WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=uvNcoBuQPFA

Part: 1

1
00:11:44.960 --> 00:12:01.000
operate. This would provide requirements for low-flow fixtures, Energy Star appliances, irrigation reduction for planting, and so on. This is available to both commercial and residential development. For the residential focus, so anything

2
00:12:01.000 --> 00:12:15.800
on the single-family up through multi-family side, there are also national certifications through the Florida or sorry, through the Energy Star certification program. This certifies homes to be at least 10% more efficient than those that are built to the minimum code standards. This is a

3
00:12:15.800 --> 00:12:31.360
fairly relatively frequently achieved certification. There are several million homes in the United States that do meet the certification. Looking a little bit out beyond that, the Department of Energy has an efficient efficient new home certification program. It involves

4
00:12:31.360 --> 00:12:48.240
renewables that offset energy cost. It is a higher standard than the Energy Star certificate certified home that is a prerequisite for earning this certification. Looking at the EPA Indoor Air Plus, this would be more focused on environmental health, improvement of indoor air

5
00:12:48.240 --> 00:13:04.120
quality, and this is also applicable only to residential construction. So, up to this point of the ones listed on the slide, only Florida Water Slot Star is eligible for commercial development. Green Globes is a newer program. I believe it's been in place for several

6
00:13:04.120 --> 00:13:20.720
decades, but it has expanded over the recent decades from what I can tell. It's very expansive. It's similar to LEED. It has more of a national focus than a state focus, but it has a similar program that awards points in various levels of sustainability, like water

7
00:13:20.720 --> 00:13:37.520
conservation, energy use reduction, and so on. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation also has a model lighting ordinance for sea turtle compliance. This is a higher standard than the local code. It's even higher than the ordinance that was moved

8
00:13:37.520 --> 00:13:53.560
forward last year and is currently pending before the city commission. It requires full cutoff lights, native vegetation screening, includes higher standards for pools, dune walkers, and so walkovers, and so on than what the city currently has in its code and even what it would be adopting under its new

9
00:13:53.560 --> 00:14:08.920
code. This would require independent certification of this is something that would be added to our code that the development complies with all the recommendations of the model lighting ordinance that is applicable to the development type. There is no department within the state that would

10
00:14:08.920 --> 00:14:26.720
provide a certification for an individual project. This is something that the state adopts as a model lighting ordinance that expects that it expects cities to administer and certify on its own. So, some considerations. We are not experts on the intricacies of each of

11
00:14:26.720 --> 00:14:43.320
these programs. Some of the programs we we do have staff who have some familiarity with Florida Green Building Coalition. We did go through the process with the Miramar project. I have some level of knowledge on the WaterStar program, but some of the other ones are brand new.

12
00:14:43.320 --> 00:14:59.160
We do want to avoid doubling of points across certifications. So, for some of these programs, for example, the WaterStar certification, Florida Green Building Coalition built into its certification criteria gives points for the WaterStar certification. It's not

13
00:14:59.160 --> 00:15:14.760
required, but it is something that it awards points for. So, we want to ensure that if we if an applicant achieves significant points in one area of certification, such as they're earning significant number of points for the Florida Green Building Coalition water conservation

14
00:15:14.760 --> 00:15:31.240
criteria, that should not solely be used as a basis to achieve another certification. If they're already earning WaterStar as a means of earning the Florida Green Building Coalition certification, they shouldn't be able to double up on points. We should be looking at those criteria independently.

15
00:15:31.240 --> 00:15:46.560
And we also wanted to introduce and and get board feedback and potentially crediting higher tiers of one certification as two certifications. More is not necessarily better. Developers do not stumble into the highest tiers of certification.

16
00:15:46.560 --> 00:16:03.040
Achieving gold or platinum certification under LEED or Florida Green Building Coalition requires significant planning from the onset on these projects and more substantial investments in sustainability, especially with LEED platinum. There's generally an expectation that the

17
00:16:03.040 --> 00:16:18.320
project be a net zero project. That's not so much required for the lower certification tiers, where it may just be a higher investment in in more efficient um AC units and and solar lighting and so on. Lower tiers may be easier to

18
00:16:18.320 --> 00:16:35.240
achieve via products modification alone without comprehensive site considerations. And as I mentioned before, some certifications have significant overlap or even award points for achieving the other. Florida Green Building Coalition is a great example. It awards points for achieving Florida Waterstar, which would

19
00:16:35.240 --> 00:16:52.080
be an independent certification. So, staff's proposal, this is just a concept for the board to consider. Um we are looking at potentially modifying in undertaking this land development code amendment to allow for standards that are applicable for single and two-family

20
00:16:52.080 --> 00:17:08.520
developments on single zoning lots only. We do have two homes that are currently under development in the special planning area. We have more that we believe will be undergoing development soon. And this would allow for compliance with the Florida Energy Conservation Code, which is a big thing in current Florida

21
00:17:08.520 --> 00:17:24.520
Building Code requirement. That would be one standard that they would be required to meet, and that is intrinsic just in the new development process. The applicant would be eligible to achieve one of the and of the other standards. This would not apply to multi-family development. It would not apply to condo

22
00:17:24.520 --> 00:17:41.600
development or townhouse development, large projects that are based across many zoning lots. These would be single and two-family homes on one single zoning lot. For all other developments, we would keep the current standard. One of LEED Certified or Florida Green Building

23
00:17:41.600 --> 00:17:57.920
Coalition Bronze would be a requirement. That would be for all development projects, small office developments, all the way up through large multi-family or large temp- temporary lodging projects. Both LEED Certified and Florida Green Building Coalition Bronze can be

24
00:17:57.920 --> 00:18:13.760
achieved and count together as the two required standards. That is the current standard, but we would like to promote a higher achievement level if that is viable. So, we would be introducing the ability for the applicant to achieve a higher standard. That would be either

25
00:18:13.760 --> 00:18:31.040
LEED Gold, Green Globes Three Globes, which is an equivalent more or less certification to LEED Gold, or Florida Green Building Coalition Gold as two standards. So, that would be a higher standard within one program. That would count as the two standards.

26
00:18:31.040 --> 00:18:46.720
We would also be introducing potentially additional standards that could be selected or proposed, but the points awarded under the second standard would not be able to overlap the minimum points needed to achieve the minimum LEED or Florida Green Building Coalition certification as selected. I brought up

27
00:18:46.720 --> 00:19:02.640
now multiple times the Water Star certification. If the applicant were to only achieve Florida Green Building Coalition through achieving the Water Star certification, they would not be able to count the Water Star certification as their second certification. They would have to select another that would bring them up to a

28
00:19:02.640 --> 00:19:18.600
higher standard and achieve a different higher certification. So, with that, I know this is very technical content. Um staff is trying to get up to speed on these as well, but we do have a pending pro- project. The Tram Wind's project had also been approved.

