludes. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Members of the board

[9:03:21] will be brief. The city has filed a motion to dismiss

[9:03:26] finding the case by the Intervenors to be completely

[9:03:29] meritless. We believe that the court is going to swiftly

[9:03:34] conclude it is meritless in attorneys. Fees will be awarded

[9:03:37] to our side, so it will be at no cost to the city. The entire

[9:03:43] litigation. Also contrary to what counsel just said, as you

[9:03:46] heard in the last item, there's a Florida statute on point that

[9:03:49] says you have to approve an item or provide a

[9:03:52] recommendation within 60 days. If not, it is automatically

[9:03:55] goes to the next level city commission without any

[9:03:58] recommendation. So that comment was patently untrue. At this

[9:04:03] point in time. This is a quasi judicial item. What that means

[9:04:07] is staff is the only ones who provided expert testimony,

[9:04:11] competent, substantial evidence saying why this application

[9:04:15] should be approved. No one, not the intervenor, not a member of

[9:04:19] public, not myself provided any expert testimony contrary to

[9:04:24] what staff said under Florida law Well-settled Florida law,

[9:04:29] it is the board's responsibility now to approve

[9:04:32] the item. It has no other option but to approve because

[9:04:36] there is no other evidence presented contrary to staff's

[9:04:40] evidence. That's what the law says. That's what you'll be

[9:04:43] charged in a minute. We thank you for your time. The good

[9:04:46] news is, what time is it now to something it might be not even

[9:04:49] know what it is anymore. It says 1419 to 19. This is the

[9:04:54] last time this project will ever appear before you. It's

[9:04:56] kind of exciting when you think about it ever, because after

[9:04:59] tonight it goes to the city commission and then it's done.

[9:05:03] And then maybe if they want to continue with their lawsuits,

[9:05:05] it will be in a court for another day. But it will never

[9:05:09] come before this board again. And after October 7th, we'll

[9:05:11] never come before the City Commission again. With that, we

[9:05:15] close. Any other matters that this board needs to consider or

[9:05:22] should? Is it appropriate to discuss amongst ourselves the

[9:05:27] next. The next order of proof is cross-examination, but from.

[9:05:31] I'm gathering. There's. There will be no cross. All right.

[9:05:35] Yeah. Mr. chair, you may close the public hearing and begin

[9:05:40] deliberating. But of course, you know I have to give out.

[9:05:43] Give out my instructions. So, as that has been repeatedly

[9:05:47] mentioned here, this is a quasi judicial proceeding. That means

[9:05:51] your decision must rest solely on the evidence in this record,

[9:05:55] which is the staff report, the exhibits and the sworn

[9:05:58] testimonies that you have received. Argument of counsel

[9:06:00] is not evidence, and public sentiment alone is not a basis

[9:06:04] to approve or deny. So the property zoned GU, which sets

[9:06:12] non-numeric standards, and the code, assigns three, three,

[9:06:18] three determinations to the commission based on your

[9:06:21] recommendation. And those three are the only three findings

[9:06:25] before you, which is height setbacks and site coverage site

[9:06:29] coverage. So whatever your your command, you must tie to these

[9:06:34] criteria and state your reasons on the record. Fair enough.

[9:06:38] Continuing with tradition here, Bob. Well, good morning. Thank

[9:06:46] you. So are we able to ask staff questions or. No, not at

[9:06:53] this point. Not to my it's we're we've closed all the

[9:06:57] public. It's just a matter of deliberating amongst ourselves.

[9:07:08] Are we permitted to. For the submittals that were given to

[9:07:14] us. Are we allowed to discuss the submittals that were given

[9:07:19] to us among ourselves or. No, those were withdrawal. Can you

[9:07:23] be more specific? What submittals are you referring to?

[9:07:26] Well, the applicant's submittals, for one. And will

[9:07:30] the staff submittals? No, the applicant submittals have been

[9:07:34] withdrawn from the record. So they're no longer part of the

[9:07:36] record? No, none of them are part of the record. Or they

[9:07:39] just they just staff, staff, submittal staff report and

[9:07:43] exhibits that staff has provided are part of the record.

[9:07:45] And you may discuss them. Yes. I thought the applicant only

[9:07:51] withdrew the additional submittals that they correct.

