[Music] hey hey hey [Music] [Music] hey hey hey [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] dr [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] like that [Music]
like that [Music] [Music] i'll be there [Music] [Music] hey
[Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] Heat heat [Music]
please take your seats the meeting is about to begin remember to speak into the microphone as this meeting is being recorded for public [Music] record please stand by we are going on air in 5 4 3 2 1
good afternoon and welcome to the April 15th Land Use and Sustainability Committee i'm Alex Franis i'm the chair of the committee joined by my colleague uh Commissioner David Suarez uh Mr attorney let's uh read into the record the necessary notices
today's meeting of the land use and sustainability committee will be conducted in a hybrid format with members of the committee physically present in the commission chambers and staff members of the public appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom to participate virtually the public may
dial 1888-475-4499 and enter the webinar ID which is 850599237 pound or log into the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID which is 850599237 anyone wishing to speak on an item must click the raise hand icon or
dial star9 if they're participating by phone and we've received notification that vice chair Tanya Abad will now be in attendance of today's meeting um and Mr director do we have any changes any edits to the printed agenda uh yes Mr
chair the following um items 7 8 9 10 and 11 all of which were were sponsored by Commissioner Bot are being deferred and will not be heard today uh item number 17 which is to discuss and consider recommendations relating to
the city of Miami Beach sidewalk material color policy is being deferred and lastly item number 23 which is to discuss a possible agreement for development and conveyance to the city of a public parking garage at 1247 to
1255 West Avenue has been withdrawn by the sponsor uh and is now off the agenda okay and also item number 13 is being deferred is Commissioner Vod was the prime sponsor of the item okay item number 13 which item 13 so we will So So
the agenda is the agenda as printed with a deferral of items number 7 8 9 10 11 13 and 17 and the withdrawal of item number 23 with that is there a motion to set the agenda second and by acclamation
we can show the agenda as set um the order of the agenda is going to be items number three and 15 will be taken out of order followed by the priority agenda and then the regular agenda as printed so with that um Mr director let's call
item number three okay item number three is discussion regarding possible amendments to chapter 54 entitled floods article 3 entitled resilient standards for title flood protection to enhance enforcement mechanisms for public safety
and quality of life and thank you and I see we have our chief resiliency officer Amy Nolles on the Davis who has been working hard on this item to address the risks associated with title flooding due to rise and seas that we are experiencing in many of our neighborhoods uh we've
drafted an ordinance that's before us today to uh address overland uh flooding of private property and impacts on public property so A if you could walk us through the amendments before us today great and good afternoon thank you
um Mr chair um so back in 2021 the city adopted its first seaw wall ordinance which established minimum elevations and this was a very good ordinance but we have identified several improvements since then um this item was heard in November in front of this committee and several things discussed which have been
incorporated so I will briefly review those um as you know 91% of our seaw walls are uh privately owned innesota is really important that we have adequate ordinances and they're an incredible protection not only to protect the property from you know just erosion but just from oversea level rise and storm
surge and and king tides so some of the changes that we are recommending is really to be more clear on the type of progress that's needed from our residents as they are working on seaw walls and may receive a citation to clarify a bunch of the language and to uh make sure that we have the ability as
a city to address things differently if the private property owner doesn't so first is we're looking at a new 60-day requirement and they have to demonstrate specific progress if they've received um a citation for example obtaining proposals securing financing and
applying for permits so this will allow us as a city to make sure that they're making some progress again after they have received a notice of violation uh property owners will have six months to submit permanent applications to the city and to Miami date county and which
gives um you know they still have 730 days to complete the full seaw wall improvements but we want to see a little bit more information to show that they've made progress the threshold for substantial repairs has been raised um from $300 to $500 per linear foot and
what that does is it helps the residents so that they're not having to elevate to the higher elevation if they're just doing more minor repairs and that's to be more in alignment with current market costs because today if someone is making a report that's a repair that's over
$100 they need to pretty much pretty much replace the entire seaw wall right right now is $300 and this would elevate it to $500 and and I'm gonna ask our assistant city manager do we have an understanding more or less as to what going rates are for replacing seaw walls
per linear foot does a ballpark because I want to make sure that the public understands how substantial this is sure new seaw walls are probably somewhere in the depending on the complexity anywhere from$2 to $4,000 a square a linear foot yeah so so keeping
this threshold or increasing this threshold from the $300 to the $500 bringing up to the current current standards really not only uh helps our our our residents um but it really encouraged them to fix their seaw walls
uh through the permitting process uh and not avoid the permitting process that's correct and there was a third and there's another uh amendment that we're bringing to this item yes yes and the other thing is that minor maintenance work such like rip wrap replacement can be exempt from elevation requirements
and that is a benefit to the residents as long as the engineering report shows the seaw wall has a structural integrity then they can be exempt from from the elevations um now property owners will now need an itemized cost of construction specific to seaw wall work
to help us with evaluating the repairs needed and then the other you know significant change is that if there's overt topping and it impacts the public right ofway the city may now require private property owners to install temporary title flood barriers and if
the owner doesn't comply the city may take action and install the barrier themselves and seek payment for the cost for that and that's the example of what happened with us over at the Palm View neighborhood where we had to come in because of the nuisance that was occurring of the title flooding not only onto the private property neighboring
property and then on top of that to the public right ofway which was the origin of this ordinance all the challenges we were facing over in the the Palm View uh neighborhood amy thank you so much for for working with my office on on this ordinance i think these these updates uh
are going to help tremendously and also to my co-sponsor Commissioner Laura Dominguez for for for teaming up with us on this uh Commissioner Suarez any questions comments on the item um so the threshold from $300 to $500 so if if anyone were to make any
adjustment that's under $500 it wouldn't it wouldn't trigger making rebuilding a whole seaw wall right so they would have to bring the seaw wall to 4 feet NAVD but they would not have to bring it to 5.7 feet so they can it's it's a less of
a cost it's 500 seems still very very low considering that 2 to4,000 per linear foot is just for one foot so I'm sorry Commissioner if there was going to be any sort of repair I think it would be at least in the thousand thousands
range should we make it a little bit more generous well did we did did we look at permits being submitted uh to public works uh for seaw wall repairs and what did that tell us yes and and
actually this was brought to us by our public works engineering team that reviews private seaw walls and they felt that the types of repair there's that they're seeing come through as they're doing plan reviews um you know the $500 is more reasonable because you could have somebody that might be just you
know doing more minor repairs different kind of like spackling or something that is doesn't reach to the level that they have to fix the entire thing and so it really is kind of a benefit to the residents in light of the concerns with increasing costs I don't I do not object
to the idea of going beyond the $500 this you know we do deal everything responds to the market and I know that a lot of times times when I'm doing work in my house I'll first give my parents' address out in West Daid and the 33175
zip code gets a different quote that the 33140 zip code um but then all of a sudden when you tell someone you're doing work in in uh in in Miami Beach all of a sudden they want to they want to charge you three times as much so I'm not opposed to the idea of increasing
this limit i think maybe 5,000 would be a decent number because if if for one linear foot it cost 5,000,000 I mean if you have a 90 linear feet or 60 linear feet you're going to be repairing one foot not to say you just
be repairing one foot but you know at least make it contingent upon how large your seaw wall is right you know maybe $1,000 for every 10 feet of seaw wall yeah so it's really based on cost per linear foot right so what
we're saying is if something is less than $500 a linear foot then you know you don't uh then you would have to bring it up to 4.0 let me ask you this if it's more than that it would be 5.7 between today and first rating of this ordinance could we explore the
possibility you know would it be appropriate to go beyond the $500 going up to $1,000 per linear foot uh so that with the feedback of the of the committee we can consider that as part of the ordinance of the first reading ordinance yeah I think we'd be happy to
look at at the data and see and see what it says yes okay that'd be great that'd be great any other comments on the item mr attorney are there members of the public wishing to speak on this item no there are not all right seeing no one in person wishing to to speak on this item
uh anything else to add on the record Amy no thank you very much all right commissioner Sars have you moved the item i'll be happy to second all right second and we can show this adopted by acclamation and with that let's uh move forward to our sea level rise vulnerability assessment item number 15
and this item is being sponsored by Commissioner Dominguez i don't know if we have Commissioner Dominguez on the line wishing to speak on this item i think this is item 15 yes 15 yes yes commissioner Dominguez welcome uh you're you're you're welcome to introduce your
item thank you um so the administration is sharing a draft of the sea level rise adaptation plan for consideration recommendation of the mayor and our commission to accept the item for their
planning purposes it's uh a a draft adaptation plan it provides flexible forwardinking strategies and it includes five core adaptation themes keeping water out living with water nature-based production strategic relocation and
updated plans and policies and Amy is there um she can tell you more about the item amy thank you you're welcome thank you Commissioner thank you and if Pa could bring up we have a short presentation because I think it would really help to walk us through this um it is an
important item and it's a it's it's a big report so I think it's great to just take a moment um this is a draft sea level rise adaptation plan it's not something you see every day and as usual you know Miami Beach is leading the way on these efforts um we do have a need to
adapt and so the the resilient Florida planning program uh funded by the state actually requires cities to do vulnerability assessments to uh for their public assets and critical assets for the years 20 240 and 2070
considering sea level rise and as part of that we also added on an adaptation plan so let's not just look at what's wrong let's look at what are the different ways that we can really think about long term so the um time frame that we began this process it was winter
2022 and we're finishing up in spring 2025 funded by Resilient Florida grant so the goal again to prioritize the assets most at risk for flood hazards and maintain eligibility for future grants so we've brought in about $80 million so far through this grant
program and it's important for us that all of our projects are identified in here so we completed phase one the vulnerability assessment we are now completing phase two which is adaptation plan and then we move into implementation um a little bit about the need to adapt
and I know that you're very familiar but we do in Miami Beach uh have vulnerabilities to different types of flooding compound flooding and that's important because the types of strategies we use um need to be matched with the type of flooding you know we also know that when we have more than one type of event it can be much worse
