Uh it's six o'clock. I think we're gonna get started. Uh we're missing one board member, but I think she may be coming in late and >> recording in progress. >> So at this time, I'm going call the uh meeting to order. Um can everybody
please silence your phones and like the uh EIE used to say the beepers as well. Okay. Good evening. This board is comprised of seven members. Four members of the board should constitute a quorum. The affirmative vote of four members
should be necessary for the adoption of any motion. If only four members of the board are present, an applicant may request and be entitled to a continuence to the next regular schedule meeting of the board. If a matter is continued due to the lack of quorum, the chairperson
or secretary of the board may set a special meeting to consider such matter. In the event in the event that four votes are not obtained, an applicant except in the case of a comprehensive plan amendment may request a continuous
or allow the application to proceed to the city commission without a recommendation. Pursuant to resolution 2021-118, the city of Cables has returned to traditional in-person meeting. However,
the planning zoning board has established the ability for the public to provide comments virtually. For those members of the public who are appearing by Zoom or wish to testify, you must be visible to the court reporter to be
sworn in. Otherwise, if you speak without being sworn in, your comment may not be eventuary value. Lobbyist registration and disclosure. Any person who acts as a lobbyist must be registered with the city clerk as
required pursuant to the city code. As acting chair, I now officially call the city of Corable's planning zoning board meeting of November 19, 2025 to order. The time is 6:02. Jill, can you please call the role?
>> Ignasio Alvarez. >> Robert, excuse me. Alisa Bravo, >> Alex Bucello >> here, >> Nester Mendez >> here, >> Felix Partardo >> here, >> Gonzalo Sanabria >> here, >> Robert Behar
>> present. Notice regarding export tech communication. Please be advised that this board is a quasi judicial board which requires board members to disclose all export tech communication and site visits. An expert communication is
defined as any contact communication conservation conversation correspondent memorandum or other written or verbal communication that takes place outside a public hearing between member of the public and a member of the quasi
judicial board regarding ma matters to be heard before the board. If anyone made any contact with a board members regarding an issue before the board, the board member must state on the record the existence of the expert communication and the party who
originated the communication. Also, if a board member conducted a site visit specifically ready to the case before the board, the board member must also disclose such visit. In either case, the board member must state on the record
whether the expert to communication or site visit will affect the board's member ability to impartially consider evidence to be presented be regarding the matter. Board members should also state that his or her decision will be
based on substantial competent evidence and testimony presented on the record. Does any member of the board have such communication or sad visit to disclose at [snorts] this time? >> No. >> Okay.
>> So in anyone who speaks this evening must be must complete the roster on the podium and we ask that you print clearly so that the official records of your name and address will be correct. Now, with the exception of the attorneys, any
all person physically in the city chamber who would like to speak on any items tonight, please stand up to be sworn in. Seeing none, >> we do. Oh, okay. >> Thank you. Sun plan forum participant. I
will ask any person wishing to speak on tonight's agenda item to please open up your chat and send direct message to Jill Mendez stating that you would like to speak before the board and include your full name and address. Jill will
call you when it's your turn. I will ask to be concise for the interest of time. Phone platform participant. After the Zoom platform participant, we will go into the ask the Zoom particip the form participant to be um also to give your
name and address on any item that you will be speaking on tonight. I will also ask you to please be concise for the interest of time. At this time, we are going to ask for the approval of the minutes of September 17, 2025. Do we
have a motion? >> So move. >> I'll second. Roll call please. >> We can do that by a voice vote. All in favor I >> I. >> Procedures that we will use tonight. We
will identify the agenda items by Mr. Collier. Then it will be a presentation by the applicant of agent followed by the presentation by staff. At conclusion of that presentation, we will open for public comment first in
the chamber followed by zoom platform and then phone platform. I will close the public comments. We will do board discussion. After board discussion, we will entertain a motion and a second. We will do a final uh uh board comment and
then we will take a vote. Before we start, I would like to take this opportunity to uh to thank our colleague and and and and um chairperson Ebie Asentad for his dedicated service to the
board as a chair and his great contribution to the city as well. We're deeply grateful at this time for his leadership effort that he has given to the city and to this board. Thank you, Evie, if you're listening.
At this time, I'm pleased to welcome two new board members. First, I would like to welcome Ingaxio Alvarez to the board. Ignasio, could you please tell us a little bit about yourself? Um, I'm I live in Cole Gables. I I'm an attorney in Cole Gables on Pon. Um, I'm
a retired police officer. I was retired as a major with Miami Day Sheriff's Office after 25 years and decided that retirement wasn't good enough and opened up my own practice in 2017 and been doing uh very good ever since and I'm happy to be here.
>> Thank you very much. Welcome to the board. I now like to introduce Gonzalo Sanav to the board. Gonzalo, could you also please tell us a little bit about yourself? >> We don't know. So, I'm an economist.
>> There you go. I'm an economist by education. I've been in land use and zoning my entire life since I left college. I have my own firm called Real Estate Works, REW, Inc., I do a lot of entitlements throughout the whole state
of Florida. I have no issues nor any kind of conflicts with the city of Coral Gables since I don't engage in Coral Gables uh real estate whatsoever. And also I served for 19 years in the planning advisory board in Miami Date
County as chairman and we did a lot of work there including the master plan and the concurrency status etc. and um I also served in the board of directors of Miami date expressway authority as chairman. So transportation
is also a second nature to me. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And also I'd like to send my uh my uh respect to Ivy Eisenstead who spent a lot of time here on the board. It was very helpful as well. Thank you sir.
>> Thank you very much. Thank you. At this time, I want to for the record uh acknowledge that uh Alice Bravo has come to the meeting. Present. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you both. Uh Mr. City attorney, can you please start with the agenda items?
>> Yes. Agenda item E1, an ordinance of the city commission providing for a text amendment to the city of Carl Gable's official zoning code by amending appendix A sight specific zoning regulations section A-67
Mahi Canal requiring additional review and approval for all mooring piles, docks, warves, davits, boat lifts and similar structures located in MF and MX districts that above at the Mahi Canal
providing for repealer provision serability clause codification providing for an effective date item E1 public hearing. >> Thank you. >> Good [clears throat] evening vice chair and uh fellow board members. So
tonight's first item uh is a >> introduce your name for the record. >> Craig Southern Planning and Zoning Division, City of Coral Gables. So tonight's first uh text uh amendment is
a portion of appendix A section A-67 to the zoning code focus specifically on the Mahi Canal. Um the purpose here is relatively straightforward. It's a text amendment that adds water quality um
review requirements for new or modified docks, mooring piles, boat lifts, and similar overwater structures within the MF and MX zoning districts. The Mahi Canal is a narrow waterway
averaging about 90 ft in width or an average um where even small changes to any kind of structures can alter circulation, flushing, benthic conditions and uh
vessel movement. And when navigation potentially drops with new structures being added, water quality is usually the first thing to be affected. So, the proposed text amendment tonight that we're taking a look at uh doesn't doesn't change any allowed uses,
intensities, or anyone's existing rights. It simply requires applicants to provide a water quality analysis, and it ensures that the waterways advisory board and the city commission review those findings before approving projects. Applicants must also show
compliance with the Florida D uh which is within chapter 62-302. The proposed text amendment is basically just keeping the existing framework but adding um an ecological or a
science-based check to protect water quality, navigation, and public safety as a redevelopment continues along the canal. staff finds that this text amendment does satisfy all five criteria for a text amendment and recommends
approval. If you'd like, we can go within or discuss the text amendment. >> I don't I don't I don't see a need for it unless once I open it to the board. So, thank you very much. Uh I will
conclude the uh presentation by staff. I'm going open up to the public comments first in chamber. Don't see any. So we will close the public comment in chambers. Jill, do we have any in zoom platform? >> No, we don't. >> How about in phone platform? We will close.
>> I have comments, Mr. Chairman. >> I'm sorry. >> I have comments on this item at the right time. >> Let me open up to the board. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, I'm at this time I'm going close the public comment. We're going to open up for but board discussion. So, I'll start with you then.
>> Thank you. I know that property well because I do navigate that area every once in a while. And as you know, on the other side of that bridge, there are some homes and they do have navigable waters and navigable kayaks and so on that transit
through that area. Uh, one of the things that concerns me is this. There's 40 current slips. As I understand it, from meeting with Jennifer and Craig this afternoon, we counted about 40 current slips. Correct.
I'm sorry. >> So, per the Jennifer Garcia appliance director, I did double check that just now. We don't have an application from this property. I'm going off of minutes from a old advisory board meeting and they indicate 22 to 26 slips. So, not
40. >> 22, not 40. Identify yourself. Garcia, planning and zoning director. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay, so being around 28 to 30 current slips >> 22 to 26 I said
>> my concern is if this project goes the way of an RTC development, how could that affect the number of slips that can be in place on the Mahi Canal? Do we know that answer? Well, we know on the um west side of the canal
it's 900 ft give or take. It's about 900 ft. So, we would also need to like depending on the size of the slip requirements that that's all that would really be dependent upon. So, it would all be dependent [clears throat] upon the measurements within that 90 linear feet. >> But that's not necessarily because that
particular site has a maximum allowable slips that they could go. So it's not like you could get 900 ft and divide it by 20 foot and do so many there. They have a maximum number of slips that they are entitled to and that's not going to
change. So I don't think I don't think that's uh at this time Mr. City Attorney is that something that we could get involved with or because we don't know what's happening there anyways. Well, I just want to remind uh the board that
this particular amendment is specifically for water quality analysis for any kind of development that would happen within the MF and MX zoning districts uh within the Mahi Canal uh site specific. >> I understand what you're saying, but it
precludes us from expanding that into a more uh generic issue with slips and a number of slips. So, uh, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think we could ask some language regarding the number of slips that could be in place on this property.
>> I I don't know because otherwise >> I don't think we could control that. >> Well, I would be concerned with Sorry, pardon my interruption. >> One more thing. The other thing that uh concerns me is the beam of these boats. And now I I I go to Sunrise Harbor and I
see some of these catamarans are about 20 ft wide in beam. If you create that kind of situation where that can be in place on that canal, it's going to impair navigation to the other side of that bridge. And that's something that
we should address at some point soon. >> Gonzalo, I with [clears throat] all the respect, I don't think this item has to do with any of what you're saying. you know, uh I mean >> the number of slips, the size of the
boats, anything like that would be beyond the scope of this title. This title only relates to water quality and the impact of any additional slips that would be built in the water quality. Another item
could be um drafted and I think it's up to the commission if they want to address this. Um and you could make a re recommendation to the board if you if if you were to recommend approval of this
that your recommendation is you should look at the size of the boats and the and the number of slips. I will caution you that when you make changes in the zoning code, when people have think they
have certain rights, it's possible that those rights could be impacted. But the board, if the board wants to direct wants to request the commission to take a look at that, that could be part of your recommendation
if that's what you wish to do. >> I agree. Now also I want to confirm that that water body is under the sole jurisdiction of the city of Coral Gables. >> That's correct. >> Right. Yeah. >> Therefore that that portion where the zoning districts are MF and MX.
>> Therefore I recommend that we do add some language that the commission should consider. We we could make a recommendation on a motion to do not separate. Yes, sir. >> Separate to this, right, Mr. Attorney? >> Yes. It would be a
It would basically a comment to your recommendation for approval. Okay. >> So, it would be viewed as a comment to the [clears throat] to the board as you've commented on other items that are not necessarily related to the item, but you've asked the board that excuse me,
>> the commission. >> Commission. I'm used to the board of county commissioners even even though I haven't worked there for 10 years. >> Okay. >> But the commission. >> Okay. Gonzalo, is that it? That's it regarding
this item. Yes, sir. Miss Bravo. >> So, so to clarify, this item in and of itself does not include addition. >> No, no, this is only about the water quality uh analysis requirement. >> I'm okay.
>> Just what is a water quality analysis like? What does that entail? Is that very burdensome on the homeowner? It would be a ecological um study that would be done looking at the benthic component. Usually benthic consists of the sediment and any kind of ecological
or the life like fish nurseries, um crabs, all that kind of stuff that's living in that area. There would be a benthic study that would be conducted. I'm sure they would look at the depth as well, but >> and and so that would take into account shading from the vessels and that type of environmental analysis.
>> Yeah. as the chairman. >> Yes. >> Uh it also is a manatee zone. >> Yes. Right now. There's already signs posted on the site now as well. >> On both sides of the canal as a manatee zone. Yeah.