29
00:19:18.600 --> 00:19:35.000
It is currently in appeal, um, but it had been approved with the intent to achieve the Florida Green Lodging Program as a second of their two certifications. So, should that project exit litigation at some point, if they were to move forward, they would be in the same boat as the Miramar project.

30
00:19:35.000 --> 00:19:51.440
Uh, we are looking for your input on the proposed programs and certification reconsiderations. If this this is accepted, we will prepare a draft at an upcoming meeting. Happy to take comments or questions. >> So, what what does one do with the points that

31
00:19:51.440 --> 00:20:07.320
they accumulate from achieving the higher levels? Are we incentivizing something out of that? Or >> So, the proposal, the staff proposal would be that there there's a minimum number of points that must be met to even achieve a certification, otherwise they just would

32
00:20:07.320 --> 00:20:23.640
not earn the LEED or the Florida Green Building Coalition certification. The additional points, they have thresholds for both programs that would put them into a higher certification tier. LEED has four total tiers. Florida Green Building Coalition has three. If they pass that threshold and the

33
00:20:23.640 --> 00:20:39.480
other prerequisites for that level, they would achieve that higher certification under that program. >> Oh, I I just mean like I'm a I'm a hotelier, what what am I doing with these points? Like why what is my incentive for developing to the higher

34
00:20:39.480 --> 00:20:56.040
standard to achieve these points? What what do I get out of that? >> So, currently there is no incentive based on this update. There could be an higher incentive for those who want to aim for LEED or Florida Green Building Coalition Gold standard, the higher

35
00:20:56.040 --> 00:21:11.560
standard. They would only need to achieve that one certification. So, they would achieve a higher certification in one program instead of the lower certifications in two. So, that would give them an incentive to achieve a higher gold certification.

36
00:21:11.560 --> 00:21:27.160
>> I think an answer to your question also is that if they don't achieve it, they don't get their approval. >> Okay. Okay. But they can achieve the bare minimum and we're not doing anything in our development code to incentivize going to higher tiers. >> Correct. Currently not. We're not.

37
00:21:27.160 --> 00:21:43.600
>> Okay. Um do we do you have any thoughts as to whether one can be both resilient for hurricanes and achieve higher levels of lead certification? Are they compatible or

38
00:21:43.600 --> 00:21:58.880
mutually exclusive? I was just thinking back to one of the large resort dis- district projects and for example, you can some of the some of the things that lead awards points for would be a green roof or painting the

39
00:21:58.880 --> 00:22:15.520
roof white to reduce heat islands, but if if doing that to get your lead points means you're putting your physical plant at the ground level somewhere else when it could have gone on the roof, now you're at risk of flood damage, so I'm just curious if

40
00:22:15.520 --> 00:22:30.600
you know, after our experiences with Milton and Helene, if if we might want to revisit the entire concept of what we're trying to achieve and if these two might be at conflict with one another.

41
00:22:30.600 --> 00:22:47.880
>> So I think based on achieving bare minimum as you brought up before, [snorts] I haven't received much resistance from that. I I think that just meeting the minimum threshold, which for lead I believe it's 40 out of 120 points, so there there's a lot of low-hanging fruit that can be achieved

42
00:22:47.880 --> 00:23:04.160
just to be able to, you know, increase the R values, include solar panels, use Florida native landscaping, low low-impact landscaping. Florida Green Building Coalition I think does a very good job with providing those Florida level

43
00:23:04.160 --> 00:23:19.280
specifics that maybe lead doesn't consider. They actually award points for having a her of hurricane evacuation plan, for improving dunes, using native plants on you know on the beach and so on. Um they do a very good job with that. LEED with their international focus

44
00:23:19.280 --> 00:23:36.400
doesn't have so much of that, but I I haven't seen any projects where they've been unable to achieve the minimum certification. It's going to get more difficult as you point out for the higher tiers where they really need to hit all of those criteria to get to platinum. >> And the And our pressing need is that

45
00:23:36.400 --> 00:23:51.920
our LDC requires certifications to programs that no longer exist. >> Uh just for the one program, but we do have two projects that were approved with that certification and especially with the Miramar they're nearing substantial completion and they they

46
00:23:51.920 --> 00:24:08.720
would have a difficult time retrofitting to meet if if they could at all. And we would not be able to issue a certificate of occupancy for that project without these two certifications. That's where we we meet that immediate need. >> Is it possible for us to temporarily

47
00:24:08.720 --> 00:24:23.880
reduce the requirements while figuring this out and then put them back in place or did then do we get run into SB180 type issues where we relaxed it and we can't make it more restrictive to just to get it back to where it was? >> I think if we really want to do explore this in a lot more depth, I think we

48
00:24:23.880 --> 00:24:39.680
could probably put a standard in place that would recognize that they were certified as meeting and a standard that no longer exists and we can a temporarily substitute just for those two projects, but I think on

49
00:24:39.680 --> 00:24:59.560
the Trade Winds side, they have not actually begun to develop. We haven't gone through site plan permitting, so it may be more viable for for certain projects than others. Miramar being under development is is much more of a challenge. >> Okay. >> Yeah, so uh

50
00:24:59.560 --> 00:25:14.920
two There's two things going on here, I think, right? For me to kind of keep them straight. You have the the major projects like the Miramar. That's that's kind of the one you the most pressing need. Um I I I think I'm I like what you said

51
00:25:14.920 --> 00:25:30.000
earlier. I think it's the right thing to do. I think they should get, you know, either a waiver or grandfathered in. We don't We I don't think we need to do really anything to help them get They should just get approved. As long as they meet the intent, right? They can

52
00:25:30.000 --> 00:25:46.200
show they met the intent of that which is now no longer a a thing, right? We don't We don't want to punish someone for doing all the right things, right? And if that's where you're going with that, I I agree with that. Um So,

53
00:25:46.200 --> 00:26:02.760
on the residential and then just to piggyback on on um member Hubbard's question earlier. So, the points, you know, specifically for the hotels, not the Forget about the residence residential right now. Real really, they have to have so many

54
00:26:02.760 --> 00:26:19.360
points to get a certification. They need two certifications, right? >> Correct. >> But beyond that, it's really then for them to show My guess is if they wanted to go to a higher level, it's really so they can tell everybody they're at a higher level and maybe that's good for their business, right?

55
00:26:19.360 --> 00:26:34.480
>> Correct. >> There's no other incentives. >> Correct. >> Okay. That's that's kind of That's kind of And it's >> Well, it might be that they pay less for energy per month. >> What's that? >> If it's an energy-saving thing, they may pay a lower energy bill. >> Okay, so that's

56
00:26:34.480 --> 00:26:50.360
>> be a like a business incentive, reduced cost. >> Okay, so there's so there's so someone will reduce >> front, reduce the monthly cost. >> Okay. So, that's an incentive. That they'll get that from somebody, the state or somebody, right? If they do that. >> company. >> The utility company. Okay.