[9:07:54] Took away. Yeah, maybe. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what

[9:07:58] submittals you're referring to. So please be specific. Well,

[9:08:00] their application, I guess, is what I'm referring to. So

[9:08:05] here's, here's my question. I'll just bring it to the board

[9:08:07] and we'll we'll see what it says. So from attachment A from

[9:08:14] the applicant it said character of the area. The stretch of

[9:08:20] South Ocean Drive is developed almost exclusively with high

[9:08:23] rise oceanfront residential towers. The Summit Comment

[9:08:28] condominium, the closest building to the north, is 24

[9:08:31] stories and more than 200ft in height. Immediately south is

[9:08:35] ten story Stratford Towers. Then the 16 story Oxford Towers

[9:08:39] and 16 story Trafalgar Towers, a 30 story tower in this

[9:08:46] location is contextual infill, not an intrusion into the low

[9:08:50] rise or even mid-rise fabric. So my question to the board. I

[9:08:57] understand that they're asking for 370 odd feet, but are we

[9:09:05] able to determine within this infill a different number for

[9:09:12] height of the building? I know you answered your own question.

[9:09:17] Or do we have to rely just on what staff said? If it's a

[9:09:28] question for me, I think it's while staff has made the

[9:09:31] recommendation, if you have a preponderance of submission of

[9:09:34] a different height, different setback, the board will

[9:09:36] consider. Well, I unfortunately don't because we can't ask any

[9:09:41] questions. So. I need to think about this a minute. Okay.

[9:09:53] We'll come back to you, Christine. Steven, Massimo.

[9:10:03] Just a quick we can't ask any questions, right. You can just

[9:10:08] pontificate out loud to us. Just. Looking at I don't

[9:10:14] understand, on the north side of the property, it says for

[9:10:17] future development. What is that? On there? Do you see do

[9:10:21] you see what I'm talking about on here? Yeah. I don't want to

[9:10:25] answer on behalf of staff, but you're right. Should have been

[9:10:27] a question. Yeah. To go through your line of thoughts. No, no,

[9:10:34] I just I, you know, somebody brought up the 96% of the of

[9:10:38] the property there. I'm assuming there's other land

[9:10:42] that that's pervious that they're that they got to that

[9:10:45] number. I don't, I don't know, I mean, okay, Dick. Mr. Chair,

[9:10:54] thank you. A year or so ago for people who are sitting up here,

[9:11:00] voted unanimously to deny this on environmental and

[9:11:06] sustainability issues. Those issues have not gone away. And

[9:11:12] I, on that basis alone can't support this. Bob, further

[9:11:24] questions. But I don't think that that. Is what we're voting

[9:11:33] on right now. It's just those three items they talked about,

[9:11:37] right? It's just the the heights and the setbacks. Those

[9:11:39] are the three items very narrowly defined this evening.

[9:11:43] So what Mr. Blatner is talking about is something that we

[9:11:49] can't consider, from what I understand. So I would tell you,

[9:11:56] I'm looking at at the buildings that are surrounding that, and

[9:12:00] I am not going to say zero, but I would suggest looking at the

[9:12:07] surrounding buildings, not wanting the building height to

[9:12:10] be drastically different, that I would actually recommend.

[9:12:19] That we set the building height at 15 stories. Okay. Mr. Mr.

[9:12:34] chair yes, Bob, thank you for bringing up the fact that I

[9:12:40] didn't really respond the way the law might want me to

[9:12:45] respond, but the reason that we voted. As we did was because we

[9:12:53] have three, three issues here sea level rise, groundwater and

[9:13:00] rainwater, and you can't get it off the property if you're 96%

[9:13:05] covered with concrete. And so you can make the argument that

[9:13:14] the lawyers will tell you it was valid or not, that none of

[9:13:18] the none of what I said means a hill of beans. But it doesn't

[9:13:22] change my mind. Well, I think it it it makes sense what you

[9:13:29] said, but I don't think that that's before us. And I think

[9:13:32] that's the dilemma that we may have. Well, if I could

[9:13:38] interject, this will be decided by courts. This is at best a

[9:13:46] public dumpster fire. And I'm reminded that in this case,

[9:13:52] three things can be true at once. We can have a world class

[9:13:59] developer making a presentation. We can have a phenomenal

[9:14:04] attorney making arguments on behalf and making some very

[9:14:10] valid arguments. And the last thing could be that that this

[9:14:15] proposed project is just not appropriate for this space. I

[9:14:22] would accept, and I would like the board to consider that if

[9:14:27] it is our obligation to set heights and restrictions and

[9:14:32] setbacks, that we look at the character of the existing space,

[9:14:36] meaning that there should be 100ft setback from the ocean.

[9:14:39] There should be 15ft setbacks from the sides. There should be

[9:14:44] 230ft setbacks from Surf Road and a 15 foot height limit that

[9:14:49] is becoming of the character that our public, that our

[9:14:54] citizens, that our fellow citizens have come to enjoy in

[9:14:58] this space should. There any other discussions? I accept

[9:15:14] your motion. No such motion has been made, just my opinion. And

[9:15:21] then you can make the motion. Who is my vice chair? Who's my

[9:15:25] vice chair? Okay. Motion yours. Handling the the gavel to

[9:15:36] Steven. I make the motion that the height be restricted to

[9:15:40] 15ft, that there be a 100 foot setback from ocean, 15ft from

[9:15:45] the sides and 230ft from Surf Road. Second, any second chair.