>> Fish and wildlife. Thank you, T. No further questions. >> Okay. Uh Nester, >> the the proposed studies are at cost to who? to the to the property owner >> to the applicant that would propose any
kind of development on the canal. >> Yeah. >> No further questions >> within those zoning districts. >> Right. >> Those were my two questions. >> Okay. Mr. Parardo, last but not least, >> I I have a few questions about the water
quality. Um what is the existing water quality level? What are Thank you. What are the existing water quality quality levels of this particular um canal? >> Do we know? >> I personally can't uh tell you that, but
I would say it's healthy because it does have manatees within it. I mean, I've I've walked around the property or the canal. Um, and I've seen quite a few uh fish, but I I can't say on a profession. >> With all due respect, let's let's think
about this scenario. So someone owns a property there on this particular canal and the canal unbeknownsted although there are manatees there all sorts of manatees in that waterway and um
all of a sudden it just so happens that that canal right now presently doesn't comply with any of these levels. So therefore, by adding this to it, without understanding what the current
levels are, it is possible that someone that doesn't have a bolt lift on their home would not be able to build a boat lift that they don't comply with this. Correct. >> Well, it's not this does not include single family. I just want to reiterate anything and there's, if I remember
correctly, I think it's like maybe six or seven properties in total. Uh, and you know, on the west side, like I said, it's 900 linear feet. I think there's like three uh parcels, but they're all kind of unified already. So,
>> so it would only affect the MF and MX, >> correct? Nobody that's south of those zoning districts that has single family would be >> So, again, required to do that. It wouldn't be a taking, but it is possible that uh the people that would develop anything there would not be able to do
anything simply because the current level, environmental level of that particular canal may not comply with the levels that the state and the county and anyone else has established. Correct.
>> Well, I mean, we do have there's already a seaw wall. There's I mean it's already a hardened shoreline. There's no natural shorelines there at all. Everything's already been hardened. Um the north side of the canal uh is University of Miami.
Um so the I think it's Dixie that you know crosses over uh Mahi Canal now. I would say that I mean it's a disturbed canal. It's not in its original you know what was there probably
hundreds of years ago. So it's it's a relatively urban area, but that's the thing. Whatever is there now, we just want to make sure that maybe we don't impact it anymore than >> so it is possible that that canal right now doesn't comply with any of these
requirements that minimum requirements that they have to comply with from a an environmental standpoint, a water quality standpoint. I I wish I could talk intelligently uh about the ecology of the canal, but I I can't, you know,
professionally, you know, other than we already know that that it's a hardened shoreline. There's already existing mooring piles out there. There's already uh docking that's there, but it is um dedicated as a manatee. But although if there's any type of moing or or someone
wants to go in there, improvement, enhance it, replace it, any of those things, they would have to comply with this. >> That's correct. >> But don't forget, no matter what, they have to go to Durm. They have to go to all those agents, you know, that are going to be probably more strict than this. This is really, from my
experience, this is really a problem. It would be a problem if you were like down in the Keys where you have seaggrass and all that. You could impact it. that canal which is really at the end of the property which Gonzalo was trying to refer to which I think is called the
Gable's waterway property. So that canal >> right >> you know there's no >> Yeah. And there and there are seagrasses in this canal that's why we have >> further down not >> No I I understand but that's the reason we have the the manatee there because they're not starving they're they're
eating those grasses. So what what my understanding this item would make it a little more stringent to get >> approval. I I I don't disagree with that. I'm just finding it a little bit difficult to understand. Don't know what the standard
is, but we're setting a standard >> of the existing of the existing canal quality, water quality. to me the, you know, as much as we want to put that we're going to have a saying or control, this is going to go
to Durham and Durham is going to tell you what you could do and cannot do. You know, we as much as we want to say that the city of Cable is going to control that waterway, not really. you know, you you know very well that if you want to do a a a mourn or something, you have to
go to Durham and you have to show, you know, your studies that you're not affecting the Bay Bottom and there's no seaggrass and all that, >> you know, goodies that they asked for >> and and there is there is no effect whatsoever on the sight specific
regulations. This is an addition to >> this is any of the restrictions that exist there. Now, >> that's correct. Now like I said I mean ecologically I cannot intelligently talk about that. Um but when it comes to circulation or navigation which would be
another part of that analysis you know the traffic I can speak I'd say to some degree on that >> but in the site specific it tells you minimum dimensions for navigable waters in in the area and all canals and coral
gables. Right. In section uh 3-700, we actually have different canals. >> Correct. Different width. >> Mahi canals uh must have uh 30 ft of navigable unobstructed area. Right. >> So right now it's at 90 ft. That's where we're at right now.
>> But that since that in a case like this, since that canal terminates there at US1, you're going to have to allow they're going to have to allow for boat to turn around. So that 30 ft increases. I don't know to what, but there are requirements that you're going to get,
you know, that you have to adhere to. That's why when Gonzalo mentioned the beam of the boat, you know, there's regulations that will dictate what you could do or not do, >> right? And and and like our attorney said, you know, I felt uncomfortable
because we started talking about a specific project, which this is not a specific project. Mr. Chairman, if I may just say again, >> those are all my questions. >> Okay. Wait, I had I had a first question.
>> And I know I'm new here. I don't know this area, but who is this applicable to when you said it's not applicable to single homes? >> Yeah. MF and MX zoning districts. >> Can you explain that a little bit? Again, >> multifamily and mixeduse properties,
which um I I wish that I would have created a PowerPoint tonight to show you guys uh the location. And I unfortunately I did not. >> Can Can you just pardon me, Mr. Chair? Uh can you just narrow it down so he
understands where these this zoning exists on the canal? >> So the canal terminates on the north side where uh Dixie Highway is. On the north side of Dixie is the University of Miami. So, bringing us back down to where the uh canal terminates right now,
just south of Dixie. Um you have a grouping currently of a couple commercial properties. Uh and on the west side is predominantly MF. Um there's a little bit of MX zoning as
well. And then on the uh east side is MX >> [snorts] >> uh mixeduse zoning. I don't know if this is helping or not, but >> you know, do you know more or less the location that we're referring to? >> The the >> Gable's Waterway.
>> Yeah, Gable's Waterway on on both sides is the more the mixeduse, the single family starts further down to the east. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Gonzalez, you have another comment. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman, I just want to
emphasize my my fear >> and my fear is that currently as Jennifer Garcia and Craig have delineated, there's about 28 to 30 boat slips there. >> Is that correct? More or less the number
>> 26 if I recall correctly. My fear is I don't know how many exact units or density are planned for this project but I don't want that to translate into a greater multiplier slips on that
waterways because that would really choke off and put a strangle hold on that water waterway. So somehow we need to add this comment please for uh the commission to consider or within a resolution. Can
>> go ahead. >> So, so once again, Greg, in essence, we're creating an environmental regulation for this. >> Correct. Right. I mean, in a way, any new impacts, we just want to make sure that we're analyzing those impacts if any new proposed development is coming
in, >> right, >> on these zoning districts, >> right? So I I I I think uh along the lines of what the chairman said before, if if if we want to make a commentary about that, it it would be separate from this item since this is in essence creating an environmental process.
>> I think I think it can be added to this item as a comment. Yes, I intend to do that. >> Mr. City Attorney, I mean, can we do it to this item? you know, if you >> Well, I think the the board has the opportunity to make any recommendation
that it chooses to. It's obviously beyond this title and it's not really it couldn't be addressed in this item. But if the board wants to suggest to the uh
to the city commission that you should look at the number of additional slips that may uh occur on the canal, I think you can say that to them, but it's separate and apart from the item. It's just a
suggestion to the board that that excuse me, a suggestion to the commission that they should look at it. Okay. But that's only if if you all agree with uh the this comment. If you don't agree with the comment, then
>> we'll see what we'll see when we get there. Look, I personally for me I don't have a problem because I [clears throat] know I know that that there are greater greater authority besides Cables that going to say what can be done not
be done here. Uh I I don't I'm not I don't have any fear of the increase in slips because I I know that Durham has a maximum that has been given to that property. But if if you Gonzalez, [clears throat] if you feel that a
common, okay, not a not a condition, a comment be made to the com to the commissioner, I'm okay with that. So, at this time, you know, we're going to close the board's comment and we'll we will entertain a motion.
>> I wanted to just bring up one question is that um the water quality was discussed, but the animals >> were not discussed, which I think it falls short. And the reason is that in any part of Florida,
um you could have issues with tortoises, uh bats, um I mean you name, you know, burial owls. How about the manatees which we're losing left and right in the state of
Florida because they're starving to death. The question becomes, should that also be added and not just from a water quality standpoint, but at least that it should it it should be mentioned in there because sometimes if
you add enough uh watercraft, it it becomes um a real problem, you know, to for especially the manatees that we've lost through starvation of the seagrasses. I don't I mean unless I'm
not understanding this correctly, this is not saying that we're going to have more watercraft there. This is saying that it's going to require additional reviews for approval if you wanted to do >> we do actually have benthic habitats. I
know I like went through that pretty quickly. Benthic habitats is mentioned in here. any impact. So that's the sediment, that's the jellyfish, that's anything that's within that, you know, underwater uh area that would be
affected. So we also reference uh Florida Department of Environmental Protection um chapter 62-302 and I know that they have quite a bit more uh when it comes to habitats within
the water. So we do we do actually mention benthic habitats and that that is what is the intention of that. >> Thank you. I feel comfortable with that. Sure. I'm going to I'm going to move to approve the city's recommendation. >> Okay. We have a motion. >> Second. >> And we have a second. Do we have any any
other comments before we call the role? >> Okay. >> I'd like to add a comment on on the uh on this motion. >> Am I allowed to do that at this time? >> The motion the the maker of the motion. Will you ask entertain a friendly amendment? >> Yes. >> What is your amendment?
>> I would like to concur with Mr. Partardo on the manity zone because that is a very crucial environmental area for manatees procreating and they actually live there. I've seen them there as well. So I like to mention manatee per
se wordw wise the word manatees the zone to try to uh protect them as much as we can from the city uh Jewish burdens also the number of slips that can be built on that waterway
to me it's rather frightening because once you build way above the number of the current slips then you start taking up more water body, more water body and strengthening that waterway. So I like
the commission to consider that they be a some sort of threshold to protect against higher water density per se, not just higher density of the building, but higher density per se on the waterway plus
protect the manity zone. Okay. So essentially you're saying you're going to you're going to maintain whatever the maximum allowable today for them to keep that number not to increase those numbers >> the current number. >> Okay. >> So that's unrelated to the item but it's
a comment to the comment. >> It's a comment to the commissioner. >> Do we do you accept that amendment the motion? Uh neester. Do you agree with that also? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Jill, can you please call the Rona?
>> Alice Bravo, >> yes. >> Alex Bello, >> yes. >> Nester Mendez, >> yes. >> Felix Partardo, >> yes. >> Gonzalo Sanavria, >> yes. >> Ignasio Alvarez, >> yes. >> Robert Behar,
>> yes. Thank you. Item E2. Item E2, an ordinance of the city commission providing for text amendments to the city of Coral Gable's official zoning code. Article 5, architecture. Section 5-309, trelluses. Section 5-310,
wood decks. And section 5-311 pavers and walkways to incorporate composite recycled materials as an approved material for trelluses, decks, and walkways. Providing for repealer provision, severability clause codification providing for an effective
date. Item E2 public hearing. So, Jennifer Garcia, planning and zoning director. Um, this is a very simple text amendment. We are allowing uh composite recycled material as material to be allowed for trelluses, decks, and also those walkways along the waterway. And
this is a good segue from now we're talking about waterway. We're talking about what we're going to be putting next to the waterway, which is the decking material. Um there are many studies that show that um having um wood and having paint too close to a waterway can can shut off and affect our quality
of water in a waterway. So the intent of this text amendment is to allow this recycled composite materials to be used again for telises for decks and for these walkways. Um there's also clarification that um the um allowance
for the city architect or the DRRO to um to have other approved products to be of solid wood as those noted above the mahogany, teak, cedar, redwood and etc. Um and again the recycled material have to be at least 60% recycled content.
