Planning and Development Board - meeting_joint_regular

call the meeting to order. As is the tradition here in the city, please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I have to change their tags.

Can we have a roll call, please?

Odalis Delgado. Here. Christine Corbo.

Here.

Kathleen DeBona.

Here.

Richard Blattner.

Here.

Diana Pittarelli.

Here.

Mena Morgan.

Here.

Bob Glickman.

Here.

Terry Cantrell.

Present.

Done. Do we have any previous minutes?

I believe because this was a special meeting that there are no minutes today for the board to consider. Just because we did roll call, I just would like to make it clear that we have a quorum of the local planning agency, our LPA, which is also our planning and development board. And we also, out of courtesy, have some members of the historic preservation board who have joined us. So there is also a joint board here as well, just for the record to clearly reflect that.

and make it so. So before we start this evening, I would ask for everybody to, I just want to say, I walked into this meeting this evening to find out that I was running the meeting. This is the first time that I'll be running a meeting, so I ask for everybody's patience with me. And let's get started.

Thank you so much, Board Chair. So my name is Andrea Winget. I'm the Director of Development Services. And there are no additions, deletions, withdrawals, or continuances. But I would like to just make an announcement that we did start the meeting a little bit late. Thank you, everyone, for your patience. And we will only be able to continue the meeting going forward so long as there is a quorum of the local planning agency. I understand that one of the board members may have to excuse themselves at some point. So should that happen at any point in time, we will have to end the meeting at that time. So I just want to be mindful as we're making our comments and we are presenting a staff and hearing from the public that we just be mindful of our time for the item. And with that, I will turn it over to the city attorney's office to see if there are any announcements.

No announcements today. There's no quasi-judicial items on this agenda.

Thank you so much. So the... There are two items on your agenda today. The first item, which, Board Chair, you will read into the record in a moment, is a recommendation to the comprehensive plan. And under your new business, there is a presentation item. We're going to go ahead and take the comprehensive plan item first. Should we not have a quorum later on, then we will not hear the presentation later. So we will work together to have a smooth meeting and get through the items that we're able to get through today. So with that, Board Chair, I'll turn it over to you.

Before we do that, pardon me, staff, chair, I have a request I'd like to make. Yes, go ahead. We have two items here today. One we actually have to vote on. One is a presentation. However, reviewing the presentation, which I did in detail, the presentation pertains very much to the item that we have to vote on. Wouldn't it be better if my colleagues agree to see the presentation first? If it does pertain, it talks about hotel pool. It talks about all sorts of other things. I would much rather see the presentation before we hear the actual item we have to vote on. If my colleagues agree, I would appreciate that.

Matt, Mr. Chair, if I may interject, staff has prepared a very brief overview of the informational presentation in order to ensure that the board is properly prepared and understands the item that you are voting on. So with all due respect, I would kindly ask that the board hear the first item on the agenda in the order that the agenda is presented.

What is the wishes of the members up here?

I've made my case. I've stated my case.

I agree with Terry.

I would also like to remind the board that you're not voting on the informational presentation. The only item that this board is expected to vote on is the only item on the agenda today.

I believe, though, that the information was that the presentation that we're going to see after the vote would be part of what we're voting on for the vote. So that would mean that we should do the presentation if that's the fact.

If I can clarify that. And staff, correct me if I'm incorrect. I don't want to mischaracterize the presentation that it is indeed what you're going to vote on for the comprehensive plan amendments. they are separate and apart. One might inform the other. My understanding is that there is to be a presentation before the comprehensive plan amendment so you have a better understanding of what those amendments do. But as this agenda is presented today, the presentation was always secondary. Absolutely, in terms of additions, deletions, withdrawals on the agenda, you can move things around the agenda. But from the standpoint, my understanding is that we're at the item at this point. So if you wanted to make some changes to the agenda, that portion would have been underneath additions, deletions, withdrawals, unless the chair thinks otherwise in terms of given opportunity for that to take place now. But ultimately, the two is not connected to the sense that you have to hear one in order to vote on the other. So I want to make that clarification. Mr.

Chair, if I may, as the chair of the Preservation Board, we juggle the schedule and the items in order frequently to accommodate people that are coming and going and all that stuff. And we don't do that until after everything is read and all the announcements are made, your announcements. And then we would say, we need to move this item here and this item. Again, I think that moving this item around is not something that we should have done before your announcement, personally. So again, if staff can assure us there's nothing in the presentation, and I think there is, that it would be pertinent to our decision, then I don't understand why we wouldn't want to see the presentation.

Staff can affirm that we are fully briefing you on the portion of the one item that is before you today. The two items on the agenda are separate and apart. While the presentation is informational, it's more targeted toward the zoning changes that will be coming before you at a future date. And we are fully prepared to make you abreast of the necessary items as part of the item on your agenda today for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which solely puts policy in place for future zoning.

Can you please just poll the board on this, and let's see what they want to do. Do you want to hear the second one first?

I would also, I'm sorry to interrupt, Board Chair. I'd also like to remind you that you do have limited quorum and may run out of time. to actually handle your required business. And the only required business on your agenda is the comprehensive plan amendment that you are being asked to vote on today.

Thank you. Could you just run down the roll here and let's find out if they want to hear the second part of the item first, please?

Kathleen Tabona.

Yes.

Christine Corbo. Mena Morgan. Odalis Delgado. Diana Pittarelli.

Yes.

Richard Blattner.

Yes. If I may, I'm the one who may have to leave at 5.30, and I would like to be here so that there is a quorum for the vote.

Bob Glickman. Yes. So let's hear the second part first, please.

I'm going to ask that staff please traditionally, a lot of times at the city commission, when we have informational items, depending on what they are, we try to keep the presentation to 10 minutes. So due to time, I kindly ask that you move your presentation along, because at this time, we have exactly 60 minutes to get through two agenda items, board discussion and public comment. And the board will be expected to make a recommendation on the only item that you have to take business on today. With that, I will turn it over to staff to do a very high level and overview of the presentation, reserving the remaining 50 minutes for the actual business that the board has on hand before them today. Good afternoon. Andrea Winget, Director of Development Services. Staff is getting ready to bring their presentation online. So this presentation is before you today because the Commission has directed staff back in March to do an economic feasibility analysis of the of the beach area. And so at that time, the commission said, hey, we have live local going on. We have pending litigation. We know height and density has always been a topic of discussion for our community. We know back in even in the early 2000s, the commission reduced heights on the beach. And since that point in time, there has been very little redevelopment on this area unless those projects were within what we call a planned development zoning designation. But beyond that, there has been very little development within our traditional zoning districts that are out on the beach area. And that is why the commission has directed staff to do this feasibility study. At the time of our presentation in March, we talked about the staff would be looking at an area that we refer to as a bonus area, which means that we will not be modifying the traditional zoning districts that we have out on the beach today. All the rights and privileges associated with those areas will remain as they are. And if one would like to participate in this bonus program, they would have to meet the requirements of that OK, so here's what we talked about, how over time the zoning has changed. And we looked into the study. The study was actually directed for us I had some specific points that I was hoping to make. OK, so the study was to provide recommendations for the regulatory framework of the beach, to look at design standards, height bonuses, entitlements, and other public benefit incentives, such as open space areas or perhaps additional public parking that would benefit us. At the time, if we move to the next slide on slide six, There were different scenarios that were discussed as part of the zoning framework that was looked at at the time on what would be feasible and what would not be feasible in terms of height and density when we were looking at the beach area. And as we move along to slide seven, we talked about live local. We talked about slide eight. And so here, I'm going to turn it over to Cameron to talk about the key findings and bring you through the next eight minutes of this presentation.

Good afternoon, board. The key findings of the feasibility study. So what was the output of the study identified that there were key character areas within the beach districts and that the current framework that was within the zoning plan used regulations was the limiting factor. Further, the study further identified public benefits and resiliency elements that could be addressed through taking a new look at the zoning framework. Next slide, please. The City Commission on March 25th, 2026, as Andrea said, went over this item. And on the screen is where we ended off the City Commission presentation, slide 10, which indicates that we are to advance a targeted overlay framework as a near-term solution to the findings of the feasibility study. But regarding to how we got here, on the slide you'll see the staff had several public engagements with the community, including two community engagement events, a survey that received 196 responses, five meetings with developer and stakeholder groups, and the meetings total had 34 participants. What we heard so far was the main key elements were preservation of historic buildings, the maintenance of open space and gathering areas, and that resiliency had to be paramount. On the screen, you see a brief summary of the charrette that brought it all together, and then which led us to our guiding principles. The guiding principles can be seen on the screen as the eight principles that led staff and the consultant as we developed the overlay framework. Now let's talk about where we are today. Let's go to slide 18. One step further, please. 19. All right. So we have a couple item moving pieces here. So as discussed before, before you later today in this agenda is the comprehensive plan amendment portion of this. Later in time, we'll be bringing forward the zoning text amendment for the Hollywood Beach overlay and the Hollywood Beach urban design guidelines for the beach districts. But today's presentation focuses on the findings of the zoning and findings and the workings of the zoning If you could keep going down. Let's go to what is an overlay. All right, so this is where things get interesting. What is an overlay? The next slide will have a depiction on the screen. It's a schematic. So an overlay is a layer of regulation that sits on top of the existing base zoning. On the screen, you'll see an image. The bottom is the existing properties. The middle layer is the existing zoning. And the overlay sits on top of both of those categories. What's being proposed is not a change to the existing properties. It's not a change to the underlying zoning, but rather the change by establishing a beach overlay. How do we understand the overlays? The overlay is broken up into three tiers, a precinct, block topology, and character areas, if you go to 25. And this is actually where the both presentations align. So part of the overlay is proposing a development bonusing program. Said program is based on four pillars, three of which are the framework are established through the comprehensive plan amendment that you'll be reviewing later on this agenda. I'm going to walk you through the bonusing framework one by one, but moving with some decent speed. And again, the three on the screen that you see right now are those that are being affected by the comp plan items. So the first bonus pillar is height bonus. What is a height bonus and where can it be applied? So throughout the overlay, staff has recommended that several baseline requirements for all bonuses remain, and that's outlined in box number two. For specific bonuses, each bonus will have its own criteria and additional requirements. In the case of height, staff is proposing that a resiliency fund be established and contributions added to that fund for height added above the base zoning. If we go to slide 30. Slide 30 talks about a beach hotel room bonus program. This program, again, you'll notice number one remains the same. All bonuses have to conform with the baseline requirements. The additional requirements for the hotel room bonus would be the provision of publicly owned, publicly accessible open space, in addition to publicly dedicated parking spaces. And this would be provided to select hotel developments throughout the Beach District that are eligible for the bonus. Slide 32, please. With regards to flex unit allocation, this is another pillar that staff is proposing for a bonusing strategy. In certain areas of the beach, staff is proposing that flexible units be allocated to permit mixed use and standalone uses through new development, in addition to the provision of 10% of publicly required parking space. Again, you'll notice the baseline in box one does not change. So all bonuses have to conform to box one. And box two is the additional requirements needed for this item. If we move to number 33, transfer of development rights. And this is directing growth in appropriate areas. TDRs, for short, is also an item that's going to be heard later about the comp plan item that was before you. And it's the idea of moving developable rights from one property a sending area to another property, a receiving area, and establishing a framework by which we can do this. And of course, these would be mapped throughout the zoning overlay district to appropriate sending and receiving areas. 36, applying the overlay.

