connectivity from 60 on 64th from 67th Avenue to the Lulham Trail. Um Jesus is going to talk a lot about what they they've been doing a lot of outreach which uh asked them to move through that part a little bit uh more quickly because he's got a lot of um information
that we want to get some input on. But you're going to be looking at the public engagement uh the alternatives which is the big part of this, right? The alternatives that we've narrowed down. You're going to see some of them. there was a lot of other ones that really just didn't work out as well. And uh in addition to getting your input, I think
one of the cons the biggest consideration here is the constructibility of this, right? Where the conflicts are, where the trees are, where the driveways are. That's all stuff that needs to be considered before we move forward. This was the study part to identify the alternatives, uh which is really what's being looked at. So
with that, I'm going to bring up Jesus, which has been doing a great job on this, and you're going to see them, and EXP has done a great job of really doing outreach as well. So with that, Jesus. >> Jesus. Good evening. Your name and address for the record, please. Thank you. >> Um, so this is a little agenda of what
we're >> before you start, if you can give us your name and address for the record. Thank you. >> Jesus from EXP. >> Thank you. >> Um, um, so a little agenda that I put together. Um, I know that some of this presentation might be familiar to some commissioners. Um, so we're going to talk about a little bit of how we
started and I think Alex already provided some information. Uh but in uh 2024, the uh Miami Day board uh amended, you know, the UPWP, which is the urban plan working program to uh move some
funding from fiscal year 23 and 24 to 25 and 26. And when that UPWP was created, it created a municipal program which the m the municipality went after for some funding. And then uh the municipality was awarded this this uh uh grant
funding. And then in 20 at the end of 2024, you um as a city establish an interlocal agreement with the Miami DPO to look at alternatives to do the connectivity that is needed uh based on existing conditions. So we looked at a lot of the
conditions earlier and we provided an existing uh report uh and but I want to focus today on everything that we have gathered from the public. Um uh one of the very very early on what we did is we did a walking audit and biking audit
with ARP Florida, FDOT, the TPO, Miami date county and transit alliance. We got together and we walk with uh with residents and the idea to bring ARP is because about 16% of the population in
South Miami is uh over 65. So we wanted to have the perspective of folks who are uh senior citizens and and since this is a connectivity for bicycle we also uh engage into um a biking audit to um feel
how it is to bike right now on the what we have existing. We also have engaged into a lot of um um safety campaigns throughout the whole process. uh we have given a lot of helmets and collected a lot of surveys which I'm going to go
over in a minute but um we have had these events with again this was in May with transit alliance Miami uh um Miami day county and the TPO and we gave helmets we collected um surveys that this was at the Metro Rail uh trans um u
station um and then we also did it at the uh safe street Halloween where we also did as well provided helmets a lot of safety information for folks to know how to navigate the streets as a cyclist, as a pedestrian. So, we have gathered a lot of information from from
residents. So, one of the things that we started uh talking to folks, we wanted to make sure if you know what is the main purpose of them using 64th Street and an overwhelming majority mentioned that this daily life. They you know uh
some of them use it for transportation and others for recreation. We asked about what type of mode they use to move around and then as you can see this is not a surprise to anybody but the majority use the car but I wanted you to focus on the percentage of folks uh
using microobility and also uh bicycle which is a significant percentage. Um, and then we asked about, you know, how often >> Can we go back for one second? What is that? There's a there's a missing piece of the pie that's not labeled. >> Oh, that might be pedestrian.
>> I went uh >> Oh, sorry. I >> I already gave you my secrets. >> Um, yeah. So, that little yellow part I think is Yes. is pedestrians. So, it's about six to eight%. >> Okay. So, but nonetheless, you can see
that it's a significant amount of information that uh amount of of respondents that said that they use something other than the car. Um, we asked about how frequent they use uh 64th Street. A lot of them, you can see that very frequent. Um, and then we
asked about if they have fear, you know, they have feel uh congestion or they have seen congestion on the quarter. About half of them say yes. Um, and with a quarter of them saying sometimes and another quarter saying no. Um then we
asked about specifically about the infrastructure that they have and how they feel about it. Uh as you can see a lot of the folks who responded that survey mentioned that they feel that the in the infrastructure right now is very poor poor or fair or average which is
not uh good response. And then uh we also asked them if they were feel that you know the 64 street uh you know would it will benefit from adding more footways or more sidewalk areas and you can see an overwhelming majority said yes about 86%.
Uh we also asked about the public about the the unity wall. The unity wall is a central community landmark and we wanted to make sure any of our planning that everything that we do uh with regards to alternatives includes that component and
you can see as well that about 69% of the respondents say yes. Um and um we also asked about the possibility of having a trail head um at the intersection of 64th Street and the Lutland Trail and an overwhelming
majority said yes. So this is something that we took into consideration for our development of strategies. And then we looked at the different possibilities of what you can use to put together some cycling infrastructure. Uh keeping in
mind of what is existing right now. Um but we wanted to make sure that they also uh the the the alternatives that we selected are in in alignment with the goals and objectives of the project which is you know we want to and strengthen regional connectivity. We
want to encourage uh transportation other than the car. We want to increase um access to uh transit um locations, expand accessibility to um schools and universities. continuing the effort that the city is
moving forward with the vision zero efforts and and safety uh road safety um supporting community um and economic development. It's important that what we propose uh provides that economic boost and vitality to the town I mean to the
city and then also last but not least we want to make sure that we're proposing is integrating regional trail networks. We want to make sure that everything that is connected to so folks all over the place and South Miamiians can go to other parts of um of Miami date county
biking. So we looked at unprotected protected buffered uh separated in the shape of uh share use path a wide shoulder share lanes and advisory lanes. And I just wanted to mention that um
share lanes and advisory lanes and white shoulders are not really um something that would meet the criteria for this uh for 64 street given the fact that 643 is a higher hierarchy road. It's not an a local road. So those three um
alternatives were discarded. Um and then we move forward with asking uh um uh the community what type of separation, what type of level of separation they would like to see. And and then you can see that the higher ranking um um or the
preferred alternative was the separated facility followed by protected and then buffered and then the typical uh conventional bicycling. And so wi with this in mind, we need to balance that with uh constructability issues to make sure that we could look
into uh what is the preferred alternative or the alternative that could have less impact to the community. And then uh we have several throughout the project we have what we call the project working group which is uh is formed by uh stakeholders from different
technical uh offices such as FDOT, the TPO, the TPW um and then also from community um um city com committees like the um the neighborhood historic neighborhood preservation um and then we
also have ARP Florida, Transit Alliance and all this other um University of Miami. So they will part of this uh project working group to help us make a decision and then we balance it out as as I mentioned before constructability with the pre preference from folks from
uh the public and the on street facilities were the ones that were preferred because they were um as I mentioned here they will provide less impact on existing infrastructure uh reducing uh disruption on swell areas driveways utility pole mailboxes and
other roadside side elements. Um they this option will prefer the neighborhood character and minimize constructibility uh challenges. Um it would enhance safety and comfort because we're going to provide that protection when feasible. Um and uh provide that
separation right between cyclist and vehicle traffic when it's feasible when there are no access management issues or conflicts with um driveways and all these different entrance uh entrances to properties that we have along the corridor. Um the it would also be a
seamless network continuity. Um it will maintain consistency with existing on street facility that is east of 62nd Avenue. um and get carrying that over all the way to the west to the Dland Trail, producing unfamiliarity
uh and in transitions because we want to make sure that the route that cyclists follow is predictable because the the more predictable the route is, the less chances of having impacts with uh vehicles. Um, we also preserve the roadway
capacity because we looked at the uh the if there was adequate vehicle capacity to accommodate projected traffic volumes at least to the year 2050. And the reason why we looked at 2050 because is because regional plans are uh looking
that's the horizon year that is using the long range transportation plan that is prepared by the metropolitan um um planning organization the Miami ATPO. We also have compliance with the the city's uh complete street standards. Um this is
this standard was done in 2016. Um and then the the proposed improvements are in alignment with the best local best practices and multimotal planning objectives. And last but not least um recently last month we received a resolution of support from the Miami
date uh TPO bicycle and pedestrian committee. uh it was unanimous and they are recommending um that you know this project move forward because it's in alignment with uh uh county uh countywide mobility priorities.
So based on that we put together a cost estimate. Um this cost estimate includes not only construction but it also includes design mobilization utility relocation landscape because we feel that landscape
uh will be a important component of it. Um and then we also um we have contingency in total is 4.3 million. >> S quick question. Yes sir. Just remind me the project boundaries are uh 62nd to the Lam Trail. >> Yes.
>> Okay. which is you have a tiny little piece that is outside city limits. Uh but that you know since 64 street is but belongs to the county you know it's you we coordinated with one agency after all. Um so
how do we move the project forward? the um the city already has received 1.3 million in uh for fiscal year 29 uh as part of the the tap the transportation alternative program. Um and they have
also received about $150,000 for CI money. Um there are other you of course you have you have a a a gap a funding gap um that could be either uh uh you know eliminated by PTP sax money build
grant uh the mobility impact fee uh there are different options for the municipality to put this together so it's important that once now that the project is the alternatives have been selected and then have been vetted with a lot of different conversations with
different stakeholders Now the effort should be moving forward with having this implemented with the regional partners. So the project could be added to the list of priority projects in the transportation improvement plan for the Miami DBO and it can eventually be added
to the long range transportation plan. So other recommendations that we have, we feel that based on the feedback that we have gathered from folks um we feel that there's some vision in opportunities for play placemaking. Um the trail head opportunity for 64th
Street, it is not only for recreational purposes. We believe that having a trail head at 64 will uh pin, you know, will provide that uh economic boost to have more visitors to the town so folks can go to Sunset and spend more money and
and you know, shop and then uh dine at restaurants. So we want to make sure that this this um um improvement provides that um that economic vitality component that is necessary for all the projects. Right. We also want to make sure that the uni unity wall becomes a
cornerstone of placemaking when we uh discussed that with commissioner uh Bes mentioned that the the wall is private property. Um uh nonetheless, we we need to coordinate to have make sure that if and when the the the wall is, you know,
removed in the future, at least we have a commemoration that says, well, this is a place that needs to be remembered as part of this history of of of the city. Another case is for the traffic coming and this is something that we also talked to commissioner Bonnes and we
also talked to this uh with Commissioner Okay. Uh when we um the currently the the municipality has an app, the Somi app where they can put together recommendations for neighbors
to have um this type of improvements either uh speed humps or roundabouts. But because the municipality has an ILA with DTPW with the Miami Miami date county, they had to follow a specific process of having those approved,
especially on 64th Street. Um, as the the you're going to hear in a little bit about the vision zero efforts that the city is is working on, but we recommend as as this u efforts continue um that the city looks into the whole process of
how to apply or get this application uh moving with the TPW so it gets approved and you can have um the the improvements that the traffic the the the speed of the corridor reduced. When we were biking along this corridor, we felt that
folks were rushing us. We're trying to make sure that they wanted to catch the next light. So, we feel that having some traffic coming devices or features along the quarter will benefit and as we have spoken with a lot of the residents, this is something that they they would like
to see as well. Um uh another opportunity that we feel that needs to be uh explored is that having that connectivity of of the the city's greenways with the blue ways. Uh recently the the municipalities applying
for TAP for the uh transportation alternative program to look into that and then make sure that all the greenways all the bike links are connected to all the lakes there all the canals that are within uh the city. So again, to provide another alternative of
recreation to uh to residents in alignment with the parks master master plan efforts that are currently going on. And last but not least, this is something that we talked to uh Commissioner Rodriguez when we met with him that um lighting improvements on
64th Street should be added as well. um because especially at night and because one side doesn't have sidewalks it becomes very very dangerous for folks to be walking without a proper infrastructure. So having lighting uh will also be in line with the vision
zero effort that the the other team is is putting together. So that's something that we also recommending to uh move forward or explore. Um since uh we are finalizing the alternatives uh part of this uh effort we have worked uh um
diligently with the TPPW to propose our improvements and make them have them revi review them before we move forward with pre-esign and all that. So we have submitted that either with their uh VRT virtual review tool that they have in place for review of uh transportation
improvements and also we have worked with the traffic engineering division of DTBW to uh review our improvements as well. uh and based of based of based on that we have started a pre-esigned constructibility assessment at the
beginning of the year we conducted uh uh an assessment with DTBW where we gather and we created a story map where you can if you want you can scan the the the QR code and you can see it yourselves. Um it pretty much logs all the items
features on the road that we feel that might be um needed in the design um uh phase of the project. They need to be accounted for because they might become uh per perhaps might be uh need to be identified as a conflict and it has to
be addressed when design continue. But you can see here in the in the in the this is a screenshot of the dashboard and you can see that we have cataloged all the different issues whether is it is a driveway uh and and I'm going to show you in a little bit in the map what
type of driveway that is if it's asole uh bricks or whatever um we have cataloged if it's drainage lighting even others because we have along the corridor we have sections where you have um guardrails especially where you have
the canals and uh one I believe is 67 where is protecting uh um control cabinet for one of the signal uh signal uh heads that we have there. So here you can see the driveways are all cataloged with the type of driveway if it's paved
uh we have uh bricks driveways concrete driveway if it's painted or not if they're like um P rock or not. We also have catalog all the fire hydrants. This is in in advance of uh the design uh uh phase of the project to begin. We have
to have uh have catalog all the uh signage um mailboxes um meter boxes of water valves utility light poles um drainage and others as I mentioned could be um for the gut rail but this is as I mentioned you know this
if you walk if you bike or walk along 64th you you you have a lot of landscaping that a lot of residents have taken you know um as ownership of them and they they see as an extension of their property. So it's important to
keep uh them catalog them as well record their conditions so we can when we move to into design any uh counter measures like you know either replacing the the the the trees or relocating the trees if it's necessary that's taken care of and
is acknowledged as part of the design. So we are uh also moving forward as as after this is we're going to start documenting the existing vegetation so we can have um um an inventory of all the species that are along the the
corridor and we have it in GIS and we're going to create another story map like I showed you before and then we're going to evaluate uh the potential conflicts and we're going to provide a contextsensitive recommendation to address them um so that that the project moves forward and is uh you you know,
considering all the aspects of the community because we want to make sure that what we're doing is conserving the quality of life of everybody. And that's it. Any questions? >> Yes. Um, Commissioner is recognized for questions. >> Yes. >> How you doing? Good seeing you again.
Um, my question, so on 64th, we come across where we come to the Lum Trail. We have that, you know, our city ends and then we have that one house and then the llam trail >> that's going to be on on the county or
on us to get them to >> that constructed. Yeah. So because you that is a good question when when you come to implementation you might have to join forces at the time of implementation because the majority of
the cost will be um yours because most of the whole uh segment is yours and that little portion will be might be that the interlocal agreement will be the county will provide you the money and you execute the whole thing. So the arrangement of that needs to be discussed once the design is completed
and also as as the Lland Trail advances in design because they're in a in the process of design right now. As it advances, that details of how to coordinate that will be more available to for further discussions with DTBW.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> All questions. No, >> Commissioner Corey. And then we'll go to Commissioner, sorry, Vice Mayor Corey, Commissioner Bonich. Okay, sir. >> Thank you so much. Amazing presentation. And obviously for the benefit of the audience, this would connect what
already is protected paths on 64th going all the way to 57th, which would be the east west entire city, which I think is is is amazing. >> Oh, sorry, north north south. But uh uh so uh but I did have a question. And you had mentioned that the recommendation
was a separated path. >> At one point that was that was no the the recommendation that moved forward after a lot of vetting from uh >> the um public and then the um uh the project working group >> um is to do uh on street facilities and
then it will be you're going to be changing whatever is feasible. You're going to have protection pretty much exactly like you have on the east side. But in this case in on especially on the um eastbound you don't have a lot of driveways uh at
least until 67. So you're going to have a lot of areas where you're going to have protected bicycle lanes on at least on the east as eastbound. On the west west sound westbound is a little bit different because you have a lot of driveways especially as the segment between I would say after the canals you
have a lot of driveways one after the other. So those locations you have to have some uh buffer bike lanes uh because you cannot achieve separation with so many entrances in and out and then that will be you know counterproduct you know uh the residents are going to start you know having
issues with getting in and out of their property. So that's why we in in the role plots I wish I would have presented the role plots but there too much information but the role plots you see uh that dance between protected buffer to make sure that we account for the number of driveways and the existing
conditions that we have there. >> Okay, got it. Thank you very much. Commissioner, you're >> I I just wanted to note for whoever doesn't know this already, the the reason this conversation started was because we did indeed have the bike
lanes already in place from 57 to 62 and we have South Miami Middle School, South Miami K through8, and South Miami High School. And the area that we're talking about is not serviced by the school bus system. So we see the the children, the
teenagers walking back and forth all the time, riding bike, riding, you know, scooters, riding skateboards, all of this is happening on a very constricted sidewalk because everybody's on there. So then it it's like people everywhere
and this is an effort to try to at least help those kids that are trying to get to school to get there safely, >> right? Yeah. that the the the project will also address safe route to school issues. Um and we feel because when we did the walking audit, we saw a lot of
kids uh at the time that they were coming out of school and they were hanging out in one of the canals and after school. So that's why we're thinking that having that connectivity between parks, greenways, blueways and all together will benefit as well uh uh as part of the effort to have a more
recreational areas for the whole residents. So, Commissioner, thank you for saving me from being the turd in the punch bowl because I was that my question is why are we doing this now, right? Because um uh I'm actually curious as to the timing of the Lum Trail because if my frustration with this presentation was if we're doing it
for that purpose, we might be waiting a long time before it connects. So, I'm glad to hear there's an alternative purpose, >> right? Yeah. >> If I could turn on the microphone. That was the original purpose when I spoke with Eileen at the TPO. That was where
the conversation was born because we do see I I mean Commissioner Rodriguez probably sees it as much if not more than I do. You see all of these children on bikes, skateboards, scooters and it's like a freeforall because
>> I'm sorry that point that's most acute between 62 and 67. Correct. >> Between 62 and 67. Yes. The the 67 to the Lulham Trail came after. >> Yeah. So the the part that I'm concerned about just knowing knowing our people >> is that uh that section from 67 to the
Lam Trail is I think in terms of um orientation I would say much more low volume much less intense in terms of the traffic >> and much more constrained in terms of right away that's not um impacted by
what I would say mature trees. Mhm. >> And so I I just wanted to make sure when we did the public outreach here, did we speak to those neighbors specifically? >> Yep. Yeah. We we >> I'm thinking of like, you know, Paul Young's uh widow particular when when I knocked on Paul Young's door when he was
still with us, you know, he was a person who was deadly opposed to this kind of an impro improvement. And that was the sentiment I had when I walked in 22 for the for the homeowners in that segment from 67 to London Trail. They did not want to see the trail continue west. we
when you if I think that it will be best for us to present uh when we find finalize all the pre-construction assessment and then they can have more information about what's actually being affected they could make a more informative decision because as of right
now if you don't have if you don't know exactly if if this this tree is going to be affected or not they're going to assume that it's going to be and they're going to be against the improvements so I feel that we need to complete that pre-esign portion of it, collect as much
information that we can so we can pre present this information to them and have a a a public meeting with them specifically if you're concerned to those specific. >> Yeah, I I would very much want to make sure that we do direct outreach because that is going to be a a a touch point. I
it doesn't it doesn't impact I think I >> my original thing is not does not have >> and so again just knowing that the timing of the Land Trail is putting it kindly uncertain >> you know I I I can fully appreciate the genesis of this idea in terms of
enhancing the conditions from 62 to 67 given all the uses you mentioned it's that that next that next phase to the Lam Trail which I think should be built eventually the question is I'd rather be delivered in a on timing concurren current with the trail otherwise
>> and that that is an a valid assessment that you can uh once you know more and I agree with you like right now the lland trail is >> it's not even accessible. Yeah. >> So uh as you know more about the plan the county has for that particular facility and it's it's clear as you know
you can make arrangements and you don't have to build the whole section. I was wondering if we I was wondering whether we could bifurcate the project >> and take the limited funding that we have and focus it on the first portion of the >> the segment and then leave the I mean we
could design the other segment and kind of leave it >> unconstructed right until we know that that's actually coming online >> because I think that's where we're going to have issues with our neighbors. >> Just want to be practical. >> Yeah. And and just on that note and in general this is presentation is not because anything is final. Quite the
contrary. this presentation is coming in early to get the input to know how we move forward and there's been this you know hyperfocus on the impacts to that right away and everything that's in it. I mean you saw the level of detail that was done is exactly for that reason. So yeah that's something we'll definitely consider uh and you know you saw the
numbers. So really it's a matter of funding it and prioritizing whatever we can and understanding the limitations with the Lum Trail. >> Yes sir. You're recognized. And I'm sorry, I'm I'm I'm pretty sure you told me this, but I I don't remember the funding source for this project. >> What you already have right now is from
the Yeah, it's about 1.6 something and it's uh from the TAP program from Yeah, >> that's right. Okay. Thank you. >> So, yes, to answer your question, yes, you can phase out the different segments of the quarter. doesn't have to be constructed the whole length and based
on the available budget. But you know that's something that you need to work with. >> Commissioner Guy, any thoughts, questions? >> No, I agree with you, but we had a long conversation and he went over all of our points, so I'm I'm okay with >> Great. Thank you for the presentation. >> Thank you.
>> Okay, Madam Clerk. Uh E3, please. >> Safety action plan presentation. Alex Mos. >> Commission Mos, it's your day today. >> Yes. uh including the employees that want. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. So, this one here is going to be handled uh by uh Chris Bonitz here with
Stantech. And just to kind of frame what you're going to be getting here is this is the safety action plan, but forget the fancy name. It's basically datadriven study, right? Focusing on eliminating traffic fatalities. That's what this is about. It's got a bunch of different names that it goes by. Vision
zero as well. Uh you're going to see some really good data. They've done a map that probably will interest you. I think we do have copies. I'll hand them out as soon as um it's part of the presentation so it's easier for you to see. Uh this is also getting input. Nothing is finalized yet. This is also about getting input and uh they're still
going to do more public input here. Uh and really at the end of the day, they're going to have projects that at all varying stages. Some will be that we can move into construction because they're simple and some are going to need design uh based on the crash data that you're going to see. And also here looking for your input. This particular
study was funded by a federal grant and it has a local PTP match. This started back in 2024. Uh the work started in 25 uh this p this past year uh by Chris. So I'm going to bring up Chris uh from Stantech uh to do the presentation.
>> Chris, good evening. You're recognized. Chris Bonitz with Stantech Consulting project man consultant project manager. >> Good evening. >> Good evening, mayor. Good evening, commissioners. Okay. So, that's the high injury network map,
which we have a slide that we'll go over on that. Uh, but there's a few other slides that we'll get into right now. Um so this is uh the introduction to the comprehensive safety action plan study.
This is the very first public milestone meeting. This is going to set the foundation. So um key takeaway here is there's no decisions being made right now. Uh we're we're just here for transparency and direction the study.
