Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[00:00:01]

GOOD AFTERNOON, AND WELCOME TO THE OCTOBER 14TH MEETING OF THE LAND USE AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE.

UH, MR. ATTORNEY, LET'S DO A ROLL CALL.

GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN.

I'LL CALL THE ROLE COMMISSIONER DOMINGUEZ.

HI, PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER SUAREZ.

I'M HERE, VICE CHAIR BOT.

HELLO AND CHAIRMAN FERNANDEZ PRESENT, A QUORUM IS PRESENT WITH MS. ATTORNEY.

LET'S READ THE VIRTUAL MEETING PARTICIPATION ANNOUNCEMENTS.

TODAY'S MEETING OF THE LAND USE AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE WILL BE CONDUCTED IN A HYBRID FORMAT WITH MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THE COMMISSION, CHAMBERS AND STAFF AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC APPEARING EITHER IN PERSON OR VIRTUALLY VIA ZOOM.

TO PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY THE PUBLIC MAY DIAL 1-888-475-FOUR 4 9 9 AND ENTER THE WEBINAR ID, WHICH IS 8 5 0 5 9 9 2 3 0 3 7 POUND, OR LOG INTO THE ZOOM APP AND ENTER THE WEBINAR ID, WHICH AGAIN IS 8 5 0 5 9 9 2 3 0 3 7.

ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM? MUST CLICK THE RAISE HAND ICON IN THE ZOOM APP OR DIAL STAR NINE IF THEY'RE PARTICIPATING BY PHONE.

THANK YOU, MR. ATTORNEY.

MR. DIRECTOR, ARE THERE ANY CHANGES, WITHDRAWALS, REFERRALS ON TODAY'S AGENDA? YES.

UH, MR. CHAIR ITEM NUMBER

[2. DISCUSS POSSIBLE LEGISLATION REGULATING THE SALE OF CANNABIS AND THE ADVERTISING THEREOF IF RECREATIONAL USE IS LEGALIZED BY FLORIDA VOTERS IN NOVEMBER 2024 ELECTION.]

TWO, WHICH IS THE ITEM ON POSSIBLE LEGISLATION REGARDING THE FUTURE SALE OF, UM, CANNABIS, CANNABIS AND ADVERTISING, IF RECREATIONAL USE IS LEGALIZED BY FORMER VOTERS IN NOVEMBER IS BEING DEFERRED TO A FUTURE DATE.

AND ITEM NUMBER 11,

[11. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY CODE (LDR’S) AND THE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGARDING ALLOWABLE USES AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WITHIN THE 40TH STREET RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY OVERLAY ONLY APPLICABLE TO RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS.]

REGARDING POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY CODE, UH, REGARDING ALLOWABLE USES AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WITHIN THE 40TH STREET RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY OVERLAY, APPLICABLE ONLY TO RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IS ALSO BEING DEFERRED TO A FUTURE DATE.

WHO'S THE QUESTION? UH, IF THERE'S SOME I'LL, I'LL MOVE THE AGENDA.

AND ON THE AGENDA I'LL RECOGNIZE COMMISSIONER BOND, UM, ON THE, UM, THE CANNABIS ADVERTISING IS, SHOULD IT NICK, SHOULD IT BE OPEN AND CONTINUED OR SHOULD WE DEFER WITH NO DATE ASSIGNED? WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO PROCEED? I WOULD RECOMMEND DEFERRING IT TO, UH, TOM IS THE, IS THE DATE OF THE NOVEMBER MEETING AFTER THE YES, NOVEMBER 5TH.

YES.

THE NOVEMBER MEETING IS NOVEMBER 25TH.

SO I WOULD RECOMMEND DEFERRING IT TO NOVEMBER 25TH.

IF WE NEED MORE TIME, WE COULD ASK FOR ANOTHER REFERRAL.

SO CAN WE DEFER TO A SPECIFIC TIME? YEAH, I'LL NOTE DEFER TO DATE CERTAIN OF NOVEMBER 25TH.

THAT WAY IT'S AFTER THE ELECTION.

SO WITH THAT, UM, ITEM NUMBER TWO, COMMISSIONER BOND, WHICH YOU ARE SPONSORING, IS BEING DEFERRED TO NOVEMBER 25TH.

AND ITEM NUMBER 11, UH, RELATING TO THE 40TH STREET RELIGIOUS OVERLAY IS BEING DEFERRED AS WELL.

WITH THAT, UH, THE ITEM, THE, UH, MOTION, THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO, TO APPROVE THE AGENDAS.

THERE.

A SECOND.

I'LL SECOND.

ALRIGHT.

UH, THAT, WITH THAT THE AGENDA IS SET.

UM, MR. DIRECTOR, LET'S CALL ITEM NUMBER

[1. ENTERTAINMENT AND SUPPER CLUB REGULATIONS]

ONE.

OKAY.

ITEM NUMBER ONE IS AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO ENTERTAINMENT AND SUPPER CLUB REGULATIONS.

COMMISSIONER SUAREZ, THIS IS YOUR ITEM.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED YOUR PERCENT.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

UH, TOM, I THINK YOU WENT BACK AND YOU MODIFIED THIS, UM, THIS ITEM, UH, WITH THE INPUT OF MY COLLEAGUES.

DO YOU MIND, UM, SUMMARIZING WHAT HAS BEEN DONE? SURE.

THE, UH, ITEM, THIS ORDINANCE WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION AT FIRST READING ON SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2024.

AS PART OF THAT APPROVAL AT, UH, FIRST READING THE COMMISSION, UM, UH, ASKED FOR FOUR CHANGES.

UM, THE FIRST TWO WERE THE INCLUSION OF TWO APPLICABILITY SECTIONS.

UM, AND THOSE HAVE BEEN, UH, INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, REVISED DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR SECOND READING.

THE THIRD WAS A CLARIFICATION PERTAINING TO THE EXISTING PROHIBITION OF ENTERTAINMENT USES IN THE SUNSET HARBOR NEIGHBORHOOD.

UM, THAT CLARIFICATION IS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE.

AND THEN THE FOURTH WAS A, UM, AN AMENDMENT ALONG WASHINGTON AVENUE TO CREATE A GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARY THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE SUPPER CLUB REGULATIONS FOR 5:00 AM ESTABLISHMENTS.

AND THAT GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARY HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED ON THE EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVENUE FROM EIGHTH STREET TO 14TH STREET.

ADDITIONALLY, SUBSEQUENT TO THE COMMISSION MEETING, AN ADDITIONAL APPLICABILITY SECTION WAS REQUESTED TO BE ADDED, AND THIS ONE WOULD READ AS FOLLOWS.

THIS ORDINANCE SHALL NOT APPLY TO PROPERTIES FRONTING ON LINCOLN ROAD WHERE THERE IS AN ACTIVE LAND USE BOARD APPLICATION WITH A HEARING FILE NUMBER OBTAINED PRIOR TO JULY 30TH, 2024, AND WHERE THE PROPOSED PATRON OCCUPANCY LOAD OF THE VENUE DOES NOT EXCEED 199 PERSONS.

THANK YOU, TOM.

UM, YOU KNOW, I I WANT TO REITERATE WHAT HAPPENED OVER THIS PAST WEEKEND.

MM-HMM.

[00:05:01]

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE SAW, BUT THERE WAS A STABBING AT ONE OF THESE NIGHTCLUBS, AND I BELIEVE THE VICTIM HAS DIED.

UM, AND I THINK, I THINK WE'VE HAD ENOUGH.

I I THINK THIS IS A WAKE UP CALL FINALLY, WHERE WE NEED TO REALLY CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF WHAT OUR CITY WANTS TO BE IN THE NEXT 10, 20 YEARS.

UH, I THINK THE STATUS QUO IS DEADLY AS SEEN THIS PAST WEEKEND.

AND I THINK WE WANT TO USHER IN A NEW, NEW STYLE OF ENTERTAINMENT THAT IS, IS GONNA BE BENEFICIAL FOR NOT ONLY OUR RESIDENTS, BUT OUR OUR GUESTS TO THE CITY.

YEAH.

AND SO I'M HOPEFUL THAT WITH THESE MODIFICATIONS, UH, WE CAN MOVE THIS ITEM TO THE COMMISSION MEETING.

COMMISSIONER BOB, DO, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED, UM, SEPARATE FROM TANGENTIALLY RELATED, BUT SEPARATE FROM THE BIGGER ISSUE ON A, ON A MORE IMMEDIATE LEVEL, TOM, ARE WE NOT ABLE TO, UM, BRING THIS, THIS NIGHTCLUB TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO MODIFY THEIR CUP? I MEAN, THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT THINGS ARE HAPPENING THERE.

AND, AND IT'S, AND FOR THE RECORD, THIS IS THE NIGHTCLUB AT 15TH AND WASHINGTON WITHOUT NAMING NAMES, BUT IT'S A 15TH IN WASHINGTON, AND IT JUST SEEMS REALLY PROBLEMATIC THAT ONCE AGAIN, WE HAVE BAD ACTORS SPOILING IT FOR THE ENTIRE BUSINESS.

I MEAN, THERE'S SOME BUSINESSES THAT HAVE BEEN IN OPERATION FOR 30 YEARS WITH NOT A SINGLE INCIDENT, AND THEN THESE GUYS ARE, YOU KNOW, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IF IT'S THE NIGHTCLUB, UH, AT 15TH IN WASHINGTON, THEY DO NOT HAVE A CUP.