than if it had just happened by itself so this type of plan has been important and is evident you know throughout the uh sea level rise adaptation plan so what kind of sea level rise have we been seeing You know we know that over the last century there was about 11 in of sea
level rise and we've seen 6 in more since the year 2000 so there has been an acceleration and we know by 2040 we're looking at.3 to 1.3 feet and.9 to 4.1 ft by 2070 and the figures that you see uh our
city has adopted uh they were put together based on Noah and um Army Corps of Engineer projections we made sure to reach out to the city quite a bit through this effort we've had sensitivity focus group interviews where we invited all of our neighborhood
associations to come and tell us their thoughts about flooding and what they'd like to see we had eight uh small virtual like I mentioned we had north mid and south as well as the business community and lo local subject matter experts we held pop-up workshops at events we wanted to meet people where
they were at uh the kind of people that maybe wouldn't come to a regular government meeting and we asked their opinions and had them really um show us on an actual map where they live and where are some of the issues that they see we had a community meeting uh with University of Miami and FIU to talk
about um this plan and uh we've had a lot of different topics from experiences with flooding impacts to community spaces their concerns and what their priorities are for flood protection we've also engaged the sustainability committee the neighborhood resilience projects committee our FEMA committee
and the chamber of commerce we've been to actually twice and I just presented last month as well we've heard many different things but I would say the biggest theme is that people are already coping and adapting in different ways and you know they're they're clear that there's experiences that they have and they're
adjusting their day-to-day people perhaps buying an SUV instead of a lower car um people you know noticing tides going over their seaw walls more than when it used to and you know people really wanting our city to to really deal with this and to move
forward little bit about the vulnerability assessment um we ranked over 67,000 assets and so as a city we now have a really nice um I would say you know database of all the assets and information about them and different things that we can do uh we looked at
exposure sensitivity and consequence and all the um assets came up with a score and we'll use this to apply for future grant funding as well but this information is available to facilities public works and all of our teams some of the the major takeaways is the west side of our island is at the greatest
risk of flooding just due to lower elevations um our coastal dune system and beaches provide a wonderful natural buffer actually estimated at about $20 million a year in value but hurricanes can still flood the city um many of our water and wastewater pipelines are over
70 years old which causes challenges with that delivery if we look at a foot of sea level rise over half of our roadways can experience flooding during a heavy rainfall event and king tides and then by 2040 we're looking at combined events can cause flooding at important areas like cyani police
headquarters um sailboard substation and fire station one and then 2070 we know this number will increase the full report is available online we have a really nice website with all of this information and we're also putting together an aszor map so that people can
clearly see what the challenges are but also what we're doing about it and it highlights a lot of our key projects now uh the adaptation plan is important because it's the one place in the city where you can look and see all of the different efforts that we are doing for sea level rise so everything
we've done you know over the many years from the storm water modeling and master plan um to the work from Jacob's to um our resilient 305 work um and some of the things that it looks like is our adaptation needs they may change over time so it's not a
traditional plan it's based on work from the Netherlands and it is really looking at sea level rise from different perspectives first trying to keep the water out second trying to live with the water using floodable designs third using nature-based protections such as the use of you know natural ecosystems
and processes to reduce flood risk and then strategic relocation so there may be certain assets that we we want to move over time and then policy updates how do we update things over time so that it makes sense to the conditions we're seeing um now this is a a very
flexible approach to adaptation so it's not based on years it's based on the feet of sea level rise and it identifies a range and once that that stops kind of working for us it identifies the next thing that that we can move to so there's six pathways from the bayfront
to the oceanside and they have a lot of different strategies from roadways and critical infrastructure critical facilities and storm water so everything from dune enhancement and beach renourishment to offshore protections over on the on the bay side really looking at how to elevate seaw walls
more overtime adding on living shorelines and over time potentially more natural shorelines um inland and and for facilities we're looking at flood proofing we're looking at incremental roadway elevation storm water and different ways to integrate blue and green and all of this we have
been doing so we we are already have so many projects doing this so we'll have to continue to build so thank you very much i just want to take this opportunity and happy to answer any questions thank you Amy uh Commissioner Dominguez uh is there anything else you
would like to add on this item uh no i'd like to uh move it to the full commission for consideration i know I can't move it so if one of you would that would be great sure suarez has moved the the item and I'll second it and Amy uh just for the public's uh
purpose how does this align with our CDMP and our land use regulations yes well I mean it's in very much alignment our CDMP already has a rand a land use and resilient element that calls for us to adapt to sea level rise to protect um
and and to do these efforts so this more you know adds some more detail our resilience code is really looks forward for private properties and this takes that into consideration but expands it to our critical facilities and to our public infrastructure and I think this will be a great uh tool for us to to use
as we look at the future of land use and growth management and compatibility uh with our development patterns so thank you so much Amy and Commissioner Dominguez um Mr attorney are there members of the public wishing to speak on this item there's no one on Zoom
seeing none in Zoom and none in person we can show the item adopted by acclamation okay thank you all right um Mr director let's call item number one okay item number one is to discuss and consider amendments to penalties for
violations of the construction parking and traffic management plan requirement in chapter 106 of the city code including without limitation the suspension of a building permit or issuance of a stop work order and discuss proactive enforcement efforts by the police code compliance and parking
departments with regard to parking or traffic violations related to construction projects thank you Mr director this is an item I've placed on the agenda because we've seen instances in which construction trucks uh and vehicles are obstructing
the path of emergency vehicles in our residential neighborhoods um we've and we've taken measures to make sure that um that roads in our residential neighborhoods are not obstructed to a level that becomes unsafe for example
our recent party house ordinance specifically aims to curb a lot of that activity that blocks uh the roadways in our residential neighborhoods this addresses it from a very different perspective every construction project within our our residential neighborhoods
are supposed to abide by construction parking and traffic management plan but what we've seen over time is that they're not following those plans and I've asked staff to consider ways of enhancing the penalties on those who are
obstruct obstructing the flow of traffic in our residential neighborhoods and with that I see we have Jose uh Gonzalez and Alberto Ventura here to present on these items welcome thank you good afternoon Mr chair committee members Jose Gonzalez transportation and
mobility director and in parking director so our city code requires that any constru construction project with a value of greater than $250,000 obtain a construction parking
management plan or a CPMP as we call it in order to obtain a building permit the CPMP plans are reviewed by the parking department and they are infor and approved by the parking department and they are enforced by the parking code
and police departments um now over the past um several months maybe a year we have seen an uptick in the number of concerns from different residential neighborhoods with regard to a lot of construction activity occurring on
residential streets and contractors parking their their vehicles either blocking a lane or or taking up uh some some parking spaces um in terms of the offenses we we have
the parking department has one person that's dedicated to inspecting and uh helping to enforce violations of the CPMPs the code allows for a $5,000 fine for the first offense a $10,000 fine for
the second offense and a $15,000 fine for the the third offense uh we went back and checked our records and over the past 10 months from June of 2024 to date there have been a total of 90 fines
issued and the breakdown is 70 first excuse me 70 first offenses 16 second offenses and four third offenses for a total of 90 all right and I I want to introduce Albert Ventura assistant director who's gonna also we're going to
tag team on this item good afternoon commissioners thank you over the past year also our engineering assistant who oversees the project he's proactively done about a hundred inspections throughout the city along with an parking enforcement officer so they
could take enforcement actions we've had had a couple of th dozens um complaint calls from residents in reference to vehicles blocking blocking the rideway and we also go ahead and respond to those complaints as well
thank you and my concern is that we have 70 first time offenses and those are the offenses that we got to and now we know that if there are 70 offenses that we responded to we know that there's
probably a lot more that we didn't get to as those are the ones that people called the people reported and these offenses for the most part they're not happening in commercial corridors they're happening in our residential neighborhoods they're happening where
people are trying to get to work or get back home from work or to school or just navigate their neighborhoods um so Jose I'd like to know what is staff's recommendation as to things that we could do to enhance penalties associated
with this to try to deter even the first time offense so u Mr mr chair we did explore various measures that we can um possibly take the city can take to to more uh effectively aggressively if you
will enforce this um and I'm I'm happy to see that Vince uh Seahas our building director is here as well um because one of the things that we learned uh recently is one of the measures that that we were looking into was a stop work order so if you know enforcement
goes out there sees that there is a contractor that is working outside of their CP approved CPMP plan um we can take uh potentially take that measure of a stop work order sooner rather than later our current code actually uh
allows for a stop work order after the third offense so that was one of the things that we looked into and I had a very recent conversation a little while ago with with Vince where unless the contractors performing unsafe activities
and the safety of the public is in danger it is very difficult to issue a stop work order there's actually implications with the South Florida building code um where the this the city would be uh challenged for sure if it
attempted to issue stopwork orders for reasons that are not uh safety or building code related um the what would be considered u under the Florida Building Code uh a safety reason why to stop the uh
permit of someone that is you know pretty much using the public right ofways for themselves uh under the provisions of Florida Building Code section 115 that's where I could issue a stopwork order now the provisions there
allow me to remove uh or issue the stop work order or suspend the permit completely if they are violating or creating an unsafe condition for the public safeguards to the public is chapter 33 so if you would on a high-rise you've seen the catwalks with
the overhead protection for anything any falling debris to protect those people using that that walkway now in the scenario that was described before if an emergency vehicle could not get through uh or they were preventing or didn't have let's say PD on the scene you know with lights to divert traffic and
whatnot and and give people another means of of movement in that case then uh the first case would be issue a fine give them the opportunity to to correct the violation but if they continue to be bad actors if you would uh at that case
I could issue a stop work order until they come into compliance typically it's a section in the building code uh for working unsafely u no egress uh a lack of illumination for the workers a lack of sanitation for the workers portagons