So, we're going to go over a little bit about what the SS4A is, the safety action plan. We'll get into what our data analysis with the crashes is showing, introduce you to the high injury network, and then
we'll talk about next steps. So the uh project team we're working this is a city-led study first of all and the city is um is involved with the the city staff's involved with the development of the study throughout. Uh we have a team of safety specialists and
public engagement specialists to ensure that uh community input is going to um inform the safety action plan so that this is a cityowned safety roadmap. So, a little bit about what this safety
action plan is. Uh, first of all, um, just know the state of Florida, it it consistently ranks ranks as, uh, one of the highest states in the country for pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities. In fact, the Smart Growth America's
Dangerous by Design report that's created annually, uh, the most recent one ranked Florida as a number two leading state for pedestrian fatalities. So, the comprehensive safety action plan. This is um this is a datadriven
and a communityoriented plan and it's developed that um it includes where the crash data where where it's showing where the locations are, what the issues are and some of the strategies, the solutions, the engineering projects in
place to resolve uh eliminate and reduce the fatal and serious injury crashes. We recognize that um safety there is a statewide challenge, but this safety action plan is the city's opportunity to
proactively address safety at the local level. The safety the comprehensive safety action plan. It is developed in accordance with US DOT and Federal Highway Administration requirements so
that the recommendations from this plan can be used to pursue implementation funds. The uh this plan it it looks at implementable solutions, policies and
programs for the city. So this is one of the first steps as part of the development of these plans. What we've done is we looked at five years of crash data across the city and um one of the key takeaways here is
we we do look at the frequencies of crashes but there is a priority over crash severities particularly fatal and serious injury crashes. One of the goals of the action plan is to eliminate and reduce those types of crashes in the city.
So, uh, one of the key takeaways here is we, uh, the the data shows a high level of crashes associated in the, um, typical school dismissal and evening rush hour periods from 2 to six o'clock.
Those are periods with high activity. This is one of the crash trends that we look at forformational purposes more so because the safety study does prioritize crash severity over frequency. Some of the trends that we're seeing from the
crash data. Uh there is some fluctuation from year to year. There's a decrease in crashes in 2024. Um this could be explained by the CO 19 pandemic. There were some crash occurrences
uh that some crash patterns similar to other municipalities uh other states where crash patterns actually increase from year to year u during COVID uh when in fact crash volumes decrease usually there's a
proportional relationship to that but um but again this the key takeaway here is that um uh really the focus is more on the crash severity which is what we're going to get into right now.
So human and um a crash crashes have a cost a human and economic costs fatal and serious injury crashes which uh serious injury that's also known as incapacitating injury on the screen. Those crashes have the uh a
disproportionate share of costs. So we use this data, we use it to inform our high injury network, which we're going to we're going to introduce in a couple slides from now. So, um,
crash trends, we look at several different crash trends in our analysis. Uh, one of the these crash trends focus, uh, help us focus our evaluation at the next stage. uh when we're looking at
some of the risk factors and identifying counter measures. So based off of some of the driver actions which are the contributing actions what the data is showing almost half the crashes are uh related to careless or negligent crashes and on the
right side of that is the crash types. The majority of crashes are related to rear-end crash types. So those two crash types are typical of urbanized congested areas.
Now what's not shown here is what we're doing is we're uh looking at an intersection of these different crash patterns with the crash severities to identify emphasis areas which is part of the next stage of our analysis.
So Before we get into that other phase of analysis, we identify some of the high injury crash locations. And the way that we do that is uh we we take that this prioritizes
which of the high crash severity roadways and intersections are within a small percentage of the city of South Miami. That way safety improvements can be focused at those locations. These aren't the only roadways that we look
at, but this is the priority of what we look at. So, and this is based on uh part of this is based on uh one you're what this map is showing us where the high severity crashes are. But it does account for all the crashes.
It's just that the fatal and serious injury crashes, those have the highest weight. So, one of the key takeaways here, I'm sorry to interrupt. >> Sorry to interrupt you. This is actually very interesting map that that you're providing here, it's actually really
good information because if if we want to loop it back to the previous presentation. We can also see that 64th Street just to this actually, you know, makes what uh Commissioner Bonich was saying um on
64th, that little area right east of uh 67th Avenue, that's where those kids actually walk. And um on the west side, that's continuing to the Lam Trail. So this this is actually good information like that we're getting to provide us
more information for the previous project that was presented. So and okay that just wanted to state that >> this is very interesting uh information. Thanks. >> And you know one of the things as part of the study is we we do look at all the
other projects programs going on and try to in intersect them uh include them in the action plan. some of the other recommendations such as that southwest of 64th Street project. Uh for so typically with high injury
network maps, these are um you typically see the high injury locations as the more congested facilities, higher volume facilities. And why is that? That's where you see not only vehicle uh several vehicles, but you see the uh
they're typically areas where bicyclists and pedestrians have more interactions with vehicles and those are vulnerable road users. Same thing with schools. schools. You may see um the surrounding roadway network uh as part of the high injury network because you have kids uh
severities with any bicyclists, pedestrians, children, vulnerable road users, they typically have a higher uh share of crash severities. So, next steps in this process, we're going to be continuing the public and
stakeholder engagement. There's going to be additional uh public outreach opportunities such as an online survey. We're going to take uh we're going to evaluate even further infrastructure and policy recommendations, looking at some of those risk factors
from the data. looking at looking at some of the potential countermeasures to resolve some of those issues. For instance, if we see a higher instance of left turn related crashes, there could be um some recommendations with identifying left turn, let's say at the
traffic signal, left turn improvement programs, protected left turn treatments, things like that. Um people crossing, if we see a lot of pedestrian, bicyclist crashes, which the data is is indicating that there is a higher um share of bicyclist pedestrian
crashes. Those are opportunities for us to look at further and try to figure out some strategies opportunities to to help mitigate those types of crash patterns. So, uh we we'll take that we'll pri prioritize that and uh the end result is
a comprehensive safety action plan. So, uh and this here this is a sample of um the type of engagement questions that we're going to be asking the community. Uh
we're going to get their feedback on what they feel some of the issues are. Uh bottom line is safety um safety strategies. There's there's tradeoffs with them. There's always trade-offs and um each community
is different and each set of strategies is different for that community. So that's why we come in and we uh we do a a robust public engagement, stakeholder engagement and engagement with you all to uh get a better understanding of
what's going on in the community. >> Sorry, I I keep interrupting. Is this in conjunction or is the county involved in this? >> So the county is uh going to be one of the stakeholders involved. >> Okay. Because if anybody that knows and our public works is very very aware of
this. The most difficult part of implementing anything like this is the county because we we we have this issue throughout our city, but obviously the county has overall authority on anything we could do. Like you said, left turns, things like that. Um so I think the
county is going to be it's very important to have them involved in this as well. >> Yeah, I totally agree. Um the county will be involved and um I'm I do studies all over the county. I work with the county all the time, so I'm very familiar with what they like to see and
what they don't like to see in these types of engineering recommendations, let's say. But they will be involved. In fact, our team actually has uh we we have public engagement specialists that were working with the county on the vision zero plan that they completed.
So, we're very intertwined with the county. >> Vice Mayor, you're recognized. >> Thank you very much. Thank you for the presentation. I had a quick question regarding the map. some of these and again back to that some of these are county roads some of these are major roads might be difficult to create uh
traffic mitigation things like that but I can definitely see in here some individual intersections but I was curious if they are marked for high injury um you know notification is is that possible that that's a single incident
that was high injury or does that mean that there were multiples >> so what what it means is that the um that intersection was identified on the high injury because there's a a combination of fatal serious injury or
high injury type crashes that sufficient when looking at the entire network of the city. Uh that one actually had the highest I I would say waiting of all the other locations. and and the map is um
the other thing to note the map is roughly 10% of the roadway network in the city. And so it's there's a whole 90% that doesn't account for in that little in and that's not shown in that map. But even so, we do look at other
roadways to not in that high injury network, you know, based on community feedback and any sort of qualitative assessment. >> Okay. Thank you. Further questions? Yes, sir. You're recognized. >> Thank you for the presentation. I mean,
this is something that we've been kind of working on and what I'm >> strugg This That was the last slide, correct? >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. No problem. >> Oh, sorry. >> No, no, I had a question to my left, so I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page. That was the last slide. >> Well, I did want to just say that it was
the last slide and you know, we I welcome your support and any any questions. >> Thank you, sir. There you go, Commissioner Gay. Floor is yours. >> Um I I don't know if you spoke about the timetables. When do you expect to have this completed by? >> So uh the recommendations, the
infrastructure recommendations, policy recommendations, we expect uh we we hope to be presenting to uh the commission and the community around the May time frame, but there's going to be other meetings before that to gather some more input.
>> So you know, it it's funny because I had, you know, I've been a lot lately about traffic and safety and some of the issues we've been having in the city. I I just held a town hall last week, 45 people attended with great information that actually I want to give them the survey once you have available
to them so they can fill it out. But what I'm struggling from our city's perspective is there's a lot of data out there, right? I mean, the data you provided is great from an accident perspective. We have data and trade uh traffic studies from developers that are currently in the area of developing
whatever they're developing, right? So they they they create traffic studies and we get that information. I don't know what we do with it yet, but we get that. We get traffic studies from Sunset Drive. We have a big improvement over the Sunset Drive corridor. We just did a traffic study that we just paid some money for. That's another piece of data.
We have traffic studies from the county that are currently being under undertaken that we need to go look into in the same areas that we're talking about. And then we have a traffic study from FDOT that was completed recently and I think there's still more expansions on that as well. A lot of study, right? So I've what I've
struggled with and I really want to get better with is all this amount of information to either feed together and have a cohesive plan so that we can get all the correct people involved, city, county, and obviously the secretary of
transportation and his team as well. So, what I'm looking for in this particular study is how do we start marrying this whole project and product together because I I I can tell you that our city is suffering from traffic issues and and safety issues and it's only going to get worse as we continue to get more
condensed here. I really want to work on this to make sure it's all cohesive and together so we can provide a unified solution for the city. >> Yeah, that's uh that's a good question. But as part of the study, we look at all
the plans that the city produces. We're working with city staff to uh understand a lot of the development activity that's going on. I know that there's a lot of development activity going on. Um let's say for instance the um the new
reconstruction of Sunset Place. Uh so we we work with the city. We also work with the county to understand what's going on including uh we have the plans for uh the underlying project because that's under construction right now. That's in a key u and that's going to bring in more pedestrian and bicycle activity
too. So that's could be another area of focus. But we do look at all of that and as part of the study we evaluate those documents. We usually put like a summary of each of those document what's relevant. Let's say if there's improvements there and we see if there's any improvements from any of these
projects studies. we can incorporate them into the action plan if they make sense. If they make sense based off of uh input from the community, analysis from our data, and a coordination with city staff. >> Thank you, Madam Commissioner.
>> I will say nothing. >> You're recognized, sir. >> My my final question. So, I'm just curious. So when you look at this map and you see for example Miller Drive from 67th Avenue all the way to 62nd Avenue is solid completely. What what
kind of and again I'm not we're not going to hold you to it but just what kind of recommendation do you do you provide for something like a street that's so busy like like Miller Drive. >> Can I can I can I gonna piggy back on your question because it's my comments. It's part of my comment. Okay. So to
piggy back on his question, I think what I is is needed I think you hit on as well is if you can also review our list of capital projects, we have a series of crosswalk enhancements we'd like to see for signalization on that segment that he's mentioning. Our friends of the
county have been giving us a hard time uh with flashing beacons, for example, but I think this an this information certainly seems to justify uh the need for that kind of an improvement. So I think coordination with our existing capital plan projects and reaffirming that we are investing
dollars uh in high priority areas like this I think is certainly of paramount importance. I think that kind of dubtales with your your your comment commissioner Kite. Uh the other the other thing is I just want to note really quickly we've got you know a development project for which we're
considering a development agreement for this evening. The site plan will be forthcoming at a future meeting. Uh it's right off of 73rd. It's a it's an awkward segment that kind of dead ends on the street uh just south of 73rd right at the intersection of um AO Miami
where where the restaurant is and uh Noi Sushi. It looks like you've got a high instance of crashes there. I'm wondering whether we want to consider eliminating a left turn movement. I imagine that's probably the source of the conflict. It's very
hard to see someone coming eastbound on 73rd if you're making a left turn out of that corner. And I would imagine I I'd love to know if you can before our next meeting if you've got any more refined data on it what what what the tra what the um traffic accidents are at that
intersection because it's it speaks to maybe we need to coordinate with the developer about circulation with connection with that that possible redevelopment. Um, and I think this just reaffirms from what I'm seeing all the trouble spots that we already know exist. Right? We've been talking about 80th and US1 for a while and trying to
get some mobility impact fee money for the county to create capacity expansions and enhanced safety there. The same on 62nd and US1, the same on 73rd in terms of again ped safety, Sunset, uh, Red Road, and then this morning I got an
earful about 84th Street from constituents and and and Red Road where I live. And I will tell you that's probably because the intersection there is misaligned and as a driver it's very hard to judge, you know, uh I've got two young kids learning to drive. Very hard
for me to judge where folks are coming and where they're going to make attorney movements since the intersections are offset. So if you can help us understand how we can, you know, specifically get to projects that are refinements through this information, I know we'd all be grateful. So with that, any further comments, questions? Okay. Thank you for
the presentation. We'll move on. >> Thank you. Uh, madam clerk, if you can read item uh E4, please. >> E4. Exon body warn camera report by Chief Hack. >> Yeah, I got a little Thank you.
>> Good evening, Chief. You're recognized. Sorry about that. >> No worries, sir. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, commissioners. I want to take a few minutes to walk you through how the South Miami Police Department uh with your approval has upgraded its public safety technologies in an effort to improve our transparency, officer safety, and accountability.
Everything I will describe to you tonight is already in use uh in the police department and works together as one connected system that supports how our officers serve the public every day. Our Axon technology system is an ecosystem
which includes my90 community feedback, Axon body14 cameras, signal holster uh sensors, uh a real-time operations respond, Axon capture and view for evidence purposes
and and taser 10 less lethal devices. Together, these tools support our mission of delivering professional police services in a partnership with the people we serve, providing a safe and secure environment for all. Cover my 90. First, we start with the
community voice. My 90 sends out an automated survey to residents after certain police contacts. This allows community members to tell us how how their experience went in their own words. Before you I've presented a a packet that's a more detailed I'm just going to give a high level uh for
tonight presentation. It gives us trend data on professionalism, communication and response. We use it to identify where we are doing well and where we need improvement and it helps guide us for our training and our supervision. This creates a continuous feedback loop between the public and the police
department so they're always listening and improving. my 90 report. This is the report you're looking at is from March 1st, 2025 uh to December 31st, 2025. This report reflects the community feedback collected during those time frames. And
during this period, the South Miami Police Department received 251 responses with 72% of the residents rating their experience as very positive. Uh, as a note on there, if you add up the positive and the very positive, 89% perceived the South Miami Police
Department as positive. When you look at that as a whole, um, from Axon, they report nationwide, 82%. If you look at the Gallup polls nationally, 52%. This data gives us a direct real-time view of how our community experienced
police service. Rather than relying on occasional complaints, we now have a continuous feedback loop that helps ensure our officers are delivering professional, respectful, and effective service every day. The bodywn camera.
The next uh is the Axon body warn camera. We now provide an objective, high quality uh recording of police interactions. These cameras capture wide-angle video. They're GPS located and can live stream for supervisors when needed. This also includes a pre-event
buffering, so moments before the camera is actually activated are already preserved. A key feature is that supervisors can check in on their officers in real time during active calls, and officers or even residents can request to speak with a supervisor
through the camera system when needed. This allows issues to be addressed immediately rather than after the fact. >> You don't mind playing the video? >> How are you? >> Very good. How are you? >> I'm well, thank you. >> How can I help you? So, I got a traffic citation. I was wondering if I can speak to a supervisor.
>> Sure. Allow me one quick second. I'll get in touch with him. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Give me one moment. >> Yes. How can I help you? >> Hey, I have a citizen here. She has a concern. >> Allow me one moment. Go ahead. >> Hi there. I got a traffic citation. I
was wondering if you can help me. >> Sure, ma'am. Can you give me some more information about what happened with the citation? >> One of the most important upgrades is Axon signal. The sensor is on the officer's holsters, both their uh weapon holster, their handgun, as well as their
taser. The sensor on the officer's holster automatically activates cameras when the fire firearm is drawn. What that means is the most serious situations, recording happens hands-free without the officer relying on having to press a button. It also can activate nearby officers cameras so we capture
multiple perspectives using Bluetooth technology. This protects the community, the officer and the city by ensuring critical incidents are documented and consistently and transparently documented the real-time operations. Not only does
Axon Respond provide supervisors and dispatch a live operational picture, but they can also see officers locations, active incidents, and in some cases live video. This helps command staff make better decisions during rapidly evolving situations, even when they're not
physically present after incidents. It's also creates a complete timeline of what happened, which improves review, accountability, and training. Axon capture off officers can now also capture additional photos, audio, and video using Axon capture on their city
issued phones. This might include those close-up photos, witness audio, or scene details that body cameras cannot always capture. Axon View can also allow officers to check their camera uh field of view and tag footage with case numbers in the field without altering or storing the
video on the phone which protects the evidence integrity and chain of custody. And then lastly, uh the department has now deployed the Taser 10 as a less lethal option. This device gives officers greater distance and more time to resolve situations safely. It
includes audible warnings that encourage compliance in records and internal data for accountability and review. This supports the deescalation and reduces the need for lethal force whenever possible. What this means for the South Miami Police Department and the city of South
Miami, when all these tools work together, the results are powerful. In short, this is not just technology. is transparency, accountability, and a safety platform that helps us to serve our residents better, protect our officers, and uphold the trust that the
community places in us. I thank you for approving these technologies and upgrades, and I hope you see the benefit. >> Thank you, Chief. I think the survey results be the loudest. So, thank you. >> Colleagues, questions? >> No, just quick question.
>> Yes. Yes, sir. You're recognized. And then, Commissioner Wich, >> Chief, you're you're using all this These programs already been allocated and they're distributed throughout the force already. >> Yes, sir. They're already underway. >> As of when? >> Uh, some of them as of, you know, last month with the taser 10 because we had
to get the training implemented. But as you can see from the report, my 90s been out since March. >> Since March. >> Yes, sir. >> And the data shows exactly what we've we've been preaching with you guys is that we're doing a phenomenal job. You're keeping our streets safe. And I, by the way, I think that that's
something, Brandon, that we need to do a little bit more of is celebrate what we've been doing and and and those key stats that we've been asking for since we all got elected. They're actively available and we need to, you know, make sure that we're getting that out, Mr. Manager. I think that's a great asset and and it's something that should be
celebrated. So, I appreciate that. Thank you so much. >> Well, we appreciate your support as well. Um, as you have can see in your packet, there's a demographics in there that are also explained and then there's also opportunities for citizens to give direct text feedback to us on both complaints and on compliments.
>> Thank you, sir. Benn Commissioner, >> I echo what Commissioner Ga said and I I I thank you guys. I think collectively as a group, the commission, the the city management and your department have made
moves towards making us not only safer but more transparent. And these types of things show us as residents that our money is being well spent, that it's not just going out into ether. There is a direct correlation between my tax
dollars and the the type of service that I am receiving as a resident. And I think that in accordance should be celebrated. It's pretty awesome. We we're a small city doing great things. And I think that the more our residents and the public at large see of our
police department and the p the positive impact on their lives, the better off we all are. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Vice Mayor. >> Yes. I I just wanted to echo what they had mentioned and and say that even though we were obviously part of this process of uh getting these items
approved and going out also to try and find funding for these items. I think communicating it to people is great because even seeing it today, it exceeded our expectations of what we were we're trying to accomplish. So I think it is just a a great a great thing
for us to to communicate to people. >> Chief, you guys always do us well. you're our best ambassador. So, thank you. Um I will pass along. The only complaint I've heard is people want to see more traffic enforcement. Uh so, just pig piggybacking on the last presentation. A lot of those
neighborhood hotspots that were on the uh mentioned 84th that came up quite a bit today, but there that there is certainly a hunger for more of that and whatever we should have a conversation about as a follow. >> Yes, sir. >> Mr. Kai, you're back. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. Just to follow up on that, I was looking at the uh actual comments and the post contacts.
So can you explain this to me that that when you is this like a a survey of actual contacts and this is the feedback that you're getting? >> So it's an anonymous survey so we don't know where obviously where it came from. So when the citizens reply back it's like when you go to your doctor's visit right and you rate us one through 10
kind of a thing. So uh that's exactly what it is. It's just a seven to 10 maybe 12 questions depending on how you answer uh that you fill out and then there's a text feature that allows you to just free free text uh anything if you remain anonymous. Don't put your name in there. We'll never know who it
was. >> So, the data that we're receiving from any contact, is that being put in a database or is there a platform that you're receiving all that data? For example, if we're seeing theft, we we've seen a 5% occurrence. If we're seeing uh a homelessness issue at 2% or we're
seeing traffic or some type of fatalities, we're seeing it at 60%. Is that something that data that you're starting to receive and get a little bit more of a a finger on the pulse of what the issues are in the community? >> I think what you'll see on one of those
slide decks there is what the citizens feel is important to them, right? So sometimes that's just a quality of life thing. And to the mayor's point, traffic is the number one uh complaint so to speak for the city. So uh I think the
number two was theft and then the third I think was increase the amount of sworn officers. So I mean it's really a mount of just how you look at it. Does it fluctuate monthto month? Of course it does because it depends on um you know who we responded to and how it went and
what their feelings are. But as a as a group you can see from March of this this year to December what the the census was. Well, I guess what my my specific question to you is, are we going to use this data to manipulate what you see your force doing? >> Yes, sir.
>> Absolutely. It's all data driven. >> Thank you. Yes, sir. >> Okay. For the questions. Thank you, Chief, for the presentation. >> Thanks, Chief. Uh, Madam Clerk, if you can read item E5, please. >> Yes. Landscape master plan master plan Miller Lake. >> Thank you. Good evening, madam director.