57
00:26:50.360 --> 00:27:07.000
All right. So, go to the residential piece. Let me just ask this question first. What is the problem that we're trying to solve here? >> So, with a project

58
00:27:07.000 --> 00:27:24.400
like a nine-figure hotel redevelopment both the >> No, I'm talking residential. >> To give context for that with with a with a very large project including these certifications in the development pro- process is is not a challenge

59
00:27:24.400 --> 00:27:41.200
because it it's a considerable cost, but relative to the overall project cost it's very low. On single-family residential development, there's a minimum entry-level cost just to get the certifier on the project. A lot of new home builders are not familiar with the

60
00:27:41.200 --> 00:27:57.560
requirements for Leader Florida Green Building Coalition, so they have to get an outside entity. It's a significant additional proportional cost relative to the project even just to achieve the bare minimum certification. It's not unachievable, they do have a separate

61
00:27:57.560 --> 00:28:13.080
homes program, but the proportional cost on a very small project is significantly higher than a bare minimum certification cost on a larger development. >> Okay, so

62
00:28:13.080 --> 00:28:29.800
the problem that you're stating and the the reason we're having this discussion the way I hear it is you're trying to save homeowner new new build home right? New build homeowners a portion of of their construction cost.

63
00:28:29.800 --> 00:28:44.520
Is that what we're trying to do? >> Correct. That's that's that's part of it. It's also the fact that a lot of especially in the area that we're discussing a lot of the single-family development is just solely redevelopment in a lot of cases of storm-damaged

64
00:28:44.520 --> 00:29:00.720
homes, so they're simply putting back what they have. They're not looking for additional development benefits. They're they're redeveloping. That's not usually the case on the on the commercial side where there are additional benefits that are coming out of the redevelopment. >> Okay, so we're we're we're doing this

65
00:29:00.720 --> 00:29:17.760
specifically because the way this system is working right now, the requirements right now, I've I haven't heard anyone complain that you know, the requirements are too hard for them to achieve or too expensive. What is the cost that we're

66
00:29:17.760 --> 00:29:34.120
talking about? I mean changing for change's sake, right? I I just want to make sure that what are the facts that we're dealing with here? What is the real problem? So, what if you're saying the problem is the cost and that's driving your the staff to come up with something new for the residents,

67
00:29:34.120 --> 00:29:49.160
what is that cost? Give give me a dollar amount, say per million dollars of a new residential home. What is it? >> I don't know if I could give you an exact estimate. It's I mean, we we've only had two projects that have gone through this process because the

68
00:29:49.160 --> 00:30:04.880
majority of single-family lots in the city are not within this area. They're they're mostly along Blind Pass Road, a few up along um >> Okay. >> Gulf Winds. So, >> So, what's been in place since 2008, though? So, >> Brandon, can you go back a slide cuz I

69
00:30:04.880 --> 00:30:20.280
think the staff, you know, to your point, um like I know that in looking at the requirements, um the Energy Star certified was pretty easy to achieve. I mean, most people today are not going to buy, you

70
00:30:20.280 --> 00:30:36.240
know, terrible appliances that waste a lot of energy and stuff like that. So, I I think it would be a mistake to totally exempt single-family, but I think you've already started making um efforts for the or maybe it's one before that. There was one you had

71
00:30:36.240 --> 00:30:52.560
recommendations. And um you had something about the single-family residential. Oh, I think we probably gone by it. >> Well, yeah, before we get to that though, Brandon, I I I still just want to make sure it's clear

72
00:30:52.560 --> 00:31:09.160
that so for the homes that are in that in the district there that we're talking about, the very few number. Again, this thing's been in place since 2008, 2009. If it's purely a monetary savings thing that you're trying to achieve, it would be helpful

73
00:31:09.160 --> 00:31:26.600
to know what that number is because it may not be worth all the trouble and time and effort you guys are going through. >> Brandon, >> if it's more than that, um >> He can give >> Go ahead. >> He can give the examples of the like I think the last two that we've had. I

74
00:31:26.600 --> 00:31:42.800
think that'll help answer your question even though it may not be an exact number, but what did they do to achieve it? Cuz I remember we talked on the phone. >> They they had to bring in an outside reviewer and certifier. A lot of the cost is more in the administrative certification costs, especially with achieving just one certification. It's

75
00:31:42.800 --> 00:31:59.040
not going to be so much on the development cost side for the bare minimum certification. To To your point, >> It's kind of like choosing the refrigerators and choosing the hot water heater. They'll have an energy rating on those appliances and then someone puts

76
00:31:59.040 --> 00:32:15.520
them on a piece of paper and calculates the number and then certifies that number. So, you have a number of choices when you're choosing appliances, hot water heaters, or dishwashers, refrigerators, freezers, or those kind of things.

77
00:32:15.520 --> 00:32:30.360
>> Yeah, it was it was it was um slide 18, staff proposal. Cuz I think that gets to your question about what is the staff uh trying to do. And that was the one I was thinking of is um I think you're trying to make it easier

78
00:32:30.360 --> 00:32:47.760
for the homeowners. >> Cor- correct. It's It's not that they would not needed achieve a certification, it's that they would need to achieve one certification in the baseline Florida building code certification. The basis for that as as you pointed out, it's it's really monetary. I don't have an exact estimate

79
00:32:47.760 --> 00:33:04.000
at this point in time, but I know that the review costs and the cost of getting a consultant on to assess compatibility of the building is considerably higher as a proportion of the product cost, and just a lot with a lot of these larger

80
00:33:04.000 --> 00:33:19.320
developments, they already have consultants, they already have developers on the project that are lead certified or have some kind of background in this. With single-family homes, they they tend not to have that. So, um it it's basically just making a little

81
00:33:19.320 --> 00:33:35.320
bit easier for single-family homeowners and two-family homeowners to redevelop. That's That was just for consideration by the board. It's not a proposal at this point. So, >> Right. So, so that I can buy that, too. Like I would have to say, "Well, I'm it's a residential home. Why is it different

82
00:33:35.320 --> 00:33:52.120
than my residential home somewhere else in the city, right? I think that's what we're trying to say. So, let's make it the same for all residential homes. The only thing I would say to that is there any criteria in that district or along the the waterfront or anywhere along the beach

83
00:33:52.120 --> 00:34:10.480
where you would want to have stricter compliance with something? And now we're just letting that go away, which which then gets me kind of to my other point here. Um You know,

84
00:34:10.480 --> 00:34:28.040
chasing cert certs you without any real standard, like, you know, so going back to the residential piece, if there's a residential home in the district on the beach, the standards need to be higher