Go ahead.

Hi, everyone. OK, could we go back to the 37? I'll go very quickly here. So as we did the community engagement, we found that it was very important to look at the beach holistically, but then break it down into further details. So we have three tiers. The first tier is the precincts. The second tier is the block typologies. And the third tier is the character areas. Those run across the beach. So these are the precincts that were identified during our public engagement sessions. They were bookmarked by key gateway areas that allowed us to define different characters of the beach. Here you can see an existing highest height skyline here of what the precincts are today. As we are developing these, you can see here, these are the block typologies. So when we're thinking about the beach block typologies, we're thinking about them from the historic preservation broadwalk right to the intercoastal. So that's your east-west connection. So if we are going to apply any height on that east-west connection, as you can see in this image over here, We would have the lowest height in the historic preservation area, and then the highest heights would be applied on A1A, so at the edge. So these are what the character areas look like. We've started to, through our public engagement and working on the feasibility study, understanding that these are different areas. It was very important for us to think about this holistically. to not only think about the guidelines as a zoning overlay, but to create a vision for the Hollywood Beach. So if you go next, and you can click through all of these fairly quickly, but you'll start to see the guidelines that we are putting forward for architecture, transition zones, public realms, pop spaces, the broad walk, and being very intentional about connecting all of these guidelines to existing city policies like the PIPs programs that allow property owners to improve, if you could pause on that one, to improve their building facades and to create a very unique destination along the broad walk. I'm just ending on this one in terms of urban design guidelines because you can see The precedent imagery on the right includes a parking garage that is well integrated into the architecture building massing, which we're not seeing necessarily with our applications today. So the guidelines will ensure that the vision for the beach is to the highest standards, not just in south of Florida, but on a global scale.

Thank you so very much. Stephanie, if you could go back to slide 33, the one that shows the three bonus structures. A little bit further up, maybe 28. Let's try that. And board, I just want to leave you with a little bit further up. Let's keep going. That one, 26. I just want to leave you with 26 on the screen. 26. So today, this presentation is supposed to capture the zoning efforts that is still underway and still massively being produced by staff. We're working on it, again, getting feedback, and still putting all the wiring together. But what we do know and what we have prepared today is what you see on the screen, today's focus, which is the three pillars of the bonusing framework that is based in the comprehensive plan. Those pillars need action. And in that presentation, I further go into those pillars and how they work and what specifically is being set up in the comprehensive plan to support the eventual bringing forward of a zoning overlay district. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Board Chair. Just to help move things along, you do have one card for one public speaker on the presentation. I believe it is Ms. Ann Rolstein. If you want to open up the public comment on this and have her speak, and then we can close this item out and move on to the next item, which is your official business for today.

Let's open up. And Ann Rolstein, please come on down. State your name and address for the record.

I don't need a microphone. Ann Ralston, 326 South 14th Avenue, Hollywood, Florida, 43-year-old resident and used to be a lover of the beach, but it's no longer the beach that I love. I printed out this presentation. It's not the same what they just showed you up there. What I have, they blocked out. And I'm just pointing out two things that I've just noticed. But the whole thing, the pages don't correspond. My whole thing says draft. That had nothing but one little thing on it that said draft update. I don't know what that means. It all ties in with 1301, the grand old lady, and the beach as a whole on what you're going to do with these transfers. This is not the charming beach we used to love and go to every day. I lived at that beach. I loved going there. Now it is nothing but sunny aisles, and that's what it's becoming. And I'm sorry, but If they're not giving you accurate information, I didn't vote for any of you, and I didn't vote for the staff. I voted for the commission to make decisions about what happens on this speech. And I'm only allowed two that I can vote for. So the public is being shut out. I am sorry, but three minutes on a meeting that you hold two public hearings on something that's word garble. And you have to go back months and months and years to try to tie them all in together. And what a previous commission did to preserve that beach should be honored by other commissions moving forward. And that's part of the planning and zoning's commitment to do what's right by the city and what the current laws are, not to feed out variances every five seconds or change height restrictions. The building development on the beach had height restrictions for a reason. It's quaint, it's wonderful, and it's

Manageable you put all those high-rises on god forbid getting those people off the beach during our game Thank You miss Ralston are there any other cards No other cards for this item, okay, we'll we'll close the public hearing Yeah, we'll bring it back up here to the board. Are there any comments from the board members? I

Mr. Chair, I have some comments, but I think maybe we should say, I'll say my comments for post-presentation here.

I think we need to hear her comprehend.

Tie it all together somehow.

And then we can do it.

If I may, through the chair, just before we get to that presentation, just briefly, for the benefit of the public, when it comes down to public comment and the opportunity to be heard on this item, there are three different occasions. So there's tonight, there's also first reading, and then there's also second reading. So I just want to be clear on that in terms of the opportunity for the public to be able to be heard on this item.

Thank you. Before you start, if anybody in the audience wants to fill out a card to speak on this item, please come up front and get a card.

We do have some cards already on the actual agenda item for today.

A few other people had walked in during the meeting, so figured we'd make that announcement. Thank you. Go ahead.

So I don't know if you just want to announce the item into the record The item is file number while staff brings up the presentation item number 26 L 18 it is a recommendation to the City Commission for a comprehensive plan amendment to provide clarifications and modifications and there's going to be three parts of to this item that's before you today. While it is one comprehensive plan amendment, we're going to break it down into three different areas. At the end, I'm going to ask that the local planning agency only vote on those three items. And then we will have a joint recommendation or joint vote on the historic board and the local planning agency. And at that time it will be the board's pleasure if you just want to do one vote as a joint board for the whole concept or if you would also like to break it down into those three votes. And we will guide you through that at the time. And so while they're bringing the presentation up, because of course, once you know, while we are trying to move things along, there is a little bit of a challenge here with the presentation coming up for display. So what we have being left on the dais right now is an update to the text amendment that you will be voting on today. And so the three parts to the comprehensive plan text amendment, as you heard Cameron talk about in the update, is flex, so applying flexibility. establishing the bonus area or the bonus concept in the comprehensive plan, and also creating the policy framework for the transfer of development rights, also known as TDR. And so while you look at the information that was just passed out, You know, staff has really combed through this and combed through it again. You heard us talk about different pending legislation. We do know that we have Senate Bill 180 that was adopted, which does not allow you to adopt any rules or regulations that are more strict or burdensome. So while some of the stuff we thought would help provide clarity to existing programs that are out there to show that it's separate and apart. The state may view things differently. This is a different space that we're all operating in as local governments. And so we're really just trying to navigate this space the best we can and position the city as the commission has directed us to do so. which was to do the beach analysis and move forward the different components in order to achieve that. And so you are here today as a legislative body to help set policy in order to put this, to potentially put this future framework in place depending on how the commission votes on it. So we are asking this board today to forward a recommendation of hopefully its approval but forward a recommendation today for the city commission. These are the three areas highlighted on the screen that I just talked about that Cameron will be going into more detail for you. We talked about the beach height study already. We did give you an abbreviated analysis of that. We talked about all of the public outreach that was done with the survey that was up for two months. We had two in-person engagement sessions. In addition to that, there was also a minimum of two other public meetings that this was presented on and feedback was sought on as well. So this has been in the works for months, if not years. that this needed to be looked at. So it should not be a surprise that this item is out before anybody today for consideration and for a recommendation on this for the city commission. Again, these are the three areas to the comprehensive plan amendment. One is with regards to the flexibility units. The other one is to establish the new bonus program pool and to lay the policy framework for TDRs. Once this is in place in the comprehensive plan, the zoning and land development regulations would be required to be updated to actually implement all of this. So if this gets put in place and they're decided in the future that there's no necessary updates to the zoning code, then there's no updates to the zoning code to actually effectuate the TDRs. It sits in the comprehensive plan until that time would occur. And with that, I will kindly ask Cameron to keep your presentation limited.