[9:15:52] Do you mean 15 stories or 15ft? No. 15ft. One story. Could you

[9:15:58] repeat the motion, please? I was I was writing the note. I

[9:16:01] move to approve the setbacks of 100ft from Ocean Drive, 15ft

[9:16:09] from each side, 230ft from Surf Road and 15ft high. That is

[9:16:16] reverse engineering of what's exactly there. I second this

[9:16:20] and forward to the Commission with our love. All in favor, I.

[9:16:29] Any nays? Thank you. Have some fun. I don't know what you have

[9:16:45] to. It's going to be decided by court anyway. Yeah. All right.

[9:16:52] The business before this. Sadly, this committee is still in

[9:16:57] session and we still have reports from staff. Yeah.

[9:17:01] Handing back the gavel, Cameron. Put us out of our misery.

[9:17:09] Please. Everyone's happy. And, Cameron, may I remind you that

[9:17:19] there's a request for some clarification on the Calvin

[9:17:22] Giordano? Yeah, please. Decorum for mayor. Mr. chair. For

[9:17:30] background, several people, including Mr. Welch. Please,

[9:17:34] Mr. Welch, have business to attend to. If you're done,

[9:17:37] please raise the issue of the 30 story height on the

[9:17:45] Hollywood beach, which we approved and wanted to know

[9:17:48] where that came from. And Cameron, would you respond to

[9:17:52] that question? Where did we get 30ft height for the 30 stories?

[9:17:57] I'm sorry, 30 stories for the Hollywood Beach Project. Could

[9:18:10] you give us just a couple of minutes, please? Yeah, continue

[9:18:15] with the other report. Okay. Yes, we have it. Okay. All

[9:18:22] right. Bear with me. The as it pertains to the city, a summary

[9:18:28] of city Commission actions on September 2nd. So since the

[9:18:33] last time that this board convened in August, the item of

[9:18:39] Emerald Hills Rezoning and Master Development Plan request

[9:18:42] that was recommended by this board went on to City

[9:18:44] Commission on September 2nd and was recommended and was adopted

[9:18:49] for approval on first reading. And that was. That's a summary

[9:19:04] of all the items that's happened to date. At your next

[9:19:07] board meeting, you'll be getting an update on the items

[9:19:10] moving forward through September. City Commission as

[9:19:11] it pertains to the DRC agenda. The last two meetings we did

[9:19:14] not have DRC meetings. Items were moving through the system.

[9:19:19] No items to report in that regard. Okay. And we have still

[9:19:25] the request on the Calvin Giordano. Cameron. We're

[9:19:36] reviewing Robert's Rules of Order when it comes to that,

[9:19:38] because technically, or if I was just asked off the top of

[9:19:41] my head, not at 230 in the morning, I would say you need

[9:19:44] to make a motion to reconsider. We're not reconsidering. We

[9:19:47] just want information. But because the discussion is

[9:19:50] closed and your questions to staff have closed, technically,

[9:19:54] you shouldn't be discussing any part of the item anymore. I

[9:19:59] mean, you could ask one on one, or you could review the minutes

[9:20:02] to see exactly what that meant. And that's why we're looking

[9:20:05] because I understand what you're asking. I just don't

[9:20:07] want to procedurally do it incorrectly and then have an

[9:20:11] issue that you've discussed. Something Cameron gave, gave us

[9:20:13] the answer, gave me the answer so I can give it to the people

[9:20:17] out there, or at least the resources to find it for

[9:20:20] ourselves, right? Yeah. Because we just can't open the

[9:20:22] discussion again, because you could change your mind or feel

[9:20:25] differently based on what he says or describes. Yes. Yeah. I

[9:20:31] would like to clarify that. If the question goes to the

[9:20:35] substance of the application, then, as Alicia have noticed,

[9:20:38] we already voted. So we would need a motion to reconsider, to

[9:20:42] open, to open it back up. So, Joe, you're you're the chair,

[9:20:49] but I don't think I want to reopen closed items for not

[9:20:55] discussion. Anyway. I know the answer. I'll take care of it.

[9:20:58] Thank you. All right. With no other business, with no other

[9:21:02] business come before this board. This meeting is adjourned.

[9:21:04] Thank you all very much. Thank you. I'm not even like.

Planning and Development Board on 2026-09-08 5:00 PM

Agenda

Transcript