85
00:34:28.040 --> 00:34:44.600
because we want the city wants them to be higher. And this goes to the overall thing about the certifications where you're trying to go with updating the ordinance. You have to know what those are, what the tradeoffs are. If you're going to allow you know, these other things to be considered,

86
00:34:44.600 --> 00:35:00.640
but what are the minimum things you want met? And are you going to give those up? If not, if there's no concern, and you want those homes to be certified exactly in the same way as any other home in the in the city, then

87
00:35:00.640 --> 00:35:16.120
okay. But I think you have to answer that question first. Go Or Or is there a reason they have a higher certification because they're on the beach? Right? So, >> the city does not have any beachfront single-family home eligible

88
00:35:16.120 --> 00:35:31.760
lots that would be subject to the standard we of course do further further south in in the city, but um not none of the currently zoned lots would be eligible for a single-family home. So, it would not apply to them. It's largely the small lots in this this

89
00:35:31.760 --> 00:35:46.680
one's a little bit hard to make out on the screen, but this is just south of the former Wells Fargo along Blind Pass Road. That is the site where a new single-family development is taking place, and they are subject to the standard, but the special planning area

90
00:35:46.680 --> 00:36:02.960
does not encompass any properties that would be eligible for a single-family home. >> So, the So, the these rules were probably put in place to achieve a standard applicable to mostly larger projects, not single-family homes. These people just happen to be located in this area.

91
00:36:02.960 --> 00:36:18.640
>> Correct. And it as as written, they are definitely subject to the standard. It did not exempt them, but it it's it's applicable throughout the whole district, but it's applicable in the same way to single-family homes that it as it is to nine-figure hotel

92
00:36:18.640 --> 00:36:36.920
projects. So, >> And the city doesn't want to require this standard citywide. >> Just with Senate Bill 180, I think that could be challenging to impose at this time. This is only within the special planning area and there's

93
00:36:36.920 --> 00:36:53.320
>> Yeah, like like what member he said, if if the intent if our desire as a city is to have this standard apply everywhere and we just can't do it right now, then we don't want to relax it in one area that has it. So, it would be good to know what the city's

94
00:36:53.320 --> 00:37:09.680
intent is if if we believe this to be best for everyone, then we obviously should leave it in place and say we'd like to get this out to the rest of the city at some point when we're allowed to, but if we believe it's a waste of time, then then sure, throw

95
00:37:09.680 --> 00:37:27.920
it away cuz it's doing nothing. >> That's why I say and I and I've said it a number of times, I opened up with what is the problem we're trying to solve here. We got to have a clear definition of our problem before we go and make changes. Otherwise, we're just making, you know, bureaucratic changes

96
00:37:27.920 --> 00:37:44.160
for change's sake and it and it's just wasting a lot of time because it's it's not really solving a problem. Like we shouldn't be creating solutions when we don't have problems. >> We we we do have the problem in the form of the Miramar development that is currently under development. They are

97
00:37:44.160 --> 00:37:59.640
not going to be able to get a >> But that one's But that one's easy and you you've already stated where you're going with that and I don't think anyone disagrees. You know, they they are in good faith, they complied, they shouldn't be penalized, right? And neither should anybody be penalized if they've done something in good faith.

98
00:37:59.640 --> 00:38:15.080
So, that's not a To me, that's not even a problem. Right? This changing this whole certification thing, I I just trying to figure out the why behind it. >> Well, one of the main ones is no longer available.

99
00:38:15.080 --> 00:38:31.320
So, they have to have other options. >> Well, the other one um to articulate in your packet, there's the LDC standard, um, 39.9. And it has A, and then it has all the different standards, Florida Green Building Coalition, LEED, and it goes

100
00:38:31.320 --> 00:38:47.120
all the way down to eight. Um, but it doesn't include Florida Energy Conservation Code. Where Brandon's called twice and said, "Well, single-family homes have trouble meeting one of these eight. Can we add in another criteria that makes more

101
00:38:47.120 --> 00:39:02.960
sense for single-family homes? That would be this Florida Energy Conservation Code. So, maybe it would be like a number nine that says for single-family residences, compliance with Florida Energy Conservation Code would be one more criteria, correct?

102
00:39:02.960 --> 00:39:18.000
>> Correct. If the some or all of the proposed additional standards would be added in, we would reformat the ordinance around potentially requiring one of the currently required certifications, which is either LEED or Florida Green Building

103
00:39:18.000 --> 00:39:33.760
Coalition, and one of the others, or just have them as additional options. This is really just for board discussion on the single-family side. I think the potential problem that we could be discussing, it's not an immediate need, but we're opening this ordinance, so it was

104
00:39:33.760 --> 00:39:50.040
something we wanted to bring to the board, which is a consideration of, for those who are redeveloping solely a single-family or two-family home that fall within the special planning area, do we want them to be held to the higher standard? Do we want a higher cost on

105
00:39:50.040 --> 00:40:06.640
their project because their current home is is certainly not Florida Green Building Coalition or LEED certified? Do we want to make them comply with that higher standard? I don't think there's currently any desire that I've heard of to make this a citywide requirement. This is applicable only to the special

106
00:40:06.640 --> 00:40:23.720
planning area, so it gives those homeowners that we know that they are contemplating redeveloping, do we want to give them that option just just to achieve that that minimum level of compliance. They would still meet a certification, but potentially it would be the Florida Water Star certification

107
00:40:23.720 --> 00:40:38.760
or the Energy Star certification, which is a much lower bar to clear than LEED or Florida Green Building Coalition. Even at that bare minimum standard, those higher certifications, that that more difficult to achieve certifications, are

108
00:40:38.760 --> 00:40:55.680
much easier to achieve on very large projects where they're really considering those those energy savings and and water savings in their project, where they have those who are certified. It's a much higher proportional cost for a single-family home, all else being equal.

109
00:40:55.680 --> 00:41:12.400
>> Yeah. >> Seems to me like it it's kind of unnecessary to have single-family and multi-family single lot developments in this area have a different standard from the rest of the city. And it should just be larger

110
00:41:12.400 --> 00:41:29.040
developments. Because I think new developments or or new new builds, new single-family residences already have to have extensive AC codes and windows that have low E and plenty of ventilation and energy-efficient appliances are usually something people go for, so

111
00:41:29.040 --> 00:41:44.960
>> So, you're saying you feel the building codes have also become >> Oh, yeah. >> harder to achieve, and so is there some redundancy here? >> Yeah, and also it's it's it's what, one or two houses? >> Right. But

112
00:41:44.960 --> 00:42:00.960
>> Yeah, I don't think >> Well, I >> single-family >> I I hear what you're saying and I and I I I think that we certainly don't want to um make extra bureaucratic steps. >> Yeah. >> But I also feel like this is really

113
00:42:00.960 --> 00:42:17.600
where we would go as a city. I think the staff has already done a really good job of trying to find a balance here. And I I don't think that we want to take this away totally, and then at some point when things free up, try to reintroduce it. I think I almost think

114
00:42:17.600 --> 00:42:33.680
that because of the way it's been relaxed and tried to make it achievable, not the same as a hotel, I think the staff is already in my mind addressed that concern. I don't think getting this will be that much harder, especially with some of the

115
00:42:33.680 --> 00:42:49.320
other standards like that, um, >> No, but it'll be more expensive and there's >> Well, I think that goes to your point. What is the cost? I mean, if it's $50, $100, you know. >> It looks like it's 1 to 5% uh, for to certify a silver rating.