Good afternoon, board. My name is Cameron Palmer, chief planner. Thank you to Andrea for doing a nice sum up of what we're doing here to discuss. The element before you is an amendment to the future land use element and to the coastal element to keep them in conformity one with another. But as Andrea said, it's pertaining to the flex units, the establishment of a TDR program, Transfer Development Rights, and the establishment of the Hollywood Hotel Pohonis Room Density Program. This slide looks familiar because I brought it back from the last presentation where we see the development framework and of the framework that's going to be brought forward as part of the zoning exercise. The three that are highlighted on the screen are the three that are based in the comprehensive plan. The first being the beach hotel room bonus program. And as I said before, this is a bonus that the criteria and the eligibility of the bonus is written into the zoning code. The ability to have the program is written into the comprehensive plan. So the text before you establishes this program as one that is available for use within the overlay that can assign or allocate, rather, hotel room density above the base zoning density through the appropriate criteria and approval mechanism. Those are determined in the zoning tax when it comes before you in the future. As it pertains to flex units, the tax amendment is intended to establish parameters by which flex units can be used so that we could then implement it in a bonus framework in the zoning tax. So for the comprehensive plan portion, we're adding language to enable standalone residential and mixed uses within the general business land use designation. after which the comprehensive plan points to the zoning land development regulations to set up the criteria, the eligibility, and the mechanisms by which those select units can be allocated. And lastly, this nice slide with the picture is the transfer of development rights program. And whereas flex and hotel rooms, there were similar programs before, this is a brand new program that we're establishing the framework for. As a reminder, the framework is going into the comprehensive plan to say, hey, city, you can offer this program once you set up sending and receiving areas. The zoning code is then to set up the sending and receiving areas and outline the criteria and the parameters of the program. As a result, these three items are moving in concert with the greater effort of the zoning tax amendment and the beach guidelines to bring forward a combined or cumulative effect on the beach. On the screen is just the language that's in front of you in your document. You'll notice that there's some yellow highlights, some underlines, and some strikethrough. The yellow highlights indicates text that was changed after the item was uploaded. The underline is new text that were added in, underlined and highlighted. And underlined, highlighted, and crossed out is text that we previously thought we needed but we removed for keeping things simple and easy to understand. Again, transfer development rights, this text is all available on the dais as well. It's just included for reference. Accordingly, staff recommends that you recommend approval as the board, as LPA, to the city commission for approval of this comprehensive plan amendment.

OK, thank you so much, Cameron, for your presentation. Board Chair, you do have eight cards for people who would like to speak. So the first person is Mr. Stephen Welsh, and next is Donna Green. I don't know if it's your pleasure to open the public comment right now and then do board discussion, but you do have eight cards that are submitted to get through.

Before we get started, I have a question for the attorney, if you may, or the board attorney. We were just handed this attachment A, which is quite a bit changed from the original. Bob, please speak into the mic. It's quite a bit changed from the original. I don't think anybody up here has had an opportunity to read this, digest it, or ask any questions about it. So it's very concerning that we're being asked to vote on something that we haven't read or seen until 4.54 PM.

So certainly, it's your pleasure as a legislative body to decide whether or not you have enough information today to take a vote or to determine anything at this point. It's not unheard of to enter things at this time at the record. Is it best practice or is it ideal? That really is dependent on your point of view of it. But certainly, if you don't feel prepared, you can absolutely say that. If you want to continue the meeting, and allow public comment at this point. You can continue at this point to do so. But you should make an educated decision in your choice and your vote. And so if you feel that way, you certainly can. But ultimately, if you want to continue the meeting, you can as well.

Well, so my feeling is that I haven't read this, and certainly I can't vote on it. I would like to open it up to the rest of the board before we continue with any public comment or going any further. I'd like to find out how the other board members up here feel about this, being handed this document, which is yellowed out, struck through, all through the document. I haven't read it. I don't know if any of you read it while the presentation was going on.

And I don't know if, I can't speak to the changes specifically, so I'll leave that to staff to indicate if those changes are reductions, if it's new language that's introduced for the first time, Andrea, or if this is reorganized. I'm not sure the substance. Maybe that could help you also determine. We get a new language.

The only thing that was added was maybe ands and buts. The majority of it is actually striking out, as I mentioned, some of the stuff that we thought might be helpful to clarify some existing programs. But in the eyes of the state, it's better off to leave all of that existing information as is and just insert the information that is necessary to achieve these three things. The first item, and I could put it on the screen and I could walk you through it if that makes it easier, if we want to put it up. And we could scroll right through the document together. Let me see. The first portion that you see on page one talks about the city may utilize flexibility rules. That was something we were considering to add as new language, but we've decided not to. So we've taken that out. The second paragraph, for purposes of this text, again, that was something we were considering adding, that we are now not.

Chair or staff? Chair. Yes. Staff, go back on the flexibility unit stuff, just a clarification. So the bonus and the flexibility units, they're the same.

So you're going to get flexibility. The bonus is separate and apart.

So in addition to the overall flex unit pot you got.

The city has a citywide flexibility, unified flexibility zone. Prior to that, there was stuff called flexibility and reserve units, and they were separate accounting mechanisms available citywide. As you will see, I believe, an underlying part that is remaining, we say in 2023, the city took flex and reserve, and the county recognized it as a uniform flexibility zone. All of that is staying, and none of that is part of the bonus program that you were voting on today. The thought was, hey, it would be nice to make this clear for people, but that's not the world we're in today under what's going on at the state. So we are leaving all of that. As confusing as it is today, we're going to leave that in because it doesn't impact what this body is making a recommendation on.

And just as a reminder to the board, any time you see a highlighted and struck through, that means we previously proposed it, and now we're removing it. It's not actual law. It's the process of an iterative process.

So if we want to scroll to the top of page two, there was, again, some additional language that we were considering, but we took out. And then it goes into the TDR program. All of that remains 1 through 6, that is right here, remains as it was presented to you originally with no changes.

Chair, sorry. TDR is not just for the coastal element, right?

It's for all, it's for any property in the city? That is correct. The TDR program in the comprehensive plan can be used citywide. When we come back to this body later and do the zoning and land development portion of it, the intent right now is to only look at the beach area because that was the direction of the city commission, was to solely look at the possibility of transfer of development rights within the beach area. We have not studied the entire city. Staff does not plan on bringing forward a recommendation for TDRs on the mainland. And you also, according to the existing county comprehensive plan, cannot take development from the mainland and put it on the beach and vice versa. The beach has to stay within the beach area. So as we move along to the Hollywood Beach Hotel Density Bonus Program, which is before you right now, this is just establishing the bonus program that Cameron talked to you about on the beach. There are a couple cleanup words in here. It was very important to us to make sure that we were distinguishing between the new bonus program and the existing hotel pool program. which already exists and is on the beach today. And that hotel pool program is separate and apart and will remain intact with how it operates today. So that is what this language does before you today. And as we scroll down to the permitted uses and areas designated general business, you could see there are no changes there. from what was originally presented to the board.

Hold on a second. Why are some of these underlined in blue on the screen? If you go there, right there, that word motel is on the top of the screen, first word.

Let's just check the grammar.

It's Grammarly. Just telling you, you may want to look at the grammar of that.

Thank you.

Yeah, I apologize. It's not in a PDF form. So that's like flagging, hey, consider this. So you'll see E, which was in the information previously submitted to you. And it just talks about the hotel beach density bonus program. And as we continue on, so E sets up the program within the beach. and shows that it's separate and apart from the existing hotel pool program. As we scroll down to number nine, today, as this board has seen, or the local planning agency and maybe the historic board has seen in the past, when you have a building, that within the commercial area of the beach and you want to allow it to have residential, today you have to maintain 50% of that building as commercial in order to have a portion of it be residential. So what this does is within this area it takes that away. So if you are in the commercial area and you want to apply the residential flex to make it residential, you can do that without having to maintain the 50%. rule that has been in place. And then if we go to the coastal element, what we actually did was we inadvertently had struck through policy 1.7. This is the exact language that is in The land use element that we just reviewed that talks about the existing hotel pool, which is not before you today, we're leaving that in there because we know that the state may or may not look at that and say, hey, You know, you're striking it out. That might not sit well. It may seem like you're taking a right or something away, making it more burdensome. So we're leaving that in there today as it exists because that's what the state is telling us to do. And then what we did was we added E, which is setting up the new bonus program. And again, we were going to add policy 1.7 and decided not to, because we thought that would be best in the state's eyes. So we're really trying to be extremely surgical with how we go in here. and how we establish the broad policy so that the zoning and land development code can come back in and put that framework in place. And this way, the city retains control of how that framework may or may not look without having the state or the county or anybody else looking at that for us. Should the commission pass this at first reading, this would then go off to the state for 30 days and then it would come back to the city commission for adoption. Both of those hearings will have the ability for the public to comment on that. And because everything we are proposing today is already consistent with the Broward County Comprehensive Plan, the Broward County Planning Council would just be recertifying our plan. And it would not have to go before the county commission as currently drafted It would just go to the state for a 30-day review Thank you.