How are you? >> Good. Good evening. Sam, development services director. are happy to be here tonight to present the Miller Lake team that's been working on the city's landscaping master plan. Uh they're almost done with that. I'm so happy with it. Uh but we wanted to bring it to commission to get any recommendations or preferences that you may have before
it's finalized. >> Thank you. >> I'm Miguel Hunga, um landscape architect and project manager, and this is Jenny Sagowski. She's landscape designer and we've been working on the South Miami landscape master plan. Um, we presented this to you guys a while back. So, I'm
going to do a a quick recap of what some of um, uh, the reasons and the purpose behind it and, uh, where we left off and where we're at now. And then I'll hand it over to Jenny and she'll get into some more of the details. So, initially, you know, we developed this master plan
uh, essentially it's uh, for the major roadway corridors throughout uh, the city of South Miami. and it's supposed to support the vision, the mission, the values and the strategic goals that uh identify the opportunities and constraints to guide future
improvements. It includes uh gateway entrances, key intersections and public rights of way which aims to improve um aesthetics, pedestrian comfort and community character with a focus on resiliency, sustainability, identity and
enhancing the tree canopy coverage. So this master plan delivers a conceptual planting guidelines and policy recommendations that are going to produce a roadmap for the future with clear measurable strategies to support the implementation. >> Excuse me. Okay. I was going to say I
think you have a clicker. >> All right. So that's where we were. This is where we are now. So uh this was the process that we're going through to uh basically achieve this landscape master plan. So we originally started with the
mission vision and objectives. Uh from there we went ahead and did an existing conditions inventory. We went throughout the city taking account of um different elements along rights away and um a general inventory of you know canopy trees where they are where they aren't
that sort of thing. We uh looked at the opportunities and the constraints and that's where we presented to you guys the information that we found at that point. From there, we've since come up with the conceptual landscape master plan graphics, which is something you guys are looking forward to. So, uh we
have those to share. We um provided the draft landscape master plan and we are currently looking to uh finalize that, but um as Ramy stated, we wanted to get some input from the commission to see if there was any uh added uh information or
or benefit that we can provide. >> Yeah. So, like Miguel was mentioning, some of this stuff we've gone over with you at the last commission meeting. So, for the existing conditions, this is just a summary of what we found. We classified all the corridor types in the city. We also looked at the where are
the key intersections, where are the existing signage at the gateways as people are coming into the city and also the existing conditions of the signage. And then we also looked at the existing conditions and types as well as
locations of the hardscape in the city and the irrigation conditions. And this is basically what we found after looking at all of that. So to give you guys a summary, uh basically we found that there is a bit of inconsistency with the
landscaping in the city. So from one corridor to the other uh it is a little bit fragmented depending where you go. there is not a lot of canopy coverage on certain parts and then you know in other ones uh there are and just as well as the density the species um so those
types of things we analyzed as well as looking at what the constraints are so if we're talking about increasing and improving the canopy in the city we have to look at well are there any constraints and things that are kind of blocking us in order to do that and
there are um there are a a lot of overhead utility conflicts. The city has a lot of power lines. So that is going to affect the types of trees that we place and where we place them. So that is something that we
had to take into account when we were developing our graphics and coming up with our recommendations. But despite the conflicts, there are opportunities for enhancement which we will get into. Okay. So looking at the design guidelines in
order to uh com to provide the recommendations we needed to look at existing criteria both in the state county and city guidelines. Why? Because the city has streets that fall under all three of those categories. So it was important for us to look at the criteria
that governs those streets. So conditions or criteria like the setback for tree planting within the right ofway these types of criteria would affect the areas that we are proposing the improvements on.
And then these are just some more guidelines that we looked at um DOT guidelines plant installation. In order for the plant and tree to thrive and to be sustainable long term it needs to be installed correctly. And so these are also some guidelines for that as well as
hardscape guidelines. Making sure that the hardscape improvements that we're recommending um not only function are accessible and sustainable, but they as well have to abide by this criteria. Things like pedestrian safety, access, ADA compliance, durability, climate
appropriate materials. And then when we go into our plant species recommendations, we also um presented this to you at the last commission meeting. So just looking at making sure we're providing Florida
friendly where they're not native as well as abiding by the criteria. So, we have lots of natives in there, but also again Florida friendly, drought tolerant, um, as well as looking at the adjacent ongoing projects in the city and what
their planting pallet is to make sure we're not deviating too much from what they are proposing and to make sure that the city has this cohesiveness within its landscaping. Okay, so these are the typical conceptual landscape corridors.
So based on our analysis, we chose specific corridors within the city that we believe are representative of common conditions that we find throughout the city. And this does include those constraints. So this is an example of one of them where we have red road and
then on the left you can see a depiction of the existing condition. To the right we have a depiction of the proposed conditions. And so taking into account the constraints that limit the size of the trees we can plant under the power lines is super important. So here we are
showing underneath the power line we have a proposed landscape theme which we will get into um further into the presentation. >> Sorry if I can interrupt. I'm I'm either missing something or I'm underwhelmed. Sorry to put be that direct about it or
I'm underwhelmed honestly. Yeah. Is it So are we just adding two palm trees to that segment? Is that all I'm seeing by way of species diversity or difference? >> What's the what's the change >> from the proposed to the >> part of the issue here and what Jenny was getting at with our analysis is our
part of the constraint. So in this particular roadway and many throughout the city of South Miami you have overhead power lines. Um, if we're following FPL's, right tree, right place, as one of the the major guidelines, you can't plant a large tree or a large canopy tree underneath one of these
power lines, especially in this case where it's pretty low. So, what's going to end up happening is you have a large tree that ends up being cut into a Y or a Vshape. Um, and what we're looking at here is improving the canopy throughout the city. I think part of the reason some of the canopy was lost in past storms and stuff were probably wrong
tree, wrong place. Um, when they grow improperly, they break. and heavy winds, hurricanes, that stuff, you know, they're they're basically gone. They also provide safety hazard to pedestrians. >> I get all that, but again, I don't want to be we're short on time and I want to
be respectful of everyone who's waiting as well. We've been waiting on this product for a long time. >> Short answer is >> overhead power lines. You have a constraint. >> So, >> I get it. But that those palm trees had no canopy. So, again, in terms of advancing our broad objective, it accomplishes nothing. I just want to
make sure that we're moving the goalpost. I mean, we're moving towards the goalpost as opposed to honestly putting lipstick on a pig. It's that it's not it's I mean, this my frustration is coming out and it's not your fault. I understand we have these constraints. Yes.
>> But again, to everyone here, this is I mean, if that is the condition that we need to do something about prioritizing the undergrounding of those utilities because I mean, this does really nothing to uh substantially enhance the aesthetic of that corridor. And I and I I don't think you disagree with that,
but it's it's just a fact that we need to recognize. >> Yes, you may. >> I think historically on this day is we have an aversion to the palm tree. It it we we've we've said it many many times,
palm trees don't add anything. And so when when we're looking at the possibility, and I completely understand what you're talking about, the overhead power line, because obviously, duh, it's going to break apart, it's going to fall, we're not going to have electricity. I think we're seeing that in Tennessee right now. Um, but I think
there's a million options before you get to a palm tree that you showed us in those other things that >> yes could be better. >> Not to interrupt you guys, but yeah, we do have different options. So, we're trying to show different options for different area. You know, in this case, we could go with a small canopy tree as
well. Something to consider in this particular situation is how tiny the rightway is in this space. So, putting any type of canopy tree is going to be quite restrictive. It's also adjacent to the roadway. So, you want to make sure you have proper vertical clearance so that vehicles, bicycles, uh, and
scooters, whatever, don't run into it. You don't want to have to deal with the with that. And also, horizontal clearance. So, between the sidewalk and the roadway, there's not a lot of room. So, putting a canopy tree in there might damage one or the other as well. So, in this case, we went with the P. I don't I
understand overall it's not the go-to option, but we do have other other options. Yep. So, just going through these other recommendations that we have outlined and a lot of them do present the same condition where we do have the
overhead power line, but as Miguel was mentioning, we have proposed landscape themes. Um, so it gives the city an option in terms of the pallet that you want to choose and where you want to plant those species. Okay.
So, a few visuals um as examples of improvements would be at gateways. There's only two types within the city is the large gateways and then you have the smaller ones found more scattered throughout the city. So, this is just an example of seeing how one implementing
one of the types of landscape themes, the pine habitat theme, can enhance that particular gateway and can h add a bit of greenery. by way. That's That was very nice, by the way. So, thank you. >> Yes.
>> Oh, I want to be That was very nice, >> Mayor. They put a tree there in the roundabout. >> So, and that roundabout does have an existing Bismar palm. So, now we know the aversion to poems. >> So, we did put a tree there as um that
example. So that is a also um could be an opportunity to plant more natives. That's for that could be a that's a gumbo in that case. And then on 64th when we where we have those raised protected uh bike lanes um there isn't too much opportunity to
plant something while still maintaining visibility of the cyclist. So something like grasses could be a good opportunity while also you know providing cars um not blocking the view of the cyclists but also creating that visual for cars
as well. And then this is an example along um southwest 67th where there is a bit more room in the right of way and then on both sides you can see in this case again this condition is great. It doesn't exist everywhere in the city,
but where this condition doesn't ex exist, you can really, you know, buff it up and you can include these planting themes that we're proposing to really create these beautiful spaces. And these are this is the example of uh two uh two
different themes there. And then as well >> I'm sorry you recognize sorry going back. So >> for example on this one on 67 on the bottom two um renderings there you're basically providing two
options. >> Correct. So the idea here first uh the theme landscape. So rather than planting trees you know per coat 25 ft on center underneath power lines or 30 feet on center based on you know you know non-restricted areas. The idea is to pro
provide some more identity to the city, do something unique that you don't see anywhere else. So the idea that we came up with are these themed landscape areas. So within that same space, that same spacing we would normally have two standalone trees. We're looking at creating like little tiny themed environments that represent the history
of the city of South Miami with different habitat types. And >> so in this case uh on the left hand side, that one is showing um a smaller canopy tree, something that could be used overhead power lines or less um or more,
you know, less restrictive areas where you have the high tension lines where those won't be an immediate uh impact, you can probably do something like that. And on the right hand side, we're looking where there's no no um overhead lines at all. So now we can introduce the larger canopy trees and some
subspecies and that sort of thing underneath there and get something really really nice. >> So I agree with that. I think that the the which would be the west side of the of the street, the left side, I think that looks great. I wouldn't would change that just on the right side instead of I would I would personally
say instead of doing the left hand rendering I would do the right hand render because you have the opportunity to provide a tree canopy. So this other option I don't think any of us would want to do it because it really doesn't give you any canopy over 67th in
that area but the right-hand picture does. >> So >> I agree. I think it's I think they're both very nice alternatives but I I would concur. I would have prefer um the second option. >> Yeah. Something else we noticed throughout the city is there there is quite a bit of canopy. A lot of it is not within your rideways, but it's on
properties that kind of hang over. So that's where a lot of the fragmentation comes in. >> And and I I guess so one of the reasons I I'm I'm mentioning that is because you guys are the professionals. So I think I don't know in my case I can't talk for
everybody up here but I I rather you just give me one option like with the big tree and the nice on the left side and I would say that's good rather than giving me the two choices where I'm never going to pick the one on the left. >> I think that's why he's doing it. >> I think what he's doing trying to figure
out they're trying to figure out. >> Okay. All right. I I thought you're giving us options to choose from, right? Isn't that what ultimately >> we're showing the different types that that we can create? Okay. >> So, yes, as a professional, we would be putting the one in the right because we have the space for that large canopy tree and that's exactly what we put on
there on the left hand side of the same graphic. That's an example of like our butterfly habitat where we can come in with smaller material stay small because you do have the overhead. >> Yeah. And that looks great. I have no no concerns over that. >> Further questions on the slide? No. Okay.
>> All right. So, this is the last graphic where we just looked at um an example of the meetings. This is on US1 the idea is lowmaintenance drought tolerant species like grasses and here fakahhatche mui grass um so those were what we were
thinking when we were the guidelines that we were thinking about when we were um coming up with >> just quick question on that Mr. That's is that the section that we get the less than $5,000 from the state to maintain? >> Okay. Just want to confirm. >> Okay.
>> So, as far as the implementation goes, uh what we did so we can put a cost to this was we looked at each of the themed areas, uh the different variety of trees and we put a range to each of those themed areas. Um so, you know, listed on on underneath each of those. So, for
example, the pine habitat on the right hand uh chart below that the cypress dome habitat and then the estimated cost at the bottom. Again, it's a range because uh depends, you know, if you wanted to have the pine habitat, but there's an overhead power line, you
wouldn't put in the pine tree. You would look at the the subanopy material and pick something smaller like a Simpson stopper, which would then, you know, lower the cost in most cases. Um, so we did that for each of the habitats as well as gateway and um
Uh we also did the same thing for some um hardscape options. So looking at what we have in the city already, there is some there are some areas that have uh the old style Chicago brick. So what we were looking at was a manufactured old style Chicago brick. So
we're not, you know, fighting for that rare commodity um but still have that look in certain areas. We're also looking at rock salt finishes, blue glass aggregates, not all over the city. These would be in key areas, points of interest. um you know just to provide
some pock and some way finding um also looking at exposed aggregates as another option and again cost um you know average average cost provided on the table there. Uh another item that was brought up was the inclusion of
fruit trees within the rights of waste. So what we looked at were some species that weren't quite as messy. You don't have big fruits like mangoes or very round large fruits like grapefruits or oranges that can roll into the roadways. So uh some of the selections we have
here are lychi longan loquat and starf fruit. So again these would be located strategically you know probably in calmer areas and away from overhead power lines. Commission, do you have a question?
>> On the basis of cost, is this just per plant or is this installed? >> Um, this so >> how' you calculate >> counts for everything like each of the plants, but the range it's just dependent on how many of the species that you put, but it should
>> the installation. Thank you. So moving beyond implementation of the master plan, we provided a framework of recommendations so that the city can use this to align with the goals of the master plan to improve the city's tree canopy. And we broke it down between
short, mid, and long-term goals. And then within each of the goals, we have the objectives and actionable items. Um, so breaking it down between policy and programmatic recommendations, design and implementation recommendations, irrigation and maintenance
recommendations, and then data monitoring and education recommendations. And again, this was based on our analysis and our findings from the master plan of things that we believe that the city can implement in order to further the goal of increasing the tree canopy beyond the
implementation of the master plan. And then finally we have grants. We also are providing um grants. These all involve or grant opportunities that the city can go for and we have also uh shared this um with the city as well. These all involve increasing canopy but
just for different programs and each of them do have uh different requirements. Um, but these are the ones that we have so far that are in line with the goals of the master plan and that is all. >> Great. Colleagues questions. Yes,
medical commissioner recognized. >> I I think it's safe to say that we don't want palm trees. Is is that an I'm just trying to like say we don't want palm trees. Not our thing. Um, what we're looking at is trying to increase the overall canopy. And when we're looking
at this, I think, or at least what I was expecting is not a universe of what is possible. We need to narrow this down so that when we're, you know, our public works team is going to say, "We've got a roundabout. We've
got three trees that we can choose from and three shrubs that we can choose from." Because while our teams are very willing to do things, when you give somebody 15 things to choose from, you are asking the person who is choosing to
give you their personal opinion. And that is not what we want. We want our city to have a cohesive plan where you have one of three trees that can go on in the roundabout, one of three shrubs that can go on the roundabout. Every single gate, whatever we want to call them, the circle sign that has, you
know, one option. So, this is all wonderful and I I think we've done a great job getting us here. I think we need to take that big funnel and make it a final thing when I think we see that you say hey just like we did
right now you saw one you saw the other hey these are your two options which one do you like as a commissioner or which one do you like and guess what that's what we go with am I wrong in in saying that >> manager you want to add something >> commissioner no you're not wrong you're
right um and that would be the next step of where this goes right this becomes our our master plan, our Bible, and then as we're designing spaces, you know, medians and public spaces, th this is what we go back to to say, you know, these are the things that we would so anybody that would come in and design
that would be given, you know, this master plan to work within this guideline. Now, there may be some smaller areas that we just pick and choose ourselves and we do it. The goal is to now design certain areas uh that follow uh this master plan and and obviously we have a lot of areas and
opportunities. We'll have to prioritize what those are. So that level of specificity would come in the design using the master plan as its guide. >> Okay. So do I understand it to say then that when we put a new traffic circle in somebody's going to have to go back to
this and decide why would we do that? Why would we give them 14? >> If I can just interrupt for one second because I think it's maybe instructive to >> Yeah. >> inform the conversation. There were a couple slides where you had uh you named like um cohorts of installations and it had different
different species and elements. Can we go back to that slide? >> I just want to I think I think I just think some of what Commissioner Bonich is referring to is already in the draft that I'm seeing here. I just want to make sure we make that connection.
So yeah, it's right here. So I I think what's missing is I think you have all the elements she's referring to which is here is a deployment. The question is where are the opportunities that exist today where these can be these installations can occur. >> It maybe not the exact species because
we want but you know at least highlight where you would execute a pine habitat, right? And so though I think that's the level of specificity you're looking at. I think you have all the raw material here. It's just a matter of where these particular executions would best fit >> from your professional perspective. Just
to tie back to your point if that makes sense. >> Okay. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Rodriguez. >> So just to piggyback what Commissioner Bonich was saying, you know, aside from the roundabouts and and and the public spaces, we also have
>> and no palms. Um, we have two buildings that are being uh presented today that are would be going up um possibly in our in our downtown district or in the next coming year. Are you had any conversation with them because I know
one of them hopefully will soon be working on 73rd Street. So the goal is not to I don't know if this is a question for the manager or for you but um the goal is not to do something and then come back and then do it again. So the purpose would you know the the
ultimately to be efficient and get it all done in the first time around. So is are there conversations happening with the people with with the developers that are looking to work in our in our city or that's not we're not >> answer that question is no correct.
>> Yeah that would not be within their scope of work to be um looking at projects in the city and reviewing them. That would not be part of their scope of work nor is part of their scope of work to actually design every single rideway in the city. The idea was to select some ones that we absolutely wanted them to
look at, like the bike lanes on 64th, which is an issue. I mean, I don't if you ever driven there at night, but anybody could run into those and have an accident. They're it's just horrible. Uh the gateways, the roundabouts, and look at them from a 30,000 view level. These are the types of trees that we're
looking at. This is the type of shrubbery that we're looking at. We're not going to have whatever firecracker plant. We're going to have only these bushes or something like that. Also, the feedback that we need from you is are you open to uh maybe like no palms at all? You don't want to see any palms.
Even if we have orchids on them, it doesn't matter how we dress them up. You don't want to see a palm anywhere, then that's feedback. I don't like palms either, but if they're full of orchids and they are within the canopies of other trees, absolutely, I would take them. I wouldn't take down anything that's on 62nd Avenue that we see there
is that 72nd that has all those pumps because why would you take them down just because you don't like them? You know, you could hang orchids from them. So, that kind of feedback is really necessary to get from you all. I love the fruit trees. That was part of what I wanted to do. I would like to see that the city is open to having fruit trees
in our rideways. I don't see there's a big problem with it. The starf fruit is a beautiful blooming tree, but I'm open to citrus, you know, and the whole thing. I mean, if you ever travel to Europe, they're all over the place in the rightways. So, I don't see why the city can't be um one of the first cities to do that. You don't really see that in
Florida anywhere that I've been in Florida. Um and then The third item that we really need feedback from you on is on the hardscapes. So, we've looked at um the old Chicago brick and just the regular brick and the maintenance and what weathers well and what do we really
want to do so the city has like when you come here, you know you're in South Miami, right? You know you're in the beach because of the color of the sidewalks, you know, the gables. Um and I really like the idea of having sidewalks even when you have a development that's coming, right? that you tell them, hey, you have to provide
sidewalks in front. Even for single family homes, you're building a home, you need to put the sidewalk. That's something a lot of cities try to do. Force the the adjacent property owners to put the sidewalk in and have a standard for our sidewalks that maybe matches the already very pretty blue signage that we have with the black
poles and the blue signage and maybe have sidewalks that are white with blue uh aggregate in them or something like that. That kind of feedback we need from you. Or is the city not willing to look at that? They want only the Chicago brick or the bricks that we have the roundabouts because part of really
improving those roundabouts may be just changing the heartscape to have something that's really beautiful and goes with the signage. So all of that feedback we need from you. We've discussed it, but you're the vision, right? So >> So I I just want to clarify. Sorry. I I
know they're not going to be designing all these projects, but what what I'm trying to get at is like Commissioner Bonich saying is we want a cohesiveness, which I'm sure you guys have all talked about, and I'm sure that's what you want as well, so that we can go because we were talking about design guidelines
earlier in our Sunshine meeting. My goal with with design guidelines is to be able to go to a development and have hand them over. Here you go. These for the area you're in, these are the trees that are recommend. We're I think we're mixing two priorities. So we have >> Oh, no. This is with the trees.
>> Well, design guidelines and the master plan are different. >> Yes. So, I think I look the way I saw that if I if I can just let me just interrupt you for a second. >> The way I saw the division of work is one is this is more neighborhood, right? And other asset focused the placemaking
exercise includes the streetscape and the related landscaping. So, I think the service study kind of captures what you're talking about in terms of the coordination with some of these projects. it's happening or not is a different story. This is more I think neighborhood and >> well neighborhood focused.
>> But I was told you guys are working in conjunction with for with Serbia, right? To do the >> they're not in conjunction >> or they have spoken to make sure that there's no overlapping and that they're not doing one design style and placer is coming in with all cactus. >> Okay.
>> And it's a whole cactus look like if we're in Arizona, that type of thing. And reason I'm saying this is because from from prior meetings it was you were providing desired guidelines right and then we were asking them what is preservia going to give us you're already giving us these design
guidelines. So that's the only reason I'm asking if you would be providing the species of trees that you would want in in in our show district for example >> not in the Somi district because the Somi district is very specific placemaking of Somi by placerium. So
that's a very detailed look that you want to have for your SOE district including maybe not having the city's logo being the same thing or you know we that's different than what I think we were we were drawing a distinction between say urban versus the suburban right and I think this is the
suburban landscape plan and the other plan is the urban hardcape and landscape plan. >> Okay so yes commitment clear manager Let's clear that up a second. >> So, so just back to the master plan. Master plan is supposed to be broader in nature and and and it's not sight
specific. And so I mean that's just that's just how these things proceed, right? And and our master plan becomes that that sort of guide for for anything that we may do and then the sight specific design works within a certain um u recommendations that that we see in the master plan. So we will be doing
sight specific. We actually have asked them to to give us some quotes on some sight specific uh designs for some areas that we would prioritize as it relates to the interaction with uh plusurbia and Curtis Rogers who's a landscape architect there. There has been
coordination and uh conversation as it relates to the work product ultimately it does come from it will come from plusia Curtis Rogers and that team uh but they have had some dialogue. Um I I think where the confusion was that that that maybe there was some overlap
communicated because you saw some heartscape and then plus everybody said oh they're doing heartscape so do we well no they're doing that for the city and you're dealing with Somi district so Curtis Rogers u has uh spoken to Miller leg and there's some coordination from
that standpoint ultimately the work product deliverable comes from the pluservia team as it relates to somi district uh but obviously it's it wasn't blind right I mean there has a conversation about what are we doing here and we'll continue to share that after we get your feedback. We'll circle back with them and say hey here's where
we're at and and and uh you know further coordinate but the ultimate work product for Sony district comes from plusia team >> and Curtis leg >> Curtis Rogers >> Curtis Rogers so Curtis Rogers will tell the universe what the treecape all of
that is going to look like in that area >> in the district. >> Okay. >> Yes. Okay. I've got uh Cay and then Vice Mayor Corey. >> Um so you you guys spoke about the overhead lines and all that stuff. There's a major
undergrounding of lines throughout the city. It's it's pretty massive, but just obviously whenever you do if you do speak if you do pick specific spots that have overhead lines, just make sure that it's in the plan. I mean FPL can we we have maps that show what what's going to
get undergrounded so we can just coordinate that. Secondly, uh we have a green task force um that that is, you know, a bunch of residents that really are passionate about this specific project. Have you guys been in touch with them? >> Yes, they presented to them.