UH, THEY WERE APPROVED AND PERMITTED BEFORE THE CUP REGULATIONS, CURRENT CUP REGULATIONS WENT INTO EFFECT.

AND SO BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE A CUP, THE PLANNING BOARD, THAT'S NOT TECHNICALLY A JURISDICTION.

SO, BUT ON THAT, MR. ATTORNEY, IS THERE ANY REVIEW BEING DONE, UH, AND WORK, CAN ANY REVIEW BE DONE AS TO, UM, THEIR BTR IF, IF, IF THERE ARE DEATHS HAPPENING OUTSIDE THIS ESTABLISHMENT AS A RESULT OF THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY THAT IS OCCURRING AT THIS ESTABLISHMENT, CAN A REVIEW BE DONE, UH, BY THE PROPER AUTHORITY OF THEIR LICENSES BESIDES A CUP MR. CHAIRMAN? THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK AT.

THE CODE DOES, UH, PROVIDE VERY SPECIFIC CRITERIA OF WHEN A BTR FOR AN ESTABLISHMENT CAN BE SUSPENDED OR, OR REVOKED.

UM, AND, AND, AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN, WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK AT THE MAN, IT'S THE, THE, THE, A AUTHOR, THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT ARREST WITH THE MANAGER.

UM, BUT IT, YOU KNOW, IT'D BE A GOOD IDEA FOR, FOR CODE POLICE, UM, AND MAYBE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION TO GET TOGETHER ON THIS.

I WOULD BE HAPPY TO.

YEAH.

IF I, IF I MAY, I MEAN, YES.

ANY, ANY LOSS OF LIFE, UM, TANGENTIAL TO, OR, YOU KNOW, ATTACHED TO A PARTICULAR BUSINESS IS ONE TOO MANY NOW WE'RE UP TO THREE.

I DON'T, I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER.

BUT IT, THAT'S, IT'S JUST NOT OKAY.

WE HAVE A BAD ACTOR AS A BUSINESS, AND WE NEED TO, IF WE DON'T HAVE, UM, THE RECOURSE OF A CUP, WE NEED TO MOVE ALL OF OUR RESOURCES TO END THIS NUISANCE BUSINESS.

AND, AND I THINK THE MESSAGE NEEDS TO BE PUT OUT THERE.

IF YOU ARE ENGAGING IN A BUSINESS PRACTICE AND ACTIVITY, BRINGING IN PROMOTERS OR PERFORMERS WHO ARE ATTRACTING VIOLENCE AND ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES, WHETHER IT'S GOING ON INSIDE YOUR ESTABLISHMENT OR OUT IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS, YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO GATHER YOUR ACT TOGETHER.

AND WHEN YOU DON'T, WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP OUR CITY SAFE.

WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP OUR RESIDENTS SAFE.

WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP OUR VISITORS SAFE.

AND IF YOU DON'T GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER, WE'LL GET IT TOGETHER FOR YOU.

IS WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO HAVE A BLOODSHOT OF INNOCENT LIVES IN OUR COMMUNITY BECAUSE OF A HANDFUL OF, OF BAD, BAD ACTORS WHO ARE SPOILING THE FUND FOR EVERYONE ELSE.

THERE'S ONE MORE THOUGHT ON THIS.

UM, ISN'T THERE SOMETHING ON THE BOOKS ABOUT, UM, ENTERTAINMENT VENUES NEEDING TO LET OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT KNOW WHO THEY'RE BRINGING IN AS YES.

HIGH PRIORITY, YES.

HIGH PROFILE GUESTS, YES.

WAS THAT THE CASE THIS WEEKEND? WHERE IS A HIGH PROFILE PERFORMER THAT, WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S, UH, HANDLED BY THE INTELLIGENCE DIVISION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

AND I, I WOULD SAY WE WOULD HAVE TO DEFER THAT TO, TO THEM, AND I DON'T THINK THEY PROBABLY WERE EXPECTING THIS CONVERSATION HERE, RIGHT, TODAY, BUT COMM, BUT, UH, YEAH, COMMISSIONER, I THINK IT'S VOLUNTARY.

I DON'T THINK IT'S, UH, MANDATORY.

IT, IT IS, MAN.

I, I THINK IT IS MANDATORY, BUT IT IS THE NOTIFYING THE, THE CITY, IF THEY'RE ANTICIPATING A MAJOR PERFORMER WHO'S GONNA PUT ON AN EVENT, ATTRACTING A CROWD, THAT IS MANDATORY.

IT IS MANDATORY.

AND, UH, AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT

[00:10:01]

THROUGH ITS INTELLIGENCE, UH, DIVISION, UH, REVIEWS, UH, THOSE, THOSE PERFORMERS AND ENGAGES IN CONVERSATION WITH THE VENUE, IF THERE ARE CONCERNS WITH THOSE AND THEY CAN COMPLY WITH THE REGULATIONS, AND THEY MIGHT BE SUBMITTING THAT TO THE CITY, AND EVEN IF THEY ARE, AND THERE'S STILL DEATHS GOING ON THERE, SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE.

AND WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY, IT'S A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY TO UPHOLD THE SAFETY.

IF WE'RE HAVING TO PASS REGULATIONS THAT ARE GOING TO APPLY, UH, IN OUR CITY BECAUSE OF THE BAD BUSINESS PRACTICES OF A FEW, WE OWE IT TO THE GOOD ACTORS THAT WE HOLD RESPONSIBLE, THOSE WHO ARE ATTRACTING PROBLEMS TO, TO OUR CITY.

COMMISSIONER SUAREZ, I COMMEND YOU FOR THIS, UH, LEGISLATION FOR TRYING TO FIND MIDDLE GROUND ON, ON, ON AREAS THAT PERHAPS, UH, SHOULD BE EXCLUDED, UH, FROM THIS LEGISLATION AND, UH, AND TRYING TO TO IMPROVE THE AREA.

THE ONLY THING I WOULD SUGGEST IS, AS IT APPLIES TO THE, UM, AS IT APPLIES TO THE APPLICABILITY CLAUSE, I SEE WE'VE GOT THE APPLICABILITY CLAUSE FOR LINCOLN ROAD FOR ACTIVE, UM, ACTIVE APPLICATIONS ON LINCOLN ROAD FOR UP TO 199 PEOPLE.

I WOULD JUST SAY, IF WE REALLY DO WANT TO BRING THIS TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENT TO THE CITY, THE UPS OUR GAME, I WOULD JUST IN GENERAL ON THE REGULATIONS, I WOULD JUST CHANGE IT FROM REQUIRING A CUP.

WHEN YOU HIT 125 PEOPLE, JUST A GENERAL REGULATION THAT ONCE YOU REACH THE 199 PERSON THRESHOLD, AT THAT POINT YOU NEED TO GET THE CUP JUST SO THAT IT'S KIND OF MORE ACROSS THE BOARD.

UM, SO THAT, SO THAT, SO THAT WE MAKE IT EASIER, UH, FOR THIS TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENT TO EXIST IN, IN THE CITY THAT WAY IT IS MORE UNIFORM.

SO THAT LINCOLN ROAD IS NOT THE EXCEPTION, BUT MORE OF THE PRACTICE THAT ONCE YOU HIT THAT 1 99 THRESHOLD, THAT THEN, UH, THE CUP APPLIES.

I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

UH, MR. DIRECTOR, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? YEAH.

THE, THE CURRENT THRESHOLD IS 1 99, AND SO WHAT THEY WERE SEEKING AN EXCEPTION FROM WAS THE PROPOSAL TO LOWER THAT TO 1 25.

SO WE COULD TAKE OUT THE 1 25 AND JUST LEAVE IT AT THE CURRENT THRESHOLD OF 1 99.

BECAUSE WHAT WE WANT, I MEAN, AND, AND, AND I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR THE SPONSOR, SO CORRECT ME IF I, IF I'M WRONG, COMMISSIONER SCHWARZ, BUT I BELIEVE YOUR INTENT IS TO ENCOURAGE THIS TYPE OF USE IN OUR CITY, AND I DON'T WANT US A HAVING A LOWER, LOWER THRESHOLD ON THIS FOR THE CUP TO DISCOURAGE, UH, THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY.

BECAUSE GOING THROUGH THE CUP PROCESS, IT IS RIGOROUS AND IT MIGHT HURT SOMEONE'S BUSINESS MODEL HAVING TO GO THROUGH THAT EXTRA LAYER.

YEAH.

UM, I, I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST.

OKAY.

ALRIGHT, WITH THAT, ARE THERE MEMBERS? YES, TOM, AND JUST TO CLARIFY MR. CHAIR, WITH THAT CHANGE, WE NO LONGER NEED THAT APPLICABILITY THAT I HAD READ INTO THE RECORD BECAUSE THAT PARTICULAR BUSINESS WAS LESS THAN 1 99.

SO BY CHANGING TO 1 99, WE'LL MAKE THAT CHANGE, BUT WE NO LONGER NEED THAT APPLICABILITY BECAUSE THEN WHAT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE SOMEWHERE ELSE, ANOTHER BUSINESS, AND THEN THEY'LL WANT A-A-C-U-P AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'LL HAVE SWISS CHEESE IN, UH, IN, UM, IN GOOD POLICY.