Usually that's plastic bags or PVC materials. There's a couple couple of um companies that are out there that actually produce this recycled composite material. >> Yes. >> Before I have a question. Do we have because I know a lot of these company
have multiple colors. >> Are we the city architect is going to determine what color will be allowed or not? >> Yeah. I think we still have the requirement that should be compatible with the main principal building. >> Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Before
I open up to uh public comment, that concludes your staff presentation, right? >> That simple. Yes. >> Opening to public comment. No one in chamber. Get Jill. Anybody in Zoom or phone? [snorts] >> Okay. Close the public comment. Board discussion. I'm going to go to the uh my
left to the start with the left. Felix, can you please start us? >> Um my my concern again is the board of architects. It's it's just not the material, but how it looks. Some materials, for example, you're you're trying to imitate uh wood texture. So,
some materials, Robert will tell you, you could see a mile away that it doesn't look right, looks cheap, looks this, looks that. I didn't see anywhere where the board of architects is going to be approving these materials on a on a case- by case
basis because there's so many materials that are out there. So sometimes you'll see, you know, companies like u, you know, Hardy Board and they have great quality materials. Then you'll see something that it's not Hardy Board and you could tell two blocks away that it's
it's just cheap looking, you know, and and that becomes a real problem. Um I understand you know especially the longer uh you know we've seen uh some of the uh different materials fail over
over time you know tremendous amounts of time and I get that. Uh then you also have the issue of of exempting historic buildings. You know I didn't see a a mention of that. For example, if you
have uh a pecky uh cyprress, uh you can't simply get one of these artificial materials to look like the rest of it on a historic building that uses that material. So, I I s I thought
that it was silent on that. I thought it [snorts] was silent on the acceptability by the board of architects as far as some of the materials the same as paint colors, etc., >> right? So, this would be reviewed by a city architect. Like, he reviews any deck um [clears throat] permit. If he doesn't agree with what they're what they're providing or what they're, you
know, >> by the board of architects, >> by a city architect, if he doesn't approve what they're proposing, he will send to the board of architects. And usually he has a list of what the board of architects feels comfortable as far as the material, as far as a company that makes it look a little more real,
more grainy and not so glassy. There there are various manufacturer like tracks and timber something that have good quality right. Are we are we allowed to to say you know a material you know specific manufacturers all
equal Robert and that and as you know that changes also with time you know uh 20 years ago 30 years ago some of these materials were awful and nowadays they've they've gotten so much better and they're getting hopefully they're getting better you know in the future. I
I used them in in my house in the Keys and let me tell you, it looks like teak and it stays beautifully done, which is the best thing I ever did. I don't have to maintain. I don't have to do anything. >> Well, and and and that's the point I'm trying to make is there's a difference
between, you know, good quality material and and those that aren't. You and I know that difference. What I'm saying is to make sure that that this is under the control and the purview of the city architect and you know the board of architects to make sure that we don't make mistakes and then make these
buildings look cheap and I think that would be a step in the right direction. >> Right. The architect would still use those approved products which is basically companies like you said um and would just make sure the color that they're using is consistent with the building. And and there's also another
component to it uh which is longevity. Uh some of these materials which are um um painted internally you know uh sometimes those colors fade very very quickly and then they look awful. You
see it also in roof roofing materials. So what I'm saying is that u we have to be I think we should be very careful when it comes to the longevity of these materials to make sure that it looks as as good 10 years from now as it does the
way the day it was installed. >> Thank you. Felix Ignasio. >> No com. >> Um yeah, I I I I'm I'm all for this. Um I think it's a it's um it's it's it's a good idea. I I kind of want to I [clears throat] I I agree with Felix. Um
I think we should be very careful. Um you know, staying silent uh as far as as the materials that can be used um the susceptibility to aging. Um, but I'm sure that there will be an added layer of protection at the board of uh at the
architectures uh board that [snorts] will hopefully guard rail it similar to having I know it's it's very difficult to to not give guidelines to to to individuals who want to use this to uh to to the city. Um but similar to the
way that we have um uh approved um paint kind of paint you can use colors um I think something like that would be uh appropriate. Maybe some some guidelines for the board of architectures. I I do have the same concern that uh fading uh
might end up looking bad but similar to real wood. Real wood needs upkeep, sanding, varnishing if it's varnished. So, I think there's there's that added component into it. But I do agree that if we're trying to use these recycled materials, we we we we promote or or or
we try and get the people the end users or or the the people using the materials to use higherend materials um that last longer, look better. I agree with Robert. Um those those those um materials, the decks, they look
fantastic. And if you upkeep them, uh they they they they last for a long time and they look great for a long time and it's minimal uh um minimal wear and tear and and and upkeep. So I uh I think it's a very good um uh tax amendment to uh
the that to to to the to the existing code. >> Thank you, Netor. >> Yeah, >> Alex. >> No problem, Mr. German. >> Alex, >> kudos to the staff for bringing an innovative solution. >> Absolutely. Gonzalo, >> I have a deck on my seaw wall made of
composite materials. It's been there for 25 years. Fantastic. I love it. So, I'm all in favor of this. >> Okay, perfect. I I think it's a great idea. I'm all for it. So, with that, we're going to close the board comment. And >> one one quick question, Mr. Chairman.
German uh is is the city is the city directed to use the these composite materials as well in like say parks or anything that's um that any projects >> yeah so typically yes so knowing our CIP team and like to know what the pre-approved products are so they can
use that and not and kind of bypass going to the board architects repeatedly number of times so um yes >> okay good thank you >> good question thank you do we have a motion >> I'll move Second. >> Can you please call the roll? >> I'm sorry. Who moved it?
>> Alex. Second by Gonzalo. >> Thank you. >> Alex Bello, >> yes. >> Nester Mendez, >> yes. >> Felix Partardo, >> yes. >> Gonzalo Sanria, >> yes. >> Nasio Alvarez, >> yes.
>> Alice Bravo, >> yes. >> Robert Beh, >> yes. E3. Mr. City Attorney, >> yes. [clears throat] Item E3, an ordinance of the city commission providing for text amendments to the city of Carl Gable's official zoning code amending 14-204,
transfer development rights, TDRs, and article 16 definitions of the city zoning code to establish a conservation TDR program and appraisal framework providing for definitions, procedures, appraisal standards, and conservation
easement requirements providing a repealer provision. severability clause codification and providing for an effective date item E3 public hearing. >> Great. >> Good evening again. Um Craig, Southern
Planning and Zoning Division. Okay. This next text amendment uh is basically as uh Craig Coller just read to establish a conservation transfer of development right program to our already existing TDR uh section within within the zoning
code. This program uh proposes uh to incentivize permanent preservation of native and natural habitats, including mature tree canopy and ecologically significant features by allowing property owners to voluntarily transfer development rights from designated
sending sites to approved receiving sites. The text amendment proposes that property owners who permanently protect environmentally sensitive lands uh go through a grant of conservation agreement or a GOIA as the acronym would
read. And they may receive transferable uh development rights if uh provided that they they meet the conservation benefits and um that are eligible. Uh eligible sending sites are could in the
proposal be evaluated based on habitat quality, tree canopy coverage and overall conservation value. Sites demon demonstrating exceptional ecological value may qualify additionally for ecological bonuses that have also been
proposed in the text amendment. Uh these would have to be qualified uh by environmental professionalist, arborist, and ecologist. Just to give a couple brief examples of maybe some eligible sites within the city of Coral
Gables, uh could be a parcel along Old Cutler that's potentially adjacent to Mat Hammock with dense hardwood canopy coverage. um a large residential lot within Cocoa Plum or Hammock Oaks with mature oaks
and uh Gumbo Limbo covering over 40% [clears throat] of the property. Um or even canal frontage parcels um along any canal waterway with intact uh mangroves providing shoreline stabilization and
water quality benefits. So the text amendment uh proposes that uh an applicant would be required to have a minimum of two independent uniform standards of professional appraisal practice or US pap compliant
appraisals prepared by two qualified appraisers who are members of the appraisal institute. Each appraisal uh will determine the fair market value under existing zoning and land use conditions and the TDR unit value will
be calculated from comparable recent sales or transfers that have already been conducted within the city. Um, finally, the text amendment provides for review by the landscape beautifification advisory board. And finally, it would have to go in front of the city
commission uh and a recording of restrictive covenants. The grant of conservation easement uh would have to be in perpetuity to protect the conserved areas. So, this proposed framework would support environmental
stewardship while providing certainty for both property owners and the city and aligning uh with the city's comprehensive plan for sustainability, open space preservation, and natural resource protection.
So, staff uh is was directed by uh the city manager's office to to add this. I also want to add that a lot of these conservation TDRs are relatively common within Florida, especially Monroe County
down in the Keys where there's lots of wetland and mangrove areas. So, we've got quite a bit of those. So, we thought we would try to take advantage of that. So, any questions for text amendments? Staff is here >> whenever.
>> Thank you, Greg. Before we bring it to the board, any open to the public comment? No one in chamber. Jill, anybody on Zoom or phone platform? >> No. >> Thank you. Close the public comment. Open it up to the board. Felix, since you had a a question, you can start.
>> Yes. Um I I find it very difficult to wrap my head around this. And I'll tell you why. Uh when we first developed the TDRs many years ago in the city, it was specifically to save historic structures
which had a certain footprint that could be developed to a certain place. Why? Because in uh the zoning world, you have setbacks, you have maximum densities, etc. So, uh, someone that had a historic
building, if they could build, let's say, uh, 10 units or six units or x amount of square feet, then it was very easy to be able to say, well, this is this is how we're going to extrapolate, put a price on this, and then put it in
a till that it could be used later on by development. This is impossible. Thi this becomes the well that will never go dry and then that's that's the
participating then where do you dump those TDS TDRs so it's very difficult to compare the mangroves in the keys because it's used
specifically for in a very limited very very limited way. The other thing >> Yeah. Intensity versus density. >> Exactly. And it's the same thing as you know uh let's say when some of the sugar
industry gave up in the Everglades certain areas specifically to be able to clean the Everglades uh and and they were paid hardcore money for that. It wasn't that they were given sites to build highrises around Lake
Ojobi. This right now I cannot support it under any condition because there isn't an assessment of the limits of this and it will dwarf
the historic buildings that we have that are eligible today for those TDRs. I I I I believe that there's no limit, no understanding of what the ramifications were. And the other thing is that when you read it, it becomes
extremely subjective with a within a handful of people to be able to provide that. What I would hope is that there would be more restrictions in those areas which are restricted now by state well by
federal by state county laws in preserving these areas with those fully mature specimen trees the same as wetlands. Wetlands do not give TDRs to people to build more somewhere else. So
the evaluation of one thing versus the other is very difficult. Um I have a tremendous issue because right now we don't know what the ramifications are going to be of using this. I think if
you I personally believe this this item should be tabled until we see much more specificity in in what the ramifications are going to be, you know, from from this. It
sounds great. Well, we could save a tree. Well, before it used to be we could move a tree. We could do this. We could do that. But I I I think that it could be abused and and used incorrectly. Those are all my comments
>> before I open give it to Greg. Uh what is what are the implication on this uh item as far as give me your opinion. I think there it's going to be judged individually about whether that's
something that uh the city finds to be an appropriate [clears throat] uh use uh that it would qualify for [clears throat and snorts] a conservation easement. It's it's going to be evaluated. I believe it does it
provide for um uh approval Yeah. Yes. I mean, the the application would have to go in front of the landscape advisory board and the city commission. >> So, it's got to be something meaningful.
It's not just uh well, we want we we'd like a TDR for a tree. I think that it's it's >> 40% of um ascending site would have to be completely covered in a canopy
coverage and it would have to >> The reason I'm asking because are you really allowed to take down those trees? >> Well, there's a whole process for tree removal as we have now. But this is an incentive. I mean, the the whole purpose
of this is to incentivize what we do have left within the city and to give some kind of benefit to to preserve some of these areas in perpetuity. >> I think that and today I think this morning in the code enforcement there
was a case that a contractor excavated very close to the roots of the of the tree. Uh it toppled over and it was there was a fine. I saw it on on on the you know 12,500 if I remember. That's
nothing. If you don't if you don't put you know severe penalties to if you're going to take one of these mature trees then [snorts] it's meaningless. >> Mr. Chair, if I can add something the our city our our our attorney mentioned
um there are three levels. As a simple example, when you're at the county wetlands, for example, the property is still owned by the by the by the owner of the land. So, let's say part of their land is in
wetlands. The the conservation component is owned by the county. So in other words, the county owns the conservation component, but [clears throat] the land is owned
and taxed to the property owner. So let's say you own a piece of land that say 10 acres, half of it is is wetlands and the other half is not. You can build on the part that is not wetland, but you don't get TDRs for the wetland because
of the conservation area that is actually owned by the county. That's the way the law is written. In this particular case, it's so open-ended that, as you said, I remember a case many years ago where someone went into a
parcel in the North Gables and they tore down um I think it was 25 and some odd year old oaks just on a Sunday. Ended up paying like $1,000 piece.