uh things of that nature that would be a violation of the Florida building code in this case it would have to be some kind of blockage or lack of access uh or damage uh that would create an unsafe condition blocking a a hydrant for example things of that nature where
first responders could not respond to an emergency but we're talking about traffic yeah traffic we're talking about neighborhood streets that were built a hundred years ago that were not built to have you know trucks for your
construction project blocking an ambulance from getting to a neighbor's house or blocking a fire engine from getting to someone's house and we have 70 instances of this in our city one
that have reached one violation we've had a total of 90 violations over the past year and we probably have many more that we just haven't you know gotten to and so and so the fact that we've had 70 first time violations tells me that
there's a problem and that that the penalties are not strict enough to deter the activity from occurring commissioner Suarez thank you Mr chair i I look at this a little differently i think a lot of the times
these contractors just simply don't know um they rules may be very lax in other municipalities but um I I think being reasonable on the first offense but being very heavy-handed on the second is
is something I'm comfortable with um you know I certainly don't want to in a roundabout way raise prices in Miami Beach because um word gets around that you know you're going to have your whole project stopped because your truck was blocking the road
not to say that that's you know you shouldn't be doing that but they they need to be educated on it and and I think giving a a very stern warning uh and letting them know that look you do this one or more or two more times your
whole project's going to be uh at a loss and I think there should also be notice given to the owners because you know some like I'm under construction sometimes unfortunately my contractors I don't know who are coming and they block the road and I have to tell them so
maybe as a first warning it goes to the homeowner and not necess necessarily to the contractor who may not want to tell the homeowner because he may not want to say so the violations are issued both to the contractor and to the property owner that's correct is that correct is that that's the amendment as an
amendment or is that No that's the current code okay if I may I'm sorry if I may add something as well by the way of those 70 how many were second repeat offenders 16 of them 16 that's I mean that's pretty good right i mean that's
that that that shows that the first warning is is is good i I think personally if you have a um a warning with a a stern warning on the first warning saying that if you do this again this is what you can expect they usually
understand what's going on and are are are accommodating i'm sorry what I wanted to add was the first offense doesn't necessarily mean they were blocking the city's rightway what we call city's rightway if they park on a on a swale which is not in
front of their construction that's also we also issue their first offense so these are not always for blocking the rightway but rather for parking on the city's rightway which it may be a regular parking space it could be in a swell or it could be in the lane of traffic so those are that's what we
consider the city's rightway so it's not always the street so we had 16 second offenses and how many third offenses four four four so it happens so then we tracked uh 20 additional times after the first offense that's over the course of
one year yes 10 months okay all right i think I mean you're okay i think it's working i mean so again without having in front of me your your What is staff's recommendation well we we uh we wanted to explore the
stop work order but I know that there's some limitations uh Vince just mentioned if it if it is a safety issue where for example a fire truck can't get in that that is eligible for a stop work order at that point correct correct yes what
do you mean at that point just just for that day or is it stop work order until later for that day okay just for that day so so Vince I just want to make sure I understand you right so what you're saying is that our code currently as written is not is not in accordance with
the state statute no I'm not saying that it's not in accordance with state well but our code says that for each additional and subsequent violation after the third a one-day stop order is issued by the city's building department about that but what guarantee do you
have that that uh subsequent one after the third is a life safety violation and that's part of the situation where we find ourselves running a file of each other however if the approval from the parking department or public works department is retracted I could even
remove my approval for the permit so if zoning for example they did something that runs a miss of the zoning regulation and the conditions of their approval they could retract that approval in that case I could remove my permit well but we're not talking about removing permits we're talking about you
know doing you know stopping work for a day parking on a swale doesn't elevate to an unsafe condition however blocking a fire hydrant blocking a street without proper police presence to deviate traffic that's an unsafe condition and I could use the provisions when I get when
I get the calls from our neighborhoods i'm going to send them to the building department because I got a lot of these calls and I'll be looping you in on those emails because those are it's a it's a challenge that we have and it's affecting people's quality of life in a lot of our neighborhoods it's a built up
it's difficult i just have a a question for for the building official would you need to rely on this ordinance in chapter 106 to enforce the building code in the in the way you laid out for instance if it if the violation of the construction parking plan was a life
safety issue you wouldn't need this ordinance to do that would you no but I would need someone to provoke me to get out there and be able to invoke and enforce it in other words one of our code enforcement uh personnel a public works personnel park personnel from the city documenting taking pictures of someone blocking a hydrant or or
illegally blocking the street without the the correct public notification and and police support in that case then I can go out and issue my stop work order i've got to be called out so public blocking the street
yes okay so So with blocking the street we can you know we can seek an enhanced um penalty of just a monetary fine correct because again it's prohibiting the first responders from getting to the site and pro you know providing their
life- saving uh or first responder capabilities so under those provisions yes now if they have a permit to block the street the proper signage and notification no what's happening is that they don't and so I think after they get that first warning and I and I agree with Commissioner Suarez you know first
time people might not know people might not know and you have to you know give them at times the benefit of the doubt um but that second and third offense if they're blocking the street that that is
a it is a prolific prolific problem in our neighborhoods and they already know not to do this because they already have this plan and they know where they need to park they had to sign they need they had to sign for permits they had to apply
for permits and they had to come and and get that permit but they're choosing not to abide by it and so and so yes the first one you know you give them a vi a fine uh but moving forward for the second and third
offenses you know I really do think we need to come down hard on this because we're only seeing more and more of these projects and we just can't have with the amount of traffic that we have in our city we just cannot have our residential
neighborhoods get further clogged by vehicles that have a different place to be they have a proper place to park it's just they're choosing not to so Commissioner Suarez I don't know how you would feel for the second and third offense perhaps going a little
bit stricter uh where if they're blocking the streets then at that point we look at stopping their work for the day what's the fine currently for first offense 5,000 second offense 10,000
third offense 15,000 $5,000 for blocking the street for a first offense of whatever the violation of as it is now currently yes Mr chairman if I may I I feel obligated to tell you that if we are amending this ordinance we would need to amend those
fines um to comply with the limitations in in state law um so and if you'd like I can go through those Mr chair yeah yeah i mean we have to comply with the state law yeah so under state law and and following a a
court decision a few years ago a first violation for a code enforcement offense could be no more than 1,000 for repeat violation it would be 5,000 per day um and if a special magistrate found a violation to be irreparable or
irreversible it could be up to 15,000 um I think that is that's separate and apart from what what Vince has laid out which is um that if a violation of this plan would give rise to a life safety violation under the building code that uh that he would have authority to stop work
so why don't we keep this item in committee and let you guys come back looking at conforming the current language with state uh regulations this came out of our uh short-term rental policies if I recall properly that's
right yeah um so let's keep this in in in committee uh allow you guys to work with the city attorney's office on an updated penalty schedule uh that not only confirms to the fines uh provided
by the state but but also ensures that for the second and third we really take uh you know a more aggressive approach to curbing this this this behavior so just to be clear our municipal law is
not in compliance with state law this particular ordinance predated uh a uh a a court decision um that would require us to to lower any sort of change that we would have we would have to now go back at that time i would also want to to clean up the ordinance yeah and I and
I just want to make sure I I I understand the change isn't because we're updating the ordinance is that the ordinance today if we can't enforce it the way that we're enfor the way that it's written today i couldn't speak to any individual uh
code enforcement cases that may be decided or pending um but I would recommend conforming the ordinance moving forward got all right all right i'll move to continue the item yeah let's continue to next month thank you uh Mr director let's introduce item
number two okay item number two is um a discussion regarding possible conversion of 7605 Collins Avenue into a marine science education center and museum commissioner Cars this is your item
thank you Mr chair so I um I'm I'm apparently the turtle commissioner and this uh the old Betsy Perez house um is something that I think would be a great location for a marine science
u school education camp and learning center for uh our community we don't have anything like it uh it's the perfect location since it's on the beach it's east of uh Collins Avenue and I brought this proposal to the uh
quality the QEC uh unanimous support for it um and I'd like to see if I have some support with my colleagues to to to do that before moving forward jason if you want to go ahead and give us an update
on some of how the finances are sure uh uh thank you uh chair and commissioner so just you know where we are today is it started about one year ago when the city began to explore the concept of uh acquiring the 6705 uh property um and at
that time I I was tasked with you know finding an available funding source uh the city ended up acquiring it uh it started a discussion in January of 2024 a commission it went to uh the finance committee which discussed uh the viable
options to fund this and obviously the funding source is really attached to a generally to a use and what came out of finance and was endorsed by commission at the March 13 2024 commission by resolution 2024-32945 was for the city to acquire
the parcel uh the building at 60 uh 7605 Collins Avenue uh for the purpose of uh by funded by the city's building fund for the purpose of creating the North Beach permitting center uh with a possible uh associated uh city services
such as cashiering for parking utility bills co-compliance and parking staff basically the concept was Sorry to cut you off Jason and through the chair uh I was always under the impression that this the the the use for the old Betsy Perez house was not set in stone it was
we were going to discuss it see what the best uses i I wasn't on the finance committee at the time um and I I I don't necessarily remember it going to commission saying that this is going to be a building department function i think it's I think it's a little
ridiculous to have a building department um function on the beach next to a park i think there's better uses for it for the community um so this actually passed commission where was a funding source okay yes so it was a so correct so
funding source I think we we we we did our best to find this the funding for this house but the commission wasn't dead set on what the best use was we did there was a very detailed discussion about that use because it being from the building department's fund and the
commission or finance a finance and commission uh now the important thing to note is that there was a capital project added to the um the commission added a year or two prior to acquire some type of building for a North Beach permitting