AND THAT'S, AND THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO AVOID.

UM, WITH THAT, ARE THERE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? IF YOU'RE ON ZOOM, PLEASE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

IF YOU'RE IN PERSON, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

UH, STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK.

WELCOME, UH, MR. CHAIR.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

MY NAME IS PAUL SAVAGE WITH LAW OFFICES AT 200 SOUTH BISCAY BOULEVARD IN MIAMI, FLORIDA.

I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE H WOOD GROUP, WHICH IS THE OPERATOR OF THE NICE GUY RESTAURANT, WHICH IS PROPOSED AT 9 4 7 LINCOLN ROAD AT THE CORNER OF MICHIGAN.

UH, THEY'RE FRONTING LINCOLN ROAD.

WE ARE VERY EXCITED.

THIS IS A, UH, THIS IS A PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN VACANT AND BOARDED UP FOR AN EXCESS OF FIVE YEARS FRONTING LINCOLN ROAD.

AND, UH, AND JUST VERY QUICKLY, I'M VERY PROUD OF MY CLIENT BECAUSE THEY SPENT THE TIME AND MONEY TO GO TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD.

NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE.

WE WENT IN MAY ON A NON-BINDING PRELIMINARY EVALUATION AND GAVE THE WHOLE PRESENTATION TO ALLOW THEM THE OPPORTUNITY AND THE LUXURY TO, UH, OPINE ON OUR PLANS ON THE FRONT END.

AND THEN RECENTLY, JUST LAST WEEK, WE GOT A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF APPROVAL OF OUR PLAN FOR THE NICE GUY, WHICH WE HAVE AN EXISTING LOCATION IN LOS ANGELES.

IT'S VERY EXCLUSIVE.

I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNOW THAT WE ARE

[00:15:01]

THE GOOD GUYS.

UH, WE ARE NOT THE BAD ACTORS.

THIS IS GONNA BE A VERY HIGH END AND EXCLUSIVE RESTAURANT WITH AN EXCITING SHOW, KITCHEN AND, UH, IMPORTED ITALIAN PIZZA OVEN IN FRONTING LINCOLN ROAD IS BEAUTIFUL, AND WE'RE SO EXCITED.

WITH ALL THAT SAID, UM, MY VICE PRESIDENT IS ON ZOOM.

HE MAY OR MAY NOT SPEAK.

I THINK WE'RE OKAY WITH THIS 1 99.

WE, WE ARE GONNA BE GOING AFTER EXCLUSIVITY AND A LOW, UH, OCCUPANCY LOAD.

SO WITH THAT AMENDMENT THAT THE CHAIR AND THE SPONSOR, UH, GOT WENT THROUGH, UH, I THINK WE'RE GOOD.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH.

WE ARE VERY EXCITED TO ACTIVATE LINCOLN ROAD AND TO BRING THIS EXCITING VENUE, UH, AND, AND GET IT GOING.

THANK YOU, PAUL.

YES, THANK YOU.

PLEASURE.

MS. S NOVIK.

UH, WELCOME.

YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK.

PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF.

GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY.

MITCH NOVIK.

I LIKE THIS LEGISLATION.

THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE IS THE CUP PROCESS AND THE ALLOWANCE OR, UH, THE RIGHT FOR OPEN AIR ENTERTAINMENT.

I BELIEVE THAT'S A CANCER ON OUR COMMUNITY THAT GIVES EVERYBODY THE GREEN LIGHT TO, UH, ESSENTIALLY TURN IT INTO A CIRCUS, ESPECIALLY IN MY AREA.

I, UH, I WOULD HOPE THAT, UH, IN THE FUTURE YOU'D FOCUS IN ON THE IMPACT OF BUSINESSES WHICH EXPLOIT THE PUBLIC REALM WITH NOISE AND DANCE PERFORMANCES, UH, ON OUR STREET.

UH, AND, AND THAT'S MY 2 CENTS.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MITCH.

AND JUST, UH, LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT ON, UH, THAT OPEN AIR ENTERTAINMENT CONTINUES TO REQUIRE A CUP, UH, IS THE CURRENT REGULATION, IT'LL CONTINUE BEING THE REGULATION AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NO HANDS ON ZOOM AND SEEING NO ONE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM.

IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? I'D LIKE TO MOVE IT.

I'LL SECOND THE ITEM.

UM, MR. DIRECTOR, THIS ITEM, UH, WILL THEN TRANSMIT TO THE PLANNING BOARD.

NO, THIS ITEM HAS BEEN APPROVED AT FIRST READING, AND IT IS SCHEDULED TO BE CONSIDERED, UH, FOR OUR SECOND READING ADOPTION ON OCTOBER 30TH.

AND WE WILL UPDATE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND READING WITH THE, UH, CHANGES RECOMMENDED BY THIS COMMITTEE.

ALL.

AND I JUST WANT THE RECORD TO REFLECT, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF MISINFORMATION OUT THERE.

THIS DOES NOT SHUT DOWN EXISTING NIGHTCLUBS.

EXISTING NIGHTCLUBS REMAIN ILLEGAL.

NON-CONFORMING USE IN PERPETUITY, AND AN EXCEPTION WAS MADE ON WASHINGTON AVENUE.

BETWEEN WHICH TWO STREETS, AGAIN, MR. DIRECTOR, THE, UH, EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVENUE FROM EIGHTH STREET TO 14TH STREET, BETWEEN EIGHTH TO TO TO 14TH STREET.

SO, SO THIS IS TRULY A BALANCE ON THE, UH, ON THE, ON THE, ON THE, ON THE CHARACTER OF MIAMI BEACH THAT WE'VE BEEN ACCUSTOMED TO HISTORICALLY, BUT ALSO IN A STEP FORWARD TO HELP IMPROVE THE IMAGE AND THE SAFETY AND THE QUALITY OF OUR NIGHTLIFE IN MIAMI BEACH.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SUAREZ.

THANK YOU.

WITH THAT, MR. DIRECTOR, LET'S CALL UP ITEM NUMBER THREE.

[3. AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND RESILIENCY CODE NONCONFORMING BUILDING PROVISIONS AND RM-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW INTRODUCTION OF ON-SITE PARKING AND RESIDENTIAL USES WITHIN NONCONFORMING HOTEL USE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BELLE ISLE (DUAL REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD).]

OKAY.

AND, AND FOR THE RECORD, THIS, I'LL SHOW THAT AS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

UH, ITEM NUMBER ONE.

ITEM NUMBER THREE, AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND RESILIENCY CODE NON-CONFORMING BUILDING PROVISIONS AND RM ONE DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW THE INTRODUCTION OF ONSITE PARKING AND RESIDENTIAL USES WITHIN NON-CONFORMING HOTEL USES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BELL ISLE.

THIS WAS A DOOR REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD.

COMMISSIONER DOMINGUEZ, THIS IS YOUR ITEM.

UH, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

SO, UH, THIS ITEM HAS BEEN, UM, IN THE WORKS FOR QUITE SOME TIME, AND IT IS TO REMODEL THE EAST SIDE OF, UM, THE STANDARD HOTEL, UH, TO GIVE IT PARKING AND TO HAVE SOME RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THERE AS WELL.

AND THE DEVELOPER HAS BEEN IN CON CONSTANT CONTACT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND THE TWO OF THEM CAME UP WITH A COMPROMISE.

AND, UM, I BELIEVE MICHAEL LARKIN IS HERE TO TALK MORE ABOUT IT.

UM, YES.

THANK YOU.

COMM COMMISSIONER.

UH, MICHAEL, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

BOARD MAYOR OF STAFF MICHAEL LARKIN, TWO IN SOUTHEAST CLAIM BOULEVARD HERE RUNS IN THE STANDARD HOTEL.

UH, THE PURPOSE OF THIS LEGISLATION IS THREEFOLD, AS YOU ALL ALREADY MENTIONED.

FIRST, ALLOW THE INCLUSION OF SIX RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN THE PROPERTY.

NUMBER TWO, IT PERMITS THE AGGREGATION OF FERRY LANE ONE AND TWO TO BE WITHIN THE LARGER STANDARD HOTEL PROPERTY FOR THE MERE PURPOSE OF DRIVEWAY CIRCULATION.

AND THE THIRD IS TO REDUCE THE ON REVEAL TRIP REDUCTION THAT'S ALREADY SIGNIFICANT ON THE VENETIAN FROM 50% TO 45%.

WE HAVE WORKED VERY HARD WITH BYER FOR THE LAST YEAR IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THEIR SUPPORT, BUT WE DIDN'T STOP THERE.

WE REACHED OUT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS

[00:20:01]

ON FERRY LANE AND CENTURY LANE WITH FERRY LANE AT FOUR FERRY LANE.

WE OBTAINED A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM KIM MARTIN AT SIX AND SEVEN FERRY LANE.

WE OBTAINED SUPPORT FROM MELLI AND MR. KOTZE AT 10 FERRY LANE, WHO ALSO OWNS THE RENTAL BUILDING AT 36 ISLAND AVENUE.

WE OBTAINED SUPPORT FROM THE EDELSTEIN FAMILY AT 14 FERRY LANE.

WE OBTAINED A PORT FROM THE HABAD ON CENTURY LANE.

WE OBTAINED SUPPORT FROM MICHAEL SAGER AT EIGHT CENTURY LANE, AND THIS FOXMAN FAMILY AT SEVENTH CENTURY LANE.