That that is that is awful. So, we have laws and rules and we're not applying them. But now we're going to give TDRs which we have no idea how many TDRs there are out there because it's not buildings
historic buildings that you could count you could map it. It is it I I think this needs a lot more work to understand it. >> Mr. Chairman, go ahead. Go fellow. I'm in total opposition of this ordinance
for many reasons. I think the motive is good. It's benign. The intent is well, but the language is so obtuse and it's puts a strangle hole in the property owner as well. Uh, I think as far as
TDRs, TDRs are have very little value to put a TER as a bonus for somebody essentially handicapping the value of their property. That's what they'd be doing. It's really unfanal.
I don't understand why they sign this before us because this is a very convoluted ordinance and it doesn't respect owner's rights. Plus, it puts a very high economic burdens on the owners. For example, you got to have two
MAI appraisals to do the initial steps to get these TDRs, which are worthless. They don't they're not they're not worth anything in the marketplace cuz I dealt with TDRs many times. And that is about what
$910,000 each or $20,000 just to get an idea of TDRs. Then you have to have a maintenance a maintenance agreement signed and sent
and be part of the record on this property as well, which is another limiting factor to the property owner. I I just don't understand. Plus, the TDRs, if you get them, they have [clears throat] a total lifespan of two
years. you don't use them in two years, you can't even can't even get a cafe con leche with that. So, I'm telling you, I understand the concept, but this is something that I cannot support.
>> Okay. [clears throat] It's just too obtuse, too convoluted. >> Thank you, Alice. [clears throat] >> Oh, I I think is an an interesting concept and could you elaborate the steps? Let's say you get through the process and who finally approves it,
staff or the the city commission? >> So, an application would come in, it would go through our DRC process uh initially and then it would go into the beautifification. We've also got a requirement that um the green space
management division would have to take a look at it um and make a recommendation as well and then it would finally go to the city commission for a final approval >> and I guess throughout this process we determine if this is a property that everyone is really interested in conserving.
>> So we would have to go through a public hearing process >> and and that process would also evaluate whether the property is developable to start with. >> Exactly. all of the environmental and ecological assessments um just basically signifying if if the natural habitats
are immature. I mean that's >> so so to alleviate some of our our comments that we've heard here today, you know, it it wouldn't be like willy-nilly to to preserve just a a piece of property that would otherwise you couldn't develop or you could
develop. Well, this would be a voluntary component from the property owner, you know, >> and that's the thing is most and and without the NA throughout the nation, there's lots of conservation uh transfer of development rights, agricultural, uh
ecological, like I said, down in the Keys. They have different ways of how they do it. This is the way that we're proposing currently. Um but we do feel like it would be a healthy addition to our current transfer of development rights which predominantly is right now
just within the historical component where um the historical division they take his historic preservation they look at that through their board uh and then there's also an open space component and now we would be proposing to add a
conservation component as well. Could you try to address some of the concerns that the board members raised as to why this is beneficial? >> Um, I think maybe um from what is being so how we currently calculate or how
we're proposing to calculate from what I understand is maybe probably the biggest concern. Is that accurate? >> I I would I would say so. There's there's no [clears throat and cough] there's no assessment of the amount of area or the conversion. And and
remember, you're converting acorage to square footage of buildings. It's it's it's like apples and oranges. >> So, the number of TDRs would equal the fair the average fair market value
divided by the TDR unit value. Now, we do currently have a TDR list that we've utilized in the past and we could reference that as a reference point, but >> but Greg to his point and and how do you let's say that you have a
property in Snapper Creek and the property or it's a 2 acre one acre of that property has beautiful mature oak trees, uh, gumbo limbos, whatever. How do I put a value? Because TDRs, I disagree with my colleagues, TDRs are
very valuable, you know, because TDRs are, you know, whether it's density or F are very valuable in the city of Corables. >> How do I equate 10 trees to a value of a TDR? >> Well, it's going to be more than that. It's it's going to basically look at
that square footage component and give a fair market valuation. And you're right, other places do it in different manners. they look at a portion of the intensity or the uh you know square footage of that property and they'll give a fraction and then they'll they'll only
allow a certain floor area ratio to be transferred. This particular one which has gone through different reiterations throughout you know the review process and the composition process that's what um we've gotten to is the fair market
average. But haven't we done this already with parks? >> Mhm. >> Uh so we evaluate, you know, somebody wants to >> donate a park to the city, there's a valuation on the amount of the park area
to be done. >> Yeah. >> And you calculate what the value of the property is and then you convert the value to what the TDR is. I presume in this case, I'm going to make sure I understand this, right? because math was reason I'm a lawyer not a doctor is
because math wasn't my strong suit. But anyway, >> I could read the code says >> I could read what the code says if you like about >> I mean there's a valuation on the on the property that's to be preserved [snorts] and there's an easement where
essentially that area is not going to be touched and it's recorded. >> Correct. >> Correct. And so there's a valuation for for what that's worth >> and that's going to be calculated.
>> So for um the open space portion that we currently have in the code, this is how it reads. Just hopefully for clarity a little bit. Um TDRs eligible to be transferred from the property shall be calculated as follows. the difference
between the existing gross floor area on the property and the maximum floor area permitted on the subject property by the applicable zoning district requirements including any available development bonuses. That's exactly what I said. In other
words, it's restricted by the restrictions of the zoning that exists there. So if you apply this this way, just imagine you're applying it to rightaways, public rightaways, because we have a series of oaks and and maybe
that particular street was never dedicated. Now they can ask for a TDR based on it was never buildable to begin with. I I I think maybe I'm completely out of step with this because
we are comparing buildable area that could have been maximized where historic buildings that have a certain value are. The buildings that were not historic could be torn down and
new development be built there. But the reason the TDR was incorporated was to be able to save that. The difference today is that many of those areas that you you gave as examples down on Old Cutler, for example, are in these
extraordinarily large setbacks which could have never been built on. But now you're going to give those homeowners development rights when those trees and natural resources are protected by city ordinance which sometimes when people
violate them they are not held accountable uh in in in the right way. I just want to clarify it wouldn't be for that particular property that would be having the conservation easement uh permanently attached to it. it would have to be
transferred to a different property. So that's that's the thing. You couldn't add any additional if you put >> No. Yeah. >> Yeah. I understand that that's going to be sold. It's going to be put somewhere and then you're going to have a receiving area somewhere else. >> Correct.
>> There there was a reason that the TDRs were done for historic buildings within a certain area of Yeah. which started in the CBD area. >> Right. >> There was a reason for that because of the higher density, etc. In other words, it could blend in better. Now, you're
not going to have enough receiving rights because it is a bottomless bottomless type of amount of land area. When you look at
our city's uh interpretation of recreation area, one of the things that they count in there for recreation are large areas that really are not accessible to the public. They're not developed and they're in the in the
south part of the gables. What I'm saying is that trying to save these trees, you you don't allow people to simply cut them down. Uh I I just don't understand the complexity of doing this and and there's
no hard fact of the amount that can be saved because there's no assessment and then there's no transfer area specifically designated for this type of project. >> Well, the assessment is part of the requirement process that would be a part of >> I'm talking about the city's ass.
>> You mean for the city as a whole? >> Correct. How much hardwood hammock do we currently have within the city? That >> right? Is that the if you were taking a golf course, right? It's 160 acres. You could do the the math really quickly, >> right? But that golf course was
designated for recreation. It doesn't have any TDRs there. >> Even though you have these massive trees that are beautiful on the golf course, it's not there. There's no there's no combination of this. the the park
example that our city attorney came up with is normally in an urban area where that park area that's being donated >> has a value. >> I'm sorry. >> Has a value. >> Has a value. Why? Because you know someone's going to go in there, buy it,
>> and and and it's x amount of millions of dollars and then you could take that and put the units here or there and and and use your imagination. Well, I mean that that's what staff is trying to say is that this [clears throat] conservation area does have value and you know preserving it.
>> Let's continue and we'll uh Alex >> I don't have any questions. I just have a few comments uh or I guess a statement. I I happen to disagree with certain colleagues of mine. I think it's to to Alex Bravo's point. I think it's volunteer on the homeowner's part. I think it is very specific and quite
frankly I I happen to agree with the the ordinance. So on my end I'm I'm in favor of it. So, Nester, >> I I echo what Alex said. I think we we're just getting into the weeds a little bit about this. I I I the way I'm
I read the language, it has to deal with specific um ecological parcels. Um so, I think it's it's a little bit different from historic homes or or rights of ways that have um canopy. I think I think you
have to qualify. There's a qualifying uh uh criteria. So, I think it's a little bit more specific than than just that. Um, I think the language is pretty clear. Um, and and uh, you know, I I think we do have guard rails for for
eliminating uh, green space whether the the the teeth or the uh the remedies or the or the punishment or whatever you want to call it for eliminating that green spaceilly willy should be a little bit uh, tougher. I I think I agree with
you there, but I I I don't think that this has to do with the the language in the ordinance right now. And if you want to add a comment, I think that would actually be pretty pretty productive um as far as the the u enforcement of of
the removal of any of these protected trees by by the city. But yeah, I I I agree. I think I think the language is spot on. >> Mr. Chairman, >> can I get me a second? Let me get in and I'll come back to you. Yes sir. Ignati go ahead. >> Who are the approved recipients to the
TDRs? >> So that's the thing right now it could it would have to be determined upon that application process if it would be an eligible receiver site. Yeah. >> So okay,
>> are we talking about a specific partial of partials right now? Because it's not identified in this is not identified. >> No, we're not. I mean the the idea is to create this conservation. >> I understand from the comments of Mr. Menendez that it does address certain
partials. Can you identify what those partials are? >> I'm I'm unfamiliar with those. My comments were more to the the the the language here I and what I read it it speaks to certain ecological that would qualify that has a certain amount of
canopy or native of uh native uh foliage or or or or trees or I and please corre correct me if I'm wrong. I think you have to >> mature habitats. >> Mature habitats like you have to qualifyer >> certain criteria that you have to
qualify. It's not just I have three nice oaks on my 5 acre property, therefore I qualify for this specific TDR. Maybe you qualify for another one similar to what Felix was talking about about the historic homes. Maybe if that qualifies
for that TDR under a separate ordinance. But I think as far as what I'm reading, this is pretty specific to certain ecological habitats and it's to promote the preservation of these certain ecological habitats. At least that's what I that's what I
>> with a minimum of 40%. >> I don't know. Not on the circumstances. >> Give me an example. >> No, no. I'm saying >> be a case by case, >> right? It's a case by case if if you >> That's why there's it's an application process and there's >> and and TDRs aren't available for historic homes. It's commercial properties.
>> They I don't know. I was just talking to what you were saying about the historic. >> It's historic. It's historic buildings, right? That that >> buildings. Okay. Sorry. Thanks for for clarifying, Mr. Chair. >> Historic buildings. >> Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And with the um understanding of my
colleagues, I've heard everything you had to say. I did study this thoroughly and um I'm I'm going to make a suggestion for consideration suggest for consideration that this item probably requires some
edits that are on the constructive and possible >> before you do before you go let me finish because I haven't given my opinion yet >> and I understand if you're going to make a motion or a recommendation I will bring it back to you. >> I am I am leading that way. If you will uh do that then you want you want to say something make a motion before I make my
statement. >> Yes sir. >> I [clears throat] and then I'm going hold you back to I finish then then you can then I'll bring it back so you can make a a comment. >> You have the worst. >> Thank you. Look in principle I like this. >> I [snorts and clears throat] I am a bit concerned
how we do the process. My biggest concern is that we give after all the evaluation everything is done and go through the city go through the different boards and everybody says yes we give TDRs.
How are we to assure ourselves that later on those conservation areas are maintained and not taken down and all because who is going to enforce those [snorts] areas
>> the GOIA the grant of conservation easement. So it they would have to be dedicated in perpetuity recorded with Miami Dade County uh you know recorded here with the city clerk's office. So >> I mean they're supposed to be within
perpetuity for the for all time. >> Okay. >> So that's that's the intent >> that that those are I mean I think we do need a little bit more clarification. I think I agree with some of the comments because I don't feel like I have enough information.
>> Okay. and and perhaps we need to to bring it back >> direct staff and we will it sounds like the calculation component is definitely one of the items >> and and the cons the concern some of the areas that you mentioned you know down on old Cutler those are residential areas >> single families >> I'm sorry
>> they're single families right >> and they're single family so they they they they don't even qualify for TDRs which is one of the points that's the point >> and remember you know >> first rule of physics Newton's first law is physics for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. So when you
take those units, where are you going to put them? We don't even know where the recipient area is. Is there enough space? Are we going to put them somewhere else? I don't know. They don't know. >> So clarification in uh receiving site and ascending site, is that one of the items that we
>> That's one of the items. The other thing is that if some of the areas that you're looking at are as single family residential, I I don't I think you're opening a Pandora's box that you will not be able to close. Okay?