Thank you for that explanation. I'd like to bring it back up here to the board for a minute and see how they feel about Continuing or whatever they'd like to do Terry Thank You chair

Well, I concur with your statement before. This document is something that I actually do my homework, or try to, and do the legwork to look at this. I would have taken some time, absolutely. I also just got a bunch of letters from the public. And I think the public input is very important. So I don't have time to read this right now. And I have nothing but the utmost respect for the staff and what they've done here. This is a complicated process. I don't have any problem with transfer development rights and hotel pool and shuffling units here and there and all that stuff too. But basically, For lack of a better term, this is somewhat half-baked is what it is. We're asked to vote on something. Looking at the presentation, which Ms. Ralston is correct, it's not what we were sent to look at. It's not what was posted. It's different. We're basically being asked to give carte blanche to The planning department and any developer that comes along that wants to build something along A1A, and we don't even know really for certain how the height is going to work, whether it's going to be 15 stories all the way. I think it was slide number 44 showed a 15-story building right on Surf Road. And I know that might have been just something they pulled from AI or whatever. But the bottom line is that it's sort of a cart before the horse. If staff had come to us and said, Okay, we we met with the Commission. We've we've had public hearings 196 people is important I'm not I'm not discounting that at all. There's thousands of people live on the beach So if they didn't participate in this shame on them But the bottom line is if you'd come to us and said we have defined exactly what we're gonna do We don't even talking about historic preservation. Do you know that we have a historic district? We all know that In 2003 the city paid a consultant from Orlando to do a study. There's 100 pieces of property, not just in our district now along Surf Road, but all of Hollywood Beach that they considered worthy of designation for historic designation. Siskovich came around in 2007 and did the same thing. And then, of course, the FAU study, which the city adopted, which created our historic district on the beach, but it's only from Surf Road to the Broadwalk. It did not include these other properties. So I mean, there's so much going on here all at the same time. And we are asked in one hour, with documents we just now received, to actually make an educated decision on something that's going to affect the beach and the city for years and years to come. I don't know what the rush is. What is the rush here? Why are we rushing this through? We're meeting on June 29. I mean, have anyone ever been to a joint board meeting in the middle of the summer? No. So I don't understand why this is such a big hurry to do something. And I would love to take a deep dive further, and I would be more than happy to participate in voting. As it turns out, I might not even have a vote, I just found out, because I'm not on the P&D. I'm on the HBB, and I guess you guys are going to vote for it first, and then I get to vote for it afterwards. I don't understand that either. So in all due respect, staff, I mean, I just don't know where we're going with this. And I don't know if this is, if it's just blatantly premature and we should be tabling this thing and taking more time to really, you know, feel this thing out better. That's what I think.

Do I hear a motion to continue from you?

Yes, I would make a motion to continue this item.

Is there a second?

Board Chair, if I may interject before you take a moment. Absolutely. So I understand that the board may feel a little bit uneasy. And I understand that that may be the recommendation of the joint board. But the local planning agency is still here today and is expected to take a vote on this, either a vote of recommendation to approve it, a recommendation of denial because there wasn't, you didn't feel that you could, had enough time to look at the item. But either way, I understand that the recommendation of the joint board may be to consider that. But I strongly encourage that the local planning agency is here today to set policy and is here to advise the commission on this policy one way or another. So I would encourage you to take your public comment and consider making a motion to either approve or deny this and forward that to the city commission today.

May I ask the board attorney, please? Is there an option here to continue this item?

At this point, you have a motion and a second on the floor. And so. But it's a joint board thing. But we're in a meeting with them. I can't do anything about it. Just what it is.

Mr.

Chair. Yes. I'm wondering why this would not have been brought before planning and development as a stand-alone event as opposed to a joint meeting. I don't quite understand it. We have a motion on the floor that wouldn't apply to the Planning and Development Board.

Board members, through the chair, Historic District is involved in that, too.

So Cameron Palmer, Planning Manager, go ahead.

I think the struggle right now is that we have a motion and a second on the floor by the joint board. This meeting was advertised and noticed as a joint board meeting. I'm not sure to the extent that it's legally required to be a joint board meeting. Your code does have language that reference joint board meetings when there is an actual site-specific issue at hand. I think as a courtesy, the city has decided to move forth in this manner. The reason why you have heard us emphasize the local planning agency is solely because statutorily, underneath the state law, your LPA has to review your comprehensive plan amendments. And so this city has designated the Planning and Development Board as the local planning agency. So while we're here jointly, for the record, we still would need a vote from the two different bodies, right? And so I hear a motion. I heard a second. Unless it's withdrawn, you would have to procedurally act on that motion in that second that has been on the floor.

Can we discuss before we vote on the motion?

Absolutely. Absolutely.

Chair, if I may just. Counselor, we held a joint meeting to designate the Hollywood Broadwalk as historic about a year ago, 2025. And the reason why we did it as a joint meeting is because it involved historic preservation and an area of historic preservation. So we have frequently met as a joint board any time, for instance, downtown, which is a historic district as well. Based upon the zoning code, we are obligated to do that. That's the way I understand it now. Staff can probably clarify that. So it's not unusual that we would be doing this as a joint board. Now, whether or not we have any vote in it or not, I always thought we would. We always have in the past.

So you, unless I, let me clarify if I misstated anything. I don't, I understand that is the practice of the city, and that's why you're here.

Right.

For the purposes of the state, though, and the ordinances that will come before the city commission, it has to include at least a finding from the local planning agency. And you technically... The Historic Preservation Board is not designated as a local planning agency in our code. So because of that, that's why you have two separate votes, one from the local planning agency and one as the joint body. And so as the joint body, there appears to be a motion and a second. And now some discussion around that joint body's decision to at least motion and second at this point.

So the only vote or the only decision here that the commission will have to consider is the five members of the local planning agency.

Your joint recommendation will be submitted to the commission as well for review.

As ceremonial, though, mostly, for the most part.

I won't say ceremonial. I think that I'll leave that to your actual city attorney to determine. I think based on the practice of what you all have established in terms of joint board meetings when it comes down to historic generally properties, that's maybe different. But specifically, the code kind of narrows it down a little bit more. I think by precedent and practice, you tend to have these joint board meetings. terms of the state requirement for the local planning agency that is it just needs to be called out for the record purposes but again I think usually we have motion in second you have some discussion around that but I don't want to go too far outside of the actual motion on the table is there any other discussion by the joint board about this motion

Well, yeah, I mean, I'm going to vote against it, because remember what she said. This is a text amendment. Not even Broward County is needing to approve it. It goes straight to the state, because it's already. So it's really clarifying what the city of Hollywood wants to look like at the beach. So I understand the folks that are here are thinking it's something else, but it's really just a text amendment to clarify I did want to ask, are the regulations and urban design guidelines something that the LPA gets to see? Absolutely.

This is a multi-step process that takes, has different components to it. So this is the broad and general policy is before you today. The specific details that the city wants to control locally and handle locally will be back before this board to actually set up that framework. How tall should a building be? How much density should we be giving them? Those are things that this board will be having a recommendation on in the future. Today, it's the high level, broad policy framework for the city's comprehensive plan.

Thank you. So we're not voting for or against this. We're voting for continuance, just to be clear. Yes, I know. OK. If there's no other comment, let's have a yes, Mr. Blattner.

I'll just clarify my own mind. Next Wednesday is the final commission meeting before their break. They don't return until August, the end of August. August and September are all budget-based meetings. October 1st, the budget has to be done. The election is November. It seems to me we're trying to get something rushed through without enough thought. I'll speak for myself. I don't understand all that's going on here. Maybe, Dallas, maybe you're right. This is a simple thing. We should pass it. And yet... I don't feel comfortable doing that. I just don't. Also, I don't understand why there is not a meeting of the Planning and Development Board to discuss this very thing, separate and above a joint meeting. So I'm going to vote to continue, but I don't know what it means. Are we continuing a joint meeting? And then we have to discuss whether we're going to have the planning agency have a separate vote to continue. So can the legal department clarify that, please?

So based off of what the practice in the city is to have joint meetings for individuals,

And correct me if I'm wrong, Andrea.

Joint meetings for anything related, any property related that has to deal with historic, you have these joint meetings. That is the practice that you have done. So you will continue to do that. unless there's a different policy decision that's made. And so tonight's purpose is, as a joint body, and that's how this meeting was noticed, you will make, there's a motion to continue, there's a second. You'll vote on that. And so you'll be voting to continue it at another joint meeting. The reason why we've called out that separate vote is that For the purposes of the state, we need the local planning agency to have a vote on the record. That vote is taking place at the same time during this joint board meeting. But the notice of this meeting was as a notice of a joint board meeting. And that's how it operates procedurally.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the board?

Just if we vote for the continuance, what will we find out at the next meeting? Will we find out the height, the density, or that is passed on to the further down the road this goes.

Those items are separate and apart from what is before you today. What is before you today is the broad policy framework, and that is legally all that is required for the board to have before them to vote on. It's kind of like how when you are aware we bring forward a rezoning for a piece of property and sometimes we show you what the design and site plan looks like and we tell you you cannot base your decision on that. Do you want it rezoned or do you not? That's the same concept that is before you today that will be before you in the future. Do you want to do this comprehensive plan amendment today, or do you not? And that's what I urge you to forward your recommendation on, is to either forward a recommendation of approval or denial.

And by not doing it, what happens?

By not doing it, you significantly delay the project from moving forward. Staff had always intentionally broken it up into these pieces, as we commonly do. It's very common when you see land use plan amendments. We did it on the. Regional Activity Center, we've done it on TOC, where you bring forward comprehensive plan amendments. And then months later or meetings later, you bring forward the specific zoning text amendments. This is the standard process that the city has always embraced in order to achieve projects that the commission has directed us to move forward as staff and as the local planning agency to recommend on as well. So I strongly urge you to make that recommendation today. on either approval or denial.