AND, UH, THE OWNERS OF 12 CENTURY LANE AS WELL.

THE STANDARD IS A GEM.

THIS LEGISLATION WILL ONLY IMPROVE IT AND THE FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT WILL MAKE IT SHINE EVEN BRIGHTER.

I HAVE A WHOLE PRESENTATION I COULD WALK YOU THROUGH, UM, BUT I PREFER NOT TO.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS AND WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL OF THIS LEGISLATION AND TRANSMITTAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

AND, AND JUST, UH, JUST FOR THE RECORD, THIS, THIS DOES NOT TOUCH THE HISTORIC FACADE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, CORRECT? OF, OF THE STANDARD.

THIS ACTUALLY HELPS PRESERVE THE BEAUTIFUL HISTORIC ELEMENTS, UH, THAT, UH, WE LOVE IN OUR COMMUNITY OF THE STANDARD HOTEL.

TRUE, MR. CHAIR? YES.

AND, AND COMMISSIONER DOMINGUEZ, THANK YOU FOR THAT BECAUSE THE, UH, THE, THE STANDARD IS REALLY ONE OF THE QUALITY ICONIC ESTABLISHMENTS THAT WE ALL LOVE IN MIAMI BEACH.

AND YOUR LEGISLATION IS HELPING ADVANCE THIS PRESERVATION IN A VERY RESPONSIBLE WAY.

UH, COMMISSIONER SUAREZ, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

UM, MR. LARKIN, HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN PRACTICING LAW IN MIAMI BEACH LAND USE? 98.

OKAY.

UM, ARE THERE ANY PROJECTS SIMILAR TO THIS ONE WHERE THERE'S BEEN A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHERE YOU'VE PERSONALLY BROKERED BETWEEN A BUSINESS OWNER AND A CIVIC GROUP? UM, THERE WERE A COUPLE RECENTLY WITH A FRIENDS OF SOUTH POINT ELEMENTARY WHERE IT WAS A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND WE GAVE THEM A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FUNDS THEY'VE ALREADY USED.

I JUST KNEW THAT LAST, A FEW DAYS AGO, THEY TOLD ME THEY USED OUR SOCCER FIELD AT SOUTH POINT ELEMENTARY.

SO THAT WAS A GOOD USE OF THE FUNDS, UM, MUCH EARLIER.

IT WASN'T WITH A CIVIC ORGANIZATION, BUT TYPICALLY, SOMETIMES PRIVATE PARTIES DO APPROACH YOU AND SAY THAT THEY'LL OBJECT UNLESS YOU GIVE THEM COMPENSATION THAT HAPPENED ON COLLINS AVENUE A LONG TIME AGO.

UM, SO EVERY PROJECT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT WITH REGARD TO A NON-PROFIT GROUP, YEAH, WE DID ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE FRIENDS OF SOUTH WHITE ELEMENTARY, AND I THINK IT HELPED THAT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL A LITTLE BIT.

WOULD YOU SAY THAT THIS PARTICULAR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS CONTINGENT UPON A GOVERNMENT APPROVAL? I DON'T THINK IT WAS WORDED LIKE THAT.

OKAY.

WELL, I ASSUME YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE CITY'S AND COUNTY'S PROHIBITION ON CONTINGENCY FEES AS DEFINED IN OUR CODE, CORRECT? RIGHT.

YEAH.

UM, PJ, CAN YOU PULL UP SECTION 2 4 8 5 0.3? THE CONTINGENCY FEE? OKAY, LET ME READ THIS TO YOU.

UM, CONTINGENCY FEE PROHIBITED.

YEAH, IF YOU COULD ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT SO PEOPLE CAN READ.

NO PERSON OR ENTITY, NO PERSON OR ENTITY MAY IN WHOLE OR IN PART GIVE OR AGREE TO PAY OR GIVE A CONTINGENCY FEE TO ANOTHER PERSON.

NO PERSON MAY IN WHOLE OR IN PART RECEIVE OR AGREE TO RECEIVE A CONTINGENCY FEE AS USED HERE IN CONTINGENCY FEE MEANS A FEE BONUS COMMISSION OR NON-MONETARY BENEFIT AS COMPENSATION WAS, WHICH IS DEPENDENT ON ANY WAY OR CONTINGENT ON THE PASSAGE TO FEE OR MODIFICATION OF THREE PARTS.

AND ORDINANCE RESOLUTION, ACTION OR DECISION OF THE CITY COMMISSION.

ANY ACTION, DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER OR ANY CITY BOARD OR COMMITTEE, OR ANY ACTION, DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION OF CITY PERSONNEL DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME, THE ENTIRE DECISION MAKING PROCESS REGARDING SUCH ACTION DECISION RECOMMENDATION, WHICH FORESEEABLY WILL BE HEARD REVIEWED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OR A CITY BOARD OR COMMITTEE.

MM-HMM, .

SO YOU COULD PUT, YOU COULD END THE SLIDESHOW.

UH, PJ UM, DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HERE TODAY? NO, I DO.

OKAY.

AND I WANT TO SHARE WITH MY CO WITH MY COLLEAGUES.

AND I HAVE ONE COPY FOR YOU.

PASS IT DOWN.

WOULD YOU LIKE ONE, MR. LARKIN? ALRIGHT.

IT'S FINE.

[00:25:02]

PJ.

NOW CAN YOU PULL UP THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SO THAT EVERYONE CAN SEE IT, PLEASE.

OKAY.

SO HERE IS A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT WAS PREPARED BY YOU.

UM, AND I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT SOME SERIOUS CONCERNS THAT I BELIEVE MY COLLEAGUES SHOULD BE AWARE OF.

UH, PJ IF YOU COULD SCROLL TO PAGE 10, PLEASE.

OKAY.

YEAH.

ALRIGHT.

SO THIS IS THE SECTION OF THE STA THIS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, WHERE THE STANDARD OWNER SHALL PAY A TOTAL SUM OF $1.2 MILLION TO BUREAU IN THE FOLLOWING THREE INSTALLMENTS.

OKAY? PART, PART, PART A 30% WITHIN 15 DAYS OF EXECUTION, WHICH APPARENTLY HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID 30% OF WITHIN 30 DAYS OF A FINAL NON APPEALABLE APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS DEFINED BY 30 DAYS AFTER RENDITION OF A DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ORDER, WHICH HAS ALREADY HAPPENED, APPROVING THE PROJECT OR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION, WHICHEVER COMES LATER.

AND LASTLY, 40% WITHIN 30 DAYS OF AN ISSUANCE OF A MASTER BUILDING PROJECT AND FURTHERANCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS, THESE PAYMENTS SHALL BE MADE TO A NONPROFIT ENTITY ESTABLISHED BY BUREAU FOR PHYSICAL QUALITY OF LIFE, AND GET THIS LIFESTYLE AND CULTURAL IMPROVEMENTS TO BELL ISLE AS DETERMINED BY THE NOT-FOR-PROFIT ENTITY ESTABLISHED BY YOU COULD PUT THE SLIDESHOW DOWN.

WHEN I FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS, THE REASON I FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS WAS BECAUSE OF, UH, THE PERSON IN TODAY, JOE FARONE, DURING THE DRB MEETING TOLD ME THAT THERE WAS A $1.2 MILLION PAYOUT.

I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT.

I I, I LOOKED HER UP.

I COULDN'T FIND HER PHONE NUMBER.

I KNOCKED ON HER DOOR, I WENT TO HER HOUSE, AND I KNOCKED ON HER DOOR.

YOU KNOW, I HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROCESS.

WE ARE WITNESSING HERE.

IT SEEMS THAT THIS $1.2 MILLION PAYOFF IS BEING TIED TO HOW WE AND OUR COMMITTEES VOTE ON THIS PROJECT.

THIS RAISES SERIOUS ETHICAL, WAIT, WAIT, COMMISSIONER, PRESIDENT.

WAIT, WAIT, COMMISSIONER, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE OUTSIDE, BUT I'M NOT GONNA ALLOW A COMMITTEE MEMBER TO SAY THAT SOMETHING THAT WE ARE NOT A PARTY TO IS INFLUENCING ANYONE'S VOTE UP HERE.

SO IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE WITH YOUR PRESENTATION, CONTINUE.

BUT I, BUT I'M NOT GONNA ALLOW ANYONE TO SAY THAT ANYTHING IS INFLUENCING OUR DECISION MAKING, BECAUSE THIS IS THE FIRST THAT I'M HEARING OF THIS.

I HAVE ON MY PHONE TEXT MESSAGES BEING LOBBIED ON THIS ITEM.

IT IS 100%, THERE IS 100% A LOBBYING EFFORT TO PASS THIS ITEM.

AND SO NOW WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE A NEW ENTITY HAS BEEN FORMED AND PAYMENTS ARE BEING MADE CONTINGENT UPON A GOVERNMENT APPROVAL.

WHILE I DON'T NECESSARILY BLAME THE BUSINESS OWNER FOR THIS STRUCTURE, THIS FEELS LIKE EXTORTION.

I MEAN, I MEAN, GUYS, , WHAT KIND OF PRECEDENT ARE WE, ARE WE ALLOWED TO BE SET HERE BY ALLOWING A NEW BUSINESS OWNER OF MIAMI BEACH TO BE SHAKEN DOWN BASED ON CONTINGENT DEALS FOR A MILLION DOLLARS? SO, I'M NOT IF YOU, IF YOU, LEMME I JUST, I JUST WANT US TO BE CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING.