[clears throat] Because in the single family residential areas, some of these areas, for example, some of the beautiful areas that we have in the southern part of the Gables, you have these beautiful homes overlooking the bay and between and they're still part of their property. They have maybe 30,
40, 50 ft of mangroves the entire width of their property and their neighbors and they cannot cut them down, but they must maintain and trim them. There's no covenant on the property normally, but
they have to pay a tremendous amount of, you know, to people that are qualified only to do work within those mangrove areas and they must be supervised by uh Durham. [clears throat] So that's without having any of those. >> Those probably would not qualify then if you >> No, I understand. But what I what I'm
saying is that the way it's open-ended in the single family areas, that's point number two, they they should not be included in there. Uh so and I think that a preliminary uh assessment
of these areas and the conversion the formula the the the the mathematical formula should be shown to be able to understand what is the volume and then where do we put it in the transfer area. It it would be because the only thing
you're going to do is devalue the value of the the TDRs that you have already in your pool of TDRs that the city has from historic buildings. So, you will dilute this. It's almost like a a Bitcoin conversation. >> All right. Thank you, Felix Gonzalo.
Before we close. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I'm open to a deferment of this item which I will support in case of further edits and clarifications because as it
stands now with this language I am in total opposition of this because it's too confusing. It puts a great deal of hardship on the property owner as it as it reads. So, I would like to make a
motion to defer this to fine-tune the language to do some further edits. If you will allow me to do that motion, I will make that motion. >> Like to second that. >> Okay. But if we do that, we have a motion. I second. We have to be clear, give the staff specific
instruction of what to do so when they bring it back, we could look at it in a more positive manner. >> Mr. Chairman, what what I would suggest instead of listing them here now is for staff to simply look at the recording of
this of this uh conversation that we've had. All of us have had our our comments, you know, and and this would give the ability of, you know, staff staff is smart. They [clears throat] can they can go in there and and see what the concerns are and how to address them.
>> We we've had several uh reiterations of this. Probably initially was quite a bit longer, quite a bit more detailed. Um but most of the transfer of development section of our code is relatively simple. Um and this was going to and it
still is the most complex currently within the code but from what I'm understanding uh from what the board is sending and receiving site clarity is one of them exemption of single family >> calculation >> right >> uh
>> I I think his comment go through the >> you know the records and then you could come back with it so we don't I'm sure you could see many more >> so we don't miss anything where can I ask the just department. Where is this item? This item has not been heard by
the city commit. >> Th this item um >> this hasn't gone to first reading yet, has it? >> It has actually gone to city commission uh previously by the director. Um let me see here real quick. It it did
go uh last month, October 14th. Um I think primarily as a as a discussion item discussion item but yeah the the ordinance was discussed. Yeah. >> When when can you bring this back to us? [snorts] >> We uh
>> next next meeting. You could >> we Yeah. Next next scheduled meeting. >> So [snorts] we have a motion and a second to defer the item and we're going to bring it back next scheduled meeting. >> When is that? I When is that next schedule meeting? Do we know the date
and time? >> That's what I'm reading here. >> I don't know if we're readvertising, but if we announce the date and time now, >> you don't have to readvertise, but it may be maybe the department readvertises. Anyway, >> Mr. Chairman, it's they have a heavy, in
my opinion, they have a heavy lift in figuring this out. I I would I would let them come back to us when they're ready. >> I just want to clarify something. So, this is one property. So, a property owner that has an acre can't convey half their property to the city to convey for
TDRs. They would have a non-conforming property. That's not an option. You can't have your sideyard be conveyed and get TDRs. >> So, this doesn't apply to single family. >> No. No. Right. But >> could it be zoned single family? There can't be a house on the property and you can convey your backyard to the property
to to the city for for conservation TDRs. That's not what's being proposed today. pro today is a property that's zoned single family. If you were to figure out how much square footage you could develop with the land and try and sell TDRs that way, you couldn't get anywhere. The property would be worth
too much. You can't sell TDRs. No one would buy it. It wouldn't be worth the worth the money. It wouldn't be worth the process. What's proposed to you today is to see the value of that land divide it by the going rate of TDRs and convey the land to the city to be
preserved to be conserved for for conservation purposes and that would be the value that the homeowner would have had is how much TDRs they have on the property. >> So I ask a question cuz I'm confused now. >> That's really confusing. >> This is a this is going to be a
conservation easement. Uh-huh. >> The easement is going to be in favor of the city for pres preservation. It's not actually uh you're not actually conveying the property. It's are you or are you >> convage
in the code says that it's being conveyed to the city just like an open space parks is being conveyed to the city with easement on it. >> That's that's another that's going to create a mess. >> That's it's going to be a mess. How how you gonna on a on a twoacre site re repl
>> Yeah. Exactly. That will require to if I'mma convey to the city, we're going to have to replant because then I'm going lose control of my property that area. >> Exactly. >> And and that's why I gave the example of the wetland. If you own those 10 acres
and those back five are wetland, you still own them. You're responsible. But the conservation area is owned [clears throat] by the county. So that would not be an application that would come before us to do that. It's not an option you have. You have part of your properties in the wetlands and that's what you own. >> But but Jennifer,
>> there's a block somewhere that's zone single family. There's no development on there. It's thick with trees. You could take advantage of this and convey to the city through this conservation tdrs. >> And the city's going to take ownership of that conservation area.
>> Yes. So you're going to replot your property to dedicate that portion? >> No, we're not reply anything. You are giving your property to the city in exchange for TV. >> How do I define the boundaries? >> The entire property. You're talking about the entire property. >> No. >> Yeah. It's a vacant lot. It's full of
trees. It it has ecological value to it that you are going to exchange those T with TDRs for the city. >> If if you if you're referring to a vacant lot, it's a it could be a different story. But if you have a large parcel, large property and half of your property is [snorts]
conservation area, how do I >> then you can't take advantage of this this ordinance? >> So that doesn't apply to you. >> Right. >> Right. >> So just so I understand this, somebody can't convey
their backyard. >> Correct. >> Because their backyard may be what they need in order to satisfy the zone. zoning. So if it's a it's a 1 acre zoning and you you were to say half an acre, you wouldn't comply with the zoning. This is really for vacant. These
are for vacant lots. >> It's not for >> not single family. >> Well, but it could be a single family lot that becomes, you know, a a a vacant lot. I don't know where you're going to find it, but let's say in case you do find it, you have a vacant lot that you're going to convey to the city and
it becomes no different than a park, >> right? But in this instance, since it's probably single family, >> so you want to put a value to that property. And that value, let's say Snapper Creek, for example, and the property could be worth $2 million. So they're going to get that value in
return through TDRs >> that they were to sell the TDR to receiving sites. >> I mean, that's a very narrow number of parcels that are still vacant. And we're not we're And so your concern about diluting this is not an issue because
there only going to be a few sites that are going to even qualify for this. >> But I I would like to see that assessment from staff. Hey, it's only >> how many vacant parcels can they can they really assess how many vacant parcels might qualify for >> to promise someone's property because
this gets vacant that it would qualify for this robust conservation land. >> You know what I mean? doesn't mean that it's going to have a habitat on it. >> It's very narrow. >> That would be very difficult to assess
because you don't you don't know what the what's on the property. >> Yeah. I mean, the truth of the matter, you're right, this is very very limited amount of property that will qualify for this. >> So, the question, >> so do we know? We have no idea. We can
even I I I don't know how could staff even bring back an assessment because what they going to go use Google Earth to a satellite image to determine >> look look the one thing that like one property that I would think that would qualify would be like something like for
Phillies farm that has already been developed that was pretty at the end of at the corner of uh old Cutler and 57th I don't know if it's in the city of Coral Gables but that was like a five or six acre parcel that had >> it's in the city of Gable.
>> That is right. So, I think that that parcel had a lot of natural habitat. It was used as a farm before. I think we're talking about something pretty specific like like that, right? Or I know that there's uh Robert keeps bringing up
Snapper Creek, which there is like a big I think like a three or four acre parcel on the lake right now, which I don't know could or could not qualify. I guess it would have to qualify >> through the through the process. Somebody would have to go there and and
assess and say, "Yes, you qualify for the ecological uh uh uh exemption or bonus for the TDR." So, I think it's it's a pretty but the way I understood it, it's not like if I own five acres, I could knock down five houses and then all of a sudden I'm going to qualify for
this. >> In a case like you say, that three acre sidings. Yeah. I'm willing to I'm in favor of giving TDR so we could preserve Right. That's I think this is the whole point of this >> ordinance. Yeah. So there's no assessment of the properties and there's
no assessment of the receiving area. >> The receiving sites as you know are our CBD our north ponds area. Sorry, North Pon's mixeduse district along North Pon Leon um and the design innovation districts. Those are >> in place the the receiving sites are
very limited areas not anywhere in the city. Well, I I just can't vote on the way this is presented. >> And there's no exp I'm sorry. Go ahead. Okay. There's no uh expansion of the receiving sites or is the receiving sites to be determined
>> with this ordinance? >> With this ordinance? >> So, it specifies that um somewhere in there I think towards the end towards state commission that um the receiving areas are the same. The commission does have the authority to expand to to a
different receiving area if it's zoned mixed use. >> Mr. Chairman, >> we have a we have a motion and a second. I have to take the the role on that. I I feel a lot better now that it was a little clarification. >> Mr. Chairman, with the motion, the second when we defer it when they're
ready and prepared, not necessarily at the next meeting because they may not have the proper time to do an evaluation. I don't want to put them on a time clock because I could be pressure them uh too much. So >> yeah, but I by the same token I want to staff when I staff when you're going to
be ready because I don't want to prolong this for another three four months. >> Exactly. Whatever whatever it takes to do it. >> If you're ready next month, we would schedule it for next month. If you need additional time, >> so what assessment are you looking for? >> I I I honestly after the clarification, I don't think I need much more. Yeah.
>> Um and and I think at the beginning of the presentation of the item, you mentioned that this mimics the process that was already in place and that's why the restriction of the recipient and the CBD. >> We have a motion and a second. Let's take the vote on >> motion was to defer. >> To defer to defer
>> sir Mendez. >> No. >> Alexardo. >> Yes. >> Gonzalo Anabria. >> Yes. >> Ignasio Alvarez. >> Yes. >> Alice Bravo. No. >> Alex Bucello.
>> No. >> Robert Behar. >> No. Okay. So, that motion failed. Do we have a motion, a different motion? >> I'm going to move to approve uh city's recommendation. >> I'll second. >> Any any conditions? Any or not condition, any
suggestions to that? >> I think it's as I stated, I think it's very narrowly dated. >> I will make my comments on this motion. >> We have a motion, a second. >> Yeah. Let's take the Let's take a vote on this. >> Well, I'd like to >> But before that, I'd like to make a comment as well. >> Go ahead. I'm gonna let you make a
comment. >> I think this ordinance is confusing. It's actually a hardship on the property owners. It doesn't solve anything really. And there's no value to TDRs that can be
assessed monetarily. I don't understand what is a rush involving this unless there's something else that I don't know about. And if there's something else that I don't know about, I don't understand why it's not hasn't been identified at this time in this public hearing. So, if
there's something else that we don't know about, we find out later that there is, I'll be in um greatly disappointed that we went forward with this without total clarification what this is all about. So, my vote is absolutely no.
>> Okay. when it comes to it. Why? I just clarification. Why you say this is going to put a hardship on properties? This is voluntarily. If you don't want to, nobody's is telling you that you got to do that, you know. So you if you want to do this, you're putting your
self-imposed hardship. The city's not mandated that your property has to do this. So there's no hardship on behalf of the city, Gonzalo. >> I mean, that's my opinion. Unless Unless legally you you know city attorney you
tell me that the city is is is imposing hardship on property. This is you have the the choice to do this. I wish yes do I wish I had a little bit more identifi but I can tell staff to identify sites that from where
>> and and if I can clarify if someone pursues this it's because they're willing to give their property to the city >> and cash out their development rights and sell them to someone else. So it it might help someone >> that and and they're doing this
voluntarily rather than developing what they're allowed to develop on the property. This is >> correct. >> And I will I will say something on the item. >> It does indicate in the beginning the purpose of this under the underline is
uh actually the uh transfer of the property to the city. So that is the listed as a purpose. So >> it says native and natural habitats on land conveyed to the city to incentivize
the permanent preservation of native habitat, mature tree canopy, and natural ecosystems with the city. And it and it's also pretty narrow in that it's got to be something more than just a minor thing, right?