>> Yes, we we coordinated with them. A lot of the species that we've selected uh was from our conversations with them. So, we made sure to include their thoughts, their concerns, and their specific selection of plant material. >> Thank you. And a lot of the feedback and data that
we finalize here is that going to be put into whatever I know they were working on some tree specific. What were they working on? >> The green task force. >> Yeah. Some changes to the ordinance, >> some recommendations to revise. Yeah. Make changes to the ordinance that
applies to um some of the canopy and things like that, >> right? Specifically on private property though. So that if you come in and you're removing trees, like what is the canopy that you need to replace? What is all that? Yeah. And actually I had sent that to Miller because they're looking
at it also for us um as you know a little extra add-on to the scope that I asked them if they look at that. So >> perfect. Thank you, >> Vice Mayor. >> Thank you. Um just real quick, um I I had thought that part of the product of
this delivery was going to be potentially as well the identification of areas that we could focus on um restoring tree canopy. Is that not going to be part of what's the final deliverable here? They did do an inventory of the city's
canopy and I believe that there was an additional work that they did specifically on the 85 or 80,000 that we had from that we had to spend on the oaks that we got from the corner property that they removed all of them and that was already done though that >> that was done and we also provided some
input to uh the grant team so they can look at grant funding so that was 157 >> the city's granting the grant >> okay whatever So, I mean, there's that specific part of it, but there's no other area in the city that we've identified as, hey, this
is where we should be putting tree canopy. >> I think I think let me let's put a fine point on it, which is >> there's there's probably the Twin Lakes area that's the most devoid of tree canopy and I think there was a desire on the part of the vice mayor to see a
focus on where we should be directing res limited resources first to augment the canopy. So, Mr. manager. >> Yeah, mayor. Thank you. Yeah, that is they had looked at the report uh the county report that came back that demonstrated uh some deficiency and erosion from our prior canopy. So, I
think that's what I think that's what you're referring to. You looked at that and gave some recommendations as to what there's opportunities to plant. I think that's what the vice mayor is talking about uh for that tree initiative. So, um you have that work product, but it was based on that. I think you reviewed
the report on where the canopy uh um had had diminished and eroded. So that there is a document that speaks to where we can plant additional plant material. I think it's your question. That's the answer. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. Uh given this o'clock,
I'm going to refrain from any comment. I want to thank you guys for the presentation. Um I'm excited. There's a lot of good stuff in here other than my first reaction to that one segment. I apologize, but we have been waiting for a very long time for this and we're very excited as Commissioner Bonich I talk
about, you know, we we're we're eager to actually put this into into practice. So, thank you. Uh, with that, uh, Madame Clerk, uh, I believe if you can read item F1, which is an add-on. >> Yes. A resolution of the mayor and city commission of the city of South Florida approving the proposal and third
amendment to the professional service agreement with plus LLC DBA. plus design for additional services for the preparation of design and construction documents for Southwest 58th Avenue between Southwest 72nd Street and Southwest 73rd Street in an amount not
to exceed $219,792. >> Is there any objection to adding this item onto the agenda? Okay, hearing no objection, consider the item added on. Uh with that, there are no minutes to approve this evening. Uh and we'll ask the city manager for his report. And madam manager, if you could be brief, we
would appreciate it. Um, just tomorrow from 6:00 to 8:00 PM here in Chambers is the Miami Day Collegeformational Session that was coordinated in conjunction with Commissioner Rodriguez where individuals will find out about upskilling and certifications that they can receive at no cost. And then on Friday, the tax
collector mobile unit will be in our city hall parking lot that was coordinated in conjunction with Commissioner Kaya. No appointment is necessary for that and it's open to the public. Um, Saturday from 9:30 to 11:30 we have our community volunteer cleanup. So that's from 9:30 to 11:30 we'll meet
at city hall and four volunteer hours are available for any students who need that. And we invite everybody to celebrate Valentine's Day at second Saturdays. It's a Marty girl theme PG Marty Gro theme but beignet vendor brass um band and plenty of beads. And on the
public works side, since we're talking about trees, um you've likely noticed that the beautifification project on Sunset Drive medium from 62nd to 69th already started and um final planting for that is anticipated mid-March. >> Thank you. >> That's it. >> Any brief questions to Andrew?
>> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Uh Mr. City attorney, your report I I know you wanted to get into the RFP for solid waste. Um can we defer that till later in the agenda? >> Absolutely. I'm happy to just pass it to you and if >> if you could pass it out and >> give you the opportunity to discuss
>> a couple days if you have any questions to to call us. >> If not, we can issue it. >> Okay. >> Is there anything else you have by way of a report, sir? >> Just to announce that the board of county commissioners uh I forget which committee uh tomorrow will be will be
hearing the CRA item for the city of South Miami. 10:30 a.m. >> would be a delegation of uh of authority uh and issuing the finding of necessity and allowing the CRA to adopt the redevelopment plan. >> Questions regarding uh the report? Yes, sir.
>> Mr. Attorney, uh where is the um the session being held? >> County Commission Chambers. >> Okay. And what time roughly? >> 10:30. Been there. >> Yeah, I know. >> But it's at 10:30 tomorrow. >> 10:30. Yeah, I'll confirm that. Yes, I
will be there. >> Okay, further questions. Okay. Um, colleagues, I think if you could if you can peruse it at some point during the course of the meeting, the the RFP, make sure any comments you had are reflected and then hopefully we can get that issued in the next couple days. Uh,
John, public remarks. Is there a signing sheet? No one. Uh, anyone who'd like to address this commission in public remarks, you're welcome to do so at this time. >> Jeff, that's not you. >> Not Jeff. >> Jeff is not the public. Uh, seeing no one in the chamber, madam clerk, is there anyone online? >> Anyone? Oh, yes. I see someone.
>> There's any member of the public online who'd like to address this commissioner in public remarks? Please raise your hand. >> We have >> I see Lee Emerson Smith. You can unmute yourself. Good evening. >> Hi. >> Hi. Good evening. >> Good. Came so fast. I'm not quite ready
with my >> Do you need Do you need a second? >> Here you go. Um, I just we've reached a critical point here in South Miami. I I believe given the stated goal that the county is
of the county is to increase density along Dixie Highway. We're about to be to witness an assault on our little town so massive that will be unrecognizable as South Miami sooner than we think. Avalon one was built taller than than the eight stories that we previously
carried here. and Avalon 2 will be a nightmare I think beyond anyone's imagination. 16 stories, three years of hellish noise and the noise ordinances are damned. That's what h happened with Avalon 1. Police dispatch informed me on the first days of construction that no
police officer would be responding for noise enforcement because the city which is uh y'all and city management had approved the waving of the noise ordinance. um the cement dust, the jams of 18 wheelers, cement trucks, workers, um
vehicles, and you know the scenario, the the 18 wheelers um entering and leaving Avalon One on 59th Avenue have it extraordinarily difficult negotiating the narrow road, often having to drive over the sidewalk on the west side of the street. I'm a bike rider, so I see
all this stuff on on a regular basis. Um few of the charming small businesses can survive those uh these these impending conditions and actually the traffic is more of a concern to most of the
residents than the construction. I believe that no honest realistic traffic study could rate this gigantic structure as viable and without major impact. We the residents, many of us 20 years and more south of downtown, which some of
you are, will be on the receiving end of the vast majority of a throng of additional traffic, desperately trying to avoid all these roads, Davis, Sunset Drive, North Kendall, to make their way south and west and even get back home here. So, I think considering speed
bumps and converting some streets and/or avenues to one way can indeed have a positive effect on the on what could be a very negative effect. Um although reducing the number of vehicles is a seemingly impossible task given the current conditions and
capacities of the roads involved and I don't think anyone wants to have roads made larger through the neighborhoods and of a real high priority is police enforcement. I know I've heard it mentioned in the meeting earlier in in our youth in our young adult years South
Miami was the place where drivers did not exceed the speed limit. friends and family of of mine and ours got their first tickets here on these streets, but not so much anymore. And we see that 25 mile per hour is rarely
observed. So, and stop signs have become glorified yields in so many cases. And I'm I'm sad to to feel that this is just the beginning of what could be a 20 or 50 year plan to turn this lovely little
town into another bickle but without the Bay View. So just remember why we're here, why we love the location so much and so much about the little town. And thanks for the opportunity. >> No problem. >> Really appreciate what you guys >> Thank you for joining us. And just so
you know, the um >> the actual project is not before us this evening, just uh a related agreement. So we invite you to join us in our next meeting to actually discuss the the project itself. Thank you for joining us. >> Thank you. >> Any further any further uh member of the
public online who'd like to address this commission in public remarks, please raise your virtual hand and we will recognize you. >> Seating. >> Okay. Uh seeing no one else uh online, we will close public remarks and move on
to the next item on the agenda. Madam clerk, do we need to take any action on the board appointments? >> No. >> Okay. So, uh if you can read those quickly into the record and then we'll move on to items um items five and then items four if
there's no objection for my colleagues. >> Okay. Christine Ortega has been reappointed by Commissioner O'Ne to the planning board for a two-year term ending February 3rd, 2028. Gloria Payne Simmons has been reappointed by Commissioner O'Ne to the Marshia Winston Scholarship Committee
for a two-year term ending February 3rd, 2028. Noah Clean has been reappointed by Commissioner Cay to the Green Task Force for a two-year term ending February 3rd, 2028. Levi Kelly has been reappointed by Mayor Fernandez to the Community Relations Board for a two-year term
ending February 3rd, 2028. >> Thank you, madam clerk. If you can read item five for the record, please. >> Yes. >> Item five, an ordinance of the mayor city commission of the city of South Florida amending sections 20-2.3 definitions 20-3.5 dimensional
requirements 20-3.6 state supplemental regulations and 20-4.5.1 tree protection to revise regulations related to single family development. >> Thank you. Um Mr. Mr. Manager, I don't if you've got a presentation on this item or city attorney, if you want to
walk us through any changes. >> Thank you, mayor. Uh it's one one change from first reading to second reading. This was at your direction. Uh the first reading had a had two basically two height uh limitations. One was 30 feet from grade, the other one was 25 ft from
the finished floor. You you had asked us uh the commission had asked us uh to uh eliminate the the separate the 25 foot from first floor elevation. Uh so all we have is a 30 foot 30 foot from grade limitation. Otherwise the same ordinance you adopted on first reading.
>> Okay. Uh we have a question by Commissioner Rodriguez. You recognize sir? Um, so yes, we we said the goal was at 30 and after the meeting, I I I really took a
chance to observe it a little bit more and do the numbers. And I I guess in in the language, what what kind of makes it difficult to reach what we're trying to reach is that it's going off grade rather than finished floor. So if if the
commission agrees, I would like to move from 30 to 35. And I'll explain why. Because if you're measuring from grade to 30, a typical resident will have offgrade finished floor at 2 feet. Okay.
>> Okay. The goal of this was to have these, you know, when someone's building a higherend home have at least 10 foot ceilings, right? So when you got your two feet, then you have your 10 feet, right? You got to then account under
slab for duck work, which can give you anywhere depending on the size from two to three feet. Then you have the slab, which could be six inch slab. Then now you're going to the second floor where you want the 10 foot span because initially the problem was being that you
were getting 10 feet in the first but your second floor was ending up around 8 n feet. So to make it sequential, we want 10 and 10. >> So now you go the 10 on the second floor. Again, you got to leave room for your duck work and for, you know, so two to three feet. That right there is going
to put us roughly like around I did it with like 26 27 and a half feet. So any little change and you're not going to make it. So I think it would just be simpler if we just go to 35 and you know that no matter the size of your duck
work or whatever and oh and sometimes on the second floor depending on the type of home you have if you have duck work you have and you do spray insulation you have to now separate that duck work because it can't touch. So you have to separate the the the the duck work from
the insulation. So that's even more distance that you need. So, I just figured if we go to 35, it's just a safer bet to accomplish what we're trying to get rather than staying at 30 where you're going to be so tight that people are going to just, you know, if
we're going to change this now, let's make it let's make it so everybody it accommodates everybody. So, I don't know how the commission feels about that. >> Madam commissioner, you're recognized. >> Thank you. So, if we're talking about
that, are we safe saying 35? Should it be 37? I >> No, 35 is safe. >> Okay. You're safe at 35. >> When you I live in an older house, so part of my house Well, you've been there. Part of my house is 10 feet, but then my living room has like more. >> Yeah. >> So, I think my living room ends up with 12.
>> But this is one at a time, please. One at a time so we can hear what you're saying. So, so what I'm thinking is okay, so if if the when we started this, it was so that we could have more space really like give people that what is I don't know how do you say this in
English? >> Yeah, it's it's it's the current fashion. >> It's the Exactly. So that if you want to be able to have the 12 feet on your first floor and then have your 10 feet on your second floor, wouldn't it be easier? you you caught
it, which I think is great, but wouldn't it be easier to say 37 38 so that we give them that space, which is where we started wanting to have a, you know, closer to a 12 foot first floor. >> Just a point of information before we continue the conversation, do you know
the the county's single family residential standard? Is it 35 ft from grade? >> It is 35 ft. Oh, >> I confirm that right now. from grade >> so yeah from grade right so I mean look I think it's I think it's
I think it's a subst it's it's I I will just tell you my observation walking it's my neighborhood since my home is right on the edge of two neighborhoods there's a perceptible difference in the height of the homes on the county side >> 35 ft >> yeah and so I mean I'm a little bit anxious about that because you know
people may freak out over something that's may not get built or and so I would just tell us to go slower I mean, I haven't heard a huge outcry for 35 ft, but I'm I don't want to die on this die on this hill. So, here's your guy. >> Well, on the contrary, there's there's So, uh, you know, I went with Mr.
Attorney and we saw two properties um between 64th Street and 60 and 62nd Street. So, this is historically old neighborhood from the 1950s. And you have behemoths being built now. there are roughly 25 35 you know 30 35 story I
mean 30 30 35 feet >> houses that are completely out of >> of the norm there. So I I I caution as well to not so just be careful what we wish for. I understand some neighborhoods might deem that but there's other neighborhoods that don't
and and it's going to stick out like a sore thumb and we just got to be careful how tall we can go there. You know what I mean? Like it's it's it's drastic. proposing in some neighborhoods. >> Before I go back to you for a second, by
anybody else, Mr. Vice, sir, no, you're recognizing. >> So then should we just adopt what the county has, which is 35, which is what you just mentioned? >> I I'm I'm fine with the proposal as it's drafted, but again, I I'll wait for
someone to make a motion. >> I would I would say if if he's giving us the reasoning why it would thing to accomplish what we had originally started with. I I would be fine going with the 35.
>> Yeah. I I think you know these are twotory structures and we're allowing for a 30ft envelope and you've got 10 ft to accommodate all of the interstitial floors and the slab. I don't know that it's that acute a problem, but again,
like I said, I'm I prefer to move this item along since it's not one that's hugely controversial. So, I'll wait for a motion. >> I'll I'll move the motion to change it with the change of 35. >> What is it >> from? Greed. >> 30. >> 30.
>> I'll second. >> Okay. So, you you you have a motion to amend the item adopt the item with an amendment. >> Oh, instead of 30 >> 35 from Feder grade and a second by Commissioner Monich. >> Just for clarity, this requires four votes.
>> Yeah. Can >> Yeah, you're recognized. >> I I just want to mention back to two of the other previous points is that if we allow this, obviously you're going to have it might look out of character with some of the homes that are right next to it.
>> I'm going to vote no on that. So, >> I I'm a no as well. So, um we can call the vote or we can just withdraw the motion. I I I I and the reason is guys, you said you said you want to be recognized to say something. I'm sorry. >> This is a public hearing item. My apologies. So before we even there is a
motion and a second but we'd love to hear from the public. Mr. Gil any other member of the public is welcome to address the commission on this item. >> Good evening Mr. Mayor Vice Mayor Commissioners Gus Gill six you I'm a resident in the neighborhood and also a builder. Um
we can accomplish the same thing by keeping the 30 feet if you feel more comfortable from finished floor. the the issue and I understand uh Commissioner Rodriguez's point is when you're when you're going from grade sometimes that
fluctuates some sometimes that fluctuates 2 feet sometimes it's 18 in sometimes 36 in so there's a lot of variables there but if you go to the 30 feet finished floor I think we can accomplish the same thing where we can
fit the duck work and fit all the all the heights the 10 foot heights that we're talking So if you would consider that, I would think that that could accomplish something. >> Why don't why don't again part of the reason we kept the standard was because we have staff that's been applying it
the same way. So just so >> with 30 with 32 feet, which is basically the the difference you're telling me, the delta >> from grade or finish >> from from grade >> on average. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Why don't we just do it from that's the standard? because that's not how they're
measuring in the current building. When they're going out, they're doing it from >> Mabra, if I could ask you a question if you can come up. >> We can we can change the standard. I just want to make sure it's something that they administer and they get are used to administering and they administrate consistently with a code. You know, we've had issues with
administering other provisions before, not the least of which was a solar ordinance. So, um I don't want to find myself in a situation where we're not doing things by in accordance with the rules. So in your mind, is it a is it is it easy for us to administer the revised
standard taking it 30 feet from finished floor or should we just concede 32 feet which seems to be the delta between uh from from grade and and measure consistent with what we've been apply the rule consistent with the current standard just giving them slightly more
height. >> The 30 ft from finished floor is easy to um implement. It's not going to be a problem for us. >> No. And actually >> execute. >> It probably should be because grade is one thing when you start and another when you finish. It's not a control. >> I'll move the item with the amendment
that we minute. We we it be measured 30 ft from finish floor. Is there a second? >> I I just do want to mention we're saying the same thing just using different points. >> Yeah. We're just saying the same things just point >> but to the but to the but to the I don't care how but I think it's potentially a
three-foot difference in terms of the total envelope of the structure of what we're hearing in the typical position. Right. So it's a slightly more restrictive standard. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Okay. So we have a motion by myself. >> Is that an amendment to the previous motion or was that withdraw? >> So with that with that is the framing of
the item. We still have public comment. Are there any members of the public who would like to address this commission on the amended motion to adopt which is a standard of 30 ft from finish floor? >> Anyone else in the chambers? Madam clerk, is there anyone else online?
>> No one was doing please raise your virtual hand. >> Okay, see no one here. If I may just we do not have a definition of finished floor elevation, so I'll have to split one. >> I'm going to move the table of the item. Okay. >> Okay. >> Is there a second? >> Okay. Uh without objection, show the item table. We'll roll it over to the
next meeting. Okay. We can bring back uh the item defined with that um with that with all the appropriate terms. >> We can apply it in a way that's going to get us the desired result. Okay. I apologize. We're not going to move it forward now. Uh can we read item four, please?
>> Item four. An ordinance of the mayor and city commission of the city of South Florida amending section 20-3.3 permitted use schedule of the land development code to allow certain medical and healthc care related uses in a general retail GR zoning district. >> Thank you, Madam Clerk. Uh Mr. City
Attorney, are there any modifications to this ordinance since this is first read? >> No, mayor. >> Okay, colleagues, any questions on the ordinance? >> Seeing no questions, we this is a public hearing. There's any member of the public who'd like to address this commission in public uh hearing on item four again which is a amendment to the
permitted use schedule for GR allowing for certain medical and healthcare related uses. Seeing no one in the chamber, madam clerk, is there anyone online? >> Anyone on Zoom, please raise your virtual hand. No. >> Seeing no hands raised, we will close the public hearing. Uh colleagues, is
there a motion on the item? >> No. >> No one wants to move it. >> I'll I'll move it. >> Okay. Okay, we have a motion to adopt uh item four. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> A motion by uh Commissioner Monich and a second by Commissioner Rodriguez. Thank you for moving it. >> Uh Madam Clerk, please call the RO.
>> Yes. Commissioner Monich, >> yes. >> Commissioner Kay, >> yes. >> Commissioner Rodriguez, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Corey, >> yes. >> Mayor Fernandez, >> yes. >> Item passes 5 Z. >> Thank you. Uh colleague, let's take up items one, two, and three next. >> Uh Mr. Attorney, can you read the
appropriate warning for item one? Let me read the item first. >> Please go ahead. >> Item one, a resolution of the mayor city commission of the city of South Florida approving or denying a large-scale development special reception application pursuant to section 20-8.7 of the city of South Miami land
development code for the off-campus student apartments known as Somi Walks South Miami on the 1.01 01 acre development site located at 5959 Southwest 71st Street and 7090 Southwest 59th Place.
>> Thank you, Madam Clerk. Mr. City Attorney, you're recognized for the warning. >> Thank you, mayor. Uh items item numbers one and two on this evening's city commission agenda. Seek approval of companion items for a project known as Somi walk. The items involve a large scale development special exception and a development agreement under section 20-8.7
of the city's land development code. The first item, the special exception, is a quasi judicial item. The second item, which is the resolution for the development agreement, is not. It is legislative or at best a quasi legislative item. It is nevertheless a public hearing under the uh land
development code. The same public hearing can serve both items. So in an abundance of caution and in order to afford the most due process possible to all parties and without waving the city's position that the resolution on the development agreement is in fact legislative in nature, the city should frame tonight's hearing within the city's quasi judicial procedures with
respect to presentations by staff, the applicant of public comment. Clerk has read the title of the resolution uh for the public hearing. Public hearing will include presentations by staff and the applicant and public comment. Commission may ask any questions either before or after public comment is closed and following public comment, the commission
can deliberate on the two items. the quasi judicial procedures and take two votes. The quasi judicial procedures require this commission to consider the evidence presented to it and base its decision on the applicable law and prim primarily on the evidence presented whether by the applicant staff or members of the public. The evidence considered for the first hearing for the
first uh item must be substantial competent evidence. This means testimony or other evidence based on personal observation or relevant expert testimony that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to accept to support a conclusion. It is not a popularity contest. It cannot be based solely on non-expert opinions, no matter how fervent those opinions might be. Uh,
anyone who seeks to speak on an item uh should be given an opportunity to speak during the public comment portion. If you intend to provide testimony as to this item uh that you will be sworn in before your testimony is taken. Please know if you speak, you may be subject to cross-examination. If you refuse either
to be cross-examined or to be sworn, your testimony will be considered in that context and given its due weight. General public will not be permitted to cross-examine witnesses, but the public may request the commission to direct questions on their behalf to either staff or the applicant. At this time, anyone who wishes to speak should be sworn in. I'd ask that you please stand
and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. Attorney, >> you have to swear any member of the public who'd like to speak as well that's online. >> Uh, yes. If there's anyone online who wishes to speak, please
Please, >> please raise your right, please raise your hand, your virtual hand. >> Your virtual hand so we can put you on the screen and >> and turn on your camera as well. >> Again, any member of the public who'd like to address this commission on item one, >> please uh raise your virtual hand and turn on your camera so you can be sworn
in as well. >> Okay, seeing no one, >> we will continue. >> And uh Madame Clerk, please confirm compliance with the advertising notice requirements for this hearing. >> Yes. >> Thank you. And then uh mayor, vice mayor, commissioners, have any of you had any exparte communications with the applicant or any member of the public
either for or against uh the first application? >> Let's start with you. We'll go down the line. >> I I had a conversation with them in general about the project >> with the applicants. >> Yes. >> Council got >> uh I have not
>> I have not as well. I had a same as Commissioner Bonich general meeting with about the pro with the applicants >> I have as well. >> Thank you. And these were all with the with the applicant. >> Correct.