uh center so when this came up about acquiring this building the kind of the two items were married together mr cfo I have a question for you how much did the building enterprise fund pay for this property uh 6 million
uh $6.53 million was the acquisition price okay let me ask you this [Music] what was going to be the fiscal impact to the city of Miami Beach for the 2% commission that the Miami date tax
collector was intending to charge our city the 2% uh tax collector fee was estimated to be 6 to7 million um and that is and since then the tax collector
has withdrawn his proposal on that uh on that fee is that correct that is correct and but we started our budget assuming that we were going to be facing uh nearly $7 million hit uh for for the
commission to the tax collector is that correct we were planning on it but it's been removed obviously at this point so our current service level uh budget we will present in May won't I would suggest that perhaps the city commission should consider um you know given that
we were entering this budgeting s season assuming this this this fiscal impact of almost $7 million from the tax collector and that was being removed we should still assume that so that so that we can use that $7
million to reimburse the enterprise fund and be able to have this property for more open uses um that might be more proper for the location than a building department per
permitting center yeah I if you're asking me Mr chair i Yes i think again the the intent of buying this piece of property was not to put a permitting center on the beach i
think uh there was discussions of like what the best uses I think there was a survey that went out um uh if you're telling me that you want to put a permitting process center in the middle of a park on the beach I I I I don't I
don't think the community is going to sit well with that so um if if I think Commission Mr chair I think that's a great idea if we can just look we're all one city right i mean at the end of the day it's it's taxpayer dollars right sure the billing department was
the one that found the money for it but ultimately we're the ones up here to decide what's best used for that but now we can absorb the impact now that the tax collector is taking away his proposal we gonna absorb that impact now um with with with that with that
decision it's the funding that we need and that way we're not limited anymore um in in in how we use the property so through the chair Jason what was what would be the best way to go about doing this if the commission was interested in converting that from the from the
already approved use to this use uh yeah we would utilize uh you know 6.53 million of the you know the city's uh reserves for the acquisition then there would be the buildout the building fund had had appropriated a million or the
commission approved a million dollars for renovation you know there's um structural work and a lot of renovation work um so I I don't know what the buildout of converting this into a marine science conservation education center would be but let's say that might be another million million and a half
and then the parks department had kind of guesstimated you know depending on if there was uh with staff or through a third party could be somewhere between a half a million to a million dollars a year in operating i think I think also the beautiful thing about maybe you know converting this into a marine science
park maybe we can partner with uh an accredited university and give them a a sort of a long-term deal not long-term yeah maybe I don't know 5 to 10 years where you know they get the property and they have a plan in place for a real uh
science center maybe something where uh it it encourages the community and everything about Miami Beach for native uh species plants animals um marine and and and have as as part of their
proposal they have to renovate the the the structure so it really doesn't come at to a cost with us uh and the reason I I like a university instead of perhaps like a nonprofit I think we've all realized nonprofits end up asking us for more money a university Oh universities
do too yeah the two sure um but well Sony they've asked us for money and F in the past but I think if we team up with a a university perhaps M University of Florida and and make it a real science
center for the community and for the betterment of Miami Beach wildlife uh and marine wildlife we could we could kill two birds with one stone we don't want to so if the birds kill um two iguanas one
two iguanas to one there you go so if perhaps if uh the committee is interested is then send it back to commission with a f I'm just trying to think here a favorable recommendation for uh to be considered during the 26 budget process i think as the chair said uh for the uh the city to acquire uh
from the city's building fund uh the 7605 Collins Avenue building for the purposes of creating a marine science and education center and thus and then to for the administration to seek an operating partner perhaps with the university to uh build out and operate
said facility and the and the other on the other in input I would add to that um I think I think we should you know we have uh the water testing that's going on there as well that's going to be going in there and so I don't think we just should limit it I think this is a
great use but I think there might be you know ancillary you know small ancillary yeah I think the main synergies I think the main thing out of this discussion quite frankly is getting the property out of the enterprise which opens the
opportunity to be able to do you know these other um uses not related uh to to the building department so I can show that direction i'll move it yep and I Let's do that with a
unanimous vote of the committee are the members of the public wishing to speak on this item yes Mr chairman the first caller is Omar Himenez omar welcome you have two minutes to speak hey thank you um so I think this is a
great item uh this item was brought to our attention through our ongoing resident uh driven collaboration here in North Beach uh we actually were the ones that ran the survey through the Park View Island Sustainable Association a couple of months ago through our newsletter when this item was first um
kind of being looked at and uh 50 over 50 residents responded to our survey with um the top two uses supported by the community being um exactly what this uh committee has discussed today especially a sea turtle conservation center and an environmental center with
a working lab for a environmental um organization um so that they can they can keep uh monitoring the the water quality in the area and basically we think this would be a great site because it's already the site for the sea turtle fest which just happened this past Saturday um in the altos the adjacent
alto park it's within close proximity to the beach the shoreline where hundreds of turtles are already nesting um along our shorelines and it would create educational engagement and volunteering opportunities for residents and youth in our community uh which
perfectly fits with the resident's vision for a more health health and well-being focused resilient and sustainable coastal living lifestyle for North Beach uh we we support getting it out of the building department fund and um us being able to do um you know the
best what's best for the community so um thank you for discussing this today we're fully in support of this project thank you Omar for your participation your comments and for your activism in support of our environment up in North Beach and any other members of the
public wishing to speak on this item yes we have two more callers uh the next one is Elizabeth Laton elizabeth welcome you have two minutes to speak hi good afternoon um first of all thank you Commissioner Suarez for this and and this is something that he and I have
been talking about for many many months um it was sort of hatched with Larry Schaefer and trying to come up with something that would uh utilize this space in conjunction with the green space in the beach i definitely do not think that the building department uh is
a good use i don't think that we've already got a permit office that's down the street on Normandy um to my knowledge the turtle tanks are still there and we could utilize those as well as the surf rider um uh water testing i
think it's a fantastic idea you could even convert the pool into some sort of you know interactive kids zone kind of thing i just I think this is a fantastic idea so I just wanted to say I appreciate it and thank you very much
thank you Elizabeth any other members of the public mr attorney yes our next caller is Kent Robbins kent welcome you have two minutes to speak hi thank you for uh allowing me to speak
i have one major question concerning the potential adaptive reuse of the site um I believe it's adjacent to the Alta Stomar historic district but I believe this particular building is actually cut
the historic site boundaries are cut around it but I'd like to have a confirmation of that from the city attorney uh in response to what I'm asking i do have a question given my experience in and actual experience of converting residential uses or res
single family residential um properties into commercial uses i found that to be extraordinarily difficult task and very expensive and although I think the site is excellent choice for placing
uh such a um project on that site I am concerned that it's not really practical for adaptive reuse for the purposes that you discussed and while I would encourage it if it could be done I think before we start going in that route I
think that we really need to have a architect uh knowledgeable in the historic preservation or in restoration historic homes or homes that have are that could be deemed contributing i think it'd be appropriate to determine whether it's even feasible to convert
this particular project for such a commercial use um I wish it could be done i'm just wondering if we're getting into something that might be so expensive that it would then end up deterring and ending up not going forward with that particular project
having said that and wanting to save that home because I think it does contribute to the neighborhood um there may be other ways of of placing some project on the site not within the structure itself but adjacent to it as
part of the area between between the Thank you Mr robins for your participation and certainly we will always be conforming with our zoning laws and comp plan and if necessary we're always happy to update our comp plan to reflect the proper use of the
property uh any other members of the public wishing to speak on this item seeing none in Zoom and none in person um we can show this item with the recommendation of the committee adopted um and with a key part of it is making
sure that uh now that we have relieved funding uh given the change of decision by the tax collector that perhaps we we identify and set aside those funds to release um the
building department or reimburse the building department for its investments on the property and Mr attorney please show me as a co-sponsor happy to support Commissioner Saris in his effort all right so Mr chair on that one we'll
show that item is concluded with a recommendation to the commission that alternative uses be explored mr cfo when would be an appropriate time to send this back to the commission to make sure that you have the proper uh feedback
from the city commission as we develop the budget for next fiscal year i was going to not necessarily write this second but I was this is my item so I was going to go back and work on the item to bring the resolution back to the commission uh targeting the May commission meeting may is May sufficient
time because I know we have a budget workshop uh our first budget workshop is May or June the May the retreat we don't specifically talk about enhancements we don't talk about the enhancements till June June and July okay so May will still be sufficient time uh with to be
able to discuss this without causing a domino effect on the budget we get the May commission approval if we get commission approval in May then we go ahead and create that um enhancement uh to the to the capital budget uh the question but it sounds like you want to have some comm discussion the commission so I should you would like this to be an
R seven item i'm or C7 i'll leave that to the sponsor and to the city attorney and I'll check with the sponsor on that but yeah I I'll I'll work on that right away and get that back to commission right away great let's discuss it for the discussion
making sure all right it was an R seven resolution okay thank you i would say that's prudent we something a change to significance shouldn't be a consent item when we're talking about $6 million that is something worthy of discussion yes and I think well it didn't pass yet but not going to FK but I yeah we'll do it
as an R7 thank you thank you all right Mr director let's call item number four okay okay item number four is to discuss amending section 2.1.1 of the Miami Beach Resiliency Code which requires the disclosure of certain settlement agreements between applicants
and third parties in connection with land development applications before the land use boards to one expand applicability to also include private applications before the city commission and two require at a minimum the disclosure of the material terms of any such settlement agreement commissioner