>> So Mr. Chairman, does u do any of the board members here know how many TDRs the city have in their bucket of TDRs for development for developers buying? >> Do we have the staff know? >> Do we have staff? Jennifer, do we have
an idea how much how many TDRs the city has available >> and the and the city's TDRs? >> TDRs in the city. >> Actually, it could be more than the city. It's the city and other people that have DDRs. How many TDRs are available now? But but you don't know because some property historic property
may not have applied for the TD transfer TDRs. >> Correct. But they right now they have a well of TDRs. >> How many >> that's sold in the private sector. So we don't have a a list of >> those city owned properties.
>> Do you have any idea how many PDRs are based on city owned property? Because you cannot go into the private property. That's that's not realistic to to have that information. >> Properties that are owned by the city. Do you know if there's any TVRs that are
available? >> I know there are few. I think we did sell some on public um you know public hearing um to the Gina property. >> Are we talking 10, 100, a thousand? Do we know how many TDRs are available? >> Well, it's more than 100. Yes.
>> So, is the city running out of TDR? >> Huh? >> 500,000. just the push for this because the city's running on the TDRs. They need to a little you know >> No, who knows? >> I would think it would it's more on the we're trying to preserve I what I understood I think we're trying to preserve green space.
>> Well, I mean if you if you run out of if you run out of historic buildings where TVRs are available to preserve them then the TDRs die out. >> Let me ask you a question. your opinion. Let's use the example that that Neestor
brought out that that property in Snapper Creek which is a large property. I don't know how big it is. >> I think it's like four four acres. >> Okay. If that property which is a by the lake beautiful piece of property >> that property owner says you know what I want to preserve and and and and and
do it I going to transfer to the city and return I get the value of the TDR. You don't think that would be a benefit to the city? >> Well, the the question is it's it's I
think it's a little more complex. I understand what you're saying and I appreciate what you're saying. But what I'm saying is that the second component, the second shoe to drop is where
is the receiving site and what is the equivalent of the impact of that particular parcel? Is it 10 TDRs? Is it a million TDRs? I don't know. The way
that it's written right now, there's not enough information to vote on this information on this, >> but it's based on assessment by two appraisers. >> If I may, I believe staff said that it would go to the >> receiving areas stay the same. You can still not receive more than 25% of your
allowed floor area. So, it's still a very limiting amount of square footage to receiving building, the CBD, the North Pond um mixeduse district as well as the receiving area. Perfect. So now we've got a million TDRs through that
parcel, another parcel, whatever. What's that going to look like on punts? >> Well, >> you're allowed to do it today. You You're not You're not taking that away. Today I'm allowed on those property on those zone areas. I'm allowed to
transfer TDRs to those receiving sites. It's not going to change it. >> That's correct. So what I'm saying is that the amount of TDRs that are out there now, which has not preserved anything except now we're preserving trees or a view or whatever. I get that.
But that area there that you that you described perfectly is in a single family residential area. Correct. Which is not available. Even if it was buildable land, it would not be available for TDRs today.
Again, it goes back to the fact that we are we are combining we're taking something and then we're combining it into buildable TDRs on top of everything >> based on the value of the property. >> That's correct.
>> Now in those property I could in a 4acre site and I don't know if that property was zone single one acre states or whatever. Let's say I could do four houses and as an architect, you know, you could design a house around the trees and make that work and and and
yeah, you could go some mitigation and you could take some trees down and you could develop four houses just as a as an example. I think that the difference here is that that property will stay as a as a
conservation as a park for lack of a better word and I'm going transfer that value to the CBD district so they could acquire TDRs and do something in area CBD North Pond and all which are only limited to 25% of that development
right. I I I don't So >> and and and one clarification, a property owner that goes through this process will then receive these TDRs and they have two years to find someone to buy them from them. >> I thought we had taken out the expression. >> Yeah, that's not in the code.
>> Okay. I thought you had mentioned two years. >> So we can't >> Somebody mentioned two years and I was a little has a lifespan of two years. If they're not used in two years, it becomes >> void. This right here >> and you mentioned that earlier. So could you clarify that? >> Yeah, that
>> the property owner that >> is that under historic preservation section of the code or where >> you're writing right here that it has [clears throat] a lifetime of 2 years. >> Here it is. >> Yeah. >> On section 14-204-9 expiration of approvals
>> on the first paragraph only has 2 years of a lifespan. >> Section 14-204. >> Yes, sir. >> What can you repeat that? Okay, that's existing language. That's not new language.
>> There's existing language about TDRs >> only lasting two years. >> That's right. >> That's not new language unless >> I don't know what's >> it's not under >> what section again? I'm sorry. >> It's 14-204.9.
It's on page five. Five of the >> page five. >> It says that the receiver site has two years to use the TDRs. >> So, I need to check that cuz I thought in the last 3 years or so, we had stricken through that. But I will check
and make sure that's accurate. >> But but still that two-year restriction, if it's still in the code, that applies to the receiving property. So whoever buys the TDRs, >> right, >> to the sending property, >> right? So >> you got two years to be able to sell it.
Otherwise, it becomes >> void. >> I think the the sending and the receiving become void. But I'm going to double check and make sure that's still in the code today. >> Well, see, I vaguely remember Gus presenting the commission. >> Existing language. That's not that. >> No, but sometimes our code is not always updated.
>> No, no, no. I'm saying Yeah. Yeah. But this is existing language, so we're not changing anything. Yeah, >> basically that's something on the [clears throat] the entity buying the TDRs. They have a certain amount of time to use it. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, let the buyer beware in a
second. >> Okay. All right. So, we have a motion and a second. >> Jill, can you please call the role? >> Sure. >> Mr. Mendez, >> yes. >> Felix Partardo, >> no. >> Gonzalo Sanrio?
>> Absolutely not. Ignasio Alvarez. >> No. >> Alicia Bravo. Alice Bravo, I'm sorry. >> Yes. >> Alex, >> yes. >> Robert Behar. >> Yes. [snorts]
Item E4. >> What was the vote for that item? >> 43. >> 43. Right. Item E4, an ordinance of the sorry. Item E4, an ordinance of the city commission providing for a text [clears throat] amendment to the city of
Carl Gable's official zoning code by amending article 7 sustainability and resilience standards section 7-102 green building requirements to provide national green building standards NGBS
requirements to provide I'm sorry NGBS silver certification as an acceptable option for compliance providing for repeal provision serability clause codification providing for an effective date item E4 public
hearing. Okay, this next text amendment is relatively simple. Um, as just read, it's uh section 7-102 green building requirements within article 7. Uh the
proposed text amendment adds the national green building standards, the NGBS silver certification with energy star certification as an additional compliance option. Um as that section uh
7-102A basically reads right now, it's green building requirements. The following new construction is required within 24 months after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or completion, whichever is less, to achieve no less
than leadership and energy and environmental design silver certification under the latest applicable version of the LEED uh green building rating system of the US green building council. Bless you. uh silver
certification by the green or the Florida green building coalition and this is where we're adding the national green building standards silver certification with energy star certification. So um if you look underneath that you'll
see what we currently have in the code about buildings over uh 20,000 square feet and so on. But all we're doing is we're just simply adding this additional standard into our green building requirements. Just giving another option.
>> I I'm and I'm also defer to Felix as an architect that we'll deal with this on a daily basis. I just want to make sure that you make provision that any qualified entity authority you know in addition
because you do have you have lead you have political council you have every multiple >> correct >> you know that they all will qualify >> right >> 100%. >> And and the other thing is I think that the city should lead by example they
made an exemption for themselves. I think that's wrong. They should lead by example. >> You want it from the developer? We're going to do it first. >> Yeah. >> Before we go into a public comments, any Nobody on on
>> No. >> Okay. Close the public comment. Um board discussion. Felix, you want to continue it? >> Any other comment? Felix, >> I'd like to make the >> Well, let me let me finish. >> Yes. So the whole point is that um lead
being the for forerunner is not the only uh game in town. Correct. Okay. In the state of Florida. And the second thing is that although the city doesn't have presently a lot of buildings that are 20,000
square ft or more, they may be having that soon. and leading by example I think is really what we should do. So I would in any motion I I support this but I would like to have both of those
things in there. Exactly what Robert had said and and also about the city not exempting themselves because I I don't think that's a good look. Okay. Agree. >> Mr. chairman.
>> Let me let me come around please. Master, >> I agree. >> I agree. >> Alice Gonzalo. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On um on the staff report
on section 7-102, page two. Item one, all buildings over 20,000 square feet not owned by the city of Coral Gables.
>> Yeah. >> I just want some clarification, Mr. Chairman, if this is now a compulsory requirement or not. >> This is what's currently existing in the code. >> Can you say that again? >> Yeah, that's already what's existing within the code. So, you're saying that
any building within 20,000 square ft has to abide by this uh >> go through these green building requirements. Correct. >> It would have to be compulsory. >> The the only thing that's being compulsory is the underlying portion. Yeah, that's correct.
>> So, you're saying it's compulsory is not optional by the building owner >> that building project. Correct. >> I mean, it's Yes. to be considered. Yes. Everybody has >> All right. I I'm I'm also good. I just
like I said it before make sure we add as many as we can because lead is not the only game in town and we have Florida and Council have everybody else. I'm in favor of this. With that said, I'm going close the board comments. Do
we have a motion? And I'd like to move u the staff recommendation with the uh two specific discussed items. Worded anywhere you want, but uh it has to do
we're opening it up to the uh accredited uh conservation uh certifications that exist in the state of Florida. >> I don't certification, not conservation. No certification. maybe came out the wrong way. >> Okay. >> Uh and then and then the second thing is
that the uh that the city on city owned property that uh those those parcels will also uh will not be exempt. >> Okay. Well, let's back up for a little bit. >> Okay. That's beyond this title.
We're not dealing with the the title doesn't address um city-owned property. If we want to have a comment that the city should follow this >> I are you saying it's currently I don't
know what the current status of the city is there >> Craig in section 7102 where where the the >> the the green building requirements number one all buildings over 20,000 square feet not owned by the city of Coral Gable so if a comment or whatever
just to eliminate the the language So from not to Gables, >> you guys take a look at uh number two, the city of Coral Gable's buildings and buildings constructed on city of Coral Gable's property. Um this requirement may be waved by the city manager, city
manager's designate. If it can be demonstrated that compliance with this requirement would create an unreasonable burden on the construction project, that would be inconsistent with furtherance of the economic development goals of the city. So I don't have a problem if the
title said removal of waiver of city's authority to wave this right. >> But the way the ordinance reads right now it's a very technical change. >> Right. So I if you want to have as a
comment to this item >> that that you believe that the city should not have the ability to wave it and that they should be required to meet it then that can be a comment to your approval >> from the development side. I if I have to do it I think the city has to do it.
I agree to and I think that's what Felix was saying that it not not to change language but as a comment >> to >> keep in mind Craig keep in mind that for example uh the city owns uh the Builtmore hotel and let's say it's got
more than 20,000 ft but it's an existing facility they build a new facility that's 20,000 square ft or more they should have to comply. I'm I'm not arguing with that this is a good idea or
not. This is a pure title issue. The title to this item is related to um is just related to adding this green builds standards in section 7-02.
Now you're having a substantive change where you want to take away the city's authority which which the city has a right to do and and the board could certainly recommend it but that would that's beyond what's before the board.
>> So all I'm saying is just make it a comment. I I I understand what you're saying but any condition I mean you're the lawyer not me. any condition that you put on there at the end of the day it is a recommendation >> to the to the recommendation.