>> Great. Thank you. Um at this point, mayor, it's your pleasure. How >> Thank you. Why don't we start with a staff presentation? So, Mr. Manager, if you like to recognize I think it's Mr. Alvarez. Okay. Mr. Mr. Alvarez, uh, if you could please, uh, proceed with your staff presentation. >> Thank you very much. Mark Alvarez with
the Cordino group representing city of Miami planning staff. We have reviewed this application. I have a short pre I have a presentation. Um, this is um for the Somi walk, which is um a large scale development special exception site plan review. Um, with that request, we have
two two additional items. One would be is and it's not a separate request. It's part of the large scale development special exception would be the approval of eight additional floors approved with the bonus development program of section 20-8.8 and also two waiverss pursuant to
section 20-8.13. one for building coverage of 85.7% where 80% is required and the other for upper um the upper floor to floor heights of 9'4 in instead of 10t as required.
The the location of this property is um is between 71st Street and 70th Street just west of 59th Place. It's a 1.01 acre property. Um, you all know it as the existing property of the Roadway Hotel, which is a four-story building,
118 rooms. There are also uh it's an L-shaped property and the part that's along 59th Place is uh is currently used for for commercial one-story commercial. Um the flume designation is transit support of development and the zoning
designation is transit support of development district. The sub zone, we have three zone subzones in the TSTD is the TODA, the transit oriented development area, which is the most intense sub zone because of its proximity to the metas rail station. the
context that it's in that this is in um to the north this is the existing context two context to the north is um basically the Valencia condominium which is a six-story condominium also 300 units per acre uh 300 units excuse me um
it's also in the TSDA subdist of the tsd height permitted for that if it were redeveloped would be 10 stories and 130 ft to the south of this parcel of and across 71st Street currently is mostly at La Tayier preschool one story. Um
however that is in the toa subdist and if it were redeveloped if that land were redeveloped it could be redeveloped to 16 stories and 204 street uh 204 ft. to its east is the Vox station, the Vox building and the the um Metro Rail
station and the Metro Rails garage. Um that is actually under Miami Day's rapid transit zone. Um so it is currently sevenstory. I believe it could go to 18 if it were redeveloped. Um and then to the west of this property, which is directly to the west
um of what's now the roadway in. So there's no street. It's an interior lot line and it's it's the Larkin um Larkin Hospital executive offices and the Innovative Cancer Institute. Each of those are four stories. Um it is in the TODA subdist. So um its rights would be
to 16 stories and 204 ft. So that that provides somewhat of a context when you see this building. It is completely within the context of what is um permitted in those properties now. But it's also not it's not completely out of
context as most everything there is six four to six stories. It's not completely out of context because it is in an urban area. Um as far as compatibility, this is this is essentially what we wanted to accomplish with reszoning the downtown in this district. We we wanted to
accomplish a lot of things. We're not at the edge of the district. We're in the center. We are as in you can see in that diagram which was provided by the U applicant and I added the red arrow to show that we're literally not even five minutes walk from the South Miami Metro
Rail Station. So this is the area that we intended for the highest intensity and density. This is the area where we wanted to have the most people um in these buildings so that we populate our downtown. And the reason as we established when we were doing the resoning was not only to support the
transit to work and the walk but also to support the entire downtown walk to work. So we need people to go to new places that we will have uh for them to work and students will eventually work. Um and we want want to have people to walk to the South Miami retail and
eeries and entertainment. So this is something we discussed greatly that we had to have of a high density of people to support our businesses that exist and our businesses that we look forward to having in downtown. So the height and massing are consistent with the TODA um
and the transition to the TSDA which is one transition down uh to the TSDA subdist and it is currently still compatible with with its surroundings because the surroundings as they exist are still very urban surroundings. We don't have any transition a block away
to um single family or or lowdensity residential. It is consistent with the TSDD. Um, it is consistent as presented with the TSDDD as the TSDD was modified on December 2nd, I believe it was, uh, when
we added an ordinance to accept or to add off-campus student housing uh, at off-campus student apartments to be exact, as a use that's accepted in the TODA. And so, this is off-campus student apartments as as provided by that
ordinance. and the dwelling units or the density of this project is within the uh with within what's allowed. So, as of right in this area, um we would have we could have 151 dwelling units of regular
residential with a bonus 202 dwelling units with regular residential. With student apartments, we count um our density a little differently. This was something we discussed when we were when we went through with that ordinance and we do count it by the number of
bedrooms. So as of right this project for student housing could have 530 bedrooms and with the bonuses which it is seeking bonuses it could go up to 707 bedrooms. That said what's being presented tonight is well under that is
173 apartments and it's 585 bedrooms. So, it is within the density that's um that's required for the TSDD and the TODA subdist for off-campus student housing. For consistency with the parking and
loading, um I'll go through some of the other items first. For bicycle and storage racks, it is completely consistent. We have a very high bicycle and storage racks requirement for student housing because we anticipate having lower parking requirements. We anticipate more students being willing
to walk um to their to their to either the university or to their jobs or to the places where they're going for entertainment and other purposes. Um for loading spaces, parcel delivery, trash pickup, uh it is entirely consistent. All of that has been internalized within
the building. It doesn't happen on the outside. And then there is also car sharing space provided. And it's actually not outside. within the property in a in a sort of a poor cochair that happens at the first floor. As far as parking goes for regular
parking and this I will say this project has as it's gone through the process it's been limited it's limited its bedrooms actually to meet the parking parking has been a the main limitation for this project. Um the parking that's required for student housing is 293
units and 197 is being um presented with that. Um there is a parking reduction that's being requested and that will be part of the commission decision for the for the project. Per section 20-8.6
we can the commission may choose to reduce the parking requirement by up to 50% for off-campus student departments. Um this project proposes a 33% reduction. To do that, the project has to show operational um concepts that
that require us or actually motivate us to reduce that parking. So the operational factors that are supporting the adjustment in this case are the fact that it is within five minutes of the Metro Rail station. I don't think there's a single property that we can get within the city of Miami
jurisdiction that's closer to the Metro Rail. Um it the project has provided just for the >> what did I say? I'm sorry. South Miami >> um the the project has provided some
additional um uh infrastructure inside the project. So the the front lounge of the project has been turned into an on-site transit lounge. In other words, they have put uh they're going to have a board with live transit information. If the hurricane shuttle comes there, it
will have that. It will have all the information for Miami date Metro Rail and Metro Bus. It will have any information that it can have within a comfortable indoor site for the residents of this facility to look at the times and the schedules and would help them understand that this is a real
possibility for them. They also will um be have on site shared micromobility on site. They are presum proposing to have right now what would be bird scooters on the 59th site of the project and they would be under uh they would be weather
protected and lit and in a safe location. Their traffic study shows a modal split based on national standards for the student housing of 22.6% non-automotive use. So again we're getting more and more comfortable with
the 33%. In this case, we know that the uh applicant has said that they will be operating the parking as a separate rental agreement. So, they can control the demand with pricing um and and manage the amount of parking that way. All of the parking will be valet, which
will also help control the parking. We also, this is very important to us on staff level. We noticed that the We note that the uh location of this project being so much in the center of downtown, so much in the core there, it's not conducive to neighborhood parking
intrusion. We really don't have neighborhoods within an easy walking distance that somebody could park their car without getting a ticket um and and just walk back to their house. So, we are very comfortable that we could
support the 33% reduction. Um going through the the code, we uh when we were doing the the downtown code, we had a street hierarchy as part of that code and we had determined that 70th Street would be um a primary street. In this case, the um building
faces to the south. It faces 71st Street, so its front is on the other side. However, at staff level, we accepted that. Um, I will note before I get to the planning board comments and the DRB comments, DRB thought from a design standpoint that facing south was
a very was actually preferable because the building would face south because of the sun, because of just how it presents itself and using the wider part of the building as the front. Um, the planning board did have some concerns and and they talked through it. They weren't object they didn't object to it, but
they did note that 70th Street does have a connection to US1. Um, so I again at staff level we're com we're comfortable with the DRB opinion. We think it makes a better building. It looks better when it faces south. So we've accepted that the uh street hierarch hierarchy is not
followed exactly on this and in fact the front of the building faces 71st street instead of 70th for open space. The building has met all the requirements. it it provides 65663 square ft of open space provided on the
grounds floor and you can see this on the right top uh the green areas are what's counting as public open space. I will note that when this project was first presented and it still has a large amount of green area and tree plantings
within the um the setback areas on the interior lot line. So, as you see these um to this northeast, there's an L-shaped area. It doesn't show very well as white. We're not counting that as open space. We would not accept that as open space because it does not align. It
does not front along a street. However, the application still contains that area as a green landscaped area even though it doesn't count for their open space. The same as on the west side, there's an area there. It's not very wide, but they have landscaped the area uh to increase
the permeability of the area and still it doesn't count as open space again because we won't allow it because it doesn't face directly onto a street. Um having said all that, the requirement is 4,374 square ft. They exceed the open space by
2,189 square ft. Um, one other thing I want to note is that the the green plaza, um, it's a very urban building and it has been designed in a very urbanistic fashion. The green area, the open space is actually under the mezzanine, I'm
sorry, under the second floor of the building. There's a mezzanine, then a second floor. And um, there's about a 20 to 30 foot height there, but we do we don't have any restriction in the code. We are accepting that as the open space. And it's I'm explaining that because it'll come up later with the building
coverage. In any case, we have 2,189 square feet allotted for the open space bonus which I'll I think comes up in the next second slide. Um the landscaping has is is quite again for an urban building is quite substantial. There are
some palm trees. There's a lot of canopy tree. Um we have 17 street 17 trees that are being added to the street. We have 24 trees that are in the interior to the lot and again a lot of those are in those spaces that are sort of the
interior lot lines and a lot of those are palms because it just makes more sense in those those areas. In addition to that, we've had a lot of discussions about roof decks. This project has a roof deck. It also has a recreation deck on the fourth level. There are 41 trees there, eight trees on the the roof deck.
And again, I know we talk about palm trees, but a lot of those are palm or smaller shade trees just because of the nature of the the root systems required um for the bonus. So, go going back to the bonus, there are um four bonuses
being applied for eight stories. The first four stories come out of the um open space, the public open space bonus. there there are 2,189 square feet that are left over from the requirement and those are being applied. The way our
bonuses work is that those multiply by 24 and add to the uh floor plates of the bonus stories. So of the four stories that are applied to public open space about two and a half of them are
actually met by the open space on site and the rest of that will be um through the payment in loo. So, we have 52,500 square feet being applied and we as we've calculated it right now about $820,000 will be required to complete
those fourstory bonuses through the open space. >> Mark Mark, question on that. Is is is that a I mean >> I I have a one of my comments to you later is is it is this grant discretionary or is it if they meet the standard that's objectively get it?
That's a question to you and to our city attorney. The way the co I I maybe both answer but the way the code's written is that once we apply it it triggers the ability to have the four stories and then they have to meet the requirement
with what they've provided on site. I and it is discretionary I think I don't know um I'm going to leave it to the city attorney if it's if it's in if it's discretionary in parts or in whole. Um do you want to do you want to discuss that now or I can go we can hold it later. That's fine.
>> Okay. um affordable housing bonus is being applied for uh as an inloo payment of 599,000 square feet to gain another floor another story workforce housing again another story all pay in loo um
for the na for the sustainability we have two layers of um of bonuses one would be to meet the lead gold standard and the other would be to meet the lead platinum standard the application is is suggest is requesting that the national
green building standard NGBS which is a lead gold equivalent be applied. So there's a couple of things to say about that as we bring it forward right now. It would be for the commission to accept it as a bonus. However, the acceptance
of NGBS and and I did ask the applicant to provide all the information to you for comfort on that decision. However, the acceptance of NGBS the way the code is written will be a a city manager's decision as to whether it is accepted for lead gold and it is something that
we can't do right now because as you know league gold there's a menu of options new gain points is something that we will before they get a CEO have to finalize and approve. So right now they're asking that NGBS be applied as a lead gold equivalent. the manager will
have that decision as we as they actually apply for that before the um before the co. Uh so that would be for one story um level 15 we're up to and then the last story for level 16 uh they are not going to achieve elite platinum
or elite platinum equivalent and they would do that as a payin loo. Um the entire thing comes out to about $2.6 6 million plus the open space plus the lead gold equivalent which would be NGBS. Um going forward to the building to the
height um the building is is generally consistent with our height requirements with one exception and it's the subject of a waiver. I'm sorry. Should I stop? Um >> no I'm sorry. >> No, no, I'm sorry. I I thought there was a question. Excuse me. Um so the one
exception would be levels 5 through 16 are being proposed for floor to floor heights of 9 foot 4 in. We require a 10 foot. Um we find this acceptable. It doesn't it doesn't cause any difference to the building to the outside and I think it's also um an issue of
construction and and standard um parts for construction. We can say it that way. Um the building location uh massing and form. It's generally consistent again the one um another waiver has come up
here. So the the application is asking for um that they can have a maximum or a lot coverage of 85% of 37,445 square ft where 80% is required. And again we um have noted that the building
the open space somewhat comes underneath the building that open space is also part of their building coverage. So we have an overlap of two different metrics. Um so those two waivers have been requested
and we have um we've looked at those waivers according to section 20-8.13 gone through the criteria. Uh it's in more detail in the staff report but we find that there's there's no detriment to the um to to any of the properties abuing or adjacent to the property. um
it would do substantial justice to the between the property owner and the city. It is I mean it is generally not caused by the applicant. It's a very small property. We're on one acre and we are putting a fairly large building. We are starting to see um design waiverss come through
or requests come through um because we are working with fairly small properties and this is why we put this section in the code because we expect these to come forward. the building is still compatible as it is presented and um we don't recommend any special conditions
to go with that. Finally, on the um architectural standards, the building as presented for this meeting, it meets all all of the criteria that we have. Um the glazing percentages are meet all of our glazing
requirements. The building is well glazed. There's um plenty of wall movement and variation. We have plenty of surface variation. This has all been brought through through DRB and planning board. They have DRB in particular has found the same um canopies and balconies
all meet our requirements. Um just so the design re design soilless project on November 4th and I'll just comment that when they saw it the ordinance for um student housing had not yet passed. So it was presented as um as
a as a multif family residential building. It was the same design exactly. Um the only changes that that have happened to this design have been to respond to DRB and planning board. So it has moved along and had some changes, excuse me, mostly to landscape and
parking and some of the design features. Uh some of the surfaces on the building have changed. The DRB um made a number of landscaping comments and they have mostly been addressed. Um the board did consider the idea that the building was facing south instead of to our our main
street and they actually thought it was a better building for fronting to the south to the 71st street. So they went beyond accepting it but they thought it was actually better that way. Um the board al also felt that the pedestrian engagement would be very good the way the building was designed on the ground
floor and they liked very much the location of the plaza on the south um the southeast corner and they did recommend for approval. The planning board saw this project on December 9th. They saw it as off-campus student housing because the uh ordinance passed
on December 2nd and um their comments are also in the staff report. Um they had a discussion again regarding using Southwest 70th Street for traffic access. The building does have access to 70th Street, but they considered the idea that maybe more traffic should go
through there um because it's a direct route to US1. It was discussed quite well at the board and we all kind of considered that US1 wasn't the greatest connection either because that intersection doesn't give you all all possibilities. Um so again it was a
comment by the board. They had some concerns about overflow parking as well. Those concerns were talked through and reached the same point. Um the Valencia condominiums does have enough parking. We discussed it that there don't seem to be overflow problems at the moment. So
we would move on from that. They found that the height scale on density uh met all the zoning criteria and and they did recommend it for approval at the end of that. um city planning staff review is that we um we recommend to approve the large
scale special large scale development special exception. Um we do also recommend to approve the eight additional floors under the bonus development program for the reasons that we haveve gone over. And finally, we do also uh recommend to grant the waiverss
pursuant to section 28-8.13 for building coverage at 85.7 and upper floor to floor heights of 9 ft. 4 in. That concludes my presentation. Um I know there'll probably be questions. Thank you.
>> Colleagues, questions of Mr. Alvarez. Let's start. >> No questions. No questions. Vice Mayor questions. Mr. Guy. >> Yeah. Just um but I don't know if it's to Mr. Albert. Maybe to the >> applicant. Yeah. >> Okay. Any questions, Mr. Albert?
>> I have a few. So um Mark, looking through the Look, you didn't go ahead. Go ahead. You're recognized, ma'am. >> Thank you. Um, I see that there is a significant amount of space dedicated to
bicycle storage both inside, in front, in the back. It's like all over the place. And I I think it's excessive. I wonder if we wouldn't consider I don't know when they say motorcycle and scooter do they
mean pedestrian scooter or motorcycle scooters. I'm not sure how that's looking in that other room, but I am seeing more and more college students riding the electric scooter, you know, the one you stand on.
And so rather than having to have them take that all the way up to their apartment, I think we should take some of that bicycle storage and make it open so that they can put their their scooters in there. I think that when we thought of this bicycle storage somehow
we thought everybody in the universe was going to ride a bicycle. But if we stand outside of Vox or even near you see a lot more of these students on those electric standing scooters than you do on bicycles. So I I wonder if we
would want to kind of trade out or something so that that space is better used. from from a staff perspective, we would have no problem with that. And I to make the distinction, the motorcycle and scooter parking, which is allowed to be
10% of the car parking means um licensed scooters for the road. So when we talk about the electric scooters, and I wish there was a different name, but we would we would accept uh a percentage of the bicycle storage for scooters as well if the applicant is willing.
>> Thank you. Any further questions? We'll let you address it when you present. Thank you each. You're good. Okay. So, Mark, thank you for the presentation. I just remind me what um
with the new definition that was approved, what are the use limitations for um student departments? Oh. Um, I understand. Let me find that so I can read it correctly.
Okay. So, off-campus student departments um as we defined it for in the ordinance one was they would be we have we have the first paragraph is about a very special uh situation of allowing it in the TSNA
in the toa um they are permitted as either single uh use standalone buildings or as part of a mixed use. So, this building would be a single uh would be a standalone single-use building. It's required that each off-campus student apartment be secured by a
lockable door from the common uh from the common living room to the building circulation and other common areas of the building. Um I didn't read that right, but in other words, each one is a separate apartment and each bedroom in that apartment has a door to the common
areas of the apartment. um that uh the apartments must be under unified management and um that the other part of that is about mixeduse buildings, which is the not the case here, but it must be
under unified management. The rental agreements for off-campus student apartments provide one-year leases per individual student. In other words, not to the apartment, but to each bedroom um for a maximum of one year. and that the leases u must be maintained for
inspection and shall include include proof of current enrollment for each student for more than half of the lease term. >> Okay. >> So that that is how in terms of the use we define uh this as different from multif family. Okay. >> And and so I I'm just is there a
condition in the proposed resolution that memorializes that standard or are we just relying on the code provision for compliance and enforcement? Uh that would be in the development agreement. I >> No, but we I mean the development agreement and the and the resolution
have overlapping conditions from what I've read. So I'm just wondering is there what is is our practice not to include I mean this is the first one we're approving. So I say practice I use the term loosely. Is our practice going to be not to address it in resolution? >> I think we should establish the practice. I think you're pointing out a
good point. We >> I just want it's a matter of it's a really a question. This is the first one we're doing. So >> we need to have it in there. >> Okay. And then and then uh from a code perspective, are we requiring any sort of a land use restricting restriction agreement for this specific use? >> A land use restrict restrictive
agreement for student housing. >> Student housing as a >> development agreement is providing for student housing. It will have these these requirements in it. >> The development agreement the use provision I saw I didn't want to get to it was going to ask that in the next item does not it seems it's through the use limitations language. >> No, that there was a there was an
inadvertently uh remnant use limitation. That's what was struck out. Okay. >> But in terms of this is this is this is a student housing. You're saying you want to limit the any conversion. >> Yeah. And the reason it's material to me is is the variance on the upper floors, right?
>> You know, this you know again the the purpose build student housing is a great thing because I think it you know takes pressure off of the other housing stock >> but it can become you know it's a product that lends being short-term rental. >> And I don't know that's exactly what we're going for. And you know when you
reduce the floor to ceiling heights potentially it you know again makes it more akin to you know I think a transient lodging use. So I'm just want to make sure that we are >> buttoning down the outer envelope of this stuff.
>> Mark uh beyond that just how is how is the project going to satisfy the arts and public places requirement? I know there's a condition I think it's M. Um what what has been the discussion with the applicant on how that's going to be addressed? >> It hasn't been discussed in terms of
being anything different than um than for a residential project. They haven't proposed art in public places on their own at this time. >> Okay. I mean I the reason I mention it is probably my I think it's a very handsome tower for the product. Honestly, my my least favorite part of
this project is the southeast corner and and I think the mosaic treatment probably would be a fantastic place to do something like a very modern mural. Um particularly given that you know my my my frustration with our code
continues to be these arcades that um in this case we're the most generous volumes are away from the public realm right on the south facing street which is mostly I would say principally serving the project and not the
rightway. And I I scratch my head when I think about us treating this as public space under what is seems to be maybe a maybe a 4 foot 14 foot clear um area of the building mark. So, can you walk us through the logic of of the public space
calculation >> on the southeast corner? And then it looks like we also have some areas along 70th Street that are also treated as part of the public space calculation in these arcades where there's a an office and then I don't know if that's a bike
shop meaning bike storage or bike shop intended to be a commercial use. Um the the bike shop is not that was a point of discussion earlier when this was going through DRB that that would not be a um a public bike shop. That's
really for the residents inside the tower. Um there was initially another store for I think pet grooming. They we had them remove that because it was too much like a public use. Um so the the bike shop does still have a door onto
the outside and we accepted it. um we should probably have a condition for that as well and I think we had suggested that. >> Yeah. I I I think for both of those I just want to make sure they're active uses. They don't become storage over time, right? Because >> I mean respectfully the applicant I'm asking these questions so you can maybe
tailor your presentation to these thoughts. Uh I mean I just that that could become on a street that's already got a substantial amount of necessary FPL vault space and electrical room that could become inadvertent storage over time. So, I just want to make sure that
we're kind of locking them into activating that frontage. And then just by observation, I just want to make sure I'm reading the plans correctly. 8101, which is the site plan, I just see some discrepancies between 8200, which is the north elevation, and 8201. Um, with
respect to the glazing like on the on the north elevation, the electrical room seems to be glazed in the elevation. I would imagine it is if it's going to be an electrical room. uh A201 on the east elevation. Similarly, there seem to be some inconsistencies on the glazing and I and
the the gl the the elevations seem to have um doors serving the that have I guess are accessible from the street. It I would imagine it would be from the video center, but when I look at the site plan, I don't see that that's coordinated. So, I don't know if we had
that's something that was a point of discussion before with the applicant. Mayor, also to answer your question about the open space and this this has been a question again when we were preparing this to go to DRB, we had a lot of concerns about the um encroachment of the building.