I JUST WANT US TO BE CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING.

WE HAVE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE WORKED WITH PRIVATE APPLICANTS IN THE PAST TO GET PUBLIC BENEFITS FOR THEIR ORGANIZATIONS.

THE CITY HAS RECEIVED PUBLIC BENEFITS AS A RESULT OF PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN THE CITY.

THE, THE PARK, UH, AT FIFTH AND ALTON WAS A PUBLIC BENEFIT AS A RESULT OF A PROJECT THAT WAS APPROVED IN FOR THE CITY.

BUT THAT WAS DONE THROUGH AN OPEN, TRANSPARENT PROCESS.

THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS DONE.

THAT'S GOVERNMENT.

GOVERNMENT IS, IS SUBJECT TO AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS BY IRA, IS A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

AND THEY'RE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME RULES.

SO I'M JUST, I'M JUST PROVIDING CONTEXT.

CORRECT.

AND, AND I, I, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT THERE IS LITERALLY A LAW THAT PROHIBITS A CONTINGENCY FEE.

AND THIS IS, AND, AND THE WAY THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS STRUCTURED IS THAT IT'S CONTINGENT UPON OUR APPROVAL.

THERE, THERE IS BEING A GAMBLE.

A GAMBLE IS BEING MADE ON HOW WE AND OUR COMMITTEES VOTE ON THIS PROJECT.

AND I THINK THAT'S HIGHLY DISTURBING AND IT'S AGAINST THE LAW.

AND IF, IF YOU DON'T MIND, LOOK, I CALLED THE OWNER OF THE STANDARD.

WHEN I FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS, I CALLED HIM AND I GO, HOW DO YOU, HOW DID YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS? AND HE WAS UPSET.

HE

[00:30:01]

WAS LIVID.

HE'S LIKE, YEAH, I DIDN'T WANT TO PAY A DIME.

AND HE SAID, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME HE'S WORKED IN MIAMI BEACH.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME HE'S MET MICHAEL LARKIN, OR DID OR DID BUSINESS WITH MICHAEL LARKIN.

AND THAT THE WHOLE TIME HE FELT LIKE HE WAS GETTING SHAKEN DOWN.

HE ALSO TOLD ME THAT THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS UNDERGROUNDING UH, THIS, UH, THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS SUPPOSEDLY TO PAY FOR UNDERGROUNDING WIRES OR SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS.

BUT IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A PROFFER TO THE CITY BY THE, BY THE BUSINESS OWNER.

IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN DONE THROUGH A BACKDOOR DEAL.

BUREAU DOESN'T OWN ANY PROPERTY.

THEY'RE A NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION.

THEY, THEY HAVE SOLE DISCRETION WHAT, WHAT, WHATEVER THEY CAN DO WITH THIS $1.2 MILLION.

AND SO I FIND IT HIGHLY DISTURBING THAT THESE DEALS ARE BEING MADE ON THE SIDE FOR SEVEN FIGURES, WHERE IT'S DEPENDENT ON HOW WE VOTE.

YOU KNOW, LOOK, I, I LIKE THIS PROJECT.

I, I, I AM, I I LOVE THE PROJECT.

I, I LIKE THAT WE'RE ENHANCING THE STANDARD.

UH, IT'S GONNA BE BEAUTIFUL.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE PROJECT PER SE.

AND IN FACT, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT AGREEMENT, MOST OF THE AGREEMENT COVERS REALLY GOOD QUALITY OF LIFE.

STUFF LIKE PARKING, UH, NOISE, HOURS OF OPERATION, UH, YOU KNOW, NO SPECIAL EVENTS.

IT'S, IT'S GREAT, BUT IT SHOULDN'T COST $1.2 MILLION.

I MEAN, WHAT, SERIOUSLY, WHAT KIND OF PRECEDENT ARE WE SETTING HERE IF WE ALLOW THIS COMMISSIONER, UH, TO, TO GO FORWARD? I MEAN, LET'S, LET'S WRAP UP BECAUSE WE HAVE OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT WANT TO BE RECOGNIZED, INCLUDING THE SPONSOR OF THE ITEM.

SURE.

SO, PUBLIC BENEFITS ARE NOT ANYTHING NEFARIOUS OR TO BE EMBARRASSED ABOUT.

UM, JOE'S NEIGHBOR IS PAYING THE CITY, UH, ALMOST A MILLION DOLLARS FOR THEIR AIR RIGHTS AGREEMENTS.

SO PUBLIC BENEFITS HAPPEN ALL THE TIME.

AND TO TRY TO MAKE THIS OUT TO SEEM LIKE IT'S SOMETHING HIDDEN OR NEFARIOUS IS WRONG.

UM, AND THE COMMUNITY DESERVES TO GET UNDERGROUNDING AND DESERVES TO GET FUNDS TO PAY FOR THINGS THAT'LL MAKE BELL ISLE BETTER.

SO, UM, I'D LIKE TO CONTINUE WITH THE ITEM AND SEE IF WE HAVE THE VOTES TO PASS IT.

WELL, THANK, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. ATTORNEY.

AND I'M GLAD THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IS HERE.

'CAUSE I JUST, I, I JUST NEED TO KNOW, I NEED TO HAVE CLARITY, MR. ATTORNEY.

AN ORDINANCE WAS PUT ON THE SCREEN, EXPLAIN TO ME THAT ORDINANCE IS I'M BEING HAD HIT FROM LEFT FIELD WITH, WITH, WITH ALL OF THIS INFORMATION THAT I DIDN'T HAVE BEFORE.

UM, SO EXPLAIN TO ME THIS ORDINANCE, I'M HAPPY TO WALK YOU THROUGH THE ORDINANCE.

BEFORE I DO, I JUST WANNA SET THE STAGE A LITTLE ON, ON THE KINDS OF SETTLEMENT ARRANGEMENTS THAT, THAT, THAT PEOPLE ENTER INTO BEFORE A LAND USE BOARD APPROVAL.

BECAUSE PARTIES ARE ALWAYS ENCOURAGED TO, TO SETTLE, UM, THEIR POTENTIAL OBJECTIONS TO A PROJECT OR, OR, UH, DESIGN CHANGES THAT ARE REQUESTED OR OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE, THE PARK IN NORTH BEACH THAT WE'RE GETTING, UH, ON, ON, ON, UM, OCEAN TERRACE.

WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY.

I'LL, SO, SO WHAT THIS CODE SECTION DEALS WITH IS, IS THIRD PARTY ARRANGEMENTS, UH, WITH, WITH LOBBYISTS OR OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE APPEARING BEFORE THE CITY, UH, IN SUPPORT OF, OR, OR IN OPPOSITION TO AN ITEM.

RIGHT? SO, I, I JUST, JUST FOCUSING ON, ON THE SORT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS THAT, THAT PEOPLE ENTER INTO BEFORE PROJECTS ARE APPROVED.

UM, OFTEN IT'S A MATTER OF A SIMPLE CONVERSATION WHERE A NEIGHBOR SAYS, YOU KNOW, CAN YOU MOVE YOUR DRIVEWAY OR CAN YOU SHIFT A WINDOW SO IT DOESN'T LOOK DIRECTLY, UH, INTO MY APARTMENT? RIGHT.

WE SEE THE, YOU KNOW, WE SEE THOSE ALL THE TIME.

WE ALSO SEE, UH, THERE ARE ALSO AGREEMENTS, UH, BETWEEN NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WE, THAT WE NEVER SEE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT A PARTY TO THEM.

SO, UH, SO THIS ONE IS, IS IS, I WILL SAY IT'S UNUSUAL IN THAT WE HAVE A COPY OF IT AT ALL AND WE'RE ABLE TO SEE IT.

UM, BUT, BUT JUST TAKING ALL THAT INTO ACCOUNT, UM, THERE IS AN EXCEPTION FROM THE DEFINITION OF LOBBYISTS FOR, UM, FOR REPRESENTATIVES OF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS WHO APPEAR WITHOUT ANY SPECIAL COMPENSATION FOR THAT APPEARANCE.

HOWEVER, THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE STILL REQUIRED TO REGISTER AND ARE STILL SUBJECT TO, UH, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS, OF, OF, OF OUR CODE OF ETHICS.

RIGHT.

SO, UM, WHAT THE SPECIFIC SECTION STATES, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS THE QUESTION YOU ASKED ME.

UH, AND THIS IS SECTION TWO DASH 4 85 0.3, PROHIBITING CONTINGENCY FEES.

WHAT THE SECTION STATES IS NO PERSON OR ENTITY MAY IN WHOLE OR IN PART PAY OR GIVE OR AGREE TO PAY OR GIVE A CONTINGENCY FEE TO ANOTHER PERSON.

NO PERSON MAY IN WHOLE OR IN PART RECEIVE OR AGREE TO RECEIVE A CONTINGENCY FEE AS

[00:35:01]

USED IN THE SECTION.

CONTINGENCY FEE MEANS A FEE BONUS COMMISSION OR NON-MONETARY BENEFIT AS COMPENSATION, WHICH IS DEPENDENT ON OR IN ANY WAY CONTINGENT ON THE PASSAGE TO FEE OR MODIFICATION OF A NUMBER OF CITY ACTIONS THAT COMMISSIONER SUAREZ WALKED YOU THROUGH.