>> I'm saying it's it's a recommendation but it's it it can't be uh it can't be included in this item the way it's drafted. Now they can redo it and change the title and say and you can make a recommendation that
this should be expanded to um >> to prevent the city from waving that right. >> Bill, can you make a strong recommendation >> to to f comment to follow this to go with this? Since we cannot alter this,
>> we want to make sure that you make a re your your motion to include a recommen, you know, I'm not going to debate. I I I just wanted to make sure that I understand that because the title says >> standards. [clears throat] It doesn't say just subst sustainability and
resilience. >> No, it says to provide >> national green bed standards. Okay. If it's said to provide these standards and to remove the waiver, okay, >> of the city. Now, if the if the uh city
wants to expand the title and go forward with it, >> Mr. can be done. >> So, I'm suggesting to you that should be your recommendation. That would have to be advertised with that day >> any new project you and I know any new project complies
>> you know >> with basic you know certification >> but it's and you and I know that also you know it it uh when you have that certification that that that means a lot to people because you're the leader
>> Miami Beach does it everybody else does it we should do it too >> and I'm not arguing the merits >> 100%. So you made a motion. >> Make a motion with the first >> I'll second it. >> Yeah. >> You made a motion. >> Yes, sir. >> Do you want to add the language to >> the the the language is that that
>> that the commission should [clears throat] >> mandate that city properties also follow >> to expand this item to mandate the city has to uh meet these requirements. >> Lead by example. No pun intended. >> Right. All right. So we have a motion
and a second. Jill >> Felix Partardo. >> Yes. >> Gonzalo Sanavria. >> No. >> Ignasio Alvarez. >> Yes. >> Alice Bravo. >> Yes. >> Alex Bello.
>> Yes. >> Nester Mendez. >> Yes. >> Robert Behar. >> Yes. Last item. E5. >> E5. An ordinance of the city commission providing for text amendments to the
city of Carl Gable's official zoning code by amending section 3-200 principal uses amending section 3-201 group homes assisted living facilities and child care facilities to clarify statutory capacity and licensing
requirements adding section 3-202 certified recovery residences to establish procedures for reviewing Approval consistent [clears throat] with state and federal law amending article 16 definitions to add definition for
adult daycare center certified recovery residence [cough] dwelling unit and group residential home providing for repealer provision serability clause codification providing for an effective date item E5
public hearing. All right. Good evening again, vice chair, planning board, members. At our our last proposed text amendment for the night, as Mr. Coller just read, this proposed ordinance establishes a regulatory framework for
certified recovery residences, uh, which is currently, uh, this would be in full alignment with section 397.487 487 of the Florida state statutes which was just amended this year uh in chapter
2025- uh 182 the fair h housing amendment act uh which was originally enacted in 1988. Um, so this legislation is a requirement by the state that by January 1st of
2026, all municipalities adopt procedures for review and approval of certified recovery residences, including processes for reasonable accommodations and provisions for revocation if
necessary. So to briefly kind of give everybody a little bit of information and definition of what a certified recovery residence is, as it is currently defined under Florida State [clears throat] Statute 39 or 397.487,
a dwelling unit or structure that provides a family-like living environment for persons recovering from substance use disorders. These residences emphasize peer support and shared accountability to [snorts] maintain sobriety and do not provide and
do not provide on-site medical treatment, detoxification, or clinical counseling. Homes with six or fewer residents, excluding on-site staff, are treated as single family uses. Larger
homes with seven to 14 residents [clears throat] must comply with all state licensing, spacing, and sighting requirements with reasonable accommodations available through a clear, timely review process. Approvals may be revoked if certification is lost
and conditions are violated or the residence ceases operation for more than 180 days consecutive days with notice and opportunity for curing the situation. So, the proposed ordinance
also updates uh local our our city of Coral Gable's definitions of uh group residential home, dwelling unit, and adult daycare center to ensure consistency with current state laws. So when drafting these provisions, uh,
the planning and zoning staff reviewed best practices from multiple other jurisdictions within the state of Florida that are currently going through the exact same process. Uh, the town of Orchid, um, here in Miami Dade County, uh, the town of Cutler Bay, Simino
County, they have already gone through this approval process. And, um, quite honestly, the framework uh, was looked at at all of these. This chapter 20 uh 2022-108 is more or less um [clears throat] gives
all of these requirements that is required by the state. Um some mi municipalities or counties they've just basically cut and paste um the Senate bill and they've just went ahead and they've just added it into their code.
um we've tried to make it as uh simplified as possible and just make sure that we just follow the basic framework. So if you have any questions, >> is this something that the state is mandating or >> Yes. Yeah. for all counties and
municipalities. Yes. >> So this is very similar to to when the state mandated that all ALF had to provide generators as a backup generators. I don't know about that. But um it's >> a law that became that we have to follow
this. >> This is a this is state mandated. Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. All right. >> It's a state mandate. >> Okay. >> Um any public I'm open up to the public comments. Not seeing none. Close the chamber. Anybody in Zoom or phone? Close
that too. >> Bring it up to the board. Who wants to start with any >> chairman? >> You want to start? Go ahead. >> Thank you. I read this whole thing and principally I'm not against it.
I just have one comment that um deals with the national right of quiet enjoyment. The right of quiet enjoyment says that you're allowed to live a life free of a
lot of things and one of the things is safety. We have neighbors that could be next to one of these houses and there's no safety mentioned here. There's no background on who are the people living in those residences
and it should be inserted that we have a right to look at who's actually going to be living there. And if they have a criminal record, god forbid something happens, then well, how are we going to look? Because this ordinance went
through and then somebody committed something that is unspeakable. And I don't understand why safety, the word safety is not included in this language. the safety of not just the
residents in that in that facility, but the safety of the neighbors and the community as a whole. So, I'd like to add that word safety and a background check in the verbiage of the ordinance. If you will allow me to do that, I will be happy to do that. I I think that's
problematic. The state of Florida has said that these are supposed to be treated like residential units. Whether we like it or not, you're not checking a residential
somebody who resides in a home. You don't get a criminal background check. And I completely understand and sympathize with your concerns about this. But the state has made a mandate that we're not going to treat these
people that are that have an addiction which they view as a disease. We're not going to treat him differently than the guy next door. >> And so I I think this would be contrary to the state law on requiring background
checks on all the residents. I'm not saying it's not a bad idea, >> but I think to agree. I mean, but I don't know if we could limit that. I I wish we could. I don't think we legally we have the right to do that. Same, you know, if my neighbor somebody buys a
house next to me, I can I'm you know, mandate for them to do a criminal record. So, as much as I would like to agree with you, I don't know if we legally we could do it. I >> I don't believe that we can >> uh do that. >> All right. Let's go through the
comments. I think that you you should speak with your state legislature and and might want to make a suggestion for amendment under state law if you feel strongly that way. >> Okay. >> Alice. Yeah. [laughter] >> Okay. Let me go let me let me go to
Ignasi. You're the attorney here tonight. >> I got I got one question. Generally, I get the point that um the state's mandating this, but D1 A and B >> speaking the micasi >> I'm sorry. D1 A and B talking about planning zoning has to review each one
of these applications. What does it mean that whether the requested accommodation is reasonable and necessary to afford equal housing opportunity? What's equal housing opportunity mean >> as defined by the state? I you know I
mean that's I think as Craig is saying as well is that equal you know where federal anti-discrimination protections I think would you know um provide >> fair is in your department reviewing this >> huh >> is in your department reviewing each one of these applications [clears throat]
>> that's that's how we with the city manager that's correct >> so what does what does a what does equal housing opportunity mean and then what does undue financial administrative burden in the city So, >> so these are >> but let me let me take you down if I can
down to uh city manager or design may consult with appropriate departments or external professionals and may conduct uh any kind of site analysis. >> Listen, I'm putting my attorney hat on because I know every single person here is going to have a different definition
for that. and we don't define that and you're going to give me more more more money in my account because there's going to be lawsuits coming down on >> I second that. >> So >> I know we can't change this but on a minimum I think A and B needs to be
better defined. >> I think that was taken directly out of the state law wasn't it not? >> Yeah this is verbatim. Well, then maybe the state >> which is actually >> we sent over this has to be in theory. I don't know
what happens if you don't do it, but in it has to be done by January 1. Every other jurisdiction I think we've looked at, they've basically taken these definitions in whole.
>> Right. But but I understand and the state law is not some here. I think we all going to be in consensus that this is not going in the right direction. You know, we got to do something about this because if I have, you know, an attorney board member that says that this is
going to open up for a lot of lawsuits, >> right? >> We, you know, forget about that. I I'm in an agreement with Gonzalo that listen I want to know I can't do a a background check but I want to know who's going to go in there. This is this is Listen, I
was a a police major with Miami Day Sheriff's Office and I I had one of these locations in my district and we had 300 calls a year. >> So does that mean that it's going to be an undue financial administrative burden on the city?
There has to be there I guess call it a commentary. I'm sorry. There has to be call it a commentary or whatever, but there we need to add definitions to these that and I'm sorry never caught your name, but this individual and or the the the city manager can make a determination
from I' I'd like to add something from my my recent experience. I [clears throat] saw this debate somewhere else, public hearing, full commission, and it did not go well.
The the reason is the amount of code enforcement calls, the amount of police calls, >> the amount it was ridiculous. So, I'm watching this. It it it looked
it it really didn't look good. And they used a key word. This is a business model that got pushed in Tallahassee. It's a business model. Unfortunately, there there is a need. If
you have elderly parents, you want them to be in a group home where they could be looked at, bathed, all these things. I understand that. The problem is that normally when you look at these things too, you also have visitor parking.
You have employee parking single family home in this particular area. You had to take it to another type of zoning and we don't have that. It's been you could put it in any single family property
next to anyone and you're going to have people blocking your driveway, parking in the street. And the other thing is most of our single family homes are in 70. Now you have six adults and then you
have the employees. And by the way, sometimes you have certain requirements for financial requirements to comply with AKA. And AKA requires that you have to have a certain amount of employees 247
in those homes. You've just destroyed a neighborhood and you're talking about a neighborhood here in Coral Gables where if you want to rent a house, you can't put it on as an Airbnb here. You have to have a minimum of six month lease.
So the the the ramifications I would think is that you should be able to refine, comply with the state law, but add
certain things which address the concerns of people that are going to be living now next to not a single family residence, a family, let's say, but more of a transient type of
thing. How is that possible? We're not doing a good job in adding a performance type of restriction, not a use restriction, which is I think what what can't be defined or it can't be
defended legally, but you can add the performance one, you know. So, you have to have a carrot and a stick. Well, I just I'm not disagreeing with any of this. I'm just telling you what's required under state law. And the group
home, by the way, and it's a different term now. I always get the new term, but this allowing uh six adults in a single family home has been the law for years, >> right? >> For years.
they've introduced this recovery residence and they see this as just another disability as if and I'm not commenting whether that's true or not true. They're seeing
recovery residents as just another disability like needing a group home for six adults who uh are not physically able to um you know eat and and function on their own. So they just see it as
just another disability. But most of those people can't drive and they're driven there and they're dropped off and they live there. But depending on what type of use within the
uses, then it becomes a burden. You know, just imagine you're in the North Gables area with 50 foot lots and someone came in and now they're they've bought three, four homes, one right after the other. It it will alter that
neighborhood forever. all the laws that are related to single family you don't I don't think you allow uh parking of 10 12 cars at a on a single family home you'd be
there all the laws that are associated with single family are also associated to any other use >> but but in some areas let's say the north pawns area you could park on the street and nobody said you can't you That's true. >> So I I mean listen, let's go through,
but this is going to be one of those that >> this is one of these you can't fight city hall, but the city hall is the Florida legislature has taken it upon itself to preempt local government for many things. They feel
>> I'll get on my high horse because it's upsetting. It's upsetting, but the Florida legislature feels that they're do a better job of zoning and land use than than local government. >> Nester, any comments from you? >> So, yeah, I just want to uh reiterate
what what Ignasio said. Um, you know, it's it my my concern is uh where it says um reasonable and necessary and imposed undue financial administration. Those are those are review terms.
My fear is is that the reviewer could be very subjective and we could adopt this language and we're preempted and I I I agree. I think the langu the the the the intent is is there. Um but the way it
reads the city manager or the design could find none of the applications reasonable and necessary. I mean is that right Greg? Well, if >> I mean obviously there will be a challenge if you >> obviously then >> you know but as the way it reads then there's going to be an appeal or a
challenge and but the way it reads that I mean they could deny every application >> they could and it might be problematic. >> Yeah. Yeah. So I mean look it's it's it's it's either good good for the plaintist lawyers or good for the you know but but but I I just
>> as long as the lawyers are taken care of that's all that's important right. >> As long as that's that's very important. No, but [snorts] uh uh that's the only concern that I have that it you know it could it's it's it's a bit subjective to the person doing the reviewing and my fear is is that you have an overzealous
and I'm not saying that the city manager by no mean is overzealous or the designate but they could just either approve every application or deny every application the way it reads right now. Correct. Well, I don't think they can do it with
unbridled discretion. >> Arbitrary. >> I mean, it >> they have to look at the purpose of the of the law and what it's designed to do. So, we've we've got it specifically indicated in here where um conditions
can be applied upon approval. And within that reco re um you can revoke the approval as well. Um, and there's a whole process that's subsection G as well. If one of these conditions of
approval has been uh broken or it's inconsistent, uh, there's that process as well. Mr. I'm just >> and I think we're going to see a lot of cases come out of this because it it becomes live on January 1,
>> right? and we're going to see what's happened because this is has to be adopted throughout the state of Florida. >> Alex, do you have any >> I echo my colleagues uh concerns, but it is what it is saying? >> Alice,
>> I I have a question. Procedurally, if an application is denied, who would the appeal go to? >> So, if the application is denied, we've got it must be within writing and state the basis for the denial. The written determination shall also advise the
applicant of any right to appeal. So, >> but I think that's pretty much all we have right now. >> Who does the appealing go to? >> Who who reviews it? Yeah. Who reviews the appeal? >> Is does it go to court? Does it go to city commission? >> Well, they might
>> commission. >> There's I thought there was a review of a decision of a uh >> staff appeal. Yeah. So it go to board of adjustment. >> Goes to the board of adjustment. >> Okay. >> And and >> goes to the board of adjustment.