Yes, Diana. I don't know. I feel like the stepdaughter here, because I guess my vote doesn't count. I mean, I've never been up here in 10 years where I felt this way. But I guess I just have to say this, OK? What is not working with what we currently have in place? What of the Suscovage Beast Master Plan is not work? We have Eterna. We have other things that have come up. We have a lot of projects that have come up, OK? I don't understand. where you're going, what is it that you really want to accomplish here that we can't do on an individual basis when one project comes before us? And I'm dying to get the Hollywood Beach Resort before you, because I live next to a sleeping nothing. So I want things to happen, but why can't we take them one project at a time, as we've done for the last, I don't know when, 20 years? Why do we now have to have something completely different changing it? And why is it changing? And you made the comment about the project. What project are we talking about that we have to move forward on now? Can you answer those questions?

But I would like to say that I agree with every

So those are some really great questions. And I'm going to try to remember them because I did not write them down. So when I refer to the project, I'm referring to this project, the project that the commission directed us as staff back in March to bring forward and to finish the beach zoning analysis and economic study. It was at that time. And for years prior, the commission had a workshop back in 2019 where they talked about needing to evaluate the beach, the heights, the density, and the urban design, and the look and feel of the beach out there. At that time, So fast forward to now, and we did the economic study. And what we have now know based on this study is there is the potential for additional hotel density within Central Beach that needs to be unlocked in a proper form methodically with thought and not just taking a one-off project here and there. It's how do we ensure the character and the vision that this community wants is established and that the framework is there and that the public knows that if they do X, Y, and Z, there are these specific outcomes that they will get and not having one project here and another project there just being approved at the will without having a basic framework of if you do these things. So the commission has directed us to put that framework in place so we have a properly planned community out there. It's to achieve a holistic view of the entire beach area. And doing that, as Cameron talked about, in the future there would be different sections and different areas looked at. And they would all be looked at differently in the zoning code. Today, it's the broad policy that is before you. When I talk about project, I talk about this project. This project will not only look at the Hollywood Beach site, but it will look at all of the sites out there. What sites are out there? Any sites that are out there.

Because I'll tell you something. Hold on, hold on, hold on. No, I just want to say something. I've lived at the beach for 30 years. And let me say that I've been to more meetings about the beach Almost anybody else, okay? Because I live there. It's my property value, et cetera, et cetera. Bottom line is every resident that I've come in contact with, now I haven't come in contact with the commercial people. I have to say that. But as residents, we like the look of the beach. We like the look at the small hotel. I live in a small old building. Are you trying to take my building from me? That's the way I'm beginning to feel it.

If I may, through the chair, I just want to remind you, you have a motion and a second on the floor that you need to take a vote on.

We're going to take a roll call vote, please. We're going to do that right now.

Kathleen DeBona.

Is this for continuance? Continuance. Yes. Yes.

As a reminder to board members, please speak into the mic.

Point of order here, Mr. Chair. Christine. No, we're going to vote. I think when you have a continuance, you have to give a date specific. Thank you. You can't just hold it up in the air.

It doesn't have to be. It could just be continued and staff will re-advertise and bring it back at the appropriate date and time.

Thank you. Go on, please.

For the purposes of keeping everything clear, I'm going to restart the roll call vote. That's fine. Everyone that is going to take a vote, please make sure that we're speaking loudly into the mic so that I can capture it.

This vote is for a continuance of this item.

And just for the record, this is a continuance vote by the joint board.

Yes.

Kathleen Tabona.

Can I clarify an answer? Just yes or no.

Please speak into the mic, Kathleen.

Can I ask a question? No.

You need to vote.

Then I say no.

Christine Corbo.

No.

Mena Morgan.

No.

Odalis Delgado. No. Diana Pitarelli.

Yes.

Richard Blattner.

Yes.

Bob Glickman.

Yes.

We have three yes and four no.

My vote's yes.

Oh, so sorry, Terry.

I did make the motion after all.

It's four and four. It fails.

So at this point, the motion fails. The motion to continue failed. So at this point, you either continue to public comment on the item, because we did get some public comment cards. And then you can leave room for discussion at that point. And then we'll entertain the votes.

OK, then let's open the public comment on this matter. Number one, Steve Walsh.

Good afternoon. Excuse me. Good afternoon, members of the board. My name is Steve Welsh. I'm here today as an individual taxpayer to advocate for a transparent, legal, sound planning process. I'm not sure if you can see the look on my face of confusion, but I certainly see the look on your faces. This has been one of the most unusual meetings I've ever been to. But let's be honest about the reality of this situation we're in of the file. There appears to be some really, really good planning tools hidden inside the ordinance. Creating a new transfer of development rights program and managing our hotel room pools are excellent ways to protect historic architecture and regulate building heights. However, because the city's timeline has been so rushed and the backup data has been continuously shifting, the public is operating in a total information blackout, as you have been, because you're looking at a draft document. This is a draft. This isn't real. My question is really right now for the planning staff regarding the mechanics of file number 26L18. Not sure who I should look at, but I'll ask the question of staff. Can staff confirm on the record whether the draft text charts regarding hotel pool allocations and TDR criteria nested directly inside the backup material for the Hollywood Beach feasibility study and overlay district presentation establishes the actual framework to utilize our public site at 1301 South Ocean Drive as a donor site to transfer density rights directly to the Hollywood Beach Resort expansion. Can you answer that?

They're not going to answer. Please go on. Well.

So, with no answer, I'm going to ask that the permanent legislative record show that city staff has formally refused to answer whether this sweeping code rewrite utilizes our public land at 1301 to feed a private developer's high rise. This institutional blackout proves the public is completely uninformed. And it established that this board lacks the competent, substantial evidence required to vote on this item today. And this is both boards, not just one board. I'm speaking to both boards. I urge you to use a conditional approval to protect your own administrative reputation.

Thank you. Next, Donna Green.

Followed by Lynn Smith. Good afternoon. My name is Donna Green. I live at 526 North Rainbow Drive in Hollywood Hills. I've lived in Hollywood for more than 35 years. And I love my city. I appreciate the fact that you all do this to help our city run and take your time. 13 years on the Hollywood Education Committee, so I know it's time consuming. It's stressful. You have to fit it into your life. So I appreciate what you're all doing. What I don't appreciate is that the city keeps doing these things to all of you, to push through things that are not fully vetted, fully reviewed by the community, because Those April meetings apparently didn't have everything that we should all be able to look at. And I would like more review, more time to see what does this mean. The city staff is saying that they want a broad permission slip, basically. I agree with Diana that up till now, it should be case by case. And this broad permission slip for change to me is very worrisome because I don't have trust in our city and their decisions on the beach anymore. I've seen what they have been doing lately to completely ignore many residents who stay here until 1 in the morning and many civic groups who said, please don't do what you're doing to our public land. They are not listening to us. They have now done a bait and switch with live local instead of trying to work with related. I don't trust related. I don't trust the money that's been thrown into the mix politically. So I have major concerns. that we need to slow down and figure out what's really happening. I just see this as a major red flag for more issues that are going to give a green light to the developers who want to do whatever they want to do. I think I'd love to see this vote deferred so that it can be studied more. I think that would be the fair and reasonable thing. So thank you for your time. Thank you for doing this for our city. Thank you.

Lynn Smith, followed by Anne Ralston.

Good afternoon, everyone. And I thank your passion, Diana. I did wait for you. I've not been well, so I'm going to stay calm, and I'm going to read this. And it really says everything that I probably could say, but I don't have enough time. OK, staff will likely tell you that they need immediate approval just to turn this document into a finalized study. But voting yes right now puts the cart before the horse and gives staff carte blanche to write whatever they want after your vote is cast. remember you are being asked to take this vote while relying wholly on inner city staff who are driving an accelerated timeline which is absolutely happening with absolutely zero independent third-party counsel to protect your board's position on your personal administrative liability you have explicit jurisdiction right to protect your board's integrity by offering conditional approval do not give them a blank check instead pass a motion to approve file number 26L only in the strict legal condition that zero development rights can be transferred. And I'm really upset about that part. And no site plans can be stamped until staff returns the joint body with 100% completed finalized feasibility study for your final evaluation. Protect the rules. I'm president of the Downtown Parkside Rural Poinciana Civic Association, and my people have no idea what's about to happen to this beach. I have run a bank as chairman of the board for 15 years. I've been lending money for most of my life. I'm a mortgage banker, and I don't understand any of this that's going on. So how could I possibly think that some little person that lives in the beach or downtown Hollywood understand what you guys are about to do to our city? So I think that putting this, as we said, on some kind of hold, rushing. What are we rushing? It's June 28th. It's 97 degrees outside. What are you doing? Are you helping the commission do your work? I listen to all of you. I know Christine loves this city. She's fought like I have all the time to keep it safe. Her way is always not the same as mine, but we both do love this city. And all I'm asking is that we have a chance for 140,000 people. What's in this room? 15 people? And you guys are deciding for 160,000 people what our beach is going to look like? It's enough. We have these presentations where staff puts bulletin boards around the room and a whole bunch of unsuspecting people go to look at them. Do they have a chance to ask any questions? I'm in the middle of this all the time and I haven't asked the first question.

What is wrong with you guys? It's enough. Give us back our city.

Give us a chance to vote ourselves instead of all these people making our decision, including you and the commission. Vote for us. You represent us.

Thank you. Ann Rawlson, followed by Michael Seltzer.