RIGHT.

UM, SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, THIS PROVISION IS NOT IMPLICATED BECAUSE A NEIGHBOR AGREED TO, UH, TO CHANGES TO A PROJECT, TO OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS.

IT'S NOT EVEN IMPLICATED BECAUSE A NEIGHBOR AGREED TO, UH, OR, OR A NEIGHBOR OR DEVELOPERS AGREED TO PAY, UM, UH, MONETARY PAYMENTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

BUT WHAT WOULD IMPLICATE THE SECTION, JUST TO BE VERY CLEAR, WHAT WOULD IMPLICATE THE SECTION ARE PAYMENTS THAT ARE CONTINGENT ON THE OUTCOME OF A CITY DECISION, OF A CITY APPROVAL.

SO IF THE, IF THE AGREEMENT ADDRESSES, AND I'D LIKE PJ IF YOU COULD TO PUT IT UP AGAIN.

YEP.

IT SAYS IT RIGHT HERE WITH 30%, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE FINAL NON-APPLICABLE APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS DEFINED AS 30 DAYS AFTER TION OF THE DRB ORDER APPROVING THE PROJECT OR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION.

RIGHT.

SO THAT, SO THAT'S THAT SECOND PAYMENT.

AND THEN, AND WHO, AND WHO IS, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE TO ABIDE BY THE TERMS OF THIS ORDINANCE? SO THE APPLICANT IS THE, IS IT OUR RESIDENCE? LIKE WHO, WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT? THE, THE, THE CODES.

AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, IT'S THE, IT'S THE SECOND AND THE THIRD PAYMENTS THAT, THAT WOULD IMPLICATE THIS SECTION.

BUT, BUT THE RESPONSIBILITY IS ON ANYONE WHO'S APPEARING BEFORE THE CITY.

RIGHT? SO IT COULD APPLY TO A LOBBYIST, UM, IT COULD APPLY TO AN INDIVIDUAL EXEMPT FROM THE DEFINITION OF LOBBYIST, BUT IS OTHERWISE REQUIRED TO REGISTER LIKE A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

UM, FRANKLY, IT SAYS NO PERSON MAY GIVE A CONTINGENCY FEE TO ANOTHER PERSON.

IT'S WRITTEN THE CODE SECTION'S WRITTEN VERY BROADLY.

NOW, I WILL SAY THAT THIS SECTION IS WITHIN OUR CODE OF ETHICS.

SO IT IS SUBJECT TO ENFORCEMENT, UH, BY THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COMMISSION ON ETHICS.

OKAY.

UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL BECAUSE I DO, I DO THINK THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS ARE INDEPENDENT ENTITIES.

THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT PART OF THE GOVERNMENT.

THEY'RE NEIGHBORS WHO COME TOGETHER TO LOOK OUT FOR THE BEST INTEREST IN A MUCH MORE LOCALIZED WAY FOR THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND WE ALL THE TIME TELL LOBBYISTS TO CONTACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND, AND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS LOOK OUT FOR THEIR, FOR THEIR BEST INTEREST.

AND, UH, AND THEY ENTER INTO, INTO, INTO THESE AGREEMENTS.

AND I THINK THAT THE ACTION THAT, THAT, THAT WE TAKE ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS COULD END UP HURTING NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, UH, DEPENDING ON THE PRESIDENT THAT, THAT, THAT WE SET HERE.

UM, ASSOCIATIONS SHOULD BE ABLE TO MEET WITH PROJECT APPLICANTS.

ASSOCIATIONS SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEEK BENEFITS FOR THEIR NEIGHBORS.

THAT IS NOTHING UNHEARD OF.

IT'S HAPPENED IN, IN, IN THE CITY HISTORICALLY.

UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE SHOULD BE AWARE OF IT.

FRANKLY, I DON'T LIKE FINDING OUT ABOUT IT IN THIS SETTING.

UM, AND I THINK MR. ATTORNEY, WE NEED TO WORK ON LANGUAGE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S PROPER DISCLOSURE AND TRANSPARENCY ON THAT.

BECAUSE I, I, I, FRANKLY, I, I REALLY DON'T LIKE SITTING HERE AND HAVING THIS THROWN AT ME, ESPECIALLY WHEN PEOPLE SPEAK TO ME ON A VERY FREQUENT BASIS ABOUT THESE ITEMS. SO I REALLY DON'T, DON'T LIKE BEING SURPRISED IN THIS WAY AT ALL.

UM, SO, SO THERE NEEDS TO BE A LEVEL OF TRANSPARENCY HERE, BUT LET'S BE VERY CLEAR.

OUR OWN GOVERNMENT ENGAGES IN THIS ACTIVITY, OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.

WE HAVE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF BENEFITS FOR THE COMMUNITY, FOR THE PUBLIC THROUGH PROJECTS THAT WE APPROVE.

IT'S HOW WE ENDED UP WITH A BEAUTIFUL NEW PARK AT FIFTH AND, AND, AND ALTON.

IT'S HOW WE'VE ENDED UP WITH SO MANY OTHER PUBLIC BENEFITS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

UM, IT'S THROUGH, IT'S, IT'S THROUGH AGREEMENTS LIKE THESE, AS OF THIS ONE IS BEING DONE BY A PRIVATE PARTY, BY NEIGHBORS WHO ARE FIGHTING FOR THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL INTEREST FOR THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT'S NOT TO PERSONALLY ENRICH ONE RESIDENT.

IT IS, IT IS AN AGREEMENT THAT ENRICHES THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT EN ENRICH, THAT ENRICHES THE COMMON GOOD

[00:40:01]

OF THE BELL ISLE, UH, NEIGHBORS.

LET COMMISSIONER SEZ, LET, LET ME, LET ME SPEAK TO THAT, BECAUSE I, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT YOU MEAN, WELL, MR. FERNANDEZ, BUT IN REALITY, ONLY THREE PEOPLE ARE RECEIVING $1.2 MILLION.

THIS WAS A NEWLY FORMED ENTITY THAT IS MAYBE A MONTH OLD, AND THERE'S ONLY THREE SIGNERS ON THIS CHECK WITH COMPLETELY NO OVERSIGHT, NO ACCOUNTABILITY ON HOW THIS $1.2 MILLION IS GONNA SPENT.

OKAY.

WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.

HOLD UP.

THE BELL ISLE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAS BEEN LONG EXISTING.

IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN THE CITY COMMISSION, BUT THE ENTITY THAT'S BEEN PAID, I HAVE THE FLOOR COMMISSIONER, I HAVE THE FLOOR.

ARE, IT IS LIKE SAYING THAT THE SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION ARE BENEFITING FROM THE $1 BILLION BUDGET OF THE CITY? NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

WE ARE ACTING ON BEHALF, WE ARE THE STEWARDS OF THE PUBLIC.

WE'RE ACTING ON THEIR BEHALF.

ANY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, YOU'LL HAVE A HANDFUL OF OFFICERS, TWO OR THREE OFFICERS.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S BENEFITING OR ENRICHING THOSE TWO OR THREE PEOPLE.

THEY'RE ACTING ON BEHALF OF THEIR RESIDENTS.

NO DIFFERENT THAN HOW THE SEVEN OF US ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CONSTITUENTS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH.

IF THE PAYMENT WAS BEING MADE TO BUREAU, THAT WOULD BE A VALID POINT, BUT IT'S NOT.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE AGREEMENT, IT'S A NEWLY FORMED ENTITY CREATED BY BUREAU.

AND I LOOKED AT THAT ENTITY, AND THERE'S ONLY THREE INDIVIDUALS.

THREE INDIVIDUALS ARE GONNA HAVE THE SOLE DISCRETION TO SPEND $1.2 MILLION ON HOW THEY SEE FIT.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ARGUMENT OF A PARK AND A PUBLIC BENEFIT, BUT THAT GOES THROUGH A PUBLIC PROCESS.

THERE IS TRANSPARENCY, THERE IS INTEGRITY ON HOW THAT IS BEING DEALT THROUGH THIS, THE IT, WE DON'T HAVE ANY SITUATION.

AND IN FACT, WE HAVE A, A-A-A-A-A LAND OWNER HERE, JOE, WHO, WHO IS, WHO'S, WHO'S, WHO'S GONNA TESTIFY THAT SHE'S BEEN COMPLETELY LEFT OUT OF THIS PROCESS.

SHE, SHE NEVER GOT A MESSAGE FROM BIERA, AND SHE IS DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY THIS PROJECT.

THIS IS HOW I FOUND OUT.

I DIDN'T FIND OUT BECAUSE I, I, I, I, I DIDN'T LIKE THE PROJECT.

I FOUND OUT BECAUSE AT THE DRB MEETING, SHE SPOKE AND SHE SAID THAT I, I WAS NEVER INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT, AND THAT THERE WAS A $1.2 MILLION PAYOFF.

TO ME, A RED FLAG GOES UP IN MY HEAD, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S, WHEN IT'S THAT LARGE OF A, AND SOMETIMES, AND SOMETIMES IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO HAVE STRUCTURE ON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS TO, TO HAVE ADVERTISE MEETINGS AND, AND ELECTIONS.