116
00:42:49.320 --> 00:43:05.480
And it's higher for a gold or platinum, it's about 10% higher cost and then it's 3,000 to certify. >> What is it for an Energy Star? >> saves you 20 or 30% on your energy bill. >> I guess the the easiest one they could

117
00:43:05.480 --> 00:43:20.480
get, which is the Energy Star. Do we know what that one cost? >> It said 1 to 5% more than without getting it. >> So, that would count as you need two. So, Energy Star would be one. >> So, based on the

118
00:43:20.480 --> 00:43:36.880
potential proposal, they would achieve for a single-family home only, they would achieve one certification. Then, of course, they have to comply with the Florida Energy Conservation Code, so that would be their two certifications only for those projects. For any other project, multi-family,

119
00:43:36.880 --> 00:43:53.040
office, commercial, they would need to achieve LEED certified or Florida Green Building Coalition, the minimum standard that is currently in the code. They can achieve both, that's their two, or they could achieve one and all or some of these

120
00:43:53.040 --> 00:44:09.000
certifications listed on that slide. Those are For the commercial development side, they're much harder to achieve than the Energy Star. They're the Florida Water Star is a significantly higher standard. >> I I like the way the commercial looks

121
00:44:09.000 --> 00:44:25.720
here. I think it makes sense. But the single family, I'm just confused about why they need a different standard than the rest of the city. >> Well, this this would make this would make them compliant with the rest of the city or more more compliant with the rest of the city because currently the rest of the city does not require any of

122
00:44:25.720 --> 00:44:42.320
these certifications. >> Yeah. >> This would remove the requirement that based on the current code they earn both LEED and Florida Green Building Coalition. They would have to earn both based on how the current code is written. >> Yeah, that's too much. >> Do we have any idea if any of the other nearby communities have something like

123
00:44:42.320 --> 00:44:58.960
this in place for residential? >> No, the the only other community in the state of Florida that I'm aware of that has this for private commercial projects or residential or commercial is Delray Beach. Their central business district only. They require very high-intensity

124
00:44:58.960 --> 00:45:16.800
commercial projects to comply, but I believe we're the only jurisdiction in Florida that has this at the scale in place. So, >> Yeah, Todd, maybe we all are in agreement saying it a different way. I think

125
00:45:16.800 --> 00:45:33.720
for residential properties, I think regardless of where they're located, if they're single family residence, it should just be the same throughout the city, right? We shouldn't There shouldn't If there's nothing for any of the other houses,

126
00:45:33.720 --> 00:45:51.000
no certifications required for any other homes, there shouldn't be a certification required for the these ones. I mean, if they're if they're just single family homes, let's just keep it simple. And let's not go down the road of requiring certifications

127
00:45:51.000 --> 00:46:07.800
because that just you know, why? >> I agree with that. >> You know, >> Unless we want to do a full city standard. >> Yeah, and the full city standard would probably be be what the Florida standard is now. I mean the the standards are pretty high for for residential. We

128
00:46:07.800 --> 00:46:23.600
don't need to have and we don't need to have badges to have badges. You you know, we don't need to just so oh, I got a certificate. What? What The houses are being built energy efficient now. Hurricane They're all They're all being built to a high standard. So, I

129
00:46:23.600 --> 00:46:40.080
I'm in full agreement with the commercial properties and even if they're commercial rental properties, um you know, kind of thing. But, single-family homes, let's just let's just keep it simple and standardized, right? That's my That's my two cents on that.

130
00:46:40.080 --> 00:46:57.920
>> Yeah, I I feel the same. If if we're not going to call this the intent for the entire city, then it doesn't make sense to have a special requirement for the same exact development in one region. >> Applicable specifically to single-family >> Correct. Yeah.

131
00:46:57.920 --> 00:47:17.080
>> Okay, just checking. Sure. Okay. >> Or two-family on one lot. >> Okay. >> As well, I think. >> So, based on that, if we are going to remove the requirement applicable to single-family homes, we will actually need to bring that forward as a comprehensive plan amendment because it

132
00:47:17.080 --> 00:47:34.160
it doesn't currently distinguish, but we're going to keep that as narrow as possible. It's going to exempt only single-family and two-family on single lots. So, it would not apply to townhouses, condo projects, or anything of that nature. The rest of the amendments will be solely in the land development code. It

133
00:47:34.160 --> 00:47:50.160
sounds like the board has some consensus on additional commercial options, but keeping the standards effectively as they are now. Single-family would be exempt through the comprehensive plan. Would that >> It sounds >> be good. Generally, yeah. It sounds good. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you.

134
00:47:50.160 --> 00:48:07.480
>> Is for the commercial projects, is there a some type of variance process that could allow them to get through, so this can have more thorough investigation on alternatives, or do we have to get something in place? >> We

135
00:48:07.480 --> 00:48:23.960
we could potentially write a standard that is applicable solely to this one situation. Um it would be an exemption, but practically it would be used by one project. There is a variance process, and we actually had a potential office development right next

136
00:48:23.960 --> 00:48:39.280
to the Bank of America a few years back. They went through that, but we can't vary the number of standards. We can only vary the standards they achieve. So >> Yeah. >> Uh sorry. >> Just one more thing on the commercial side.

137
00:48:39.280 --> 00:48:54.000
I I think what you said um I'm in agreement with. The thing I would caution us though is and and to think about, and this is where I think again, defining the problem.