Thank you. The document that I was able to print doesn't have a thing to do with the document given to you, because now I'm totally confused. And I don't have a chance to absorb it as well. I think the public is being hidden from these items. We don't get half that beach thing on whatever Andrea gave. We don't have access to that. We're seeing it now and have no ability to absorb it, look at it, or ever. I think this is being so totally rushed. And that looks like sunny aisles to me in the draft proposal. So if everybody wants to move to sunny aisles, right there you go. Just go to Hollywood Beach pretty soon, because this is what this is all about. And here is why. Mr. Keith Poliakoff, who threatens just like here. They have absolutely zero standing and missed the boat to sue by four years. It's going to be interesting to see who is getting stuck holding the bag for attorney's fees. Now, I think that sounds like a threat to the public, who is trying to put a lawsuit together to say, if you would just put it to a vote, this all ties in together, and you can't snow us much longer. It's wonderful news. And why hasn't Broward County, why can't they look at it? They're saying to us, But do you think none of us trust anything that's being told to us anymore? Because when I was doing appraisals at the beach working for the property appraiser, I saw nothing but building. But they were within code. So there was a lot of construction on the beach. I'd go for a vacant lot, and there's half a building up there. So please don't tell me there has not been development on the beach, and we need all this bullshit. Sorry. Sorry. I get passionate about this. Sorry. So please, if Mr. Polyakov thinks when he's told that says, oh, it's got nothing to do with any project, you bet your butt it does. Because Mr. Kaliapov has done nothing for the residents, only for the developers. And I literally tried to think of something that Mr. Polyakov stood by the residents for. And it was the Jewish school at the Bread Building or the Home Good Building, whatever that's called. But it wasn't for the residents. It was because his developer next door was going to be affected. So I can't think of a thing that this man's done to help the residents. And please don't tell me it's going to save me tax dollars, because it doesn't.

Thank you. Michael Selter? Your handwriting is as bad as mine?

My son's worse.

Thank you.

And he's a lawyer. I live at 956 Hollywood Boulevard. I've lived there for about a year. And I have the pleasure of going outside my house every day and looking at the Hollywood Beach Resort. And I'm also a commercial realtor. And I have a client that's interested in buying the property. And I just want to tell everybody here that the cost of the land, more or less, is going to be about $200 million. And the project is going to be, whoever is the recipient of the project, whether it's related, my client, or somebody else, it's going to be well over a billion dollars. So if anybody here thinks that anybody is going to spend that kind of money and not get the density that they need to make money, they're sadly mistaken. Or else, we can all live with that garbage, because it is garbage on the beach. But I'm sitting here. I'm 76 years old, and I've never heard anything like this in my life. And I'm almost embarrassed. First of all, I have to say I wasn't prepared. I don't even know what you were supposed to vote on. Maybe I should have read more, but I didn't have the time. But it seems to me that none of you, and I shouldn't say because I Not sure, but it doesn't seem like you were prepared to vote on whatever we were supposed to vote on. So I think it's best if we all take a deep breath of fresh air and come back in a week, two weeks, a month, when we can all study what we're asked to vote on and then make an intelligent decision. And I hope that your decision is well taken, not necessarily for me, but for everybody in the city, because that's who you represent. You represent everybody that lives in this city. And I have to tell you, I left Bell Harbor. I had a beautiful condo, probably one of the nicest there. And I left because the traffic was disgusting. And when I called the mayor to ask him to put a policeman so I could cross the street with my car, he told me it wasn't his job. I don't want the same thing here. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to have trouble with this name. Looks like John's Canfield on Taylor Street. And he will be followed by Dana Gallop. Good afternoon.

Jonas Caulfield, 2236 Taylor Street. I'm a lifetime resident here.

OK.

I think most of you people up there are Hollywood, okay, like me. I've been here my entire life. I was born at Memorial Hospital, okay? We don't like the changes here, OK?

The lifers, OK?

You know, it's horrible. I agree with Ann, OK? Keith Polakoff is a cancer to the city of Hollywood and the residents here, a horrible, horrible person. I also think the mayor, Josh Levy, he's a cancer as well. That's my opinion. That's my right to feel that way, OK? We don't like what's going on here. And I think a lot of you are already very well a parent of that. To me, the heroes here are this lady right here. Awesome. Thank you. Hats off to you. Stuck up for the small guy. We're Hollywood. The guy back there, Steve, that guy back there who films. Power to the people. Make the right decision here for the people, not for the developers. Obviously, the 1301 project is very controversial. Some people like it, but I would say more people here don't and don't want it. That little plot there is done fine, just the way it is for the last 40 years, 50 years. Just, you know, make Make the right decision. It's like people say, follow the money. We don't want to follow the money here, man. This is a blue-collar town. It always has been. It's not this highfalutin, related 1301. We don't need that here. Let them go build it somewhere else. They can go find a little spot down in Sunny Isles. They can cram it in between another building there. But Anyway, thank you. Thank you for your service and for your time.

Thank you.

If I may, to the chair, just briefly, just a reminder for the members of the public that public comment is to be specific to the item before you. And we're not talking about any particular project, rather the comprehensive plan amendment. So I just want to be clear for the remaining public comments to focus on what's on the agenda today.

Thank you. Dana Gallup, followed by Diltek Thomas.

Good afternoon, almost good evening, members of the board. My name is Dana Gallup. I am a resident for the past 24 years at 1309 Harrison Street. I live in a historic home, 102 years old. I'm also the president of the Hollywood Historic Society. So I echo the sentiments made by some members of the public and some members of the board. that it seems that this vote that is being asked to be taken is premature. Premature mostly because if you look at the presentations, there's literally blank pages that are supposed to be filled in later. And including specifically as to the Hollywood Beach Hotel, which is of course a primary concern, There's just no definition to that. So you're voting in the abstract, it seems to me. If you're going to vote, and I don't know procedurally how this would work, but it seems that what should be balanced here, again, I think transfer development rights is an excellent idea. It's an excellent idea that can be beneficial to the historic properties, including particularly the Hollywood Beach Hotel. And I think the idea of the hotel pooling can also be beneficial. But if you're going to do that, you can also give protection to the historic properties at the same time. You can, for example, require that there's restrictions on the transfer of development rights as it relates to historic properties. restrictions as to what can be done to those historic properties. Specific as to the hotel, there can be a restriction on the transfer, allow greater density, allow greater height, but make the height not applicable to the actual facade of the existing property. Limit the height in the back side, the east side of that property. Allow the density to the north and to the south. And if that can be part of the comprehensive plan, that's obviously specific to the hotel, that would be a good thing. I agree with one of the comments made. Nobody's going to spend possibly billions of dollars on that property without some quid pro quo. So that does need to be considered. But it can be considered in a thoughtful manner that doesn't just emphasize, we need to do this to allow for development. But at the same time, we need to do this to allow for development balanced with historic preservation, not just as to the hotel, but to all the properties, as Terry Cantrell mentioned, that are even outside of the historic district. In all of those cases, the transfer of development rights, the change in density, the change of heights should be balanced with historic preservation. So I urge you to consider that. Thank you.

Thank you. And our last speaker is Deltech Thomas.

Afternoon.

DELTISH THOMAS, Good afternoon. My name is Deltish Thomas. I'm a part of the community also. I've been here for about 20 years. I'm a graduate of Hollywood Hills. Bought a house 10 years ago. I have a historic home also. It's 100 years this year, actually. I was coming to find out also about the historical preservation to make sure that everything is sound. Because I just spent the last three years renovating that 100-year home and ensuring that I don't touch anything major. And I keep all of its preservation right where it is. Half of the reason I love, most of the reason I love Hollywood is the historic sites when she spoke. She was speaking about the heights of the hotels. I understood because I walk the broad walk most mornings. I get there at 6, watch the sunrise, and get back on my route. So as far as the information that was brought here, it really is empty. And I understand how everybody feels because I haven't learned much today either. What I am hoping, though, is in the works of trying to bring some form of money to Hollywood, also it is an eyesore to see the Hollywood Beach Hotel like that. And I do understand the problems of it. I understand what's been going on, because I've been here. It would be nice to see if we could find some kind of middle ground where the development could be made. Like he said, it wouldn't be any crazy high rises, but we wouldn't end up with the same generic feeling that Fort Lauderdale is going through, that Sunny Isles is going through. It's really empty. It starts off as a big boom. It works for about six months. It fully dies down. We have about three circles before the 95. The traffic's going to be terrible. I just want to make sure that things are preserved to a degree that it's not about just signing and it's not just about the money. We're seeing the economy. We're seeing what's going on with the Airbnbs. There's failures everywhere. Flushing a bunch of money into a hotel that doesn't sell won't work either. So that's all I really wanted to make sure happened, some kind of evenness on that preservation. And that's it.

Thank you. That was the last card. This closes the public portion of the comments.

That's not the policy here. The item has been held.

Okay, we'll bring this back up to the board for discussion.

Yes, Mr. Cantrell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I mean, I think, again, I have a lot of respect for what staff has done and what they're trying to do here. I just, I would feel much more comfortable if I really, if we had some of these Blank slides or whatever so if we have some some real meat to this whole thing I know that this is just strictly comp plan amendments and basically sort of a Technicalities here that we're trying to vote on but it will affect how the beach is going to be redeveloped and it will be redeveloped obviously this is we're doing this because economics have changed times have changed and we need to We need to make adjustments to the into the zoning plan. I'm fine. I think that's perfectly fine I'm very concerned about the Hollywood Beach Hotel again. I'm a life member of the Historical Society I served as vice president on there. I'm chair of the preservation board So I'm really looking at all that too But I'll give you a case in point of why it would be better to have more of this defined in the actual What the zoning the height and all that is going to be other than blank pages on the presentation? the city prevailed in a lawsuit on a live local lawsuit at the Oklahoma Street project where a developer had bought up the entire block, which consisted mostly of historic properties, was going to tear them down and build a 10 or 12 story live local apartment building. The city said no. They sued. The city prevailed. The city won that. So I'm sure a lot of this is going to help that particular issue get resolved too. But again, I mean, who's to say that other developers can't come along and just buy up a whole block of beach from A1A to Surf Road and do whatever they want to do if something like this isn't, if we don't define exactly what they can do. You know, 15 stories maybe on A1A. I think that's too much myself. But again, I mean, I understand the economics of redevelopment and I understand sometimes you have to allow the height. And the bonus program sounds great. It all sounds great. All sounds great if it was better defined. If we just had something, if staff had gone to the commission and said, here's what we propose to do. And we can have a workshop. I would be more than happy to participate. This group sitting up here right now could participate in a workshop with staff not in a public, you know, format meeting like this, but a workshop. We've had workshops on the Preservation Board before to discuss different things. And then it comes to a formal meeting and we vote on it. So, I mean, I'm all about the continuance. It may not matter now. My motion failed, but you all have, the five of you have to make that decision whether you're going to continue it or not or whether you're going to deny it or not. But, I mean, if you continue it, And we have a workshop. We could all agree on this. I mean, it may not be that bad if we had the actual parameters of what is going to end up coming after our vote, rather than just let us do what we want to do. We need to do this, but then we're going to get into the details later. That, to me, is a car before the horse. I rest my case.