BECAUSE SITTING ON THIS CHAIR, I HAVE SEEN THAT SOMETIMES IT IS GOOD TO HAVE A LEVEL OF TRANSPARENCY ON, ON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS.

I'M JUST GOING TO ASK THE ATTORNEY WHAT IS THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION, BECAUSE I, I HAVE TO SAY, I REALLY FEEL VERY UNCOMFORTABLE RIGHT NOW.

WE SHOULD ASK THAT INSPECTOR GENERAL, AND, AND, AND, AND I JUST, MR. ATTORNEY, I NEED YOU TO GUIDE US ON THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION WITH THIS RIGHT NOW, UH, , UM, BECAUSE I, I NEED TO KNOW THIS, THIS ENTITY THAT WAS FORMED ARE, ARE WE FAMILIAR WITH THIS ENTITY? WHAT, WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THEM? UM, MR. CHAIRMAN, I, I, UM, WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS YOU HAVE AN ITEM BEFORE YOU THAT REFERENCES LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS FOR THE STANDARD MM-HMM.

.

UM, WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED IS THAT THERE WAS A SETTLEMENT ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UH, ON THE ISLAND.

UM, THAT PART, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE AGREEMENT ADDRESSES A RANGE OF TERMS. WE OBVIOUSLY ARE NOT A PARTY TO THAT AGREEMENT.

UM, SO I'M, I'M SPEAKING TO YOU JUST HAVING, YOU KNOW, HAVING LOOKED AT IT ON, ON, ON A FEW SLIDES, BUT THE, UM, THE, THE, THE PARTS OF THE AGREEMENT THAT RELATE TO CHANGES TO A PROJECT OR OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS, UM, I, I DON'T THINK, YOU KNOW, EVEN THE FIRST FINANCIAL PAYMENT, I DON'T THINK IMPLICATE OUR CODE, BUT I I, I AM CONCERNED THAT THE SECOND AND THIRD, UH, PAYMENTS MAY, AND SO IT, IT, IT, IT'S, IT'S UP TO YOU ALL IF YOU'D LIKE, UM, IF YOU'D LIKE TO ASK RA TO, TO, UH, TO SPEAK TO ANY OF THIS, IF IT COULD EVEN BE THAT THEIR INTENT WAS TO WORK WITH THE CITY AND, AND, UM, PROVIDE GRANT FUNDING FOR SOME OF THESE PROJECTS.

I MEAN, THE, THE PURPOSES SEEM TO ADDRESS THE PUBLIC REALM, QUALITY OF LIFE SAFETY, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, SO THAT MAY BE ONE OPTION, OR IF YOU'D LIKE, YOU COULD CONTINUE IT AND ASK BIERA TO, UH, TO APPEAR AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING.

IT'S, IT'S, IT'S UP TO YOU.

I, YOU KNOW, LET ME, LET ME ASK COMMISSIONER DOMINGUEZ, THIS IS YOUR ITEM.

LET ME, I, LET ME, LET ME ALLOW YOU TO, TO CHIME IN, UH, ON HOW, ON, ON YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS.

WELL, BIERA IS HERE, SO I'D LIKE TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.

MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN I SPEAK AFTER BERA THAT'S HERE FROM BYRON?

[00:45:01]

UH, GOOD MORNING, OR, YEAH, STILL GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS.

AND, UM, I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME IN AND, AND TALK TO YOU TODAY AND TALK ABOUT WHAT IT IS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE WITH THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

WHAT'S YOUR NAME? WHAT'S YOUR NAME? YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

JACK ROBBINS, VICE PRESIDENT AND BUREAU.

THANK YOU.

SO, AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, WE STARTED THESE DISCUSSIONS WELL OVER A YEAR AGO.

UM, COMMISSIONER DOMINGUEZ BROUGHT THE PARTIES TOGETHER, LET US KNOW, UM, THAT THE STANDARD WAS INTERESTED IN A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ENCOURAGED US TO WORK WITH THEM.

AND WE DID.

SO OVER THE COURSE OF A YEAR, WE'VE HAD MANY, MANY, I THINK, COLLABORATIVE, PRODUCTIVE MEETINGS.

AND YOU SEE THE RESULTS OF THAT.

NOW THAT YOU HAVE THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT COMMISSIONER, YOU SEE THE RESULTS OF THAT YOURSELF.

UM, SO FOR THE BENEFIT OF BELL IS, AND BELL IS RESIDENTS AND BELL VISITORS.

I THINK THIS IS A BIG, BIG WIN FOR ALL PARTIES THAT YOU MENTIONED, THAT YOU HAD SPOKEN TO THE OWNER.

AND I WOULD SAY THAT WHAT YOU CONVEYED BASED ON YOUR CONVERSATION IS VERY, VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE DISCUSS DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD, BY THE WAY, ALL REPRESENTED BY LEGAL COUNSEL, BOTH BERA AND, AND THE DEVELOPER AND THE OWNER OF THE STANDARD PARTICIPATING IN THOSE AS WELL.

SO, I, I CAN'T SAY THE NATURE OF THE CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD WITH HIM AND WHAT HE MAY HAVE COMMUNICATED TO YOU, BUT THAT'S CERTAINLY DIFFERENT THAN THE PERSPECTIVE THAT WE HAVE TODAY.

NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT ITSELF, IT WAS IMPORTANT TO BERA THAT WE SET IT UP A SEPARATE NONPROFIT ENTITY BECAUSE WE, FOR THE PRECISELY THIS REASON, WE DID NOT WANT THERE TO BE AN APPEARANCE THAT BERA WAS TAKING SOME AMOUNT OF FUNDS AND SPENDING IT ON WHATEVER WE CHOOSE TO DO WITHOUT GOVERNANCE, WITHOUT, UM, ANY PLAN.

SO WE CHOSE, AGAIN, WITH LEGAL GUIDANCE TO ESTABLISH THIS NONPROFIT ENTITY.

IT IS NEW.

THE REASON THAT THERE ARE THREE NAMES ATTACHED TO THAT, AS YOU PROBABLY FIND IN SUNBIZ, IS THAT'S HOW YOU SET UP AN ENTITY.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE OFFICERS.

SO THE OFFICERS WERE NAMED, UM, IT WAS SET UP BY OUR ATTORNEY.

THERE IS A PLAN TO BEGIN, UH, OUR GOVERNANCE PROCESS WHERE WE WILL NAME, UM, NOT JUST THE THREE PEOPLE WHO ARE REGISTERED AS SUNBIZ, UM, OFFICERS TODAY, BUT OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ISLE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, AND POTENTIALLY PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF BUREAU.

UM, WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT PERHAPS HAVING SOME MEMBER OF CITY STAFF OR EVEN THE COMMISSION, UH, IF THEY WOULD BE, UH, WILLING TO DO SO AND LIKE TO DO SO, TO BE PART OF THAT GOVERNANCE PROCESS SO THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, UH, IS OPEN, IS TRANSPARENT, AND IS PART OF THE COMMUNITY DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU MR. ROBBINS, FOR, FOR, FOR ALLOWING, UH, FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE A ROLE IN THAT DISCUSSION.

I THINK THAT THAT COULD, COULD, COULD HELP ENSURE, UH, THAT PUBLIC BENEFITS LIKE THIS ONE AND OTHERS IN, IN THE FUTURE ARE TRULY DONE, UM, IN THE BEST INTEREST, UH, OF, OF THE PUBLIC.

UM, AND SO, AND SO, UM, I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP THE FLOOR TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IF I COULD COMMISSIONER JUST ONE MORE COMMENT ABOUT YES.

TRANSPARENCY, BECAUSE, UH, AS I SAID, WE'VE HAD MEETINGS OVER THE COURSE OF A YEAR, UM, MOVING IN THIS DIRECTION, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN NOTICES FROM THE CITY TO BELL IS RESIDENTS REGARDING THIS REDEVELOPMENT.

THERE HAVE BEEN NOTICES FROM BERRA, AND IN FACT, THERE WAS AN OPEN MEETING THAT ALL COMMUNITY, UH, MEMBERS WERE INVITED TO.

THE STANDARD THEMSELVES CONDUCTED A COMMUNITY MEETING THAT THEY SENT MULTIPLE MAILINGS TO, UH, BERRA SENT MULTIPLE, UH, NOTICES TO OUR EMAIL DISTRIBUTION.

SO I JUST WANNA MAKE CLEAR THAT NONE OF THIS HAS HAPPENED IN A VACUUM, AND THERE'S NEVER BEEN ANY ATTEMPT TO HIDE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.

UM, THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT WAS DISCUSSED IN MANY OF THESE MEETINGS.

SO I JUST WANNA MAKE THAT POINT CLEAR AS WELL.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. ROBINSON.

AND I, AND, AND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AND I UNDERSTAND, UM, COMMISSIONER SUAREZ, THE PERSPECTIVE OF, OF THE RESIDENTS, UH, WHO ARE SITTING IN FRONT OF US TODAY, WHO LIVE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE, OF THE ISLAND.

I'VE UN I'VE ALWAYS SEEN BARRA REPRESENTING THE RESIDENTS OF THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE, OF THE ISLAND, AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN VERY CLEAR, UM, ABOUT THAT.

SO IT'S NO SURPRISE TO ME THAT RESIDENTS FROM THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ISLAND WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN, IN, IN THESE DISCUSSIONS.

THAT'S NOT SURPRISING TO ME.