Suarez this is your item vice Mayor Suarez this is your item you call me a commissioner it's fine uh thank you Mr chair so I I put together some notes um last night that I'd like to also share with the state attorney i don't think I
shared this with you um I want to make sure that what we're what we're putting here um really in induces transparency and and integrity um Nick why don't you start off with
what the city attorney's office is recommending and then I'd like to also add in some possible amendments to strengthen the ordinance sure I'd be happy to so what the code currently requires is in connection with
any application to the city's four land use boards the board of adjustment the design review board the historic preservation board and the planning board um that in the event that an applicant enters into a settlement agreement with a third party in exchange for that party's uh support of a project
or agreement to withhold an objection to the project um that that settlement agreement needs to the existence of that settlement agreement needs to be disclosed in writing and the disclosure uh needs to generally summarize the
nature of the consideration provided um and the and lastly to the full commission to a commission right now it's only right now it's only for the four land use boards uh so and the la the last requirement is that is that an applicant has to make a verbal disclosure at the start of the of the
hearing um this ordinance would amend the code to additionally require disclosure for private requests before the city commission which would mean if a if an applicant has uh a let's say a a
code amendment um or a comp plan amendment or resoning uh any request for zoning relief that's before the city commission this uh this amendment would require that uh that the disclosure be made um and it would also require that
uh that the material terms of any such settlement agreement between an applicant and a third party uh be disclosed as well so right now you you do not have to uh disclose the general terms the material terms you only have to disclose that an agreement was
reached and generally describe the only and that's to the land use board for the land use boards right so so zoning amendment to the city commission it's not covered under our code at the moment but this would ensure that as the city commission considers zoning amendments variances well we don't consider
variances but height increases or changes in setbacks or increases in F correct that we are aware of that that's correct okay and so what is the penalty if this is not followed the the penalty um as dra well the penalty in the
existing code um is that is that is that any approval that results from that of that application um is is declared null and void um the the what happens if we
find out a year after a building permit's been approved right that's the challenge is is is it would be very difficult to to enforce that remedy at that point um and so one of the recommendations that that that we're
making is uh is to revise the penalties for violations of this ordinance um and this is something we discussed with with with you Commissioner um which is to to delay
uh any future development application for that property uh for a specified period of time and that delay would apply no matter what the application uh what no matter what the future application is for that property okay so and through the chair this is why I have
some other amendments I'd like to run by you sure um and see if there's an appetite for this um you know because when I reviewed this I don't think it was strong enough um for like the transparency and forcibility uh and
especially accountability for um for for what what takes place especially in our in our zoning and land use um changes so uh so some of the recommendations I have a full disclosure
of all agreements um this ordinance should require a submission of a verbatim copy of all relevant agreements uh not just the summary of the material terms um allowing applicants to determine what is material risks
excluding critical information um so I think the full as for example when when we were here for the um the standard hotel uh I had a copy of the agreement that's simply because uh the owner gave
me a copy um I think that should be um required uh the full terms any basically any signed copy um the expanded definition of covered agreement agreements so disclosure
requirements should apply to any agreement related to the application written oral formal or informal uh that involves any monetary or any consideration or benefit or involves an agreement to support or not
oppose an application and and this would include settlement agreements obviously uh agreements with residents of Miami Beach uh neighbors neighborhood associations community groups or advocacy
organizations um and again this is just this is just transparency we want to know if there's been any deals with any of these parties uh private agreements for services um and non-disclosure agreements you
know non-disclosure agreements may be excluded from full disclosure but must be listed perhaps on an index uh of all agreements submitted with the application so if there is a non-disclosure agreement say that there is a
non-disclosure agreement um that that that is that is written um and and must be provided once it can be disclosed um retroactive applicability I think um
you know to avoid procedural loopholes the amended ordinance should not apply should apply retroactively to all applications before the city boards or the city commission as if we adopt this today i think anything that is uh in the process now should be required
to disclose any sort of um agreements um settlement agreements that that I just discussed um and I don't I certainly don't think that any further review should occur unless all the disclosure requirements have been made um and when
we talk about enforcability uh I think we need to be a little bit stronger on that um so broad sanctions for applicants and the principles um so for example if there is a violation found a year and a half after a building permits issued let's
say the building's already up uh and we an assigned settlement agreement was found where they didn't disclose it um you know I think we should have perhaps a 2-year ban uh on submitting
any new application by the applicant the developer um any entity which the applicant has a direct or indirect interest uh any owner officer or principal of the applicant and any entity in which such an individual holds
a direct or indirect ownership interest um and for example if there is a a development that is in the process and they have not disclosed that there is a settlement
agreement while it's uh under review then that application should be null and void um also I I just have a question Nick have you reviewed these because I know I with other legislation you've told me some of this stuff we can't do
so I just want to Yeah and I think uh commissioner I'd like you're taking notes and and we'll we'll go back and forth i mean this is because this is substantive right and and this is a lot this is a lot and and that's good and I wanted to run it through the committee uh to make to make sure that this is
this is something that we have an appetite for it's certainly something that I'd like to get done um but and last but not least um you know I also want to have a liability for the legal representatives
for the lobbyists so if a developer um or business owner hires a lobbyist uh a law firm or legal representative that appears before any city board or the city commission on behalf of an applicate applicant shall uh
automatically accept responsibility uh for ensuring that the applicant's compliance with disclosure um requirements it should be also subject to the same sort of sanctions as the applicant if any violation occurs uh
regardless of whether the firm had actual knowledge okay um and be prohibited from representing in any application before the city commission and boards for at least two years if found that they have violated this disclosure so look I this is a lot this
is sort of throwing the um this is this is this is going this is pushing this in a very restrictive manner but I think when we talk about accountability
and and um transparency and integrity especially in in our zoning uh laws where we have consistently seen uh developers and business owners take advantage of the city uh through backroom
deals i want to end that today i want to today should be the start of where we sort of end that and everything is transparent and on the open um the fact that you know there can be a deal through a developer with a neighborhood
association to buy their support um I I think is is is wrong and there needs to be penalties for that um not only I I think with all the parties involved and so I I think if we want to
have a more transparent city where everyone knows what's going on I think this is the step in the right direction so Nick if and through the chair if you don't mind um did you have any issues with any of these um points
that I've raised um Commissioner I would recommend that we maybe keep this in committee so that we can meet some of these issues will need to research um but just to just to you know just to frame the issues generally speaking private
parties have uh have the right to contract uh on any you know on any range of matters and we're not stopping we're not stopping there we just say the city wants to know anything that we do in this context is going to be uh in the realm of disclosure is is is what can we
require disclosure of um but we allowed to do retroactivity especially when we're talking about our land development regulations because my understanding has been and I've tried in the past to do retroactive LDR amendments and I've been told over and over and over again we can't go retroactive
right and and and this one in particular would be concerned with the fact that this applies to contractual relationships typically um a subsequent law cannot impair uh rights under an existing contract so um but anything in anything currently under review so if it's
between a land use committee and first reading or first reading and second reading and if this law passes can we require that disclosure be made i think we would this would before answering on the record I'd like to research that but this would probably
need to apply prospectively okay and I know I'm putting you on the spot but if we're asking for a disclosure and the applicant legal entity or anyone involved in the process
willingly know does not provide that disclosure are we able to impose a penalty we'll h we'll have to look at that um I I I think that uh that we you know anything in our code we want to make
sure we can enforce but I want to make sure that we uh that we draft any penalties in a manner that if we were challenged the the the ordinance would would withhold would withstand scrutiny so I I would want to look very carefully
especially if we include uh any of these these amendments that we're discussing okay mr chair how do you feel about some of these um I I agree with with a lot of them i I I agree with the transparency i think if there is a negotiated
settlement agreement which parties are allowed to enter into the best thing is for there to be a disclosure of it and that's simply what it is um and I you know the retroactive application is something
that I don't necessarily think with LDRs is appropriate but I defer to to the city attorney and you read that pretty quickly and it's a long list i think yeah there like two pages of things that you read pretty quickly so you know that's I haven't had or three pages i
haven't had the benefit of reading it through and as you know I like to read the what I'm going to get feedback on before I speak about it on the agenda listen overall I I believe that you know these third party
agreements need to be disclosed um as it relates to the penalties and all that I'm going to give deference to the city attorney to guide us on this and I think we're going to need to continue this uh this conversation to to the next meeting
um I I do have a question on you know this speaks a lot on what happens before um a vote is done but what happens after a vote is taken or after a decision is made because you know what happens a lot
of times is you know assuming that we adopt this people are going to find try to find the loophole which is always what happens with with with government especially with good government policies and then what happen in the future is
you know they'll make a contribution after the fact uh or you know they'll just avoid falling under the guidelines of of the regulation so Nick what would happen in a situation where a variance is considered a
variance is granted by a by a committee or a zoning amendment is requested by the commission and a zoning amendment is granted by the city commission but then afterwards the contribution to a neighborhood association let's say
happens or to you know a a religious organization or to a school whatever might be it's usually a good Uh but what happens at that point if it if it's disclosed if it's happened if it occurs afterwards
I think that um that even if any payment is made afterwards as long as the initial agreement were reached before because this applies as it's currently draft as as it's currently stated in the code it it it applies even to a verbal agreement right so the disclosure
requirement would apply the challenge is that once the board uh the respective board has has has approved a project our options are are very limited because you know applicants generally speaking have vested rights in their in their