Thank you. I have a question for the board attorney. In the backup information here, if this is passed, the staff wants to reserve the right to make changes. They want to call it minor changes. A minor change could be a comma, could be an addition of a word, but those changes can change an entire meaning of a document. Are they permitted to make minor changes to something that we vote on tonight?

I would say none substantive changes. Your recommendation is your recommendation. If there are some typos or errors that might be reviewed prior to going to the city commission level, then certainly comma, period, things of that nature can be changed. If staff has additional recommendations that they want to make, I would say that would be more appropriate in their staff memo. and outlining it there. And then at the city commission level, certainly the city commission can add those staff recommended additional substantive changes into the final draft that will be transmitted to the state.

But if they're making those changes after we vote on something, why isn't it coming back to the planning board or to the joint board?

It would depend on what those changes would be. Typically, at the city commission level, they can make adjustments and changes to the text. And so even if your city commission were to make changes that didn't necessarily align with what you want, it does not technically have to come back to the P&Z. for an additional review. They certainly have a legislative authority to make amendments and changes to whatever the ultimate recommendation that the board makes. But I would defer to staff as to if they foresee any additional changes needed to this item.

Thank you, Board Council. No, staff is not going to be making any additional changes to this item. The item that was left on the die is for you would just be cleaned up to remove the strike out of items that we thought we were going to include but decided not to. So that's what the LPA would be making their motion on is the item on the dais. And if you like, I could have an in bell ram. He has joined us virtually as well. A lot of you are familiar with him. If you would like, he can offer some additional insight to maybe some of the comments you've heard from the public and to provide some additional guidance on this as well.

Does the board have any other questions of staff? I have.

And Nan Bellram is available as well. He was our previous planning manager, and he still works with us. You've met him before. And so he helped to kick this project off and is part of the project as well. And so he's been listening to the discussion.

Let's hold off on Anand first. Alice, did you have any? No, I don't have any questions.

Yes.

Kathy?

Yes. If it's a no vote, if it's a no, what does that mean then for the future of this item totally?

So this board is here to make a recommendation to the commission on what's before you. You've heard some feedback from the public where you heard some public talk about maybe there could be some additional consideration for historic preservation, things like that. You could forward a recommendation specific on the TDR site that says, you know, consider adding additional protection for historic sites. The commission can decide to include something, some language like that or not. I can tell you that we have not set up the sending and receiving sites. Those will be brought to the commission and the board later when we do the specific zoning text. So the way in which this item is presented to you is not an aberration, it is absolutely THE BOARD MAY SAY, HEY, ON THE 50% RULE FOR THE FLEXIBILITY, Maybe we recommend not keeping the 50% rule, that it should be maintained as is. So this board could place recommendations on the three areas that are before you today and forward those recommendations to the commission to consider. You could forward a recommendation of approval as presented, or you could forward a recommendation of denial. Again, there are the three different parts. There is the one just establishing the bonus area. The other component is the establishment of the broad policy TDR section. And the third portion is the 50% flexibility rule. Please be quiet Thank You board chair It's very important that when the public is here that we maintain a proper decorum The public had the their opportunity for public comment and now it's time for the board to have their debate and ask questions Can we consider if we vote for this?

as I see it, as a step forward to get to the next level, which that next level has the important factors that Terry brought up. Absolutely. Which are the most important thing, density, height, the transfer development rights, where in, where out, whatever. So if we voted to move it forward with the condition that We participate in conversation, or it comes back to us, for us to work together as a team

when we bring forward the specific zoning regulations on it. Absolutely. And I think that's what the board is kind of struggling with right now is you're eager and you want to see those specific zoning regulations, but that is not what is before the board today and that's not what the board should be considering as part of your consideration of the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment. And I know sometimes it's hard to separate those two things, but you can absolutely say, well, we forward the recommendation of X to the city commission for the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment. However, we would like to have staff keep in mind some of the comments that the board has made in general. and that the public has made when you bring forward the zoning text on this.

And I think everyone here recognizes that there is a different vision for the beach in the future. There is a necessity for a different vision. The workshop, I went to two of them. And it was very interesting. And people were very engaged.

Granted, there weren't a lot of people.

But it certainly gave you a little bit of a perception of what it could be, why it should be, and if it's going to be. So if we can get past this one hump today.

This is the first step in still yet a multi-step process that's going to occur. Yeah.

And if I may, through the chair, Cameron here. One thing that's really important to remember is the three comprehensive plan tax amendments before you directly direct the reader and the law to the zoning land development regulation. So when you set up these parameters, these shells, before you could outfit and put the walls up and the curtains and the furniture, all that's decided at the zoning stage. So right now, what you're doing is setting up that framework. And the framework itself directs you to the zoning code. So all that detailed design and all the good stuff, we will get into at the zoning stage. What you're just allowing yourself is the ability to get there.

And that's the important part that everyone is skeptical about, that there's like a hidden wolf behind the curtain.

Correct.

And suddenly, we're going to have a 75-story building. And no one wants that.

Correct. So why didn't you put the enabling policies forward before you did this section?

because the zoning code is not legally allowed to be adopted until the comprehensive plan text amendment has gone through that process. So they're two separate and apart processes and items that are supposed to travel independent, but can come together at the end to be concurrent.

So does this fall under the future land use element requirements under Florida Statute 163.3177?

That is correct.

Okay. So under that section, that section requires that every local government comprehensive plan include a future land use element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land. Each future land use category must be defined in terms of uses included and must, and in quotes, must include standards to be followed in the control and distribution of population densities and building and structure intensities. So you really haven't done that here, I don't believe.

We have not done that as part of the item that's before you because that already exists. in our current comprehensive plan. So as you make amendments to the plan, you are not statutorily required or needed to update other components to it. That is done as part of the regular analysis that is required every six or so years by the state.

Okay. Looking at it a little bit further, the hotel density bonus program and TDR program created by this amendment authorizes density and intensity increases without defining the standards governing those increases. To me, this is concerning. The statute requires Standards in the comprehensive plan itself. Not a promise that standards will be developed later in the zoning and development regulations. An amendment that says city commission may allocate additional hotel rooms above base density without specifying maximum density, geographic limits, or eligibility criteria arguably does not meet the requirement that the comp plan includes standards to be followed in the control and distribution of building and structure intensities. So I think that you have a problem with the Florida statute that you're not following it. I'm not a lawyer. I'm just telling you what I read and how I interpret it. And I would like one of the lawyers to opine on that subject, please.

The legal amendments, the amendments today have been legally reviewed, and they're sufficient to for you all to vote on at this point. And so the provisions that you're reading in the statute do generally apply to comprehensive plans amendments. But as your staff has indicated, those are already established, right? Today, if you want to make a vote, you certainly can. And if you choose to make a vote or no, you certainly can use the justification that you've articulated as well. But you can make a vote today is the crux of the point.

The item is ripe to be before them.

A question, sorry. What happens if we vote not to move it forward? What are the next steps from there? Does the city go back and investigate it further? Does it die right there? What are the next steps after this if we reject it?

If you make a recommendation to deny, that recommendation will be sent to the city commission.

May I answer your question, sir, if I may? No, please. And staff can confirm this. If the five of you, not me, but the five of you vote to deny this, it will go to the city commission, and the city commission can override that vote and vote for it. So remember, this is more ceremonial than it is anything else.

Right.

Well, let's just say city commission also take our recommendation and then they vote not to move forward. Does additional analysis happen after that or it just stops there?

The staff would take whatever directive the Commission would give us at that time if they asked for additional analysis We would do that if the Commission voted to deny it then it would be denied and it would not move forward at that point or they could vote to Transmit it to the state see what the state says and then when it comes back to the Commission They could still vote for additional information or deny it at that point too. So there's still multiple points ahead of this in which the project can still be approved or denied.

Can we deny it with a condition?

You can forward a recommendation of denial with any comments that you want on there. Yes, absolutely.

So let me just ask you one other question and then I'll open it up to the rest of the members again. Some people have a concern in the community that this is a workaround to put height on Hollywood Beach without going through, without doing the, where every page you have a draft on, draft on, draft on, without the enabling policy that this is a workaround to do height, particularly on Hollywood Beach. Can you answer that question?

So the informational presentation, and I don't know, Anand, if you want to chime in and take this one, if you are here or, OK. Anand, can you hear us?

You get to get more information.

So your question was about the height on Hollywood Beach.

Is this a workaround to get more height on Hollywood Beach without going through the parameters that are currently set up? It appears to some, because the enabling policy has not been enacted, that you can do this. Because you're putting up a TDR right now, and there's no policy for the TDR. Where is the sending and receiving? How many can they get? Could a developer out west transfer 10, and then another 10, and another one 25? There's no gap on it. And there's no limit on it. So this is the concern of a lot of people.