>> And Mr. Chairman, the he said that that the larger homes uh what is the definition of the larger home? >> The 7 to 14 residents. >> No, no, no. I mean h how do you what's a
smaller home compared to a larger? Is it based on square footage of the actual residence or is it based on the lot size? What what is it based on larger? >> From how I understand it, the the smaller home is only for living. There's
no any kind of rehabilitation. There's no kind of medical treatment, anything within that site on either one of these. But the smaller one is six or less residents in that dwelling unit in that >> the larger one is how many residents? It
goes from seven to 14 residents. >> Again, that's an apartment building. >> That's a small apartment. >> I don't have another question. >> But and there's no definition of larger or smaller >> there. There all of that is within the state statutes. >> No, no, but I'm saying I understand what
you're saying. Seven compared to 14. I'm just asking what's larger and what's smaller. Is it 2,000 ft or is it 5,000 square ft? So, in other words, are this are the are the ones that have 17 residents going to be all where the
larger homes are in the South Gables? >> We're going to put it in Snapper Creek next to the conservation area. >> Excellent. >> I I think the 7 to 14 has been >> has been has been law. Is that right? And and all we did was just update our
code. >> Let me get Gonzalo. Oh man. >> Any any other comment on it before we >> Yes, I do. I have I have a very significant comment in the sense that let's say that Alex's house next door.
It's approved for 16 plus people. You're going to have ambulances. You have 247 activity. You're going to have sirens. So your right Alex your right of quiet enjoyment is going to be severely
cortailed as a neighbor and in that sense and and I also also mentioned it too as a concern I know is statemandated so we're going to have to swallow the hook in the bait
but necessarily I think that we should have certain measures to protect our community against this type of uh activities within our communities. So I I'm for denial or I'm for deferment
whatever you want but just for a blanket approval of this I mean why are we here? >> Everything here has to be approved by us and >> but this is no different than the than the live local. So I I leave myself open. >> I think there's a correction on the 7 to
14 concern. >> 16 >> seven. >> It's 14. 7 to 14. >> 14. Okay. >> So the the six or less as I think Mr. Partardo was mentioning earlier that's only within that single family
component. Um that is what's actually so any larger home and and you're right it would be more of a multi-family area. Now the state has very specific licensing spacing requirements. One of them being a thousand >> [clears throat]
>> uh foot radius. >> I want the board members to understand if you throw in AKA and you you have to have >> no but this would not qualify because the AKA you need hallways to be 8 foot hallways and you need >> No, no, no, no, no. There there's a care
mandate within AKA based on the amount of of patients. Yeah. >> So, in other words, for every I think it's five or six, you have to have one employee. >> Yeah. Full-time staff member, >> right? But the full-time is 24 hours.
So, you really have three employees. So, in other words, you you got one car, one car leaves, one car in and all that. You're [clears throat] not counting again. You want to go see your dad that's in >> No, no, listen. I hear you visitor.
Alice had one more question before we I wanted the answer to the original question of who the appeal goes to. >> Well, the it goes to the board of adjust >> but the six or less recovery residents. There's no treatment.
>> No treatment whatsoever. >> No treatment whatsoever. So, the AKA doesn't really apply. >> No. No. It great. >> They're not going to have employees. I I'm telling you for a fact. I know that it applies in the amount of of care per
the amount of patients. I I know that for a fact, >> right? But under but this state law says there's not supposed to be. >> So I I can read it if >> Yes, that'll be helpful. So, the residences emphasize peer support and
shared accountability to main sobriety and do not provide any on-site medical treatment, detoxification, or clinical counseling on site. >> So, peer support are the other people that are in that home. >> Correct. So, who's ever living there,
that's they're supposed to help them be sober, you know? They're >> No. Yeah. But that's the sober part. But like the the assisted living facility, you know, the ACA. >> So that that's a different could that's a different >> kind of group residential home.
>> That's correct. And that >> that's less than 24 hours. This would be more than 24 hours. Yeah. So >> correct. >> All right. Do we uh I'm going close the board discussion. Do we uh do [clears throat] entertain a motion?
>> Motion to approve. Can we add a commentary to that? >> Restrict. >> We have a motion where you have a second. You could >> I'll second. >> You could add amendment, you know, to that. >> I want to add a commentary to better define D1 A and B because it's going to
give us problems. >> Would that be an issue? I'm asking standpoint. Yeah. >> Well, I think that certainly can take a look at it, but I think that we're [snorts] we're There's a state law provision
providing for reasonable accommodation. >> That's that's the problem. >> It might I I briefly >> and what's reasonable is >> I based on I briefly looked and wasn't in there. I could be wrong. But if the if the office
making the determination doesn't have an answer, there has to be something a criteria that has to be connected back to where the person reviewing the application can say, okay, affordable equal housing. The state statute explains it like this. This is what
we're going to say. Same thing for when does it become an undue financial and or administrative verdict? There has to be some that that has to be connected to something. So that's my commentary, right? Just adding it as a commentary.
>> And I agree and and I think I mean I don't know if some of Gonzalo's comment could be added how how without creating a discrimination. >> Okay. >> Well, that's a that's a tight rope that we're walking. That's the issue. >> With Mr. Bello's permission, I would
like to add that >> a friendly amendment to it. >> I agree. Yes, sir. I second that [clears throat] >> because all of a sudden you could have half a dozen fire rescue um you know calls there >> well if if if that's the case and it it
becomes a nuisance >> right >> then then >> but what is a nuisance 100 200 calls 300 what's a nuisance >> well I can tell you that those decisions are made every day either by a nuisance abatement board or
by a determination, >> but we're not there yet. We're at his office, >> right? We're not at we're not at that yet. >> But he can make a determination that what's >> I don't know if this helps or not, but conditions can be applied to an application.
>> Correct. >> If and that could definitely be >> defined. If you don't have a guide to go by, >> the attorneys are going to become rich because [clears throat] there's going to be attorneys start suing on both sides. And especially when when they move in
next to an attorney. There's going to be attorneys soon. >> If I may, if I may just tell one comment, >> have you seen those Leon medical vans? Have you seen those neon green medical vans? >> Stopping in front of those houses.
>> They're going to be circulating right there all the time picking up the patients. That's how they get their money is they take it to a doctor. If it's the facilities not providing medical help there, believe me, all six of them will have vans. They'll get picked up, ambulances. It's going to
[clears throat] be a mess. If you >> Let me ask you something, Craig. Any amendment to the language of of of what Ignasio is is is suggesting or definition meaning not not amendment, but just defining those terms. Um,
are we preempted by the state? I don't I >> to define that >> you could you could add criteria which would which would determine whether someone is out of compliance
with a single family home if if there's undue calls for service. >> Uh if but but basically that's what a nuisance is [snorts] and The term
nuisance is found to be uh sufficient >> and if there's enough nuisances it would qualify for revocation. >> Yes. >> Results. I mean if you say look >> I mean should in the event that this facility becomes a nuisance it will be a
revoke >> the same but so the language the problem here that we have a gun to our head that the state is putting on us. >> Exactly. I think we need to pass this. >> We need to pass it. But with that commentary, let the commission deal with it. >> I agree. We punt.
>> I agree. >> I think you could pass and say you have a con extreme concern that these things could become nuisances and they need to be carefully watched. >> One thing we have extreme concern that these language does not have definitions. One being it could become a nuisance.
Another thing it could be >> um >> board of adjustments, >> equal housing board of adjustments. How are they going to decide? What what is the function of the board of adjustment in this particular case? Because normally when they have cases that come out, they're forbariances which have to
the the the the applicant has to prove hardship. >> Well, it's and it can't be self-imposed hardship, >> right? Uh this would not be a hardship, but if See, we don't know. I can't know
what the city manager's decision would be and why he chose to deny. No, no. I I don't I don't know. I can't envision now. So, you're asking me what would the board of adjustment? >> What What is the criteria for the board of adjustment?
>> The question is is was the city manager reasonable in denying this uh uh location, this facility? >> What's a definition of reasonleness? >> Well, are you going to bring in every single city manager in and see what they
define it? Well, reasonleness has been has been in the >> in the law for many years. Whether somebody exercise reasonable care, that's a negligence standard. Did the did the driver who who hit another
vehicle, did they exercise reasonable care? And that's based on a reasonable man well now reasonable person standard, >> right? But that's that's the thing. There's since it's a new law, there's no case law to define what the what would be considered reasonable. So, we're kind
of in new territory here. We're just going to have to >> call forward. >> Yeah. We're just going to have to go forward and let the chips fall where they may, >> Mr. Chairman. I still don't I know this is going to be quoted. >> I still don't have [laughter] >> Hold on. Hold on. One at a time by one
at a time because we're Please, please. You know, she cannot take all one at a time. Felix, please. I have a question which has to do with the board of adjustment. [clears throat] The board of adjustment is now serving as an appeal process for the for the
manager's decision. >> I believe that it would be a decision an appeal to decision of city staff and the board of adjustment does review the appeals >> which we never ever get but >> but the board of adjustment does not
have that type of power in their authority. I sat on the board board of adjustment two different times. It doesn't have that. It's for granting variances, not for appealing. Normally, appeals happen at the level of the commission.
>> So, they would appeal the board of adjustment and go to the commission. But 14-208.4 any appeal decision of staff, city staff goes to board of adjustment or board of historic board if it's a historic reservation decision. >> Any appeal of staff goes historic,
sorry, goes to the board of adjustment. That's in the code, right? It's >> in the code today. Yes. >> I think we can we can certainly take a look. >> It does not happen very often, Mr. >> Part [laughter] Well, you know, like I said, I would suggest that maybe one of your comments would be
>> uh consider an alternative process for appeals and decision the city. We have a motion and a second, right? And we have some friendly amendment to those. >> Right. I'm just what I'm trying to do is just >> get to the point so we don't box ourselves in to something that can't be
done. I think the board of adjust their authority has to be increased to be able to be an appeal for a a different type of decision that doesn't exist at this particular time. >> I want to use >> that's all I'm saying. If you want to tie it up tightly.
>> So we have a motion, a second friendly amendments. Jill >> Gonzalo, >> could you define a friendly amendment? >> What is the friendly amendment? >> The the friendly amendment event
>> friendly amendment is the the the motion of the maker of the motion accepted >> the comment that was on a friendly typical friendly amendment. >> What is what is that? What whatever >> basically it's to give definition to D1
and D1 A and D1B >> to give >> subsection D review and determination. >> Yes, that's correct. >> So they can give a better criteria for the group selecting um each application or approving each application. >> Did I did I get it right? D1A and D1B.
They voted. That's right. They voted no. >> Okay. Now next Joe. >> Mr. Sabre, you said no. >> Yes. No. >> No. >> Okay. >> Yes. I said no. >> There we go. >> Who's up first? >> Alvarez. >> Yes.
>> Alice Bravo. >> Yes. >> Alex Bello. >> Yes. >> Nester Mendez. >> Yes. >> Felix Bardau. >> I have many concerns. I'm going to vote yes and leave it up to the commission.
>> Robert Behar. I I agree with Felix. Exactly. I'm going vote yes, but I have a lot of concerns. Let the commission make lose. >> The motion passes 6 to1. Um that's it. No,
>> Mr. Chairman, I'd like to u retract my no vote and make it an affirmative yes vote at the time. >> Okay. Well, noted >> unanimous. >> Okay. So, no discussion item. Do we have a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion to second.
>> All in favor? >> I >> ajourned. Thank you.