development approvals and and um in which includes land use board orders but also includes building permits so that's where we will have to be very careful with uh with enforcement okay we can keep this in committee and Nick we can discuss sure privately and
um but good i mean I I wanted to check the temperature of my colleagues here yeah i mean just very superficially I haven't read these all but superficially I'm I'm I'm inclined to support the the the intent of these uh I don't like retroactivity when it comes to LDRs i
think that that's that's that's challenging and I think in the past we've even gotten ourselves in trouble with retroactive applications so we've learned not to do that uh but yeah I look forward to just for the next meeting if it could just be as part of
the memo just so that I can do my homework over the weekend of course yes alex does his homework uh are there members of the public wishing to speak on this item seeing none in person are there any via Zoom yes we have one on Zoom Kent Robbins actually two on Zoom
mr robbins welcome you have two minutes to speak hi uh my name Uh I have to turn off the My name is Kent Robbins and I have uh been involved in settlement negotiations
um probably dozens of times over the years i also was involved in the writing of the original ordinance compelling the uh the developers to disclose these type of uh third-party negotiations i worked
very hard with Jose Smith with who was the city attorney at the time on the language for the ordinance i think it's I I applaud um Commissioner Suarez to bring this forth and to try to address problems there are as far as loopholes
or were perceived as loopholes in the agreement and I strongly support a stronger ordinance with respect to um retroactive application i don't think that the disclosure requirement and it's
retroactive application for for disclosing the amount is truly a retroactive in in effect because the mere disclosure is is um identifying facts that are in place now the secondary issue of whether or not you
can penalize for newly disclosed uh documents is a separate issue and whatever penalties are decided that's another issue but I you may not be able to penalize
retroactively for non-disclosed matters if those disclosures were not required at the time of the original approvals of the project however I don't see that there is any law that would be violated should you compel disclosure without
necessarily having a penalty and though you may not have the weight of law to enforce a penalty at that point the the need for somebody to make a uh representation thank you Mr robins thank you for your participation any other
members of the public wishing to speak on this item i see none on Zoom all right with that um with that uh Mr director I was going to suggest Mr chair that we continue this to the uh June meeting
um June if that's okay so that we have enough time to work with the city attorney and then work with the sponsor okay let's show this item continued to the June meeting thank you Vice Mayor Suarez with that let's go to
item number five okay item number five is a requirement for applicants for zoning incentives to be in good standing with the city prior to filing a completed application including resolving all open code violations paying all outstanding fines fees or
other bills to the city and prohibiting habitual offenders with a pattern of code violations during the preceding few years from applying under certain circumstances thank you Mr director and this is an item I placed on the city commission
agenda because we are in the process of going through the discussions of many zoning incentives including long-term residential incentives and other things that that uh that we're working on as a as as a commission but at the same time many property owners and developers have
left their properties vacant they do improper fencing they do bad landscaping uh the properties are in need of paint or they're in some other form of disrepair and these properties when
concentrated in one area can lead to a perception of blight um and unfortunately these conditions exist in some of our premier retail corridors and so I wanted to see what can we do
um to really penalize those habitual offenders and prohibit them in essence penalize them with something that is of much greater value than a simple code
violation that they not be able to now qualify for the incentives that we are working on that if they are a bad property owner that has abandoned their property to such disrepair that we're now going to reward them with zoning
that is of value to them so with that I'm going to recognize uh our our director Tom Mooney to present the item before us okay uh Mr chair based upon um the proposal in the um in the um
referral memo we've developed a uh draft text amendment to the LDRs and it would be under chapter 2 article 4 pertaining to amendments to the comprehensive plan and the text of the land development regulations and under this section we've
added a provision that states the following for amendments specific to a private property unified development site or other development the property owner shall certify um the following prior to consideration of the amendment by the planning board
so in other words if it's a private application that is being filed or if it's uh an application that's being referred by the commission to the planning board before the planning board can consider it for transmitt number one
there shall be no open zoning city code and/or building violations at the subject property so any of those would have to be resolved and number two there shall be no outstanding fines fees or other open bills due to the city so
again before the planning board could consider and transmit an amendment any outstanding fines fees or open bills would have to be made whole okay now the challenge that I have with that is that while this is a good proposal here
what's going to happen is that people are going to abandon their properties and then right before the consideration of an amendment that they're going to want they're going to rush to pay whatever they owe which is fine but they should be
prohibited from a certain amount of time from the moment that they pay off those violations they now need to hold on to the property for 3 months 6 months they need to carry the cost the weight of
holding on to that property before they're able to qualify to submit an application because that carrying cost the weight that the community has had to carry their blight their nuisance now they need to carry and give
justice back to the community for what the for for for for what they've done and the worst penalty is that now they have to carry the property the interest the taxes the insurance and have to sit on that for six months or or or a year after they uh
paid those violations i strongly feel that that is the type of penalty that unless we we put penalties like that we're not going to get the attention of the official code offenders who are blighting our community vice Mayor Suarez and then uh
to the city attorney so there would so I understand you correctly there would be a a sort of ban on for how long a year i if you ask me but I'm going to defer to staff and and the city
attorney if you are defined to be an habitual offender and I think that's one of the things we need to do with this ordinance is create a definition for habitual offender and if you're found to be an habitual offender that you not be
able to submit a zoning amendment request a variance request anything that is not as of right or benefit from zoning incentives that you're not entitled to for at least 6 months or a year to just a project or any project
well frankly the way that I would do it I see the city attorney telling me just the current project but the way that I would do it honestly the way that I would do it was short-term rental violations mr attorney how do we handle short-term rental violations is the violation only on the subject property
or does it apply to other properties in which the in which the owner of a short-term rental has an ownership interest on mr mr chairman I would need to check the code on that it may depend on the fine it may depend on the specific type of
violation but I don't have the answer off the top of my head my recommendation would be that because these are these are issues that relate to a particular property the the the penalties would apply to that property well for example let's take a
case not to say that this would apply but you know for the for the Doville the MLS have left the vacant lot uh not in the best shape when they should have been leaving it in a park-like experience
um if the MLS had another project on the beach or another could we say that since you neglected this property any sort of zoning enhancements that you're requesting from us cannot be
um granted for one or two years until you've get the property uh in proper order we can we can look at that i would not want to give either of you an answer uh
without without researching it but as a general rule um you you know the the the purpose of a penalty is to is to hold liable the the the actor who uh was responsible for the violation and and you I would say as a starting point I
would I would focus on the on the particular property but we will look at and another thing and you know I'm just playing devil's advocate because if there is a if there if there is a property that is that certainly needs to be
um fixed up or a developer got in part or or or became associated with the with the property to to develop it and it's been bleded forever and finally someone's
ready to move forward and and do it could and I don't know if there's an appetite for this but could they pay you know instead of waiting a year or or two uh to as a punishment can they pay 10 times
the amount of fines to the city as as a as a way to um avoid the year or twoyear weight uh what I would what I would recommend um is is to is pay like an exorbitant amount like all right we'll
pay you 10 times 10 times on the dollar of what we owe just so that we can get the the project finished and and that goes toward a fund that we can decide yeah the the same limitations on code enforcement penalties that that um that
we discussed as part of the construction parking item number one um would apply in this context so I would say if you're thinking about a a waiting period like a six-month or let's say a six-month waiting period um perhaps you'd want to include a waiver in the event that let's
say you know what if you have a new applicant new owner who's come in um and taken over a property and and and and proposed uh code amendments for that project um the the the city may want to consider uh waving the the mandatory
waiting period um you know in the in under specific circumstances I think you should build that what the chair says we don't want to get into a situation where they sell the property to a friend and they thereby skirting the rules of uh of
being accountable for the neighborhoods include transfer of interest right and so um where was where I was getting at this was making requiring them to pay an exor absorbent amount uh that ends up
benefiting the city um because not only are they paying the fines but they're paying it 10 times in order to avoid the one or two year um prohibition on developing i just want you know that's something you may not be able to answer
that now you can come back and just generally speaking though we're subject to the same limitations on the amount of fines in but this isn't this isn't a fine this is this is a uh sort of payment for or a waiver um for not
having to wait a certain period of time it's not a fine the fines are set they've been they've been assessed but if they are asking us to wave a sort of limitation on how long they can do anything with the property then uh
that's going to come at a cost nick I'll let you perhaps we should keep this item at committee so that we can further research this i'll tell you I have an item coming to the um April 23rd city commission meeting having to do with predatory buyouts uh
which is something that has you know hurt a lot of homeowners but predatory buy of of condominiums and you know I think some of the penalties being discussed here would be something that we could you know incorporate into as part of the
penalty provisions on that um so perhaps you could get with Commissioner Suarez understand a little bit more um what what what his idea is so you can get give us uh some more insight on that for for the next meeting
i'd be happy to yeah but I I think at minimum you know we need to put a pause on their ability to get a permit application for a certain amount of time uh because that's where the real penalty is and you know if we can multiply uh
for a waiver you know multiply to a certain extent uh the fee if they're choosing to do this not that they have to but if they choose to do that you know maybe that's something that we can explore which I guess is the point that you're making yep okay all right um are there members of the public wishing to
speak on this item yes elizabeth Leone elizabeth welcome you have two minutes to speak hi i saw the smiles over there um I have a question regarding the properties in North Beach and and frankly across the beach that are in disrepair and have
leans and violations and are just junked up as it is now how how can we resolve those issues right now um because as I understand it our code requires all of these lots to be kept in good repair to
be in um a quote park-like experience and they're not and I also would like to understand um how the city plays a part in that for our own properties because honestly the west lots and a lot of other things are pretty bad so maybe