138
00:48:54.000 --> 00:49:10.800
What is it we would like our commercial properties, let's say hotels, >> Mhm. >> to actually really be in compliance with. Like so for example, the FGL is no longer um in in force, but it it may have had things in it

139
00:49:10.800 --> 00:49:27.800
that we as a community like and would like our hotels to be compliant with, right? If we say that, if we define that. And if that's the case, then maybe we can have a a safe BP to equivalent to the FGL, and we tell all the commercial properties, "Hey, these are the things

140
00:49:27.800 --> 00:49:43.000
that are important to us as a city, and this is a a a cert that you need to get because these things mean something to us. >> Mhm. >> You know, the the recycling and all those There There were some good things in that. I say that, and I say again with any

141
00:49:43.000 --> 00:50:00.120
other cert, have an intent behind what you're asking for. Don't just say, "Get two certs. Here's five to choose from." Uh okay. Get the ones that are meaningful for our for for our city. And if there isn't Again, if there isn't one there now because this one went away, but we

142
00:50:00.120 --> 00:50:15.800
really thought this was important, then then that's worth creating an an ordinance over saying, "Do these things as your second one or or what have you, right?" I just don't chase certs is what I'm saying. Let's have some purpose and meaning behind it so we get the outcome

143
00:50:15.800 --> 00:50:31.880
that we really want. >> And I have to say I think the when you put the comprehensive plan requirements in there and then you said, "What did these programs accomplish?" I think that was the question that was trying to be answered. You know, that's why.

144
00:50:31.880 --> 00:50:48.360
>> Well, you get to pick you get to pick one, but >> Right, but you have you have goals. I mean, it talks about natural resources, water conservation, energy. I mean, it's not I don't feel I felt like there was a very thorough process done here. So, I

145
00:50:48.360 --> 00:51:04.080
did not feel like it was just certs going after certs. I felt like it was trying to tie into what the city does want to have in the comprehensive plan. >> Okay. Well, I don't disagree with you, but if one of

146
00:51:04.080 --> 00:51:20.280
them's going away and we're trying to figure out what's acceptable, all I'm saying is should we prioritize what we think's acceptable or are we just going to let people choose from the five and if that's good enough, it's good enough, you know? I I just like to have some

147
00:51:20.280 --> 00:51:36.160
intent when we go forward with things. I don't you know, anyway. >> And I it's it's a shame that the green lodging program was ended because like I mentioned, it was very operationally focused and we've looked we we've tried to find a program that an independent

148
00:51:36.160 --> 00:51:53.760
certifying agency offers that would be equivalent and it it doesn't exist from what I can tell. It was an excellent accompaniment to the Florida green green building. >> So, that's my point. And and if that one was the one that we all thought in this

149
00:51:53.760 --> 00:52:09.680
in this city >> Mhm. >> was the important one and now we're losing it, should we create our own that achieves the same thing and say you have to do this or do we just let them pick from the ones that are available? That's the to me that's the easy way out, right?

150
00:52:09.680 --> 00:52:24.400
And it will work. >> Mhm. >> But does it get us what we really want? And if we're sitting here, you sound disappointed, you know, by it. I looked at the FGL there are some good things on there. If we don't get the same results out of any of the other ones on there, then

151
00:52:24.400 --> 00:52:41.040
why do that? Why don't we tell them, "Hey, you got to do these things."? >> Well, >> I think what you're saying is take what was in the Florida Green Lodging program as the standards and criteria, cut and paste those and put those into the ordinance if possible, into the code. >> I'm saying if that's what we feel is

152
00:52:41.040 --> 00:52:57.120
>> ones that are good that are in there that we like. >> If we feel that's more important than some of these other ones that are available for certification, then I would say let's do that. But we have to answer that question first. We you know what I mean? Answer the question go, "Yes, this is what is important to the

153
00:52:57.120 --> 00:53:12.400
city." and then we move forward with the next step. It's a little bit of the easy way out just by saying here's a smorgasbord of others to choose from because we lost one. >> I think some of those criteria are implemented by the hotels anyway. When you check in, you know, it says,

154
00:53:12.400 --> 00:53:27.200
"If you want to wash your towels, put them on the ground or otherwise hang them up and reuse them." Those kinds of criteria. >> Is it legally possible to adopt the final iteration of the FGL codes or are we

155
00:53:27.200 --> 00:53:43.480
>> we may since we had it in there already, and just because they don't recognize it the FGL does, I think it would be the same standard just being put in. It wouldn't be more restrictive or burdensome. We'd have to take a look at the actual criteria and see what each one was. >> Would that put more cost on the city

156
00:53:43.480 --> 00:54:00.040
versus I guess the proposal would as it's written would put more not much more you said but more cost on the developer. Whereas if we do it Grant's suggesting would that require more enforcement from the city or monitoring? >> I think the certifications were

157
00:54:00.040 --> 00:54:15.160
traditionally paid for by private sector certification person. >> That >> We wouldn't be doing certifying. We would >> would just have >> We'd have to kind of take their word for it on the application. >> Okay. >> I had the same question cuz the the way

158
00:54:15.160 --> 00:54:30.760
the FGL is described it sounds like who there would have to be ongoing audits to have any idea if they're compliant. Is was there such a thing? Was the FGL an actual entity that would provide ongoing auditing of daily operations?

159
00:54:30.760 --> 00:54:47.280
>> There was. There was a separate division within their sustainability office that provided ongoing certification. That that that is a great idea and I wish we could administer that but >> Yeah, that would >> the investment would be extremely high. So and and we did and looking at just

160
00:54:47.280 --> 00:55:02.880
this alternatives list I did try to pick out ones that have both come up in the development process that the community at least in recent years has held out to be you know their priorities looking at the water star certification

161
00:55:02.880 --> 00:55:17.880
the indoor air plus that's getting more into environmental health but that would be an option for new development. They're intended to be a company men's and not overlap lead and Florida Green Building Coalition. So the first one on the slide and the last

162
00:55:17.880 --> 00:55:33.440
three those are standards that could be above and beyond what they already need to achieve under lead or Florida Green Building Coalition. Florida Green Building Coalition does award some points that are much more state specific like the evacuation plan

163
00:55:33.440 --> 00:55:50.600
but they can earn a lot of energy efficiency credits under LEED, achieve the minimum LEED certification, and earn nothing on the water conservation side. So, achieving the Florida Water Star certification would not overlap. It wouldn't just be another

164
00:55:50.600 --> 00:56:06.360
certification to achieve. It would actually have demonstrable results if if they were to achieve that. >> Do Do we allow for any type of offsets to achieve the goal? Like, obviously we're interested in I mean, you can't

165
00:56:06.360 --> 00:56:23.040
really buy an offset to reduce water, but if you're trying to build something in the most energy efficient you can, and you just can't get there, does Do we as the city allow for the purchase of offsets to achieve the same goal? >> There's a recent bill that the governor

166
00:56:23.040 --> 00:56:40.800
signed, HB 1217, that prohibits um offset programs. >> Okay. >> And I I do even, you know, again, this this being a voluntary certification, I I think LEED might give some credit if they pursue that voluntarily. Again, it's a point-based system, but it is

167
00:56:40.800 --> 00:56:56.240
something I believe that they would receive credits for. >> Which ones of this list of six are for homes only? >> Energy Star and Energy Efficient New Homes certification. I believe that I don't know if it's capped just at