Yeah, correct. And Cameron, did you want to?

So Amanda's trying to get online right now, so Stephanie could work with that. To respond to your question, so the intent is not to work around any process. As a matter of fact, the overlay, it adds more public participation to that process. It's maintaining all the current development standards for site plan review, for public participation, and for engagement. And the creation of the zoning overlay in of itself will have the public hearing process. Those questions you're asking, Board Chair, are important. And those are determined at the zoning stage when the receiving areas and the sending areas are established. Those areas are not established at the comprehensive planning stage. And that's in keeping with the county. The county, in their comprehensive plan, outlines a framework by which transfer development rights should operate. And we have mirrored that framework. And then they then direct staff or direct cities to establish those in their zoning land development regulations.

So when West Palm Beach did this, and they're the largest TDR, I believe, in the state of Florida, they're doing it the exact opposite way that Hollywood has done it. And they outlaid where their TDRs are. It's agricultural mostly, and they're able to transfer. We have very little agricultural here. I mean, I remember being back here a long time ago when they had dairy farms here, which we no longer have. But nonetheless, it's a concern that our city is doing it opposite of the way that many other cities have done this.

And we're absolutely going to set up those sending and receiving areas in the zoning code. Palm Beach is under a different land use structure than Broward County. So they may have the ability to do things a little different and a little more at will and independent than the local municipalities down here. Down here, we have to go through the Broward County Planning Council and be in compliance with them. So we are setting up the framework that is in compliance with how the county has established it, which says, hey, you put the broad policy in your comprehensive plan, and then you identify sending, receiving areas, the actual structure for how the program's going to work in the zoning code, not in the comprehensive plan. And will that come back to us? A thousand percent. We're legally required to bring that back to you, along with all of the enacting elements for the comprehensive plan that is before you today. They are legally required to come back before the LPA for a recommendation to the zoning code.

Chair? Thank you. I see Anand on the screen there. Let him go ahead. Anand.

Hi, everyone. Hopefully you can hear me now. I recognize that today's kind of riddled with technical difficulties, so I apologize in advance.

Do you need to speak a little louder, please?

Anand, speak into the microphone. Is this better, everyone?

Sounds a little muffly.

Let me try like this. Hopefully you guys can hear.

Okay, continue.

I'm going to try to talk and hopefully we can get through this. Everything that Cameron and Andrea have said thus far is absolutely correct. I mean, at the end of the day, the economic feasibility study has indicated that in order for redevelopment to be feasible, we do need to increase height. that said i think the approach that we're intending to take as staff is one that does not assign height haphazardly or with without deliberation i think we're taking a very conscious effort in terms of recognizing you know which areas of the beach should maintain a lower character versus areas that can otherwise address a more urban like condition and that also is not just in response to redevelopment potential as it stands we're also contending with three different acts that the state has put forward that all florida municipalities have to contend with Live Local is one that assigns height somewhat arbitrarily. We're dealing with SB 180, which says we can't be more burdensome or restrictive than our underlying code, both within the comprehensive plan and within the zoning and land development regulations. So the approach that we have before you is creating optional and voluntary tools, whether that be the hotel density pool, flexibility unit assignment or transfer of development rights. All of these are optional tied to public benefit that we as a city, as a municipality stand to benefit from. The last thing that we're contending with is the state bill that came through that allows for the administrative demolition of properties that are not designated historic within high hazard areas so that effectively is all of hollywood's beach irrespective of historic status within a district and we're very conscientious of that because through the voluntary and optional programs that we're setting forward we have the ability to capture a lot more of the design intention and those that are on the historic board know that our historic design guidelines are not the best So this gives us the ability to recalibrate what that ultimately looks like while still maintaining a low profile close to the beach. This also allows us to reset what transition looks like and set parameters that not only encourage development, but encourage development in the way that is most practical given all of the constraints that are before us, especially at the state level. within the strategy and i'm going to try to break apart the comprehensive plan from the zoning within the strategy of the comprehensive plan this will enable us to leverage these types of tools across the city so in in different formats so on the beach i think our proposal will be to allow transfer of development rights your underlying land use is residential, you can move from residential to residential. So there is no impact from a servicing perspective and from an infrastructure perspective. The goal is to mitigate our residential impact and encourage our resort and commercial impact. And that is deliberate because commercial uses have a significantly less impact on our infrastructure than our residential uses. And Bob, to your earlier point, the county does, or the state statute does say we have to be mindful of land use and population. The county also regulates a lot of these things. And within the county's comprehensive plan, commercial related to hotel does not necessarily generate a density that we need to be cognizant of in terms of that format of redevelopment yields a significantly less impact than residential. And part of this is encouraging that redevelopment in that commercial form and assigning densities that allow for the feasibility to lean towards resorts as opposed to residential. Ultimately, and I think the question was perhaps rooted in 1301, ultimately none of this would result or encourage anything else that is already proposed within 1301. 1301 is not a residential land use. That's, I think, why land use change or land use amendment is being pursued. So it would not be eligible for transfer of development rights. It would not be eligible for hotel room assignments, and nor would it be eligible for flexibility units at the end of the day.

Thank you, Anand. I'm going to bring it back up here to the board. One of the board members indicated that he has to leave shortly. So if there's any other comments from the board, yes, Adalis?

No, I just wanted to call the question. I am ready to vote for approval of the text amendment transmittal to the city commission. The way it works is you do change the land use and the text and the comprehensive plan first. Then you do the rules and regulations. That's how it goes. And I think we heard some of the individual stuff you didn't have any issues with. So I think this is the framework that the City of Hollywood staff has worked hard to come to this board with. And all these details are going to be known when they come back with the land development regulations. Nobody can use this text amendment to develop anything now. Comprehensive is better than spot. And this is a comprehensive text amendment.

OK. So before you make that motion, is there any other?

I'm sorry. Just through the chair. To clarify, are you calling the question? Yes, ma'am. Once you call the question at that point, there should be no more discussion. And so. I'll second. There you have it. In terms of calling a question, your motion is to? Approve, recommend. And I also want to clarify, we're talking, we're taking separate votes, right? So we have the joint planning, the joint board, and then we have the separate LPA. And this is on behalf of the LPA at this moment.

Correct. File 26. So. 18.

Also, for clarification purposes, on your agenda, there's one item at the city commission. There is going to be three ordinances, same exact amendments, just bifurcated into three different ordinances. For the purposes of that, we're just going to read those titles into the record, and you will take a vote on each of those items.

Okay. Do we need a motion for each item? Okay. Okay. So I move to approve the proposed text amendment to modify the existing provisions that govern flexibility units.

A second?

Second.

Do we need a roll call vote?

A vote for the LPA.

So we need a roll call vote then? Of just the LPA.

Yes. Just to confirm, I'm only getting a roll call vote from the LPA coordinators, correct?

Yes. Okay.

Mena Morgan?

No.

Christine Corbo?

Yes.

Odalis Delgado? Yes. Richard Blattner?

Yes.

Bob Glickman. No. 3 to 2.

Motion passes.

Second item.

Move to approve modifying the existing Hollywood Beach Hotel room pool and establishing the Hollywood Beach Hotel density bonus program. Second.

Christine Corbo.

Yes.

Mena Morgan.

No.

Odalis Delgado. Yes. Richard Blattner.

Yes.

Bob Glickman.

No.

3 to 2, motion passes.

Move to approve establishing the Transfer of Development Rights Program.

Second.

Christine Corbo.

Yes.

Mena Morgan.

No.

Odalis Delgado. Yes. Richard Blattner.

Yes.

Blob Glickman. No. 3 to 2. Motion passes.

Okay. I know we had a vote not to continue as a joint board, but you should also record your record, if you like, of motion to either approve or deny these items as well. You can do that either individually or collectively on the items. Your recommendation will be forwarded as well to the city commission.

For ceremonial purposes only.

I wouldn't say so, but your recommendation would be.

OK, councilor, I understand.

So I think they should be done individually?

Understood.

So are we just going to vote as the HPB?

No, you're going to vote as a joint board together collectively, and that would be your joint recommendation. We only needed the P&D for the statute purposes.

But if it fails, excuse me, if it fails now though, the LPA has already voted for it, correct? So it's a moot point is what it is.

If you vote to deny it, that will be a recorded record for your city commission to take into consideration.

To ponder, okay.

Kathleen DeBona.

No.

I'm sorry, what was, who was the motion?

Oh, my apologies. I got ahead of myself.

We need a motion and a second.

I'll make a motion to deny the, do you want me to do all three? Can we do all three in one shot? I mean, is that okay?

If that's your preference, you could.

Does anybody have a problem with that? All right. I'll make a motion to deny all three of these proposed amendments. I'm going to need a second.

Second.

I have a second from Mr. Bohm.

Richard Blattner.

What is the motion, to deny? To deny. No. Vote no, correct.

Diana Pitarelli.

Motion to deny, yes.

Odalis Delgado. No. Bob Glickman. Yes. Mina Morgan.

Yes.

Christine Corbo.

No.

Kathleen DiBona.

Yes, to deny.

Terry Cantrell.

Yes.

1, 2, 3, 4.

We have 5 yes, and 3 no.

Oh, my god.

Motion included.

Yeah, at this point, I just want to really thank everyone. I know that it was not an easy agenda tonight. I know that there are still several other components for the zoning regulations that will have to come back before you. I also know we were under a time crunch, so I want to say thank you to those who have extended your time to be able to stay to make the votes tonight. And thank you, everyone, and I look forward to seeing you again in the near future.

Is there any other business before us?

No, there is no other business. Thank you. Meeting adjourned.