that's something that could be addressed as well i would say that it not be um that they have to keep all of their properties in good condition um if you're if you're experiencing a uh if you're going to apply for a permit and you haven't applied for the the whole
building permit and your property is in a state of disrepair um you know if you're not keeping the rest of your things together while you're waiting on one I mean maybe that should be looked at too and suggestions thank you thank
you any other members of the public wishing to speak on this item seeing none in person any via Zoom all right with that um Nick I'm going to ask you to please work with the planning department and my colleagues to
bring back an item that incorporates uh the feedback that we've discussed today uh I think a bitual offenders the penalty needs to be stricter i think we need to there has to be a classification of an habitual code offender we need to
establish that and those need to be held to a higher penalty than just paying off their fees uh when they their fines when they apply for a permit you know they need to not only pay off their their fines but now they have to sit on the
property for some time before they're able to apply for a permit unless it's waved by the city commission and if they're asking to wave to get that waved by the city commission uh I'm open to the idea that perhaps then it needs to
be stronger it needs to be a stronger penalty or maybe or maybe there's a CRA maybe it's a contribution to a CRA or or whatever it may be uh but I think there are ways of of uh of of doing this and to the extent that um that that we can
incorporate also the spirit not only of you know code enforcement but also the the issues with the condo predatory practices that we're going to be discussing April 23rd i think we should do that and to the to to to Commissioner
Suarez's point should apply to other properties not just that one property and I think we used to we used to do that at the very least i think we used to do that in turn and if you could come to to the point with STR so the short-term rentals when there was a violation on a
BTR with a short-term rental didn't it encumber the other interest when the person had a certain percentage of interest uh on that on that BTR didn't it encumber some of their other uh short-term rental BTRs yeah good
afternoon Mr chair members of the committee hernand Cardino code compliance uh there is a provision in our ordinances that talks about percentages of ownership in another BTR or another endeavor um and where that may be um prohibited if there were
violations on your prior BTR and so and and so and so you know that cross referencing is what's going to deter the behavior if they know okay if my bad behavior on this one property is now going to be cross referenced with my interest in ownership on other
properties and limit what I can do is the only way we're going to get people to respect our city and that's what and that's what's lacking here we are we respect the public's needs we respect the needs of property property owners and we consider the reliefs that they
ask of us but they need to respect the city as well and the neighbors uh of of different areas so thank you Hearnen and uh we'll bring this item back uh Nick please uh work with the planning director on this to bring back something a little bit more robust okay and and uh
we'll uh go ahead and schedule it to come back at the June meeting perfect thank you all right let's introduce item number six okay item number six is um a
discussion on an ordinance um to increase fines and penalties for frequent code violations that affect resident quality of life okay there's no item here mr assistant City Manager why do I not have an item
in front of me who is this mr chair I can speak to that okay so this item was actually dormant since June when it was referred uh by the city commission uh by you sponsored by you uh to the item was referred to this committee back in June of last year correct so almost a year
ago and it just comes up on the agenda now and uh we submitted the item late and so that's why it wasn't approved and not in your agenda item but it is a discussion item and so what we started um putting together is at least the top 10 citywide violations for your
consideration on whether or not those are the ordinances that you would want to amend the fine schedule where a fine schedule does exist okay we start working on on these agendas a month in advance yes sir and planning director provides my office with a draft agenda and I try to provide staff with multiple
weeks notice to get their memos in on time i'm not going to discuss an item here that I don't have a memorandum on so for next month let's please Understood and I accept full responsibility i understand you guys were very busy doing very good work during spring break uh and you continue
doing great work so I understand it was a very difficult month where everyone was pulling allnighters especially in your departments so I understand thank you um let's call item
number 12 okay okay item number 12 is discuss removing the permit requirements for painting residential multifamily and commercial properties thank you and I'm going to recognize the city attorney to present this item for me
mr chairman I would ask that the uh that the planning director present this one as he's most familiar with the uh the paint requirements in our in our code all right Tom you're welcome to Okay Mr chair we we we drafted the memo so um um
the uh referral um endeavors to discuss potentially removing the requirement for approval of exterior surface colors for um residential multif family and commercial uh properties in the memo we
have provided a summary of the current requirements pertaining to exterior the color of exterior surfaces found in the LDRs which is section 7.1.7 and we've also provided a um summary of the requirements for getting
a permit for our preapproved colors as well as for non preapproved colors for preapproved colors it's basically pretty simple um there's no fee the permit is issued electronically um and there's no
inspections for nonp preapproved colors let me just ask you if someone does not get that online permit do they get a violation if it's uh if it's a pre-approved color if they painted one of the colors if somebody um like say a
neighbor files a complaint that their neighbor is painting their house and there's no record of them obtaining a pre-approved color then they could be requested to do that if they're painting it a pre-approved color um so that's
what would happen if nobody makes a complaint and it's a pre-approved color so they would have to stop working and they would have to get a permit depending upon when the violation was issued if a neighbor made a complaint
okay all right and then for non-p preapproved colors um as long as the color proposed um is within the range of the preapproved colors those can be approved um also administratively they would
require an inspection unlike the non-p preapproved colors just to ensure that the the home or the building is the range and what happens if the color is not in the range of the pre-approved colors so for for non-p preapproved colors that exceed the intensity of the
closest corresponding color on the pre-approved color chart approval by the design review board or historic preservation board would be required so I'll tell you where I stand on this and the reason why I've placed this on the on the agenda there's so many
properties in our city that need to be painted and are not painted and I want to really encourage them and incentivize them to be able to paint and to you know
what i get why we have these you know I see I I but I see these policies just being red tape that discourage people from maintaining properties and it's why we
see so many just white boxes around uh or beautiful historic buildings that haven't been touched in years because they just don't want to they they just avoid the city at all costs and so if any work that the property owner has to
do requires them going before the city they just are not willing to do it they're just not willing to they they don't want to deal with the bureaucracy they don't want the red tape there's this pos perception while whether right or wrong that they're just going to go
into a rabbit hole that is just never ending there's that perception in there so I would like us to to wave uh the painting permit requirements for a period of six months to encourage people
to paint their property just paint your property do us the favor this is where a lot of our residents live this is a lot of our historic properties even a lot of properties in single family neighborhoods people haven't haven't
painted them in in years just because they're scared of dealing with the city and let's have it for 6 months and have the ordinance sunset after 6 months and see if see if it's encouraged any of our residents and property owners to just do
this simple touchup to to the aesthetics of their property commissioner Swars I don't know how you feel yeah I I you know I frequently walk everywhere and I it would it'd be great to see a lot of these buildings be incentivized to to repaint um I think they're supposed to
paint every 5 years right um that's just that's just standard practice for upkeep of a of a property um and anything else that we can think of i I know Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez had something where the city matched up
to I think 20,000 imagine having to pay someone $20,000 to paint their property i mean it's it's a wonderful program she has but you know how absurd it is that we're having to pay people to paint their property
so you know Tom do you have any other suggestions on getting owners uh to paint their property i mean um most people in in our experience when the paint reaches a
point where it's peeling um and it becomes a nuisance they will typically want to reseal and repaint their building or their home because it it protects the home and it protects the building if there's an issue with a building becoming dilapidated because of
lack of paint they could potentially be subject to a violation um in my experience um I'm not sure it's the permit requirements particularly if somebody's willing to paint it a a pre-approved color that's discouraging
people but um to the sponsor's point if uh you wanted to explore a six-month suspension we could work with the city attorney to come back with an ordinance that would facilitate how would we send notice to the owners
we could send uh an email blast to everybody that's on constant contact um I believe that would reach most businesses and and residential property owners we could also send a written notice to every property notifying them
of this okay yeah let's do it let's let's cut the red tape year let's do a year let's give people a year a year let's get every property imagine the just neighborhoods are going to look better and frankly it's your property i don't care what
color you paint your property and I'll and I'm going to tell you sometimes there are bold colors out there and I know staff mentioned that in their in their in their item but I'll tell you something one of the most beautiful homes on Flamingo Drive it is painted
black with a coral trim on the windows and someone took the creative step to do something really bold and you know what it is beautiful it is beautiful who are we to dictate what color you or any one of us can paint our
homes and much less the taxpayers who who who have placed us in this table to serve them so let's cut the red tape and let's do the blue tape ordinance and I like I just came up with that the blue tape ordinance no tape no tape well no we want blue tape because blue tape is a
paint that they use for painting true we want blue tape yes um Mr chair would you like us to bring an ordinance back to this committee or do you want us to draft something for referral to the planning if the committee agrees if the committee agrees let's send it to commission okay we'll bring it as a C4
item for referral to the planning board and we can work with the city attorney's office in terms of the best way to draft that ordinance structurally the blue tape ordinance blue tape ordinance yes are there members of the public wishing to speak on this item
i see no one on Zoom all right see Oh one one caller mitch Novik mitch we missed you you have two hey I I miss I miss you too mitch Mitch Novik here i've
painted I painted both my buildings uh th this past year on Miami Beach uh I'm just wondering uh you got to be careful what you wish for as you said uh I don't want to see or it might be interesting
to see uh buildings in all very bold colors which uh may be shocking to the conscience and that's it but I I I I like the spirit of of what you're discussing and uh anything to uh
minimize the financial impact on residents or taxpayers of this city is welcome thanks again thank you and and Mitch your um the Novik the Novik right across from the Southshore Community Center it is always so wellmaintained
and it's so beautiful i think you have like even hints of yellow there uh and it looks great and just allowing you to you know express your vision for your property I think is just a basic right
that people should have so with that uh thank you um for uh Commissioner Suarez for your support on this item you can add me as a co-sponsor please excellent thank you
all right and I think item 14 I intended to defer item number 14 uh because Yeah so let's see here um item number