Also noted that the code we really hadn't anticipated this in the code. Um when when I brought this to the DRB, I did ask them to focus on that and provide some opinion and they um their opinion was fairly positive. They they found it to be something very urban and
they liked it. Um so we went forward with that opinion. Um and again, the code was somewhat silent on that issue. We just really never anticipated that when writing the code. >> Yeah. Um, >> look, >> and not to talk too much about legislation, we may see more of those
and and we'll have to figure it out. >> No, I I I I frankly was calling city attorney, I want to see this excise from the code. I mean, I don't I don't want to be awarding or have people getting bonus bonuses for public spaces that are basically covered spaces at 14 foot clear. >> We could certainly clarify that.
>> I mean, that's not it's going to be a very again, I think, it's the only part of the project I really dislike. Um, and I I mean I very much want to see this project go forward given that we've got what is a terrible nuisance use there today. Uh, which we all want to go away.
It's probably the largest generator police calls in the city. But that's just not a condition I want to see replicated anywhere else. I think the northern condition counting that as public space as well on a street where it's secondary pedestrian importance is really not a judicious way for us to
kind of give people additional development rights. It may be what the code says today, but we need to we need to clean it up is my my my comment. Um, look, I think this project is um an improvement over what's there, but
I think as we iterate on projects, um, I think it's imperfect. I think you know I disagree the eastern treatment this this this project seems to internalize Mark and this is what I'm struggling with here a lot of the activity you know it kind of
captures the energy within the boundary of the project as opposed to really engaging the street particularly on the east facade and the southeast corner. So I'm just curious did we have any commentary from the planning board or design review board on those elements?
Uh actually from the DRB we had somewhat to the opposite. They they felt that it engaged the street quite well. >> Um and again this this was an issue that in the presentation >> you elaborate on that point because what I'm seeing are >> yeah southeast corner. So what I'm seeing here are uses around the public
plaza that really do not interact with the plaza. So you've got you know a wellness room right? You've got a video center that I presumably has a door on the eastern facade. It would make no sense to have a door there giving us a video center. I'm assuming that's like a screening room
for the project. Um the wellness lounge again would be a closed space. The reception and reception office are all kind of internalized expressing themselves more towards the porter. Understandable. The lobby entrance is from 70th Street. There's no access from
the public space. So what I see here is kind of like a it's a public space. is publicly accessible, but it really does not in any way meaningfully interact with the building and that and that edge. So, I would love to get your thoughts on that, Mark.
>> Yeah, the and again, this this when we first saw it, this was an issue. Um, and on the recommendations as went to DRB, uh, we we provided some input that that's not something that we wanted. However, and again, I I said this was
something that the code was silent on. Um, I did bring it up to the DRB and there and I I'm just going by my notes now. I don't have the transcript, but um they thought that the project was um that the pedestrian engagement was good
and and they liked the drop off area for pedestrians taking them off the street. So, they they really sort of pivoted on that opinion of how the building would interact with the with the pedestrian realm. >> Right. Lastly, just by way of question,
the these I think these I like the landscaping quite a bit. Uh I like the way they treated these corridors on the edges of the project. Um I guess in in the prior reviews by the lower boards, what were the discussions around securing those spaces? Those are not
spaces have any are lined by any sort of active uses. Um and you know, if people use them to, you know, get across the block, I don't know how often they'll be used. Certainly, they'll be used to access a lot of the service bases. Um, have we do we have any conditions
related to security uh in the resolution? >> Specific conditions to security >> related those bases. I just want to make sure that they're we've got eyes on them and that they'll become a >> they have to we have maintenance provisions. >> I I know we do specific security active security monitoring requirements.
>> Not have active security monitoring requirements. >> Okay. I mean, again, those are just spaces that are, you know, tertiary and interior and, you know, >> um, you know, that I don't know if we have any lighting requirements on those edges or the lighting plan requires. I didn't look at the plans with that level of detail, but those are things that
certainly come to mind. And Mark, if you've got answers to those, I'd appreciate it. If not, we'll ask the applicant to address them. >> Yeah. Um we did we did bring that up and we did bring up the security issues and actually um DRB had uh comments about the landscaping in there and the and the
survivability of it. Um we I I think that we should in our in our agreement we should have a condition about the security and how we'll treat that area because it was brought up. I think we just I'll be honest I think we
missed it as we brought it forward. um they have made some landscaping changes. There's still I know there was a particular there's a DRB or landscape architect on the DRB has very significant concerns about the um about the survivability of landscape in that
area. So and again I think this is something we did it was first presented that that would be part of the open space that was not permitted. Um we know that nobody's going to go back there. There is a walkway back there. I believe that they
do do have lighting. I remember seeing it on the landscape plan. Um I can't tell you exactly. I hope the applicant will tell you more about that. Um so again, I mean we we're I think as we're we're coming into some of these uh issues, we are testing out a new code
and we're we're taking notes on things that we'll have to tighten up a little bit. But um but this does comply with our code strictly and that's that's where we're more or less at with a lot of this. >> Um last question, I promise. Um sorry guys.
Um what what percentage of the parking is lifts in this building? And then what what specific lift related conditions do we have in the resolution regarding maintenance? I don't know if our code addresses that separately. >> No. So our code only addresses valet
parking. We they have to comply with it. So we would have to add any kind of >> So do we have we don't I didn't see a valet parking condition in the resolution. So will we be adding one? >> There is >> they are required to provide valet parking. Yeah, >> but it's it's not in >> No, it's in the code. >> It's in the code. >> The code required. Okay. >> Why is it?
>> Yeah. As far as the >> it's all valet. We have um eight of them are tandem on the ground floor and then on the second story uh 78 are lift spaces 34 they're written in the the report itself but there would be 34
valet single spaces um >> so the whole building is I'm sorry the whole building is valet operated >> yes >> yes >> and on the mezzanine we have 42 uh single spaces >> okay >> and 28A I'm sorry
>> and so we have queuing analysis for the porcier that it's sufficient for that level of a valley operation or not. >> We we have a traffic study that was provided to us. It has been reviewed twice by our traffic review. >> Do we have do we have we do we know what
the minimum staffing requirement should be for a valley operator with in the study? >> They've not done that analysis. >> Okay. Um >> I think we need to have a condition related to that as well. >> Can I jump on that real quick? >> You please. U why why are we codifying
why are we codifying lifts because that's a general like why why are we doing that >> the lifts or the valet >> lifts >> lifts we allow >> valet for that for that matter >> we we allow lifts under the code the code allows it presently
>> allows it but it's not mandatory right >> no it is not mandatory no none of it nothing is none of it is required it's an option >> but if you use it valet is mandatory >> oh so if you use the lifts valet is mandatory >> correct But we we've had another project that had lifts as well that we didn't do that
mandatory which is the uh the Somi the the u the academical building. >> I think they they I think they >> they're valeting in there. >> I think there was the valet component in that. >> I'm wrong. Sorry. >> If if I'm remembering correctly, which >> don't don't take it to the bank, but I I
I think there was a valet component to that as well. >> Yeah. It is a little late. I apologize. >> Okay. So, that's all I had, but we have comments mercifully for everybody. Um, recognize Mr. Avenue with the law firm of Bills and Sunberg,
1450 Burke Avenue. I'm joined by my colleagues Nick Notto and Alex Simo as well as our full team um including members from Alta Development, the project development group um form group, the our architects, our landscape architects from Walk Landscape and uh
Juan Espinosa from David Plamer and Associates. We do have a full traffic study. We do have a stacking analysis within there as well. So, um that is part of uh part of that. I'll try I have a full presentation given the hour and given Mark's u presentation I will in
lie of that um start just addressing some of your questions and um >> and try and knock them out >> um accordingly. Right. So um just as a high level this did receive unanimous uh support from DRB and and the planning
board. Um we are not um maxing out the number of bedrooms that would be permitted under the student housing. We are not maxing out the reduction of parking that would be allowed under uh under the code. Um this exceeds the number of parking spaces that will be
required based on the number of units that are provided in a multifamily uh setting as opposed to the student housing um setting. So I think that's an important thing to to note. I think it's also really important to emphasize the fact that you have an 182 parking
parking garage across the street um in the form of the Metro Rail parking garage which is highly underutilized. Um some of the statistics we've received is that it it rarely reaches over 50% occupancy including the spaces that are
allocated towards Vox. Um and so uh >> sorry you know I ask you a question. So if we gave if we gave you a 50% reduction, could you remove the corner >> the corner protrusion from the southeast portion of the building? >> Can we remove the corner protrusion? >> Yeah, the the to me honestly the only
part of this project that gives me architectural heartburn is the portion of the garage that extends over the public space. I most I'm assuming that's all done because you're trying to accommodate >> additional parking. Well, it's it's to it's it's not just to accommodate additional parking, but the the tower
itself sits on sits on on top as well. >> I thought it was I thought it was set back. >> No, so the the the the units themselves I mean it it sets back some, right? So the tower sets back >> approximately 23 feet. >> Okay.
>> Um but it does can lever over. And just to clarify, it's it's not 14 feet. I know that that's giving you some heart heartburn. It's it's 18 and it actually fluctuates to 20. Uh there's a portion that goes a little higher. Just a small >> Yeah. Where's that in the elevation? Because I looked and I was trying to
follow it. It looked like it was a little bit lower. >> Can you point to the right sheet? I have A201. I think Mr. Mayor will show you that it is. >> Yeah, that seems to run into the um the
base of the podium. That's why I thought I just said 14 arbitrarily. I don't know if it's the right measurement, but it might be slightly slightly higher. >> Omar, just good evening. >> Hi, Omar Morales, former architects with offices here in South Miami. Just to clarify, yeah, it is an 18t ceiling at
that corner and we have a residential unit. There's a a living unit directly above that space. So, >> okay, >> at one point, you know, we we looked at various different schemes and various different options for that corner. Um ultimately, you know, the need to keep
that unit there became very important. Um and we think personally that the orientation of that space and the fact that it's located on the southeast corner directly across from the walkway that leads to the Metro Rail uh station.
Uh it's going to be conducive to gathering, you know, students, people, even people from the neighborhood I think will be able to use that plaza. It is purposely not connected to the interior of the lobby or the amenities
because there is a high sense of um let's say security or the the the impression of security uh for students from their parents, right? The parents expect this to be a secure environment, a safe environment for the for students.
So the the access is somewhat limited and somewhat controlled because of that >> and >> that's that's how it reads. So it's that's that's well done >> to continue on that corner because I know that there's a you know obviously
this is not a final design. This is a conceptual design. Right. So it's still you know uh can be refined. Um we have as you pointed out an art and public places requirement. Um, I believe it's a little over a million dollars, close to $1.1 million in in AIP um um money that
that needs to uh be be put on. Uh our goal is to refine that corner more with some sort of art treatment as well as art on the ground area to really invite people into that into that space. And and while Mark as I'll just re repeat something that Mark said, but I think
it's it's worth emphasizing that L-shaped um area that that runs from 70th to 71st and connects to 59th. Um it he is correct. It the code does not afford us the ability to count that towards open space, but it is 15 feet in
in in width and and it is, you know, intended to be landscaped and very much used. It's not intended to be a setback area or an area that's, you know, a trap for for folks to, you know, get caught in. So, to your point, we are very uh amendable to any security sort of
related conditions and concerns, additional lighting, etc. But our goal there, it's about 1,500 extra square feet. That doesn't count towards the open space, but it's it's 1500 extra open space feet, and that's only on that side. There's the additional
>> time out. Can we see that? >> Cuz he's talking about it. But what what he's talking about, he's talking about square feet this way. I know we have the benefit of looking at it here, but the world doesn't. >> Oh, no. That's a good point. Thank you for that. >> Oh, it's on sheet. If you go to sheet A
101, which is just the basic site plan. I think that's the best sheet to go to. >> There we go. And so what we're talking about is, and I think Commissioner Bonish, thank you for pointing that out, is the is the what I call the Lshaped portion um that runs from uh 70th to 70
to to 59th um and and actually intersects with the public plaza. But there's also additional space on the on the um western boundary um which also does not count towards open space because the code does not count that
towards open space which serves as additional open space. So while we're already exceeding as Mark said our open space because what we're required uh was 4,000 and and change and we have 6,000 and change. So, we have 20 almost 2200
square feet of of actual code uh uh access open space. Um we actually have well more than that um if you were to count the these areas that that don't technically comply with with code. Um so that's another another area. Uh we have
no no objections to any of the additional conditions um that you've uh that you've uh indicated that you'd like to see within the resolution or the development agreement. I think the city attorney passed out uh a redline version on for item two on the development
agreement that had some changes to it. We've already reviewed that. We have no issues with any of those uh any of those modifications. Um you know, we're very excited about this project. Um we think it is uh is something that really is complimentary towards this area and it's
in the right spot. Um we're excited about what it also will hopefully um uh allow us to you know to achieve you know in connection with the existing student housing population that's there. We're already in conversations with the University of Miami to potentially
extend the hurricane shuttle um to have a stop here in South Miami, which would allow with the critical mass that would come from this student housing project as well as the box projects an additional uh hurricane shuttle stop there. Um I was mentioning the the metro
parking garage. It's a very affordable parking option for students. Um the Miami date county actually offers a program uh that includes ridership as well as a parking pass for $67 a month which is you know quite quite unheard of
when you look at what a parking space in in many you know uh apartment complexes costs. So, that's a another alternative to parking that really gives um gives uh residents uh that really are attached to
their vehicles an opport that don't have the opportunity to have it on site to have it within 400 ft across the street. Um which we think is a a very nice um a very nice uh option um especially with an underutilized garage. Um, I'm trying
to see what other items I can address from from the commission. >> Yes, you're recognized. >> Um, do you guys see it as a possibility to take the some of the bike storage to make it accessible?
>> We're amendable to that. We are actually providing the bike almost to the to the dot the bike parking that's required by the code. So, as Mark um mentioned in in his initial presentation, the code has a very heavy bike parking requirement. And
so, if you look at our data sheet, um uh the number of park bike parking spaces that we are providing is within a couple of uh bike spaces over what we're actually required to have. >> Um
requirement is one for 15 bedroom units. That's that's the code requirement. >> Um, plus one one door indoor storage space per four bedroom. It's a pretty hefty requirement. >> It's a pretty hefty requirement. >> So I I would >> So are we're we're happy to work with
you all if the code were to be but in order to be code compliant. That's the >> Yeah. I mean that's the requirement. >> Are we as a as a group looking to make that adjustment for them? I mean I just think that >> you're saying you're saying uh make that either bicycle and or or personal
>> electric scooter. >> Electric scooter. >> I don't It's I think it's all microobility focused. I don't have a I don't have an issue with it. It's common sense. So, >> okay. >> I mean, it's the same thing whether you want to ride a motorized uh scooter or a bike. I mean, you're not in a car, which is the goal. >> Yeah. I I don't have any objection to
that. >> Um so, >> yes, sir. >> Um I um >> I have more question. So, I didn't have these plans when Oh, >> question. I just want I was just wondering, you're recognized. Excuse me. Sorry. >> Um, >> sorry. >> She was just starting.
>> I know. I only I I don't have a lot. Um, in the public plaza area, I caution you. I see I know that it's not finalized, but I see you have these like really interesting seating spaces. That just equals a bed for a homeless person, and
that is not what you want to attract to your building. So, I would caution you when you are deciding what you are going to put there, not to put something that you can lay down on even semi comfortably. And lastly, that walkway, the elbow
walkway. Um, if it's not counting towards public space, you might want to consider making it building access only. you're in a in a transient area and there is a lot of movement daytime, nighttime, sometimes unsavory people. I
say this as a as a mom of college age kids >> who would be paying for your kind of place. >> If I saw that, I wouldn't want my kid there, >> right? >> And so I get that it's a great place to say, "Hey, you know what? It's accessible. Nobody should be in that
L-shaped corridor if they don't live there. There's no reason for anybody to be there." And so when you're looking at those kinds of things and accessibility to the public, while I think it's great, I think you need to think safety first. And if it doesn't, if you wouldn't let
your daughter or your wife walk down that corridor, close it. >> We if that is the will of the commission, we have no issue with with that. through the through the mayor, Mark Albert. >> These these hallways that are like that
L-shaped corridor that links 70th to 59th, there's no reason for a member of the general public to be walking in there. And >> whether there is a reason or not, >> it's going be very hard to close that space. And they do have a bunch of
service uses that at least on the west side it looks like. I'm not sure. I haven't looked at the east side all that closely that open up into that corridor for access. So, >> you're talking about the back end? >> The back end? Yes, ma'am. >> Oh, no. I'm I'm not talking about the back end. I'm talking about this elbow >> corridor. That's the reason why I said
if we're going to leave it open, there needs to be security conditions, active monitoring, lighting. >> I say close it. >> I if if there's there's conceivably no reason for something. >> So, what is the intent? Yeah, the intent is not for it to I mean we we can very easily do as Commissioner Bon says the
intent is really for the the the users to be primarily the the users of the building, right? My concern and >> my concern was that if it was going to be accessible, it should be lit. It should be monitored just to make sure that it's safe. I mean there there's a obviously a balance and we understand
that balance and we're happy to >> just bear in mind no just bear in mind that to the extent that they're using it as open space to qualify but we're not >> but they're not that Lshaped is part of your public open space that's not part of your >> it doesn't count unfortunately >> I thought the part that didn't count was the west >> Mr. Alvarez can you confirm whether that
counts or not >> it's both neither side neither neither the west count the front because the code requires that it only be frontages but we can let Mr. is confirming my statement. >> I believe I believe that >> okay >> it depends on the plan. You got it. >> The L-shaped area any area that's not
adjacent to a street to a public rightway cannot be counted if it has to have one side facing a public rightway. So those areas that are internal and we've had another project that has similar situation. We don't count any of those areas as public open space.
>> Just to back up also to Commissioner Bonish and and the board as well. Um the seating requirement is part of our requirements in the code and if I would only ask that if you would include it as a condition um if you choose to remove this.
>> Yeah, there's a we actually which condition is that because there's a condition requiring at least seven uh public seating. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Our our open space requires seating areas. >> Yeah. But you can accommodate >> I think Commissioner Bonish is trying to balance that we can put the seating in a manner that doesn't that is designed in
a way that doesn't doesn't make you sleep encourage >> the ability to use it for anything other than seating. >> So we we hear you. >> Yeah. But making it public doesn't mean you get to sleep there. >> I Okay, let's let's go. Are
>> we have a call on every item, every comment. So we can you can take your turn. Hold on a second. Are you finished? >> I am done. >> Thank you. Okay. I have next I have Commissioner Rodriguez, followed by Vice Mayor Corey, and then Commissioner Cay. So, what I was saying earlier was I I didn't I wasn't privy to the plans when
when we talked about the project. So, after getting them and and going over I actually had made the comment. I'm glad that and now the mayor and and commissioner Bonich have both stated the same area that I found kind of weird was in that open the open plaza. So, you're
getting you're getting bonuses for a public space, but to be serious only the people of the building are going to use that. there there's there's nobody from the NA nobody's going to be walking by and just randomly sit there and and enjoy that space. So I would think find
a way I don't know to is that I I I I don't think that that's going to ultimately I don't think it's I think it's going to be used by the students of the building and not by the general public if it's meant to be an open public space. Um and I don't know maybe there's a way
that that you guys can figure to open it. I mean, the mayor has a good idea, which I'm sure he'll share with you now. And um my second comment is is lighting. Lighting on the exterior. Um there's nothing more I hate than when I drive by Valencia at night and like anybody
walking through there. I mean, it is just it's it's not safe. So, um I I I would love to see a a a a good a good lighting on the exterior. That's really all I have.
>> Okay, Commissioner Cory, you're recognized. I'm sorry, Vice Mayor Corey. Yeah, >> no worries. Uh thank you uh for bringing this forward. Um I uh just wanted to address one major issue. I mean, and by the way, I'm I'm thrilled that this will be here, especially replacing what's
there. I hope you heavily recruit in the suburban area, is to bring all the students here and away from there. Um the the only big concern I have, which I'll discuss with my colleagues, but I also want to give you a a chance, is obviously we're very proud of our zoning
that we've put in place to attract people like you who are here today. Um but we did want to be strict with some of our qualifications. uh you did ask for uh two exceptions. One of them uh not a big deal, the height of the ceilings, but I do think
that uh the the coverage going from 80% to 85%. My only concern there is precedent as well. There's other 1acre properties in the area. Why won't they be able to also ask for the same thing? I'm curious then if you could explain a little bit more
to me the necessity there because that's something I plan to discuss with them and I want to make sure I know that from you. >> Sure. And and I'll let Omar chime in, you know, uh to add to anything I say, but I think it context is important. So it's also based on the shape of the lot. We have um three frontages that we're
dealing with. We also are, you know, committed to providing for for that public open space. And based on those factors, we needed that flexibility in order to to achieve a a a you know, a design that actually, you know, makes
sense. Um, and you know, again, um, it's really it's really driven by the context. It's driven by the fact that we have three frontages, um, that really drive the setbacks that we have on on the three frontages. if you had a traditional lot, um it it would be a
little bit easier to to achieve that um the the you know the max coverage as opposed to exceeding it. >> And I think that's consistent with Mark's determination that why the context in this particular case makes sense. And remember, I I I understand
the idea of precedent. Um, obviously that's always something that we have to be mindful of, but the advantage of that request is that it comes before you for you to evaluate each and every time whether the context is appropriate or not appropriate. >> Good answer.
>> Thank you very much. >> Good answer. Commissioner Kay, you're recognized. Sorry, I can't I can't provide commentary here. >> Good job. >> I'll take it. M um I just had a couple of questions. Can
we go over the parking requirements because I wasn't sure I understood the parking requirements. >> Yes. >> Because you said you were under. So, so the off-campus uh apartment ordinance requires 0.5 uh spaces per bedroom. Um,
and then allows you to seek up to a 50% reduction um in parking based on mobility requirements which we've provided and are embedded also within our traffic study. We're not seeking a 50% reduction. We are seeking a 31%
reduction. Um and so the required parking before um seeking a reduction is 279 parking spaces. We would be able to reduce that by 140 spaces if we uh
maximize the 50% reduction. We're not maximizing the 50% reduction and thereby we're providing 194 parking. >> So what's what's the delta between what you could request? >> It is 55 spaces. 55 spaces. Okay. >> Correct.