AND JUST ONE MORE CLARIFICATION.

YES.

AND THEN, AND THEN WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON, SIR, ONE MORE CLARIFICATION.

WE DO HAVE BUREAU OF BOARD MEMBERS, UM, PAST AND PRESENT WHO ARE RESIDENTS OF THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ISLAND.

[00:50:01]

OH, SAME FAMILY HOME.

OKAY.

WELL, I STAND CORRECTED THEN.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. MR. ROBBINS.

OKAY.

I'M GONNA OPEN UP THE FLOOR TO MEMBERS, ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

IF THERE ARE MEMBERS, UH, ATTENDING VIA ZOOM, WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE UH, PRESS, UH, THE RAISE HAND ICON.

UH, WELCOME.

PLEASE, UH, STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK.

YES.

HI GUYS.

I'M JOE FERONE.

I WOULD LIKE A LITTLE MORE THAN TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK IF I COULD.

UM, BECAUSE THIS, I HAVE A FAIR AMOUNT TO SAY.

UM, I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO OBJECTION TO THE STANDARD PLANS AT THIS POINT.

I WAS TAKEN ABACK WHEN I LEARNED OF THEM, UH, SO, SO LATE IN THE GAME.

AND AS THE PREVIOUS GUYS SAID, THEY'VE BEEN NEGOTIATING, UH, FREQUENTLY AND FREQUENT MEETINGS FOR OVER A YEAR WITH THE STANDARD, UH, UH, UH, TO, TO DISCUSS CONDITIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S PROPOSED.

I LIVE RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S PROPOSED.

MY LABOR, MY NEIGHBORS LIVE RIGHT NEXT DOOR.

UM, I'VE BEEN ON FERRY LANE FOR 15 YEARS.

I HAVE NEVER BEEN DRAFTED BY RA.

I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT RA STOOD FOR.

I DID, I KNEW THERE WAS A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAS THEIR NAME.

I HAVE NEVER MET THIS GENTLEMAN WHO SEEMS PERFECTLY NICE.

I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST MY NEIGHBORS, YOU KNOW, TO THE SOUTH.

BUT BIERA DOES NOT REPRESENT ME.

IT NEVER HAS, I'VE NEVER RECEIVED A SINGLE, UH, NOTICE OR EMAIL OR INVITATION OR ANYTHING FROM BERA.

AND SO HERE THEY ARE FOR A YEAR REPRESENTING, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, TO MIGUEL AND TO MICHAEL AND WHOEVER IS INVOLVED ON THE STANDARD SIDE THAT THEY SPEAK FOR US.

IF I WERE GOING TO HAVE A PARTY AT MY HOUSE AND THERE WAS GONNA BE EXTRA CARS AND MAYBE A LITTLE EXTRA PARTY NOISE AND WHAT HAVE YOU, I WOULD TELL MY NEIGHBORS, I WOULDN'T GO ACROSS TO SOUTH, UH, YOU KNOW, ISLAND AVENUE AND TELL EVERYBODY WHO LIVED IN THE CONDOS THERE.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM, NOTHING.

SO HERE THEY ARE, MEETING FOR A YEAR, UNBEKNOWNST TO US, WE WERE TOLD THAT ABSOLUTELY THE 11TH HOUR ABOUT THIS WHOLE THING AND INVITED TO A NICE PARTY, BUT THE DEAL WAS ALREADY DONE.

UH, THEY MANAGED TO GET, YOU KNOW, 1.2, ALMOST $1.3 MILLION TO SPEND AT THEIR OWN DISCRETION.

I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT NOT A DIME OF THAT WILL EVER ACCRUE TO THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE ON OUR SIDE OF THE ISLAND.

UM, AND, UH, AND IT IS WEIRD.

AND I THINK, TO ME IT SOUNDS LIKE EXTORTION.

I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I WAS, I WAS ANGRY WITH MIGUEL BECAUSE NORMALLY IN THIS PROCESS, WHAT'S HAPPENED IN PAST YEARS WHEN THERE WAS A DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED FOR, FOR THE STANDARD, THEY WERE ALL OVER THE RESIDENTS OF FERRY LANE AND CENTURY LANE TO SOME DEGREE.

BUT IT REALLY AFFECTS US THE MOST.

AND BASICALLY WE WOULD WORK OUT A LITTLE DEAL.

I MEAN, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, WITH BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND, AND SAYING, OKAY, WELL MAKE SURE THAT THE TRUCKS DON'T COME DOWN, YOU KNOW, AFTER FIVE O'CLOCK, OR THEY'RE NOT GONNA COME BARRELING DOWN YOUR STREET, OR IF THERE'S ANY STRUCTURAL DAMAGE DONE TO THE IMMEDIATELY, UH, JUXTAPOSED BUILDINGS WILL TAKE CARE OF IT WILL TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY, THIS WHOLE DEAL.

AND, AND BECAUSE BUREAU REPRESENTED THAT THEY WERE SPEAKING FOR US, THAT NEVER HAPPENED.

IT'S THE FIRST TIME.

THANK YOU.

THAT NEVER HAPPENED.

THANK YOU.

I WAS REALLY P****D OFF ABOUT IT UNTIL I FOUND OUT THAT THE PEOPLE I'M REALLY P****D OFF WITH ARE THOSE PEOPLE AT BUREAU WHOSE NAMES I DO NOT KNOW BECAUSE I'VE NEVER MET THEM.

THANK YOU, MA'AM.

I'M SORRY.

HAVE, HAVE SAID I HAVE TO MOVE ON, THAT THEY REPRESENT MY CONCERNS.

THEY PATENTLY DO NOT.

THANK YOU.

AND I THINK THEY SHOULD BE CALLED BI SOUTH.

THANK YOU ALLEN RESIDENCE.

I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.

UH, THANK YOU FOR, FOR ATTENDING.

ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE IN PERSON, SEEING NONE ON ZOOM.

UH, I'M, I'M GONNA BRING THE DISCUSSION BACK TO THE DAYS.

UM, SO, SO WE HAVE THIS ITEM BEFORE US.

UM, YOU KNOW, I DO BELIEVE THIS IS A GOOD ITEM.

I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS AN ITEM THAT, UH, HELPS, UH, THE, THE STANDARD HOTEL.

UH, I DON'T THINK THAT THE RESIDENTS OF THE BELL AISLE NEIGHBORHOOD DID ANYTHING WRONG IN ADVOCATING FOR THE NEEDS OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT JUST HOW MANY OTHER, UH, ASSOCIATIONS MAY DO IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, UH, ENTERING INTO CONVERSATION WITH, WITH, WITH AN APPLICANT.

I THINK IF I WERE THE APPLICANT, I MIGHT BE THINKING PERHAPS OF, OF REACHING OUT TO OTHER NEIGHBORS, UH, THAT PERHAPS COMMUNICATION HA MAY NOT

[00:55:01]

HAVE BEEN AS ROBUST AS WITH THE NEIGHBORS ON THE SOUTH.

UH, BUT, BUT THIS IS A GOOD ITEM.

THIS IS SOMETHING GOOD.

THIS IMPROVES AN IMPORTANT ASSET IN, IN OUR CITY AND HELPS ENSURE IT'S, IT'S IT'S FUTURE.

UM, SO, SO, SO I THINK IT, IT IS PROPER FOR, FOR THIS ITEM TO MOVE FORWARD TODAY, BUT MAKING SURE THAT THE RESIDENTS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ISLAND ARE NOT FORGOTTEN ABOUT.

AND THEY CLEARLY, AS WE'RE HEARING TODAY, DON'T FEEL REPRESENTED, UH, BY, BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

AND THEY, AND THEY DESERVE TO BE REPRESENTED AS WELL.

COMMISSIONER BOND, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

THANK YOU.

UM, I THINK EVERYBODY, IT'S SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROJECT MOVING FORWARD.

I, I THINK WHAT I'D LIKE SOME CLARIFICATION ON MR. ATTORNEY IS, UM, IF, IF THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT THE, THE DRAFTING OF THE LANGUAGE OF THIS, UH, AGREEMENT BETWEEN PRIVATE INTER ENTITIES, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE BIFURCATED AND HANDLED SEPARATELY? OR IS IT I'M NOT AN ISSUE ISSUE.

I'M GONNA STOP YOU THERE.

HOLD UP.

I'M SORRY.

THIS IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO INDEPENDENT PARTIES THAT WE ARE NOT A PARTY TO TWO PRIVATE PARTIES.

MAY I RESTATE MY QUESTION? YEAH.

I DON'T THINK I, IF THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE WAY THE LANGUAGE IS DRAFTED, CAN WE MOVE FORWARD WITH APPROVING? I I'M NOT, I'M NOT CLEAR THAT THERE IS, BECAUSE YOU SAID ON ITEM NUMBER ONE, UM, THERE WAS NO IMPLICATION, BUT ON, ON B AND C THERE MIGHT BE.

SO, BUT IT'S NOT BETWEEN, IT'S NOT OUR, THE CITY'S ISSUE.

THE CITY IS HERE TO OPINE ON, ON WHETHER OR NOT THE PROJECT SHOULD MOVE FORWARD.

IF THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH THE, THE LANGUAGE IN A LEGALLY BINDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE TWO PARTIES HAVE TO TAKE UP AMONGST THEMSELVES AN ADDRESS? OR WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT THAT? BECAUSE I DON'T WANT,