16 Mr director okay so number 14 we're deferring to the um May meeting mhm okay and we'll call item number 16 which is a bimonthly update on code enforcement
activities and the status of special magistrate cases involving properties and/or businesses located in North Beach and to address any ongoing concerns and new developments in North Beach all right Hearnen you're welcome to
introduce the item uh so Mr chair this is um this is a bimonthly report that uh at your request at the commission meeting uh on December 11 2024 uh requested that code compliance come to this committee and make bimonthly reports on the uh
status updates for North Beach on our inaugural um report on February 20th uh to this committee um the committee members uh and yourself actually asked for additional information regarding the most frequent violators in North Beach and that's what we provided here to you
today in this memorandum for both um commercial and residential uh since our briefing uh last night I know we have to uh provide some additional information i think we're looking to add whether uh these properties are multif family or single
family homes and we also need to add whether or not they're private or commercial condos or rentals yes what can we do to get So I see many of these properties some with 18 violations for property maintenance violations explain
to me tell me when when we're talking about property maintenance violation what are we referring to so that could be what was just discussed it could be painting stucco could be um landscaping uh overgrown landscaping on the right ofway um it could be graffiti what we
did glean from the information is that in our residential districts uh about 27% of those violations are property maintenance issues in our commercial districts uh it's about 27% also but then we have 34% under city code
violations which encompasses again landscaping graffiti um and things of that nature and I see we have a lot of sanit sanit sanitation violations yes sir and that could be So explain that to me yeah that could be
overflowing garbage that could be uh garbage outside the bins uh that could be illegal dumping which we get a lot and you know and I see some properties you know nine
uh nine five some have 11 sanitation violations over over the past year it do we see a higher occurrence of sanitation violations in this part of the city than in other parts of the city i'd have to research that information
but we did pull some uh data before and it suggested that citywide our top category for violations uh was sanitation and illegal dumping what feedback have we engaged these property owners to find out like what is
leading them to engage or have these sanitation violations or other code violations or get them you know why is it that they're not correcting this do we have we ever received some feedback from these properties yes sir probably on a case-by case basis especially where
we have recurring illegal dumping uh we engage those property owners with suggestions on enclosures um cameras things of that nature so it's on a case- by case basis okay got me some some uh please get me some updated information as to the nature of these uh properties
which ones are condos which ones are apartment buildings which ones are single family homes so that we can uh do more updates more followup on this very good i think it'll be great to do outreach to to these properties to understand their circumstances um but I
it'll be it'll be helpful to know which ones are single family homes and condos etc yes sir all right thank you so we'll show that as continue to the following month yes okay now this is a recurring item yep
all right item number 18 okay item number 18 is to discuss the implementation of a consent agenda for land use boards vice Mayor Suarez this is your item yeah thank you Mr chair i think the LA I was I don't believe I was here the last
time this was um heard i think we kept it in committee i think Commissioner Bot had some some issues uh with it i'm not if I recall correctly um again this is to put um a a method for our land use
boards to have a consent agenda similar to what we have speed up the process remove red tape um I understand there's already sort of a process for this um but it would be nice to require that
this is available um even if it's just one or two items I I think would go a long way um you know for example like railings you know I think there was this poor property on like I think it's ETH and Meridian that the railings took
years to to prove and and I think if um if you could reach out to the board members explain to them uh as a property manager that this is the railings we want and you put on a consent agenda and you could possibly save years of of of of delays well I got one better for you
let's hear it well how about if we got those administratively approved Mr planning Director yeah that's that's actually part of the recommendations from the um ad hoc committee yes the historic preservation Yeah review code ad hoc committee that
we convened it's one of the many recommendations i think it's coming up first reading on the 23rd is that correct Nick of the building on the uh the B the balcony railing approval i don't think for referral yes for referral to the planning board planning board right correct referral to the
planning board yes we we don't know the next railing quote unquote issue right it could be railings it could be windows it could be uh you know anything and so um I think it's just I I it's there let's let's have let's tell our our
boards that this is available um and and make it part of their process yeah I'm fine with it i mean I I think I think the mechanism is already there and I think this just codifies practice u it's not requiring them to have a consent agenda is allowing them if the board
chooses to have a consent agenda uh in consultation with the planning director to be able to do that if they feel it can make their business their the you know their process more efficient is that correct that's correct okay so we can move it to the commission correct are there members of the public wishing
to speak on this item there's uh one caller Kent Robbins mr robbins welcome you have two minutes to speak yes uh the issue here is whether you would be denying due process to persons
and members of the public that would like to speak on the issue and there is a requirement to have a quasi judicial hearing under the uh ordinances and I don't see how you can get around the requirement of a quasi judicial hearing
if it goes before a board however I strongly support that minor changes could be reviewed administratively and never have to be referred to a board and never put anybody through the burden of making going through that application process so I suggest that we look at
what your what would be proposed as a consent item and then define those as administrative matters uh the alternative would be a denial of due process which every member of the public would be entitled to and I'm sure that
you would not want to take that due process right away and would certainly diminish the power of the public to intervene and to speak on projects that's all I have to say thank you Mr robbins and I think certainly you know this is something that's voluntary
and it's not mandated and and I feel pretty certain that when matters are of a quasi judicial nature where a due process is entitled that the city attorney wouldn't allow for something like that to be placed on a consent agenda or prohibit or anyone from the
opportunity to cross-examine or deny the public to speak on on an item or the committee to vet any relevant criteria that might be subject to to their approval process uh but for example
things that might be for for example a simple legislative change that is advisory in nature that is not uh a cross judicial matter that could be on a consent agenda if the if the chair
of the committee or the planning director so choose would that is that correct that's correct and I think in order for a board to approve an item like that um as part of a consent agenda uh there the the the chairman of the
board for instance could confirm first whether there's anyone in the public who who wishing to who wishes to speak on any of the public hearing items um and if there were not then then the application could be approved but absolutely the public would still be afforded an opportunity to speak during
a public hearing and does this allow for the committee members to pull an item for example if there is an item on a consent agenda would for example a member of the planning board or the member of the historic preservation board be able to pull the item to for
them to be able to engage in questioning or debate as they may deem necessary yes yes okay all right and again this is not reinventing the wheel this the proc this is already exists it's just not codified yeah so all right so with that we can
show that adopted by acclamation all right um I think we can send number 19 to the next meeting continue that to the next meeting um Commissioner Magazine is not here for
his item on item number 20 so I'm going to just Do we know if item number 20 is if if the commissioner would like to be present for this item he didn't indicate um if you'd like I could reach out to him out of respect let's continue to the
next meeting um let's call item number 21 and 22 okay item number uh 21 is to discuss and identify potential sites for the installation of the Glory of Old Glory a series of murals by artist Enzo Gallo
which were removed preserved and donated to the city prior to the demolition of the Wells Fargo Bank and Alton Road and item number 22 is pending discussion on the installation of the Glory of Old Glory series murals by Artisan Zo Gallo to update and expand the list of
potential installation sites commissioner I believe this is your item yes uh thank you Mr chair i'm I'm looking forward to it yes well how about we have staff get up go for it Mr chair um Vice Mayor um Ron
Mumat director of facilities and fleet uh we've looked at several locations um to place the murals um I I think right now the the recommendation is at the 72nd Street uh project and I I think um
our partners with CIP have some additional information to provide on that good afternoon Mr chair Mr vice Mayor david Gomez director of capital improvements um we have been in conversations with uh facilities and fleet there is an opportunity to
incorporate this piece in 72nd we're not quite sure exactly where or how but it's something we can consider and take back to the designers and the construction manager to get their input okay great um the action that you would need from this
committee is in essence a motion back to the city commission I guess directing the administration to consult with the architect uh with a consultant risk the consultant manager yeah that's correct the construction manager the construction
manager and the consultant okay and that will determine then whether it'll be feasible to incorporate it into the design of of the building and potentially even a recommendation on location on the location okay listen I I don't think we have many opportunities
to I mean this is a civic building this is a civic building it's going to have a library it's more than just a garage it's more than just a pool there's a lot of other activities that are going to be going on there uh and these are beautiful murals that uh that I was
proud to work with MDPL in and saving um they portray um they portray Abraham Lincoln they portray the landing on the moon they portray Betsy Ross they are beautiful murals and they deserve to be
in a civic environment and we're so grateful i'm personally grateful to citizen M that um that that they endeavored to save these on behalf of the city and gave them to the city and
the city has been uh keeping them in storage but they don't deserve to be in storage they deserve to be in a beautiful setting and it's not every day that in the city we are building a brand new building of this nature where it would be appropriate I feel be a fitting
space uh for this type of art now there going to be other opportunities for art in public places in the 72nd Street garage this wouldn't this wouldn't take away those other opportunities is that correct that is correct the project has
already issued a call to artists for an art and public place piece right as part of the project um so this would be an addition to that okay all right great um so with that I'll make the motion to direct staff um to talk with the
construction manager at risk and with the consultant to see um where it could be incorporated and to come back uh to committee with that feedback okay yeah I remember the mural it was beautiful beautiful um and it it it belongs to the
city so please add me as a co-sponsor we'll do thank you are there members of the public wishing to speak on this item i see no callers on Zoom when would you like this to come back to you i would I would ask to go to the to come back in June
and Mr chair do you want these to remain as separate items or do you want to combine these into one i think let's keep well I think let's combine them into one but I think we should keep the item here probably uh so that so then we can go to the commit to the commission
with the direction to talk to the to to the architect and to the construction manager uh and so that when that feedback comes back we already have an item here that we can build on okay is that good yes all right great thanks and
Mr director I think that is it for today that is it for today Mr chair awesome great any other matters uh for the good of the order no with that we are adjourned thank you