168
00:56:56.240 --> 00:57:13.080
single-family, but it's it's definitely not a an apartment complex. They Uh Indoor Air Plus is for residential, but I believe it goes up through multi-family apartments and condos. So. >> Okay. So, as you as you continue to go through this though, you're going to

169
00:57:13.080 --> 00:57:28.440
also look at possibly the one cert if it's a higher cert that covers a lot of other things, you're going to look at that, too, right? You said. >> I I'd like to if the board's amenable to that. I think that it's just we we see it when we certify annually for our

170
00:57:28.440 --> 00:57:43.640
insurance offsets. Um there's low-hanging fruit that are very easy to achieve, but as you get higher, as you get more points and achieve higher certifications, you really need to start making investments in achieving what they're looking for in the program. So,

171
00:57:43.640 --> 00:57:59.240
I can't say definitively, but achieving gold in one standard could very easily be a higher standard than achieving the bare minimum in two standards because it the points required to achieve a gold certification are so much higher than

172
00:57:59.240 --> 00:58:16.200
than the individual. >> So, I think achieving lead gold would be substantial. My my college had a lot of lead gold and platinum buildings and you know, I think they're miles and miles ahead of any Florida beachfront

173
00:58:16.200 --> 00:58:32.080
hotel. So, I I feel like having having that kind of standard achieved by by a hotel in an area like this where you know, the zeitgeist isn't so eco-friendly centric. I think that would

174
00:58:32.080 --> 00:58:53.960
be that would be impressive. >> Yeah, you look at the project list and it's San Francisco and New York, you know, and they tend to occupy the top thousand spots. >> All right. >> Are we good with this action item or discussion item? Okay.

175
00:58:53.960 --> 00:59:14.840
The next discussion item is 5B, status of expanded sidewalks in the special planning area. >> This is a follow-up from last month. I just wanted to talk about the status and give a little bit of basis for what's going on. Let me see here.

176
00:59:19.480 --> 00:59:35.120
So, this is in our land development code as a requirement for [snorts] any development projects as appropriate. It's land development code section 39.10 A. A 10-ft sidewalk shall be constructed to allow for safe, unobstructed, and efficient pedestrian

177
00:59:35.120 --> 00:59:51.200
flow and the potential for sidewalk cafes and outdoor eating areas as appropriate. In front of all development projects within the community redevelopment district. This is now the special planning area. Specifically, they need to be installed along Gulf Boulevard or Blind Pass Road and within the town center core area.

178
00:59:51.200 --> 01:00:07.080
So, that's effectively our downtown from 76th down to 73rd on the west side, from 76th down to Corey on the east side of Gulf Boulevard. Uh the requirement may be reduced to 6 ft when warranted through the technical

179
01:00:07.080 --> 01:00:22.360
review committee site plan review process. We have tended to, as a policy that is a staff level review board, we have a tended to not reduce that requirement um in in most cases. So, moving from the north end of the

180
01:00:22.360 --> 01:00:36.920
city to the south, just showing the existing and proposed sidewalks that will be expanded to meet the 10-ft standard. We already have quite a few, of course, in downtown. It's most appropriate place to have them. Looking along 75th Ave and then along Corey

181
01:00:36.920 --> 01:00:54.200
Avenue in our downtown. We do have a number of sidewalks that meet the 10-ft standard already. Those were put in place prior to the special planning area. Corey Landings, um as a commitment of their development, has agreed to put in 10-ft sidewalks along their entire front edge. So, that will be along the

182
01:00:54.200 --> 01:01:09.960
former auto body as well as along the areas of the site that contain the mixed-use condo projects. They will be installing those at the time of development. That is That is a requirement for that project. Moving south, um again, both the

183
01:01:09.960 --> 01:01:25.640
TradeWinds and the Sereno Resort projects are currently under appeal. However, part of the commitment for their development is that they will install sidewalks along the entirety of their frontage should the project move forward. Cerrado is a one-phase project,

184
01:01:25.640 --> 01:01:43.240
so they will achieve that by the time the resorts are operational. Tradewinds is a four-phase project starting at the south moving to the north, so they would install sidewalks at 10 ft by phase moving along the project site as they move toward the north side of the development. Both

185
01:01:43.240 --> 01:01:58.440
developments do have certain triggers that if they start to develop and they only partially achieve the development project, they are still required to put in sidewalks along the entirety of the frontage. So, should they move forward with either development project and not fully redevelop, they would still be

186
01:01:58.440 --> 01:02:15.880
required to install the full sidewalk span. Moving a little bit further south, the one sidewalk, at least during my tenure with the city that has actually been installed was a Caribou Coffee. This was formerly an Auto Depot, a taxi depot

187
01:02:15.880 --> 01:02:33.120
dispatch. It was converted to Caribou Coffee shop in starting in the early 2020s. Finished up about a year ago. They have installed the full 10-ft sidewalk along their frontage. And then Miramar Resort is under

188
01:02:33.120 --> 01:02:51.000
development. We would expect that sidewalk to be in place by the by the end of the year when the resort opens. That is a requirement of their development. So, that's really all I had. I did want to point out that it is development that triggers this requirement. The most

189
01:02:51.000 --> 01:03:07.040
frequent type of development that we see that does not involve actual construction of a new building is like what you saw with Caribou. There is currently a conversion of the dry cleaners, I believe at 66th Avenue and Gulf Boulevard, to a coffee shop. They

190
01:03:07.040 --> 01:03:23.200
would be subject to the same requirement. One other recent change of use was the Beach Meads property that was formerly a photography studio. They did not install the sidewalk. They did obtain a variance just based on that change of use. The pushback and the concern we've

191
01:03:23.200 --> 01:03:39.720
received from a lot of owners and developers has not been on the larger projects. That's been more an issue with timing. The concern we've received with change of use really being the lowest threshold for development under the city's definition.

192
01:03:39.720 --> 01:03:54.800
It's not just the cost of the new pavement. Um a lot of times, especially along Gulf Boulevard and Gulf Pass Road, there is a requirement that they bring the storm water inlets up to the current standards or fully replace them. That can be a considerable cost. Speaking

193
01:03:54.800 --> 01:04:10.440
with one developer, the cost of replacing the sidewalk alone was higher than the cost of the renovation to change the property to a different use. So, for the smaller, more local projects, that has been the challenge. We haven't seen a lot of redevelopment. We haven't

194
01:04:10.440 --> 01:04:28.000
seen a lot of of change in use. But, with these new development projects as we as they come online, we have tried to be forthcoming with requiring these sidewalks. So, happy to take board input, answer any questions. >> Thanks for bringing this up. I know I was the one who asked for it, so I

195
01:04:28.000 --> 01:04:47.360
really appreciate it. I do have one question for you from a historical perspective. Has anyone So, totally in agreement with the 10-ft sidewalks, right? Um has anyone ever discussed putting a vegetation barrier

