[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.