>> Yes. 55. I was a lawyer who did a a math on the >> Watch out. That's That's a little scary. >> Thank you. >> Further questions. >> Okay. Okay. Everybody everybody in the audience can still down. We can you can celebrate them at public comments. So there you go. The public hearing. Uh
>> Mr. Alberts, can you explain to me the the 50% reduction? When or how does that get applied and why does it get applied? It's it's um am I on? Yeah. Uh it's in the it's in the section that was added for the parking for the student housing.
And there's a a note underneath the table. And I'll just re read it. Um, it says required parking may be reduced by up to 50% by the city commission through a large-scale development approval based on the finding that the development has accepted operational conditions that
address car pooling, shuttle services, micromobility sharing, transit ridership, or other solutions to enable students to access university owned property without the use of a personal vehicle. So, it's it has criteria. Um,
they're not exact. The the only concern I have here, colleagues, is that when we when we this is 173 units, right? I I know we're specifying by bedrooms, but it's 173 units and we have allocated 190 194
parking spots. The ratio is close to 1.1 to 1.5. What we've starting to see throughout, not only with with Trio, but with Avalon One and the allocations on Avalon 2 is
that we're seeing closer to 1.15 1.2. My concern is that we don't have enough parking spots. We're going to see remnants going around the neighborhood. I'm not entirely sure that these kids can park at the at the metro station. It's we've been going back and forth.
We've done studies and try to understand legally what they can and can't do overnight. There is no you can't get your car out at 2 in the morning from the parking garage. So, it's not that clear and cut of what the parking situation is with the metro station. I
would recommend that you get that because we need it too. Like I need to understand that there's a lot of things that going on in the area and my understanding is that you can't do that. So, let's just be clear on parking because I don't want to be underparked and then kids are parking somewhere all
over the neighborhood. >> But you got a new development right across the street from there as well >> and you have all that corridor that that's going to be pretty crazy with with parks with parking. So, that is my concern. >> So, let me address it this way. First and foremost, if this was a multif
family building, I wouldn't even be required to have 194 parking spaces. I'd actually only be based on our unit mix only required to have 172 parking spaces. So I'm actually overparked for what a multif family is. So >> 172. So you're saying one to one. >> You wouldn't have 584 beds.
>> Correct. Because there's What was that? >> You wouldn't have 584 beds. I mean, let's realistically >> Well, we we could >> you could but but >> it's not it's I mean it's there's there's the market reality and there's there's I I I get the point. It's an excellent point, but let's keep it on on
the level. >> Correct. And the point is that we believe that with 194 parking spaces, not only are we, you know, code compliant, but we think we're market compliant. >> I I want to lower your parking. So, we'll get to that. >> No. No. So, if if I could lower the parking, >> we're not counting on Let me Let me
answer it this way. We're not counting on having available parking in the Metro Rail parking garage as a means to accomplish what our needs are. We believe that we can accomplish our needs solely on site with the 194 parking spaces. We're merely giving optionality
as required by the code of additional modes of mobility. Right? So the parking in the in the metro rail parking garage is an option. It might not work for everybody, but it'll work for some folks because some folks want to maybe park their car there and have it just on occasion and can work within the
confines whatever they may be of what Miami date county would allow for the parking garage. So it's an additional resource. It's not intended to be we're counting on having available X spaces and we're not looking to enter into a lease with Miami date county for a number of spaces or or anything to that
nature. We're merely providing that as an additional option, an affordable option that could work for some folks and it won't work for others. And I do think I need to mention that at the end of the day, this is not a bait and switch situation. anyone who rents here
is going to either have the ability to rent a a parking space or they won't. And if it's critical to them in their leasing to have a car and a space is not available to them, then this won't be the the proper option for them.
>> And I don't disagree. Marketability is going to drive that, right? Demand's going to drive that. I I don't disagree with that. >> There's outliers, though. And and we're close. I'm just I'm concerned in the area that it parking is going to be an issue >> and it's just not you. It's just in
general what's going on in that area. >> The other the other thing to keep in mind when we had a very good conversation with um with your uh parking uh department as well. There is um there is quite a bit of available uh on street parking that is not used um on
on a regular basis. And we had a conversation Mark was part of that conversation. And I think the city attorney was part of that conversation at one point in time as well. Um, and one of the concepts to to think about is designating some of those spaces as residential parking for the residents um
at at certain hours so that they would be able to buy a pass similar to what what's been done in other parts of the city. So that they and in other words, they wouldn't have to do the pay by phone or whatever. They would have an actual ability to pay have a monthly
pass. So that's another uh mobility option that gives folks that are willing to you know sort of park and there is from what we understand as as the numbers there is quite a bit of available on street parking in this area as well. >> Other questions?
>> Yeah. Um going back to the uh Thanks. Going back to the south the uh south east >> east corner. >> Um more more question the architect. Um Mr. Morales, you you have an arcade there, right? So, is is the height it
looked like it has an arcade there. So, is there the lip is that what's dropping down four feet and then comes back up to the 18 ft. That's why is that what's happening there? >> Yeah. So, the there's an arcade that fronts 71st >> 71st and then the street, right? Both sides >> and and that arcade is actually two
stories high. So, that's that's >> 27 feet, I think. Right. >> It's about a 30 foot high >> arcade, but and it drops down at the corner because of that second floor resial, >> right? But is there a lip there? Is that like does the wall come up and then it
drop goes up to the 18? >> Uh >> is that is that where we're seeing the fourth or >> mayor? You that's where you were saying somewhere around 14 ft. But >> you can see it in that you can see it in the rendering that's on the screen right now. Um you can see that there's double height a full two stories of glass to
the left of that corner. >> It's the full ground floor in the mez. Correct. I'm sorry. >> It's the full ground floor and the mez height. >> Correct. >> What we're saying is the ground floor to here is 18. There's nothing underneath that goes up. >> I know it's a flat. It's a flat flat.
>> I see 274 on the on the A10. >> A 010. >> Well, that's the main atrium. I'm talking about the corner. Mayor, >> the corner is lower. >> The corner is 18 ft. >> Yeah. Okay. And and by the way, that image on the corner, just to address another one of the points that the mayor
brought up, our intention was always that that that panel you can see there with the mosaic, you called it, that is an art piece. We we don't know what it is yet. That's a placeholder for something prominent that needs to happen on that on that corner panel.
>> What what what is it? What is the provision for us to approve or how how are we doing the approval of >> there's a condition there's a condition in the order that would require them to comply with the section and they would go through the a process and I'm assuming that would be one of the
possible executions or they would pay the fee correct >> that's right yeah >> so that that's how they would comply >> and the art would have to go through the uh trust >> so in the event you didn't treat that with art how would you treat it would you finish it with the same articulation as the balance of the podium I >> I think it's it's a blank canvas That
can be any number. >> Let's assume it's let's assume that that the property gets transacted. Not going to happen, but let's assume it does and somebody else comes in. How could they how would they finish it? Would they just apply the same possible treatment to that blank wall that you see on the balance of the podium?
>> Yeah, I mean, sure. That's one that's one way to do it. Another way to do it is something threedimensional, something projecting off of the wall. Okay. >> Signage could be interesting on that corner. There's a lot of possibilities there. I I can add if it's if it's if it's the will of the commission that
we're comfortable with a condition that says that we will treat that corner with uh our treatment. >> Okay. So, okay. Do we want to modify then? >> Yes. >> I'm sorry, but y'all are talking about this square, but if you look, it continues along the
>> correct. So, again, this is the most prominent one. So we can have that. I think the question is they want they they're planning to treat that corner with art. >> But are you planning to also treat the rest of what you're seeing with that pattern? >> That's the plan. And we have a a not an
insignificant, you know, uh requirement for art. Uh based on the project requirements, >> it's like in a bunch of places. >> Um yeah, it our I you know, our intent is to treat it with art. >> Okay. So all those all those all those places where this pattern is depicted your
intention is to actually >> have some sort of art treatment of some sort. >> Do we need a condition for that? I know we have a condition of general. Okay. So can you just make sure when we move the resolution we want the modification. Okay. Further questions. Commissioner.
>> Yes sir. Thank you. Uh Mr. Morz, can you walk me through the uh landscape plan? I mean you've heard us talk about earlier this whole time about palm trees. What what can we do? >> What can we what can No, seriously, like that's something that we just can't stand.
>> What can we do from a landscape perspective to change the palms? >> We have Deon Seahas here, the landscape. >> Thank you. Nice to meet you. >> Likewise, Deon Seah representing walk landscape architecture. Um, with regards to palms, it's very limited what we're using at the ground level. They're really um relegated to the corridors,
the setback areas where you have tight spaces. Right. What's your space? What's your spacing there in the landing of those palms right there in the front of the that's the most prominent place to put landscaping. So >> right in the front we do have a cluster of stable palms where the idea there was to borrow from what is happening along
the streetscape along 59th place along the front of Metro Rail Station and the new development there. There's a an existing streetscape that has a mix of native palms and trees and we're trying to blend in that theme into this streetscape on our end. So you have a
cohesive environment. Now with that said, that's the only area at the frontage that we're introducing palms. The rest are native trees >> on the on the east side. Yeah. On along the sidewalk. So you go all the way around. So on the what is that? The east
side. What do you have on the east side there? Right in front of the art or in that corner. >> Yeah. No, this is not the landscape plan. >> Yeah. Turn the rear. So I think it's looking at L L02 is the sheet.
>> Sorry. >> It's all right. >> Major read. >> Not a problem. Along the east along the east street which is 59th place. >> Yeah. Those are black ironwoods. So those are native trees. Two trees on the sidewalk. >> And on the on the on the north side
>> on the north side those are also black ironwoods. Due to the limited space, they are native trees, medium to large size trees. >> Those are the trees that spread kind of thin, right? That that have like a decent canopy. >> Not necessarily. They do have a decent canopy, but I think the thin ones you
might be referring to the bridal bales. >> Yeah. >> So, I I would just recommend here. I don't know what the spacing is in the front on the south side. Um, and it's a predominant nicely area where a lot of the people are going to be. I I I and I'm going to I'm going to speak for I don't usually do this, but I'm going to
speak on behalf of our commission. We're not big fans of palms. So, I would try to see what spacing you have allocated there, >> right? >> And what you can do for more a little bit more more mature uh natives uh for canopy. I mean, canopy is important in this specific area. I don't want I I
mean, one of the things you saw today and the whole day we've been talking about is canopy. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. Understood. And if I may >> Yes. >> Um that streetscape is lined with street trees. >> It doesn't mean we're not going to change it though. All right. So we spoke about that today as well, right? >> Understood. But they are native trees. I
just want to make sure I'm trying to consistent with all codes. >> I just to clarify so make sure I'm reading Lro2 correctly. The only palms I see which is the AEVs and there's two of them and it's under the uh right right in front of the porter. Correct. >> Correct. But I believe the palms that
that that commissioner Ka is referring to are the two sables >> listed as SM >> SM >> right in the swale area which are clustered >> and adjacent to canopy trees. So it's creating kind of a >> a mixed Florida environment type of
feel. >> But the majority of species are trees. >> I'm just going to tell you our preference is not to have that. You know what I'm saying? Like what imagine the uh Everything that we're doing here is natives, right? Florida natives, but not
palms. And and we want to see more mature just walk walkability. The Grove Grove has a good example what what they have for landscaping. That's kind of what we want with this walkability. Canopy for us, we lost 10% to 12% of canopy over the last 10 years. Our our
mission here is to bring that back. So, >> understood. >> Canopy is a big deal for us. >> Understood. >> That's all I Thank you. >> Are you doing questions? >> I'm done. >> Mr. Chance, before you leave, I have a question just to confirm on the interior court corridors. That's is that sod that's treating the majority of the I
think it looks like a mix of on that west walkway area and the L that was discussed by Commissioner Bonich. It's a mixture of pavement and sod. Is that correct? >> The um the L condition. >> The L condition. Yeah. >> Right. If you notice, yeah, there is for
at at the moment there is a walkway >> on the south side. You've got a walkway accessing the back of house. So that's paved. >> Is the balance side? I just couldn't see it on the uh my eyes are getting bad. >> Would you like to >> I I probably need to, but I don't want to admit it. So, >> um yeah, there is a mix of sod as well
as canopy trees, native trees, >> and the same is true on the same is true on the on the west side. Correct. You've got what it looks like hardcape for the doors and the rest is sod. >> Correct. Correct. >> That's fine. That's why I'm show. And if I may, I I did address the comments from the DRB and the concerns along that
tight condition on the on the west and those species were altered to um to address his concerns. Commission Commission, I would just say it appears that it's a walk like it's a walkway around the buildings, but in fact, it's it's not. I mean, it's it's grass. You can enclose it, but there's not a
continuous walkway along that along either perimeter >> in the L. >> In the L. Yeah. How is that not closed when there's a wall there? Is I mean this is a building, correct? >> It is, but I but it's it reads right in
in the site plan like it's like it's like a walkable on a hard surface. And the reason I mentioned that is that you've got >> ground cover and only walkways to the back of house doors. >> I I understand what you're saying. >> I'm just saying it needs to be closed off.
>> Okay, fine. >> It's just not safe. I'm just going to walk in. >> It looks like a vulnerable spot. >> It is because you're between a wall and a wall where >> it's not intended to be. >> I I would imagine I would imagine uh Commissioner Bonich is talking about a >> Let's get through questions and we'll
get back to it. So, I I agree. I understand. I understand the concern which is why I asked about the lighting. So, >> just my >> I lost my notes here. Um which is a good thing for the applicant. So, um I I just
have uh one comment. One is one is I I I'm wondering to the architect Omar back to the corner, right? You got a column line that starts about the midline of the plaza about 25 ft. Can we just not pull the building back and eliminate, I
think it's 21 parking spaces, and you go from having two, threebedroom units to possibly a one-bedroom unit on each level. And I think it just opens up that corner substantially. and it does not affect your column placement. So, I mean I I think that would be a great modification to kind of blend the plaza
so it's not completely covered. It's got some direct sunlight and it doesn't really affect the the upper story tower and we kind of soften that edge. I don't know if that's something you think is feasible or not. Uh and we would need to reduce your parking further. So, >> it would reduce the parking further and
it would also reduce the unit count because that those are units on that corner. >> It's going right to where Yeah. So, you you could You could keep a unit there. >> You just could not keep a three-bedroom unit there. So, I'm again I'm playing architect, which is a dangerous thing. Apparently, I stayed at a Holiday in
last night, but uh there's I think you could probably at least keep a one-bedroom unit that's functional at that corner. Definitely not a three-bedroom unit because you have a combination. >> It's something that we'd have to discuss with the client obviously. I mean, um, from an architectural perspective, I I can totally understand your point
>> and it's a it's a valid point, but it's something that we'd have to discuss with the with the client and see if they'd be willing to give up. >> Do you have a question or is it a comment? >> Couple bedrooms. >> Okay, let's Do you want Okay, you want to suggest it to them as an alternative? Okay, so we'll recognize Commissioner
Bonich and we'll open the public hearing. >> Thank you. I if if for whatever reason that's not possible, I think we're all kind of we every time we look at that space, we all have the same feeling about it. It's like this just like dark
thing there. And so maybe if at the end of the day you have the conversation and it's not feasible, you can find ways to make it a more inviting space because right now it's like >> I I think I'll put >> this is your building. I I I think spaces like that, you know, become
usable. You know, they they they become used by the community, by people walking by. You know, someone walking by and it's raining and there's nowhere to stop and wait, you know, for it to stop raining. It's an ideal place to just kind of hang out for a little while. Um
>> the the issue of homelessness and, you know, someone you know, trying to use the space, yes, it's a concern. It is as open as we can possibly make it to the interior of the building. In other words, >> maybe brighter like I'm just saying there's right there. You know, >> let's let's let's leave that pregnant
for all we have. Do we still have to do a public hearing? So, >> I'm not seeing any more comments. You guys can talk about it with your >> One last little comment. >> Okay. >> My last comment in in same area. I know how you're saying that someone the public can the fact that it's covered someone walking from the general public
is going to interpret that as private property and probably not go in there. >> So, you know, again, I'm trying to We'll hear rebuttal if it's necessary. Do you want to reserve any time? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. >> U before we get into the public hearing,
it's uh 10 minutes to 11. Can I need a motion to extend the meeting? Correct. >> Motion. >> Yes. >> Uh 11:30 to start. >> Motion. >> Motion to extend till 11:30. Any objection? Hearing none. Uh motion's adopted. >> Yeah, I know. And my stomach.
>> I was going to say we're hangry. >> Okay. Uh let's open up the public hearing if we can. Uh if there's any member of the public who would like to address this commission on item one, please come forward at this time. >> Anyone in the chamber? >> Anyone on Zoom, please raise your virtual hand.
>> Seeing no one in the chamber and no one online, we will close the public hearing on item one. Um Mr. Aino, do you need any time for rebuttal given there's no public comment or if we have questions, we can address them to you. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Any any thoughts on the
modifications to the building before we begin the discussion? >> No, it's not possible. We hear you with the concerns for that corner, but you know, based on on what we're hearing, we think we can accomplish getting to that point where
it really feels like the right public open space without making the making that adjustment. Um, we think it's important to not only not lose the parking, but also not lose uh that that corner unit um going down to to uh what would probably be a onebedroom or
studio. Okay, fair enough. Colleagues, um, discussion motion. What do we want to do? Uh, Mr. Attorney, before we get a motion, you want to read any modifications to conditions? >> Certainly. And these would be
modifications in the resolution and to the uh development agreement. Um, if you are disposed to accept the parking reduction, uh, we would add a finding to the resolution uh that the uh developer accepted operational conditions that address car pooling, shuttle services,
microability sharing, transit ridership or other solutions to enable students to access university owned property without the use of a personal vehicle. And we have those provisions already in the development agreement that you have before you. So the changes from today uh the first one add uh these are specific
conditions. Each singleuse building offering off-campus student apartments would be under unified management. Um, the rental agreements for off-campus student apartments shall provide one lease per individual student assigned to one individual bedroom for a maximum of one year. These are the ones from the code. That's why they don't sound
familiar. Leases shall be maintained for inspection and shall include current enrollment of each student during more than half lease term. the we would be adding a land use restriction to limit conversion to multif family housing or basically to prohibit conversion to multif family housing uh and uh to
prohibit any short-term rental outside of the student uh the student uh leasing. Uh the amenities that are provided uh would serve the the uh the student housing use only. They would not be open to the general public. Um however, they would be outward facing.
uh the re re-evaluation of the mosaic art um the where where the mosaic is shown it would be addressed through an art and public places uh or potentially through an art and public places and short of art and public places approval it would still be uh somehow dressed up
at they would not remain blank walls above the corner plaza they would be treated with an artistic treatment the >> Yep. Yep. To be clear, that's a modification to condition 8mm as is drafted in the resolution.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Just want to make sure I'm following you. Go ahead, sir. >> Yeah, no problem. Uh the L-shaped area uh to be will be closed to the general public. Uh it will require active security monitoring and lighting. >> It's closed. I don't I don't need the security monitoring.
>> You don't? Okay. Uh what about the other open spaces? Would you like the security monitoring on those? Yeah, lighting. >> Lighting. Yeah. >> The only thing I'll clarify is that the code also allows for us to close that public open space um from the hours.
>> It requires us to leave it open from the hours of 6 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Correct. But we can close it otherwise. So if that's you know >> I have a drafting question on that particular condition being an annoying lawyer. Uh 7B says that subject to reasonable rules regulations approved by the city. I'm assuming we don't want
this body voting on those. >> It's a city manager or his design. >> The city manager will be making those those. >> Okay. So, if we could just add the word manager or design to that condition so we don't have to app on it. >> No problem. >> Can I can I ask I forgot to ask this
question. So, the condition 2A uh requires a construction and maintenance of traffic plan. >> Yep. This property is sensitive and park is across from Leilier and there already have a construction project happening across the street. So while there are um
you know if we could if we can encourage all access points for construction to happen on 70th Street. Okay. I don't want to prescribe it. Uh I do want to prohibit any construction parking on 71st Street because I do want to segregate that. So if there's any objection on the part of the applicant.
None. No objection. Okay. Okay. No constitution market on >> on on 71st. >> 71st. >> Okay. I want that. So I want 2A modified for that. >> Yeah. And then I don't know if there's anything else you needed to address in terms of um again whatever you do with respect to demolition in particular
under 2D. I don't know how to prescribe that. But obviously we would we would greatly appreciate the act with the utmost sensitivity given that that school for the majority of their space is outdoors. Okay. And I know you will. You don't need to address it. Okay. Um
>> any other any other condition revisions, Mr. City Attorney? >> Why yes. >> Okay. Can you please valet would be required uh with min minimum staffing requirements um in accordance with the the traffic engineers comments which would be six at
the start. If operations show um and they can demonstrate that the that they need less of LA staffing, they need a lesser level of valet staffing, they could reduce it, but that would have to go through the development services director. >> Okay. >> Um let's see. Uh based on based on a
traffic study, um parking lift maintenance requirements will >> Can we reserve the right to modify the condition if the queuing becomes a problem on the street >> to to require more staffing, a greater level of staffing? Yeah, we can do that. >> Okay.
>> Okay. >> All right. Uh bicycle spaces can be used for micro micro mobility. Um seating within the plaza to be designed to use for sleeping, laying. Um you could add and/or skateboarding if you like, but
got definitely got sleeping or laying. Um, I've already said the blank walls and then the I wasn't sure if this was a formal condition, the landscape plan to be uh revised to reduce the the number of palms and increase the native. >> I think it's eliminate the two palms on
this on the within the right of way on on 71st Street. >> All right, Mr. We have a condition 12 um where the rate isn't listed but the development agreement has a rate of $15. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes.