196
01:04:47.360 --> 01:05:02.920
next to the road and then the sidewalk on on the other side of that. For example, if you're in downtown uh St. Petersburg, you walk down there, a lot of their sidewalks, nice wide sidewalk sidewalks, but immediately next to the road, they

197
01:05:02.920 --> 01:05:18.880
have you know, like 4 ft of vegetation. Kind of like just a barrier of some sort. Um Aesthetically pleasing, I don't know how functional it is in the event someone would run a car through it, but um it keeps people that much further away

198
01:05:18.880 --> 01:05:35.040
from the road itself, which is a you know, from a safety perspective, I think it's it's pretty brilliant, you know, to do that. It keep keeps anyone from really falling over. You have that natural little barrier there. >> I think that's a really great idea, and

199
01:05:35.040 --> 01:05:51.360
I think personally, I'd rather see a 6-ft sidewalk and 4 ft of vegetation like you're talking, cuz I think about not only the safety aspects of it, but we're trying to not have every thing be impervious and >> Right. >> you know, I think it it has a lot of

200
01:05:51.360 --> 01:06:06.920
other um secondary things. Plus, I think we need to be aware of where the poles are, the transformers. Um I don't think we're trying to get some of that stuff moved. So, I I think that's a great idea. >> Yeah. Yeah, and I don't know if it's ever come up in the past, and that's why

201
01:06:06.920 --> 01:06:22.800
I'm asking. And then and if it hasn't, um I I would just like to float that idea. Um because the trade winds and these others that are moving along, they haven't fully you know, they have time to change some of their design if they needed to.

202
01:06:22.800 --> 01:06:38.920
Um I also fully realize I mean, Gulf Boulevard is the biggest safety issue we have for for sidewalks. I also realize that we don't have a lot of room to go you know, in some places. So, we may as a city want to look

203
01:06:38.920 --> 01:06:54.120
forward to saying you know, maybe maybe one side of Gulf Boulevard becomes the big walking thoroughfare of of the 10-ft. The other side, you know, we just we we just try to find a way to you know, make it safer. But, it's it's hard. Like

204
01:06:54.120 --> 01:07:10.440
there's just some businesses that you there's no no room to go. Some of them are almost on the road themselves, right? Um >> I agree with that also, cuz when I see people moving their luggage and everything, it seems like the Gulf side >> Mhm. >> is where they need more space.

205
01:07:10.440 --> 01:07:25.080
>> Yeah. >> And so, I think that's another really good consideration. >> I think also from just a pleasant walking perspective, like it's there's no trees anywhere along the sidewalks on Gulf Boulevard.

206
01:07:25.080 --> 01:07:40.920
So, it's kind of it's not great to walk through in the summer, and if you had some tree cover and some shade, I think it'd be very cool. >> Yeah. I I I think I think there's a lot of goodness there. I mean, the the down the the con the con to it, you know, we always got to talk pros and cons,

207
01:07:40.920 --> 01:07:58.320
the the con to it would be the the water needed to, you know, and the irrigation systems and the maintenance of those and who would that fall on? Probably, you know, there'd be a tussle between the the businesses and the and the city on that, but but the benefits would outweigh, I I

208
01:07:58.320 --> 01:08:15.120
think, that small cost, right? So, that said, is there you know, how do you how do you have that discussion to to go down the road to say, "Hey, sidewalks must be 10 ft, but they also must have a vegetation barrier between the road and,

209
01:08:15.120 --> 01:08:30.080
you know, if that's something we want to do." I mean, is it something we say, "Hey, we'd like you to go look at that." or is it you know, making that change? >> That's definitely something we could look into with, obviously, the focus being Blind Pass Road north of 75th and

210
01:08:30.080 --> 01:08:46.240
Gulf Boulevard, those being the high-volume areas where those issues are more evident. Um we would need to engage with the state. Those are state roadways. They have been supportive and they have worked with us on the 10-ft standard, but with the landscaping, as you pointed

211
01:08:46.240 --> 01:09:01.160
out, there are maintenance considerations, there might be line of sight considerations, um especially with palms or other, you know, low-water need plants, um they do typically have setback requirements from curbs and and so on

212
01:09:01.160 --> 01:09:17.359
for that It's for anybody who might run out into the road. Um so we would need to engage with them on that and see if that's something they'd be amenable to, but what you mentioned makes sense. Um we do see, you know, especially over the summer, of course, just groups, you know, and it can get a

213
01:09:17.359 --> 01:09:33.400
little precarious on the 5-ft sidewalks, but with four 6-ft and then a buffer, that helps. So. >> It And And if you think about it, it wouldn't be any different than Pass-A-Grille. >> That's true. >> When you drive down there, right? And I don't know if that's still considered state road or not, but >> Yeah, that's local down there.

214
01:09:33.400 --> 01:09:49.200
>> But it But basically the same concept with wider side wider um walking area. >> We had a workshop with Fdot, I want to say one or two years ago, specifically about Gulf Boulevard and

215
01:09:49.200 --> 01:10:05.400
did anything ever come out of that? >> It would It It addressed these exact things. They were supposed to >> study, too, wasn't >> have their best and brightest come up with some ideas for Gulf Boulevard and get back to us. >> We did get a safety study. It didn't get into that level of detail. A lot of it was median and intersection

216
01:10:05.400 --> 01:10:22.280
improvements, nothing conceptual like what the city has for downtown where it actually gave renderings of what we would like to see, but there is, as you point out, there's flexibility with some of the larger projects that are committing to these sidewalks. Miramar is under development, so it's it's a little past the the rain

217
01:10:22.280 --> 01:10:38.120
on that one, but um we can we can certainly engage and I think we have some time. >> Is the is Fdot who is in charge of curb cuts on Gulf Boulevard? >> Th- They are, yeah. >> Okay. Just cuz there's There are some places like if if you go to Agave,

218
01:10:38.120 --> 01:10:54.160
because they're not allowed to have more curb cuts, you actually have to drive on the sidewalk to get into a parking spot, so um there are places like that along Gulf Boulevard that are problematic um because >> So, I don't know.

219
01:10:54.160 --> 01:11:10.840
It's It's It's a mess. Everywhere on Gulf Boulevard is a mess, and uh but yeah, I would I would love to see some of the ideas I like I like the plant buffer, too. That and and trees. Uh And if you put them on one side, it encourages people to stay on that side and not jaywalk. And I mean, people are

220
01:11:10.840 --> 01:11:27.360
running across the street constantly over the summer. It's just It's like dodging people whenever I drive down there. But Okay. >> Yeah, we'll we'll look into that. We'll engage with FDOT and get back to you. Thank you. >> All right. Uh we don't have anything else on the

221
01:11:27.360 --> 01:11:31.560
agenda. So, with that, I will adjourn this meeting.