>> So render that consistently just Mr. River. Is that our revenue at that location? Is that why that's the number that's proposed? >> Okay. That's fine. So as long as we render consistent with the development agreement, I'm fine. >> Correct. Okay. Okay. >> Those are all the conditions. So, uh, with those conditions, everybody clear?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, is there a motion? >> I'll move it. >> Okay. Have a motion to adopt with the revised conditions. >> I'll second. >> Is there He can move it. I'll second. >> Okay. So, show Madam Clerk, uh, Commissioner Gay as the mover and
Commissioner Bonich as a seconder. Commissioner Bonish, >> yes. >> Commissioner Kanye, >> yes. >> Commissioner Rodriguez, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Corey, >> yes. >> Mayor Fernandez, >> I'm going to be a no because of the corner and I know I'm going to get calls about it. So,
>> there's two reasons. >> Huh? >> One resolution said just >> we're dealing with this one. Yes, >> congratulations. Look forward to getting started. Huh? Huh? >> Short recess. >> Short recess. Five minutes. Or do we or do you want we want Let's just move the development agreement and we'll take the
recess so they can get out of here. >> Okay. >> I don't >> One second. So, can you read the development >> take a vote on the development agreement? >> I know what I'm saying. Yes. I I'm saying let's I'm asking to hold on the recess so we can vote on your agreement and get you out of here. Yes. >> Yeah. >> Uh the development agreement would would
reflect those conditions that I just mentioned. >> Correct. So, >> he needs to read it. >> He needs to read it. Item two, a resolution of the mayor city commission of the city of South Florida approving or denying a development agreement with Alto Development LLC
Pacmen 13 Corp and Greg Pinrest LLC for a large scale development off-campus student apartment project known as Somi Walk South Miami on the 1.04 acre development site located at 5959 Southwest 71st Street and 790 Southwest
59 blaze pursuant to section 20-8.6 7 of the city of South Miami land development code. >> Colleagues, uh, any questions on the agreement other than a clarification that we are adopting it subject to the modifications? >> One additional clarification, the the
>> the one you're voting for voting on is the one that's in front of you, correct? The modifications that we had and then the only other thing is as I announced earlier, the public hearing that we just had was for both the large scale and for the development agreement. >> Okay.
again. And so a motion to adopt here would be a motion to adopt it conforming with the conditions that we revised in the development order. This is a public hearing item. We're good on comments. Okay. It's a public hearing item. If there's any member of the public in the audience who'd like to address the
commission on item number two, please come forward at this time. Clerk, is there anyone online? >> Anyone online, please raise your virtual hand? No. Okay. Okay, seeing no one online and no one in the chamber, we'll close a public hearing. Colleagues, do we need to have any discussion or is there a motion to adopt?
>> I'll move it. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Bonich, a second by Commissioner Cay. Madam clerk, please call the role. >> Yes. Commissioner Cay. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Rodriguez Rodriguez. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Bonish.
>> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Cory? >> Yes. >> Mayor Fernandez? >> Yes. >> Item passes. >> Thank you. Congrats. >> No. Sorry. >> He did. He did. >> Colleagues, let's take a fivem minute recess and we stand a journal.
Okay, we uh No, we've already extended 11:30, so we're good. Uh okay, colleagues, uh should we take up item um six? Okay, madam clerk, have reviewed item six in the record and we'll move to item three and then on to a couple discussion items.
Item six, an in ordinance of the mayor city commission of the city of South Florida approve their franchise and joint use agreement with Somerset Academy known as Somerset Elementary and Middle Schools for the continued use of certain outdoor facilities at Murray Park during the regular school year and
indoor basketball gymnasium at the Gibson Bethl Community Center for the end of the school year award ceremony authorizing the city manager to finalize and execute the joint use agreement. >> Thank you, madam clerk. Mr. City Manager, you're recognized.
>> Thank you, mayor. This uh item is a continuing relationship with Somerset. Um the agreements for a three-year extension, three-year period with two one-year extensions. Obviously, this is a the daily use of our uh Murray Park field and um more infrequent use of the
the gym. Um and so it's a base user fee of 16,882 and and we have a CPI increase of not to exceed 3%. So um the prior agreement this is replacing the prior agreement. >> Okay. Can I ask the uh the the beyond
the base term is are the one years at our our um decision mutually who's got the right to extend? Is it just them or us? >> The term the base term sorry >> yes uh it's based on the city manager's discretion. >> Okay. So we retain the right to
reconsider. Okay. It's fine. >> Colleagues questions. >> Mr. Mayor. >> Yes sir. Is there any changes from the previous uh agreement to this year's agreement? >> What are the changes? >> It's basically an update. Some changes to maintenance, insurance, and
demification. We clearly define what uses are allowed under the premises. Um there are some changes and upgrades. Yes. Do >> you want some more detail? >> Yeah, I guess is the usage model being is it going to be used more than what it
has been used? It's essentially the same between now and the second reading. When we come back, we're going to further clarify the uses permitted at Murray. >> Okay. >> We've been speaking to the general counsel for Somerset. >> So, we're going to tweak the agreement just a little bit on the usage. Okay.
>> And Mr. Gibson is here as well on behalf of Somerset should you have any questions for him. >> Sorry, we kept you waiting, sir. Colleagues, further questions of uh council, the city attorney or Mr. Gibson.
>> Okay. Uh this is a first reading. It is a public hearing item. So at this time uh if any member of the public would like to come forward and address item six again, which is uh the approval of a franchise and joint use agreement for city facilities by Somerset Elementary Middle Schools, please come forward at
this time. See no in the chamber. Madam clerk, anyone online? >> Anyone on Zoom? Please raise your virtual hand. No. >> Seeing no hands, we'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion on this first reading >> ordinance? >> Second. >> A motion by Commissioner Wich, a second by Vice Mayor Corey. Madam clerk, please
call the role. >> Yes. Commissioner Cay, >> yes. >> Commissioner Rodriguez, >> yes. >> Commissioner Bonish. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Cory? >> Yes. >> Mayor Fernandez? >> Yes. >> Pass first read. >> Okay, let's read item three, please. >> Item three, a resolution of the mayor, city commission of the city of South,
Florida, approving a development agreement with Avalon Bay Communities, Inc. developer and Robins Plaza, owner for a large scale development mixeduse project known as Avalon South Miami 2 on the 1.34 acre development site located
approximately 7230 Southwest 59th Avenue consisting of properties bounded by South Dixie Highway, West One Sunset Drive, South 72nd Street, Doran Avenue, Southwest 59th Avenue and 73rd Street pursuant to section 20-8.7 of the land
development code and sections 163.322 that through 163.3243 Florida statutes. >> Thank you madam clerk. Uh Mr. City attorney. I think >> mayor just a brief statement. This this item seeks approval of a development agreement under section 163.3220
through 163.3243 Florida statutes and section 20-8.7 city's land development code. This is the first of two public hearings on this item. If approved tonight, the second reading is intended to take place on February 17th, 2026. Uh notice has been provided uh in the
manner provided by the statute required by the statute. Uh the resolution for the development agreement is a legislative or at best a quasi legislative item. It is nevertheless a public hearing under the statute in abundance of caution in order to afford the appropriate due process. Uh but without waving the city's position that the resolution on development agreement
is in fact legislative, cities should frame tonight's discussion uh within the following parameters. a brief overview overview of the development agreement. Uh the applicant can make a presentation. Uh the public should be given an opportunity to comment and the the developer may address any public comment. At that point, the public
hearing should be closed. Commission can ask questions at any point in time and following public comment, the commission can deliberate on the resolution as they would any other legislative item. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Uh before we recognize you colleagues, any questions of the city attorney on agreement?
>> No. No. Okay. Mr. Mayor, members of the commission, Jeffrey Bass is my name. Uh 1515 Sunset Drive, sweet 22 is my address. Um I say with great confidence that week will be extremely brief this evening because there are two hearings which means we
have to bring this back. I've known your city attorney for decades and I have confidence we will be able to work out all of the little plumbing uh issues and figures and facts that need to go into the development agreement and bring it back to you on a second reading. So
unless anybody has any questions, um we would look forward to seeing you on February 17. Ask for your favorable vote this year. >> Thank you for your comments. Um again, this public hearing item, is there any member of the public who'd like to address this commission on item three?
>> Anyone on Zoom, please raise your virtual hand. >> Seeing no one in the chamber and no one online, we will close the public hearing. Colleagues, um any any final questions, comments? If not, is there a motion to adopt item three? >> Yes, sir.
>> This is just for the team. As we get closer to the see the bonus structures that they're going to apply for and what the monies are going to be allocated, I would just try to figure out what pockets or or funds we can start looking into to allocate the neighbors and the neighborhood like
those neighbors directly south of the property uh in that area. Mike, you just piqu my interest because that's a point of information to the city attorney, they they pay bonuses based on priorities, but those are not segregated, are they for those purposes?
>> No, they're not limited to those purposes. >> Just to be clear, so if we want to your point, if we want to they are paying for that purpose, do we want to codify? I mean, just as again correlary to that, do we want to set they people pay for a specific purpose, do we want to require its use
as a board or we want to leave ourselves flexibility? I know we I don't I know we don't usually codify stuff like that and we usually like to keep it open for the CFO and city manager to at their discretion, but I I'm seeing residents that really want to see something happen in that area. So, I'd rather see if we can
codify a little bit of that pot so we can do something there. Whether it's allocating for speed bumps if we if we're allocated to do that, if we need to go spend whatever I I don't know exactly what the plan is yet, but we should be able to. That was one of the
questions that I got asked a lot is what are we doing with that money? You guys are giving B bonus money, but how's that coming back to the neighborhoods that are being affected by it? So, we we just got to look into it. We don't have to answer that today. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I think it's a good point to raise. Yes. So, let me go to
Commissioner Bonich. I'll come back to you, sir. Yes. >> I I understand what you're saying. I don't agree about codifying funds for specific things simply because neighborhood by neighborhood or block by
block leads may be different and then we would have to be oneoff oneoff oneoff oneoff. I I believe that we could say those funds should be used for beautifification, traffic calming, you
know, I don't think we need to do it specific to what that neighborhood wants. I think we we would need to agree, you know, if we're going to want to put guard rails on this, which at some point I believe that we should because it is a significant amount of money, we should say, hey, you can only
use it for traffic calming, beautifification, or placemaking, you know, or whatever that is. But I don't think that codifying it is the right idea because then we're going to we're going to have a different set of circumstances >> wherever we are. >> Okay. Commissioner Rodriguez. No, I was
just say I was just going to mention that we spoke about this earlier. If if the decision by the board is to codify it, I would like to allocate the workforce house bonus and apply that to the affordable housing project. >> So we so we can codify it or we can just
simply if we have a project designate the dollars for that purpose. >> We have to provide some level we have to provide for trust for for the trust fund and that the monies will be held. We have to direct where they go. So that's that's so >> but but we we we can leave it very flexible. >> The trust fund can be flexible but it's
got it's going into a segregated account I guess. >> Correct. >> Okay. Correct. >> Or a sub account. That's up to Mr. River. We have discussed it. >> Point being it could be a same account but it's being tracked with a particular fund number. >> That's correct. >> Identified as public benefit as a public benefit contribution.
>> Mr. Riverall if you can just nod yes or >> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> So he answered the affirmative. So it is being tracked how we spend that money. is a conversation we can have down the line. Okay. >> Thank you. >> And I just want to be clear for drafting our obligation is to pay the money to you. >> That's correct. And you all figure out
what we Okay. Just so that's >> we were clear on that, but thank you for the further clarification. >> Okay. >> Yes, sir. >> I just had a quick question. Uh how does this development impact the historic properties that are >> It does not if my >> It does. I'm sorry. I thought it was
>> Well, I depends on what you mean by the word impact. Um, so we're we we've included it's not before you tonight, but I want to answer your question. The historic property remains. It will be enhanced. It is within our footprint of our development, but we we are not
touching it. We will be taking the air rights from it through TDRs that will be redeployed into the project that we're developing. But the historic properties will stay as they are. They are in the process, I understand, of being renovated now. And those renovations
give rise to TVRS which which will flow into this project. So but Delhi Lane the plan is to relocate Delhi Lane into a vastly improved and renovated um space within the existing historic structures honoring their historic integrity.
>> Great. Thank you. I think that's probably one of my biggest concerns with the project. So I appreciate you. >> Did I answer Did you answer your question? They stayed. >> Yes. I mean, we have to see what we're what's going to end up happening with them, but yes, thank you. >> They will stay. They stay. >> So, if I can clarify because the lawyer
me curious. So, so the agreement references those parcels as part of the described property in the development agreement. >> They're they're within the boundary of the of the property, the application area, but but they are not being redeveloped.
>> Understood. That was not my question. My question is, are they described as part of the land affected by this agreement? I believe they are. >> Okay. >> But we're not purchasing them. >> Understood. And and I'm assuming that that's being done because you're unifying the site in
>> That's just so I want to confirm. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Okay. >> Further questions? >> Last last question. Just for the city attorney. This is the first time we're using TDRs as an exchange. >> Yes.
Okay, further questions. >> Okay. Uh, is there a motion uh with regard to item three, please? >> I'll move the motion. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Have a motion by Commissioner Rodriguez. Second by Vice Mayor Corey. Madam Clerk,
if you can call the role on item three, please. >> Yes. Commissioner Rodriguez, >> yes. >> Commissioner Bonish, >> yes. >> Commissioner Kay, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Corey, >> yes. >> Mayor Fernandez, >> yes. Item 5 Z. >> Thank you. Uh I think that leaves item seven >> and the add-on. >> And the add-on. So which would we like
to take first, colleagues? >> Whichever one. >> Uh let's let's take item seven. >> Do you think that's going to have less conversation than >> I'm I'm I'm I'm gambling that it may because are there are there questions regarding the item? Are there no questions regarding it? You're >> a brave man.
>> Gentlemen, any questions regarding the add-on item? No. No. Okay. So let's read the add-on item. Okay. Add on a resolution of the mayor city commission of the city of South Florida approving the proposal and third
amendment to the professional service agreement with plus era LLC DBA plus design for additional services for the preparation of design and construction documents for Southwest 58th Avenue between 72nd Street Sunset Drive and 73rd Street in amount not to see
$219,792. >> I'll move it. Hold on a second. We do have >> Sorry. Sorry. No, I just >> question by Commissioner Rodriguez. >> Question to the just to the manager because I I didn't I didn't have a chance to speak with him. Um this is
only per this is only for the $219,000. This is basically handling the street and the west side, right? Or or is this including the Bambilia side as well? This is um 58th Avenue
>> sunset to 73rd Street for design and construction >> 199 >> but sorry designing and CD >> but that's that's I'm right right 58th Avenue is the >> No, it's the other one isn't that 58th
is where >> No, >> so yeah, I'm pretty sure it is. So are we is are they including the design of the the the side of Bugambilia all that and the parking garage side? I just want to make sure that because we had spoken
at a time that the bugilia side we weren't going to touch but then we were going to do the other side because we had to do the parking garage side no matter what >> because we own >> Yeah. >> Huh. >> Guys, we can't >> Okay, that's it. >> You're welcome to come forward and add something to the record.
>> Well, any anything between 72 and 73rd Street will be looked at as part of the design. >> Okay. >> What comes back from that will be part of the input and recommendations. But okay, >> design and construction drawings would be included in the 29 199 plus contingency.
>> Okay. I just Okay. Thank you. >> Other questions? Uh is there a motion on the add-on? >> I'll move it. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Bich, a second by Commissioner Rodriguez. Madam Clerk, please read the role. >> Commissioner Bonish, >> yes.
>> Commissioner Cay, >> yes. >> Commissioner Rodriguez, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Corey, >> yes. >> Mayor Fernandez, >> yes. >> Item passes 5-0. >> Thank you. >> Okay, let's read item seven, please.
Item seven, an ordinance of the mayor and city commission of the city of South Florida amending chapter 11 garbage and trash of the code of ordinances including modifying service parameters for municipal garbage collection services and private franchise hauler garbage services for multif family
residential properties providing for one-year transition period for multifamily residential properties affected by the modification to alter their garbage collection services. >> Thank you, Madam Clerk. Uh Mr. Mr. Manager, you want to give us a summary of where we are on this item?
>> Yes, sir. >> Our director will come up and and present on the item. >> Good evening, sir. >> Good evening. >> Good morning. >> Good morning. Not yet. Almost. It's morning, but not here. >> We need to extend it a little bit more. >> Oh, I'm sorry. It is almost 11:30. Can I
get a motion to extend for till 11:45? >> I'll move the motion. >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion by Kaya, second by Rodriguez. Any objection? Hearing none means extended till 11:45.
So, you have uh before you uh this ordinance change, and I know that you may recall, and I'll just refresh your memory a little bit. Uh back in June and September, we had a couple of discussion items. Uh, and we went over whether we
were how we would change the code to fall in line with the properties that we were servicing because the city's code had a restriction that we're only supposed to service uh, properties of up to three units. Those are the ones that we're supposed to service. However,
historically, there's been a series of properties that were being serviced uh, for garbage that should not have been receiving the service. uh we presented different scenarios about you know going up to I think it was 10 12 20 and something higher. Uh
the direction that we got in a lot of those discussions ended up um at the 20 uh going up to 20 and servicing up to 20 and that's what you see before you here. Uh I will remind you that we went through different scenarios. There is a fiscal impact in here. um in in the
fiscal impact, you know, talks about the the additional fees that would we would collect, the fees that we lose uh from the franchise as well, some of the annual operating cost. And in this scenario, we felt that we could do it uh we went through different analysis uh obviously with John and the team uh
about whether we could do it with existing staff and we showed how we demonstrated how we could do it with existing staff based on the fact that we're finishing the routes on time uh currently. So that we were felt comfortable with that. It doesn't really add a lot of uh properties. Um so the um
that's what's before you. It would change the ordinance to go from up to three units to up to 20 units. Um we it was mentioned it's written in the title of it. We're going to give the properties time to um you know transition for those that have to transition and bring on uh private
haulers to take over the service. In addition, you had also asked us to reach out to the two properties that were going to be affected for losing their garbage service. I can remind you that was the Banyan and Miller in 67. Uh we did reach out to them after a few efforts on one of them. It took us a
little bit to uh find the right people. Uh they came in. We've met with them. We've talked to them uh more than once. We've given them information and both conversations were the same because, you know, we were also wanted to make sure that we didn't miss anything. And so we had asked uh the representatives of both
properties if they had anything in their records uh anything in their uh you know documents that they could share with us as to why they were receiving the service. We also did our own searches uh with the attorneys ourselves. The clerk helped us find information as well. We went back historically and looked to see
if we could find anything. uh nothing has been found or nothing has been produced uh by the properties also that to show that they were you know why they would have been receiving the service. So, uh, what you have before you would, um, have us con, uh, serve these
properties that we're really already serving, uh, that are below 20 units, uh, which is one, two, three, four, five properties, uh, that would continue to get the service now, in line with the ordinance, uh, that would get the garbage service. And then the two
properties that are over 40 units, uh, there's there's two that would lose the garbage service. So those are the two that would be primarily affected. >> Questions, you're recognized, sir. >> Director Munoz, um, can you remind me
real quick on the banyan how they were doing the garbage before or was it individual units or they had like they had scattered like a finite amount of garbage cans that we would >> the they have 16 cans there currently.
further questions. >> Yeah. Well, I guess um so thank you. I appreciate So the number now for 20 dropped, which used to be in the 40 something thousands, >> correct? >> Um because and I don't know if uh the commission remembers, we had a number
there, but then uh I requested the credit from the banyions um be applied to the overall cost to the city. And I guess that's how we're getting the 29 because most of us here were voting for I think it was nine and um we were
pending to move to 20 based on this number. So this 29,000 number um where I mean do do you is it is it something that you guys can carry? Is it I mean from your perspective it it's
doable and good to go with for public works? >> Yeah. as yes. Uh the we don't expect that the real hit would be if we had to add service, right? We had to add a crew or truck. So that's the the the real fiscal impact. So in this case, no, it's just something that we're going to have
to, you know, budget for this upcoming year. So it'll give us some time as we transition. >> Okay. >> Further questions? Okay. Uh this is a first reading ordinance does not require a public hearing. >> I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. Just I wanted to
add on to that comment. OB and the way we fund this is through our general fund. So it obviously be a consideration for the board ultimately when we present the budget for next year. >> Further questions? Seeing none. Is there a motion to adopt item seven?
>> I move the item. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Have a motion by Commissioner Sorry, by Vice Mayor Cory, a second by Commissioner Rodriguez. Madam clerk, please call the role. >> Yes. Commissioner Rodriguez, >> yes. >> Commissioner Cay, >> yes.
>> Commissioner Bonish, >> no. >> Um, Vice Mayor Cory, >> yes. >> Mayor Fernandez, >> yes. >> I know, but pass first one. >> Thank you. Uh, colleagues, that's everything that we have on the agenda. I
believe we did get a copy of this solid waste RFP that circulated. Um I I if do you want to have a quick discussion on it? You guys I only have two things I want to ask of the city attorney and then >> we're here. >> I think I'm good while we're here and
we've got five minutes or 10 minutes on the clock. Uh Mr. Secretary, just a quick question. The way this is structured, can someone respond to the solicitation uh providing or not providing MSW
services? >> No. Well, the primary goal is to address the city's MSW services. Correct. Would not have to provide any other MSW services, but the city's MSW has to be taken care of. >> But just But so they would that would be a minimum requirement.
>> That would be anything that would anything that would so if someone wanted to bring us a construction debris recycling facility without the MSW component, >> it would Yeah. The statute the statute actually allows for resource recovery and associated solid waste. >> Correct.
>> Facilities. That's what we would fall under under if that scenario if this was a a a you know primarily resource recovery of any sort the statute would allow for that. >> Okay. I was saying as a threshold to qualify >> I will double check to make to ensure
that it is a >> no I I I actually I'm asking because I want to provide the optionality. >> Oh without to not >> Yes. I mean look >> okay >> we we all know what we're talking about. So, I don't want to get into the details, but you know, I don't want to discourage someone from bringing forward a proposal that's serious about maybe
building an alternate facility, >> okay, >> that generates us revenue and helps us mitigate costs. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, I think the optionality would be helpful. >> Certainly do that. And then just a point I know that we've visited on privately, but I just want to ask about again because I'm looking at the language and
I'm looking at it quickly, so I could be mistaken, but on qualifications on page six of 82 and seven of 82. So one and four, we still are requiring continuity of operations for the proposing entity
for a minimum term of two years. uh either either the proposer or a an affiliate principal subsidiary. >> Understood. But so that would that would that would that would mean that waste company Y >> right >> would create an a Florida specific affiliate
>> right >> for this here and meet the threshold. Correct. >> Correct. But a technology and a provider could not form a joint venture and qualify >> would have to partner with >> with some entity some with an affiliate
>> prop but this is a proposer but not but I think the language is still too narrow with concern. >> Okay. >> It says proposer andor principal subsidiary or affiliate >> with substantially the same ownership structure as the proposer. That language is probably the problematic language. So
you want to add a partner or a uh >> so if it's a partner >> I think it's fine but the substantially the same ownership structure proposal I think is problematic in terms of allowing for >> maybe a creative joint venture to come forward. >> Okay. >> How do you define substantial?
>> It's a excellent question. So I will not try to answer it. >> I'm hungry. >> I'm hungry too, man. Um, anything else, colleagues? That's all I had here. So, >> I want to review it.
>> Okay. I just want to put that out there. With that, I'm done with my comments. Anyone else have anything they want to add? >> Just discussion, right? We're going to >> The idea The idea, look, the idea is to if there are any if there any items in here that give you heartburn that we should be discussing, those are the two
that gave me heartburn because I want some flexibility. Um, I mean, I think we're trying to get staff direction so that we can get this thing out on the street as soon as possible. >> Yeah, we can take the next 24, 48 hours if you have comments after you review it and you want to let us know.
>> You want you want back by by Friday, Thursday, Friday. >> That that that would be excellent. So, we can get this out. >> Okay. Understood. >> Okay. >> With that, we stand a journey. Thank you everyone. >> Thank you.
>> How do you guys